I’m stepping into the conversation just now, but I’d like to share my thoughts on this before it moves on to Snapshot. First, I’m really excited about this proposal. I think it can really make a difference in defining an efficient strategy, allowing the DAO to make efforts in the right direction.
I echo some concerns that have already been mentioned by other delegates by highlighting the potential consequences linked to the deployment of the funds in terms of price fluctuations.
Apart from this, I feel like the major debate is around defining a perimeter in which the OpCo can act. IMO, it’s always hard to find a balance between giving flexibility and autonomy and still keeping everything decentralized. I think that clear boundaries have to be defined - I don’t know if prior to moving to the following steps or during the process according to the specific context. Giving autonomy is a good thing just at one condition: if transparency is guaranteed. I personally think that the balance can be found by working hand-in-hand towards the common goal. If flexibility is given, transparency reports have to be constant in order for the DAO to keep track of its performances and activities. Plus, as a general norm, feedbacks should be integrated into the workflow, and veto power should always be an option if the OpCo risks moving too far from the DAO’s interest. I honestly think that on an ‘institutional’ point of view, the existence of the OAT can exactly provide this balance between autonomy and overview. But on the practical side of things, I believe that we still have to define some boundaries.