Coming back from holidays, so apologies if this has been raised earlier.
It’s difficult to see how this could work as intended without also getting a mandate from governance to compel reporting from every project in the DAO.
Using Powerhouse’s past work as an example, they tried this with expenses.makerdao.network (now defunct and this redirects to a new dash for Maker). It had lots of features and allowed for granular reporting. But we don’t recall there ever being more than half the contributors actually using it, even for top-line expenses, and certainly not for actual, useful reporting.
These kinds of tools and systems are worth very little if you can’t capture 100% of the actual spend. So all it takes is one working group or project to be too busy/lazy/inept to report and this whole thing becomes considerably less useful.
We would recommend coming back to this with not just a budget but with a more comprehensive authority and formal office with powers to compel reporting. A DAO auditor or something like that. Contributors that don’t report can’t renew their projects and could potentially – in worst case scenarios – end up on the blacklist like Furucombo.
You can also lighten the weight of this proposal by removing the advisory council. This feels like a strictly civil servant role that can have a fairly objective mandate and shouldn’t be susceptible to politics of interpretation very much if drafted correctly.
But we do not at the moment support paying to build this out without there also being some kind of assurance that it will be able to capture 100% of the needed information, unless we’re missing something in the proposal.
We will respond back in the next 24 hours as we are busy setting up for the Bi-Weekly Discussions and GRC calls.
A couple of notes:
Directional not final proposal: This feedback is awesome for us to better understand what the community needs. Timeline for next snapshot:
We plan to take the feedback from this snapshot and this week of BiWeekly calls / GRC and make improvements to proposal.
Whatever result we get we will host calls, have more delegate calls and go to snapshot again the week of the 12th so we can be done before the Holiday Break.
Thanks for this super in-depth proposal! Some thoughts:
WE NEED SMTG LIKE THIS: The initiative’s aim to provide a systematic framework for reporting, addressing the fragmented and inconsistent reporting that has hindered oversight and accountability within the DAO.
Good stuff on highlights the potential benefits for delegates, initiative leads, and the broader DAO community, enabling better resource allocation and strategic alignment.
Maintaining biweekly and governance reporting calls ensures continuity of critical DAO operations
Some concerns:
Echoing some, the budget seems pretty high. The extra suscess stipend is also pretty high for a enw team that has not shown itself beforehand
Maybe some specific KPIs to measure the effectiveness of the reporting function and tie the performance bonus to measurable outcomes would be good
Retroactive funding could set a problematic precedent for future proposals. The DAO has previously voted against similar actions.
Relying heavily on manual processes may lead to inefficiencies and high operational costs. A roadmap for transitioning to automated solutions could help address this concern
Thank you, @AlexLumley. As a new delegate in the Arbitrum DAO, I greatly value initiatives like the GRC meeting and its tracker, which provide a macro overview of ongoing activities. In my view, this proposal moves in the right direction, but I have a few concerns:
As mentioned by other delegates, the budget seems to be on the high side compared to industry standards plus I am not sure to get the rationale for the bonus
The proposal could be streamlined, for instance, by removing the advisory committee
Could there be potential overlap with the future OpCo? In my opinion, this entity’s role is also to provide an overview of the DAO’s key projects so would like to understand how this could theroretically work
Based on these points, for now I am voting Against this proposal but am open to reconsidering if these points are addressed in the future.
Hello, thanks for the proposal. I believe while improving reporting and oversight is important, DAO should carefully consider whether this $263,260 investment will truly bring long-term value to Arbitrum.
With over half of it going towards operational costs, such as FTEs or reporting-related activities, it’s a significant amount for these activities :). Moreover, the buffer $23,932 might not be enough to cover unexpected costs, and we could end up needing more funds.
Plus, it creates just more bureaucracy than before.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting AGAINST this proposal in the Snapshot voting.
Our concerns about the budget remain unchanged from the proposal discussion phase. While we support the idea, we feel that the budget allocation, including retroactive funding and bonuses, needs further refinement.
