The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting for “Option C: Not to extend ARDC” in this proposal in the Snapshot voting.
Firstly, we want to thank the ARDC team for their work over the past few months. We’ve read the research reports, attended the bi-weekly calls, and consistently followed the content being produced. As a delegate involved in analysis and ecosystem research as well, we’ve been closely tracking the development and impact of the ARDC since its inception.
To be clear, this isn’t a vote against research. It’s a vote for a more accountable and demand-driven model that better fits where the DAO is today.
One of the core structural issues is that the current retainer-based model leads to research being produced based on fixed capacity rather than real-time DAO needs. This often results in valuable research that doesn’t connect to decision-making. We align with @Tane and @pedrob on this point: when outputs lack ownership or a follow-up path, the result is underutilized work and coordination drag.
We strongly believe the DAO would benefit more from a demand-driven setup, as mentioned by other delegates as well. Research should be scoped based on proposal needs, strategic challenges, or questions raised by delegates or AAEs. Contributors/SPs can be selected based on topic fit, and budgets can be tied to purpose, not retainers. This structure would also reduce idle spending and improve transparency around what’s being worked on and why.
That said, not everything fell short. Some reports were useful. For example, on top of my mind, if I recall @Entropy referencing some ARDC research reports in their recent DRIP proposal. But those kinds of examples were rare. And there’s no easy way to see which research was actually impactful. In future setups, it would help a lot to have a simple public tracker showing whether research got cited in proposals or led to actual decisions.
On the comms side, we’d like to acknowledge the work done by @Juanrah, especially organizing bi-weekly calls and consistently summarizing reports through X threads and forum posts. One area for improvement we’d suggest is around distribution: in future iterations, it might help if threads are shared through the Arbitrum official channels like Arbitrum Governance. The content itself has been strong, but visibility could improve if published from accounts followed more widely by the DAO community. Just a distribution point, not a critique of the work.
Overall, we’re voting no on the extension, but we’re not saying research isn’t valuable. We’re saying we need to rethink how it’s funded and coordinated. A structure where OpCo or another neutral entity manages a flexible budget and works with a pool of vetted contributors makes more sense to us. That way, the DAO can still fund high-quality work, but in a way that’s better aligned with its priorities.
We again thank all the contributors involved and hope to see their expertise integrated in a new, more agile format.