Arbitrum Research and Development Collective V2 - Extension

Proposals
1

Arbitrum Research and Development Collective V2 - Extension

TL;DR

This proposal seeks approval for the extension of the Arbitrum Research & Development Collective [V2] for an additional 6-month term through a Snapshot proposal, utilising the remaining 50% of funds originally approved by the DAO in the ARDC V2 proposal. The initial 6-month term concludes on July 12, 2025. If approved, this extension would activate the second phase of funding as outlined in the original ARDC V2 framework, bringing the total duration to one (1) year.

  • Current Status: ARDC V2 is nearing the end of its initial 6-month term
  • Extension Period: Six (6) additional months
  • Funding: Release of the remaining 50% of funds approved in the ARDC V2 proposal
  • Supervisory Council: Continuation of current members (Juanrah - communications; Entropy - operations)
  • Working Members: Decision to be taken by the DAO as to whether to retain the current members or hold new elections.

Background

The Arbitrum Research & Development Collective [V2] was approved by the ArbitrumDAO with a structured funding mechanism designed to provide accountability and community oversight. As outlined in the original proposal:

“In the immediate, only 50% of the budget voted in favour by the DAO will be used with the remaining 50% subject to utilisation via Snapshot vote as explained in the extension mechanics.”

The original ARDC V2 framework established a two-phase approach:

  • Phase 1: Initial 6-month term with 50% of approved funding (ending July 12, 2025)
  • Phase 2: Optional 6-month extension, requiring Snapshot approval to release the remaining 50% of funds

This proposal is designed to activate Phase 2 without requiring a new proposal cycle, allowing continuity in research and development efforts without disruption.

Current Elected Members Composition

  1. Supervisory Council

    • Entropy → Assumed all operational responsibilities following Tamara’s departure. Entropy is not receiving compensation under ARDC V2.
    • Juanrah → Initially elected alongside Frisson to oversee communications. After Frisson’s departure, Juanrah assumed full responsibility (ref. ARDC Communication Thread - #26 by Entropy). Juanrah is receiving a monthly compensation of 8,750 ARB, which is 1,250 ARB less per month than the previous combined compensation of both council members.

    Per the ARDC V2 proposal, Supervisory Council elections will not be repeated to minimise voter fatigue, as their election was conducted through a single Snapshot vote.

  2. Current Working Members

    • Research → DeFi Llama Research and Castle Capital
    • Risk → Nethermind
    • Security → OpenZeppelin

The DAO may choose to retain the existing working members for faster continuation, or alternatively, trigger a re-election as per the framework established in the original ARDC V2 proposal. If a re-election is pursued, it will be coordinated by Entropy, the Supervisory Council member responsible for operations.

Extension Framework

Term Duration

  • Tentative Start Date: July 13, 2025, i.e. day after the current term ends (Note: subject to delay if elections for new working members are held)
  • Tentative End Date: January 12, 2026 (6 months following the start of the second phase)
  • Total ARDC V2 Duration: 12 months (aligned with the original ARDC V2 plan)

Funding Structure

This extension would release the remaining ~ 50% of funds approved in the original ARDC V2 approval. The only modifications to the original proposal relate to (i) MSS responsibilities being transferred to the Arbitrum Foundation, (ii) the Supervisory Council’s compensation, whereby Entropy has waived compensation and Juanrah is receiving 8,750 ARB/month, representing a monthly cost saving compared to the previous structure.

If the DAO votes to extend the ARDC V2, this will result in the ARDC operating with a combined budget consisting of:

  1. Any remaining unspent funds from the initial 6-month term per vertical, plus
  2. Newly approved funds for the extension period, which have already been transferred to the MSS (now AF) and will become available for use following budget allocation by the Supervisory Council.

These additional funds for the second 6-month term are as follows:

  • Security → 330,000 USDC
  • Research → 330,000 USDC
  • Risk → 205,000 USDC
  • Supervisory Council → 52,500 ARB (to cover payment to Juanrah for the 6-month term)

As stated in the original ARDC V2 proposal, this combined budget per vertical represents maximum caps, not guaranteed disbursements. They define the upper limits of what may be spent in each vertical, with actual disbursement contingent on necessity and approval.