The proposal highlights a valid problem and proposes a solution. However, the high cost, lack of specific KPIs, and concerns regarding implementation need to be addressed for the proposal to gain broader support.
Rationale
High Cost
The proposed budget of $263,260, including a performance bonus of 220,240 ARB and backpay for the Program Manager, is excessive for the proposed tasks.
Lack of Concrete KPIs
While the proposal emphasizes transparency, accountability, and improved decision-making, it lacks specific key performance indicators (KPIs) to measure the success of these objectives.
Commenters like GensDAO raise concerns about the absence of quantifiable targets and suggest metrics such as the adoption rate of the reporting system, reduction in information access times, or satisfaction surveys.
Questionable Backpay
The proposal requests $45,000 in backpay for the Program Manager, covering five months of uncompensated work on the GRC.
Several commenters, including cp0x and JoJo, question the justification for this amount, especially given that the work was undertaken before the proposal was formally presented.
Implementation Concerns
this seems like an extremly heavyweight proposal to do something which may not need all that overhead and complexity. There’s probably better ways to accomplish the goal of tracking initatives that would be less complex, bureaucratic and manpower heavy
in short the idea and need for better insight and reporting is there but this specific proposal doesnt seem like the best way to go about it in our opinion.
While we value transparency and accountability within the DAO, the current approach feels unclear and lacks sufficient alignment with efficient and decentralized practices. We believe there’s room for a more refined and community-driven solution that balances cost with tangible impact, ensuring it serves the DAO’s long-term growth effectively.
FOR
I voted in favor of the proposal. The proposal’s objectives are clear, and the team’s experience is reliable. Alex’s consistent use of real-time video communication in every meeting has left a strong impression. Establishing this reporting system is a key infrastructure initiative for the long-term development of the Arbitrum DAO. The proposal aligns with the DAO’s long-term goals, as transparent reporting and data management are essential foundations for any growing organization. This proposal not only provides operational support for the current DAO but also lays the groundwork for future decision-making and oversight.
However, I still recommend dividing the budget and related payments into phases and batches for submission and approval. Additionally, it would be beneficial to ensure that more stakeholders receive regular progress updates about the proposal.
Alex thank you for the proposal, we see the value in the mission and support it. It makes sense to have a standarized framework to track progress, performance, and results, not just in terms of efficiency but also to propose new initiatives in the future, track spending, general initiative and success tracking, having DAO benchmarks.
We believe the proposal needs refining for clarity, so we’re glad to see you plan to move to a second snapshot with the improvements. Our main concern lies in KPI, targets of the proposal and clarity of the approach. We also do agree with the points raised above on the high budget and retroactive pay by other delegates.
We’ll be voting against for now in the snapshot. But we are open to changing our vote.
Thanks, @AlexLumley, for this proposal.
But we are think that this proposal is too expensive, with over $263,000 requested for something that should be simpler. The plan is complex and hard to understand, making it unclear how it will really help the DAO.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Rationale
We want to start by thanking @AlexLumley for this new version of the proposal. It is clear that Arbitrum DAO currently needs a workstream focused on reporting, granting autonomy for meetings, and especially people dedicated to tracking already-funded proposals. Although each proposal has its own “reporting system,” the optimal approach would be to standardize this as much as possible. And who is better positioned to make these suggestions to proposers than a DAO employee fully dedicated to reporting?
Yes, the proposal aims to solve a real problem, but we have several concerns that prevent us from supporting the initiative at this time:
Rush to voting: Once again, the proposal appears rushed. In this particular case, significant changes were made on the same day the proposal was posted for voting. From budget details to the creation of an advisory committee, none of this could be thoroughly discussed among community members.
Compensation concerns: We agree with other delegates that the requested compensation is based on an erroneous assumption: “The fee is calculated using FTE comp calibrated to match a Sr. OpCo employee (192k) plus a 30% Contractor premium for Benefits, etc.” Not only does the OpCo not yet exist, but the budget provided by @Entropy was merely an example, which does not imply that the final hiring cost will be 192k. We are also unsure that reporting necessarily warrants senior-level compensation, although this point is debatable.
