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

[Amira]

I’m voting FOR this proposal because it ensures inclusivity by giving power back to the community rather than relying solely on a central entity. The proposal is well-written, with no gaps or room for misinterpretation, making the process clear and transparent. It’s a strong step forward!

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

I’m a bit late to the party but honestly I do not have anything to add to this. I was under the impression that the trickle down of MVP would be done entirely by @Entropy but I love that they have made this inclusive by giving the power back to the community. I think the proposal is very well written, it doesn’t leave any gaps for misinterpretation of how the process will be. Having said that, I agree with Daniel on this. We already have so many acronyms. It just makes new people more overwhe…

[404DAO]

Thank you @Entropy for putting together this comprehensive and structured SOS framework to help Arbitrum achieve its end-state goals.

We would like to make one suggestion, specifically around incentivizing SOS submissions. This was also brought up by @CastleCapital in their comment:

@CastleCapital

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.

We have participated in previous attempts by the DAO to set similar strategic objectives. Unfortunately, these prior efforts fell short. One reason is that strategic objective setting is time-intensive, and to be effective requires proper incentives.

With that said, what if we consider integrating Strategic Objective Setting (SOS) exercises into delegate rewards to encourage greater engagement?

Some suggestions:

• Utilize the bonus category of delegate rewards to specifically incentivize participation in SOS activities for the month of February (cc. @SEEDGov)
• Allocate a temporary additional budget for delegate incentives for SOS activities
• Establish minimum participation requirements in strategic discussions as part of delegate eligibility

This will help align incentives and ensure meaningful participation from delegates who can contribute valuable insights to the important process of SOS submissions.

[Frisson]

I voted for this proposal on Snapshot. I appreciate Entropy taking the initiative to wrangle a cohesive strategy and operational approach out of the chaos of DAO governance. As a organization, it’s important that we say “no” to things which might be good ideas but are not top priorities, thus enabling us to focus on the most important initiatives. I’m hoping this SOS framework will give us the tools to focus on the most important items for the DAO to tackle.

[Gabriel]

Thank you, @Entropy, for the proposal. It feels like we are moving in the right direction in defining strategy in a landscape that is becoming more and more competitive, so I’m voting “For” in the Snapshot tempcheck.

I’m a little late to the conversation, but I want to echo some of @CastleCapital and @404DAO comments on how we can incentivize delegates to spend the necessary time brainstorming to come up with the highest quality submissions and help move this forward into the next phase successfully, without creating the perverse incentives you already mentioned. As you noted, many delegates are already receiving incentives, but how can we ensure that we will have a solid number of quality submissions? Is there anyway we can incentivise delegates in a non monetary way.

I’d like to add that, from my perspective, the timeline feels well-constructed and more than enough for people to brainstorm, create, submit, and get feedback on the submissions.

[TodayInDeFi]

We’re voting FOR this proposal

Rationale

• Fills a Governance Gap: The proposal addresses the DAO’s lack of clear, unified objectives, improving resource allocation and accountability.
• Structured, Transparent Process: A phased approach and OKR framework ensure inclusivity and clarity in defining objectives.
• Proactive Strategy: Moves the DAO towards proactive, strategic governance aligned with its long-term mission and vision.
• Flexibility and Accountability: Annual reviews and ad hoc adjustments allow adaptability, while clear objectives and key results enhance progress measurement.
• Encourages Participation: A transparent submission, feedback, and revision process fosters inclusivity and collaboration.

Points Worth Considering

• Timeline Duration: The three-month process may be too long for a fast-moving market; consider streamlining.
• Support for Contributors: Provide tools or templates to help less experienced contributors craft proposals.
• Centralization Risks: Distribute responsibility to mitigate over-reliance on Entropy Advisors.
• Clarity on Execution and Budget: Additional details on implementation and resource allocation are needed.
• Review Frequency: Evaluate if semi-annual reviews are necessary for agility without causing instability.

[Tekr0x.eth]

Voted For: I think this is a great example of why we voted in a firm like Entropy to the ArbitrumDAO. To have a team to tackle issues like this. I believe having frameworks like this will help in making our DAO more transparent, easy to understand, and well-driven since the processes are well defined. Many times we hear feedback that DAOs are very complicated and hard to understand for new people to join. I believe this proposal is a step in the right direction to tackle these issues.

[Euphoria]

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot voting.

Thank you @Entropy for bringing in the proposal.

We are in favor of this proposal as it is a necessary step in turning the ideas from the MVP into real, actionable goals. The MVP gave the DAO a clear vision, but now it’s time to make that vision concrete by setting short and mid-term objectives that help us focus our efforts and measure our progress. This proposal provides a solid framework to align the DAO’s activities, ensuring that all contributors are working toward the same goals.

We appreciate that it includes regular reviews and progress updates, which will keep the DAO accountable and adaptable as the ecosystem evolves. We also value how this process invites input from everyone and is not just limited to Entropy, allowing for diverse ideas and collaboration to create meaningful goals.

One area we strongly echo with other delegates is the need to find ways to increase participation in these strategic discussions. With that in mind, we look forward to seeing the submissions and are excited to see how this framework helps the DAO and the ecosystem grow.

[pedrob]

@404DAO

Establish minimum participation requirements in strategic discussions as part of delegate eligibility

I am fully aligned with this. To the extent possible, we should align incentives with the needs of the DAO.

