Arbitrum Strategic Objective Setting (SOS) – Defining the DAO’s Interim Goals

Proposals
21

Thank you @Entropy for your well thought-out proposal and all the comments you have made to the feedback so far. Apologies for us coming in a bit late to discussion period here.

We at Castle Labs strongly support the Strategic Objective Setting (SOS) framework and view it as a pivotal step toward empowering the Arbitrum DAO to operate with a structured, proactive, and decentralized governance process.

Below, we outline our general position on the SOS pathway:

  • Alignment with MVP: The SOS proposal inherently aligns with the DAO’s mission, vision, and purpose by establishing a decentralized, community-driven framework for defining and achieving strategic objectives. We are confident this approach will help the DAO transition from reactive governance to a more strategic and cohesive development model.

  • Implementation Framework: The phased approach outlined in the proposal—Phase 1 for agreeing to the SOS framework and Phase 2 for submitting strategic objective matrices—is clear and pragmatic. The inclusion of measurable key results and a standardized submission process ensures a structured mechanism for participation. We commend this clarity and look forward to engaging in the process.

  • Decentralization and Inclusivity: The proposal’s open submission format encourages broad participation and upholds the principles of decentralization. Anyone in the community can propose strategic objectives, fostering inclusivity. However, we suggest exploring additional mechanisms to ensure underrepresented voices in the community feel empowered to contribute.

  • Flexibility and Adaptability: The annual review and update of objectives and key results ensure flexibility and responsiveness to changing conditions. This adaptability is crucial for the DAO’s long-term success and aligns with our belief in iterative progress.

Key Considerations

While we support the proposal’s direction, we would like to highlight a few additional points for discussion:

  1. Incentivizing Submissions:

    • Is there any incentive for community members to lead a submission? We are concerned that individuals best suited to contribute may lack the time or resources to do so effectively.

  2. Volume and Quality of Submissions:

    • What is the expected number and quality of submissions during Phase 2?
    • How will the DAO manage potential “copycat” submissions that offer minor tweaks to existing proposals?
      • A consolidation mechanism of some sort could be helpful here.

  3. Encouraging Broader Participation:

    • How can the DAO engage parties who may not feel equipped to create a full submission but still have valuable insights?
    • Would a pre-review feedback period allow for these contributions to be captured and incorporated into the process?
      • Some exercises, such as the suggested OKR Gathering from @ChrisB, may be helpful here.

Overall, we are excited about the opportunities this framework presents and look forward to participating in Phase 2 submissions. The SOS represents a significant step forward for the Arbitrum DAO, and we are eager to see how it drives the ecosystem toward greater cohesion, transparency, and sustainable development.

2 Likes