Thanks for your proposal! It is refreshing to see people trying to improve the DAO as a whole.
However, I have a few issues with the problme analysis and with the proposed solution.
The first one is about the cost. While the values are true, the reasoning seems not, IMO. First the overall value extrapollated to a yearly one. ONE program is responsible for HALF of the costs presented. The DAO evolved a lot on handling multisigs since the deployment of the STIP program, and the other ones following it proposed to pay a value way lower to the signers. And we take a program that ran for 3 months and multiply it by 4 to justify a high number.
In the current setup, we have 19 signers on multiple multisigs. While some are on more than one multisig, this is a way to promote more participation, and their “mandate” is short (only through the duration of the program). The proposed structure calls for 12 signers with an yearly mandate. This is concentration/centralization in a hand of a few, for a long period of time.
Now, if we see this as a problem (the cost of paying peolpe to sign transaction in a multisig), and we want an “execution layer” for the payments and other stuff related with it, IMO, it makes more sense to have this in a structure like the proposed OpCo, rather a standalone committee which responsability is to manage multisig transactions (and, ofc, all the reporting atttached to it),
My 2 cents on the matter.