Dedicated DAO Contributors: Enhancing live initiatives and driving key workstream

Proposals
, ,
1

Dedicated DAO Contributors: Enhancing Live Initiatives and Driving Key Workstreams

Image
Image1792Ă—1024 275 KB

Non-constitutional AIP
By Alex Lumley and Disruption Joe

Abstract

This proposal seeks funding for Alex Lumley and Disruption Joe to work full-time for up to one year, focusing on two critical areas:

  1. Executing governance operations: designing better systems, documenting the role, and preparing for handoff to OpCo.
  2. Strategic workstream design: building governance processes, executing governance operations, and preparing to hand off leadership to a future workstream steward.

This work will create a foundation for long-term governance and operational success while immediately pushing critical work forward. Governance operations work pushes a flywheel that develops insights through counterparty interactions, synthesizes feedback, and continually optimizes and aligns processes & stakeholders.

960Ă—540 48.9 KB

This proposal includes executing governance operations while Entropy designs long-term systems driven through an OpCo, in preparation for a handoff - recognizing that doing the work cannot wait for an entity to be established. By immediately addressing key operational gaps and establishing governance processes, this proposal ensures Arbitrum begins executing important work without delay, while building scalable systems for long-term effectiveness. Governance operations includes a set of responsibilities that connect the strategic to the tactical, and each “level” connected to the system as a whole.

DAO Level Workstream Initiative
Strategic Design Entropy AJ Initiative Lead
Governance Operations AJ now, OpCo later? AJ now, OpCo Later? AJ supporting initiative
Tactical Execution AJ now, OpCo later? AJ now, Workstream Steward Initiative

Motivation

The DAO is currently struggling to execute its most impactful initiatives, resulting in a lack of confidence from key stakeholders.

Delegates, builders, and contributors face similar problems:

  • Delegates are frustrated with a lack of clarity and transparency in the status of initiatives, unclear goals, and inconsistent decision-making processes, leading to inefficiencies.
  • Builders are losing faith in the ecosystem due to slow DAO processes, unclear timelines, and lack of clarity or inconsistency of builder support. (OCL can’t keep up with growth!)
  • Contributors are disengaging because of unclear priorities, inefficient proposal updates, and a lack of transparent decision-making.

Without streamlined systems, the DAO’s potential is being stifled, delaying progress and eroding trust among participants.

Rationale

Alex Lumley and Disruption Joe are uniquely positioned to resolve these issues, given their deep experience with the Arbitrum DAO and DAO governance more broadly. They possess the knowledge and skills required to design operational processes and execute strategies with alignment from all key stakeholder entities.

Their work will activate a positive feedback loop by:

  1. Improving governance operations: Establishing clear accountability and decision-making processes.
  2. Designing workstream governance: Empowering delegated authorities to manage budgets and drive strategic initiatives.

Why Alex and Joe?
Both are high-context contributors with proven governance and operational expertise:

  • Alex Lumley: A startup founder and former Bain consultant, with experience passing key DAO proposals and conducting Governance Reporting Calls (GRC) since August 2024.
  • Disruption Joe: A full-time DAO leader since 2021, instrumental in executing grants programs and driving governance design for multiple DAOs.

Their extensive backgrounds in strategy, governance, and execution make them ideal candidates to lead this initiative, ensuring the DAO delivers on its key priorities.

Key Terms

  • Workstream: A structured governance mechanism where authority is delegated to a steward to manage a specific set of initiatives and budgets.
  • Governance Operations: The processes and roles that ensure accountability, transparency, and success across DAO initiatives.
  • Strategic Budget: A long-term financial allocation that funds initiatives aimed at achieving critical DAO objectives.

Specifications

Agreement:
Alex and Joe will commit to working full-time with Arbitrum, leading governance operations and developing strategic workstreams. They will participate in work groups, facilitate meetings, and act as points of contact for general DAO inquiries.

Governance Operations

  • Objective: Increase the success rate of DAO initiatives by improving accountability, communication, and workflows.
  • Actions:
    • Conduct monthly Governance Reporting Calls (GRC).
    • Engage stakeholders to gather feedback and improve reporting processes.
    • Provide constructive feedback to initiatives to help them meet objectives.
    • Optimize the input process for proposals, improving clarity and success rates.

