The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.
First, we thank the OAT and the OpCo for identifying these challenges early, and we appreciate the clarity in the problem statements and the proposed solutions.
We support the overall direction because we believe these updates provide OpCo with the right tools to fulfill its dual mandate more effectively: executing DAO-approved initiatives and proactively preparing work that keeps Arbitrum at the forefront. The added flexibility to engage service providers, deploy discretionary funds for pilot work, adjust compensation to attract top talent, and broaden the scope where needed are all positive steps if implemented with care.
At the same time, we recognize and share some of the wider concerns about accountability, mandate creep, and conflict of interest management. We see these as areas that can be addressed through clearer policies and steady operational discipline. To that end, we would like to share our thoughts alongside our rationale:
We agree with the need for agility here and echo the points raised by @karpatkey and @AranaDigital that publishing a simple registry of active contracts with short deliverable summaries and spend bands, updated monthly or quarterly, would keep this process transparent and maintain trust without adding friction.
We see real value in letting OpCo test ideas quickly. To maintain focus on core operations, we suggest defining a budget split: for example, at least 70% of total funds stay reserved for staffing and recurring costs, with no more than 30% used for discretionary pilots. This keeps spending aligned with OpCo’s primary executor role rather than duplicating other funding programs.
We support this more flexible scope but encourage a sandbox-style approach: test new verticals through short pilots (three to six months) with capped budgets and clear reporting before proposing full-scale expansions.
We also acknowledge concerns from @paulofonseca and @danielo on bundling multiple structural changes into a single vote. While we understand the rationale for this round, we strongly encourage modular approval voting for future governance adjustments so that delegates can support parts they agree with without blocking others.
We believe these updates give OpCo the operational freedom it needs to deliver on its promise to the DAO, while the checks and balances can continue to be refined as we learn.