Thank you for taking the time to provide a detailed response. We appreciate the effort you put into reviewing feedback and maintaining transparency in the DIP process.
That said, we want to clarify why we still believe our comment was relevant and deserved consideration.
While it is true that Entropy did not lead the ARB Staking Working Group, they did present it as part of their contribution in the proposal. Since they highlighted their involvement, we believe it is fair to ask how the initiative performed. Even if they were not the main coordinator, understanding the impact of initiatives they participated in helps the DAO evaluate the effectiveness of their work and determine whether an extended mandate is justified. This is particularly important when the DAO is being asked to approve a two-year engagement with an increased budget and token alignment package.
Similarly, while DRIP is a separate proposal, Entropy is responsible for its execution. Our questions about success metrics and evaluation were intended to ensure that the DAO can track performance and outcomes going forward. These questions are not outside the scope of this proposal. They are part of assessing how Entropy’s future work will be measured and how accountability will be maintained.
We also raised the topic of alignment with DAO-wide objectives, such as those discussed in the SOS framework. While we understand the DAO has not yet finalized these objectives, we believe that is exactly why this kind of question is important. If a contributor is requesting a long-term mandate, it is reasonable to ask how their work will align with the evolving strategic direction of the DAO. Our intent was not to critique the absence of a finalized plan, but to invite a forward-looking conversation.
Regarding continuity, we are glad this point was acknowledged. However, we do feel that the full set of questions we raised contributed to the quality of the discussion and encouraged more clarity in the final proposal. While not every question was addressed in detail, the comment was thoughtful, grounded in the proposal’s content, and aimed at helping the DAO make a more informed decision.
We are not trying to dispute the system, but we do want to understand how feedback like this focused on structure, outcomes, and alignment is evaluated within the DIP process.
We would really appreciate further clarity on how feedback is assessed so we can continue contributing in a way that is both helpful to the DAO and aligned with DIP expectations.