Ok, I get your point and i understand what you are trying to say, but this brings on my mind a another question, How big or how small should the size of the proposal be in (ARB) in order to be fair and maintain a decentralized entities proposal, or commit to a decentralized protocols. Cuz i mean… are we ever gonna ever archive that? I mean, thats what we are trying to do. Am i wrong?
inter-delegate Discussions like this could also be carried over DMs or telegram, but I do want to state that we have no issue with large sized proposals at all - if there is a track record.
in this case the proposal is of a large size for a new organization which is unproven. the issue with the proposal in terms of budget is not purely the budget but that it is a very large ask for a new experimental initiative, not that it is a large ask. Should have been more clear about this in our rationale.
1 Like
We are aware that contributors in the ArbitrumDAO are asking what is the Arbitrum Foundation’s opinion on the proposal and whether we can take on and/or already take on the work that is proposed for OpCo.
Since the birth of the DAO (~20 months ago), we have focused on helping contributors form their own collective identity and enabling contributors to truly have autonomy when executing with their proposals. We have provided ops-related support to help facilitate proposals (i.e. KYC/compliance, investigating misuse of funds, custodying of funds for certain initiatives, serving as the counter party in liaising with service providers, etc.), but it has been narrow in scope.
It is in the realm of possibility for the Arbitrum Foundation to take on additional ops-related work like project management of proposals, but, in our opinion, it is not the best path forward.
With the OpCo, or perhaps another proposal, the ArbitrumDAO has a unique opportunity to stand up on its own two feet, form its own organisational structure, and truly form its own collective of contributors. This is only possible because the ArbitrumDAO has many independent contributors with the willingness to do so.
The OpCo has been in discussion for several months and to date it is the most viable proposal we have seen that enables the ArbitrumDAO to execute on its proposals faster and in a more efficient manner. If done properly, OpCo can become a key component of the DAO’s operations, offering the resources and expertise needed to simplify decision making, improve execution, optimize governance operations, and drive long-term growth and success for the ecosystem.
Of course, while the OpCo may support the DAO’s initiatives, the DAO should remain the ultimate decision maker over the DAO treasury and it should still have the freedom to spin up other initiatives (with or without the support of the OpCo) as it sees fit.
2 Likes
I vote AGAINST this proposal. While I think having a legal entity is beneficial, I think it should (at least initially) be a more passive and lean entity, used only when there’s a need for it. Cutting costs is harder than adding costs, so I think OpCo should start as lean as possible, and with the shorter initial (pilot) phase which could later be extended with a new proposal.
2 Likes
Thank you for your opinion Foundation. This is what a lot of people asked, both here and in the delegates’ chat: is the Foundation capable and willing to take on more tasks such as the ones proposed by the OpCo? Here we have an answer. Not only we have an answer, but we also have a Foundation that sees is as a key initiative if properly executed.
One of the reason i voted in favour of this proposal is exactly for this reason: we have a dao that is big enough to be capable to spin up this initiative (and that likely needs one or more initiative like this), and is at the time as big and as populated that won’t kill bottom up initiatives as we know them.
And this is the other reason why I think is fine to vote for it. With the OAT and the capabilities of the DAO to claw back funds, we still retain the ability to call a day to the initiative if it is needed.
Remember, we always have the DAO Constitution (to which we should honestly refer more) that establishes the rights of every contributor and the community values for which the DAO is among others […] Sustainable, […] Socially inclusive, […] User-focused and Neutral and open.
I am here reiterating the support for this initiative, despite having published the vote rationale, because I am confident that we will respect all of above going forward, with or without the OpCo.
3 Likes
After careful consideration and deliberation, we have update our stance and decided to vote FOR this proposal at Snapshot.
We would like to thank @Entropy for their continued hard work and efforts in driving this (and other) initiative(s), and in explaining the nuances of such a complex proposal to alleviate our concerns.
We’re voting FOR the OpCo proposal. Here’s why:
The DAO’s current operational model is clearly broken. We have fragmented initiatives, unclear ownership, and massive friction in executing strategies. As @JoJo pointed out, we lack proper accountability structures and compensation frameworks that would favor actual responsibility.
The 34M ARB allocation, while significant, represents investment in critical infrastructure. @JoJo makes a compelling case for the 30-month timeline - anything shorter would waste setup costs and prevent us from seeing real impact. New personnel need time to understand DAO mechanics, build relationships, and create synergies.
