LobbyFi voted Against this proposal for the reason mentioned in the rationale on making the VP available above: since the voting power was not acquired, the Against vote was cast just as it was pre-programmed for proposals where the auction is not made available.
1 Like
We voted AGAINST as we do not believe this level of spend is necessary to achieve the objectives. We believe that spending by Arbitrum DAO has become excessive and further initiatives involving large spend should be frozen until a cleanup has taken place.
2 Likes
gm!
Now that the OpCo has been approved, would it make sense to wait before moving forward with nominations and elections until the discussion on the DAO’s strategic objectives is concluded? The discussion on short- and medium-term objectives should impact the profiles being nominated and voted on by the DAO for the OAT. Just a friendly suggestion
2 Likes
This proposal successfully passed the onchain voting stage last week, and we would like to share a few updates to provide transparency and clarity to the community.
First and foremost, we want to emphasize Entropy’s commitment to advancing OpCo and putting every ounce of our ability into ensuring its success despite our no vote due to the recent changes within the DAO. We are closely collaborating with the Arbitrum Foundation to ensure the setup and election processes run smoothly.
We still believe it is extremely important to add further scope to OpCo’s mandate, which we are currently working on with several parties. That said, there is no reason that these activities can’t be done in tandem.
The plan is to initiate the Oversight and Transparency Committee Application & Nomination period on Monday, February 24th. Entropy will post the process documents and application form this week to get the ball rolling.
2 Likes
@pedrob our opinion is that OAT members should have diverse expertise such that they can generally oversee/advise the entity no matter what objectives the DAO chooses/how the entity’s mandate solidifies. An OAT that is extremely specialised on current objectives could be counterproductive, given that the DAO can vote to change its objectives at any time, and these don’t necessarily have to be similar in any way to the previous ones.
1 Like
The Arbitrum Foundation will oversee all aspects of the OpCo’s setup, including (non-exhaustive):
- Finalizing OpCo’s legal structure,
- Facilitating the OAT elections with targeted candidate outreach,
- Onboarding the OAT while establishing foundational processes, and
- Driving the retained search process for executive level roles for the OpCo
Although Entropy Advisors voted AGAINST the proposal, they have committed to its execution as per their comment above, particularly in overseeing OAT elections and assisting us with implementing governance structures that enable effective oversight. The Arbitrum Foundation will be supported by Entropy Advisors on these efforts, ensuring proper hiring, termination, and authorization processes, and maintaining transparent coordination with the DAO and other key stakeholders. In addition, the AF will also be very involved in designing relevant KPIs.
We will work with Entropy Advisors in setting up the entity and its processes to ensure the OAT and OpCo team is positioned to uphold accountability by monitoring OpCo’s mandate, financial oversight, and execution of DAO-approved strategies.
3 Likes
@Juanrah Hi all, on a recent call, Juan suggested I run a simscore study on this opco proposal decision process. I created it for him and I recently got feedback.
Here is the SimScore Study - Arb opco proposal
1 Like
errr… I got a bit confused by these 2 comments to be honest.
so, if we would only have to choose one entity, that the delegates should look up to as the entity that will be responsible for the OpCo proposal execution, is it @Entropy or the @Arbitrum Foundation?
2 Likes
I voted FOR to this proposal in Tally. This is the Rationale:
1 Like