I’m voting in favor of this proposal. Imo the budget is reasonable and it allows the Procurement Committee to pursue the work they have been doing for the past months.
Concerning the automatic re-election of members, I’ve already expressed my opinion in favor in a past comment on the forum (Arbitrum DAO Procurement Committee: Phase II Proposal - #21 by 0x_ultra)
2 Likes
Step by step, Phase by phase.
- I support extending the ADPC’s term because they have successfully laid the foundation for the procurement process during Phase I, and Phase II will further enhance the DAO’s operational efficiency.
- The Procurement Committee’s continued work is crucial for the DAO’s long-term success, especially in managing key areas like RPC services and the security fund. I fully agree with this.
- By extending the ADPC’s term, the DAO will have the opportunity to further streamline governance processes and improve service acquisition efficiency, which will bring long-term strategic benefits to the entire ecosystem.
And re-election of the current ADPC members is the my most favorite part. 
2 Likes
We are supporting the extension of the ADPC due to the significant progress demonstrated in Phase I, particularly in establishing critical procurement frameworks and promoting transparency within the DAO. The committee’s foundational work in the whitelisting process for security providers and their active community engagement are essential to ensuring accountability and operational efficiency.
1 Like
I voted YES to extend the proposal to phase two. Having a committee to oversee and manage external providers that we can trust is necessary. The team behind it seems very capable and trustworthy. The budget seems fair based on the scale and size of the proposal.
1 Like
Appreciate the work that has done by the Procurement Committe. This proposal overall looks reasonable. However, we feel that the $360k budget breakdown for the verticals is not detailed enough and would like to see a more detailed breakdown.
2 Likes
we are not serious people. we can’t create a procurement committee on the premise that it’s members will be elected by the DAO every 6 months and then on the end of the first term don’t do an election process and entrench the current members even more, with more scope, and therefor more power. especially for a procurement committee which is a function that concentrates immense power in itself by definition.
we are not serious people. this proposal should not pass no matter how much of a good or bad or incomplete job has been done or not.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and @Nyx, based on our combined research, analysis and ideation.
We’re voting FOR this proposal to extend the ADPC’s tenure into Phase II.
The team has shown they know what they’re doing by successfully completing Phase I, and keeping them on board ensures we maintain that momentum. Their plans for Phase II demonstrate they’re ready to keep delivering value, with a well-justified budget and a strong emphasis on transparency that aligns with our DAO’s values. We’ve also been impressed by their regular communication through calls and open discussions throughout Phase I.
To add to this, we agree with Jojo’s point about the importance of continuity in this case.
As Jojo mentioned, even just the handover and reshaping of vision for a new team would eat up a lot of the mandate time, leading to suboptimal results. The current team’s experience and established processes are valuable assets that will allow them to continue in Phase II.
Overall, we believe that extending the ADPC’s tenure is the right move for Arbitrum DAO, allowing for continued progress and efficiency in our procurement process.
1 Like
Hi @pedrob, first of all thank you very much for taking the time to go through the entire Outcome Report and our proposal in such detail - we hugely appreciate the level of engagement and feedback.
To answer your questions below:
First, I would like to ask about your work in general as a committee. Do you believe it was efficient? Did you face organizational challenges? Do you think you effectively balanced the decentralization and oversight that a DAO requires with the efficiency needed to execute your tasks? Was it worth implementing the work as a three-member committee? Why continue with that composition? Why not -for instance- concentrate the work on a single member or increase the number to five?
We think that the committee structure worked very well. We had the right mix of teams and skill-sets, with Daimon Legal and Axis Advisory focused on legals and Areta bringing operational and strategy expertise to drive the ADPC forward. Since what we have been attempting is so novel, and no tender process has ever been conducted publicly in the crypto space, we had to build a lot of infrastructure and processes from the ground up. This, of course, presented some challenges, that we outlined in the report, but nothing unusual and think we can proudly say managed and learned from them well.
A second bigger topic is that we also focused quite heavily on transparency and oversight - this can be seen in our comprehensive Notion dashboard and the Outcome Report which you have referred to. While this focus on oversight did require a significant time commitment from the ADPC, we believe it was time well spent as it is the hallmark of a decentralized, public, DAO-native process. A key organizational challenge we faced was ensuring the alignment of each ADPC member on every major decision. We took some time at the beginning of our tenure to identify the best working model and have managed to streamline our communication and touchpoints over the last 7 months.
