We appreciate all the work the team did to put together the report. While we align with the vision of managing partners incentivized to make long-term investments in Arbitrum’s growth, and many of the “vehicles” appear to serve meaningful functions, there is insufficient detail on the operational budget, the expert council, the managing team, and investment strategy to support this proposal. There is also no convincing vision for ROI beyond vague mentions; understanding this early in the process, we’d prefer that delegates have a more concrete understanding of potential deliverables and returns (i.e., KPIs) given the size of the program and its ambition.
Without the following details, it’s difficult to be optimistic about the Arbitrum Venture setup as proposed:
- An investment thesis (wasn’t this supposed to be part of the Pilot?
- A detailed operational budget.
- A track record of FarStar’s successful investments and/or programs.
- A financial disclosure of funds spent in the AVI Pilot.
- Working Group members, organizational, and compensation structure (and rationale for why is this run by a working group?)
It’s also not clear why, with a six-year mandate, in which the first year will mostly be setup, Farstar will only have a 1-year exclusivity deal. If the DAO is going to invest in such critical investment infrastructure, we would prefer the vendor provide higher exclusivity, be produced in-house under OpCo, CapCo, or the Foundation, or simply fund a team that has demonstrated a deeper understanding of investment in the web3 space and has a portfolio and track record that delegates can evaluate.
Lastly, the GCP, while not an outright failure, has not yet been proven successful. It feels somewhat premature to pursue both recommendations from their team when they are far from operational and for the DAO to pursue a similar structure at this time.