I want to say I trust all the teams involved in this RFP, rockstar teams with more than enough reputation at risk. And I greatly appreciate the effort it takes to engage in these discussions on the forum, it’s a lot of work, and you are doing a fantastic job.
However, I don’t think this structure benefits Arbitrum, I would much rather see you partner with the groups proposing to offer them these services directly, and become integrated into their proposals as needed, as opposed to having a retainer.
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 hope this doesn’t dissuade you from continuing to participate in ARB governance and the ARB ecosystem, instead I hope you can respond like Camelot did when their proposal was denied, which resulted in STIP.
Can’t wait to see what you come up with, there is a lot of opportunity here.