# Arbitrum Strategic Objective Setting (SOS) – Defining the DAO’s Interim Goals **URL:** \ **Category:** Finalized AIPs\ **Created:** [January 10, 2025, 5:45pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-strategic-objective-setting-sos-defining-the-dao-s-interim-goals/28102 "2025-01-10T17:45:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 5
**Author:** ![jameskbh](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/jameskbh/32/2667_2.png) [@jameskbh](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/jameskbh)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2025, 12:30pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-strategic-objective-setting-sos-defining-the-dao-s-interim-goals/28102/5 "2025-01-13T12:30:21Z")
Thanks for your proposal! Regarding the proposal submission minimum items, I would like to suggest an addition. > [@Entropy](#): > > - View of Arbitrum’s current state and what its strengths/weaknesses are > - Short-term objectives (1 year) > - Mid-term objectives (2 years) > - Key results, i.e., measurable success metrics, for all objectives > - Risks connected to all objectives > - Rationale explaining how the objectives align with Arbitrum’s MVP and why they were chosen given Arbitrum’s current state - Expected resources to be utilized. In Lido’s case, we are talking about objectives for one protocol. When thinking about Arbitrum, the spectrum is broader and, two objectives, while perfectly aligned with our MVP, may be competing for the same resources. My understanding is that the 1-year goals are effectively proposals/initiatives to achieve the 2-year objective (the beginning of the “how” to achieve the key results). When we think about objectives, it is “mandatory” to have a rough idea of what is required (at least, in our point of view) to achieve that. For that reason, I advocate for this “resources” item, as that will helpfully turn them into more actionable items, as you guys requested in the quote below. > [@Entropy](#): > > While the number of strategic objectives in a matrix is not limited, proposers should consider the DAO’s capacity to effectively focus on multiple areas simultaneously. Moreover, while the objectives should be aspirational, they must also be attainable. When providing feedback or choosing a specific objective matrix, we encourage delegates to evaluate their feasibility critically. Implementing unrealistic objectives and key results would most likely result in wasted efforts and be counterproductive. > > A given year’s objectives are expected to be limited to a specific focus area and not to overlap with each other. As such, we recommend submitters refrain from proposing objectives that are too high level since the potential for overlap increases. Having said that, the sets of 1- and 2-year objectives can be the same as long as key results across years are different. When I mention resources, it is not limited to funding. Any coding, intervention of AF or OCL or manpower (in comittees or other structures), marketing or BD, etc. That would help a lot the delegates’ analysis/feedback and would give the proposer another layer of reasoning when crafting their submissions. As a final note, as we are talking about an estimative, it would be ok to have “around 3m ARB”, “build a webpage with X, Z, Y features”, “The AF will be required to perform the KYC for around 300 participants within 2 months”, etc. “This will require ARB from the treasury” or “AF would be required to handle that” are not good examples. My 2 cents in the matter. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-strategic-objective-setting-sos-defining-the-dao-s-interim-goals/28102)._