Workstream Stewardship

  • Objective: Design and implement governance processes that empower delegated authorities to manage strategic budgets.
  • Actions:
    • Define objectives and outcomes for workstreams.
    • Oversee budget management and collaboration across funded initiatives.
    • Select and guide an expert council for governance oversight.
    • Establish checks and balances for budget management and initiative execution.

Deliverables

  1. Governance Operations Role: Implement and document processes for governance operations, ensuring scalability.
  2. Workstream Budget Proposal: Develop and pass the “Unified Orbit Builder Experience” proposal, creating a test environment for governance process design.
  3. Workstream Steward Role: Act as stewards for strategic workstreams until OpCo assumes control, facilitating a smooth handoff.
  4. Open-source Governance Wiki: Document and share governance processes, creating a lasting resource for future contributors.

Steps to Implement

1. Establish Governance Operations and Reporting (by 12/31/24)

The first step is to formalize governance operations and build a foundation for transparency and accountability. This includes:

  • Kick-off Governance Reporting Calls (GRC): Start monthly calls with key stakeholders, including delegates, builders, and contributors. Use these calls to communicate the progress of initiatives and gather feedback for continuous improvement.
  • Build Initiative Tracking Systems: Create a database to track the status of all ongoing and proposed initiatives. Ensure that each initiative has clear milestones, goals, and reporting requirements.
  • Develop Governance Wiki: Begin documenting key processes, roles, and governance structures in a publicly accessible wiki to improve clarity for all DAO participants.

2. Launch a Productive Workstream (by 12/31/24)

The next step is to secure the necessary funding to implement the workstream strategy and begin executing work immediately. Building a trusted workstream governance framework has some components that must happen before passing the budget. A governance framework for workstreams must be designed to empower strategic decision-making and enable the delegation of authority.

  • Recruit Expert Council: Identify and onboard a diverse council of domain experts to support governance decisions and provide strategic guidance on funded initiatives.
  • Establish Outcomes: Establish a clear set of goals and measurable outcomes for the workstream. These objectives will guide the allocation of budgets and the approval of initiatives.
  • Create Checks and Balances: Develop mechanisms to provide oversight and ensure accountability for workstream stewards, including veto powers and regular performance reviews.
  • Draft & Pass Proposal: Submit and pass a workstream budget proposal to fund initiatives. This proposal will be used as a test case for the workstream governance processes.
  • Launch Strategic Initiatives: Once funding is secured, begin executing the initiatives under the workstream, ensuring that each is aligned with the established governance processes and goals.

3. Optimize and Refine Workstream Processes (by 4/30/25)

After several months of execution, the focus will shift to optimization and refinement:

  • Gather Feedback from Stakeholders: Conduct surveys and interviews with delegates, builders, and contributors to assess the effectiveness of the governance processes and identify areas for improvement.
  • Improve Reporting and Accountability: Use the insights gained to adjust the reporting structure and enhance the transparency of ongoing initiatives. Ensure that all initiatives are meeting their milestones and adjust timelines as necessary.
  • Refine Workstream Governance: Based on the learnings from the first round of initiatives, update the workstream governance processes to make them more efficient and scalable for future use.

4. Transition to Long-Term Governance (by 6/30/25)

As the proposal approaches its conclusion (and potentially before), preparations will be made for a smooth handoff to the OpCo or a future DAO governance structure:

  • Document Handover Processes: Ensure that all processes, systems, and governance structures are fully documented in the governance wiki to enable a seamless transition.
  • Assist in Onboarding New Leadership: If OpCo or another entity assumes responsibility for governance operations, support the onboarding and training of new leadership to maintain continuity.
  • Evaluate Success and Plan Next Steps: Conduct a final evaluation of the workstream’s impact, including metrics on proposal throughput, success rates, and overall improvements in DAO governance. Use this evaluation to inform future governance strategies.

Timeline

  1. Forum Discussion: 10/24-10/31
  2. Snapshot: 10/31-11/6
  3. Tally: 11/6-11/20

For this proposal to be possible, we will also need to pass the workstream budget proposal. Here is the current draft. We are working on recruiting the council already. If passed, this workstream could fund and support Max’s Embracing Chain Abstraction proposal. We are currently recruiting expert council members.

Overall Costs

The compensation for this proposal will be structured to balance immediate needs with long-term incentives. We are considering a vesting model to align our success with the success of the DAO. Our approach to compensation, expenses, and clawback will follow the model used in Entropy’s approved proposal, ensuring transparency and alignment with DAO standards.