Base comp and Bonus: Even leaving aside the above points, the base compensation seems high for the role. Also echoing comments from @cp0x, the proposed bonus does not provide a tangible return for the DAO beyond “alignment” and is again based on the assumption that the OpCo eventually pays a 30% bonus.
Regarding retroactive payments: At SEEDGov, we generally support retroactive payments for valuable work, but in this case, we align with other delegates: the retroactive compensation appears too high. Based on the proposal, we estimate that during these months the work did not exceed 50% FTE (especially in August), with tasks focused on:
Preparation, execution, and management of existing GRC calls (25% FTE).
Maintenance of the GRC and Initiative Tracker, including First Mile Intake, Data Quality, and Ongoing Oversight for Completion (25% FTE).
Please correct us if this assessment is incorrect. (By the way, we quite liked the Table 1. Work Components By Phase By Resource Allocation).
Advisory Committee: We agree with other delegates that this appears to add unnecessary bureaucracy.
Discretionary Work Fund: It is challenging to evaluate this without an estimated breakdown of the allocation for each item:
Regarding “R&D grants related to reporting and information distribution”, wouldn’t it be better to interact with the ARDC for research-related matters?
Also, Is part of this fund intended for hiring Powerhouse? If so, what is the budgeted cost?
I’m not fully convinced by the current proposal and understand a revised version is in the works. Therefore, I’ll abstain from voting on this one on Snapshot and I’ll wait for the updated version.
As I stated in my previous remark, I believe an initiative of this nature is needed in order to standardize the tracking process of proposals and advance the DAO’s organization.
I understand other delegates’ comments and their budget concerns and agree with SEEDGov’s posture that this proposal seems rushed. I will also vote to ABSTAIN and wait for the updated version.
@AlexLumley Yesterday, during the Open Discussion of Proposal(s) call, you mentioned that this proposal would be canceled. Is this correct? If so, please cancel it as soon as possible so active delegates don’t need to spend time on it and vote.
deleting the snapshot proposal is an irreversible action. I don’t think we should do that because that means the 4185 votes already casted would be lost. if the proposal was put up to a vote, it should be voted on, reach it’s end date, and we should learn from its result. we should not get into the habit of deleting snapshot proposals. I think there was only one other time a snapshot proposal was deleted in Arbitrum DAO, and it was this one: [Non-Constitutional] Thank ARB by Plurality Labs - Milestone 2: Scaling Value Creation in the DAO - #32 by olimpio
Sorry, Alex, I cannot support it in its current form due to the lack of concrete details, high budget allocation, and insufficient community involvement strategy.
Firstly, while the proposal highlights the importance of transparency and improving the reporting function, it lacks a detailed breakdown of the specific metrics or KPIs that will be used to assess the effectiveness of the new reporting system. Without clear and measurable success criteria, it will be difficult to evaluate whether the proposed system is genuinely adding value or simply introducing more complexity to the process. A more concrete plan, with clear objectives and expected outcomes, should be outlined.
Secondly, the budget of $263,260 for maintaining the reporting function for up to 12 months seems quite high, especially when considering that the DAO has already invested substantial amounts into similar initiatives. The proposal mentions 4 months of backpay, but it’s unclear whether this expense is justified given the current state of the team and the perceived need for such a large budget. A more detailed cost breakdown, as well as a clearer justification for these expenditures, would make the proposal more transparent and help avoid concerns about resource misallocation.
Overall I like the idea, but as many others have mentioned the main concern is the size of the budget. Since the proposal is supposed to be cancelled (as mentioned in the governance call), I voted abstain.
From yesterday’s call and some comments on the thread, I see a renewed discussion about canceling a proposal due to the voting results. This has happened in the past, and I’d like to reiterate my stance on the matter.
TL;DR: I’m against it. The purpose of a temp check is precisely to gauge the DAO’s sentiment regarding a proposal. Proposals that receive a “no” (whether they need improvement or it’s simply not the right time) shouldn’t be canceled, as they provide valuable insights that can serve as a foundation for shaping future proposals.