If the DAO chooses not to extend the ARDC after the completion of this initial term, then the AF will return the remaining USDC + ARB to the Treasury. There will be no subsequent OTC to buy back ARB with the USDC.

Voting Options

This extension proposal outlines the following options for the ArbitrumDAO to consider, with the decision to be made through a weighted voting mechanism:

Option A: Extend ARDC V2 with current working members → Approve the 6-month extension using the current Supervisory Council and working members, releasing the remaining 50% of funds.

Option B: Extend ARDC V2 with a re-election for working members → Approve the 6-month extension using the current Supervisory Council, but hold new elections for Research, Risk and Security members, releasing the remaining 50% of funds.

Option C: Do Not Extend ARDC V2 → Conclude the initiative at the end of the initial 6-month term, with AF returning all unused funds to the Treasury

Option D: Abstain

6 Likes
2

I’m curious,

Why not address any of these critiques?

(copying from the AI generated summary of the async retrospective done with Harmonica.chat)

:cross_mark: What Didn’t Work Well Organizational Challenges

  • Decline in transparency after leadership change (Tamara’s departure)
  • Call recordings were deleted from Notion Lack of clear prioritization framework Perception that research was driven by Arbitrum Foundation/Offchain Labs requests rather than delegate needs
  • Concern that ARDC was being used as a “mouthpiece” for specific interests

Accessibility & Awareness Issues

  • Information not easily accessible to delegates
  • Delegates often had to search for information rather than being aware it was available
  • Some delegates were completely unaware of ARDC’s work or how to engage with it

Value Concerns

  • Quality of reports felt “underwhelming” relative to cost for some delegates Lack of transparency around compensation for research pieces
  • No feedback mechanism for delegates to rate deliverable quality

Implementation Challenges

  • Limited actionable follow-up on research (though noted this was often due to DAO structure rather than ARDC)
  • Disconnect between research and implementation

:counterclockwise_arrows_button: Improvement Suggestions Structural Changes

  • Move from fixed retainers to project-based contracts with pre-vetted providers
  • Maintain a curated list of approved research providers with specific expertise Allow for flexible budget allocation based on pressing needs
  • Partially centralize ARDC functions to be more embedded in Arbitrum Autonomous Entities (AAEs) Enable more agile responses to operational needs

Process Improvements

  • Implement a clear prioritization framework for research topics
  • Create a review/feedback system for delegates to rate deliverable quality Better connect research initiatives with specific DAO needs and decision points
  • Include providers who can bridge research to actionable implementation plans

Communication Enhancements

  • Provide concise, straightforward communication without unnecessary jargon
  • Consider shorter informational videos instead of lengthy written reports
  • Continue helpful delegate chat messages with key takeaways
  • Clearly communicate ARDC’s purpose, vision, and how delegates can engage with it
3 Likes
3

The decline in transparency appears to be a recurring theme within Arbitrum.

1 Like
4

We appreciate @Immutablelawyer and other ARDC members bringing forward this extension.

We also strongly resonate with Entropy’s recent retrospective, which identified the core structural issue: by fixing six-month budget caps and effectively keeping providers on retainer, ARDC risks incentivizing research to meet budget allocations rather than to genuinely address DAO needs, and it lacks detailed consensus on expectation and thus, failing to make a real impact from research. The true value of research is not the quantity or even technical quality of the outputs, but rather their tangible influence on delegate opinions, budgeting decisions, and broader DAO strategy.

We recognize two main ways the DAO could structurally address this issue. First is an impact-based funding model, where upfront base payments are reduced (e.g., 30–40% of current levels), and the remainder released only after retroactive evaluation by delegates or proposal authors who would score reports quarterly based on their actual impact. The second approach involves introducing a detailed pre-research scoping phase to explicitly define how each deliverable would benefit DAO decision-making, which is to expand the role of the Supervisory Council and involve more participants in the process. However, we suspect that this second option may introduce considerable overhead and slow down processes, making it less desirable in practice.