The proposal includes key safeguards:
- OAT oversight structure
- Staged funding releases
- Clear DAO override capabilities
- Transparent reporting requirements
Yes, there are centralization risks. But as several delegates noted, the DAO maintains ultimate authority. The alternative - continuing with our current fragmented operations - presents a greater risk to Arbitrum’s long-term success.
Question: Can the monthly drawdown caps (500K standard, 1.5M with DAO approval) be adjusted dynamically based on OpCo’s demonstrated efficiency and market conditions?
1 Like
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Rationale
We believe our initial doubts and concerns have been adequately addressed by Entropy, and we commend the team’s willingness to incorporate feedback from most delegates—including some of our suggestions, such as increasing the compensation for members of the OAT Committee.
Overall, we feel strongly aligned with the OpCo proposal. As Service Providers for the DAO, we understand the operational advantages it can bring. Today, compliance processes and agreement drafting rely almost entirely on the AF, with only a few exceptions. While we value the Foundation’s efforts, it is crucial for the DAO to be truly autonomous—otherwise, the “A” in its name would hold little meaning.
It is also important to note that most current programs lack well-documented frameworks, making transitions to new Service Providers particularly challenging.
There are only two areas that remain a source of “concern” for us:
1. OAT and Decision-Making:
Initially, we were concerned that the OpCo might “capture” delegates with the highest VP, leading to centralized decision-making within the DAO. However, considering that the OAT Committee can only include individuals with no economic ties to the DAO (or those willing to forgo such ties), it is now difficult to envision who might fill these roles. The requirement for alignment with the ecosystem, relevant context, and the expertise needed for such a demanding task further complicates this.
2. Proposed Salary Ranges:
While we understand that the proposed salary ranges are merely illustrative and not final figures—and that the proposer’s intention is to empower the OpCo to negotiate and attract top talent—we want to stress that the salaries for the Chief of Chaos and Chief of Coins could be lower. For reference, the median salary for a COO in the United States is approximately $500,000 (base compensation).
In this regard, we trust that the future OAT Committee will prioritize austerity wherever possible, as this sets a critical precedent when negotiating compensation with the broader team and various Service Providers.
2 Likes
As expressed on community calls, in the forum, and with Entropy, Gauntlet favors the OpCo entity. Entropy has done great work and incorporated stakeholder feedback, to compile a
massive proposal with OpCo. We view this temperature check as a critical momentum vote to keep progress moving on the proposal’s development. However, we have expressed concerns about outlining the specific tasks and objectives the OpCo needs to achieve in its first six months.
As such, we will abstain from this proposal to express our support for its momentum and direction, pending future changes. Gauntlet looks forward to the appropriate changes to support OpCo with the highest chance of success. In this regard, we believe the DAO should measure twice and cut once.
3 Likes
We are supportive of the OpCo at the TEMP CHECK stage, however, we do share some concerns about various aspects of the proposal that we would like to see discussed and potentially changed prior to the onchain vote.
Firstly, having something like the OpCo is extremely valuable for most DAOs and similar setups are prevalent amongst some of the largest DAOs in the space. We’ve had first-hand experience with setting something similar up for dYdX (dYdX Ops subDAO), which enabled the DAO to hire contractors, set up bank accounts, work with service providers, and set up key vital infrastructure for the launch of dYdX V4. Without a legal entity, this would’ve been a nightmare and simply impossible. Concretely, the OpCo will unlock functionality for the DAO while making the DAO more accessible to less-crypto native individuals and companies.
However, we have some concerns with this structure, which is rather expensive and there isn’t a clearly defined scope and set of deliverables which could easily lead to unnecessary expenditure and bloat. We’d much prefer to have a leaner structure with a clear set of objectives that expands over time as the DAO seeks the legal structure to operate necessary initiatives.
We are also quite against the size of the OAT and share similar concerns to others about there being a large overlap in responsibilities between OAT members and OpCo employees. In our opinion, the OAT should serve as ‘observers’ or ‘enforcers’ (if we draw comparison to the dYdX Ops subDAO) to ensure that there is no miss appropriation of funds and that internal initiatives are done in line with the OpCo’s mandate. This can be achieved quite easily with 2 members. There are clear redundancies and overlaps in having 5 OAT members especially when the OpCo has a budget for yearly audits and is required to maintain high transparency. Lastly, we are unsure that OAT members should receive bonuses and struggle to understand the justification for it.
