Thank you for the effort that @Entropy and the team put into answering questions, adjusting budgets, and providing a brief summary of the progress in the governance call. I would also like to thank @Maets23 for presenting us with the most relevant information and with the most discussion in SimScore Notion – The all-in-one workspace for your notes, tasks, wikis, and databases., it is undoubtedly a very useful tool for identifying the most relevant aspects of the proposals.
I have decided to vote against this proposal on Snapshot for the following reasons:
Complexity of governance:
While the participation of new users in the forum has been increasing, the attendance of new users in the call has also increased by 15% each month, which tells us about a scenario with a greater number of requests (proposals) that strengthen the DAO. The importance of an entity like OpCo for project management will be necessary but not at this time. Centralizing the entity can lend itself to favoritism regarding who obtains new contracts and which projects are given more focus.
Budgetary transparency:
I understand that the budget mentioned is an approximation of the estimate based on the number of staff who will be supporting this initiative from the start. However, not knowing the authors who are going to carry out the activities raises doubts about whether these people are sufficiently qualified to perform in their area. It is also mentioned that there will be a variation in salaries if there is compliance with indicators, but these indicators have not yet been mentioned or detailed for either OpCo or OAT.
I consider it to be a well-intentioned proposal and that what is sought is order, support, and to make the most of the team’s expertise to continue building on Arbitrum. I believe that operations could be sought that do not necessarily have to be centralized, but rather audited by entities with a proven track record of teamwork.
I look forward to the modifications that this proposal will make before moving on to Tally for voting.