Thanks for identifying the problem and voicing it, however I have many doubts
Lately, Entropy has been advocating for trading decentralization for efficiency. Of course, direct control is always more efficient than decentralized processes — but I see several major downsides to this proposal:
-
It represents a shift away from decentralization and DAO governance toward centralization under the Arbitrum Foundation
If we continue down this path in every case, we’ll eventually reduce the DAO to a symbolic role — picking Twitter banner images while the real decisions are made elsewhere -
Ending a program prematurely, despite it functioning well and fulfilling its responsibilities, sets a bad precedent
It suggests the Foundation is an unreliable partner — willing to cancel initiatives arbitrarily.
The financial issues cited here aren’t related to the MCC itself, but rather to the decision to convert funds to USDS right before payments were due — a decision made by the Foundation, which now seems unwilling to take responsibility for the consequences. -
The proposal offers no real alternatives
If this is the path you want to take, fine — but don’t present it as the only option. There’s a real issue here that needs solving, so present multiple solutions.
Some obvious alternatives — which weren’t discussed — include:- Additional funding (as was done to extend the Hackathon initiative)
- Reduced payments to signers, if the majority of them support that
- Funding from OpCo, since this work will eventually be transitioned to them, and the budget is already allocated. Let OpCo cover MCC costs in the meantime, since it’s ultimately their responsibility
In case of receiving AGAINST the proposal it will lead to the fact that we will spend more time than we could have spent if we had different alternative solutions