I voted AGAINST this proposal
I saw no real effort to reduce Arbitrum’s spending on Entropy, nor did I receive answers to many of the concerns I previously raised. In addition to those earlier points, I’d like to highlight a few key reasons why I oppose the proposal:
-
Staff increase to 14 people
Entropy plans to significantly expand its team, but the proposal lacks clarity on why such a large headcount is necessary. They set their own direction without detailing the specific tasks that justify this growth. Basing the budget on team size instead of actual deliverables is problematic. Even last year’s report doesn’t clearly outline expenses or workload. -
Delegation of responsibilities to OpCo
Entropy itself played a key role in creating OpCo, which now handles implementation and operations — and has a $12 million budget over 2.5 years. That should mean fewer responsibilities for Entropy, not more. Yet they continue growing their team. This contradiction remains unexplained. -
DAO spending continues to grow
Entropy’s compensation should be tied to the actual economic value it brings to Arbitrum. What we’re seeing instead is a steady increase in budget and operating costs, with limited transparency. Budget decisions should be based on clear objectives — not headcount — before this spending trend becomes unsustainable