First of all, we would like to thank the @Entropy team for this proposal.
We will be voting FOR in the Snapshot temperature check instance for the reasons detailed below:
We appreciate the team’s willingness to receive feedback and take the time to meet with different stakeholders in the Arbitrum ecosystem. This shows that they have an excellent sense of leadership and that this together with the proposals they are taking forward are strong reasons to believe that they are the right people to provide a direction for the DAO, at least in this transition to a more complex management structure.
We are aware that today Arbitrum, despite being a market-leading L2, has serious organizational problems that have led to overlapping functions and inefficient spending of treasury funds. A straightforward example is what happened with the various multi-sigs created for each proposal.
This ‘lack of control’ responds to an obvious cause: there is a lack of a ‘common thread’, something/someone that can somehow organize into a whole the different proposals that exist and will exist, favoring the coordination of efforts and avoiding the waste of resources, both human and economic.
We believe that this proposal goes in that direction, the DAO requires enforcement that allows us to implement even more ambitious solutions such as OpCo. I think most of us here agree that a broad and diverse structure like OpCo is ideal, but in the meantime, someone needs to take the lead and guide us somewhat toward the goal.
We welcome the fact that @Entropy has as one of its priorities the establishment of better mechanisms for the oversight of ongoing initiatives. Today the great diversity of current initiatives complicates the proper monitoring and accountability. In this sense, it seems reasonable to have some sort of general committee to monitor the implementation of initiatives.
As for the budget requested, although it’s somewhat above market value, we have to consider the members’ seniority and the exclusivity offered, which is not free of charge, of course. All this leads us to consider that although it could perhaps be revised, it doesn’t seem to us to impede going ahead with the proposal. Where we agree with @pedrob is that the bonus doesn’t sound so optional if it’s a mandatory condition for renewing the agreement.
Despite the latter, we appreciate the modifications made to the bonus, giving the DAO options to pay a lower amount without revoking the possibility of renewal for a further period.
We also agree with @JoJo on this point, given @Entropy’s recent contributions it is likely to be much more costly for us to have no one in that leadership role than the cost of the deal itself.
On balance, we strongly support this proposal, with the caveat that we expect to see Entropy be part of something bigger, a structure that can bring together all Arbitrum DAO verticals and professionalize operations so that Arbitrum not only leads the L2 ecosystem but also sets an example in self-management, efficient spending, and decision making. In this way, we will send a message to all stakeholders: we not only care about growing, but we want to do it in a decentralized, efficient, and orderly manner.