gm!
Thank you very much for the proposal. I have a few comments and questions regarding it.
Regarding the identified issues:
I believe the issues identified by the delegates are valid, but I am not entirely convinced how adding more calls to Arbitrum DAO’s and a sentiment vote on an already demanding schedule would solve this. I’m not saying having a monthly report call isn’t useful, but delegates who are not up to date with the proposals likely won’t stay informed just by attending a call with a summary. The role of a delegate is more than just voting; it’s their responsibility to stay up to date with what’s happening in the DAO and the execution of initiatives.
I agree that points 1 and 2 regarding accountability require a solution that we currently lack. As a DAO, we don’t require proposals to include measurable and enforceable milestones or KPIs, nor do we consistently monitor whether reports are published in a timely manner. Additionally, the quality of those reports is rarely questioned. Even when there are failures, reaching consensus on the necessary actions is difficult.
However, I believe -in the future- this can be addressed through discussion and social consensus about the minimum requirements a proposal must meet to be voted on. Until we become more demanding about the quality of proposals and reports, this issue will persist. I’m not convinced monthly calls can resolve that issue.
Regarding point 3, I believe the discussion initiated by Entropy aims to address exactly that.
Even though the first point is debatable, I understand the pain of going through the governance process and the complexities of the DAO for the builders. However, I also understand that Entropy is the entity addressing that issue, serving as a bridge:
Perhaps there is something that needs to be fine-tuned if you are detecting a shortcoming in that area, and you could discuss it directly with them.
There’s probably room for improvement in communication here. I agree that understanding the DAO’s context and getting a sense of what delegates are thinking takes time. But, well, that’s part of the work you need to do if you want to engage with the DAO. The upsides of building a relationship with a DAO the size of Arbitrum far outweigh the complexities, in my opinion.
Does that mean we won’t make things easier for builders? No, of course not.
But I believe the issues raised by potential contributors are exactly what Entropy aims to solve through its “proposals as a service.” Am I wrong about it?
Also, there are initiatives like the Domain Allocator that specifically aim to fund experimental and early-stage work.
Everything mentioned as part of the Accountability phase is good, but I believe much of what is outlined there should be required from anyone receiving payment from the DAO. The check-ins and documentation of proposal progress, as well as the learnings (I’ll quote the ADPC report, ARDC report and DIP report as examples of how I think this should be done), should be the responsibility of those who intend to continue providing services to the DAO.
It’s also not entirely clear to me how these tasks address the issues identified for builders and contributors. This proposal seems more focused on facilitating the work of the delegates, who, under the newly approved -tempcheck- DIP, will be offered a significant incentive for fulfilling their role at a high quality level.
That said, accountability is a problem right now. That’s why I agree with Jojo.
What we are missing is a watchdog—someone who applies a certain level of “pressure” and oversees the execution of proposals, providing expert opinions on how things are progressing and recommending actions if something starts deviating from what was promised. The thing is that it’s a very unpopular role. But in my opinion, given the current state, this is exactly what the DAO needs today. And I would vote in favor of it.
That said, I have a couple of questions about the execution of the proposal and the budget.
Why do you think two people in a “senior” role (17K USD per month) are necessary to execute the proposal? Honestly, the pricing seems a bit excessive to me. It would be great if, beyond expressing your full-time commitment, you could explain a bit more about the rationale behind the number.
Joe, apologies if you’ve posted or mentioned this somewhere before, but I couldn’t find any reference. Does this mean you’ve set aside the execution of Plurality Labs milestones and the pluralistic grants?
Lastly, I would like to know your thoughts on the compatibility of accessing this proposal while maintaining the incentivized role as a delegate.
Thank you very much for the proposal. I know both of you are focused on ensuring the long-term success of the DAO, and it’s excellent to have you contributing to Arbitrum.