We appreciate the broad strokes of Tnorm’s submission—especially the callout to OpCo for establishing metric-driven KPIs. As we’ve seen across governance, delegates are not product experts, and it’s appropriate for them to lean on OpCo and Offchain Labs for technical and performance-related metrics. This kind of coordination can help ensure DAO priorities are grounded in real and meaningful impact.
Tnorm brings a strong DeFi-native perspective to the SOS, which is evident in the emphasis on deepening liquidity across Arbitrum’s yield, leverage, and RWA products; a powerful incentive for attracting and retaining new builders.
We also appreciate the recognition of the need for operational parity across key Arbitrum-aligned entities—including the Arbitrum Foundation, Offchain Labs, Entropy, OpCo, and others. Coordinating across domains like grants, venture investments, partnerships, liquidity management, and protocol integrations is essential for moving from initial funding to go-to-market execution. This aligns closely with what we, 404, Seedgov, and other delegates, are advocating for: coordination channels between the DAO and core operational teams.
That said, we’d encourage Tnorm to go a level deeper. Objective 2 (“An Accountable Operational Framework”) introduces this idea, but remains too high-level. We’d love to see concrete mechanisms proposed:
- Should there be a recurring DAO–OpCo sync?
- Who owns DAO-side accountability?
- Could delegates adopt scoped mandates to coordinate more closely with aligned entities?
We’re also supportive of the concept of swimlanes to clarify responsibilities between DAO stakeholders, but again, this would benefit from more granularity. For example: what does operational responsibility look like in practice for OpCo vs. the DAO vs. the Foundation?
Tnorm’s suggestion to integrate regular performance reviews and decentralized goal-setting is compelling. In many ways, it mirrors this very SOS process. We’d encourage Tnorm to expand on this idea, particularly around what performance reviews would entail: Who would be reviewed? By whom? And how would outcomes inform governance or funding decisions?
Overall, this SOS brings a strong DeFi lens and strategic depth, with meaningful insights on DAO-entity coordination and incentive alignment. We look forward to Tnorm’s revisions.