We therefore encourage exploring better design for coordinating this inititiave, one potential path being modifying the proposal to incorporate a lightweight yet explicit retroactive impact-assessment mechanism. Without such a change, or a similarly effective structural revision, we hesitate to support extending the current model for another six months.

1 Like
5

Fully in support of Option A — extend ARDC V2 with the current team!

The first 6 months have shown strong coordination, operational transparency, and clear cost-efficiency (shoutout to Entropy for waiving comp & Juanrah for stepping up solo).

Continuity is key — why hit pause on progress?

Research, Security, and Risk are too critical to risk a reset. Let’s double down on what’s working and keep building momentum through the full 12-month cycle as originally planned.

This isn’t about reinventing the wheel, it’s about letting it roll further.

6

Thank you for your comment, @danielo, and for sharing the summary from the async retrospective. Critical feedback is needed for the ARDC and DAO programs to iterate and improve. As the communications lead for the ARDC, I’d like to address the points raised, providing context and referencing the work we’ve done over the past term.

On Transparency, Accessibility, and Awareness

A core focus from the beginning of ARDC V2 was to establish a high degree of transparency and create multiple channels for delegate engagement.

  • Communication Structure: From the outset, we established comprehensive communication channels, including an ARDC Homepage on Notion for all documentation, bi-weekly community calls, and regular updates in the forum. Our Notion page includes meeting minutes, budget utilization, task tracking, and service provider progress.
  • Information Accessibility: We have worked to make information accessible through numerous avenues. We maintain a dedicated forum thread for continuous updates, provide direct access to researchers in our bi-weekly calls, and have posted numerous X (Twitter) threads and articles to summarize and disseminate our findings. The goal has always been to bring information to the delegates.
  • Compensation Transparency: Compensation details are publicly available on our Notion page, but welcome feedback on how to make this information more accessible. All service provider hours and costs are tracked publicly. Furthermore, when changes to the Supervisory Council occurred, we publicly detailed the rationale for my role consolidation and the corresponding compensation adjustment, including the expected weekly hours and effective hourly rate, in a detailed forum post.

On Research Prioritization and Influence

The ARDC’s research agenda was designed to be a collaborative process, drawing from key stakeholders while remaining open to the entire community.

On Value and Feedback

We have strived to deliver high-value, actionable research and welcome feedback, while also recognizing the scope of our mandate.

  • Quality and Value: While the perception of value can be subjective, the comprehensive nature of the reports holds significant value, as some community members have noted. Our reports on Incentive Programs, for example, provided concrete recommendations like the need for a dedicated operations team, clear KPIs, and tapering rewards to avoid cliff effects. The Vote Buying Services analysis gave the DAO a clear framework for responding to this emerging challenge.
  • Feedback Mechanisms: While a formal rating system is an interesting idea for the future, we established direct feedback loops from day one. Our bi-weekly office hours are the primary forum for this, where service providers present their findings and listen directly to delegate feedback and questions. We explicitly state that these calls are open for discussion.

I also want to share some observations on potential structural improvements for future iterations.

I believe OpCo could play a valuable role in research operational activities, this would bring direct alignment with operational needs while reducing coordination overhead. The retainer model has created some pressure from service providers to justify their pre-paid hours, which has led the Supervisory Council to spend valuable time analyzing whether specific research initiatives are truly needed.

I agree that a more flexible, on-demand model with a pre-vetted vendor list could prove more efficient and would enable request-driven research with flexible engagement terms. However, the current structure remains valuable, and the lessons learned during this first phase will help us address many of the concerns raised.

We appreciate your engagement and view this feedback as a vital part of the ARDC’s evolution, should this extension get approved. We are committed to continuing our work through the remainder of this term transparently and delivering impactful research for the Arbitrum DAO.

Finally, I’d like to invite all delegates to our next bi-weekly call this Thursday, June 26, where we’ll open discussion for feedback and provide a comprehensive overview of our first six months of work.

