Already gave plenty of feedbacks, here, here and here, plus some more scattered. And in general, as a judgment on specific topic, have engaged in this interesting convo.
To me situation is relative straight forward:
- we need a legal entity that is controlled by the DAO. If we want to hire people, agencies etc is the only way to do it. And I think we need to upscale some operations in tandem with other initiatives, that will require an operative arm such the OpCo.
- we need an entity that is “empowered” to carry the mission. Here empowered, very abused word nowadays, means several things: enough financial capital to operate, a mandate that is both precise but also loose enough that the DAO can tap into it, and obviously the right head
- as for any venture in any work environment, is mostly about the people. We will need the right people to run it, we will need the right head, proactive, capable to propose a vision compatible with our needs, and a set of people around it capable to implement this vision. This will likely mean a mix of people outside of the dao, and potentially inside the arbitrum ecosystem (not necessarily the dao).
The points above to me are first, compatible with what most has judged as a too long of a mandate. De facto of the 30 months, we can consider the first 6 months burned between setting up the entity, source the ceo (and possibly the cfo), find the oat, negotiate first 2 salaries, get the operations up and running with a first few sets of people being the operational people alongside the 2 c-suite. Even just writing this down, 6 months could be optimistic considering the summer in between.
That’s why 30 months is the bare minimum here.
On the capital, as stated previously, I prefer the OpCo having more than it needs and eventually give it back then the opposite situation; if I read the prospect above with the people + salaries, the 22M arb is compatible with a full fledged org, with again no obligation to spend it all (and here, spend = overhire = controlled by oats).
I also think that salaries proposed are not that out of the world: remember, anybody in there won’t be able to partake in any other initiative in this dao, or others dao, or protocols. This is quite big: the opportunities in the crypto space are quite abundant, having this exclusivity does bear a premium; and the bonus is necessary to align performances (otherwise you risk people doing the bare minimum, and we don’t even want to have to tackle a situation like this, we want people that grind everyday).
The main risk of this proposal is finding the right CEO, this was discussed already, and will be one of the most important key success factor.
Not only i am voting in favor, I vote in favor with the hope that scope will be expanded by the dao overtime.