10 Likes
2

Saving this for commentary

3

Hey, Alex! Thanks for this proposal. Is it a follow-up to the one Joe posted last time? I think this work is indeed very important, and both of you are the best candidates to take it on with your skills and experience. However, this doesn’t seem like an easy task—will it be too much for just the two of you? Are you considering hiring others to help, or will the council you’re forming be enough to support you in completing all the work? I think this issue is critical because it has a big impact on the budget.

2 Likes
4

Hello, Thanks for your proposal!

I have a few questions about the following:

  • Will the council member be known before this proposal goes live for vote?
  • What is the budget for it?
  • You mention that for this to pass, the Workstream: A Unified Orbit Experience (currently as a draft) need to pass. Looking at the timeline proposed, this other proposal will not be voted before this one. What happens if the other fails?
  • regarding the funding for the Chain abstraction proposal, are you mentioning the full-fledged proposal or for the “snapshot proposal to the DAO next week for the initial budget allocation”, as mentioned in the other thread?
2 Likes
5

Thank you for the proposal @AlexLumley.

This seems to be an alternative, more focused approach than the one proposed in the Boosting DAO efficiency by 10x proposal. Is it correct to assume this proposal effectively replaces the previous one?

In general, we appreciate the additional clarity on how this would relate with the work of @Entropy, which was our main concern in the previous proposal.

A couple follow-up questions:

  • can you please give some concrete examples of the governance operations and tactical execution you would be executing?
  • are we correct in assuming your role would be “interim” and it would be either dismissed or incorporated within the OpCo, once it is live? And, any ETA on the OpCo being live?
3 Likes
6

We share the same question regarding whether this proposal replaces or is related to the proposal Boosting DAO Efficiency by 10x. We believe it’s important to clarify this point.

As we mentioned in the previous proposal, we find the work you aim to carry out essential for the DAO, and we do not doubt either of your abilities to achieve it. However, the current proposal has left us with some questions.

We feel it is unclear how the proposal’s costs will be covered, perhaps further explanation on this would be necessary.

Additionally, we see that this proposal depends entirely on a draft proposal. Have you considered consolidating both into a single proposal?

7

I like that the operations plan includes updates, bi-weekly check-ins, reports, and testing for ongoing process improvements. Following this routine will give us solid results, enabling quicker decision-making through constant monitoring. The project stages over six months are well-defined, and I think that’s a good timeframe to see real progress. I believe that with Alex and Joe’s experience, along with Entropy, things will be done right.
I’d just like to know if this is a updated version or a different proposal from the one Joe made a couple of weeks ago, requesting a 200K budget also for 6 months?

2 Likes
8

I’m glad to see this proposal! The issues you’re tackling definitely need attention, and I fully back Alex and Joe—they’re perfect for the job. I have a couple of thoughts:

  1. Let’s avoid falling into the “Bureaucracy Trap.” It’s easy to add steps between steps or create extra reports on top of reports, but nobody wants that! Let’s focus on setting up systems that make our DAO run smoother, not more complicated.

  2. Good call from Larva—the workload sounds like a lot for just two people, especially since they’re already busy with other DAO tasks. Maybe consider expanding the team or forming a workgroup?

  3. It is hard to review a proposal without the budget! Could you give us at least a ballpark range?

3 Likes
9

Alex and Joe’s backgrounds and experience make them well suited to designing governance processes and driving strategy execution. Their addition to the team will help DAO establish clear accountability mechanisms, improve efficiency, and increase the confidence of key stakeholders in anticipation of improved governance effectiveness and advancement of key strategies.
Questions:
1. Specific effectiveness measures: while the proposal lists overall goals, are there more specific KPIs or milestones to assess improvements in governance efficiency? For example, proposal success rate, improvement in governance process response time, etc.
Recommendations:
1. Enhance Transparency: It is recommended that progress reports on governance and workflow improvements be issued regularly and that relevant data be made publicly available, which would allow the community to better track effectiveness and boost confidence in the proposal.

2 Likes
10

:grinning:Suggestion to expand community feedback channels: In terms of collecting community feedback, it may be worthwhile to add, for example, regular questionnaires or AMA activities, so that more contributors can participate in the feedback and a broader consensus can be formed.
It is mentioned in the proposal that OpCo may take over the governance role in the future, but is there a clear handover plan? How will it be ensured that there is a smooth transition of governance without a break after Alex and Joe have completed their roles? It is suggested that effectiveness tracking and long-term role arrangements be further refined to ensure that the objectives of the proposal are actually realized.

