Arbitrum Research and Development Collective V2 - Extension

Proposals Finalized AIPs
21

Voting to not extend the ARDC.

The value provided I think was good. I am a huge fan of a researches, and of the ability for stakeholders to be able to come and ask complex questions and get well thought answers. It’s what we need just because we are in such an experimental field that we will have a lot of questions and answers might just not be trivial. But I do agree with all parties involved that the current structure doesn’t create the proper incentives for smooth operations, specifically

  • prepaid allocated hours with a fixed time term means that SP (and the DAO) will be pushed to use these hours regardless of real needs
  • it is hard to see proper followup and the researches more times than not becomes siloed as such (which still has value, but less than what we want).

I also think the equivalent of an R&D department is HIGHLY needed in our DAO, and I do agree with whoever mentioned, here or in voice calls or meetings, that up to some degree every AAE should have his own department.
At the same time, is impossible for all AAEs to have the expertise necessary to cover all the important questions that might arise. Defining an on-call model, with several service providers whitelisted, a preallocated budget from the DAO from which a delegate can query an AAE that takes the task of selecting the SP and negotiate with it, and even the ability for any AAE to use its own internal budget for researches, is probably the model that we need, with some check and balances over time to understand and rate the quality of these SPs and know if the company X, Y or Z did a good/bad job and so we know if we want to engage again with them or not.

EDIT I want to make a clarification to this because is important. I think @Juanrah, @Entropy, all the service providers, all the people previously involved in ops and comms, they all did a GREAT job. I do see a situation in which all these parties in future can either re-facilitate this initiative or even better knowing we want a different structure another, because they proved themself worth it.
My personal vote against, and likely the vote of others, is not about the people but the structure of ARDC. Utilizing and customizing the provisioning framework created by ADPC is potentially a good first step to move forward and rework everything.

1 Like
22

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.

23

After reviewing the proposal and reflecting on the work done by ARDC V2, along with the community’s input, we’ve decided to vote for Option C: Do Not Extend.

We genuinely appreciate the effort and commitment shown by the contributors over the past six months. There have been some useful outputs, and it’s clear that the team put serious work into their roles. That said, we believe the current setup isn’t the best fit for how the DAO operates today. The structure feels a bit too rigid and doesn’t always connect the research being produced with the immediate needs or priorities of the DAO.

In our view, research should be more flexible and closely tied to real-time questions or decisions. We think a model that allows for research to be commissioned based on specific topics or needs would be more effective. This would make it easier to match the right contributors with the right challenges and ensure that the work being done has a clearer path to impact.

We also want to highlight that our vote isn’t about undervaluing research or the people involved. On the contrary, we hope the expertise and knowledge developed through ARDC V2 continues to play a role in the DAO, just in a format that’s more responsive and better aligned with how things are evolving.

In short, we’re voting no on the extension because we believe it’s time to rethink and rebuild a structure that makes research more actionable, more targeted, and ultimately more valuable for the DAO.

1 Like
24

Voting DON’T EXTEND

The ARDC had their moments, but in the end we have a good idea about the problems out there right now and don’t need to pay a million dollars to confirm them.

Given the big changes in DAO organization, the research can happen within the AAE’s, they have huge budgets and then the research can happen in loop with the other work they are pushing.

2 Likes
25

I voted AGAINST this extension

2 Likes
26

The ARDC extension is unnecessary as current issues are known, and spending a hundreds of thousands ARB to confirm them is wasteful. Research can be handled within new approved framework, integrated with existing entities. If new research or security topics arise, they can be funded via Snapshot using existing funds.

1 Like
27

I am voting to not extend this proposal because I think the first 6 months was enough. I want to see a new plan or new ideas before giving more money. It’s better to stop now and use the funds in a better way later

28

gm, I agree with the general sentiment here and will be voting to NOT renew the ARDC.

While the reports have been insightful (thanks to all researchers involved), the new structure via the AAEs would enable direct and on demand engagement, which in turn will have a tighter information → action+accountability loop which is critical for this type of projects.

29

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.

1 Like
30

We’ll be voting for Option C.

