We fully support this proposal. This is exactly the kind of accountability mechanism we need to protect the DAO’s resources.
The GCP situation highlights precisely why we need better controls on proposals and why we have been actively voting against high spending proposals without clear deliverables. GCP received a massive 225 million ARB allocation, and what do we have to show for it? Almost nothing tangible, key members abandoning ship (including Treasure DAO completely exiting Arbitrum), attempts to reduce their own reporting requirements while increasing their compensation, and a general lack of transparency about how funds are being used. This seems to be normal for many in the DAO, and isn’t unique to GCP, but this is a terrible situation to be in and we don’t understand why delegates continue to defend this kind of thing.
The clawback sets a crucial precedent that the DAO won’t tolerate ineffective use of its treasury. The proposal isn’t punitive toward regular contributors (allowing for severance packages), but is firm on stopping the bleeding and recovering uncommitted funds.
Looking at both this GCP situation and many other proposals that come to the DAO, it’s clear we need a consistent approach to accountability across all DAO spending. We’ve said many times that DAO spends obscene amounts of money for seemingly no positive outcomes and it is a sad state of affairs to continue.
The recovered funds could be redirected toward initiatives with clearer metrics and accountability, like the proposed airdrop or other programs that demonstrate measurable impact for the ecosystem. Or simply returning to the treasury until we have high-confidence opportunities.
Bottom line: supporting this clawback sends the right message about responsible treasury management. We can’t approve large lump sums without ongoing performance requirements, and when programs fail to deliver, we need to act decisively rather than throwing good money after bad.