# Should DAO Security Councils Include a Non-Technical Member Role? **URL:** \ **Category:** Early Idea Discussion\ **Created:** [May 12, 2026, 3:25am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/should-dao-security-councils-include-a-non-technical-member-role/30871 "2026-05-12T03:25:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![MconnectDAO](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/mconnectdao/32/16356_2.png) [@MconnectDAO](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/MconnectDAO)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2026, 3:25am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/should-dao-security-councils-include-a-non-technical-member-role/30871/1 "2026-05-12T03:25:33Z")
Hey Arbitrum community I’ve been researching DAO Security Council structures across major protocols and noticed a consistent gap **every Security Council is built entirely with technical members** , yet these bodies hold some of the most concentrated emergency power in Web3. This raises a genuine governance question: > _ **Is a council composed entirely of technical experts truly accountable to the community — or just to the codebase?** _ A few things I’m trying to understand before writing a full research piece: **Questions for the community:** 1. Should a non-technical governance-oriented member have any formal role in the Arbitrum Security Council? 2. If yes should that be a **voting seat** , an **observer role** , or a **post-incident transparency role**? 3. If no what existing mechanism ensures the Security Council explains its emergency actions to ARB token holders and the broader DAO ? I’m not arguing the Council needs to slow down during emergencies. I’m asking whether **accountability after the fact** is being designed for or just assumed. Would love perspectives from delegates, contributors, and anyone who has followed Arbitrum’s Security Council elections closely. 🔗 _Full research article_[Every DAO Security Council Has a Blind Spot And Nobody Is Fixing It](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/every-dao-security-council-has-blind-spot-nobody-fixing-desai-wdcyf) * * * _Thanks in advance this is an early discussion and I genuinely want community input before forming a final position._ ---
**Author:** ![TeragoneFactory](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e99b99/32.png) [@TeragoneFactory](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/TeragoneFactory)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2026, 7:39am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/should-dao-security-councils-include-a-non-technical-member-role/30871/2 "2026-05-15T07:39:58Z")
Security Councils probably shouldn’t become less technical. But as ecosystems grow, purely technical decision-making can also create blind spots around operational risk, governance coordination, ecosystem impact and crisis management. The challenge is likely not “technical vs non-technical”, but building councils with complementary expertise: - protocol security, - distributed systems, - operations, - governance, - risk management, - and ecosystem coordination. Especially for large L2 ecosystems where infrastructure, treasury governance and ecosystem dependencies are becoming increasingly interconnected. ---
**Author:** ![MconnectDAO](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/mconnectdao/32/16356_2.png) [@MconnectDAO](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/MconnectDAO)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2026, 2:19am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/should-dao-security-councils-include-a-non-technical-member-role/30871/3 "2026-05-16T02:19:20Z")
Thanks for reframing this so clearly… You’re right “technical vs non-technical” is probably the wrong lens. The real gap I was trying to point to is around governance accountability and operational risk awareness, which often gets underrepresented when Security Councils are composed purely of protocol engineers. Your point about large L2 ecosystems is well taken. As infrastructure, treasury governance, and ecosystem dependencies become more interconnected, blind spots in crisis communication or community impact assessment can be just as costly as a missed technical vulnerability. Maybe the better framing is: Security Councils should include members with complementary expertise not fewer technical members, but deliberately adding governance, risk, and ecosystem coordination roles alongside them. The goal isn’t to dilute technical depth, it’s to ensure the council can reason about the full surface area of a crisis, not just the on-chain mechanics. Would be curious whether any existing Security Council models (across Arbitrum, Optimism, or others) have experimented with this kind of structured role diversity or if it’s mostly informal today. @TeragoneFactory ---
**Author:** ![TeragoneFactory](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e99b99/32.png) [@TeragoneFactory](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/TeragoneFactory)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2026, 6:54am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/should-dao-security-councils-include-a-non-technical-member-role/30871/4 "2026-05-18T06:54:59Z")
Thanks for the thoughtful reply ! The distinction you’re making is very interesting. I agree that ecosystem-scale incidents are increasingly becoming more than purely technical events. Communication failures, coordination latency and operational ambiguity can sometimes amplify the impact almost as much as the vulnerability itself. The idea of structured advisory or emergency coordination roles around Security Councils is particularly interesting as L2 ecosystems continue growing in complexity and interconnected dependencies. Especially in environments where infrastructure, treasury governance and ecosystem operations are becoming tightly coupled. ---
**Author:** ![MconnectDAO](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/mconnectdao/32/16356_2.png) [@MconnectDAO](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/MconnectDAO)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2026, 2:32am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/should-dao-security-councils-include-a-non-technical-member-role/30871/5 "2026-05-19T02:32:41Z")
Thanks again for engaging so thoughtfully on this it’s helping me sharpen the framing a lot. I really like where you’re going with the idea of adding explicit advisory / coordination roles around Security Councils as ecosystems scale and the “human layer” of incidents becomes just as critical as the technical one. ---
**Author:** ![Arb\_Junior](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/arb_junior/32/16472_2.png) [@Arb\_Junior](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Arb_Junior)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2026, 6:55am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/should-dao-security-councils-include-a-non-technical-member-role/30871/6 "2026-06-07T06:55:29Z")
interesting the question itself matters because security councils in web3 tend to lean heavily technical, and that creates a blind spot. > [@MconnectDAO](#): > > 1. Should a non-technical governance-oriented member have any formal role in the Arbitrum Security Council? > > 2. If yes should that be a **voting seat** , an **observer role** , or a **post-incident transparency role**? > > 3. A non technical member with strong ethical reasoning and community awareness can catch what the code doesn’t say. > > 4. The best decision is to include a non technical role, but define it clearly, not as a veto power, not as a blocker, but as a voice that brings context, community perspective, and ethical weight. > > 5. Give them the ability to flag concerns, request pauses, and demand explanations, let the technical members override if needed, but only with a transparent justification that creates balance without slowing down critical response.