SOS - Initiation Announcement Feb '25

DAO Programs & Initiatives Strategic Objective Settings (SOS)
1

Overview

This forum post announces the official kick-off of the Strategic Objective Setting (SOS) initiative for Arbitrum as of today, on Monday, February 10, 2025. Through the SOS process, DAO members will be able to propose and vote on a cohesive set of short- to mid-term objectives in a collective, inclusive, and adaptable way. The process consists of 4 distinct periods, each of which is explained in more detail below, together with expected start and end dates as well as other relevant guidelines and resources.

Given the importance of these objectives for Arbitrum’s development in the coming years, we encourage all delegates to participate in this process as actively as possible. Should you need further clarification regarding the SOS process, please review this FAQ forum thread, where anyone can ask questions about the program and have them answered. If you are looking to submit a one-off objective and related key results or a full-fledged objectives matrix, be sure to read the Breakdown of Each Period & Expected Start/End Dates section as it contains important guidelines on the process.

Entropy will make an announcement under this forum post every time a period begins and another one ends.

Breakdown of Each Period & Expected Start/End Dates

Notice Period: Monday, February 10 to Monday, February 24, 2025 (14 days)
  • At the beginning of the 14-day notice period, announcements will be made on the forum and all the other relevant communication channels, giving delegates and contributors enough time to prepare for the upcoming Submission Period.
  • We’ve created a forum post under which anyone can submit one-off objectives and related key results during the Notice Period in a structured manner for consideration by those looking to propose a full-fledged objectives matrix. The forum post will be locked once the Notice Period ends such that matrix submitters don’t have to consider new information throughout the whole Submission Period.
Submission Period: Monday, February 24 to Wednesday, March 26, 2025 (30 days)
  • This submission period lasts 30 days, during which delegates and contributors are invited to make their objectives matrix submissions. If you want to participate, please create a new topic within the Strategic Objective Setting (SOS) subcategory with the following title: [SOS Submission] {Submitter} – Strategic Objectives. For example; [SOS Submission] Entropy Advisors – Strategic Objectives.
  • The goal-setting methodology utilized will be the Objectives and Key Results framework, where each objective (high-level, inspirational goal) is accompanied by key results (specific, measurable outcomes) that once reached, represent an objective having been completed. As a reminder, these objectives should indisputably align with the DAO’s mission, vision, and purpose. At a minimum, a valid submission must include the following information:
    • View of Arbitrum’s current state and what its strengths/weaknesses are
    • Short-term objectives (1 year)
    • Mid-term objectives (2 years)
    • Key results, i.e., measurable success metrics, for all objectives
    • Risks connected to all objectives
    • High-level estimates of non-capital resources needed for each objective
    • Rationale explaining how the objectives align with Arbitrum’s MVP and why they were chosen given Arbitrum’s current state
  • The format for a SOS submission post on the forum is as follows (note, while the headers should follow the below format, the information under each header is up to the author; this is a non-exhaustive list):
    • Summary
      • A brief summary of the strategic objectives
      • High-level explanation of their impact on Arbitrum
      • Main focus areas for each proposed objective (i.e., Stylus, Orbit, Gaming, etc.)
    • Rationale
      • A general overview of Arbitrum’s current state, including where the author sees the ecosystem’s strengths and weaknesses
      • Explanation of how these objectives are aligned with Arbitrum’s MVP, why they were chosen given Arbitrum’s current state, and what risks, required non-capital resources, and expected outcomes are related to the objectives
      • Key assumptions and strategic reasoning behind chosen objectives
    • 1-Year Strategic Objectives & Key Results
      • A clear and specific statement of each objective
      • ~2-5 measurable key results/success metrics per objective
    • 2-Year Strategic Objectives & Key Results
      • Same format as 1-year strategic objectives
    • Further Details
      • Anything else the author feels is relevant to include in their submission
  • While the number of strategic objectives in a matrix is not limited, proposers should consider the DAO’s capacity to effectively focus on multiple areas simultaneously. Moreover, while the objectives should be aspirational, they must also be attainable.
  • A given year’s objectives should not overlap with each other. As such, we recommend submitters refrain from proposing objectives that are too high level since the potential for overlap increases. Having said that, the sets of 1- and 2-year objectives can be the same as long as key results across years are different.
  • See the SOS proposal for a condensed example of a 2-year strategic objective and related key results, or Hasu’s proposed goals for Lido for inspiration. Be sure to also review the SOS - Notice Period: One-Off Objectives Submissions Feb '25 post to account for one-off objectives submitted by Arbitrum contributors.
Feedback Period: Wednesday, March 26 to Wednesday, April 16, 2025 (21 days)
  • Once the Submission Period is over, no new objectives matrices will be considered. The Submission Period is followed by a 21-day feedback period. During this time, submitters are prohibited from making changes to their submissions to allow delegates to examine each submission, provide feedback, and propose edits. Delegates can, for example, propose an objective to be added or removed or that two specific, synergistic matrices are merged.
Revision Period: Wednesday, April 16 to Wednesday, April 30, 2025 (14 days)
  • During the Revision Period, submitters may amend their objectives matrices based on community feedback if they wish to do so. Apart from making edits, this period enables submitters to merge their proposals with others, mixing and matching objectives across submissions (note that a given year’s objectives should still have no overlap).
  • If two or more proposals are merged, proposers should post the final version as a new submission in the SOS subcategory with the title: [SOS Submission] {Merged: Submitter A & Submitter B} – Strategic Objectives. Moreover, the original submissions’ titles should be changed to: [SOS Submission] {OLD: Submitter A} – Strategic Objectives. A link to the merged version should also be included at the top of the original submissions.
  • If an objectives matrix is amended during the Revision Period, the proposer should also consider including an overview of changes made at the top of their submission.
Voting Period: Thursday, May 1 to Thursday, May 8, 2025 (7 days)
  • Once the Revision Period has elapsed, no more changes can be made to the submitted matrices. Entropy will publish a forum post with all finalized matrices compiled in one location and create a Snapshot vote with a list of these objectives matrices.
  • The Snapshot will utilize single-choice voting with an option to abstain. Quorum is reached when at least 3% of all votable tokens have participated in the Snapshot, with the option that has received the most votes being implemented.
  • A strategic objectives matrix proposer is free to vote on their own submission. For the avoidance of doubt, delegates will vote on standalone matrices formed by sets of 1- and 2-year objectives and key results.