Thank you.

1 Like
7

Having been elected into the ARDC’s operations role, Entropy has had a front-row seat to the initiative. To provide delegates with additional context, we are cross-posting a detailed summary of our views on the ARDC (the thread additionally includes a DAO call where the matter was discussed further).

To summarise, our belief is that the current program faces structural frictions that require a fundamental redesign before it can consistently deliver meaningful value to the DAO. Accordingly, we will be voting for Option C.

If there is soft consensus around not extending ARDC V2, we would strongly prefer to see the extension proposal modified such that USD-denominated funds are allocated to STEP 2 rather than left idle in the treasury.

3 Likes
8

**Supporting Option B **

I support Option B, which approves the 6-month extension of ARDC V2 using the current Supervisory Council, but triggers a re-election for the working groups (Research, Risk, and Security).

While I agree that the initial proposal has been successfully executed and that the second tranche of funds should be released as per the original framework, I believe this extension represents a new operational phase—and therefore merits renewed legitimacy through elections.

The original ARDC V2 framework clearly allows the DAO to decide whether to retain the current working members or initiate a re-election. Since the composition of these verticals plays a crucial role in the effectiveness of the initiative, reconfirming or refreshing those seats is both healthy and aligned with DAO values.

Importantly, a re-election process does not exclude current contributors from continuing—it simply invites community reaffirmation. This upholds transparency, encourages broader participation, and ensures accountability as we enter the final stage of the ARDC V2 cycle.

9

We’re planning to vote for option C. From Entropy’s retrospective post and the call it seems clear that the current model isn’t sustainable. There is always some useful research to be done but identifying what it is and how it might be actionable doesn’t necessarily happen on timelines that line up neatly with how this is being funded.

However, there are some things we’d like to keep in part even while winding down the wider program. While we expect that the AAEs will commission their own research as they come up with questions they want answered, we believe that good ideas can come from anywhere and appreciated the willingness of the ARDC to add delegate requests to their list of potential projects. Requests for more research might occur through ‘informal feedback loops between the idea generator and the relevant AAE’ in the future but we’re not sure that something like that is necessarily possible tomorrow. We think that in the immediate period after ending this program leaving avenues to funding for researchers who can define what they want to look into and how it could be beneficial to the DAO would encourage idea generation from wider sources and could potentially lead us down paths we wouldn’t have considered otherwise. We agree with Entropy that the USD-denominated funds should be reallocated to STEP 2, but think it might be useful to keep a portion of the ARB held separately in a pool explicitly for this purpose instead of the entire amount returned to the treasury.

1 Like
10

I believe the Arbitrum DAO is undergoing structural changes that make the current ARDC setup less suitable. It may be time to rethink its purpose and composition. If the proposal does not include any alternative paths, I would vote for option C.

However, if alternative suggestions are welcome, I’d propose a hybrid approach that incorporates ideas from both @Entropy and @Vertex_Protocol:

Since the funds are currently available in stablecoins, rather than sending them to STEP, they could be deployed using the stablecoin strategies already approved by the TMC—especially if the ARB conversion hasn’t occurred yet. The budget should remain earmarked for research initiatives relevant to the DAO, with the Operations Role of the council overseeing its allocation.

We already have a strong pool of recognized contributors from ARDC v1 and v2. Similar to the ADPC audit program, we could request quotes from them for specific research topics.

TL;DR: Extend the program using only the Operations Role, with a demand-driven model rather than a supply-driven one. The Operations Role can generate topics or receive requests, then source quotes from qualified service providers. Meanwhile, idle funds generate yield for the treasury. This structure could remain in place until either OpCo becomes operational or the end of the six-month extension period.

11

As mentioned on the call, I continue to believe that the ARDC V2 would have been a stronger fit as a demand-focused model.

That said, the two key partners— @CastleCapital and @DefiLlama_Research —contributed significantly to the research effort and developed deep knowledge of both the DAO and the broader Arbitrum ecosystem. It would be a shame for this expertise to go unused moving forward.

