Reporting is critical to any growing organization, especially to a decentralized autonomous one.
With over 425M ARB allocated, we must evolve from ad hoc reporting to a structured framework that delivers transparency, accountability, and actionable insights.
A tailored Reporting and Information Function that:
Disjointed efforts with limited visibility into the outcomes of 425M ARB in expenditures.
Given the direction of what an idealized reporting looks like and where we currently are.
What should we actually build out?
The solution is not to build more tech, simply not report or do something else, but to allow a team of people with deep expertise and high-context individuals to iterate and work through this with the DAO.
For this reason, we are proposing a solution that allows us to get to a steady state and then iteratively improve.
A small group of around 3-5 delegates and ecosystem participants will represent the user group of people we will co-work with to design this.
Should include representatives from:
To continue operating and improving data capture and reporting while seeking to understand how to best provide and translate this data for final consumption by last-mile stakeholders (e.g., marketing, internal communications, etc.)
In order to provide a maximally functional workstream, we require three phases. The first phase continues reporting operations while establishing a baseline through business analysis and processes and procedures documentation. This output will allow subsequent contractors or OpCo to adopt the workstream if desired.
Phase two consists of reduced resource allocation, providing some iterative improvements, performing the research to review problem areas, and culminating in a final report and proposal if appropriate.
Phase 3 further slims the resource allocation, committing to simply continuing the reporting operations workflows or transitioning them to another counterparty if necessary.
Reporting operations include:
Figure 1. Three Phases of Reporting Operations
Table 1. Work Components By Phase By Resource Allocation
| Component | Description | FTE Commitment Allocation |
|---|---|---|
| Phase 1: Reporting Operations and Documentation | ||
| Reporting Meeting Operations | The preparation, execution, and all management of the existing GRC and biweekly calls. | (50% FTE) – 20 hours/ Wk 25% Biweekly Calls 25% GRC |
| Operational Data Quality and Monitoring (GRC Tracker) | Maintenance of the GRC and Initiative Tracker, including First Mile Intake, Data Quality, and Ongoing Oversight for Completion | (25% FTE) – 10 hours /Wk |
| Capture and Reporting Workflow Documentation | Delivery of Current Reporting Workflow Processes and Procedures, including stakeholder interviews and | (75% FTE) – 30 hours/wk 25% Program Manager 50% Operations Contractor |
| Phase 2: Reporting Operations and Incremental Improvements | ||
| Reporting Meeting Operations | The preparation, execution, and all management of the existing GRC and biweekly calls. | (50% FTE) – 20 hours/ Wk 25% Biweekly Calls 25% GRC |
| Operational Data Quality and Monitoring (GRC Tracker) | Maintenance of the GRC and Initiative Tracker, including First Mile Intake, Data Quality, and Ongoing Oversight for Completion | (25% FTE) – 10 hours /Wk |
| Iterative Improvements and Final Documentation | Incremental improvements through the quarter Post- Mortem Report A Proposal for additional scope if appropriate | (40% FTE) – 16 hours/Wk 15% Program Manager 25% Operations Contractor |
| Phase 3: Reporting Operations | ||
| Reporting Meeting Operations | The preparation, execution, and all management of the existing GRC and biweekly calls. | (50% FTE) – 20 hours / Wk 25% Biweekly Calls 25% GRC |
| Operational Data Quality and Monitoring (GRC Tracker) | Maintenance of the GRC and Initiative Tracker, including First Mile Intake, Data Quality, and Ongoing Oversight for Completion | (25% FTE) – 10 hours /Wk |
Operational Data Quality and Monitoring includes the maintenance of the GRC and Initiative Tracker, including First Mile Intake, Data Quality, and Ongoing Oversight for Completion and adherence to existing DAO policy.
The weekly time commitment covers 10-15 hours based on past performance of the services below.
Overseeing Data Intake, ensuring completion, data quality, and appropriateness in the proposal, Ensuring reporting adherence of portfolio projects to DAO standards
Review new proposals to ensure awareness of existing relevant proposals, as well as identify and proposals that require reconciliation with the most current DAO status.
Capture all existing initiatives within the GRC database.
Review existing proposals and database weekly to identify changes or new proposals (e.g. new live proposals, concluded proposals)
Reconcile the weekly changes and communicate with all relevant and required counterparties.
The work items below provide for the formalization, documentation, and improvement of the current data reporting and capture function.
Current state: At present, Arbitrum and the various stakeholders do not have clear documentation or understanding of data capture and reporting structures.
That is, it is not entirely clear how information is captured and distributed through the DAO.
The discretionary work fund includes funding for proposal preparation, R&D grants related to reporting and information distribution, community compensation for outsourced tasks, and the potential to train additional contractors to begin to support some of the existing calls as a backup to the Program Manager.
Upcoming meetings and proposals.
Table 2. FTE Totals by Phase
| Phase | Duration | FTE Count | Effective Annual FTE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phase 1: Reporting Operations and Documentation | Q1 2025 .25 years | 1.5 | 0.375 |
| Phase 2: Reporting Operations and Incremental Improvements | Q2 2025 .25 years | 1.15 | 0.2875 |
| Phase 3: Reporting Operations | Q3 & Q4 2025 .5 years | 0.75 | 0.375 |
| Total | 1.0375 FTE /YR |
Table 3. Total USD Costs By Project Component
| Component | USD Amount | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Reporting Function Operation and Improvements* | $149,328 | This budget item covers 1.5 FTE and all the costs associated with the reporting function. |
| Discretionary Work Fund^ | $45,000 | Provides retroactive compensation for proposal preparation and additional funds to contract community members and third parties. |
| Program Manager Backpay | $45,000 | 75% FTE at Low Contractor base for 5 Months |
| Buffer estimate | $23,932 | This is buffer for snapshot. Once we receive all the feedback from delegates and ensure this is estimate is fair we will remove any additional amounts. |
| Total Maximum USD Spend | $263,260 |
*The fee is calculated using FTE comp calibrated to match a Sr. OpCo employee (192k) plus a 30% Contractor premium for Benefits, etc. No contingency funds are quoted, and any overages will be absorbed by the contractors themselves.
^ Discretionary fund utilization will be reported on a quarterly basis, and funds unused after 12 months will be returned.
In order to align long-term incentives, the proposed bonus structure provides a portion of 192k base comp plus contractor premium. Approximately 42% of the total contractor fee is to be taken as an ARB bonus paid after quarterly performance. The total ARB bonus to cover the entire scope shall be 220,240 ARB and will be paid out quarterly according to the FTE proportion.
The ARB calculation assumes the 90-day moving average price for ARB ($0.56), the OpCo standard base bonus of 30%, and a 30% risk premium for the portion converted from deferred base compensation.
The Program Manager has worked uncompensated since August while the date of the initiation of this statement of work is January 2025. It is therefore proposed that the Program Manager receives the USD backpay for the 5 uncompensated months at 0.75 FTE using the reduced base comp rate of 12k monthly and no ARB bonus, totaling $45,000.00
The proposal includes a 1-year commitment for the Operations and Reporting function. Payments in USD are made on a monthly streaming basis to provide for continuing operational expenses. ARB bonuses are paid on a quarterly basis upon the conclusion of the respective work term prorated to FTE. In the event of termination, they are prorated over the term of work completed.
The proposed structure includes:
Powerhouse began as the MakerDAO Sustainable Ecosystem Scaling (SES) Core Unit supporting an DAO incubator program, which also involved designing and building out the operational infrastructure of one of the largest DAO experiments to date. As SES, Powerhouse team members helped teams to organize operations, define workflows, and connect teams with relevant service providers. We learned a lot during the two years of operating this incubator and are now working on translating our best practices into open-source software and structured services for DAOs. Powerhouse is led by Prometheus, the former Head of Engineering of the Maker Foundation, responsible for shipping Multi-Collateral Dai in 2019. Powerhouse retains a full operational staff of approximately 14 full time contractors, plus additional partners and third party contractors. The firm utilizes in-house software development and business analysis teams to support organizational design and the translation and implementation of workflows into software where desired.
For the proposed operational reporting project, Lumen PhD, a Principal at Powerhouse, will oversee and manage the research and design work required. Lumen has extensive experience at startups and FAANG including a prior Operations Executive role at the Maker Foundation and Strategy roles in MakerDAO. He also possesses an R1 PhD in Social Psychology focused on game structures and organizational behavior. As part of this prior work, he managed federally funded in vivo and digital psychological intervention reaching thousands of participants.
Powerhouse successfully supported the recently concluded Arbitrum LTIPP project with ArbGrants, a site to capture and surface reports for the 80+ grantee projects. This work included business analysis, workflow design, and software development. The final product was a custom-hosted software workflow that enabled the Program Manager to complete the required oversight of compliance for biweekly reporting. Powerhouse also completed a large portion of the last-mile customer service work, including helping grantee projects navigate their reporting obligations and other program inquiries. For more information on this, you may see the post-mortem presentation here.
Reporting is critical to any growing organization, especially to a decentralized autonomous one.
With over 425M ARB allocated, we must evolve from ad hoc reporting to a structured framework that delivers transparency, accountability, and actionable insights.
