The OpCo - Scale, Structure, & Synergy

The OpCo - Scale, Structure, & Synergy | proposals.app

Hey there, CoachJ here from Gitcoin :wave: First time poster, though have been lurking for the last couple of months :slight_smile:

This proposal seems similar to the direction that Gitcoin headed in recently. To create focus around Gitcoin's technology, Gitcoin created a new business unit called Grants Lab who is 100% focused on product adoption and managing a P&L. Concurrently, a new unit called the Ecosystem Collective was launched to steward Gitcoin's brand, community and governance initiatives (with similar functions to the proposed OpCo).

Having co-led the recently spun down Merch, Memes and Marketing workstream at Gitcoin and currently co-leading the Ecosystem Collective, I wanted to offer my thoughts and comments in hopes that you'll find these helpful as you navigate the development of this kind of net new organization.

Cross-stream Collaboration

One thing that seems to be missing from the Operational Excellence team is around cross-stream collaboration and communication
This is probably the biggest tension that we continuously experience at Gitcoin (and likely happens at most other orgs)
Especially when the functions above have so much cross-over (ex: who gets to decide on strategic partnerships, a dedicated team? Or this is a function of ecosystem growth? Marketing?)
An operational layer not just to manage workflows but to process day-to-day tensions and manage cross-stream collaboration is crucial (also ties into the need to develop and foster an intentional work culture)

Scoping Challenges

Similar to the point above, one of the biggest challenges will be scoping all of this work to ensure there are clear lines of roles, responsibilities and decision rights
It seems like the @dk3 is already quite aware of this challenge and is using broad strokes to start the conversation

Marketing Questions

What kind of marketing is this - brand marketing? Product marketing? Growth marketing? All of these? From @dk3 it seems is mostly focused on brand marketing (which can be very impactful and is the most difficult to measure)
How does this cross over with the work by Offchain labs as @parkienator had mentioned? What about the work being done at the Foundation?
How does Marketing's scope differ and cross over with other scopes around ecosystem development, strategic partnerships, and community?

I hope my thoughts and questions above are helpful. Curious to see where this conversation goes and see this org potentially come to fruition.

104

Hey there, CoachJ here from Gitcoin :wave: First time poster, though have been lurking for the last couple of months :slight_smile:

Cross-stream Collaboration

One thing that seems to be missing from the Operational Excellence team is around cross-stream collaboration and communication
This is probably the biggest tension that we continuously experience at Gitcoin (and likely happens at most other orgs)
Especially when the functions above have so much cross-over (ex: who gets to decide on strategic partnerships, a dedicated team? Or this is a function of ecosystem growth? Marketing?)
An operational layer not just to manage workflows but to process day-to-day tensions and manage cross-stream collaboration is crucial (also ties into the need to develop and foster an intentional work culture)

Scoping Challenges

Similar to the point above, one of the biggest challenges will be scoping all of this work to ensure there are clear lines of roles, responsibilities and decision rights
It seems like the @dk3 is already quite aware of this challenge and is using broad strokes to start the conversation

Marketing Questions

What kind of marketing is this - brand marketing? Product marketing? Growth marketing? All of these? From @dk3 it seems is mostly focused on brand marketing (which can be very impactful and is the most difficult to measure)
How does this cross over with the work by Offchain labs as @parkienator had mentioned? What about the work being done at the Foundation?
How does Marketing's scope differ and cross over with other scopes around ecosystem development, strategic partnerships, and community?

I hope my thoughts and questions above are helpful. Curious to see where this conversation goes and see this org potentially come to fruition.

104

drllau

posted 2 years ago

edited 2 years ago

LegalEntity|690x487

Firstly, can we agree on some terminology? DAOs originated from MMORPG (see gnosis pre-history) and got traction with Ethereum ... Vitalik himself distinguishes DAC (what I call digital automated comparies) from DAOs.

There are as many governance patterns as there are countries ... with smart contracts you can implement whatever you want.

LegalEntity|690x487

There are as many governance patterns as there are countries ... with smart contracts you can implement whatever you want.

If people are unaware of work done in society axis (impact) I draw attention to Szabo early work on social titles

Another form of wealth, hidden from the archaeologist, were titles to offices. Such social positions were more valuable than the tangible forms of wealth in many hunter-gatherer cultures. Examples of such positions included clan leaders, war party leaders, hunting party leaders, membership in a particular long-term trading partnership (with a particular person in a neighboring clan or tribe), midwives, and religious healers. Often collectibles not only embodied wealth, but also served as a mnemonic, representing the title to a clan position of responsibility and privilege. Upon death, to maintain order, the heirs to such positions had to be quickly and clearly determined. Delays could spawn vicious conflicts. Thus, a common event was the mortuary feast, in which the deceased was feted while both his tangible and intangible forms of wealth were distributed to descendants, as determined by custom, clan decision-makers, or the will of the deceased.

