Gm Entropy. That took a long time to read it all. Only started scratching the surface and likely will go over it again with new observations and questions.
This is one of the key reason why we need the OpCo
Solving ownership is definitely first step. Accountability is right after that, most of the time they match, but if and when they match I can tell that so far we haven’t build any structure (including comp) that would favor proper accountability.
This is definitely the biggest risk of the OpCo: becoming an entity that just sucks everything internally. To me, the biggest work will be not to make it work, but to establish the right boundaries for it to not become the decision maker/executor in place of the DAO.
This will be quite tricky, initially, to evaluate from the DAO standpoint.
Could vote on the proposal just for this tbh
Now a few questions here
While you explain the why of this narrowed choice, i honestly see opco being able to help in other sectors as well. Do you think it would be possible to insert some degree of flexibility for which, if the dao really wants it, OpCo would be able to tap and help/manage specific initiatives outside the 2 categories above?
Does this mean that OpCo will be responsible for the overviewing of this contracted sp/individual? If not I might have missed the main value point of this, beside coordination.
All in all i think the proposal is well thought. I am unsure about the categorization of grants outside of ecosystem growth, would dare to say it could fall into it, but maybe is just semantic.
It poses, tho, the question: if the dao feels like this type of internalization is the way forward, for grants or other operation outside the opco structure, what would be the way forward? Enlarge this structure, or create a parallel one?
As said will come back again to all of this. For now thank you for tackling a topic that is not only needed but also complex to address, in a way that seems reasonable (defining a specific scope of operations).