A tailored Reporting and Information Function that:
Disjointed efforts with limited visibility into the outcomes of 425M ARB in expenditures.
Given the direction of what an idealized reporting looks like and where we currently are.
What should we actually build out?
The solution is not to build more tech, simply not report or do something else, but to allow a team of people with deep expertise and high-context individuals to iterate and work through this with the DAO.
For this reason, we are proposing a solution that allows us to get to a steady state and then iteratively improve.
A small group of around 3-5 delegates and ecosystem participants will represent the user group of people we will co-work with to design this.
Should include representatives from:
To continue operating and improving data capture and reporting while seeking to understand how to best provide and translate this data for final consumption by last-mile stakeholders (e.g., marketing, internal communications, etc.)
In order to provide a maximally functional workstream, we require three phases. The first phase continues reporting operations while establishing a baseline through business analysis and processes and procedures documentation. This output will allow subsequent contractors or OpCo to adopt the workstream if desired.
Phase two consists of reduced resource allocation, providing some iterative improvements, performing the research to review problem areas, and culminating in a final report and proposal if appropriate.
Phase 3 further slims the resource allocation, committing to simply continuing the reporting operations workflows or transitioning them to another counterparty if necessary.
Reporting operations include:
Figure 1. Three Phases of Reporting Operations
Table 1. Work Components By Phase By Resource Allocation
| Component | Description | FTE Commitment Allocation |
|---|---|---|
| Phase 1: Reporting Operations and Documentation | ||
| Reporting Meeting Operations | The preparation, execution, and all management of the existing GRC and biweekly calls. | (50% FTE) – 20 hours/ Wk 25% Biweekly Calls 25% GRC |
| Operational Data Quality and Monitoring (GRC Tracker) | Maintenance of the GRC and Initiative Tracker, including First Mile Intake, Data Quality, and Ongoing Oversight for Completion | (25% FTE) – 10 hours /Wk |
| Capture and Reporting Workflow Documentation | Delivery of Current Reporting Workflow Processes and Procedures, including stakeholder interviews and | (75% FTE) – 30 hours/wk 25% Program Manager 50% Operations Contractor |
| Phase 2: Reporting Operations and Incremental Improvements | ||
| Reporting Meeting Operations | The preparation, execution, and all management of the existing GRC and biweekly calls. | (50% FTE) – 20 hours/ Wk 25% Biweekly Calls 25% GRC |
| Operational Data Quality and Monitoring (GRC Tracker) | Maintenance of the GRC and Initiative Tracker, including First Mile Intake, Data Quality, and Ongoing Oversight for Completion | (25% FTE) – 10 hours /Wk |
| Iterative Improvements and Final Documentation | Incremental improvements through the quarter Post- Mortem Report A Proposal for additional scope if appropriate | (40% FTE) – 16 hours/Wk 15% Program Manager 25% Operations Contractor |
| Phase 3: Reporting Operations | ||
| Reporting Meeting Operations | The preparation, execution, and all management of the existing GRC and biweekly calls. | (50% FTE) – 20 hours / Wk 25% Biweekly Calls 25% GRC |
| Operational Data Quality and Monitoring (GRC Tracker) | Maintenance of the GRC and Initiative Tracker, including First Mile Intake, Data Quality, and Ongoing Oversight for Completion | (25% FTE) – 10 hours /Wk |
Operational Data Quality and Monitoring includes the maintenance of the GRC and Initiative Tracker, including First Mile Intake, Data Quality, and Ongoing Oversight for Completion and adherence to existing DAO policy.
The weekly time commitment covers 10-15 hours based on past performance of the services below.
Overseeing Data Intake, ensuring completion, data quality, and appropriateness in the proposal, Ensuring reporting adherence of portfolio projects to DAO standards
Review new proposals to ensure awareness of existing relevant proposals, as well as identify and proposals that require reconciliation with the most current DAO status.
Capture all existing initiatives within the GRC database.
Review existing proposals and database weekly to identify changes or new proposals (e.g. new live proposals, concluded proposals)
Reconcile the weekly changes and communicate with all relevant and required counterparties.
The work items below provide for the formalization, documentation, and improvement of the current data reporting and capture function.
Current state: At present, Arbitrum and the various stakeholders do not have clear documentation or understanding of data capture and reporting structures.
That is, it is not entirely clear how information is captured and distributed through the DAO.
The discretionary work fund includes funding for proposal preparation, R&D grants related to reporting and information distribution, community compensation for outsourced tasks, and the potential to train additional contractors to begin to support some of the existing calls as a backup to the Program Manager.
Upcoming meetings and proposals.
Table 2. FTE Totals by Phase
| Phase | Duration | FTE Count | Effective Annual FTE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phase 1: Reporting Operations and Documentation | Q1 2025 .25 years | 1.5 | 0.375 |
| Phase 2: Reporting Operations and Incremental Improvements | Q2 2025 .25 years | 1.15 | 0.2875 |
| Phase 3: Reporting Operations | Q3 & Q4 2025 .5 years | 0.75 | 0.375 |
| Total | 1.0375 FTE /YR |
Table 3. Total USD Costs By Project Component
| Component | USD Amount | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Reporting Function Operation and Improvements* | $149,328 | This budget item covers 1.5 FTE and all the costs associated with the reporting function. |
| Discretionary Work Fund^ | $45,000 | Provides retroactive compensation for proposal preparation and additional funds to contract community members and third parties. |
| Program Manager Backpay | $45,000 | 75% FTE at Low Contractor base for 5 Months |
| Buffer estimate | $23,932 | This is buffer for snapshot. Once we receive all the feedback from delegates and ensure this is estimate is fair we will remove any additional amounts. |
| Total Maximum USD Spend | $263,260 |
*The fee is calculated using FTE comp calibrated to match a Sr. OpCo employee (192k) plus a 30% Contractor premium for Benefits, etc. No contingency funds are quoted, and any overages will be absorbed by the contractors themselves.
^ Discretionary fund utilization will be reported on a quarterly basis, and funds unused after 12 months will be returned.
In order to align long-term incentives, the proposed bonus structure provides a portion of 192k base comp plus contractor premium. Approximately 42% of the total contractor fee is to be taken as an ARB bonus paid after quarterly performance. The total ARB bonus to cover the entire scope shall be 220,240 ARB and will be paid out quarterly according to the FTE proportion.
The ARB calculation assumes the 90-day moving average price for ARB ($0.56), the OpCo standard base bonus of 30%, and a 30% risk premium for the portion converted from deferred base compensation.
The Program Manager has worked uncompensated since August while the date of the initiation of this statement of work is January 2025. It is therefore proposed that the Program Manager receives the USD backpay for the 5 uncompensated months at 0.75 FTE using the reduced base comp rate of 12k monthly and no ARB bonus, totaling $45,000.00
The proposal includes a 1-year commitment for the Operations and Reporting function. Payments in USD are made on a monthly streaming basis to provide for continuing operational expenses. ARB bonuses are paid on a quarterly basis upon the conclusion of the respective work term prorated to FTE. In the event of termination, they are prorated over the term of work completed.
The proposed structure includes:
Powerhouse began as the MakerDAO Sustainable Ecosystem Scaling (SES) Core Unit supporting an DAO incubator program, which also involved designing and building out the operational infrastructure of one of the largest DAO experiments to date. As SES, Powerhouse team members helped teams to organize operations, define workflows, and connect teams with relevant service providers. We learned a lot during the two years of operating this incubator and are now working on translating our best practices into open-source software and structured services for DAOs. Powerhouse is led by Prometheus, the former Head of Engineering of the Maker Foundation, responsible for shipping Multi-Collateral Dai in 2019. Powerhouse retains a full operational staff of approximately 14 full time contractors, plus additional partners and third party contractors. The firm utilizes in-house software development and business analysis teams to support organizational design and the translation and implementation of workflows into software where desired.
For the proposed operational reporting project, Lumen PhD, a Principal at Powerhouse, will oversee and manage the research and design work required. Lumen has extensive experience at startups and FAANG including a prior Operations Executive role at the Maker Foundation and Strategy roles in MakerDAO. He also possesses an R1 PhD in Social Psychology focused on game structures and organizational behavior. As part of this prior work, he managed federally funded in vivo and digital psychological intervention reaching thousands of participants.
Powerhouse successfully supported the recently concluded Arbitrum LTIPP project with ArbGrants, a site to capture and surface reports for the 80+ grantee projects. This work included business analysis, workflow design, and software development. The final product was a custom-hosted software workflow that enabled the Program Manager to complete the required oversight of compliance for biweekly reporting. Powerhouse also completed a large portion of the last-mile customer service work, including helping grantee projects navigate their reporting obligations and other program inquiries. For more information on this, you may see the post-mortem presentation here.