The unique point about DAOs vs traditional firms is the "absence" of fixed titles/positions. Instead you might have

classes (see RaidGuild)which describes the base skills and occupation
roles (or hats in the BanklessDAO) where would be putting on the accounting role in divy up tokens and budgetting
then there are defined patterns - for example a Raid adhoc party to apply for a grant. They would have sufficient structure with mart contracts to enforce the agreements. We at LexDAO wrote the escrow system RaidGuild uses for invoicing along with dispute resolution

The problem with big grants like Arbitrum Foundation is that is like waving juicy meat to hungry sharks ... everyone wants a piece of the action b4 the $$$ runs out. This comes back to the purpose .... a) is it a VC style gamble to pick winners? b) is it a co-op which identifies common-use facility, and seeds initial trials awaiting industry to uptake? c) is it a tax/tithe disbursing public goods (restrospective or anticipatory if see a big pain-point)

The OpCo can be positioned (and funded) as all 3 depending on configuration

inhouse ... it picks a "winner" from all the bids
ECH model which has enough legalities to contain the chaos but let individual firms collaborate to meet defined service level agreements
tradeable bounties (xref SIB) which attempt to be outcome focused for public goods.

I don't have a horse in this race, but some clarity as to where the OpCo sits on the charitable-4profit scale might help steer the conversation.

drllau

posted 2 years ago

edited 2 years ago

LegalEntity|690x487

There are as many governance patterns as there are countries ... with smart contracts you can implement whatever you want.

LegalEntity|690x487

There are as many governance patterns as there are countries ... with smart contracts you can implement whatever you want.

If people are unaware of work done in society axis (impact) I draw attention to Szabo early work on social titles

Another form of wealth, hidden from the archaeologist, were titles to offices. Such social positions were more valuable than the tangible forms of wealth in many hunter-gatherer cultures. Examples of such positions included clan leaders, war party leaders, hunting party leaders, membership in a particular long-term trading partnership (with a particular person in a neighboring clan or tribe), midwives, and religious healers. Often collectibles not only embodied wealth, but also served as a mnemonic, representing the title to a clan position of responsibility and privilege. Upon death, to maintain order, the heirs to such positions had to be quickly and clearly determined. Delays could spawn vicious conflicts. Thus, a common event was the mortuary feast, in which the deceased was feted while both his tangible and intangible forms of wealth were distributed to descendants, as determined by custom, clan decision-makers, or the will of the deceased.

The unique point about DAOs vs traditional firms is the "absence" of fixed titles/positions. Instead you might have

classes (see RaidGuild)which describes the base skills and occupation
roles (or hats in the BanklessDAO) where would be putting on the accounting role in divy up tokens and budgetting
then there are defined patterns - for example a Raid adhoc party to apply for a grant. They would have sufficient structure with mart contracts to enforce the agreements. We at LexDAO wrote the escrow system RaidGuild uses for invoicing along with dispute resolution

The OpCo can be positioned (and funded) as all 3 depending on configuration

inhouse ... it picks a "winner" from all the bids
ECH model which has enough legalities to contain the chaos but let individual firms collaborate to meet defined service level agreements
tradeable bounties (xref SIB) which attempt to be outcome focused for public goods.

I don't have a horse in this race, but some clarity as to where the OpCo sits on the charitable-4profit scale might help steer the conversation.

danielo from mrjackalop.eth

0.00 TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

edited 2 years ago

I recognise the problems this proposal seeks to address (big issues!), but despite trying to keep quite and focus in other things, I can't help but have concerns too.

Mostly, I'm thinking, how do you see the role for non-employees and other service providers and contributors moving forward?

I recognise the problems this proposal seeks to address (big issues!), but despite trying to keep quite and focus in other things, I can't help but have concerns too.

Mostly, I'm thinking, how do you see the role for non-employees and other service providers and contributors moving forward?

For context, my biggest concern with the OpCo is that by providing a traditional approach to address many of the painpoints, it results in centralised top-down management of ArbitrumDAO. Now, I'm not demonising centralisation (I see value in coordination and speed, and centralisation offers some of that). My concern is the risk the OpCo poses to disincentivise bottom-up contributions through information and power asymmetry.