We also believe that the current 3-parties structure serves the procurement function very well. We have managed to obtain the right mix of skill-sets, as mentioned above, which has allowed us to lay the groundwork to set up further procurement frameworks. A 5-party committee at this point would add further complexity to our operations, and may, to a certain extent, slow down our decision-making and speed of execution, while not being necessary due to the existing mix of skill-sets. On the other hand, boiling the work down to one party would not be feasible since each party does not have the mix of all the skill-sets required to successfully deliver (legal, operational, business strategy, procurement, etc.). We think that a 3-party committee offers sufficient checks and balances while enabling operational efficiency, i.e., it is the correct trade-off between decentralization and efficiency.
My first question is: What are the reasons you identify for not being able to complete the entire work in 6 months?
By the time of the 6 months getting over, we did complete the whitelisting process and have announced 9 whitelisted providers pending KYB and signing of the agreement with the Arbitrum Foundation.
To dive a little deeper into the RFP process, due to the necessity of a robust legal framework for the application processes, the operation of the marketplace and the subsidy grant, we had to create legal documents, including a first-of-its-kind Security Service Panel Head Agreement, the Application Documents, and the Terms and Conditions for the Means Test. These documents took time to create: they had to be drafted from scratch since we had to be very intentional about the type of marketplace structure we wanted to create. We also had to liaise closely and align with the Arbitrum Foundation, who would be the ultimate counterparties to these agreements, since the ADPC does not have a legal entity set up. Due to this dependency, we went through several rounds of iteration and significant time was initially spent developing legal terms in alignment with the Arbitrum Foundation who has its own preferred model terms. This is a key learning we have taken to Phase II, where we will ensure complete alignment with the Foundation before we begin drafting any legal documents.
As an example, I understand that the STEP, without being called a procurement framework committee, did similar work (RFP, applications, selection of service providers, and fund distribution). They completed all the steps in less than 3 months, from the on-chain proposal approval executed in April to the communication of the chosen service providers in June, ultimately approved during the first days of July.
What differences do you identify between your work and the delay compared to theirs?
With regards to the STEP, some of the key differences are that there was no standard legal agreement or legal documentation that STEP had to create. The RFP for STEP was not linked to a legal agreement that had to be signed by each of the providers. With the ADPC, our primary work was to establish this broader, overarching framework that could potentially cover multiple verticals and create a marketplace structure. This was not the same with STEP.
With the ADPC, we had to dedicate a significant amount of time to create the legal frameworks underlying the RFP, which is what led to the process taking more time than that of STEP.
An obvious one is that the Subsidy Fund had to be discussed and voted on separately from the ADPC proposal. I ask, wouldn’t it be better if this temp check included signaling that the DAO intends to allocate “x” amount of resources to those service providers, justifying the procurement framework? That would also give more weight to the budget you’re requesting to carry out that work.
Good point! To clarify, we are not allocating a set budget to each service provider via the Subsidy Fund. The entire size of the Fund is up to $2.5M worth of ARB, and projects looking to build on Arbitrum will apply to the fund to obtain a subsidy up to 70% of the fees charged by the security service providers. Once a project is initially shortlisted on the basis of the Means Test, we will request quotes from each of the whitelisted security service providers, and upon receipt of the quotes, each project will select their preferred provider. The ADPC will then make the final subsidy decisions on the basis of each initially shortlisted project’s preferred provider and their scoring on the Means Test. The initial size of the Subsidy Fund was a decision that we left to the DAO and one that invariably required a lot of discussion amongst contributors and delegates.
We are also not proposing at this stage that separate Subsidy Funds be created for the verticals we tackle in Work Package 1 (RPC Services and Events Providers). By pre-vetting and whitelisting RPC and security service providers in this instance, we want to create standardized pricing and a streamlined model of engagement with these providers for projects in the ecosystem. To illustrate this more clearly, our ideal system would be the following:
Projects looking to obtain a security audit can input a work order outlining their requirements into a quotation system. This work order is forwarded to all whitelisted providers, each of whom respond with their quotes. The projects can then select the quote with the best price, ensuring they obtain better pricing, SLAs, and improved service. Moreover, the contract they will sign with the provider will be under the legal terms created by the ADPC, ensuring a streamlined engagement model.
