After discussing internally, Entropy Advisors is generally supportive of the changes to the Security Council brought forward by the Arbitrum Foundation.
The only matter outlined in this proposal that gave us pause for further consideration was the automatic progression of previous Security Council members to the Member Election Phase. As highlighted by @SeedGov, when combined with the lowering of thresholds and taking into account the current number of applicants, the required amount of VP to approve all applicants to the next phase is quite low (<100m ARB). While the Arbitrum Foundation can monitor for subpar candidates, our team fears that both changes may lower the bar too much.
Our team has also been following the conversation around higher-level meta changes to the Security Council. After reviewing the response of the Arbitrum Foundation to the numerous questions raised, we believe there is little reason to delay the Snapshot vote for the changes in this particular proposal. While it is obviously presumptuous to consider any of the changes final at the temperature check stage, we see value in providing prospective candidates for the September 2025 election a certain level of clarity on the DAO’s stance regarding term duration and key rotation. Additionally, given the proposed timeline for the follow up onchain vote, there is an opportunity to raise another Snapshot vote that incorporates any further changes based on discussions.