For example: Jane (community member) sees a gap in the DAO for a knowledge hub. She assembles a team and works for weeks to develop a proposal. They're not paid for this work and do it at risk, hoping a proposal will be approved. In the meantime, the OpCo directors hire someone and Jane loses all her time. Alternatively, Jane could have checked with the OpCo directors before doing any work, but before everyone else is trying to get time from the OpCO directors too and they're overwhelmed. The OpCo directors find community members unreliable and so give them limited time, instead preferring to hire people they can control. Others hear of Jane's story and soon the OpCo is the only entity contributing to ArbitrumDAO.

Now, the above example doesn't need to be how things play out. I'm just pointing out that it's a major risk.

A few ideas to mitigate bottleneck and contribution desincentivisation risks: (ideally, a few strategies are combined)

1. The OpCo has a narrower mandate on a functional area (marketing, treasury, partnership, etc.), so that other entities can lead other areas, thus enabling plurality and reducing the risk of information bottlenecks.
1. The OpCo actively focuses on being a platform instead of a direct executor. So OpCo resources (funds, staff, etc) are dedicated to addressing the bottlenecks that proposers suffer from. I.e. the OpCo actively refrains from executing on areas like marketing, grant programs, etc.
1. Along the same lines as above, The OpCo uses RFPs and other crowd-sourcing mechanisms to get most of the work done, thus still providing opportunities for a broader community to contribute to Arbitrum.
1. The OpCo experiments with decentralisation itself, for example, using a Strategy Assembly (inspired by citizen assemblies) to define priorities (instead of a closed-door process).
1. any other idea that enables and empowers the community through funds distribution, outside-in innovation opportunities, transparency, and agency to shape strategy and policies.

I'm curious if you resonate with the risk assessment (and if so with any of the proposed strategies to mitigate said risk).

krst from delegate.l2beat.eth

10.0M TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.

The discussion on whether we should establish an OpCo entity boils down to the question of whether we want Arbitrum DAO to be reactive or proactive.

The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.

The discussion on whether we should establish an OpCo entity boils down to the question of whether we want Arbitrum DAO to be reactive or proactive.

As it stands, the DAO is currently mostly reactive in the sense that delegates are called to vote on initiatives that are being developed individually by different contributors and do not necessarily co-exist in a coherent, structured way. A good analogy would be a series of unique puzzle pieces being fitted together, without however an end image to guide the process. Each initiative is working to establish its structure with different processes as there’s a lack of standard practices on that front — and no initiative can create a standard practice without heavily deviating from its original purpose.

This situation creates operational hurdles that burden each proposer separately and also puts a strain on the DAO. From having no standard operational process to distribute money (e.g. we have so many different multi-sigs that each costs money to run) to the inability of the DAO to straight-up hire people to do work, to the lack of standard operational structures and processes, everything points to a need to have an entity responsible for the DAO’s operations.

Simply put, the DAO needs an Operating Company (OpCo).

Even things that have been partially and temporarily resolved, such as the need to procure service providers through the ADPC, or the need to have domain experts review and provide feedback to proposals through the ARDC, would be significantly easier to set up and run under an OpCo.

Having the ability to drive initiatives forward without having to worry about the operational burden of execution will empower contributors to expend all their efforts towards the success of their initiative, and not towards trivial (to their cause) things such as setting up a multisig or figuring out how they should be reporting their progress.

On top of assisting with the operations of ongoing initiatives, through an OpCo, the DAO would have the ability to tackle needs as they arise by hiring the right people and assigning them the appropriate tasks. For example, if there’s a need for an oversight committee to oversee different initiatives that have been funded by the DAO, the OpCo could hire people and set up a team to carry out that work.

Having said that, while there might be details around the proposed OpCo that still need to be defined, the overall concept of establishing an Operating Company is something that we’re supportive of and believe is very much needed.

We’d like to help push the OpCo proposal forward in a way that inspires confidence among delegates and with the appropriate checks and balances to ensure that it’s the DAO that ultimately remains in control, without however suffocating the OpCo’s ability to operate.

danielo from mrjackalop.eth

0.00 TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

edited 2 years ago

I recognise the problems this proposal seeks to address (big issues!), but despite trying to keep quite and focus in other things, I can't help but have concerns too.

Mostly, I'm thinking, how do you see the role for non-employees and other service providers and contributors moving forward?

I recognise the problems this proposal seeks to address (big issues!), but despite trying to keep quite and focus in other things, I can't help but have concerns too.

Mostly, I'm thinking, how do you see the role for non-employees and other service providers and contributors moving forward?

Now, the above example doesn't need to be how things play out. I'm just pointing out that it's a major risk.

