The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal.
Having supported the MVP proposal, we see the SOS as the logical next step in narrowing down on a set of priorities that the DAO can focus on executing. The timeline and approach outlined for deciding on the set of objectives that the DAO will prioritize is sensible and takes into account the time needed throughout the different stages (e.g., submission, feedback and revision being separate).
We’d like to bring up three suggestions:
- The proposal suggests that the objective sets are reviewed every 12 months. However, the short-term objectives themselves are supposed to be ‘achievable’ within 12 months. That means that we’ll be unable to review those objectives before they conclude. Perhaps it would be wiser to make the review every 6 months instead.
- To keep up to date with the progress of the DAO towards each strategic objective, it’s suggested that the research member of the ARDC conducts quarterly reports. Given the term of the ARDC is only 6 months long (with the possibility of a 6-month extension), we should have an alternative way to make sure the progress is tracked in case the ARDC is not renewed. Furthermore, we’re not sure if doing the ops report is the best use of the premium research resource of ARDC. We think the Foundation is best positioned to take that role (esp. that they will most likely be already doing that anyway for their bi-yearly reports), or perhaps the OpCo, if it’s fully operational.
- Before and during the submission period, we’d like to see Entropy facilitating the submission of SOS from high-context parties in Arbitrum. That could be in the form of public calls, workshops, or peer-to-peer SOS submission creation.