Adding to the discussion here, some time back I had proposed the idea of business clusters, which translated to org design is basically creating Catalysts like the Gaming one that can do:
- hire service providers (idea via grants or service contracts) for developing network goods like useful research for said vertical, developer tooling and vertical specific infra, etc.
- investments & builder support
- partnerships
@karpatkey is advocating for the creation of what I’d call a “DeFi Catalys” or similar organisation here. And I strongly believe that’s the way forward.
The Catalysts structure represents a change but allows us to better coordinate efforts around each vertical. We can have two catalysts for DeFi and Gaming with significant funding, and then “emergent catalysts” for new verticals. This allows us to execute on objectives 1 to 5
The foundation could transfer the DeFi-focuses staff and functions to the DeFi Catalyst and same for Gaming staff to the Gaming Catalyst. The domain allocator could also become more deeply aligned with the Gaming Catalyst (AGV). There would also be the Enterprise Catalyst that the @Arbitrum foundation can operate.
The Catalysts can prioritise some transversal objectives like e.g. advancing mobile/accessibility, and they would do so with having direct connection with builders, deep context about how that should play out in their specific vertical.
This approach of having entities with deep context of on the ground realities but still alignment to macro-objectives gives us the best setup to effectively deliver.
In addition to the Calaysts, we then need a few transversal functions and operational functions, e.g. Objective 6 ( Arbitrum DAO operates with efficiency), Objective 7 (ARB token has additional premium and utility) and Objective 8 ( Arbitrum DAO treasury is well managed and has multiple revenue streams). A lot of this is work where @Entropy can come in handy.
The org design structure above is compatible with the OKRs kind of thing the SOS is setting. As precisely OKRs as a methodology are designed to mobilise an organisation across teams that otherwise have specific functions. My recommendation having been through both success stories and horror stories setting up OKRs in large and small organisations, is that we need to enable multiple revision points for the OKRs. It takes a while for an organisation to figure out what makes sense and what doesn’t here. But especially, Arbitrum still needs to restructure.
Important to note that the Catalsyst org design is also compatible with the idea of AAEs, as catalysts can be operated by such entities via:
- giving an existing AAE control over a Catalyst e.g. consolidating DeFi grants, investments, etc., under a well structured catalyst entity.
- setting a new one e.g. like with the GCP/AGV
- investing in an existing one e.g. like an LP or token/equity investment like I hope can happen with RnDAO one day to setup the B2B tools aka CollabTech Catalyst)
The structure proposed above can give us the means to operationalise the Objectives, hopefully mitigating concerns that @krst and others have raised