One of the shortcomings of the ARDC structure was that it operated as a standalone research unit, with only limited coordination with AF and OCL—both of which are also active in research efforts.

My preference is Option C. However, I believe someone within the OpCo (though I lack full visibility into current roles and planned structure) should take partial responsibility for consolidating research needs across AAEs and the DAO. This person should be tasked with identifying ongoing and missing research, and executing accordingly—leveraging trusted partners from ARDC V1 & V2 as well as new service providers where appropriate

2 Likes
12

Hey @Immutablelawyer!

Thank you very much for the proposal.

At the OAT, we have been reviewing the work of the ARDC. I have personally had conversations with @Juanrah , and we have read the recent retrospective published by @Entropy about their work.

We believe that allocating a budget for research has brought valuable results to the DAO and the Arbitrum ecosystem in general. Despite this, the current structure has shown certain inefficiencies and frictions in the interaction among stakeholders, Council members, and service providers.

As Entropy mentions in their retrospective:

From the last Wednesday call hosted by Entropy, it was also mentioned that ARDC research requests from key stakeholders or delegates often begin as broad ideas that require substantial refinement to clearly define the scope, objectives, and success criteria. However, once the service provider completes the work and publishes the report on the forum, there is often a lack of ownership or follow-up, resulting in stalled or abandoned outcomes.

So the current situation of most of the deliverables is that they are documents in the forum with no follow up or proposals that build over that information.

Another point of friction is the supply-based model: service providers have been allocated a retainer budget which means that ARCD has to allocate resources and work, even if it might not be valuable or demanded from the DAO or AAEs. In practice, that resulted in research that didn’t always include actionable findings, and often felt more like a standalone study or analysis disconnected from the DAO’s context or needs.

During the call, JuanRah mentioned that it makes sense to have a different structure, and that he would prefer having a list of service providers that can be engaged as needed rather than relying on a retainer model. That line of thinking was reinforced by @tamara, who supported the idea of a demand-focused model rather than a supply-driven one. She pointed out that service providers often ended up being used simply because they had won an election and were assigned a retainer fee rather than because their research was genuinely needed based on the proposals at hand.

That was ratified in his post:

For all these reasons, we believe the best path forward is not to extend ARDC, at least not in its current structure and operating model.

That said, we do see strong value in having a pre-approved budget to fund research, but based on what we’ve learned from experience, it’s clear this needs to be demand-based, aligned with the DAO’s needs, and overseen by a party capable of negotiating with service providers and guiding the research toward clear deliverables.

At the OAT, we believe this is the direction the ARDC should take, not as a standalone structure or initiative, but rather as a USDC-denominated budget that the OpCo can draw from to engage a pool of service providers for research needs.

The idea behind having a Supervisory Council was to carry out the work that, given its mandate and the composition of the OAT, the OpCo is now better positioned than anyone else to perform: bridging the gap between the DAO, the Arbitrum Foundation, and Offchain Labs

Once operational in the coming months, the OpCo will have a team dedicated to executing DAO initiatives, along with the necessary context on the activities of other AAEs. This will allow it to take a holistic view of Arbitrum’s ecosystem development and identify research opportunities that lay the groundwork for future DAO proposals, while ensuring they neither overlap with nor interfere in the work of other AAEs and ideally, amplify their impact.

This vision was expressed by several delegates when approving this second iteration of the ARDC, and we believe it is the right path forward:

Therefore, we propose that the current proposal be amended to include this option among the alternatives to be voted on:

Option D: Do not Extend ARDC V2 & transfer the remaining funds to the OpCo and have them reserved for research under a demand-based model.

3 Likes
13

After reviewing this proposal, Juanrah’s detailed response, Entropy’s retrospective, and reflecting on the role of the OpCo, we’ve formed an opinion about the future of the ARDC.

To start, we want to acknowledge that we’ve personally found the reports produced by the ARDC to be valuable and appreciate the work that went into them. That said, we share the broader concern that research, while informative, must ultimately be actionable to serve the DAO effectively.

