# Proposal \[Non-Constitutional\]: Set up a Sub-Committee for the Security Services Subsidy Fund

**URL:** <https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-set-up-a-sub-committee-for-the-security-services-subsidy-fund/23766>\
**Category:** Archived Proposals\
**Created:** [May 13, 2024, 10:03am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-set-up-a-sub-committee-for-the-security-services-subsidy-fund/23766 "2024-05-13T10:03:02Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 12

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BlockworksResearch](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/blockworksresearch/32/14962_2.png) [@BlockworksResearch](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/BlockworksResearch)\
**Post date:** [June 4, 2024, 6:28pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-set-up-a-sub-committee-for-the-security-services-subsidy-fund/23766/12 "2024-06-04T18:28:50Z")

</div>

Blockworks Research will be voting _ **FOR** _ this proposal on Snapshot.

We recognize that the concerns raised by other community members in the previous comments are extremely valid, and we have no doubt that the ADPC has the necessary understanding to manage a subsidy fund. Having said that, we think it’s important that the ADPC maintains its capacity to fully focus on its original mandate, as having a robust foundational procurement structure set in place will likely be a notable value-add for the DAO in the long run.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-non-constitutional-set-up-a-sub-committee-for-the-security-services-subsidy-fund/23766)._