3 Likes
voting Against the current offchain proposal because I believe we should experiment with this setup in a much smaller amount at first, otherwise we are setting this up for failure.
7 Likes
I also bought the 804.770,97 ARB of voting power available in lobbyfi.xyz to vote Against in this offchain proposal Arbitrum One Transaction Hash (Txhash) Details | Arbitrum One
5 Likes
We appreciate the effort behind the OpCo proposal, but we will vote against it. As other delegates have noted, OpCo introduces centralization risks by concentrating power and creating a potential gatekeeper, which conflicts with the DAO’s decentralized ethos. The proposed budget of 22M ARB is also significant, and while this is one potential solution, we would prefer to see an approach that better balances decentralization without granting excessive power to a single entity.
4 Likes
Confirming @paulofonseca has acquired our voting power.
We voted Against the proposal with 804.770,97 ARB since the voting power has been trustlessly acquired on lobbyfi.xyz.
2 Likes
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot voting.
As mentioned by the foundation, we echo that OpCo can become a key component to ease the DAO’s operations. Additionally, the strategic management and operational capabilities that OpCo brings could significantly enhance how we prioritize and deploy new initiatives and projects, making our ecosystem more robust and dynamic.
We agree with @JoJo’s point that this is worth experimenting with initially. Should anything not go as planned (fingers crossed it doesn’t), we maintain the ability to discontinue the initiative.
To conclude, we place our faith in the proposal creators and trust that this structure will avoid centralizing power, thus preserving the decentralized future of Arbitrum. We support this initiative for the significant positive impact it promises to bring.
Voted For: I think I haven’t spent more time on a proposal than on this one. When I first went through a proposal, my opinion was that we were voting on centralizing our DAO, that the budget was way too big, and that the duration was too long (30 months). There are so many ways that this can play out, and many of them can be harmful to Arbitrum DAO.
We opened so many questions and issues and they were addressed. Arbitrum Foundation’s post and fellow delegates raised some good points about why OpCo could become such a competitive advantage in the future that it might be worth trying it out. Great to see OAT serving as an off-switch here. I hope this is enough. We need more control as a DAO here.
I decided to vote For because I believe having a positive mindset in this space is better. We can do so much with a well-structured and managed OpCo here to make Arbitrum the leader in this space. Responsibility is super big, and I just hope Entropy can deliver.
I vote in favor of this proposal. I believe that creating a structure of this kind, with sufficient checks and balances and the possibility of effective oversight by the DAO, is the right way to properly balance decentralization with efficiency and the execution of initiatives.
I am very pleased with @Entropy 's work on designing this proposal and with how they adapted it based on delegate feedback. Thank you very much for that.
My concerns have been addressed, and I eagerly look forward to seeing how it is executed.
In particular, I support these principles and believe they represent the right approach for the efficient execution of proposals:
The key lies in filling the operational gap and properly coordinating all the DAO’s initiatives.
Lastly, I find this crucial, as without clear KPIs, there is a risk of lacking a sufficiently defined mandate and the DAO not fully understanding what to expect.
Thank you very much for all the hard work!
Gm, first I want to say that I was happy to see so much involvement around this proposal. It wasn’t easy to make a decision since this proposal was really polarizing, but after carefully reviewing both pros and cons and closely following the discussions, I’ve eventually decided to support it.
The main concern revolves around potential centralization and its impact on our decentralized ethos. While I recognize this as a valid point, I also think that this initiative is worth experimenting with. I believe that the prospective benefits in terms of operational efficiency and strategic execution outweigh these risks. It’s important to remember that this proposal includes safeguards against overreach, and if the OpCo risks moving too far from the DAO’s interests, we can halt its execution after the trial period. The risk is present, but I believe we have sufficient monitoring mechanisms in place to mitigate it.
While the centralization risks should not be dismissed, I see this as a valuable opportunity for our DAO to evolve and potentially enhance its effectiveness. This is why I support the initiative.
2 Likes
gm, I just voted FOR the proposal.
I don’t have further comments to contribute to the discussion, but find myself very aligned with the positive perspective of @WinVerse (“The potential is worth the risk”), and some of the concerns raised by @CastleCapital, which I would love to see addressed in the final form on Tally.
Excited to see a DAO that can move fast and effectively. Kudos to @Entropy and everyone who collaborated for this monumental effort.
1 Like