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, April 9, 2025 (44 days)
  • During the submission period, 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, April 9 to Wednesday, May 7, 2025 (28 days)
  • Once the Submission Period is over, no new objectives matrices will be considered. The Submission Period is followed by a 28-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, May 7 to Wednesday, May 21, 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 22 to Thursday, May 29, 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.
7 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!

4 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.

2 Likes
4

Conclusion of the Notice Period and Commencement of the Submission Period

The SOS Notice Period has officially ended. As of today, Monday, February 24, the Submission Period is open and is provisionally set to close on Wednesday, March 26.

During the Submission Period, delegates and contributors are invited to publish their objectives matrix submissions. Please refer to the SOS - Initiation Announcement Feb ‘25 forum post for further information on the SOS framework and timeline, as well as how to submit a complete objectives matrix. If anything related to the process is unclear, don’t hesitate to post a question(s) under the SOS - FAQ & Relevant Links thread.

As a reminder, ecosystem participants have had the opportunity to submit one-off objectives during the Notice Period in a structured manner within the SOS - Notice Period: One-Off Objectives Submissions Feb ‘25 thread. We encourage those looking to create full-fledged objectives matrices to review the thread to develop insights into the perspectives of other active contributors.

3 Likes
5

Extension to the SOS Submission Period

Hello All,

The Strategic Objective Setting submission period, which was tentatively slated to close on Wednesday, March 26, 2025, is being extended after numerous requests from DAO contributors who are actively working on their matrices. The submission period will be extended until April 9, 2025, thus providing contributors with an additional 2 weeks to work on their objective(s) submissions. This will delay the subsequent steps accordingly:

Feedback Period: Wednesday, April, 9 to Wednesday, April, 30.
Revision Period: Wednesday, April, 30 to Wednesday, May, 14.
Voting Period: Thursday, May 15 to Thursday, May 22.

We have spoken to L2BEAT, and they will be hosting open/recorded calls for SOS authors and parties interested in the process to pitch their matrices and ideas over the coming weeks.

We hope this additional time will allow for a greater number of submissions, as setting 1-2 year objectives for the Arbitrum DAO will lay the groundwork for general direction over the coming years. Please note that the original “SOS - Initiation Announcement Feb ‘25” post will be modified to reflect the above changes.

2 Likes
6

Conclusion of the Submission Period and Commencement of the Feedback Period

The SOS Submission Period has officially closed, and the Feedback Period is now underway. This phase is tentatively scheduled to end on April 30.

During the Feedback Period:
• No new objective matrices should be submitted
• Submitters are prohibited from editing their published matrices

Delegates and contributors are encouraged to:
• Review all submitted matrices
• Share constructive feedback
• Suggest edits
• Recommend merging complementary or overlapping matrices

2 Likes
7

Extension to the SOS Feedback Period

The Strategic Objective Setting Feedback Period, which was tentatively slated to close on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, is being extended to account for the SOS Discussion calls hosted by L2BEAT, and after requests from delegates.

The Feedback Period will be extended until May 7, 2025, thus providing contributors with an additional week to provide feedback on posted SOS submissions. This will delay the subsequent steps accordingly:

Revision Period: Wednesday, May 7 to Wednesday, May 21.
Voting Period: Thursday, May 22 to Thursday, May 29.

Please note that the original “SOS - Initiation Announcement Feb ‘25” post will be modified to reflect the above changes.

6 Likes
8

Conclusion of the Feedback Period and Commencement of the Revision Period

The SOS Feedback Period has officially closed, and the Revision Period is now underway. This phase is tentatively scheduled to end on May 21.

During the Revision Period:

  • Submitters may amend their objectives matrices based on community feedback
  • Submitters can also merge their matrices with others, mixing and matching objectives across submissions

Operational Guidelines:

  • 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
  • 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
3 Likes
9

Extension to the Revision Period

We want to begin by saying that we’ve been extremely happy with the number of objectives matrices submitted through organic engagement. The community has floated many great ideas, and it’s clear that a significant amount of care has been put into the submissions and related conversations—we want to make sure no effort goes unnoticed.

Having said that, in the past few days, Entropy has received feedback from delegates and key stakeholders expressing concerns around the clarity of ownership of current work streams and risk of efforts being duplicated, how the Foundation’s vision affects the SOS process and what the direct relationships between actors within the vision would look like, etc.