The proposal would serve an important purpose of creating an active list of initiatives. However, the costs are unnecessarily high for task.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/57
The proposal would serve an important purpose of creating an active list of initiatives. However, the costs are unnecessarily high for task.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/57
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/56?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/54?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/53?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/51
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/50?u=tane
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-58: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-58
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-58: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-58
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/19
I believ directionally this is a worthwhile initiative but the focus on tooling and budget size makes this prohibitive
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/49?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/42
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/50?u=griff
this version of the proposal is not the one that the proposer wants to put forward anymore. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/47?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/46?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/43?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/39?u=tempetechie
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/33?u=seedgov
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/38?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/35?u=juanrah
Abstaining as I was previously a part of the proposal
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/34?u=0xdonpepe
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/30?u=kuiclub
We believe the proposal in its current form does not adequately balance cost, value, and decentralization.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/28?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/27?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/25?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/20?u=pedrob
I am voting against this proposal because it doesn’t clearly show how the money will improve reporting or deliver real results for the DAO.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/18?u=duokongcrypto
I wonder what effect such supervision can have, or whether any losses can be recovered? What results were obtained? How does it help users? I don't think it makes sense. The total ARB bonus to cover the entire scope shall be 220,240 ARB and will be paid out quarterly according to the FTE proportion. Your budget is a huge waste！
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/94?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/15?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/56?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/54?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/53?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/51
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/50?u=tane
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-58: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-58
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-58: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-58
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/19
I believ directionally this is a worthwhile initiative but the focus on tooling and budget size makes this prohibitive
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/49?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/42
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/50?u=griff
this version of the proposal is not the one that the proposer wants to put forward anymore. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/47?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/46?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/43?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/39?u=tempetechie
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/33?u=seedgov
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/38?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/35?u=juanrah
Abstaining as I was previously a part of the proposal
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/34?u=0xdonpepe
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/30?u=kuiclub
We believe the proposal in its current form does not adequately balance cost, value, and decentralization.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/28?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/27?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/25?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/20?u=pedrob
I am voting against this proposal because it doesn’t clearly show how the money will improve reporting or deliver real results for the DAO.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/18?u=duokongcrypto
I wonder what effect such supervision can have, or whether any losses can be recovered? What results were obtained? How does it help users? I don't think it makes sense. The total ARB bonus to cover the entire scope shall be 220,240 ARB and will be paid out quarterly according to the FTE proportion. Your budget is a huge waste！
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/94?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/designing-and-operating-the-reporting-and-information-function/27609/15?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
Speaking on behalf of Cornell Blockchain Governance Team, we voted against the initiative. The proposal has utility and serves to benefit the DAO by creating an active list of projects. We look forward to the updated proposal which we hope reflects a lower operating cost.
Speaking on behalf of Cornell Blockchain Governance Team, we voted against the initiative. The proposal has utility and serves to benefit the DAO by creating an active list of projects. We look forward to the updated proposal which we hope reflects a lower operating cost.
Blockworks Advisory will be voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.
We share many of the concerns proposed by other delegates. To our knowledge this proposal is to be iterated on and updated.
I did vote "ABSTAIN" to wait for a next version.
Blockworks Advisory will be voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.
We share many of the concerns proposed by other delegates. To our knowledge this proposal is to be iterated on and updated.
I did vote "ABSTAIN" to wait for a next version.
We are abstaining from this proposal, despite its compelling vision for information architecture. While the core concept of addressing governance data flows is critical, the proposal's current evolutionary state makes proper evaluation challenging. We believe major initiatives should reach Snapshot only in their final, complete form.
We look forward to supporting a more detailed iteration that fully articulates the implementation framework and governance integration touchpoints.
Since this proposal is not yet complete and will be updated further, I have decided to abstain at this stage. As I previously mentioned, I find the core of this initiative really interesting, so I’m open to future discussions and look forward to a clearer and more complete version. However, I would like to emphasize that, for next time, it’s important to move to Snapshot only once the proposal is fully defined in order to avoid situations like the current one. I’m looking forward to read the revised version!
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting Against in this proposal and bellow is our rationale.
FranklinDAO / Penn Blockchain voted Against this proposal. We look forward to the next iteration with a more detailed implementation process, milestones, and KPIs.
DAOplomats voted Against this proposal on Snapshot.
We agree that this is necessary, but many things felt rushed here. We also second several delegate comments regarding the funding request being bloated.
Alex, you did mention you would be working on this more during last week's open discussion so we are looking forward to an updated proposal.
Against this proposal. Although in favour of an initiative such as this (it would definitively be extremely helpful to keep track), there is merit in citing concerns about costs. Waiting for the new updates/proposal.
The following 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.
We’re voting AGAINST the proposal.
The following 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.
We’re voting AGAINST the proposal.
We’ve had many discussions with Alex about this proposal on a higher level ever since we passed over the monthly call to him, and it started turning into the reporting one. We’ve also discussed the proposal's specifics with him and other delegates on several occasions.
Overall, we believe the proposed work has merit, and the initiative is needed in the DAO right now for the same reasons described in the proposal itself. Many initiatives are happening simultaneously for delegates to keep track of while also following active discussions and upcoming proposals. Having a dedicated party working on establishing a reporting standard and cadence while also coordinating the initiative leads and ensuring the process is smooth is a very appealing proposition and is absolutely necessary in order to establish proper project management for the initiatives we fund.
That said, after reviewing the proposal, we need help justifying the associated costs with the workload and the amount of time and effort it would require. As things stand, the requested budget for the base salary and bonus is orders of magnitude higher than it should be for the amount of work to do. Also the work could be described more precisely as it’s not like we don’t know what is needed and how it should be executed, we have lots of experience and most of those things are already being run in a limited capacity, we just need to make sure that it’s not a voluntary initiative but rather a structured process.
To support the proposal, we’d expect to see a considerable decrease in the requested budget and a more narrow and clearly defined scope.
We vote AGAINST the proposal.
We acknowledge that this version of the proposal will be updated with another proposal in the near future.
I voted against this version of the proposal. Looking forward for the next iteration.
voting Against the current offchain proposal because this version of the proposal is not the one that the proposer wants to put forward anymore.
Voted Abstain: During the governance call, it was mentioned that this proposal will be re-published. I voted to abstain. I look forward to seeing a new, improved version of this proposal.
After being on the call and understanding that the proposal will be modified and canceled for now, I will abstain from voting until I can analyze the next version.
We want to first thank @AlexLumley for bringing this proposal to the DAO and for your continuous communication and efforts. It is our understanding that the current plan is to use the Snapshot and community feedback to repost the proposal the week of the 12th that addresses the needs of the DAO and community. Therefore, we will vote Abstain to the current Snapshot and look forward to further discussion and feedback.
While the proposal seeks to address the important need for improved reporting and transparency, we agree with other community members that it falls short in clearly defining and justifying its scale, cost, and complexity, which appear disproportionate to the problem and its objectives. Executing on this overall goal would be valuable for long-term DAO development but also poses challenges in the need for comprehensive reporting across the entirety of the system expenses and initiatives. We look forward to this proposal evolving and addressing the need for consolidation and clarity as the DAO continues the development of the OpCo.
Voting "Against" as my understanding from posts and the call is this will be updated
I echo this comment. At the beginning I was not really sure if I really did understand everything and also reading about a revised proposal now.
I will vote Against this propsal, but not against the idea overall. I think a good reporting is needed and someone in charge of all DAO spendings.
From yesterday's call and some comments on the thread, I see a renewed discussion about canceling a proposal due to the voting results. This has happened in the past, and I’d like to reiterate my stance on the matter.
TL;DR: I’m against it. The purpose of a temp check is precisely to gauge the DAO’s sentiment regarding a proposal. Proposals that receive a "no" (whether they need improvement or it’s simply not the right time) shouldn’t be canceled, as they provide valuable insights that can serve as a foundation for shaping future proposals.
We are abstaining from this proposal, despite its compelling vision for information architecture. While the core concept of addressing governance data flows is critical, the proposal's current evolutionary state makes proper evaluation challenging. We believe major initiatives should reach Snapshot only in their final, complete form.
We look forward to supporting a more detailed iteration that fully articulates the implementation framework and governance integration touchpoints.
Since this proposal is not yet complete and will be updated further, I have decided to abstain at this stage. As I previously mentioned, I find the core of this initiative really interesting, so I’m open to future discussions and look forward to a clearer and more complete version. However, I would like to emphasize that, for next time, it’s important to move to Snapshot only once the proposal is fully defined in order to avoid situations like the current one. I’m looking forward to read the revised version!
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting Against in this proposal and bellow is our rationale.
FranklinDAO / Penn Blockchain voted Against this proposal. We look forward to the next iteration with a more detailed implementation process, milestones, and KPIs.
DAOplomats voted Against this proposal on Snapshot.
We agree that this is necessary, but many things felt rushed here. We also second several delegate comments regarding the funding request being bloated.
Alex, you did mention you would be working on this more during last week's open discussion so we are looking forward to an updated proposal.
Against this proposal. Although in favour of an initiative such as this (it would definitively be extremely helpful to keep track), there is merit in citing concerns about costs. Waiting for the new updates/proposal.
The following 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.
We’re voting AGAINST the proposal.
The following 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.
We’re voting AGAINST the proposal.
We’ve had many discussions with Alex about this proposal on a higher level ever since we passed over the monthly call to him, and it started turning into the reporting one. We’ve also discussed the proposal's specifics with him and other delegates on several occasions.
