The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and is based on our combined research, fact-checking, and discussion.
We voted ABSTAIN.
Back in the temp-check, we cautiously supported Entropy’s term renewal because we are convinced of their potential value-add to the DAO. While we liked the idea of OpCo and OAT guiding Entropy’s next phase, we clarified in our comment that we expected the OAT to engage in discussion with the delegates about their role.
We envisioned the OAT and OpCo as a DAO proxy and a single counterparty for Entropy, not as the sole owner of their mandate. After all, we already have a mechanism in the DAO to engage in partnerships in a fully discretionary manner, without DAO delegates’ direct oversight and input, through the 1B ARB budget delegated to the Arbitrum Foundation. With the funds allocated directly from the DAO and its treasury, we feel that delegates are responsible (and therefore should be allowed) to monitor and ensure that they are well spent.
Since then, we have been waiting for an outline or high-level vision of how that oversight will work, specifically when it comes to the KPIs and milestones that would govern the 10M ARB incentive pool. However, the OAT members have clarified that they do not plan to engage in a discussion with delegates. They understand their role in the proposal to be taking full responsibility for that aspect, and they are not planning to take input from delegates on that front. While we understand and respect their position, we no longer trust that this is the appropriate setup for that engagement.
Rather than let this block an initiative we broadly regard as positive, we prefer to abstain and let it pass despite our concerns.