1 Like
11

I hope everyone enjoyed their weekend. We will be answering all the questions today.

Yes, it is. We got delegate feedback and decided to restart this proposal to focus on the two areas of Live Governance Operations and the Orbit Chain Mesh Workstream.

We are considering a little extra budget available to hire admin support.

The council is for the Orbit Chain Mesh workstream budget. This will be it’s own proposal separate from this one, though intertwined. That proposal would have its own budget to fund initiatives within it’s mandate while our full-time compensation would come from this proposal. It’s possible that a handoff of the basic governance operations to OpCo would necessitate our salaries be attributed to this workstream, but unlikely.

It will be - before the workstream budget proposal goes to snapshot.

This is still undetermined for the Orbit Chain Mesh workstream budget. Our salaries would be included here.

Then we workshop it and get something strategic and deserving of our salaries to pass or risk being fired by the DAO. What would have happened if Entropy didn’t pass the Stylus fund?

Here’s a quick video about the connection between Max’s Embracing Chain Abstraction proposal and the workstream we are proposing. Screen Recording 2024-10-23...

Sure. Governance operations at the DAO level includes acting as a counterparty to current initiatives. Tactical might include setting up the initiative db and restructuring reporting calls to discuss relevant info rather than just the positives and initiative wants to talk about.

At the workstream level, governance operations would include running the processes to select (elect/hire/other) council members and a budget steward. Tactical would be conducting open bid RFPs for service providers to conduct S.M.A.R.T. initiatives.

No particular ETA. That is in the hands of Entropy. My hopeful thinking would be that OpCo is fully enstantiated and ready to hire in January, and we are then able to handoff the governance operations at the DAO level to do more strategic building at the Workstream level. This may also include helping other important proposals pass to address objectives identified in Entropy’s DAO strategic vision work.

Yes, but this felt cleaner. We also used the example of Entropy proposal to fund the company vs the Stylus fund proposal. A difference is that we are hoping to execute on a timeframe that would have a snapshot vote started for the workstream budget before this proposal goes to Tally. Hopefully!

This is the updated proposal. Newly minted with all relevant feedback.

Absolutely. Systems not processes for most items. Let’s face it, this is low hanging fruit to start. We don’t even have a db of all the current initiatives!

Yes. Both of us need to make a salary which will keep us here, plus bonus, commission, tokens, whatever. For me, that is a personal minimum after years of making higher than that and having equity or tokens in addition to base pay in past opportunities. This doesn’t even consider opportunity cost.

We want to be here. I love the culture modeled by OCL of shipping and launching real products that work as advertised. Products on the cutting edge of what’s possible. I want to support ethereum and this is the best place to do it.

We think a package should put us in range (considering we have to pay for travel, benefits, all out of pocket) and offers a vesting structure that is attractive to us and to the DAO to entice us to stay long-term.

Plus, we may need a little extra available for admin support. More coming upon our completion of talks with the foundation.

Our main one is a monthly “confidence in the DAO” score. Like an NPS, it is a trend metric to see how things are moving and not meaningful done as a one-off assessment.

Honestly, we could say some of the metrics you suggested, but I’d feel like a pompous asshole saying them because none of those things are being tracked or understood right now. That is the real problem.

Proposal success rate - Great if we could know the counter metric to make sure it isn’t bad proposals at a higher rate.

Response time - Is this a problem? Who measures it? How is it connected to TVL, FDV, Sticky Users, protocol market share in a vertical…

This is the nature of the beast that is operations. No one notices it until it screws up. I think we all feel it could be better, but I’d rather smart people work nimbly on affecting real change than providing vanity metrics!

(However, the intention of multiple listed deliverables is to make meaningful metrics available to then be able to use in this way!)

Yes. Starting with the initiatives DB and regular updates! Additionally, meeting minutes from monthly updates.

No, there is not. OpCo hasn’t been voted into existence yet, and there are differing opinions on how it should run. What we are saying is that we will document the work in the roles we are creating such that the roles could be handed over to an OpCo or another contributor…

On the other hand, we don’t want to create the expectation that OpCo HAS to hire us. That should be the choice of OpCo leadership.