Continuation of the SOS

Review Phase: Should be initiated 12 months after the previous voting period has ended
  • After the initial strategic objectives matrices are defined and one has been chosen, the DAO is encouraged to review the chosen matrix on a yearly basis. A Review Phase should be initiated 12 months after the previous Voting Period has ended. Contributors can propose to modify existing objectives/key results, add new ones, or remove those that are no longer relevant.
  • The Review Phase is initiated by passing a Snapshot vote. In the proposal, the proposer must define who is in charge of managing the Review Phase. Given the Review Phase Snapshot vote passes, the same process will follow as explained above. I.e., 14-day Notice Period → 30-day Submission Period → 21-day Feedback Period → 14-day Revision Period → 7-day Voting period.
  • If no amendment submissions are made, there is no need to move to the Feedback, Revision, or Voting Periods, and the old objectives matrix will remain effective.
  • Previously chosen, not yet achieved objectives and related key results will remain active during the Review Phase to ensure the continuity of the DAO’s strategic direction, replaced only once a new objectives matrix has been selected through a dedicated voting process.
Ad Hoc Strategic Objective Adjustments: Should be initiated when chosen objectives require unexpected changes
  • If there’s a pressing need to review the strategic objectives due to, e.g., changes in the market environment, competitive space, or the DAO’s financials, a delegate can create a forum post outlining extensive reasoning for ad hoc adjustments accompanied by the proposed strategic objectives and related key results.
  • Allowing for at least one week for discussion, the forum post will then be put up for a Snapshot vote utilizing single-choice voting with the options of adopting the proposed objectives and key results, initiating a fast-tracked Review Phase with a similar structure as described above (again, the proposer has to define who is managing this phase), and leaving the current objectives and key results unchanged.
  • It’s important to note that a well-structured strategy objectives matrix should not be expected to be changed frequently. As such, a proposed ad hoc adjustment must be extremely rigorously argumented and only take place if most of the previous strategic objectives have been reached or given unprecedented/emergency circumstances. Moreover, delegates ought to be highly critical when such adjustments are proposed.
  • If an objectives matrix is changed on an ad hoc basis, the originally scheduled Review Phase should be pushed back. This phase should only be initiated once 12 months have elapsed since the previous vote to change the DAO’s strategic objectives and related key results has passed.
  • Previously chosen, not yet achieved objectives and related key results will remain active during the Ad Hoc Strategic Objective Adjustments process to ensure the continuity of the DAO’s strategic direction, replaced only once a new objectives matrix has been selected through a dedicated voting process.
Removal of Objectives
  • The DAO’s strategic objectives and related key results can be removed by creating a forum post explaining the reasoning to do so. Allowing for at least one week for discussion, the post will be moved to a single-choice Snapshot vote with the voting options “For”, “Against”, and “Abstain”, requiring a simple majority with at least 3% of all votable tokens voting either “For” or “Abstain” for the proposal to pass.
5 Likes
2

Hi @Entropy,

Thanks for setting this up. Good initial idea to crowdsource the DAO for strategic objectives. My concern is that, given the current incentives of this, we might only see strategies proposed by parties with a vested interest.

Could you please clarify the following points:

  • Can you add an indicator to show if the parties proposing a strategic objective also have a future interest in participating in efforts that leverage that objective?
  • Is there any reward for people who work on strategies and commit their time? (I don’t mind personally, but I’m concerned that without incentives, the proposals might be overly self-interested.)

Thanks!

2 Likes
3

Hey @Bernard,

The idea of directly incentivizing submissions has been discussed at length under the original SOS proposal.

In short, we believe that parties with vested interests (major ARB token holders, full-time contributors, protocols deeply tied to Arbitrum, etc.) are best positioned to propose objectives, as the growth of the ecosystem is directly tied to the aforementioned parties’ success.

Entropy has already begun collecting feedback from delegates and key stakeholders, which we’ll leverage to formulate our submission. From conversations with other contributors, we know that there are others currently doing the same. As such, we expect there to be several full-fledged submissions that incorporate a wide set of opinions.

Directly rewarding proposers is, in our opinion, likely to lead to a lot of noise and a situation where objectives are submitted to have them passed instead of what would be optimal for Arbitrum, so you run into a possible self-interest problem here as well.