Research should enable smarter DAO decision-making. It should be retrospective to help the DAO reflect on what has and hasn’t worked and where iteration is needed, and forward-looking, providing a clear, evidence-backed narrative for what the DAO should do next. In both cases, actionable insights and concrete recommendations are critical.

A consistent challenge in DAO research is the feedback loop. As Entropy noted:

This points to a structural gap. Many service providers remain one or more steps removed from the day-to-day context of the DAO. Embedding research teams within each Arbitrum Aligned Entity (AAE) could address this by placing researchers closer to both the operational realities and the decision-makers. Unlike external service providers, in-house teams benefit from ongoing context, tighter feedback loops, and clearer lines of accountability—making it more likely their work will translate into action.

ARDC’s output has felt more educational than operational. That isn’t inherently negative, but it reinforces the need to revisit the model.

We agree that the ARDC needs to evolve. The proposed extension offers a natural transitional window. Over the next six months, we believe the Communications Lead and Supervisory Council should work alongside AAEs to capture institutional knowledge and co-design the next phase of DAO-aligned research. Ending the program abruptly would short-circuit this opportunity and unnecessarily (and unexpectedly) disrupt the current contributors. We support the extension as a way to responsibly wind down or transition the model.

1 Like
14

We want to express our appreciation for the work produced by the ARDC over the past few months. On a personal level, these contributions, particularly on governance participation risks and Security Council awareness, have provided meaningful context to inform critical DAO decisions. These are not just academic exercises; they are foundational to enabling responsible governance operations and timely responses to evolving threats and participation trends.

We believe these reports are already generating impact. We suggest looking at delegate mentions to published pieces as an impact measures and encourage other delegates to actively reference their claims to remain data-backed.

This kind of context setting, which helps align DAO decision-making with informed analysis, is exactly what high-quality research should enable.

That said, we are saddened, but not surprised, by the recurring opinion that research must be “immediately actionable” to be considered valuable. This misconception mirrors the kind of short-termism often seen in academic research funding: a tendency to dismiss foundational analysis because it doesn’t translate instantly into a discrete execution step. In decentralized governance, context is action-enabling, especially when decisions impact multi-million dollar programs.

In our view, if ARDC research feels under-utilized, that reflects a coordination gap, not a signal to defund it. Delegates and working groups could address this by collaborating more closely with ARDC through structured alignment mechanisms, such as using the SOS goals to define shared priorities. If research is scoped targeting DAO-agreed objectives, the outputs are more likely to be utilized immediately.

Finally, we believe there is a disproportionate level of scrutiny applied to research spending compared to other DAO verticals. This is partly because impact is harder to measure. But based on historical DAO expenditure history, even a 1% improvement in incentive efficiency could justify multiples of ARDC’s current budget. Similarly, well-timed security reports could prevent targeted DAO attacks, avoiding reputational or financial losses far exceeding research costs.

In short: we believe in the ARDC mission, we see evidence of growing value, and we encourage the DAO to extend and refine, not retract, this experiment.

4 Likes
15

Thank you for putting this together @Immutablelawyer.

The ARDC initiative has delivered a wide range of reports and established a structured framework intended to align research with DAO needs. The continued research support can help the DAO make informed decisions on security, governance, and incentives.

However, there are present structural issues and strategic questions that the DAO should address before or as part of any extension.

Two main frictions Entropy highlighted

  • Rigid Funding Model. A primary structural issue is the fixed-term retainer model. ARDC V2 locked in three service providers at set budget caps, and this created pressure for providers to “create work” to use up allotted hours, potentially leading to filler projects.

  • Unclear Impact Pathways. Some research outputs have no defined implementation plan. The DAO lacks a mechanism to tie findings to governance proposals or to ensure they are executed. This gap dilutes impact and wastes funds. In practice, ARDC has begun addressing this through recommendations and by prompting follow-on discussions, but a formal bridge like a working group that translates research into action is currently missing.