I see three paths for our work, assuming OpCo becomes a reality.

  1. OpCo takes over the role with minor adjustments and we help onboard their staff to the role. We continue finding and solving problems for the remainder of the 6 months.
  2. OpCo wants to hire us. We are hired to OpCo to help hire and train people into the role we are currently doing and move into new roles better fit to creators rather than maintainers.
  3. OpCo does launch, but the DAO prefers our work not to be a part of OpCo. I’m not sure why this would happen, but it is the other possibility I must mention.

I guess this also assumes that the DAO doesn’t want to fire us! This will be possible at any point during the contract.

As my previous answer stated, it is not clear for very valid reasons. I don’t advise us rushing to waterfall these things because we have problems that could be solved today. A commitment to collaboration should suffice. Now, I do understand that there is a possibility that we both turn out to be subpar performers, but the DAO has the ability to fire us at any time.

6 Likes
12

Hello!

I have to admit, I’m a bit confused by the proposal.

If you have any statistics or further analysis on this, I’d love it if you could share! In my opinion, there has been a lot of support for builders (numerous past DAO incentive programs + grants from the AF + future incentive programs as Stylus and an incentives WG currently working on the new version of them), though I could be mistaken, and I would love a deeper understanding of this point.

I’d also appreciate it if you could expand on this with data or a report. In my opinion (although I don’t have data, just a sense from having been around for a while), the DAO seems to have more contributors over time.

How would you describe the success rate of the initiatives so far? Where do you consider you’d be starting, and where do you want to go?

I don’t fully understand this. Is the idea that you would act as council supervisors? By this proposal, would all future councils operate under you?

Or is the plan to create a council under your leadership that would then supervise the other councils? I’m a bit confused—apologies if I’m not getting it.

And why is it necessary to approve funds for an Orbit strategy for this proposal to pass? That part also has me confused.

Thank you for the new proposal, though many of the questions I raised in the previous one haven’t been answered

My personal opinion:

I believe the actions included in “Governance Operations” are valuable and necessary for the DAO. I would focus the proposal on that, ideally working together with Entropy to avoid overlap.

Thank you very much.

2 Likes
13

I’d like to raise concerns about this proposal.

This proposal requests funding to employ full-time contributors to lead a workstream before the DAO has formally approved the core initiative—“a unified orbit experience”—which these contributors are meant to manage. Such sequencing introduces significant risks. If approved, the DAO may feel pressured to authorize the subsequent 10M ARB budget proposal to avoid wasting resources already allocated to these contributors. This scenario effectively positions the 10M request as implicitly approved, undermining the DAO’s ability to act in its best interest. This approach seems like an attempt to bypass proper governance by prematurely securing roles without clear mandates. Instead, these roles should only be approved after the unified orbit experience is formally endorsed by the DAO, minimizing undue influence on future voting outcomes.

Additionally, the execution of such initiatives outlined demands a deep understanding of the nitro stack, interoperability, cross chain communication, governance at scale, and a proven track record of driving strategic outcomes. From what is presented, it’s unclear how previous work—such as governance reporting calls or passing a few proposals—equips them to address the intricate challenges currently facing Orbit and the DAO. Looking at the contributors’ resume such as STIP Backfund or Plurality Labs, the work does not demonstrate the depth of expertise required to lead a working group focused on such an important and technical concept.

Existing DAO service providers such as the ADPC or Entropy Advisors could likely take on the work of driving this in a more effective manner. Preemptively assigning full-time roles without clearer evidence of relevant competencies or measurable achievements risks misallocating resources and perpetuating inefficiencies. It would be more strategic for the DAO to first approve the 10M ARB unified orbit proposal and then engage individuals with proven capabilities to manage this critical initiative.

14

Our intention is not for implicit approval, but rather explicit approval. We’ve been working on forming the expert council roles this last week and hope to have the workstream proposal on Snapshot by the time this proposal hits Tally.

and

Does this help to show that it is not trying to take advantage of governance with implicity buy in?

I’ve previously shared my background. I ran sybil defense at Gitcoin for 2 years. I’m deeply knowledgeable about onchain forensics, adversarial systems, threat modeling, governance design and other topics which come up in crypto including understanding trust assumptions. I’ve operationally led a workstream which ran a machine learning operations pipeline as a DAO, and have the experience of navigating governance and legal challenges of fraud defense.