A few ideas to mitigate bottleneck and contribution desincentivisation risks: (ideally, a few strategies are combined)

1. The OpCo has a narrower mandate on a functional area (marketing, treasury, partnership, etc.), so that other entities can lead other areas, thus enabling plurality and reducing the risk of information bottlenecks.
1. The OpCo actively focuses on being a platform instead of a direct executor. So OpCo resources (funds, staff, etc) are dedicated to addressing the bottlenecks that proposers suffer from. I.e. the OpCo actively refrains from executing on areas like marketing, grant programs, etc.
1. Along the same lines as above, The OpCo uses RFPs and other crowd-sourcing mechanisms to get most of the work done, thus still providing opportunities for a broader community to contribute to Arbitrum.
1. The OpCo experiments with decentralisation itself, for example, using a Strategy Assembly (inspired by citizen assemblies) to define priorities (instead of a closed-door process).
1. any other idea that enables and empowers the community through funds distribution, outside-in innovation opportunities, transparency, and agency to shape strategy and policies.

I'm curious if you resonate with the risk assessment (and if so with any of the proposed strategies to mitigate said risk).

krst from delegate.l2beat.eth

10.0M TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.

The discussion on whether we should establish an OpCo entity boils down to the question of whether we want Arbitrum DAO to be reactive or proactive.

The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.

The discussion on whether we should establish an OpCo entity boils down to the question of whether we want Arbitrum DAO to be reactive or proactive.

Simply put, the DAO needs an Operating Company (OpCo).

dk3 from dk.3anon.eth

2.2M TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

Quoted from 0xidm

One minor thing; could it be called the CoOp? :slight_smile: I think it captures the spirit of the objectives.

jump to post →

Quoted from 0xidm

One minor thing; could it be called the CoOp? :slight_smile: I think it captures the spirit of the objectives.

jump to post →

reminds me of Index Coop, and that name always confused people was it coop like a chicken coop, was it CoOp like a cooperative, nobody knows. JK we can think about it though (however legally it will not be a Cooperative, so that may throw a wrench in things)

Quoted from jengajojo

Depending on who you ask, a DAO is an org that either has no leaders or has several leaders. Arbitrum DAO start as a leaderless unit which is now swinging towards a leaderful org. The challange often arises in this case of which leader to follow?

As some have pointed out earlier, there are already many groups trying to pull the org in different directions: foundation, PL, various committees etc… While this is a fun activity when attention and resources are abundant, this also becomes a source of friction when markets swing the other way. Hence a right balance needs to be struck between leaderless/leaderful in order to optimally navigate forward.

While I generally like this idea, I’ll reiterate my feedback from the first PL labs proposal, what stops someone else from spinning up another legal entity/committiee from implementing a slight variation of the same ‘n’ operational goals any DAO or organization needs to deliver in order to manage itself. If there is no ‘stop’ mechanism, the DAO will continue to form separate legal entities/committiee till we max. out on attention and resources necessary to support these different groups.

jump to post →

I have to say I'm not sure I agree with this statement. As someone who sits on the board of PL and helped establish some of those various committees, I think we are moving in the same general direction now. The foundation holds no official opinion, but a few 100% arbitrum committed groups to help foster maturity seem to be the general consensus of how we grow. Although I have my own opinions on the leaders vs leaderless organizations, I do agree we need to do better on making and setting priorities as a community, and some structure can go a long way.

dk3 from dk.3anon.eth

2.2M TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

Quoted from Gonzacolo

We have to make sure we’re getting the top providers.
Introducing more intermediaries could potentially slow the process.
There’s a risk these intermediaries might focus on non-essential tasks.

jump to post →

Quoted from Gonzacolo

We have to make sure we’re getting the top providers.
Introducing more intermediaries could potentially slow the process.
There’s a risk these intermediaries might focus on non-essential tasks.

jump to post →

My Thoughts

Ensuring top providers: Look to get top talent; we will need to compensate and recruit. I'm kind of a hater of headhunter firms, but we will probably have to do a fair amount of spearfishing within the wider network of people in the space. We will also implement rigorous hiring processes to ensure we bring on the best providers/contributors for each role. But I don't anticipate that these roles (especially for directors) that we would just post on a job board and see what comes.
Streamlining processes: Right now there are very few people doing the legwork needed to get proposals ready and do the dirty work to get things over the line. Its a massive undertaking, and requires a ton of connections, rapport, and discussions. For the most part, the people doing this legwork have full time jobs already, we do it because we are passionate, but that cannot scale so we will do our best to limit bureaucracy bloat, but ya there may be a little slowdown that occurs for the sake of handling more initiatives.
Focusing on essential tasks: One of the main benefits i feel to something like this is an accountability matrix and clear mandates, the teams are going to take time and its not going to happen overnight, but the ability to hold a specific person responsible for an objective, and if they don't make progress on that objective they are removed from that role is a powerful motivator.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments, we are driving some insightful discussion.

dk3 from dk.3anon.eth

2.2M TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

hey devansh i appreciate you.

