Proposal [Non-Constitutional]: Establish the 'Arbitrum Research & Development Collective'

[Griff]

I don’t think this proposal is formatted in a way that makes sense for us. I cannot support this proposal.

As I said in the Arbitrum Coalition thread:

@Griff

Most importantly, the systemic risk that passing proposals like this could have, can’t be overstated. We should avoid hiring service providers with such a wide scope IMO. They will gain undue influence over the DAO, which is against the sprit of DAOs in general.

Service providers should have a much more narrow scope IMO. For instance, if you said you wanted to take on a budget of 100 M and build a STIP follow-up or something similar, with a very clear budget, and timeline for execution, I’m sure it would pass. Narrow scope, clear limits, GREAT. Large scope, vague limits, BAD.

I would love to see this crew tell the DAO that they will partner with teams to make their proposals more robust, and get payment on a project by project basis, or just take on complex proposals - like making the gas paid in ARB instead of ETH - and propose to be funded to do that!

But if you really want to be the default gate keeper of the DAO, the only way i could get behind it is if all the payments had a 5 year vesting requirement (or longer) and very minimal upfront payments. Then the incentive alignment makes sense. The broad powers you are asking are usually held by a foundation of sorts that has that type of incentive alignment, and there is a reason for that.