The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
The protocols requesting a subsidy for their security audits will either be protocols that haven’t launched on Arbitrum yet or protocols that are looking to launch a new product on Arbitrum. So, in our eyes, the decisions whoever administers the subsidy fund has to make are mostly business development decisions rather than anything else.
With that in mind, the discussion quickly changes from a question of ‘who should be administering the fund’ to ‘what the people administering the fund do’. To administer the fund, you don’t really have to deeply understand the inner workings of each protocol that applies for a subsidy, but you do need to have an understanding of the broader Arbitrum ecosystem and strategy.
We believe that the ADPC has the necessary understanding to manage the subsidy fund, and we believe that they should. Introducing another subcommittee creates delays, adds overhead to the DAO in the form of elections, and complicates things further without providing a significant value-add.