OpCo – A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution - Proposals - Arbitrum
SimScore Report: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fnS1J1eUy39BABlL4P1wW4ETXcLQ8LBJ/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=114263162040721690799&rtpof=true&sd=true
“Basically, how can the DAO make sure it is putting the right people in the right places to execute the objectives the DAO defines? ….. but the conversation was fruitful nonetheless. Most delegates want OpCo set up with (1) haste so Entropy will be dedicating increased resources to this initiative. Another point was that OpCo should have a (2) lot of autonomy and agency to operate on its own with its oversight layer, which is feedback that we have taken into account and differs a bit from its current state. Finally, we spoke about (3) what types of people OpCo will need in order to fill current gaps in the ecosystem.
Hey, We took the liberty to run a SimScore report on the Opco Discussion Thread above. (Nov 19). The purpose of the report is to point out the highest ranking replies from the Forum Discussion. There were 224 opinions expressed in the forum.
For Brevity, we will limit our reply to the top 5 ranked comments. I would expect the Authors of the proposal to dig in deeper.
: "The proposal specifies that the OpCo would only affect operational efficiency, not the strategic goals of the DAO; however, there is a risk of centralizing decision-making if not enough transparency is given. I believe that the OAT role would be key to make this function properly so there would need to be adequate mechanisms for it to be transparent, accountable and with well-defined roles and responsibilities. It should also be subject to checks and balances, with clear guidelines, so that there is no concentration of authority that could potentially undermine the DAO’s decentralization focus. If I understood correctly, the OAT will be responsible for the OpCo to operate with adequate checks on spending, staffing, and project prioritization so it will become a major position within the DAO structure. I am not sure how complex it would be for five persons to oversight every project and maintain a clear boundary between OpCo’s role and the DAO’s mission.”
: "It is true that the structure Arbitrum DAO currently has leads to so much friction and this needs to be addressed, yet we believe that we should avoid centralization when it comes to proposal of this kind. We do recognize the OpCo comes to help and facilitate the solving of these issues, but under the new structure we see a potential centralization that at least every single proposal that has to fall under OpCo’s scope should have OpCo’s members in between the proposer and the proposal itself. That’s why we would like to know if the incorporation of Opco will be mandatory in all the processes mentioned, or if it could be optional?”
"From this, we can see that the proposal is well-intentioned, aiming to improve the operational efficiency of DAOs and enhance their attractiveness and competitiveness. However, in actual operation, if the management of OpCo is not in place or the use of funds is not transparent, resources may be wasted. Seeing the above comments, people are most concerned about the management of OpCo’s funds. The proposal plans to allocate 34 million ARBs to OpCo, of which 10 million ARBs will be released first and the remaining 24 million will be distributed gradually over the next 24 months. While the DAO can oversee OpCo, OpCo has a high degree of autonomy, particularly in recruiting and contracting personnel. This raises concerns as to whether OpCo will be able to use the funds efficiently and transparently. If the market fluctuates, will OpCo be able to operate in a stable manner?”
"We appreciate this OpCo tool finally being pushed forward since counting on a legal entity is quite valuable for the DAO and something we consider should have been part of the DAO for a while as to prevent us all from legal issues tha may arise. We like to see that the OpCo also intends to fill gaps after proposals are passed and executed, nevertheless we have certain reservations about what it seems to be a centralization of proposals if they fall under an OpCo’s mandate scope (Financial Management and Ecosystem Support). We see some other delegates have also shared this concern and so we line-up with them to manifest our preoccupation about this.”