OpCo – A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution

Hi! Thank you for the detailed proposal. I like the ambitious plan of an OpCo for project management of the DAO’s initiatives.

I have some initial questions and comments.

At times, it seems the work overlaps with what’s expected of the ADPC and ARDC.

In the case of the ADPC, its focus is on establishing agreements with specific providers through the development of RFPs and budget approvals.

The ARDC has a defined selection of service providers for certain tasks.

What types of service providers are envisioned here if those related to audits (potentially also providers for events and RPC), as well as those for security, risk and research, are already covered by these entities?

Is the idea to absorb these responsibilities, or to wait until their mandate concludes?

I think this is a key issue to address. I’m thrilled with the idea of an organization that coordinates the DAO’s initiatives to promote efficiency in resource management and align initiatives towards consolidating the DAO’s mission, vision, and objectives.

I think this is very well-conceived but challenging to implement in practice. Take, for instance, the lessons from the ARDC by the DAO Advocate role L2BEAT, where they faced difficulties obtaining proactive engagement from the delegates, who where supposed to require work from the ARDC.

What you’re proposing here as a role for the DAO’s operations is even more abstract than what was required of the ARDC, and thus more complex.

I don’t have a clear solution because it is indeed challenging, but I’d like to see ideas on how this would be materialized in practice and how friction could be avoided to prevent paying for a large structure that, in practice, lacks concrete mandates.

This is exactly what I mean: if tasks are only initiated upon request from delegates, you’ll likely encounter friction and a lack of clarity regarding which tasks to execute. Perhaps it would be useful to predefine some tasks to get started.

Especially considering this point. It’s not clear when the OpCo should be involved and when it shouldn’t, leaving it up to the discretion of the delegates. Ideally, this should be more clearly defined, in my opinion, to prevent a repeat of what happened with the ARDC (which led the DAO Advocate to proactively make decisions on resource usage).

I’m still not entirely clear on this structure—I need to digest the proposal a bit more to fully understand the concept. On one hand, I find the idea of an entity dedicated to the project management of the DAO’s initiatives valuable; on the other hand, doesn’t adding another layer of control over ecosystem actors already fulfilling this role (e.g., SEED Gov) somewhat defeat the purpose?

If the idea is for the OpCo to be the PM and facilitator of initiatives, I think it should replace entities like SEED rather than simply oversee them (although SEED, for example, could later be contracted as a service provider to carry out specific tasks within the program).

This is good, but I’d frame it positively and clarify the requirements:

“The OpCo will only enter into legal agreements with service providers for strategies approved by the DAO, provided the following requirements (insert requirements) are met.”

Given the amounts requested, I think the KPIs need to be even more detailed. I’ll work on this over the next few days to try to propose some specific points.

I think incorporating the Oversight Committee is a great idea. My only comment pertains to the following:

I believe we should separate the individuals who will select such important roles as the exclusive-equivalents from those who will execute the oversight.

I propose that a committee be formed solely for the purpose of selecting those roles, which would then be replaced by the Oversight Committee. This way, you can ensure neutrality and independence.

I’m an IP lawyer, so I’m happy to help with any of the issues outlined here if needed.

Also, one area where the OpCO could also contribute is in the active management of the DAO’s IP. I can elaborate further on this point if needed.

Thank you very much for the proposal!

3 Likes