The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
After extensive consideration and internal deliberation, we’re voting FOR the proposal during temp-check and opting to vote for the 1,73M USDC budget. We want to note that our vote during temp-check doesn’t automatically translate to support during the onchain vote, which is contingent on some points being addressed (see below).
Upon reviewing the ‘performance’ of ARDC’s first term, we reflected on some things that could have been better, or that could be improved in the next iteration of the ARDC, such as the ARDC v2 proposal. See the final ARDC report here, and our view as Delegates -and not the DAO Advocate- here.
The main reason we’re against the concept ARDC at this time is that we believe the DAO isn’t in a position to leverage its potential to the fullest, as shown by the lack of engagement between delegates and the ARDC during the latter’s first term. Although the v2 proposal hopes to address that by introducing 2 members focused on communication in the Supervisory Council, we are skeptical of the effect such a solution will have, if any.
As things are in the DAO right now, we simply do not see a need for the ARDC or a demand for its services. With that in mind, we don’t see a reason to be spending over $1,000,000 on it. On the other hand, however, if and when the need does arise, it will be difficult to get something done without first having to go through the governance process to set up something like the ARDC. To us, the current proposal is more of a proactive step to respond to needs if and when they arise rather than a reactive solution to existing needs.
In an attempt to find a middle ground, we believe that the best solution is to earmark the funds for the ARDC to use, establish service providers and the Supervisory Council, and then only use them when a need arises.
Some things that we’d like to suggest and hopefully implement before an onchain vote are:
- The upfront fee paid to service providers as a retainer will be reduced. While we understand the need to pay a retainer fee to ensure that service providers are available for the DAO to use when we need them, we find 1/3 of the total fee to be on the high end.
- The introduction of delegate approvals for ARDC workstreams to begin. Requiring, say 5, approvals from the top delegates (maybe from the delegates receiving incentives) before the Supervisory Council can assign a workstream to the ARDC could help mitigate against frivolous spending, and also get delegates more involved.
We hope to discuss and address some other minor details further, but the above 2 points are the most important to us right now.