That said, we could still maximize ARDC’s value in the next term. We recommend:

Improving Transparency and Feedback Loops

Continue publishing all materials, and add concise summaries or even short videos for each report. Track and share delegate feedback. The team could create a simple post-publication survey where delegates rate each ARDC deliverable on usefulness and clarity. This data can guide subsequent research topics.

Integrate with OpCo

ARDC should clarify its relationship with the new operational entities. One option is to transition routine research requests to OpCo, reserving ARDC for strategic, long-horizon analysis. This proposal and Entropy’s retrospective both highlight that OpCo could handle demand-driven research more easily. The community could task ARDC in the extension term with defining this transition: for example, outlining which research topics could be absorbed by OpCo and how to implement that handoff.

As a side note, the EF has a somewhat similar structure where its Protocol research team focuses on Ethereum’s infrastructure and dev tooling research, while their Research Hub focuses on broader Proof-of-Stake, EVM improvement research.

Finally, we would love to highlight this comment from SL

We are not in favor of completely shutting it down.

Addressing this coordination gap and figuring out a better mode of integration with OpCo will ensure the ARDC truly amplifies delegate decision-making, evolving in the process.

16

In addition to the issues raised by Entropy and other esteemed delegates, I would like the authors to clarify one more point: Entropy currently plays one of the key roles in this committee. If the committee is extended for another six months, but @Entropy’s contract is not extended, a problem arises, since Entropy will not receive funding.
What will be the solutions in this case?

17

This brings up an interesting debate. Should we conduct research in-house or should we outsource to the cheapest provider? Choosing a research partner and using them as our sole provider has the advantage of generating a knowledge base within that organization, on top of familiarity with the DAO and its needs. Alternatively, outsourcing has the benefit of cost-savings and efficiency,

18

As a student-ran organization, we can offer insight into the pros and cons of different research structures:

Renewing ARDC term (Option A): As other delegates have mentioned, the current ARDC is provided compensation over a fixed amount of time to accomplish research across a broad set of DAO interests. This functions much like a public-sector research institution –– providing funding to conduct research for the sake of researching. Think Brookings, Cleveland Clinic, or universities.

Reconfiguring the current ARDC structure (Option C): Assuming the ARDC would be reconfigured instead of completely abolished, the DAO suggests 2 main ways of doing this. @Tane proposed an impact based, retroactive funding model. There are a few issues:

  1. Who determines the impact of research presented?
  2. How would impact be time-adjusted?
  3. What sort of research is considered most impactful?

The second idea, proposed by many delegates including @Juanrah, is to tie research to market demand. Essentially, solicit research beforehand and task the ARDC with fulfilling that specific mandate.

Will the research docket be proposed and voted on by the DAO, or will a specific group be tasked with guiding research imperatives? The former seems tedious, and requires a deep technical knowledge that many delegates do not possess. The latter is essentially the same as the current ARDC.

Conclusion: With these questions/clarifications out of the way, our tentative position is that the ARDC should be renewed. We understand that the current model is not ideal –– @Entropy brought to light important issues –– but the alternatives are impractical. On a broader level, as an on-chain democratic institution, the DAO deserves a dedicated, permanent, research arm to inform the delegates. ARDC is an imperfect, albeit working, version of this. In an effort to continue improving this valuable initiative, we will be voting for Option A.

Michigan Blockchain | Jack Verrill | TG @JackVerrill

1 Like
19

I have declined this coz i dont see any updates on what they achieved in first 6 months and why do they need an extension. There is no clear roadmap and milestones mentioned. If startups who are getting grants, are forced to have milestone based conditions then why cant the research team? If you can provide the detailed report card of what was achieved in first 6 months and also a plan for next 6 months, i will happily change my vote. Thanks.

20

We vote against the extension.

This research initiative has produced some valuable research outcomes; however, as previously stated, there remain significant issues regarding the extent to which these results directly influence proposal formulation and DAO decision-making processes. Without concrete improvements ensuring more effective alignment with the DAO’s strategic objectives, we cannot support extending this initiative.