Several delegates have expressed to us that they aren’t comfortable voting on the current submissions, not because they think the submitted matrices are low-quality, but due to the overall unclarity of the next steps with respect to the DAO’s structure. Based on this information, we foresee with high certainty that this process will not reach the required consensus, and would therefore put unnecessary stress on delegates to go through the voting period and ensuing frictions.

As such, we’ll extend the revision period indefinitely, until there is more clarity around what the DAO’s operational structure will look like in the future. Entropy has been in contact with L2BEAT, and, in the meantime, they will be hosting a DAO call(s) to continue conversations regarding DAO-side objectives and the path forward.

If you have any questions or concerns, please shoot @BricksIntern a message on Telegram.

10

Hi @Entropy,

First, thank you for all the coordination you’ve done to date on the SOS refinement process. I know this stage is complex and that you’re balancing many different voices.

Regarding this:

Change management process

A point of process: by what authority does the Service Provider responsible for facilitating the SOS proposal’s refinement phase have legitimacy to pause or opt out of finishing the job?
Do you have consensus of a majority of delegates to do so?

I think attempting to take this decision in this unilateral way citing some private selective stakeholder feedback as justification for stopping a DAO wide process would set a harmful precent for how we govern how proposals get fulfilled and how fulfillment changes get decided and managed in the DAO.

Arbitrum DAO contributors have put huge work in the last 2-years to engineer a trusted system.
Making decisions in this way erodes trust in deterministic rules for how decisions and work gets done, it dilutes dependability and shifts the sands to more arbitrary process where engaging with the DAO and choosing to build on Arbitrum has more uncertainty and thus more risk.
People should be saying Governance at Arbitrum is rock solid, iron clad, that’s why I trust to build there.

Working with complexity

Regarding the feedback you are getting I’m hearing the opposite sentiment - both delegates and other service providers are eager to enter the refinement window, converge on a clear set of objectives, and prepare existing and new AAEs to deliver on the DAO’s will. Declaring an open-ended evaluation period with no clear resolution path effectively stalls a process that nearly 100% of the DAO voted to initiate, and introduces unnecessary uncertainty.

I appreciate that tying SOS objectives back to the Vision is critical. At the same time, we don’t need perfect Vision clarity to make progress. We could agree on a focused set of Vision questions to put to AF & OCL (who are the current bottleneck causing the delay in moving the Vision forward with clarity), we resolve these questions within a defined timeframe say, one week so the SOS team can keep moving forward. If there are specific alignment gaps, perhaps a short workshop or targeted call could close them.

I understand things change, and this process is hard, however citing a dependency on the Vision clarity to indefinitely extend/block moving forward based off some stakeholders telling you privately; that they fear stress, duplication or don’t know how to align the talent/organizational matrix to the objectives isn’t adequate explanation to stop this process.

Clear roles and responsibilities

Additionally, I’ve been surprised L2Beat has taken so much responsibility of the SOS facilitation when my understanding from the original proposal was this is Entropy’s responsibility and job to do.

What is happening here:

Are you revoking your responsibility and assigning it to L2Beat to facilitate the SOS process? This hasn’t been clear historically and it’s not clear going forward who is being responsible and accountable to facilitate the SOS process.

Is there a capacity issue, or is it a skill issue of not knowing how to facilitate the complexity of this stage of the process and needing help? if so let’s name that, call in the troops and work the problem.

Coordinating Moving Forward

After months of groundwork, we’re at the most critical juncture: defining how Vision, AAEs, and SOS interlock. It is not the time to abandon the SOS process, this is the forcing function necessary to resolve the uncertainty, unclarity also in the new Arbitrum Vision.

Extending the window indefinitely won’t resolve ambiguity; it won’t get us where we need to be, tighter coordination and clear next steps (with deadlines) will.

For Arbitrum to move forward a coherent structure for how the Vision, AAEs and SOS work together is necessary to define, that’s the work of this moment.
We don’t need more time, we need more coordination.

8 Likes
11

Just want to point out that this should have no effect at the moment. The Foundation’s vision has not been proposed, not been voted upon, not been approved. It has no weight here beyond what any other non-proposal discussion thread would have.

They have not indicated any intent to move forward with it, despite being explicitly asked 9 days ago if they intend to formalize a proposal.

2 Likes
12

Hey @KlausBrave, thanks for your comment!