While we appreciate the work the ARDC has put in, we don’t think it makes sense to keep going with the current setup.

As others have highlighted, the retainer model creates incentives to do work just for the sake of it, rather than focusing on genuine impact. Even if not all of the ~$900k ends up being spent, budgeting that much for another six months without clear, actionable deliverables feels off.

We’d be more supportive of a model where most of the funding is tied directly to outcomes – like
governance proposals that get passed, or recommendations that get implemented. If the research commissioned doesn’t have a clear path to tangible impact, it’s probably not worth funding in the first place.

We also question the need for a dedicated research committee. If an AAE truly needs specific research, they should commission it directly from their budget. And if it’s a stakeholder or delegate suggesting research, then it’s on them to convince an AAE to fund it. This approach would make sure that only well-scoped, truly necessary research projects receive funding. If an AAE isn’t willing to fund it from their own budget, it’s likely not high impact enough to justify funding.

31

The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.

Overall, the research contributions from Castle and DeFiLlama, along with Juanrah’s exceptional work on communications, have been top-notch. We’ve also seen notable changes in the ARDC structure, with some members stepping down to pursue other opportunities.

After the AAE framework being established, it would be ideal to transition these responsibilities to the new team. This would enable more targeted and effective use of the existing resources, ensuring maximum impact and efficiency moving forward.

We would be voting on Option C.

Atomist is one of the GMX governance committee members he has opted out to vote on the proposal due to COI

32

As the options remained the same, I voted for Option C.

33

Based on my reasoning and personal background, my initial inclination would be to support the continuation of the program. However, a DAO is a living system, so within it every decision is interconnected with prior choices and the context surrounding them. Considering the feedback and concerns raised around Part A of the proposal, and reflecting on how things have unfolded, I’ve come to believe that the “Don’t extend” option might be the most beneficial for the DAO at this time.

Of course, I want to thank for the proposal. This isn’t about sugarcoating anything. It’s because proposals are how the DAO makes its best decisions. So, I genuinely appreciate every proposal, as without them, the very existence of the DAO would be at risk.

34

The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.

We voted AGAINST

We genuinely value the work the ARDC has produced. Their reports have added depth to the forum, and the current proposal asks for no new funds and only a brief extension. Even so, with an OpCo making progress to come live, we struggle to justify running a separate research mandate in parallel. Once OpCo is active, it can bring these same contributors in as service providers when specific studies are needed, ensuring their expertise isn’t lost while avoiding duplicated structures and reporting lines.

35

Voting for Option C: “Not to Extend”

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 Entropy themselves don’t think it should be extended and they were on the council, I see no reason to push for it. That’s not to say I skipped due diligence on this, but I think this fact holds a lot of weight.

36

As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting for option C: do not extend. Below the rationale:

37

After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation decided to vote ABSTAIN on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.

Rationale

Due to our clear Conflict of Interest concerning this proposal (Juanrah is now working at SEEDGov), we have decided to abstain.

38

I’ve decided to vote for option C, “do not extend” for the following reasons.

I appreciate the work done over the past months and recognize the commitment shown by the team. However, I agree with other delegates that the structure itself is intrinsically problematic. I believe the current model does not address the DAO’s needs and should be rethought, rather than simply extended, in order to find a genuine purpose moving forward. In my view, the best course of action is to stop the program now and take the time to discuss and design alternative solutions that are truly aligned with our current priorities, so that we can have a model that is actually functional. I also agree with the need for a demand-driven setup, and ARDC in its current form does not seem to fulfill this need effectively.

*sorry for the late post

39

DAOplomats voted AGAINST extending ARDC V2.

As we originally stated, the ARDC team has done good work with very insightful reports.

However, we decided to vote against a renewal as this proposal wasn’t polished to incorporate very good feedback from delegates. Plus, a solution to our questions on impact pathways and funding model rigidity wasn’t given. We believe these areas should have been addressed before the vote went live.

40

Voted “Don’t Extend”. Allowing the initiative to conclude and having the unused arb+usdc returned to the Treasury keeps the DAO flexible, and preserves the option to support future research efforts under a clearer and more accountable framework, like OpCo.