gm, thanks for submitting this proposal and apologies for the delay in my comment.
I broadly understand and agree with the general approach.
Please correct me if I’m wrong:
This is essentially a business development program where a strategic hypothesis cascades into specific deals around assets/protocols - tested via campaigns- In order to achieve that, we want Entropy, Arbitrum Foundation and OCL to oversee the program because they are the most Arbitrum-aligned entities and have autonomy to negotiate independently - ok fair enough
I’m comfortable with the increased centralization of this type of program as it should make it an order of magnitude more effective.
Nevertheless, as proposed by others:
- I would support integrating elected members into the committee:
- Domain experts make execution more efficient and effective
- Diversity wins and saves significant research time
- Provides checks and balances with external members over the AAEs
- I believe the DAO deserves to vote on the strategy for the first campaign.
We need to assess whether AF, Entropy and OCL are aligned with delegates’ direction AND have the capabilities to deliver value for DRIP - something unproven so far for this type of program.
I expect this to be included in the proposal - not the full analysis (protocols, etc.) but at least clear objectives and KPIs
Thanks