I want to try and give an answer because, even if i didn’t draft the proposal, I did spend a lot lot lot time to read it. And maybe my answer can help @Entropy have a perspective on how others are currently perceiving how this can go. So, feel free to correct me if this is not the right reading, in the and i am always only a cow.
I won’t necessarily go into numbers, if the brackets are right or wrong, but would like to add a perspective here.
If you want to specifically attract good personell, having salary based on geography is often time detrimental: will introduce internal differences for people having same tasks and scope. Means tha,t if you tune it down to salaries that are, in this case, not usa based, you will necessarily exclude this people.
Let me also extend this way of thinking to other initiatives we have in the dao
- we should pay delegates based on their activity, but normalized for the region of pronenance (which means, usa people would get up to 7k, eu people up to 5k, african people up to 1k for example)
- we should give grants to team based on the cost of labor of their team
etc.
In a post covid world, and in a crypto world, in which we all work outside timezones, outside barriers, and with (hopefully) a deliverable-set mindset and not an employee one, this way of thinking is not the way to setup for success.
I don’t think setting up a company with 4 employee, again, is for the best. As every company, the amount of work will grow over time, and so the need of personnel. Likely, there will be a natural growth based on this. But I really can’t imagine opco working with just 4 people.
in here we have 3M for up to 20. I also imagine this is for a 2 year mandate, so basically 1.5M for 20 people. Is not a huge amount considering the scope, and considering that people in opco won’t be able to partake in any other job or role either here in arbitrum or outside of it.
You are referring to this initiative i guess. This is extremely scoped: is an entity that will have the task to enter in legal agreements with lido’s partners. OpCo is, as the name suggests, something larger and more “operational” in scope. Again I am not discussing here specific numbers, I am just referecing what you posted. Is also worth mentioning that this lido example was previously linked by @Immutablelawyer above as an example of a different execution way, in which you have smaller subentities with extremely precise tasks. For this reason I don’t honestly see your example applying here.
from what I read, the DAO can either specifically task the opco to execute on an “idea”, or have the delegates/contributors create an initiative and, eventually, have the opco interact with this initiative by for example hiring that very contributor or others. I don’t see the path you are saying in which the combo of entropy + opco will be a capture all. That said, yes we are introducing centralization in arbitrum with this company, and yes likely, if the opco is succesfull, we will have more initiative being created by the opco itself. Will that mean that the dao has no say on this, or that the dao has no power on creation of new initiative? I don’t think so. I just think we will raise the bar in quality terms. This, to me, is a very good outcome.
The main issue is that in most activity there has to a compliance and legal evaluation of course of action, both referred to the entity itself, to the specific situation of contributors and to arbitrum. The political landscape should likely become more permissive and clearer, but not all the clouds have been blown away.
Mine is an educated guess here: you want an odd number so if there is an internal vote it doesn’t stall; and likely 3 people are not enough to have broad oversight. This is not only due to the amount of work, but to the fact you want real oversight, and 3 persons means you effectively need to poach, if you want to act in a malicious way, only 2 (well, likely you need to poach all the 3 to be honest). But this is just a guess on my side.