There might be a misunderstanding here, and we want to make it absolutely clear that we aren’t opting out of finalizing the process or abandoning it, but instead are extending the process to make it more robust and to reach a more rigid DAO consensus. If the DAO is to move forward with the new vision facilitated by the Foundation, we foresee that more input from AAEs who are slated to own specific deliverables is needed. This is clear to us from the feedback we received, where uncertainty derives from the risk of duplicated work, missing out on experts’ opinions who are supposed to own deliverables, disconnects between responsible parties and objective setters, etc. As the DAO’s position has changed notably since the SOS process started, we have to remain flexible and adapt to evolving conditions. As anyone who has worked in a fast-paced environment knows, the ability to pivot and iterate is extremely important. A lot of work has been done to move the DAO’s operations forward, and rushing the SOS process before building blocks are in place will likely set us back.

While we work on the best way forward with entities identified as the initial cohort of AAEs, L2BEAT will continue facilitating SOS calls.

We don’t want to speak on behalf of L2BEAT, but will add that they were eager to help us facilitate the SOS process. Given their extensive experience in navigating DAO governance, we are happy to collaborate with them, as this frees up capacity for us to work on the numerous other deliverables we are simultaneously pushing forward. It’s fair to say that we’ve proven our ability with respect to navigating a complex multi-party process such as the SOS, as we’ve already successfully established the MVP. However, our approach has always been to be open to cooperating with other high-quality operators, especially when it unlocks efficiency gains for the DAO at no extra cost. Not collaborating with L2BEAT on this initiative would have been insensible for us.

Finally, we’d like to point out a small detail with respect to our ability to extend the process, which was ratified through the initiation proposal passed on Snapshot:

3 Likes
13

Let’s Finish What We Started

In a DAO, one branch unilaterally freezing a voted-on process is a recipe for distrust. I deeply agree with @klaus, by what authority do entropy get to pause a DAO-wide initiative just because a few people privately raised concerns?. This sort of arbitrary halt is an “open-ended evaluation period with no clear resolution path” that kills momentum and violates the deterministic, transparent governance we built. We all voted to start SOS, and it’s now our duty to carry it through.

Stopping a process halfway through is pretty anti-DAO. There was a clear process with space for feedback. We should complete the process instead of fucking around and wasting our time.

Yes, the Foundation’s long-term vision still needs work. But delaying SOS until the moon aligns is overkill. We don’t need perfect clarity to make progress. Instead of pausing until someone feels that they wake up ready, we could ask a few targeted vision questions in parallel and keep refining objectives on the fly. Kicking the can down the road because delegates…fear stress or duplication is exactly the bureaucratic stall that fragments trust. Arbitrum’s governance should be operational, not fodder for endless what-ifs. The right move is to finalize the objectives process now and iterate later, just like any healthy organization would.

It’s a lot of extra annoying bureaucracy. We just need a mission, vision, values, and it can be changed later. Let’s just go with what we can.

We did this same job at the TEC

A perfect real-world counterexample is the Token Engineering Commons’ Mission/Vision/Values update. In the TEC, we did the MVV with a clear process, clear competition, and opportunity for people to give feedback and discuss the merits of each proposal. Then one was chosen, and that was it. We used that mission a lot, and it helped us out a lot. Arbitrum needs some urgent mission vision values to guide decisions.

The TEC kept it lean and action-oriented with only two steps: propose and vote. Anyone could submit a Mission, Vision and Values statement via TokenLog – “super easy, click on ‘new issue’… fill with one statement for the mission, one for vision, and one for values.” TEC members explicitly didn’t write lengthy strategy docs: “we aren’t planning the strategy, just the Mission.” That clarity and brevity focused contributions on what matters, without drowning in detail.

People could easily fork someone’s MVV and change one line, which added depth to the process but also split votes across similar proposals. We solved this by grouping similar ones together - a really tedious job back then that AI makes way simpler today.

Step 1 (Proposing):

Anyone could propose it, just like SOS. We posted it and got feedback. There was also a clear format given - the mission has to be this long, the vision has to be that long, and the values need to be this long. Basically, it should be short, which SOS really didn’t do. If your mission statement is a book, then what are you doing?.The DAO mission should be simple.

Anyone popped their ideas into Tokenlog with a quick issue title and short bullet answers. No one complained about the “unclear process” – it was spelled out in a forum post: two steps, go vote now.