Would that be the OpEx budget you mention? Another alternative could be that if this temp check is approved, the budget is included before the proposal goes to Tally.
The OpEx budget has a different intention. To give you some context: currently, the DAO cannot utilize the services of the providers whitelisted by the ADPC, be it security service providers from Phase I or RPC providers from Phase II. In case the DAO wants to procure such services, it would be necessary to undergo a fully-fledged governance process, which can be a blocker in certain situations. With the OpEx budget (we definitely have to change the name!), we aim to create a Utilization Rail for the DAO to procure services from the whitelisted providers.
For example, let’s assume a budget of $100K is allocated to utilize the services of security service providers as part of this OpEx budget. Let’s further assume that there is a proposal which requires a security analysis similar to that performed by OpenZeppelin for the ARDC. With the OpEx budget, the proposal author can apply to (partially) utilize this $100K budget to conduct that security analysis. Following the application, an entity (similar to the DAO Advocate for the ARDC) will need to approve that request. Once the request is approved, a scope is sent to each of the whitelisted security service providers, and each interested provider responds with a quote to perform that service. The DAO Advocate can then choose the best-priced quote for that scope of work.
In Work Package 3, we will draft a proposal for the DAO to assess the creation of individual Utilization Rails for each of the verticals where the ADPC is whitelisting providers - security services, RPCs, and Events. Hopefully this better clarifies the work around the OpEx budget.
On the other hand, if the first procurement framework — the Subsidy Fund — took more than 6 months to complete, why are you requesting a renewal for 6 months to develop double the work — RPC and events providers — instead of, for example, one year?
As outlined above, we can streamline the work to deliver greater output within the same timeframe and a similarly scaled budget by using our learnings from the initial phase and building on top of the groundwork that was laid earlier.
What have you learned from this? What concrete measures will you take to manage your time more efficiently without compromising the culture of transparency and collaboration?
Good question. Our weekly internal calls are necessary for alignment and progression on work tasks. From a community perspective, we think that our bi-weekly ADPC calls are valuable for attendees to update them on our progress. In addition, we constantly updated the Notion hub and ADPC update thread, providing transparency into our operations and progress.
Re. community discussions on proposals, this is an inevitable part of DAO governance and one we believe to be incredibly valuable. As such, we have decided to allocate greater capacity and budget in Phase II to account for the time spent on ensuring a high level of community input and discussion.
I’d like to hear more about that cost-benefit analysis, especially since you’re now requesting $500K USD versus the $144K USD (+ msig funds). The increase is considerable.
Please note that the budget for this proposal is not $500k but $414K, of which $54K is allocated for operational expenses. If this budget for operational expenses is not used, it will be returned to the DAO. That leaves a budget for our work in the amount of $360K. As outlined above, $144K was requested in Phase I to kick-start the pilot phase with one vertical. As further described in the proposal and the Outcome Report, the workload in the ADPC was significantly more time and capacity intensive than priced-in, but taken on by the committee as goodwill to make the engagement work. Since we have now left the initial phase and will provide procurement services for two more verticals in Work Package 1, paired with dedicated value in the additional work packages, while continuing to work on the Security Subsidy Fund, the budget merely reflects the capacity and time spent by the teams.
In terms of cost-benefit, we could negotiate additional discounts and value-adds, better SLAs and improved service scopes from security providers. Bundling the buying and negotiation power of a whole ecosystem compared to individual reach-outs of projects, the approach of utilizing a marketplace to inquire services from a panel of whitelisted providers has allowed us to generate leverage through strategic sourcing methodology. While we cannot quantify this impact yet, given that the Subsidy Fund has not begun yet, we will aim to provide as specific cost-benefit information as soon as possible in our reporting to precisely quantify the cost-benefit.
Hopefully the above responses have been able to answer your questions - please let us know if you require any further clarification!