Interfacing with existing ARDC and Procurement Committee members: The OpCo should work closely with and complement the efforts of the ARDC and Procurement Committee. For example, I wouldn't expect OpCo to invest time or resources into anything that they could put into the ARDC's work queue. We envision regular communication and coordination between the OpCo and these existing bodies to ensure that their work is aligned and mutually supportive. Procurement, though, is a little less cut and dry. To hit economies of scale with a large-scale procurement program, we probably need to invest more resources than 3 part-time contributors. I would really like to see some tangible deliveries and milestones hit from the procurement team, but it has yet to be seen (I will give them the benefit of the doubt since they have only been live for a month), but in my eyes, we need to accelerate procurement. Also, procurement doesn't have any funding yet for what they can offer projects building in the ecosystem, once the Security Service providers have been onboarded, we are going to need to do a funding request, I can see the OpCo helping in that regard, managing funding requests so procurement can focus on onboarding and engagements. But need to think this through more.
Preventing bloat, ghost teams, and over-hiring: This is a valid concern, and we are committed to building a lean and efficient organization. Right now, the problem is the opposite, though; the demand for coordination far exceeds the supply of willing contributors. I would instead hire one all-star, pay them a lot, and load responsibilities until they are hitting capacity constraints and having to prioritize before moving to hire additional team members. Still, I guess we will have to make sure whoever runs the OpCo has a similar mentality. However, we should establish clear performance metrics and regularly assess OpCo's staffing needs to ensure we have the right people in the right roles.

dk3 from dk.3anon.eth

2.2M TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

welcome, welcome!

Cross-stream Collaboration

welcome, welcome!

Cross-stream Collaboration

You raise a good point about cross-stream collaboration and communication. I would imagine that by co-locating PMs within a single organization whose full-time roles are dedicated to the DAO, we would do a better job of communicating and synergizing when appropriate. As it stands currently, we do an okay job, as it's a tight-knit group of active contributors, but I definitely agree we will need something more thought-out to scale.

To address the specific example you mentioned regarding strategic partnerships, the governing board, which will likely be 7-9 elected members to act as a transitory "board" the idea is for them to kickoff the OpCo by determining priorities.

Scoping Challenges

Good points. I will think about how to best converse & set roles, responsibilities, and decision rights. I will need to make sure that is clearly outlined in the proposal.

Marketing Questions

I imagine the initial focus will be on brand marketing first and growth marketing second. But I have no strong background in marketing, so happy to take someone else's lead here. I see a world where there is an investment in both full-time marketing roles, but also hiring service providers like serotonin, creatives, content creators, researchers, etc, via an RFP process. I have started putting together Marketing outlines in hackmd, will polish them up and post them early next week.

Regarding the overlap with Offchain Labs and the Arbitrum Foundation, we will work closely with these entities to ensure that our efforts are complementary and not duplicative. Afaik OCL has a few focuses they will focus on in 2024, I believe all product related. The Foundation also just hired some members that I imagine will be brand-related campaigns; I will need to check with them. But these will both be very targeted efforts; the OpCo, I imagine, would be more widespread negotiating deals with crypto native creatives (podcasts, streamers, research firms, etc) building out a network and managing those relationships, with minimal in-house ran campaigns. Then working with builders in the space to utilize those channels when appropriate.

Appreciate your thoughtful comments and questions! Keep em coming.

dk3 from dk.3anon.eth

2.2M TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

Quoted from 0xidm

One minor thing; could it be called the CoOp? :slight_smile: I think it captures the spirit of the objectives.

jump to post →

Quoted from 0xidm

One minor thing; could it be called the CoOp? :slight_smile: I think it captures the spirit of the objectives.

jump to post →

Quoted from jengajojo

jump to post →

dk3 from dk.3anon.eth

2.2M TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

Quoted from Gonzacolo

We have to make sure we’re getting the top providers.
Introducing more intermediaries could potentially slow the process.
There’s a risk these intermediaries might focus on non-essential tasks.

jump to post →

Quoted from Gonzacolo

We have to make sure we’re getting the top providers.
Introducing more intermediaries could potentially slow the process.
There’s a risk these intermediaries might focus on non-essential tasks.

jump to post →

My Thoughts

Ensuring top providers: Look to get top talent; we will need to compensate and recruit. I'm kind of a hater of headhunter firms, but we will probably have to do a fair amount of spearfishing within the wider network of people in the space. We will also implement rigorous hiring processes to ensure we bring on the best providers/contributors for each role. But I don't anticipate that these roles (especially for directors) that we would just post on a job board and see what comes.
Streamlining processes: Right now there are very few people doing the legwork needed to get proposals ready and do the dirty work to get things over the line. Its a massive undertaking, and requires a ton of connections, rapport, and discussions. For the most part, the people doing this legwork have full time jobs already, we do it because we are passionate, but that cannot scale so we will do our best to limit bureaucracy bloat, but ya there may be a little slowdown that occurs for the sake of handling more initiatives.
Focusing on essential tasks: One of the main benefits i feel to something like this is an accountability matrix and clear mandates, the teams are going to take time and its not going to happen overnight, but the ability to hold a specific person responsible for an objective, and if they don't make progress on that objective they are removed from that role is a powerful motivator.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments, we are driving some insightful discussion.

dk3 from dk.3anon.eth

2.2M TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

hey devansh i appreciate you.

Interfacing with existing ARDC and Procurement Committee members: The OpCo should work closely with and complement the efforts of the ARDC and Procurement Committee. For example, I wouldn't expect OpCo to invest time or resources into anything that they could put into the ARDC's work queue. We envision regular communication and coordination between the OpCo and these existing bodies to ensure that their work is aligned and mutually supportive. Procurement, though, is a little less cut and dry. To hit economies of scale with a large-scale procurement program, we probably need to invest more resources than 3 part-time contributors. I would really like to see some tangible deliveries and milestones hit from the procurement team, but it has yet to be seen (I will give them the benefit of the doubt since they have only been live for a month), but in my eyes, we need to accelerate procurement. Also, procurement doesn't have any funding yet for what they can offer projects building in the ecosystem, once the Security Service providers have been onboarded, we are going to need to do a funding request, I can see the OpCo helping in that regard, managing funding requests so procurement can focus on onboarding and engagements. But need to think this through more.
Preventing bloat, ghost teams, and over-hiring: This is a valid concern, and we are committed to building a lean and efficient organization. Right now, the problem is the opposite, though; the demand for coordination far exceeds the supply of willing contributors. I would instead hire one all-star, pay them a lot, and load responsibilities until they are hitting capacity constraints and having to prioritize before moving to hire additional team members. Still, I guess we will have to make sure whoever runs the OpCo has a similar mentality. However, we should establish clear performance metrics and regularly assess OpCo's staffing needs to ensure we have the right people in the right roles.

dk3 from dk.3anon.eth

2.2M TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

welcome, welcome!

Cross-stream Collaboration

welcome, welcome!

Cross-stream Collaboration

Scoping Challenges

Good points. I will think about how to best converse & set roles, responsibilities, and decision rights. I will need to make sure that is clearly outlined in the proposal.

Marketing Questions

Appreciate your thoughtful comments and questions! Keep em coming.

hey devansh i appreciate you.

Interfacing with existing ARDC and Procurement Committee members: The OpCo should work closely with and complement the efforts of the ARDC and Procurement Committee. For example, I wouldn't expect OpCo to invest time or resources into anything that they could put into the ARDC's work queue. We envision regular communication and coordination between the OpCo and these existing bodies to ensure that their work is aligned and mutually supportive. Procurement, though, is a little less cut and dry. To hit economies of scale with a large-scale procurement program, we probably need to invest more resources than 3 part-time contributors. I would really like to see some tangible deliveries and milestones hit from the procurement team, but it has yet to be seen (I will give them the benefit of the doubt since they have only been live for a month), but in my eyes, we need to accelerate procurement. Also, procurement doesn't have any funding yet for what they can offer projects building in the ecosystem, once the Security Service providers have been onboarded, we are going to need to do a funding request, I can see the OpCo helping in that regard, managing funding requests so procurement can focus on onboarding and engagements. But need to think this through more.
Preventing bloat, ghost teams, and over-hiring: This is a valid concern, and we are committed to building a lean and efficient organization. Right now, the problem is the opposite, though; the demand for coordination far exceeds the supply of willing contributors. I would instead hire one all-star, pay them a lot, and load responsibilities until they are hitting capacity constraints and having to prioritize before moving to hire additional team members. Still, I guess we will have to make sure whoever runs the OpCo has a similar mentality. However, we should establish clear performance metrics and regularly assess OpCo's staffing needs to ensure we have the right people in the right roles.

The biggest challenge I see currently is that top talent will not work pro-bono on these projects like half of us do, so we need to create opportunities that give economic stability for people to leave their current roles and move into full-time DAO roles. The second hurdle I foresee will be accountability, as having a full-time contributor held accountable by the DAO will be too much noise. Hence, the idea behind the governing transitory council is to be the responsible party for these full-time hires for the time being.

Taking over existing functions or staff from the Arbitrum Foundation or OCL: We have had initial conversations with the Arbitrum Foundation and OCL about potential areas of collaboration and taking on responsibility. While we have not yet discussed the specifics of taking over existing functions or staff, we are open to exploring this option if it makes sense for all parties involved. But the gist of my understanding is that OCL wants to focus on product and Arbitrum Foundation on their mandates in the constitution, and that leaves a lot of open canvas for an OpCo to focus resources; we need to make sure it's the right priorities.

As we refine the OpCo proposal, we will discuss further with the Arbitrum Foundation and OCL to identify opportunities for synergy and collaboration. Our goal is to build an organization that complements and supports the work of these critical ecosystem partners rather than duplicating efforts or competing for resources.

Difference from Plurality Labs' work: This idea grew out of the success of Firestarter. Delegates all agreed we needed to scale Firestarter, and thus, the OpCo was born. Plurality will continue with its mandate as an allocator and questbook domain owners with their allocation mandates, but both are more focused on pilot programs or small-scale experiments. Where I would imagine OpCo would step in is when it's time to level up a pilot to a larger scale initiative that could reside in the OpCo.

The OpCo will also have a dedicated team and resources to support these efforts on an ongoing basis rather than relying on ad hoc initiatives or external partnerships. That said, we recognize the valuable work that Plurality Labs and other ecosystem partners are doing, and we are open to collaborating and learning from their experiences.

Maintaining the permissionless and decentralized nature of ArbitrumDAO: We share your concern about preserving what makes ArbitrumDAO special, and we are committed to maintaining its permissionless and decentralized ethos. The OpCo is not intended to replace or supersede the existing governance mechanisms of the DAO, but rather to support and enhance them. But calling a spade a spade, it's a chaotic mess, a beautiful puzzle if you will, and a little structure can go a long way.

The OpCo will operate transparently and be accountable to the Arbitrum DAO community. Its initiatives and decisions will be made public ASAP (some NDA stipulations I could see apply while negotiations are being made). Anyone will still be able to propose new ideas and initiatives without going through the OpCo.

Also, thanks for the heads-up about the work being done by @BlockworksResearch and @MattOnChain. I'm meeting with him tomorrow.

hey devansh i appreciate you.

Interfacing with existing ARDC and Procurement Committee members: The OpCo should work closely with and complement the efforts of the ARDC and Procurement Committee. For example, I wouldn't expect OpCo to invest time or resources into anything that they could put into the ARDC's work queue. We envision regular communication and coordination between the OpCo and these existing bodies to ensure that their work is aligned and mutually supportive. Procurement, though, is a little less cut and dry. To hit economies of scale with a large-scale procurement program, we probably need to invest more resources than 3 part-time contributors. I would really like to see some tangible deliveries and milestones hit from the procurement team, but it has yet to be seen (I will give them the benefit of the doubt since they have only been live for a month), but in my eyes, we need to accelerate procurement. Also, procurement doesn't have any funding yet for what they can offer projects building in the ecosystem, once the Security Service providers have been onboarded, we are going to need to do a funding request, I can see the OpCo helping in that regard, managing funding requests so procurement can focus on onboarding and engagements. But need to think this through more.
Preventing bloat, ghost teams, and over-hiring: This is a valid concern, and we are committed to building a lean and efficient organization. Right now, the problem is the opposite, though; the demand for coordination far exceeds the supply of willing contributors. I would instead hire one all-star, pay them a lot, and load responsibilities until they are hitting capacity constraints and having to prioritize before moving to hire additional team members. Still, I guess we will have to make sure whoever runs the OpCo has a similar mentality. However, we should establish clear performance metrics and regularly assess OpCo's staffing needs to ensure we have the right people in the right roles.

Taking over existing functions or staff from the Arbitrum Foundation or OCL: We have had initial conversations with the Arbitrum Foundation and OCL about potential areas of collaboration and taking on responsibility. While we have not yet discussed the specifics of taking over existing functions or staff, we are open to exploring this option if it makes sense for all parties involved. But the gist of my understanding is that OCL wants to focus on product and Arbitrum Foundation on their mandates in the constitution, and that leaves a lot of open canvas for an OpCo to focus resources; we need to make sure it's the right priorities.

Difference from Plurality Labs' work: This idea grew out of the success of Firestarter. Delegates all agreed we needed to scale Firestarter, and thus, the OpCo was born. Plurality will continue with its mandate as an allocator and questbook domain owners with their allocation mandates, but both are more focused on pilot programs or small-scale experiments. Where I would imagine OpCo would step in is when it's time to level up a pilot to a larger scale initiative that could reside in the OpCo.

Maintaining the permissionless and decentralized nature of ArbitrumDAO: We share your concern about preserving what makes ArbitrumDAO special, and we are committed to maintaining its permissionless and decentralized ethos. The OpCo is not intended to replace or supersede the existing governance mechanisms of the DAO, but rather to support and enhance them. But calling a spade a spade, it's a chaotic mess, a beautiful puzzle if you will, and a little structure can go a long way.

Also, thanks for the heads-up about the work being done by @BlockworksResearch and @MattOnChain. I'm meeting with him tomorrow.

dk3 from dk.3anon.eth

2.2M TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

Quoted from parkienator

OffChain Labs does already have most of the teams though (ecosystem, partnerships, marketing, community, etc.), so a problem could be how to not have duplication of work (i.e. operational inefficiency), but i guess this can be solved and aligned with a bit of work.

jump to post →

Quoted from parkienator

jump to post →

There def is risk of potential for duplication of work between the OpCo and the existing teams at OffChain Labs. I envision the OpCo working closely with OffChain Labs and the Foundation to clearly delineate roles and responsibilities, ensuring that efforts are complementary rather than redundant. Both OCL and AF want the DAO to play a more prominent role, especially in the mandates above, that would allow them to focus on more technological achievements as part of the constitution directives.

To make sure this occurs I would expect regular communication channels and coordination meetings between the OpCo, AF, OffChain Labs teams, as well as other groups coming into the fold. This would allow for the sharing of information, alignment of priorities, and identification of areas where collaboration can be most impactful. Additionally, the OpCo could focus on initiatives that are specifically tailored to the needs and goals of the Arbitrum DAO, while OffChain Labs continues to drive the broader development and adoption of the Arbitrum ecosystem.

Regarding your question about an overall structure for the DAO that incorporates existing committees, such as the ARDC and Procurement Committee, I believe this is a crucial consideration. The OpCo should be designed to integrate seamlessly with these existing bodies, kind of like this, I imagine. Potentially, the OpCo could focus on creating the funding side of things, while procurement focuses on the vendor management and service provider onboarding side of things. Once funding has been secured, it could pass it on to the procurement team.

Untitled diagram-2024-03-28-185054|690x83

dk3 from dk.3anon.eth

2.2M TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

Quoted from parkienator

jump to post →

Quoted from parkienator

jump to post →

Untitled diagram-2024-03-28-185054|690x83

The OpCo - Scale, Structure, & Synergy

The OpCo - Scale, Structure, & Synergy

The OpCo - Scale, Structure, & Synergy

The OpCo - To Scale, Structure, & Synergize

▶︎ HackMD Mandate Exploration ◀︎

Introduction:

Abstract:

Motivation:

Rationale:

Key Terms:

Specifications:

Mandates for the Arbitrum OpCo:

Steps to Implement:

Overall Cost:

The OpCo - Scale, Structure, & Synergy

The OpCo - Scale, Structure, & Synergy

The OpCo - Scale, Structure, & Synergy

The OpCo - To Scale, Structure, & Synergize

▶︎ HackMD Mandate Exploration ◀︎

Introduction:

Abstract:

Motivation:

Rationale:

Key Terms:

Specifications:

Mandates for the Arbitrum OpCo:

Steps to Implement:

Overall Cost:

The OpCo - Scale, Structure, & Synergy

The OpCo - Scale, Structure, & Synergy

The OpCo - Scale, Structure, & Synergy

The OpCo - Scale, Structure, & Synergy

The OpCo - Scale, Structure, & Synergy

The OpCo - Scale, Structure, & Synergy

The OpCo - To Scale, Structure, & Synergize

▶︎ HackMD Mandate Exploration ◀︎

Introduction:

Abstract:

Motivation:

Rationale:

Key Terms:

Specifications:

Mandates for the Arbitrum OpCo:

Steps to Implement:

Overall Cost:

The OpCo - To Scale, Structure, & Synergize

▶︎ HackMD Mandate Exploration ◀︎

Introduction:

Abstract:

Motivation:

Rationale:

Key Terms:

Specifications:

Mandates for the Arbitrum OpCo:

Steps to Implement:

Overall Cost:

Jump Directly to Specific Mandate Page

Jump Directly to Specific Mandate Page

Jump Directly to Specific Mandate Page

Jump Directly to Specific Mandate Page