# \[NON-CONSTITUTIONAL\] - Arbitrum Research and Development Collective \[Term 2\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Finalized AIPs\ **Created:** [September 24, 2024, 11:17am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-research-and-development-collective-term-2/26922 "2024-09-24T11:17:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 7
**Author:** ![SEEDGov](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/seedgov/32/14560_2.png) [@SEEDGov](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/SEEDGov)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2024, 6:10pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-research-and-development-collective-term-2/26922/7 "2024-10-01T18:10:54Z")
Hi @Immutablelawyer 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](https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xffe9bb38228fdaf3d121140856fd2d51c2ca7f8e0d1021c07e791cebb541129a) and the proposal to develop the [ARB staking](https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xb581f3aed701ae889c1d79406acdf3d653e6eb4323cb5e46635f729e6313da4d). For this reason, we would like to offer some feedback and pose a few questions before the proposal moves to Snapshot. > [@Immutablelawyer](#): > > In the ARDC [V2], service providers will be required to outline the scope of work for the first two months of their tenure, including specific deliverables and timelines, which will be incorporated into the election template to be released separately 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. > [@Immutablelawyer](#): > > - Fund the ARDC for a 6-month term. 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. > [@Immutablelawyer](#): > > The Supervisory Council will involve the election of three (3) individuals who will be elected by the DAO. These elected individuals will serve on the Supervisory Council for a term of six (6) months. Each member will receive a monthly compensation of 3,000 ARB for the duration of their term. The total cost for compensating the entire council over the six-month period will be 54,000 ARB. 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. > [@Immutablelawyer](#): > > ### **Option A: Funded with 830,000 USDC + + Council & OL** > > - **Security:** 330,000 USDC (Applicable Cap) > > - **Research:** 330,000 USDC (Applicable Cap) > > - **Risk:** 170,000 USDC (Applicable Cap) > > - **Council:** 54,000 ARB > > - **Operations Lead** : 60,000ARB > > ### **Option B: Funded with 1.05 Million USDC + + Council & OL** > > - **Security:** 400,000 USDC (Applicable Cap) > > - **Research:** 400,000 USDC (Applicable Cap) > > - **Risk:** 205,000 USDC (Applicable Cap) > > - **Council:** 54,000 ARB > > - **Operations Lead** : 60,000ARB > > ### **Option C: Funded with 1.25 Million USDC + Council & OL** > > - **Security:** 500,000 USDC (Applicable Cap) > > - **Research:** 500,000 USDC (Applicable Cap) > > - **Risk:** 250,000 USDC (Applicable Cap) > > - **Council:** 54,000 ARB > > - **Operations Lead** : 60,000ARB 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. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-research-and-development-collective-term-2/26922)._