Overall, we believe the proposed work has merit, and the initiative is needed in the DAO right now for the same reasons described in the proposal itself. Many initiatives are happening simultaneously for delegates to keep track of while also following active discussions and upcoming proposals. Having a dedicated party working on establishing a reporting standard and cadence while also coordinating the initiative leads and ensuring the process is smooth is a very appealing proposition and is absolutely necessary in order to establish proper project management for the initiatives we fund.
That said, after reviewing the proposal, we need help justifying the associated costs with the workload and the amount of time and effort it would require. As things stand, the requested budget for the base salary and bonus is orders of magnitude higher than it should be for the amount of work to do. Also the work could be described more precisely as it’s not like we don’t know what is needed and how it should be executed, we have lots of experience and most of those things are already being run in a limited capacity, we just need to make sure that it’s not a voluntary initiative but rather a structured process.
To support the proposal, we’d expect to see a considerable decrease in the requested budget and a more narrow and clearly defined scope.
We vote AGAINST the proposal.
We acknowledge that this version of the proposal will be updated with another proposal in the near future.
I voted against this version of the proposal. Looking forward for the next iteration.
voting Against the current offchain proposal because this version of the proposal is not the one that the proposer wants to put forward anymore.
Voted Abstain: During the governance call, it was mentioned that this proposal will be re-published. I voted to abstain. I look forward to seeing a new, improved version of this proposal.
After being on the call and understanding that the proposal will be modified and canceled for now, I will abstain from voting until I can analyze the next version.
We want to first thank @AlexLumley for bringing this proposal to the DAO and for your continuous communication and efforts. It is our understanding that the current plan is to use the Snapshot and community feedback to repost the proposal the week of the 12th that addresses the needs of the DAO and community. Therefore, we will vote Abstain to the current Snapshot and look forward to further discussion and feedback.
While the proposal seeks to address the important need for improved reporting and transparency, we agree with other community members that it falls short in clearly defining and justifying its scale, cost, and complexity, which appear disproportionate to the problem and its objectives. Executing on this overall goal would be valuable for long-term DAO development but also poses challenges in the need for comprehensive reporting across the entirety of the system expenses and initiatives. We look forward to this proposal evolving and addressing the need for consolidation and clarity as the DAO continues the development of the OpCo.
Voting "Against" as my understanding from posts and the call is this will be updated
I echo this comment. At the beginning I was not really sure if I really did understand everything and also reading about a revised proposal now.
I will vote Against this propsal, but not against the idea overall. I think a good reporting is needed and someone in charge of all DAO spendings.
From yesterday's call and some comments on the thread, I see a renewed discussion about canceling a proposal due to the voting results. This has happened in the past, and I’d like to reiterate my stance on the matter.
TL;DR: I’m against it. The purpose of a temp check is precisely to gauge the DAO’s sentiment regarding a proposal. Proposals that receive a "no" (whether they need improvement or it’s simply not the right time) shouldn’t be canceled, as they provide valuable insights that can serve as a foundation for shaping future proposals.
From yesterday's call and some comments on the thread, I see a renewed discussion about canceling a proposal due to the voting results. This has happened in the past, and I’d like to reiterate my stance on the matter.
TL;DR: I’m against it. The purpose of a temp check is precisely to gauge the DAO’s sentiment regarding a proposal. Proposals that receive a "no" (whether they need improvement or it’s simply not the right time) shouldn’t be canceled, as they provide valuable insights that can serve as a foundation for shaping future proposals.
If we erase everything that seems to be disapproved (this was the partial result, although it’s impossible to know the final outcome), we won’t have a detailed record of what is not wanted, and as a result, it will be more difficult for third parties that bring new proposals to understand the general sentiment of the delegates. Note that Tally is not an ideal source for this kind of data, as everything put up for a vote there is generally known beforehand to be likely approved.
In this specific case, for example (although it would be the same in any case), a new participant in the DAO (delegate or stakeholder) will find it more difficult to understand the reasons behind the content and/or modifications of the future proposal. I believe that we should always strive to facilitate the understanding of the processes and motivations of governance for those who are not immersed in it.
The more information available, the better. Not the other way around.
Although it is not expressly stated in the constitution, Section 2 of the same states that “If an AIP fails the temperature check, or has not undergone a temperature check, as a matter of good governance practice, it is recommended that voters strongly consider voting to reject it.”
A logical interpretation of this good governance practice implies the intention that the results of proposals on Snapshot should be maintained so that they can be known by the voters. However, a discussion about interpretations may not be very meaningful. It would be good to explicitly state that a vote on Snapshot should not be deleted unless it contains some technical issue.
On the other hand, part of the delegates’ commitment to the holders is to participate in debates and vote on proposals. This is what they have committed to their delegators. Proceeding in this manner is to erase their work, something no one is entailed to do.
Initiative Performance Initiative performance is a broad term, It can include multiple dimensions. We are not yet at the stage where we can say this initiative did well, this one did poorly as they are so hard to compare.
Right now we are more focused on : Are people doing the work they have said they will do? Can we check in with them to ensure they are doing the work?
(Will continue response)_
Sorry, Alex, I cannot support it in its current form due to the lack of concrete details, high budget allocation, and insufficient community involvement strategy.
Firstly, while the proposal highlights the importance of transparency and improving the reporting function, it lacks a detailed breakdown of the specific metrics or KPIs that will be used to assess the effectiveness of the new reporting system. Without clear and measurable success criteria, it will be difficult to evaluate whether the proposed system is genuinely adding value or simply introducing more complexity to the process. A more concrete plan, with clear objectives and expected outcomes, should be outlined.
Sorry, Alex, I cannot support it in its current form due to the lack of concrete details, high budget allocation, and insufficient community involvement strategy.
Firstly, while the proposal highlights the importance of transparency and improving the reporting function, it lacks a detailed breakdown of the specific metrics or KPIs that will be used to assess the effectiveness of the new reporting system. Without clear and measurable success criteria, it will be difficult to evaluate whether the proposed system is genuinely adding value or simply introducing more complexity to the process. A more concrete plan, with clear objectives and expected outcomes, should be outlined.
Secondly, the budget of $263,260 for maintaining the reporting function for up to 12 months seems quite high, especially when considering that the DAO has already invested substantial amounts into similar initiatives. The proposal mentions 4 months of backpay, but it's unclear whether this expense is justified given the current state of the team and the perceived need for such a large budget. A more detailed cost breakdown, as well as a clearer justification for these expenditures, would make the proposal more transparent and help avoid concerns about resource misallocation.
Overall I like the idea, but as many others have mentioned the main concern is the size of the budget. Since the proposal is supposed to be cancelled (as mentioned in the governance call), I voted abstain.
deleting the snapshot proposal is an irreversible action. I don't think we should do that because that means the 4185 votes already casted would be lost. if the proposal was put up to a vote, it should be voted on, reach it's end date, and we should learn from its result. we should not get into the habit of deleting snapshot proposals. I think there was only one other time a snapshot proposal was deleted in Arbitrum DAO, and it was this one: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-thank-arb-by-plurality-labs-milestone-2-scaling-value-creation-in-the-dao/20534/32
@AlexLumley Yesterday, during the Open Discussion of Proposal(s) call, you mentioned that this proposal would be canceled. Is this correct? If so, please cancel it as soon as possible so active delegates don’t need to spend time on it and vote.
As I stated in my previous remark, I believe an initiative of this nature is needed in order to standardize the tracking process of proposals and advance the DAO's organization.
I understand other delegates' comments and their budget concerns and agree with SEEDGov's posture that this proposal seems rushed. I will also vote to ABSTAIN and wait for the updated version.
Cheers!
I'm not fully convinced by the current proposal and understand a revised version is in the works. Therefore, I'll abstain from voting on this one on Snapshot and I'll wait for the updated version.
GM @AlexLumley, we appreciate the effort that has gone into this proposal, but Castle will vote against it for the reasons listed below.
GM @AlexLumley, we appreciate the effort that has gone into this proposal, but Castle will vote against it for the reasons listed below.
There is also a lack of clarity on the final form of this report and what tangible benefits it provides the DAO to pay for the setup and its continued operations.
We agree with @JoJo’s point of view that the compensation for the work does not seem proportionate with the proposed scope of work of the proposal.
This, for reporting and oversight work, is the high side of the barrel I will be honest. I would expect a level of scrutiny that is almost at a military grade level, to be blunt. I would expect you to physically chase people who don’t answer you in telegram to get the info you need, and this is no hyperbole, cause sometimes is just so hard to get info from people in chat.
We also agree with @cp0x on the retroactive payment for past work
Retroactive $45,000 - in my opinion, this is also a lot. Okay, you worked on the project, as well as on this proposal, but no one is asking for additional payment for writing the proposal or doing preliminary work for the main work. Everything you did before the budget was approved was solely your initiative. Of course, it is necessary to give retroactive drops for some work, but as the vote on LTIPP Retroactive Community Funding Selections showed, 60% voted against such actions.
The work done in the past was not at the DAO's request but was undertaken as an individual initiative, and we feel it would not be appropriate to charge the DAO for uncommissioned work.
