I like the idea of a coalition as it can accelerate the DAO over the next 12 months and help stir delegates in the right direction by providing valuable feedback and analysis. However, I have concerns regarding the centralization of vendors, pricing, and the need for clear Coalition KPIs goals. Concerning centralization, multiple vendors should be considered for each vertical.
For example, Chaos Labs is a leader in the risk space as well and already works with many Arbitrum protocols and applications. Similarly, I do believe we can find another research firm that could provide hourly costs and share the workload together with BWR. This is a big financial commitment for the DAO and can be impactful. A more thorough diligence process will result in better service packaging at a more competitive price point for the Arbitrum community. With multiple vendors competing, we will get more diverse feedback and more than one perspective / opinions on specific deliverables. I’ve reached out to Chaos Labs to provide hourly costs on contributing to Coalition efforts. Last thing our ecosystem needs is to become laughingstock on CT by the way we handle vendors procurement.
In terms of length of commitment I believe we shouldn’t commit to anything longer than 6 months. I understand this proposal was a direct reaction to overwhelming workload that delegates were put through during STIP 1 however I believe in the next 6 months a lot of processes that are being put in place will diminish the need for coalition services over time.
Coaltion Proposal CT reference links: