# Arbitrum Research and Development Collective V2 - Extension

**URL:** <https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-research-and-development-collective-v2-extension/29476>\
**Category:** Archived Proposals\
**Created:** [June 19, 2025, 4:39pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-research-and-development-collective-v2-extension/29476 "2025-06-19T16:39:50Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 29

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![TodayInDeFi](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/todayindefi/32/13505_2.png) [@TodayInDeFi](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/TodayInDeFi)\
**Post date:** [July 9, 2025, 9:49am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-research-and-development-collective-v2-extension/29476/29 "2025-07-09T09:49:24Z")

</div>

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,

- **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.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-research-and-development-collective-v2-extension/29476)._