On the whole we would like to see this proposal provide more detailed information on: a. What form will the reporting take? b. How will it consolidate information? c. What are the roles and scope of Powerhouse and Lumen? d. What is the expected ROI whether in terms of efficiency, savings, etc…
Considering that the OpCo is in the process of being started, we would support the proposal if it positioned it as a temporary role of an operations administrator or group-wide project manager whose role is to consolidate status from the different working groups.
The proposal’s scope should be updated to present a more simplified and direct case. We would be more supportive in that instance. Thanks again for the proposal, definitely needed just not in its current format.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
We want to start by thanking @AlexLumley for this new version of the proposal. It is clear that Arbitrum DAO currently needs a workstream focused on reporting, granting autonomy for meetings, and especially people dedicated to tracking already-funded proposals. Although each proposal has its own "reporting system," the optimal approach would be to standardize this as much as possible. And who is better positioned to make these suggestions to proposers than a DAO employee fully dedicated to reporting?
Yes, the proposal aims to solve a real problem, but we have several concerns that prevent us from supporting the initiative at this time:
Rush to voting: Once again, the proposal appears rushed. In this particular case, significant changes were made on the same day the proposal was posted for voting. From budget details to the creation of an advisory committee, none of this could be thoroughly discussed among community members.
Compensation concerns: We agree with other delegates that the requested compensation is based on an erroneous assumption: "The fee is calculated using FTE comp calibrated to match a Sr. OpCo employee (192k) plus a 30% Contractor premium for Benefits, etc." Not only does the OpCo not yet exist, but the budget provided by @Entropy was merely an example, which does not imply that the final hiring cost will be 192k. We are also unsure that reporting necessarily warrants senior-level compensation, although this point is debatable.
Base comp and Bonus: Even leaving aside the above points, the base compensation seems high for the role. Also echoing comments from @cp0x, the proposed bonus does not provide a tangible return for the DAO beyond “alignment” and is again based on the assumption that the OpCo eventually pays a 30% bonus.
Regarding retroactive payments: At SEEDGov, we generally support retroactive payments for valuable work, but in this case, we align with other delegates: the retroactive compensation appears too high. Based on the proposal, we estimate that during these months the work did not exceed 50% FTE (especially in August), with tasks focused on:
Please correct us if this assessment is incorrect. (By the way, we quite liked the Table 1. Work Components By Phase By Resource Allocation).
Advisory Committee: We agree with other delegates that this appears to add unnecessary bureaucracy.
Discretionary Work Fund: It is challenging to evaluate this without an estimated breakdown of the allocation for each item:
Thanks, @AlexLumley, for this proposal.
But we are think that this proposal is too expensive, with over $263,000 requested for something that should be simpler. The plan is complex and hard to understand, making it unclear how it will really help the DAO.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting AGAINST this proposal in the Snapshot voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting AGAINST this proposal in the Snapshot voting.
Our concerns about the budget remain unchanged from the proposal discussion phase. While we support the idea, we feel that the budget allocation, including retroactive funding and bonuses, needs further refinement.
As mentioned by @AlexLumley in his comment:
Whatever result we get we will host calls, have more delegate calls and go to snapshot again the week of the 12th so we can be done before the Holiday Break.
We will look forward to the revised Snapshot proposal on the 12th and any adjustments made to address budget concerns.
For now, we are voting against this proposal in its current form, while remaining open to supporting a revised version that addresses these concerns.
The following reflects the views of our team, @ocandocrypto and @eugenia.
Alex thank you for the proposal, we see the value in the mission and support it. It makes sense to have a standarized framework to track progress, performance, and results, not just in terms of efficiency but also to propose new initiatives in the future, track spending, general initiative and success tracking, having DAO benchmarks.
Voting Against this proposal.
While we value transparency and accountability within the DAO, the current approach feels unclear and lacks sufficient alignment with efficient and decentralized practices. We believe there’s room for a more refined and community-driven solution that balances cost with tangible impact, ensuring it serves the DAO's long-term growth effectively.
FOR I voted in favor of the proposal. The proposal’s objectives are clear, and the team’s experience is reliable. Alex’s consistent use of real-time video communication in every meeting has left a strong impression. Establishing this reporting system is a key infrastructure initiative for the long-term development of the Arbitrum DAO. The proposal aligns with the DAO’s long-term goals, as transparent reporting and data management are essential foundations for any growing organization. This proposal not only provides operational support for the current DAO but also lays the groundwork for future decision-making and oversight.
However, I still recommend dividing the budget and related payments into phases and batches for submission and approval. Additionally, it would be beneficial to ensure that more stakeholders receive regular progress updates about the proposal.
We're voting against the proposal
Coming back from holidays, so apologies if this has been raised earlier.
It's difficult to see how this could work as intended without also getting a mandate from governance to compel reporting from every project in the DAO.
Coming back from holidays, so apologies if this has been raised earlier.
It's difficult to see how this could work as intended without also getting a mandate from governance to compel reporting from every project in the DAO.
Using Powerhouse's past work as an example, they tried this with expenses.makerdao.network (now defunct and this redirects to a new dash for Maker). It had lots of features and allowed for granular reporting. But we don't recall there ever being more than half the contributors actually using it, even for top-line expenses, and certainly not for actual, useful reporting.
These kinds of tools and systems are worth very little if you can't capture 100% of the actual spend. So all it takes is one working group or project to be too busy/lazy/inept to report and this whole thing becomes considerably less useful.
We would recommend coming back to this with not just a budget but with a more comprehensive authority and formal office with powers to compel reporting. A DAO auditor or something like that. Contributors that don't report can't renew their projects and could potentially -- in worst case scenarios -- end up on the blacklist like Furucombo.
You can also lighten the weight of this proposal by removing the advisory council. This feels like a strictly civil servant role that can have a fairly objective mandate and shouldn't be susceptible to politics of interpretation very much if drafted correctly.
But we do not at the moment support paying to build this out without there also being some kind of assurance that it will be able to capture 100% of the needed information, unless we're missing something in the proposal.
Hello, thanks for the proposal. I believe while improving reporting and oversight is important, DAO should carefully consider whether this $263,260 investment will truly bring long-term value to Arbitrum.
With over half of it going towards operational costs, such as FTEs or reporting-related activities, it’s a significant amount for these activities :). Moreover, the buffer $23,932 might not be enough to cover unexpected costs, and we could end up needing more funds.
Hello, thanks for the proposal. I believe while improving reporting and oversight is important, DAO should carefully consider whether this $263,260 investment will truly bring long-term value to Arbitrum.
With over half of it going towards operational costs, such as FTEs or reporting-related activities, it’s a significant amount for these activities :). Moreover, the buffer $23,932 might not be enough to cover unexpected costs, and we could end up needing more funds.
Plus, it creates just more bureaucracy than before.
So I decided to vote “Against” on Snapshot.
Thanks for this super in-depth proposal! Some thoughts:
From yesterday's call and some comments on the thread, I see a renewed discussion about canceling a proposal due to the voting results. This has happened in the past, and I’d like to reiterate my stance on the matter.
TL;DR: I’m against it. The purpose of a temp check is precisely to gauge the DAO’s sentiment regarding a proposal. Proposals that receive a "no" (whether they need improvement or it’s simply not the right time) shouldn’t be canceled, as they provide valuable insights that can serve as a foundation for shaping future proposals.
If we erase everything that seems to be disapproved (this was the partial result, although it’s impossible to know the final outcome), we won’t have a detailed record of what is not wanted, and as a result, it will be more difficult for third parties that bring new proposals to understand the general sentiment of the delegates. Note that Tally is not an ideal source for this kind of data, as everything put up for a vote there is generally known beforehand to be likely approved.
In this specific case, for example (although it would be the same in any case), a new participant in the DAO (delegate or stakeholder) will find it more difficult to understand the reasons behind the content and/or modifications of the future proposal. I believe that we should always strive to facilitate the understanding of the processes and motivations of governance for those who are not immersed in it.
The more information available, the better. Not the other way around.
Although it is not expressly stated in the constitution, Section 2 of the same states that “If an AIP fails the temperature check, or has not undergone a temperature check, as a matter of good governance practice, it is recommended that voters strongly consider voting to reject it.”
A logical interpretation of this good governance practice implies the intention that the results of proposals on Snapshot should be maintained so that they can be known by the voters. However, a discussion about interpretations may not be very meaningful. It would be good to explicitly state that a vote on Snapshot should not be deleted unless it contains some technical issue.
On the other hand, part of the delegates’ commitment to the holders is to participate in debates and vote on proposals. This is what they have committed to their delegators. Proceeding in this manner is to erase their work, something no one is entailed to do.
Initiative Performance Initiative performance is a broad term, It can include multiple dimensions. We are not yet at the stage where we can say this initiative did well, this one did poorly as they are so hard to compare.
Right now we are more focused on : Are people doing the work they have said they will do? Can we check in with them to ensure they are doing the work?
(Will continue response)_
Sorry, Alex, I cannot support it in its current form due to the lack of concrete details, high budget allocation, and insufficient community involvement strategy.
Firstly, while the proposal highlights the importance of transparency and improving the reporting function, it lacks a detailed breakdown of the specific metrics or KPIs that will be used to assess the effectiveness of the new reporting system. Without clear and measurable success criteria, it will be difficult to evaluate whether the proposed system is genuinely adding value or simply introducing more complexity to the process. A more concrete plan, with clear objectives and expected outcomes, should be outlined.
