DAOplomats is voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
Thank you Entropy for all the work done on this proposal. The framing and structure of this proposal is really flexible and open so we are happy to support during the temp check.
The timeline also has this sweet spot as we believe it is ample time for formulation and submission, and against prolonging for reasons you rightfully mentioned.
I will be voting “For”. Honestly don’t have much to say as I agree with the proposal and how it’s structured. Cat herding is hard, so anything to make that easier is a win in my book. And we’ve committed to the “MVP” format in the past, so naturally no reason not to vote to have it continue.
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.
gm, I broadly support this initiative as previously explained, and voted for.
I have one final suggestion:
We need a way to encourage merging the best objectives across different sets before the final vote.
This could be done informally through forum discussions or other methods, but the goal is to avoid getting locked into rigid matrices and instead ideally cherry-pick the strongest objectives for maximum impact.
I would encourage anyone giving feedback on a specific matrix to indicate whether a key point is particularly relevant, so that proposers can embrace objectives from other people too.
voting For the current offchain proposal because I think it is always helpful for a DAO to try to formalize objectives (despite most of the time the effort being a waste of time for everybody involved) and this proposal puts forward a good overall methodology to do that in a DAO context. However, I don’t like the fact that @Entropy would also be submitting their own submission to their own framework, since it breaks the neutrality of the intent of authoring and pushing this SOS proposal forward. So I would recommend for Entropy to be the very last one to submit their proposal, so as not to dissuade participation from other participants.
We are the biggest supporters of taking a strategic approach to DAO governance and this proposal is a step in that direction. The proposed adoption of an OKR framework aligns with proven governance practices in other ecosystems (ex., SafeDAO’s OBRA). Based on our experience stewarding such strategic frameworks, we know it can be highly beneficial in streamlining focus for a DAO. Most importantly, it helps with efficient allocation of capital.
One thing to note - while we appreciate the flexibility of allowing contributors to submit proposals outside the SOS framework, creating friction against such proposals might discourage potentially impactful ideas. To ensure that contributors are not disincentivized from pursuing valuable standalone initiatives, a potential solution might be to leave open a “wildcard” category that accepts otherwise impactful proposals that do not fit into any of the approved objectives.
Feel free to reach out to us for sparring as we’ve been involved closely in rolling out the strategy framework at Safe and have seen all the learnings on the ground.
H/T to @EntropyAadvisors for the work on the proposal.
I voted FOR the Arbitrum Strategic Objective Setting (SOS) proposal because I believe it provides a necessary structure for our growth. The definition of review and feedback periods is a step in the right direction. This will enable us to keep our goals aligned with the changing market. However, it is crucial that these reviews are conducted in a rigorous process, filtering out what has worked and learning from what has not been effective.
We have voted in FAVOUR of the proposal on Snapshot. While there are areas that could be further refined, we believe the core framework is sound and should proceed through the governance process.
Our earlier feedback can be viewed at:
Thank you @Entropy, for addressing some of our concerns.
Top 1 Response - @Euphoria
“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.”
Top 2 Response @paulofonseca
“voting For the current offchain proposal because I think it is always helpful for a DAO to try to formalize objectives (despite most of the time the effort being a waste of time for everybody involved) and this proposal puts forward a good overall methodology to do that in a DAO context. However, I don’t like the fact that @Entropy would also be submitting their own submission to their own framework, since it breaks the neutrality of the intent of authoring and pushing this SOS proposal forward. So I would recommend for Entropy to be the very last one to submit their proposal, so as not to dissuade participation from other participants.”
Top 3 Response@0xTALVO.ETH_MTY
“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.”
I’ve voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot because I believe it makes sense to separate Objective and Budgeting. Creating clear and concise objectives is essential if you want an organization to be efficient.
Thank you @Entropy for the thoughtful proposal and for engaging with community feedback throughout the process. I support the Strategic Objective Setting (SOS) framework as a key step in improving alignment, coordination, and execution within the Arbitrum DAO.
Overall, I’ll note believe we should separate the “Agenda Setting” from the Planning and execution. SImilar to how in organizations there are different strategic and execution periods it is okay for the DAO to do the same.
The phased approach provides a structured yet flexible way for the DAO to set short- and mid-term objectives, ensuring governance decisions are more strategic and proactive. The focus on decentralization and open participation is valuable, allowing diverse contributors to engage in shaping the DAO’s direction.
A few areas to consider:
• Encouraging diverse participation: The submission process could benefit from mechanisms that support broader community engagement, ensuring input from a wide range of stakeholders.
• Refining the review and selection process: Providing clear pathways for merging and consolidating submissions would help surface the strongest strategic objectives without creating unnecessary redundancy.
• Financial sustainability : While budgeting is planned for a later phase, ensuring alignment between resource allocation and objectives early on will be important for long-term success.
Overall, this is a strong step toward structured DAO governance, and we look forward to seeing how it evolves.
Personally, I’m excited to work towards submitting some SOSes. (Is that a thing?).
Voted FOR this proposal in temp-check Snapshot.
After also voting positively for the MVP proposal, I very much like this idea and where it’s headed; having strategic objectives and KR presented clearly to the DAO will go a long way in expectations alignement between all dao involved parties. I also like that any contributor can propose these and they get weighted on. Voted FOR, monitoring additional feedback or implemented changes before Tally on-chain
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Rationale
We don’t have much to add, as we have already provided feedback on this framework twice (first and second comments). We are pleased with the final result and appreciate @Entropy for considering our suggestions. The framework is solid, includes necessary mechanisms for amendments, aligns with traditional governance standards, and, most importantly, allows for matrix unification. This is crucial, as it is unlikely that a single matrix would encompass all of the DAO’s key objectives.
Thank you to everyone who cast their vote on this proposal. The SOS passed on Snapshot, with ~100% of voters voting FOR. A few relevant updates we want to share here:
The Notice Period will begin on Monday, February 10, 2025. We will post an official announcement to the forum together with relevant information as well as amplify the initiation through Twitter, etc.
Following feedback from delegates, we’re in discussions regarding the Foundation taking on the role of posting quarterly updates with respect to the DAO’s progress against the decided objectives, instead of utilizing the ARDC Research Member.
We’re looking forward to everyone’s contributions to this process!
We would like to retrospectively document our vote on this: LobbyFi voted in favor of the proposal since the ‘for’ pool got more ETH deposited from the community on LobbyFi.