1 Like
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “Yes - Extend” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Rationale
Initially, we had reservations about whether to support the initiative, particularly considering the broad scope, the allocated budget, and the ongoing discussion regarding the re-election of committee members.
In this case, we align with @JoJo’s view that it is premature to rotate these positions after only six months—a shortcoming in the original proposal. We hope to see an annual initiative developed to provide greater predictability and more time to assess the committee’s results.
That said, we choose to extend a vote of confidence to the committee, as we appreciate the work accomplished thus far.
1 Like
Castle appreciates the efforts to address the DAO’s needs and has thoroughly reviewed the Phase II proposal. We will be voting Yes in support of the proposal but would like to request further clarification on a few key areas to ensure it fully aligns with the community’s best interests.
-
Budget Breakdown and Utilization of Funds
While the proposal includes a significant request for funds, there is some lack of clarity around the specific breakdown according to the initiatives included. A more detailed budget breakdown would help the community make a well-informed decision. In particular, we would like to understand:
• How will the requested funds be allocated across the different initiatives within Phase II?
• Regarding the contingency buffer, what criteria will determine when the ADPC can utilize the allocated budget? -
Broad Scope of Work
We also have concerns that the scope of work outlined in the proposal appears too broad, which could potentially dilute focus and hinder efficient execution. A more targeted approach with clearly defined milestones would enable the DAO community to better monitor progress.
We appreciate the hard work that has gone into this proposal and look forward to further clarifications
Thank you so much @sid_areta for the detailed answers.
I find this statement particularly interesting. I would like to know more about what kind of differences you had, the options for working models, and which one and why you chose it. Of course, it is not necessary to answer this right now. I think your experience will serve as an example for future committees.
The reasons for not doing it now are unclear to me. I understand that there have been conversations with key stakeholders, but I don’t understand why we wouldn’t discuss or vote on the funds the DAO intends to allocate to these new Subsidy Funds before proceeding with the procurement work and legal agreements. My main concern is that the DAO might spend resources and time on this work, only for it to lose meaning later if the DAO either doesn’t agree on the amount to allocate or simply decides not to go through with it.
Since the deadline is approaching, I will vote FOR the continuation of the committee as a signal of support for the work done and the rationale behind the proposal.
However, for my support in Tally, I would like to see two things: first, a discussion about the amounts to be allocated to the new subsidy funds, and second, a clearer breakdown of the tasks and allocation of resources. I agree, and have experienced with the LTIPP, that the workload in a DAO is often much greater than expected when planning, so it’s reasonable to increase the value for all the work to be done. However, I would still like to see a detailed justification of how this is being accounted for
We vote Yes - Extend for the proposal on Snapshot.
We appreciate all the work and comprehensive report provided for the Phase I and continuous effort to be made by the experienced actors in the area. However, we echo the concerns by other delegates on bigger scopes and higher compensations to each party (2.5x from the one in Phase I). Also, the detailed breakdown of the budget, especially the below part should be explicitly clarified in the proposal.
On the election, it makes sense to keep the current members because of the nature of the work that requires speciality and continuity, but as the currently selected members are less motivated to work on elections in the future, we would like to see another party (Entropy or Foundation?) to oversee the process and operations of the election for the next term if possible.
1 Like
Voting “For”
ADPC has demonstrated during Phase 1 they are capable and worth of extending at what seems to be a reasonable price.
Uh, hard.
ADPC, genuinely in its Phase 1, has done a great job, providing significant structure to the DAO—from the subsidy fund to bringing in audit leaders and external representatives to build a more robust ecosystem.
I understand that six months is a short time to set a precedent and delegate responsibilities to new members, but I believe this will be important in a future iteration. A clearer breakdown of costs would also be beneficial, as there’s a noticeable increase. Not to mention that due to the token’s devaluation, there’s a higher request in ARB.
All this to say, I’ve decided to vote in favor of this proposal, but I encourage ADPC to take into account the feedback from my colleagues in the comments to address some of the collective needs.
We’re living in challenging times, and security is non-negotiable, but it’s crucial to set precedents and demand accountability for the future.