Sorry, Alex, I cannot support it in its current form due to the lack of concrete details, high budget allocation, and insufficient community involvement strategy.
Firstly, while the proposal highlights the importance of transparency and improving the reporting function, it lacks a detailed breakdown of the specific metrics or KPIs that will be used to assess the effectiveness of the new reporting system. Without clear and measurable success criteria, it will be difficult to evaluate whether the proposed system is genuinely adding value or simply introducing more complexity to the process. A more concrete plan, with clear objectives and expected outcomes, should be outlined.
Secondly, the budget of $263,260 for maintaining the reporting function for up to 12 months seems quite high, especially when considering that the DAO has already invested substantial amounts into similar initiatives. The proposal mentions 4 months of backpay, but it's unclear whether this expense is justified given the current state of the team and the perceived need for such a large budget. A more detailed cost breakdown, as well as a clearer justification for these expenditures, would make the proposal more transparent and help avoid concerns about resource misallocation.
Overall I like the idea, but as many others have mentioned the main concern is the size of the budget. Since the proposal is supposed to be cancelled (as mentioned in the governance call), I voted abstain.
deleting the snapshot proposal is an irreversible action. I don't think we should do that because that means the 4185 votes already casted would be lost. if the proposal was put up to a vote, it should be voted on, reach it's end date, and we should learn from its result. we should not get into the habit of deleting snapshot proposals. I think there was only one other time a snapshot proposal was deleted in Arbitrum DAO, and it was this one: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-thank-arb-by-plurality-labs-milestone-2-scaling-value-creation-in-the-dao/20534/32
@AlexLumley Yesterday, during the Open Discussion of Proposal(s) call, you mentioned that this proposal would be canceled. Is this correct? If so, please cancel it as soon as possible so active delegates don’t need to spend time on it and vote.
As I stated in my previous remark, I believe an initiative of this nature is needed in order to standardize the tracking process of proposals and advance the DAO's organization.
I understand other delegates' comments and their budget concerns and agree with SEEDGov's posture that this proposal seems rushed. I will also vote to ABSTAIN and wait for the updated version.
Cheers!
I'm not fully convinced by the current proposal and understand a revised version is in the works. Therefore, I'll abstain from voting on this one on Snapshot and I'll wait for the updated version.
GM @AlexLumley, we appreciate the effort that has gone into this proposal, but Castle will vote against it for the reasons listed below.
GM @AlexLumley, we appreciate the effort that has gone into this proposal, but Castle will vote against it for the reasons listed below.
There is also a lack of clarity on the final form of this report and what tangible benefits it provides the DAO to pay for the setup and its continued operations.
We agree with @JoJo’s point of view that the compensation for the work does not seem proportionate with the proposed scope of work of the proposal.
This, for reporting and oversight work, is the high side of the barrel I will be honest. I would expect a level of scrutiny that is almost at a military grade level, to be blunt. I would expect you to physically chase people who don’t answer you in telegram to get the info you need, and this is no hyperbole, cause sometimes is just so hard to get info from people in chat.
We also agree with @cp0x on the retroactive payment for past work
Retroactive $45,000 - in my opinion, this is also a lot. Okay, you worked on the project, as well as on this proposal, but no one is asking for additional payment for writing the proposal or doing preliminary work for the main work. Everything you did before the budget was approved was solely your initiative. Of course, it is necessary to give retroactive drops for some work, but as the vote on LTIPP Retroactive Community Funding Selections showed, 60% voted against such actions.
The work done in the past was not at the DAO's request but was undertaken as an individual initiative, and we feel it would not be appropriate to charge the DAO for uncommissioned work.
On the whole we would like to see this proposal provide more detailed information on: a. What form will the reporting take? b. How will it consolidate information? c. What are the roles and scope of Powerhouse and Lumen? d. What is the expected ROI whether in terms of efficiency, savings, etc…
Considering that the OpCo is in the process of being started, we would support the proposal if it positioned it as a temporary role of an operations administrator or group-wide project manager whose role is to consolidate status from the different working groups.
The proposal’s scope should be updated to present a more simplified and direct case. We would be more supportive in that instance. Thanks again for the proposal, definitely needed just not in its current format.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
We want to start by thanking @AlexLumley for this new version of the proposal. It is clear that Arbitrum DAO currently needs a workstream focused on reporting, granting autonomy for meetings, and especially people dedicated to tracking already-funded proposals. Although each proposal has its own "reporting system," the optimal approach would be to standardize this as much as possible. And who is better positioned to make these suggestions to proposers than a DAO employee fully dedicated to reporting?
Yes, the proposal aims to solve a real problem, but we have several concerns that prevent us from supporting the initiative at this time:
Rush to voting: Once again, the proposal appears rushed. In this particular case, significant changes were made on the same day the proposal was posted for voting. From budget details to the creation of an advisory committee, none of this could be thoroughly discussed among community members.
Compensation concerns: We agree with other delegates that the requested compensation is based on an erroneous assumption: "The fee is calculated using FTE comp calibrated to match a Sr. OpCo employee (192k) plus a 30% Contractor premium for Benefits, etc." Not only does the OpCo not yet exist, but the budget provided by @Entropy was merely an example, which does not imply that the final hiring cost will be 192k. We are also unsure that reporting necessarily warrants senior-level compensation, although this point is debatable.
Base comp and Bonus: Even leaving aside the above points, the base compensation seems high for the role. Also echoing comments from @cp0x, the proposed bonus does not provide a tangible return for the DAO beyond “alignment” and is again based on the assumption that the OpCo eventually pays a 30% bonus.
Regarding retroactive payments: At SEEDGov, we generally support retroactive payments for valuable work, but in this case, we align with other delegates: the retroactive compensation appears too high. Based on the proposal, we estimate that during these months the work did not exceed 50% FTE (especially in August), with tasks focused on:
Please correct us if this assessment is incorrect. (By the way, we quite liked the Table 1. Work Components By Phase By Resource Allocation).
Advisory Committee: We agree with other delegates that this appears to add unnecessary bureaucracy.
Discretionary Work Fund: It is challenging to evaluate this without an estimated breakdown of the allocation for each item:
Thanks, @AlexLumley, for this proposal.
But we are think that this proposal is too expensive, with over $263,000 requested for something that should be simpler. The plan is complex and hard to understand, making it unclear how it will really help the DAO.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting AGAINST this proposal in the Snapshot voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting AGAINST this proposal in the Snapshot voting.
Our concerns about the budget remain unchanged from the proposal discussion phase. While we support the idea, we feel that the budget allocation, including retroactive funding and bonuses, needs further refinement.
As mentioned by @AlexLumley in his comment:
Whatever result we get we will host calls, have more delegate calls and go to snapshot again the week of the 12th so we can be done before the Holiday Break.
We will look forward to the revised Snapshot proposal on the 12th and any adjustments made to address budget concerns.
For now, we are voting against this proposal in its current form, while remaining open to supporting a revised version that addresses these concerns.
The following reflects the views of our team, @ocandocrypto and @eugenia.
Alex thank you for the proposal, we see the value in the mission and support it. It makes sense to have a standarized framework to track progress, performance, and results, not just in terms of efficiency but also to propose new initiatives in the future, track spending, general initiative and success tracking, having DAO benchmarks.
Voting Against this proposal.
While we value transparency and accountability within the DAO, the current approach feels unclear and lacks sufficient alignment with efficient and decentralized practices. We believe there’s room for a more refined and community-driven solution that balances cost with tangible impact, ensuring it serves the DAO's long-term growth effectively.
FOR I voted in favor of the proposal. The proposal’s objectives are clear, and the team’s experience is reliable. Alex’s consistent use of real-time video communication in every meeting has left a strong impression. Establishing this reporting system is a key infrastructure initiative for the long-term development of the Arbitrum DAO. The proposal aligns with the DAO’s long-term goals, as transparent reporting and data management are essential foundations for any growing organization. This proposal not only provides operational support for the current DAO but also lays the groundwork for future decision-making and oversight.
However, I still recommend dividing the budget and related payments into phases and batches for submission and approval. Additionally, it would be beneficial to ensure that more stakeholders receive regular progress updates about the proposal.
We're voting against the proposal
Coming back from holidays, so apologies if this has been raised earlier.
It's difficult to see how this could work as intended without also getting a mandate from governance to compel reporting from every project in the DAO.
Coming back from holidays, so apologies if this has been raised earlier.
It's difficult to see how this could work as intended without also getting a mandate from governance to compel reporting from every project in the DAO.
Using Powerhouse's past work as an example, they tried this with expenses.makerdao.network (now defunct and this redirects to a new dash for Maker). It had lots of features and allowed for granular reporting. But we don't recall there ever being more than half the contributors actually using it, even for top-line expenses, and certainly not for actual, useful reporting.
These kinds of tools and systems are worth very little if you can't capture 100% of the actual spend. So all it takes is one working group or project to be too busy/lazy/inept to report and this whole thing becomes considerably less useful.
We would recommend coming back to this with not just a budget but with a more comprehensive authority and formal office with powers to compel reporting. A DAO auditor or something like that. Contributors that don't report can't renew their projects and could potentially -- in worst case scenarios -- end up on the blacklist like Furucombo.
You can also lighten the weight of this proposal by removing the advisory council. This feels like a strictly civil servant role that can have a fairly objective mandate and shouldn't be susceptible to politics of interpretation very much if drafted correctly.
But we do not at the moment support paying to build this out without there also being some kind of assurance that it will be able to capture 100% of the needed information, unless we're missing something in the proposal.
Hello, thanks for the proposal. I believe while improving reporting and oversight is important, DAO should carefully consider whether this $263,260 investment will truly bring long-term value to Arbitrum.
With over half of it going towards operational costs, such as FTEs or reporting-related activities, it’s a significant amount for these activities :). Moreover, the buffer $23,932 might not be enough to cover unexpected costs, and we could end up needing more funds.
Hello, thanks for the proposal. I believe while improving reporting and oversight is important, DAO should carefully consider whether this $263,260 investment will truly bring long-term value to Arbitrum.
With over half of it going towards operational costs, such as FTEs or reporting-related activities, it’s a significant amount for these activities :). Moreover, the buffer $23,932 might not be enough to cover unexpected costs, and we could end up needing more funds.
Plus, it creates just more bureaucracy than before.
So I decided to vote “Against” on Snapshot.
Thanks for this super in-depth proposal! Some thoughts:
The following reflects the views of our team, @ocandocrypto and @eugenia.
Alex thank you for the proposal, we see the value in the mission and support it. It makes sense to have a standarized framework to track progress, performance, and results, not just in terms of efficiency but also to propose new initiatives in the future, track spending, general initiative and success tracking, having DAO benchmarks.
We believe the proposal needs refining for clarity, so we're glad to see you plan to move to a second snapshot with the improvements. Our main concern lies in KPI, targets of the proposal and clarity of the approach. We also do agree with the points raised above on the high budget and retroactive pay by other delegates.
We'll be voting against for now in the snapshot. But we are open to changing our vote.
We're voting against the proposal
in short the idea and need for better insight and reporting is there but this specific proposal doesnt seem like the best way to go about it in our opinion.
Thanks for this super in-depth proposal! Some thoughts:
Some concerns:
Hi @AlexLumley ,
sorry for not posting this earlier. Please find below my 2cents:
As also discussed last week, I strongly believe that the foundational work (analysis of status quo) is key. This will enable everyone to
Hi @AlexLumley ,
sorry for not posting this earlier. Please find below my 2cents:
As also discussed last week, I strongly believe that the foundational work (analysis of status quo) is key. This will enable everyone to
I wonder whether splitting the proposal in parts might make sense? This would also reduce the uncertainty around OpCo etc...
Hey all, thank you very much for the feedback.
We will respond back in the next 24 hours as we are busy setting up for the Bi-Weekly Discussions and GRC calls.
Directional not final proposal: This feedback is awesome for us to better understand what the community needs. Timeline for next snapshot:
Hey all, thank you very much for the feedback.
We will respond back in the next 24 hours as we are busy setting up for the Bi-Weekly Discussions and GRC calls.
Directional not final proposal: This feedback is awesome for us to better understand what the community needs. Timeline for next snapshot:
Events this week: We will host:
CC: @cp0x @pedrob @JoJo @Juanrah @duokongcrypto @Euphoria @0xTALVO.ETH_MTY
Alex, thank you again for the proposal. For now, I will vote against this proposal for the reasons detailed below.
The first thing I want to address is that we’ve recently observed deviations from the social consensus regarding the timing for posting proposals on Snapshot. The last three proposals were posted on a Friday, and in particular, this one was modified in substantial aspects—such as the budget, responsibilities, and executors—on the same day it was moved to Snapshot.
Alex, thank you again for the proposal. For now, I will vote against this proposal for the reasons detailed below.
The first thing I want to address is that we’ve recently observed deviations from the social consensus regarding the timing for posting proposals on Snapshot. The last three proposals were posted on a Friday, and in particular, this one was modified in substantial aspects—such as the budget, responsibilities, and executors—on the same day it was moved to Snapshot.
Although there is no rule preventing proposals from being posted on Snapshot immediately after being edited, I believe that when the text undergoes substantial changes, a TL;DR of the modifications should be provided, and the proposal should remain open for some time (72 hours?) for review. This would allow time to address any new questions or concerns before it reaches the binary decision phase on Snapshot. I'm not sure if formalizing this as part of the DAO’s social consensus is necessary, but I do think it helps structure the discussion more effectively.
Now, regarding the proposal itself:
First, I find myself much more aligned with the structure of this version compared to the original draft. This proposal focuses more on the design and implementation of a comprehensive reporting and tracking system for proposal execution, which is a valuable contribution to the DAO.
However, to be fair and to have the adequate context for the proposal, a reporting system currently exists. Proposals have objectives, milestones that are posted in the forum, updates from the Foundation (sometimes replaced by yourself for the last months) during various calls, and bi-weekly reporting and feedback sessions for each initiative. While time-consuming, it is possible to stay informed about ongoing developments.
That said, this process can certainly be made more efficient, and I appreciate the idea of having an integrated platform to access information about proposal execution. My main concern is the cost-benefit tradeoff.
Like @JoJo , I’m not fully convinced by the budget.
My first question is:
The fee is calculated using FTE comp calibrated to match a Sr. OpCo employee (192k) plus a 30% Contractor premium for Benefits, etc.
What is the rationale behind this comparison and estimated cost?
Although not the same, the reports from Token Flow regarding the DAO’s expenses and related insights currently cost $6,650 USD per month.
This proposal has a minimum cost of approximately double that amount, not including additional costs if the DAO approves the buffer and discretionary work fund.
Can the differences between these be clarified? Additionally, I’d like to know if there’s a plan to integrate or unify both reports in some way, as the information from one provides context and is relevant for oversight.
The Program Manager has worked uncompensated since August while the date of the initiation of this statement of work is January 2025.
The first GRC call took place on August 28th. Why are you considering the entire month of August for the retroactive payment?
Additionally, could you detail the tasks carried out that justify a retroactive payment of $9K per month? I might be missing something, but as far as I understand, the task has been to host the monthly reporting call.
In this regard, I am quite aligned with Jojo’s feedback in all its aspects, so I’ll quote it here:
I will vote in favor of this initiative to signal support, for 1) the initiative 2) the persona running it. I can’t in all honesty agree with the financials, which imho should be revised down.
I want to finalize all of this by iterating that I want to support Alex. I want to see him being more involved in our DAO, work here full time, be happy about what he does, and provide value to us. I sincerely see him as a good contributor to the ecosystem, so I want to see this initiative moving forward. I don’t currently see the numbers proposed matching the expectations of the DAO tho, just that, and I think this can be fixed, which would make me extremely happy.
Regarding the execution of the proposal, I recommend removing the advisory committee. I think it’s great that the PM can rely on delegates and the foundation for advice and feedback in designing the reports. However, having such a structure will only add bureaucracy and create an unnecessary sense of dependency. The PM should have full ownership and responsibility for a task of this nature.
Once again, thank you very much for the proposal.
Hi @AlexLumley , Measuring initiatives is critical for the DAO's success, and we’re excited to see how this will be executed, especially when it comes to tackling challenges like evaluating off-chain data. We recognize the value of this initiative and will vote in favor of it.
That said, we do have some concerns about the proposed costs and would appreciate exploring potential adjustments as the work progresses.
Thank you, @AlexLumley. As a new delegate in the Arbitrum DAO, I greatly value initiatives like the GRC meeting and its tracker, which provide a macro overview of ongoing activities. In my view, this proposal moves in the right direction, but I have a few concerns:
Thank you, @AlexLumley. As a new delegate in the Arbitrum DAO, I greatly value initiatives like the GRC meeting and its tracker, which provide a macro overview of ongoing activities. In my view, this proposal moves in the right direction, but I have a few concerns:
Based on these points, for now I am voting Against this proposal but am open to reconsidering if these points are addressed in the future.
The execution team, Powerhouse and Lumen, bring extensive experience in DAO governance and operations, particularly through their successful contributions to the MakerDAO and LTIPP projects, providing a strong foundation for the implementation of this proposal. Over the past 18 months, the DAO has allocated 425 million ARB, yet it lacks systematic tracking and transparency, with no direct and clear data monitoring governance efficiency and fund usage.
This proposal aims to establish a unified reporting mechanism to address the current issues of information opacity and fragmented workflows.
The execution team, Powerhouse and Lumen, bring extensive experience in DAO governance and operations, particularly through their successful contributions to the MakerDAO and LTIPP projects, providing a strong foundation for the implementation of this proposal. Over the past 18 months, the DAO has allocated 425 million ARB, yet it lacks systematic tracking and transparency, with no direct and clear data monitoring governance efficiency and fund usage.
This proposal aims to establish a unified reporting mechanism to address the current issues of information opacity and fragmented workflows.
However, while the proposal emphasizes reporting and transparency, what tangible benefits will this bring to the DAO? For example, can these improvements directly enhance governance efficiency or enable better resource allocation? Are there measurable targets, such as increasing transparency by a specific percentage or reducing manual operations?
