I was having a look through the documents and noticed a number of areas for improvement. Unfortunately, the deadline doesn’t leave enough time to do a deep dive (although these documents could do with a decent scrub as there is a lot of subtlety involved when “converting” standard corp docs into forms that are suitable for DAOs). I’ve been drafting documents in the technology and Web3 space for a very, very long time so there were also some obvious things that jumped out at me which I’ve flagged in the comments, particularly in relation to the inconsistencies across the documents and lack of important definitions.
The DAO won’t have many chances to get the Foundation documents adjusted once they are approved by the board and given that the documents are already being updated, I thought it might be helpful to address several governance concerns raised by the community. I think there is some benefit in looking at how Maker DAO went about their Foundation corporate documents as they were expertly handled at the time.
My updated versions were converted to Word and have been uploaded to Github. It’s not great for collaboration but I’ll let the team take back document control from here.
There would be a bit of work to get these into a state I’d accept for a DAO and some open questions to answer regarding the legal status of Security Council members who, to my mind, take on greater exposure than the board of the Foundation and receive no protection whatsoever from the Foundation or the DAO.
As I’m a lawyer practising in this space, I have to mention that my comments and edits are subject to the usual legal disclaimers.
I’m sure the Arbitrum team has capable lawyers to make the necessary changes but feel free to contact me if further clarification is required.