We support the overall direction of the initiative and greatly appreciate the effort, as well as the articulate and well-thought-out proposal by @Entropy. We recognize the value of an OpCo or its equivalent, as highlighted by @WintermuteGovernance. Our experience with dYdX governance reinforces our belief that such structures are critical and practical solutions for maturing DAOs with a broad base of stakeholders and delegates, like Arbitrum.
However, we also have concerns regarding the size and budget of The OAT. While the OAT has hiring as its important task in the beginning, its key mandate should focus on observing and overseeing OpCo’s activities. In this context, having five members seems excessive. Additionally, bonus compensation should be outcome-based rather than granted simply for remaining in their positions.
Creating this DAO-adjacent entity does pose a couple of questions, especially along the lines of centralization. However, we believe the potential is worth the risk so we were supportive of the initiative.
This proposal passed the Snapshot voting stage last week, with ~81% of the total ~162M cast votes being FOR. That said, considering the proposal’s potential major impact on the ecosystem, we believe there are still too many unaddressed concerns from delegates for us to move forward with the process.
As such, we are modifying the order of the next steps (reflected in the newest version of the proposal under the Timeline section) as follows:
Host a community call following the end of the DAO’s Holiday Break to answer any open questions and enable us to implement the final round of edits while accounting for everyone’s opinions
Following the final round of edits, the proposal will move to the onchain voting phase
Only once the proposal has passed Tally will the application period for the OAT be initiated
Voted FOR, since I am supportive of this idea. Having an formal entity and people directly working on it will make processes go faster and in turn enable faster innovation, which is needed to attract even more talent and remove organizational silos (one of the biggest pain points here right now, imo). I do believe the budget overall is very large, and there are multiple ways to optimize it, but having spending cap control and an independent committee helped address this concern. Excited for this phase in the DAO.
Here is the SimScore AI executive summary. The summary is based on the top 20 SimScore replies weighted by similarity.
Executive Summary: Evaluating the OpCo Proposal for the Arbitrum DAO
The OpCo proposal has elicited a broad spectrum of feedback, reflecting diverse perspectives on its potential impact on the Arbitrum DAO. The following summary is weighted by similarity scores, highlighting the most resonant opinions:
Key Supporting Themes
Strategic Alignment and Operational Efficiency
The highest-weighted feedback (54.3%) supports the notion that the DAO should focus on setting its vision, leaving execution to the OpCo, thus enhancing efficiency while maintaining clear accountability.
Many contributors (50.4%) see the proposal as a pathway to institutionalizing the DAO, providing a structured framework to coordinate initiatives, and enabling better alignment across the ecosystem.
Enhanced Execution Capabilities
Several respondents (47.3%, 42.1%) believe that OpCo offers the resources and expertise needed to simplify decision-making, optimize governance, and drive long-term growth. It is positioned as a critical enabler for executing DAO proposals more effectively.
Safeguards and Flexibility
Many stakeholders (45.2%, 43.2%) value the built-in mechanisms allowing the DAO to adjust or terminate OpCo’s operations, ensuring alignment with the DAO’s goals while mitigating risks of overreach.
The Oversight and Transparency Committee (OAT) is frequently mentioned (44.3%) as a key safeguard for ensuring accountability.
Centralization Concerns
Risks to Decentralized Ethos
A significant portion of respondents (45.8%, 42.9%) express concerns about potential centralization, which may conflict with the DAO’s values. These concerns are coupled with apprehensions about the proposed 22M ARB budget and the 30-month timeline.
Checks and Balances
Some contributors (37.3%) acknowledge these risks but believe the proposed safeguards, such as trial periods and governance oversight, are sufficient to mitigate them.
Divergent Opinions
Alternative Approaches
Opposing voices (36.3%, 41.5%) advocate for a more lean, passive, and cost-effective entity, suggesting shorter pilot phases to assess OpCo’s value before committing to a larger budget.
Budgetary Concerns
Cost-efficiency is a recurring theme, with suggestions to balance decentralization and operational needs without excessive expenditure.
Actionable Insights
Refining Scope and Objectives
Several voices (42.5%, 39.4%) highlight the need to define specific tasks and objectives for OpCo during its initial phases, particularly in areas like managing intellectual property and legal liabilities.
Trial Periods and Iterative Feedback
Implementing a phased, pilot-based approach could address many concerns by allowing the DAO to assess OpCo’s performance and adaptability before full-scale implementation.
Stakeholder Engagement
Clear communication and collaboration with stakeholders will be critical in addressing concerns, ensuring alignment, and fostering broader support for the initiative.
Conclusion
While the OpCo proposal presents significant opportunities for enhancing the Arbitrum DAO’s governance and execution, it also raises valid concerns about centralization and cost. The prevailing sentiment is cautiously optimistic, with strong support for the proposal’s potential benefits, contingent upon robust safeguards and iterative development. A phased approach, clear accountability mechanisms, and ongoing dialogue will be essential to successfully implement this transformative initiative.
