# OpCo – A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution

**URL:** <https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/opco-a-dao-adjacent-entity-for-strategy-execution/27361>\
**Category:** Finalized AIPs\
**Created:** [October 30, 2024, 9:23pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/opco-a-dao-adjacent-entity-for-strategy-execution/27361 "2024-10-30T21:23:24Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 14

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Argonaut](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/argonaut/32/11832_2.png) [@Argonaut](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Argonaut)\
**Post date:** [November 4, 2024, 2:51am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/opco-a-dao-adjacent-entity-for-strategy-execution/27361/14 "2024-11-04T02:51:49Z")

</div>

We appreciate this OpCo tool finally being pushed forward since counting on a legal entity is quite valuable for the DAO and something we consider should have been part of the DAO for a while as to prevent us all from legal issues tha may arise. We like to see that the OpCo also intends to fill gaps after proposals are passed and executed, nevertheless we have certain reservations about what it seems to be a centralization of proposals if they fall under an OpCo’s mandate scope (Financial Management and Ecosystem Support). We see some other delegates have also shared this concern and so we line-up with them to manifest our preoccupation about this.

It is true that the structure Arbitrum DAO currently has leads to so much friction and this needs to be addressed, yet we believe that we should avoid centralization when it comes to proposal of this kind. We do recognize the OpCo comes to help and facilitate the solving of these issues, but under the new structure we see a potential centralization that at least every single proposal that has to fall under OpCo’s scope should have OpCo’s members in between the proposer and the proposal itself. That’s why we would like to know if the incorporation of Opco will be mandatory in all the processes mentioned, or if it could be optional?

On the other hand, , should’n we consider some kind of pilot before starting with this program for a total amount of 30 months? We know it’s been stated that 6 months will be for the setup and the next 24 for operations from the entity, but most of what we see here is an oficial launching for something that haven’t been tested yet and considering everything that implies and the funds it requires, Maybe 1 year which is not a long period of time but it is also not a short period as well, and 6 months for setting up while the next 6 for operations and then and only then if the OpCo demonstrates that it is really useful then require for an extension up to 20 more months

> [@Larva](#):
>
> My only concern is that 34M ARB is not a small amount—even unlocking just 10M initially could create significant selling pressure in today’s low-liquidity market. Ethereum Foundation has faced heavy criticism for continuous ETH sales, even in smaller amounts, which have still impacted the market. I believe it’s essential to consider ARB’s liquidity and potential price fluctuations before deploying these funds; otherwise, ARB holders may end up suffering the most.

Finally, we share @Larva 's concerns about this specific part of the proposal: How do we know that making a movement of this kind will not generate a fluctuation of the ARB token when it occurs?

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/opco-a-dao-adjacent-entity-for-strategy-execution/27361)._