The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas. It’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We’re voting FOR the proposal, following our support during the temp-check. We didn’t post our rationale back during the Snapshot vote, so we’ll explain our train of thought and decision-making process for both votes in this reply.
Ever since the idea of an OpCo was first discussed following DK’s post (linked in the original proposal), we saw and understood the need for the entity described. To outside participants, Arbitrum DAO might seem like a hive buzzing with energy, with contributors carrying out different initiatives. However, To insiders, the operational gaps are apparent and have been for months.
As things are right now, and if we want to be objective, the DAO isn’t a great partner to work with. Even the smallest proposal must overcome many hurdles to pass, and that’s a deterrent for many projects wishing to collaborate with or work for the DAO.
While the OpCo won’t necessarily be the solution to all the operational problems, it definitely has the potential to be. But with that potential comes risk: failure, centralization, overspending, etc.
Internally, we discussed and assessed the proposal based on our understanding and vision of what the OpCo can be, and, given we’re no seers, not of how it will actually work. That’s important to clarify, as the practical implementation of how the OpCo operates within a DAO is somewhat subjective and not necessarily analogous to operational companies as understood in more traditional industries.
The team behind the OpCo, from the Chief Chaos Officer down to the last employee, will play a central role in how the entity operates. Unless those individuals are fully aligned with the DAO and Arbitrum, we probably won’t see OpCo having the desired impact. Working for the DAO’s OpCo should expand beyond the scope of the job description in terms of responsibility for carrying out the tasks. In essence, and akin to a startup, the premise of success lies with the people rather than with the structure of the entity itself.
Given that, the two questions that we asked ourselves were:
- Do we currently have people within the DAO who could staff the OpCo who already have the relevant skills, experience, and context?
- If yes, then we should focus our efforts on figuring out the structure and specifics to enable those people to work.
- If not, then:
- Do we have the means of hiring and ‘onboarding’ the right talent to the OpCo without making the entity’s success a long shot?
For the second question, we expect Entropy and the Arbitrum Foundation to step in and help source the right people. Since the newly formed and DAO-elected OAT will hire for the executive-level positions, we want to ensure that they will have access to a solid pipeline of candidates.
Overall, we expect that attracting and hiring the right talent will be one of the biggest challenges we’ll need to overcome to make OpCo work effectively. The OpCo and its employees need to make the whole thing work in a DAO setting and not have the entity work as a hub of the top delegates.
The OAT, specifically the people who compose it, will be pivotal in the success or failure of the whole endeavor. They need to ensure that they hire the right people and that the OpCo is executing for the benefit of the DAO and not for the benefit of its own existence.
To summarize, we believe that the OpCo will be a proving ground for the DAO. The structure itself is something that can be tweaked, but the whole initiative will, at least at first, heavily rely on the people who make up the OAT and the OpCo itself. We cannot stress enough how important it is for the DAO to figure out how to make this whole thing work.