I was also giving talks and teaching about bitcoin, ethereum, and crypto in general in 2017 with an official partnership to 1871 - the largest tech incubator in Chicago.

Who would you suggest operationally run the process of finding and selecting these individuals? This is the problem we are solving here. We believe that with the proper expert council, we can operationally drive to best outcomes.

We would love to collaborate with ADPC and Entropy on this work. In fact, we’ve already reached out to both explicitly asking about their bandwidth for collaboration. We’ve asked Entropy to have a seat on the council. They have a lot of work already moving and it likely makes sense to have more contributors rather than Entropy running everything!

While not the technical wizard myself, I can keep up on most technical conversations. I’d be happy to do a twitter space where we discuss further.

This is quite the interesting post from a first time poster on this forum. Would you be willing to take the anon front off and share your concerns with skin in the game? Either way - Welcome!

15

Hey Pedro,

Sorry we missed answering on the previous proposal and thanks for the new questions! I’ll try to address them all today!

Builders losing faith

Yes, some work is getting done. The ones you mentioned are great. When we say “builders”, we are referring to the stakeholder group of builders of protocols or dapps using the Arbitrum tech stack whether that is Orbit Chains or Arbitrum One/Nova.

Just look at Treasure DAO who clearly sighted lack of the DAO being able to progress at reasonable speeds. Another indicator is how few protocol builders are regularly participating in DAO calls. Even the most hungry have pulled back - so you have to ask yourself why @Soby @IronBoots @dk3 and other builders aren’t spending the time they were in the DAO?

While the programs you mention are great, we need people actually talking to builders. Where are our user interviews with new orbit chain builders asking what they really care about when deciding where to build? This is the point.

(For the record, delegate incentives has been a highlight and example of a well run initiative.)

Contributor retention

I think its an unrealistic request to ask for the data - talk about a circular problem! We’ve never had operational work done to track contributors. Do we have more contributors or louder people? Whats the membrane? Who counts as a contributor? I’ll cede that we could be wrong in this assessment, but I doubt many have done a wider set of stakeholder interviews on which they base their assumptions.

Governance operations

Starting with building an initiatives db, checkins with current initiatives, and exit interviews with past initiatives. We also have a lot of other key stakeholder engagement to do.

Workstream stewardship

This is what people always miss about operations, especially governance operations - it’s not just you! To start, NO, we would not be the council supervisors - we would conduct the processes of drafting role descriptions (ie. must have one relevant person from OCL) selecting potentials, and organizing calls.

This in between work to get it done is governance operations. In a centralized system, the executive makes a decision and then is responsible for their reports receiving the message accurately and overseeing their accountability. In a decentralized system, the community decides in role of the executive - and maybe even decides who tactically does the work - but puts no one in place to oversee or act as a counterparty.

Our work would be in service to the council, acting as a budget steward while defining the role well enough to hire/elect or hand it off.

Necessity on Orbit Chain Mesh workstream proposal

Our feedback from large delegates was that governance operations isn’t enough to earn the salary needed to keep us here - that would require us doing more strategic or creative work.

The budget is an opportunity for us to drive some strategic work that requires strong multi-party alignment unlike any collaboration we’ve see this far in the overall Arbitrum ecosystem.

We are currently combining feedback from the foundation and top delegates to put together the exact comp package.

Not speaking for Alex, but for me - I need to make at minimum what I’ve made in the past. There is no reason for me to take a role without benefits, travel expenses, bonus, commission, equity or tokens AND do it for less than my salary the last 4 years. While I’d like to stay working with Arbitrum, that is a hard constraint for me - I’m willing to not negotiate to match my opportunity cost, but I can’t take a role that is a huge backward step financially. (Which I’ve done before with early team roles at startups - because we negotiated for higher equity.)

Yes. I have left Thrive protocol. We had a fork in the road: I wanted to design pluralist grants governance which is capture resistant and they want to refine and scale their method of funding grants at critical milestones of value creation. They do great work, but the governance design requires different motivations. I am taking the risk of leaving them because I believe it the right thing to do as my interests don’t lie in product refinement & scaling. I’m still very supportive of them and see many ways they can help our grants programs in the future.

