# OpCo – Oversight and Transparency Committee (OAT) Elections **URL:** \ **Category:** Operation Company (OpCo)\ **Created:** [March 27, 2025, 7:46pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/opco-oversight-and-transparency-committee-oat-elections/28867 "2025-03-27T19:46:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 29
**Author:** ![CastleCapital](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/castlecapital/32/16535_2.png) [@CastleCapital](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/CastleCapital)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2025, 2:22pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/opco-oversight-and-transparency-committee-oat-elections/28867/29 "2025-04-02T14:22:09Z")
The election of the OAT is one we have pondered for some time. It was honestly a difficult decision for us to make but we agree with @JoJo on the points he’s raised. > [@JoJo](#): > > In electing OAT members, we have to rely not only in the public figure reputation, skillset, specific knowledge, past but in the trust we can put in whoever is going to be elected. The people in there will be entrusted in choose the right persons to start this company, on behalf of the DAO and in the best interest of the DAO. > > Implicitely, this suggest to me that > > 1. is going to be hard to vote for people that have never had prominent roles or presence in our DAO: **trust can’t be build in a single day** > 2. is going to be hard to vote for people who have, involuntarily or voluntarily, harmed the DAO or the DAO reputation outside our (rather small) circle: I personally can’t trust the OAT candidates who have, in past, **created situations harmful for the DAO/AF/OCL operations without first doing as much as they could to reach out interested parties**. This is not about having/not having the same opinions, is about a course of action in what you do that is responsible toward not only people and operations, but also the perception about Arbitrum, especially perception from outside, that we collectively need to defend > 3. is going to be hard to vote for people that have a very good professional track record, but no strong reference and presence inside our world: Arbitrum is an ecosystem, a very complex one, and there is a fallacy in thinking that **the same approach straight out of the box that has ensured success in a somehow smaller environment can also solve the problems we have here**. I am talking about not only strategy, but also communication, approach, even philosophy, and all the characteristics that define a person in his attitude toward a working mission. Our initial preference was for the following 4 candidates: - @ajwarner90 - @pedrob - @Frisson - @stonecoldpat However, taking into consideration that we’re not a large delegate, we’ve decided to take a slightly unorthodox approach. We took the strong assumption that AJ should and would be successfully voted in and that regardless of Pat’s success, the AF would have an observer seat. Therefore, the line of thinking in our decision-making was solving the following question. _ **Who is the one person we want to see aside AJ and the AF in the OAT?** _ This had to hold true regardless of the composition of the rest of the OAT, and someone we felt confident had the best interests of Arbitrum as a whole, and the DAO in particular, and who would not be afraid to challenge the status quo or stand up vocally for his opinions. **For this reason, we voted for @pedrob with 100% of our voting power.** --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/opco-oversight-and-transparency-committee-oat-elections/28867)._