Thank you for drafting this proposal.
From SEEDGov we recognize the value provided by most of the researches delivered by ARDC, on more than one occasion we have read them to better inform ourselves before making decisions such as the case of Timeboost and the proposal to develop the ARB staking.
For this reason, we would like to offer some feedback and pose a few questions before the proposal moves to Snapshot.
Considering that many of the reports were requested by community members in the context of emerging proposals, we believe this aspect may be challenging for both the applicant and the delegate to assess during voting. What kind of deliverables should we prioritize within each vertical? How should we handle spontaneous requests from the DAO when there is a conflict between predetermined work and these new demands?
We understand the need for a general framework to guide the work, but we also believe there should be room for flexibility to accommodate the DAO’s evolving needs.
We suggest considering the possibility of funding the ARDC for 12 months instead of 6. With the growing number of committees, working groups, and elected positions within the DAO, and given that the ARDC has already undergone an “experimental” phase and has a supervisory committee that can request the removal of negligent members, we believe a 12-month funding period would be more beneficial. This would provide greater predictability, stability, and, importantly, help reduce the electoral burden on the DAO.
Having said the above, we would like to clarify that while we share the concern about over-bureaucratization raised by @karpatkey, we believe that the low cost of the committee and its usefulness within the designed structure justify its existence.
What would be the criteria for selecting one of the three budget options? Have there been any inputs from previous members or potential new service providers?
One thing we notice missing in this proposal is more detail on the lessons learned from the first iteration. While we understand that part of this is reflected in the separation of the DAO Advocate into the Supervisory Council and the Operations Lead, we wonder if other areas could be improved based on the first iteration.
This question arises because, with the experience gained from the first six months, we likely have a clearer understanding of what to expect in the second iteration. Additionally, it would be beneficial to establish some KPIs to help assess whether the ARDC has met expectations (beyond the number of reports, for example). Valuable metrics could include the time taken to issue reports, the frequency with which they are referenced in discussions, etc.