I’ve actually never been paid from it - I don’t believe so anyway. I always put my rational on snapshot or tally, but don’t have a thread. I’m such a small delegate anyway that I almost felt embarassed collecting because I was earning from Plurality Labs/Thrive. I’ll admit it was a little frustrating this last month since I see tons of delegates putting short sweet answers in their thread while I spend a lot of time actively participating!

We’ve offered them a seat on the council for the Orbit Chain Mesh workstream budget and have been in communication around the OpCo. While we haven’t seen any details related to OpCo yet, we fully intend to collaborate.

I also have a history of making good on my word. I shut down the FDD workstream at Gitcoin when the protocol launched because it was time and I had previously committed to doing so. I also started up and spun out multiple workstreams there. We had needs like DAO Ops and Support which we had budget to kickstart and some delegates worried I was “power grabbing” but we spun out and handed off responsibility every time.

Thanks for your questions and valuable time spent considering our proposal.

4 Likes
16

Thank you for your response! :blush:

3 Likes
17

Good day! Thanks for clarification. I think it’s very necessary to hire an admin support.

18

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

Thank you for the proposal. We had a few questions regarding it:

  1. What objective criteria can we use to measure the success of this initiative?
  2. Could you clarify how this resource will differ from existing materials?
  1. With various calls already scheduled across different initiatives, might adding another monthly call increase operational overhead? What motivation would builders, delegates and contributors have to join these?
2 Likes
19

Thank you @DisruptionJoe and @AlexLumley for this proposal! As a new delegate of Arbitrum, I find there are a lot of ressources about the DAO that can be difficult to find as they are spread in different places. So I would certainly value tools like a database for all current initiatives, meeting minutes, dedicated calls, “confidence in the DAO” score and others if they are well organized under a specific hub.

Regarding operational efficiency, I wonder if you have a concrete example from the past where a lack of coordination and operational follow-up was costly in terms of time, money, and alignment for the DAO. How could these issues have been resolved if you, as DAO contributors, had been elected at that time?

Also, as mentioned by @pedrob, I would appreciate more clarity on the potential overlaps with what Entropy does and the existing calls, perhaps through something like a RACI matrix?

I appreciate the vesting schedule that aligns their interests with those of the Arbitrum DAO for the long term. If the final compensation package meets industry standards, this could be a good opportunity to conduct a trial run for 6 months and then reassess based on agreed KPIs.

1 Like
20

Thank you Alex and Joe for sharing this proposal. We agree that Arbitrum should continue improving its governance processes. However, we see several significant issues with this proposal. First, it significantly overlaps with Entropy’s role. Second, it risks creating an environment of micro-management for existing and new workstreams. Lastly, it lacks quantifiable KPIs to ensure accountability.

Addressing each point individually:

First, Entropy was brought on to “deliver strategic proposals, guide key partners through the DAO processes, and align the priorities of essential stakeholders for the betterment of Arbitrum” (Entropy Advisors: Exclusively Working With Arbitrum DAO), which closely resembles the goals stated in this proposal to “Execute governance operations, designing better systems, documenting the role, and preparing for handoff to OpCo; and Strategic workstream design, building governance processes, executing governance operations, and preparing to hand off leadership to a future workstream steward.

Entropy has already contributed significantly by launching initiatives like the Multi-sig Support Service (MSS) (where both Alex and Joe serve as elected members) the Stylus sprint, the DAO Events Budget (where Joe is involved in). Entropy is also working on a Delegate Code of Conduct & Formalizing DAO Ops proposal and a Unifying Mission, Vision, and Purpose for the DAO. Furthermore, Entropy has also already synced with high-impact DAO initiatives such as the Treasury Management Working Group and the ARDC to enhance alignment and request additional reporting.

Given this overlap, it’s unclear how this proposal distinguishes itself from Entropy’s role and responsibilities, especially as Entropy continues to scale its team to fulfill their mandate.

Expanding on our point of of micro-managing initiatives, we would like to draw attention to Joe’s response to Karpatkey’s comment where they asked,

Joe responded,

This response is presumptive — assuming that existing initiatives focus their reporting calls on the wrong items and Alex & Joe know what should be discussed.

Finally on KPIs, we would like to draw attention to Joe’s response to Duokongcrypto who asked,

Joe responded,

While an NPS-style score can provide a sentiment check, it alone is insufficient. The DAO also needs quantitative metrics to effectively assess the work that it is funding.

We recommend continuing to focus on driving results for your current initiatives, where your time and resources are already committed.

1 Like