We’re supportive of consolidating the different treasury committees into a single council. The current structure is fragmented and hard to coordinate. Bringing everything under one roof makes sense and should help the DAO operate more efficiently.
That said, there are a few areas we think need more attention:
1. How Service Providers Are Chosen:
We fully agree with @Tane’s concern around the selection of external service providers.
Since the council won’t directly handle asset allocation and risk directly, who we bring in to manage those functions becomes even more important. There absolutely needs to be transparency around how service providers are selected but we don’t think it makes sense for Entropy to be the one defining those best practices.
A more neutral and structured approach would be for a group like the ADPC to oversee initial vendor engagement and negotiation. They could help standardize the selection process, run comparisons across providers, and ensure decisions are made in a way that’s fair and open. That kind of separation would go a long way in building trust and avoiding any perception of bias.
2. Defining KPIs and Performance Expectations:
With the creation of this new council, we’re effectively watching one of the first real tests of role separation between AAEs play out. That makes it even more important to clearly define how coordination will work between Entropy and the DAO, and what role OpCo will play in ensuring accountability.
At the moment, there are no concrete KPIs, reporting timelines, or clarity around how performance will be evaluated. We’d like to see a framework that outlines when and how updates are shared, what success looks like, and what mechanisms the DAO has to step in whether that’s through feedback, defunding, or replacing underperforming contributors. Without those checks and balances in place, we risk entrenching roles without recourse if expectations aren’t met.
3. Limited Options for Dispute Resolution:
If a decision turns out to be flawed or controversial, the only way to undo it is through a full council disbandment.
It would be helpful to have some middle-ground options like a review mechanism, lightweight dispute process, or a way for delegates to raise concerns and prompt re-evaluation without needing to burn the whole thing down.
We’re aligned with the general direction of the proposal and appreciate the work that went into it.