Step 2 (Voting):

The community voted via Tokenlog (quadratic voting). If a proposal got >50%, it won; if not, the top 3–5 went to a final round. If even those were tied, they invited the top authors to a hack session to merge them.

Editorial Refinement:

A professional editor edited all three top submissions so they could be voted on independently of the author, which was really important, and on their own merits. After the first round, they didn’t scrap it. The writers even anonymized their issues to avoid bias. In short in about a month the TEC had a polished MVV ready to adopt. It was clear, community-driven, and done. The one that was chosen, was chosen. And that was it. We used it. We didnt got to change it, but there was a clear process to do it, and we already have it on Arbitrum aswell.

Keep Objectives Actionable and Iterative

Between all of these processes and AI, we should be able to get something quick, not perfect but usable. This shouldn’t be that hard. This should be easy. Why would we stop the process? Did something change that we don’t want in the mission vision values? Or, if people aren’t happy with it, then get your hands dirty and change it.

We should mirror that lean mindset we had in the TEC back then. Our SOS submissions can be concise and adaptable. They don’t have to be multi-page matrices that intimidate voters. We should encourage short, clear objectives (with a few key results). If something is confusing or overlaps with existing work, address that in discussion or iteration, but don’t pause the revision period indefinitely. Be aware that, objectives and visions are living documents: it’s better to agree on a baseline set of aims and refine them each cycle than to stall on “long-term perfect” text.

It doesn’t have to be more complicated than that. It can be changed later. We have a DAO, we have a voting process and we should stick by them.

So let’s stop this bureaucratic delay and finish the SOS as planned. We already agreed to run it collectively, and nearly 100% of the DAO backed kicking it off. Instead of pulling the rug out now, we should finalize the objective proposals, vote, and then iterate. That’s how DAO governance is supposed to work – not by secret vetoes.

Time to move forward, not backwards.

4 Likes
14

Hey @Zeptimus, thanks for this comment. Can you share a link or any documentation with more detail about the TEC process? perhaps there is a methodology we can leverage.

1 Like
15

@KlausBrave @Zeptimus

The SOS Proposal that was approved by snapshot vote provides clear guidelines regarding @Entropy’s responsibilities during the voting period and the powers they have to postpone the initiative.

Here is the section on voting:

Voting period (7 days)

"Finally, the voting period. Entropy will be in charge of creating a Snapshot vote with a list containing all finalized strategic objective matrices in a single proposal, with delegates voting on which matrix they are the most aligned with and see as optimal. 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. Please note that if there is a vast amount of submissions going to a Snapshot vote, Entropy reserves the right to postpone the initiation of the vote following the revision period to ensure that delegates are given some additional time to examine the final versions of submissions If there is any confusion in navigating the forum throughout this process, e.g., where to post, how to title posts, how to merge proposals with another author/similar proposal, etc., Entropy Advisors will be available to answer any questions from the community."

The italics part is:
Please note that if there is a vast amount of submissions going to a Snapshot vote, Entropy reserves the right to postpone the initiation of the vote following the revision period to ensure that delegates are given some additional time to examine the final versions of submissions

This statement was not ‘rebuked’ by anyone during the forum discussion and subsequent Snapshot delegate justifications.

So it appears that Entropy has this right.

However I am not sure the SOS proposal speaks to these reasons, “delegates express concern” “risk…duplicates” or “we foresee with high certainty that this process will not reach the required consensus”.

1 Like
16

Hey Klaus! I updated the original post with a great video of Griff giving a TL;DR on how to participate in the MVV process and a link to Livia’s post explaining the process, right below this part:

Many of the links are broken but what I mostly wanted to communicate is that this process shouldn’t be paused as you pointed. If we want people to engage, the process should be simpler and Arbitrum deserves a north star asap.

This is just off the top of my head and probably a lot of work, but if I was in Entropy’s shoes I’d build an interface to make the process way simpler for people to engage. We did it back then, now it’s easier and we also have AI! I’d use a Pairwise interface (I’m biased, worked there a lot) with some custom features from old friend Tokenlog.

If there’s a budget for building that I’d happily volunteer to PM it and build it with General Magic. This post is looking like a pitch which was not the intention, I’m offering my time as a delegate because I want to see this done. I believe the right solution should be something quick with solutions already built anyway.

1 Like