3 Likes
We are in favor of extending the ADPC’s tenure into Phase II because of the impressive foundational work completed in Phase I, which has set a strong precedent for effective procurement for Phase 2. The committee’s focus on transparency and its consistent engagement with the community is also very nice to see.
Expressing some similar concerns, the proposed budget if one. While the overall amount seems reasonable given the expanded scope of Phase II, maybe a more detailed breakdown would make it easier to fully assess the allocation of funds.
Overall, we believe the continuation of the current committee is crucial for maintaining the momentum and achieving the DAO’s long-term goals.
1 Like
Blockworks Research will be voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
The work that the APDC is invaluable, and we recognize that. Additionally, while we think a re-election period is justifiable, we cannot in good faith say that a relection period every 6 months for major committees should be the precedent, and would like to ask other delegates to either reconsider the elections or consider extending the tenure of the committee. For something as major as the ADPC, it requires ongoing attention, monitoring possible deals and service provision is truly a task of consistency.
To add to the discussion of itemization within the ADPC budget and scoping. This seems like this should be a possibly separate proposal. We’re not sure how far the ADPC members have delved into possible service providers, etc for a following term, and thus an itemized budget might need to be a follow-up proposal or simply prior to the Tally discussion.
1 Like
Vote in favor in the coming days. The APDC has done an outstanding job in its duties. While the re-election period is reasonable, we believe that re-electing the main committee every six months should not become the norm. We encourage other representatives to reconsider the election cycle or extend the term, as projects like ADPC require ongoing attention and long-term consistency in monitoring service provision.
Regarding the breakdown of the ADPC budget and scope, we suggest it be presented as a separate proposal, with increased transparency.
DAOplomats is voting in favor of extending the ADPC tenure for another six months.
The work done by the ADPC has been a strong PoC and we would love to see them continue, completing a 12-month term. We also strongly resonate with @JoJo comment on re-election as retaining the current team should enable us to see proper results at the end of the twelve months.
We would suggest, however, that discussions on Phase III and/or re-elections should start at least two months before the end of Phase II. This would provide ample time for delegates and the community to reflect on the work done by the ADPC and prepare adequately if an election were to happen so there would be no delay in the mandate after Phase II.
1 Like
I voted for this extension, so the work is not disrupted, but I have several points to make:
- My main point here is the changing in the election’s procedure. It is still not well communicated, and the onus of a preparation for a well executed hand-off, if needed, is on the shoulders of the current cohort. There is no mention of that, and this must be done properly for the next time.
- We created a centralization point with this committee. And we are making it even more centralized without proper elections. We can do better than that. Syntethix has elections every six months for is councils and everything works. We should leverage @Entropy and the upcoming OpCo (tagging @AlexLumley) to follow this and ensure that the knowledge remains with the DAO when there are changes in the composition
- We also need to think if we, as a DAO, want to create re-election rules (no 3 consecutive mandates, or other things like that) so everyone knows what to expect beforehand.
Happy to help in the implementation of those points.
2 Likes
gm, I voted FOR this proposal, acknowledging that:
- The current committee has delivered an acceptable, though improvable, output.
- Rotating members every six months could limit productivity and efficiency.
However, I would like to challenge the decision to focus on RPC providers for Phase 2.
With the launch of a new Orbit chain, we are currently using the free tier options offered by many providers. Based on my experience, this is sufficient for the early stages of ecosystem development. Chains in a growth phase are better positioned to select from a broader range of providers.
If the goal is to support emerging projects, I believe there are other areas where we could achieve greater impact.
A̶d̶d̶i̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶l̶l̶y̶, I̶ w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ l̶i̶k̶e̶ t̶o̶ s̶e̶e̶ t̶h̶e̶ c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶e̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ o̶f̶ t̶h̶e̶ w̶h̶i̶t̶e̶l̶i̶s̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ p̶r̶o̶c̶e̶s̶s̶ f̶r̶o̶m̶ P̶h̶a̶s̶e̶ 1̶, w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ h̶a̶s̶ n̶o̶t̶ y̶e̶t̶ b̶e̶e̶n̶ f̶u̶l̶l̶y̶ d̶e̶l̶i̶v̶e̶r̶e̶d̶. EDIT: looks like this has been completed
Thank you.
3 Likes