gm, voting For shutting down the MSS. We still stand with the original rationale posted earlier here
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
We support the proposal to wind down the Multisig Support Services (MSS) and transfer payment responsibilities to the Arbitrum Foundation. This transition addresses the current funding shortfall and operational inefficiencies within the MSS.
We align with the perspectives shared by JoJo and Castle Capital, acknowledging that while the MSS has played a crucial role in managing DAO-affiliated multisigs, the evolving needs of the DAO necessitate a more streamlined and efficient approach. The Foundation’s existing involvement in compliance and execution positions it well to assume these responsibilities temporarily until the establishment of OpCo.
Recognizing concerns about centralization and transparency, we recommend the following measures to maintain accountability:
- Maintain existing operational multisig addresses and transparently publish any new ones to ensure continuity and traceability.
- Provide periodic updates to the DAO by continuing the recentt updates the MSS have been giving on payment activities and any issues encountered, fostering ongoing transparency.
- Include detailed breakdowns of operational and administrative costs in the Foundation’s annual transparency reports, particularly for roles and functions transitioned from the DAO.
We view this transition as an interim solution, with the understanding that OpCo will eventually take over these functions. We encourage the DAO to use this period to develop a comprehensive framework for OpCo’s operations, ensuring a smooth and transparent handover in the future.
We appreciate the efforts of all MSS members and chairs for their contributions to the DAO’s operations and look forward to continued collaboration as we evolve our governance structures.
Voted FOR.
As discussed in length here MSS for Arbitrum - Communication Thread (Arbitrum Multisig Support Service) - #9 by tamara I saw first hand how the MSS underperformed in terms of accountability and actually lost the DAO money.
Hence I am very in favor of a new approach with more ownership and accountability. This being said, I would like to see more details on the following phases
Payment Responsibilities are sitting with the AF
- Who (and how many) will be in charge of signing within the AF?
- Who will project manage this from the AF side (being the ultimate responsible party)?
- How will the signers interact with the initiatives (to avoid the issue we had with the MSS of no one claiming responsibilities)?
- What OpSec trainings will be given?
Payment Responsibilities moving to OpCo
- What needs to be in place on the OpCo side to trigger the transfer of responsibilities (e.g., how many employees ramped up for how long?)?
- Questions 3 & 4 from above
I will be voting to Wind down the MSS. I appreciate the cost savings and independence that this brought, but it’s clear to me from responses within this thread of those on the MSS that this is no longer needed. Both logistically, but also that the AF is effectively involved with this indirectly anyway making it more of an appearance thing than anything.
I’m concerned that the conversation has focused almost entirely on efficiency and structure, without addressing a key factor for medium-term success: retaining and transferring the operational knowledge accumulated by the MSS.
Throughout its tenure, the MSS has managed complex payments, compliance workflows, and coordination across multiple stakeholders. That hands-on experience is incredibly valuable, and likely undocumented.
If this transition to the Foundation, and later to OpCo, is to be effective, we urgently need a structured process for operational knowledge transfer, including:
- A “post-mortem report” from the MSS with key lessons learned,
- Internal documentation of informal practices that solved real frictions,
- First-hand recommendations from signers and chairs on what to repeat and what to avoid.
Without this institutional memory, we risk repeating past mistakes or losing small but meaningful improvements that kept things running.
This kind of transition work is often overlooked, but it’s critical to ensure that whoever takes over doesn’t have to start from scratch.
1 Like
I’m voting in favor of this proposal. The MSS was created at a time when there were many proposals and each was setting up its own multisig, which resulted in high costs for the DAO. I believe the MSS system has been very useful and served an important purpose during that period. However, it makes sense to evolve as the DAO matures. Transitioning these responsibilities to the Arbitrum Foundation aligns with the broader restructuring efforts and gives the Foundation more authority to streamline operations and improve efficiency. I fully support this direction.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We are voting FOR the proposal.
After reviewing all alternative solutions to the current funding shortfall that the MSS faces, the most straightforward option is to wind it down and temporarily transfer this function to the Arbitrum Foundation.
It’s essential to note that we view this as an interim measure, and we believe the OpCo should ultimately assume control of the funds for DAO initiatives once it’s operationally ready to do so. In the meantime, it might be beneficial for the DAO to discuss how the setup should look like once the OpCo is in control, and whether it’d make sense to include external parties in a setup similar to the MSS.
Lastly, we’d like to request that the Arbitrum Foundation transparently manage the funds on behalf of the DAO, either by having different wallets that delegates can refer to when checking for the balance of different initiatives, or by having a public spreadsheet that tracks said balance.
1 Like
I understand — and have often expressed support for — reducing unnecessary costs in the DAO.
On the other hand, the MSS has provided operational value that might not have existed otherwise. Without it, we may have seen delays or — under different conditions, which are not currently present — even security risks.
Between the two perspectives, I believe concerns over risk currently carry far less weight than the benefit of cost reduction. So, I would vote FOR in this proposal.
As a final note, I want to emphasize that we must not allow payment transparency or accountability to deteriorate. If at any point the situation worsens, it is our collective responsibility as DAO members to contribute to a solution not only through criticism, but through action, like suggesting or contributing in any alternative structure that ensures trust and clarity in the process.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting for winding down the MSS. Below the rationale: