Hi Entropy, Arbitrum Foundation and OCL,
Procedural feedback
This proposal is the first since the Vision for the Future of Arbitrum post, it is initiated by 3 Arbitrum Aligned Entities (AAEs) and it’s style and content suggests a way of moving de facto within this new paradigm.
Given these facts its critical this proposal embodies and exemplifies the standards required for the ecosystem to build trust and establish norms for this new way of operating.
I agree with the points raised by @pedrob on auditability,
@Chris_Areta on the need for mechanisms of community input - a superpower of a DAO is activating collective intelligence, great ideas can come from anywhere and the current structure would miss out by not tapping this valuable resource,
agree with @krst and L2Beat on accountability, continuity, process and metrics.
Now is the time to put in place the organisational infrastructure required to make the AAE paradigm viable and trustable, this moment is a critical inflection point where its necessary to develop new norms, lets strive to listen to all stakeholders and bring intentional care in change-management for how working relationships will need to adapt and function between individuals and entities in different roles from AAEs, Service Providers, talented individual contributors, and Delegates in the DAO.
Imo the ground work and organisational infrastructure needs to be developed and in place and referenced within the proposal, before a proposal of this magnitude can be considered for voting.
I am not against this kind of program, I see the potential, however we should really hold ourselves to a high standard when experimenting with something new of this nature and magnitude.
Proposal Intent and implementation feedback
Considering the MVP (Mission Vision and Purpose)
in combination with the vision for a Sovereign Digital Nation / Sovereign Wealth Fund
Right now I am not seeing how this incentive program’s novel mechanism targeting verticals over protocols, and strategic timing intervention within the development of candidate organisations further solves for sustainability/stickiness of keeping activity with Arbitrum, nor how this approach achieves the MVP or moves us towards creating economic zones of opportunity.
It would be good to have this explained more clearly, in particular how could this cost outflow of 80m ARB bring returns back into the treasury? if that’s not the paradigm, how are the AAEs thinking about returns?
Some projections of how this growth-cycle loop is envisaged would be helpful for Delegates and contributors to get behind this model.
Now more than ever in Arbitrum the parts need to support the whole, with the DAO now having gone through the process to define an MVP, with OCL offering the Sovereign Wealth Fund paradigm, the AF suggesting a new org structure around AAEs, and the DAO still being in the middle of SOS setting, this proposal may be too early before the SOS process has completed to ensure maximum coherency and congruency.
Lets get our ducks in a row and ensure with rigor all new proposals (parts) are shaped to add up with systemic integrity inside of the (whole) organisational structures and strategy we are defining.