[JoJo]

@pedrob @404DAO while I totally see where you are coming from on this, we really risk to create a truckload of useless noise because every delegate will be compelled in creating goals that, most likely, either overlap a lot or are not complete. No strong opinion to be totally honest, only the fear of having everybody raising their hand and talking about goals that might just be not realistic nor useful.
Also maybe worth moving the convo in the DIP discussion.

[danielM]

Thanks, @Entropy , for this proposal. This sounds good. I’m just afraid that there can be too many submissions during the voting period. I hope all delegates will be have enough time for examineting and voting.

According to the proposal, once strategic objectives are set, the DAO will track their progress with key results to measure success. It’s mentioned that the ARDC research member will provide quarterly reports to assess how the DAO has progressed and what areas need attention.

@Entropy

Every 12 months, the chosen objective set will be reviewed and, if needed, revised based on changing market conditions, the competitive environment, progress made in the past year, etc. In order to keep the DAO up to date with the progress towards each strategic objective, we suggest the research member of the ARDC be tasked with providing quarterly reports assessing how the DAO has improved through proposals and initiatives as well as suggesting what areas require more attention while recommending solutions to address these areas.

How the research member of the ARDC will be chosen? Should he be given additional salary for his reports?

[DisruptionJoe]

I like how thoughtful this proposal is to use separate divergent and convergent phases. I think it is safe to try considering how needed it has been since the start of the DAO.

[0xDonPepe]

I’m voting ‘FOR’ this proposal on Snapshot. Setting up strategic objectives is the next logical step after we defined the MVP, this will connect our vision to defined actions. I’m particularly pleased with the framework defined with the use of OKRs + periodic reviews, as these will provide a clear direction ahead. Excited to see how it all plays out.

[Bruce]

Thank you to @Entropy for the proposal. The SOS framework is essential, providing higher-level guidance for unifying and embracing the diversity in ecosystem development decision-making. It serves as an advanced command headquarters.

[Curia]

We support the Strategic Objective Setting (SOS) proposal as a structured approach for ArbitrumDAO to define its short- and mid-term goals. While a working group could improve coordination, we recognize the challenges of reaching a consensus and The feedback and revision periods offer a clear process for contributors to refine their ideas and collaborate where needed. We have no further concerns on this.

[0x_ultra]

I decided to vote in favor of this proposal. I agree with the ratification of the SOS Framework, allowing us to move forward with the broader goal of the MVP proposal. I believe that moving to the next step will finally bring us closer to tangible results

[0xTALVO.ETH_MTY]

Thanks for the well designed proposal @Entropy!
I support the initiative because it provides a clear framework for setting interim goals, ensuring the Arbitrum DAO remains focused and aligned with its long-term vision. I also like to emphasized the need for measurable objectives and accountability, both of which are crucial for the DAO’s growth. I’ve voted in favor on Snapshot.

[Atomist]

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.

---

We strongly support the Strategic Objective Setting (SOS) framework as a decentralized and transparent approach to defining the DAO’s interim goals. The framework aligns with the DAO’s mission, vision, and purpose by enabling broad community participation, fostering inclusivity, and maintaining adaptability through annual updates.

The two-phase implementation process—agreement on the framework (Phase 1) and submission of Strategic Objective Matrices (Phase 2)—is clear and well-structured. Additionally, its flexibility allows the DAO to evolve with market conditions and community needs, ensuring long-term sustainability.

We recommend establishing clear communication channels and accessible tools to encourage community participation and support the successful execution of the SOS framework.

The GMX Governance Committee strongly encourages the community to approve this proposal and looks forward to contributing to its next stages.

[mcfly]

We’re voting in favor of the SOS framework because it solves a real problem we face with strategic coordination, without sacrificing the openness that makes our DAO work. The process might look complex on paper, but it’s basically creating a shared roadmap while letting everyone keep their ability to propose new ideas. What we really like is how it builds in regular checkpoints to make sure we’re on track, plus the flexibility to adapt if circumstances change. Given the strong support from other delegates and the clear benefits for project evaluation and resource allocation, this feels like a natural next step in our DAO’s evolution.

[Juanrah]

I will be voting YES on Snapshot. In line with my previous comment, I believe the way this process is set up will maintain flexibility for changes in the future while keeping structure to the planning process. For objectives to be kept relevant and actionable, the quarterly reports should help us adjust course.

I also believe delegate engagement is very important for the SOs to fully reflect the DAO’s vision, so we must ensure the process is straightforward and welcoming for all delegates to contribute their perspectives.

[Tane]

We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.

First of all, we appreciate all the effort put in by @Entropy and the delegates who gave critical feedback to make the proposal better.

Based on our first-hand experience in the Lido DAO, implementing the GOOSE (Guided Open Objective Setting Exercise) for the DAO to be aligned on what the DAO should focus on, we believe this is the right approach to make the DAO move into its execution mode after setting the MVP. We also appreciate the carefully structured process and an additional consideration to incorporate partial recommendations utilizing the appropriate tool (which was our concern in the GOOSE process)

As it’s discussed by @404DAO, and its trade-off is recognized by others, incentivizing the submissions from a variety of delegates/contributors would be the key to receiving as many great proposals as possible, otherwise the objective setting process feels “centralized” in the end. It would be interesting to consider what non-financial benefits can be awarded for the submitters of the competitive SOSs.