Hi this is Brook from TiD Research. After careful consideration, we chose to vote against the extension.
Rationale
One of the core issues I see with the current ARDC structure is that the DAO’s research demands are often dynamic and unpredictable. At times, urgent questions emerge that require in-depth investigation; other times, there are extended periods where research demand is minimal. Maintaining a standing research team under a retainer model during these lulls creates budget inefficiencies and may even pressure contributors to generate content around topics that aren’t high-priority or actionable for the DAO.
The DAO’s needs also can shift quickly and often demand highly specialized expertise — whether it’s treasury strategy, contract security, incentive design, or ecosystem growth. It’s difficult for a fixed team to cover this breadth with the required depth at all times.
Lastly but most importantly, ARDC is a research body, not an executional one. Even high-quality reports can fail to generate impact if there isn’t a clear stakeholder responsible for follow-through. This creates a disconnect between insight and action.
Suggestion
Instead of maintaining a fixed research team, I suggest we move toward a Request for Proposal (RFP) model, coordinated by the relevant executional bodies (e.g. AAE, OpCo, etc.).
Under this system:
- When an issue or demand need arises that requires research for better planning before actions taken, the executional bodies in charge can raise a scoped RFP.
- External contributors are invited to propose tailored solutions.
- The executional body requests budget from the DAO, oversees evaluation, and ensures the outputs are implemented.
Rationale
-
Specialization on demand: Different research topics require different domain expertise. Through RFPs, we can engage best-fit contributors for each case. For example,
- Treasury management: Avantgarde Finance
- Economic analysis: Three Sigma, DeFi Llama Research, Castle Capital
- Security: OpenZeppelin
- Risk: Block Analitica, Llama Risk
- Governance design: SeedGov
- Incentive modeling: Gauntlet, L2Beat
-
Better fit and efficiency: Each engagement is tailored to the problem at hand. We avoid generic research and reduce wasted budget.
-
Increased accountability: When the executional body that identified the problem also oversees the RFP, they have skin in the game. This ensures research outputs are not only relevant but also implemented.
This proposal isn’t meant to discredit the ARDC’s contributions to date — the work done has clearly been valuable. But as the DAO matures, it makes sense to revisit our funding structures and evolve toward more flexible, accountable, and context-sensitive mechanisms . I believe an RFP model led by executional bodies is a promising step in that direction.