The proposed budget of nearly $260,000 is substantial. Although it is broken into multiple phases, the expenditures appear overly scattered. For instance, is the $45,000 allocated for backpay justified by the actual workload? Additionally, the “buffer estimate” of over $20,000 seems vague. Could the cost breakdown be more transparent, clearly distinguishing essential expenses from areas that could be optimized?
Given the unpredictable outcomes of the proposal and the apparent lack of focus on addressing core issues, I cast a vote against this proposal.
I think it's always a good idea to have someone taking notes on the most relevant points discussed in our bi-weekly calls. We shouldn't let that information slip away, and organizing it would make our workflow and data capture more efficient. As you mentioned @AlexLumley , it would create a vast database of information for the marketing team. I'm looking forward to seeing these final adjustments to the processes and workflows. I'll cast my vote in favor on Snapshot and hope to join the December call to learn more about how this proposal will be implemented.
Your detailed proposal shows some good points to improve the transparency of the DAO. But I have some comments and questions regarding the development and execution that I would like to address.
Create a transparent, systematic structure for tracking initiative performance
Your detailed proposal shows some good points to improve the transparency of the DAO. But I have some comments and questions regarding the development and execution that I would like to address.
Create a transparent, systematic structure for tracking initiative performance
The "Key Objectives" section states that the system will improve transparency, accountability, and decision-making. However, it does not specify the metrics that will be used to measure the success of these objectives. It'd be good if you could include some KPIs, like the percentage of initiatives that adopt the system after a certain period of time, the reduction in access times to key information, or satisfaction surveys.
Scheduling and Coordinating Monthly calls with Initiative Leads and community stakeholders.
It is mentioned that feedback will be solicited from the community, but it is not clear how their engagement will be ensured. What incentives are planned to encourage active participation of delegates and stakeholders in the system? One possible solution is a communication plan and incentives to motivate collaboration, such as public recognition or tangible benefits.
The system will be transferred to OpCo or the DAO government, but there is no plan in place to keep it operational. How will the system be funded in the long term? There is no plan to maintain the infrastructure. Could consideration be given to creating a dedicated team to maintain the system?
I like the idea itself.
At some point, any organization needs to audit their functions and procedures. This is what the Big Four accounting firms do. This helps companies run their business more efficiently.
However, I don't like the following in this proposal:
I like the idea itself.
At some point, any organization needs to audit their functions and procedures. This is what the Big Four accounting firms do. This helps companies run their business more efficiently.
However, I don't like the following in this proposal:
Since the issue is only about funding, I would suggest @AlexLumley to make the second option with a reduced salary. The main idea behind this proposal was to reduce costs, but such salaries will not help in this at all.
Appreciate you Ultra. Ive spent a bunch of time over the last week working with @Lumen of powerhouse defining the work and flows.
I am currently updating the proposal and sharpening the focus.
Appreciate you Ultra. Ive spent a bunch of time over the last week working with @Lumen of powerhouse defining the work and flows.
I am currently updating the proposal and sharpening the focus.
The core of proposal will be maintaining the current governance work and then starting to map the "information dissemination" which includes asynchronous reporting, internal DAO communications and feeding information to the marketing arm.
I don't think this will ever be able to be automated, but we can start to define some of the processes.
Also, you can see the current work we have done here: current GRC Tracker and DB
And previous GRC calls here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/20th-grc-governance-reporting-call-wednesday-october-30th/27327
Also, I invite you to join the 21st GRC next week: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/21st-grc-calls-a-wed-dec-5th-b-thurs-dec-6th/27648
Thanks for the proposal and the work already done in the GRC initiative. My understanding is that the primary goal is to have a standardized way to report/track the proposals' lifecycle.
@AlexLumley , thanks for the proposal. I appreciate the idea of establishing a standardized reporting process, but I’m still unclear on how it will be implemented practically. If I understand correctly, the objective is to create a reporting framework that, once in place, reduces the need for direct intervention from the working group. However, I’m not certain whether the ultimate goal is to fully automate the process or if there will always be a requirement for ongoing oversight and coordination by someone.
Without a clear budget, it’s challenging to fully evaluate the proposal’s feasibility.
Something this proposal omits is audit capacity. A good practice is to add things like 'gemba' (random walks) to gather data outside of reporting, and otherwise have the ability to do periodic and aleatory audits into initiatives. Of course that audit capacity is a new thing in DAOs, but would be great to include here some experiment in that direction.
The other thing is that the ability to have archives here seems quite important. Issues might surface months after and in those occasions having a good data repository is key to asses whether the issue could have been identified early or what data was missing and could be collected moving forward.
Do we really have lack of transperancy, accountability etc. when most if not all initiatives do consistent reporting, calls, consultations, the DAO having the ability to wind down programs, most programs having decision-making re. their scope etc. ?
I want to support this proposal, but I also have some doubts.
This doubts are not on the function. I think we need an overall reporting authority with experience in the dao. Is also not on the person. I think Alex has stick around in our ecosystem for a while, showing he is willing to work and contribute here, both in virtual and in irl meetings.
I want to support this proposal, but I also have some doubts.
This doubts are not on the function. I think we need an overall reporting authority with experience in the dao. Is also not on the person. I think Alex has stick around in our ecosystem for a while, showing he is willing to work and contribute here, both in virtual and in irl meetings.
I think there is value in the mission. And I think Alex is well positioned for this task due to his experience in the DAO.
As every initiative, in the end the evaluation comes down to the following paramters:
While I briefly answered to 1, 2 and 3 are still up for discussion. What follows comes down to the fact that, is quoted, we will have around 1.03 FTE in 1 year (please clarify if that is not the case, understanding that there is a 45k discretionary budget to potentially hire other members).
As far as I understood (and claude helped me spoiler) we are talking, for the 1.03 FTE, of
Basically, a $12.5k monthly salary, with a $10k bonus.
This, for reporting and oversight work, is the high side of the barrel I will be honest. I would expect a level of scrutiny that is almost at a military grade level, to be blunt. I would expect you to physically chase people who don't answer you in telegram to get the info you need, and this is no hyperbole, cause sometimes is just so hard to get info from people in chat. The main doubts from a quantitative standpoint comes from basically plugging the whole initiative, and the persona, at an OpCo level, when OpCo is still in discussion. I easily see this initiative, if it moves forward, being incorporated by opco, and likely at the same initial price. But, if we had the opco live now, would it be done in these financial terms? Not sure.
I will vote in favor of this initiative to signal support, for 1) the initiative 2) the persona running it. I can't in all honesty agree with the financials, which imho should be revised down. It's a bit hard for me to suggest numbers: you reference the senior opco level, but in an org like the opco (in any org, tbh), the scope of work would probably naturally expand based on the needs and would be leveraged in a team to bring additional value as the needs come over time. On what is a 12.5+10 potential monthly salary, I could see for example a reduction to 10+5. There is also the problem of the quarterly evaluation and release of bonus which as other mentioned doesn't seem to be addressed, and needs a clarification.
On top of everything, we have a 45k retroactive for the 5 months of GCR working which is 9k/m and you mentioned a discounted rate of 0.75%. I appreciated your hard work, but the 75% rate on the proposal seems high: again is hard to suggest numbers here, if i had to take an educated guess, would maybe put 50% of base which in my suggestion above is 10k, so overall 25k. No hard opinions here, except that charging 75% on the base seems too high.
I want to finalize all of this by iterating that I want to support Alex. I want to see him being more involved in our DAO, work here full time, be happy about what he does, and provide value to us. I sincerely see him as a good contributor to the ecosystem, so I want to see this initiative moving forward. I don't currently see the numbers proposed matching the expectations of the DAO tho, just that, and I think this can be fixed, which would make me extremely happy.
On this, I am voting in favor, expecting a broader discussion and adjustment on tally on numbers and on way to evaluate the bonus.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you for putting forward this detailed proposal.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you for putting forward this detailed proposal.
Transparent, standardized reporting that empowers delegates and enhances accountability.
The emphasis on creating a transparent and standardized reporting function is a vital step forward. This will not only empower delegates but also build trust among stakeholders and community members, which is a critical element for any DAO’s long-term success.
We believe this initiative is important and will benefit the DAO, but we feel the budget is a bit high. Along with the salary, the proposal also includes a performance bonus, which adds to the total cost.
The total ARB bonus to cover the entire scope shall be 220,240 ARB and will be paid out quarterly according to the FTE proportion.
The proposal mentions that the performance bonus will be paid quarterly, but it doesn’t explain how the bonus will be decided. Are there specific goals or metrics that need to be met for the bonus to be paid? Having this clarity would help ensure the bonuses are tied to the results.
We also agree with @cp0x's point about appreciating the work done before this proposal, like hosting calls, maintaining documents and trackers, and drafting the proposal itself. However, the retroactive funding for past work also adds to the overall budget, which makes it feel even higher.
Overall, we support the idea of having a group like this to improve reporting and governance for the DAO. However, our main concern is the total budget involved right now.
how much would this cost @AlexLumley ?
also, why didn’t you follow the proposal template specified in the docs?
Hello! Thanks for the proposal.
To be honest, I'm struggling a bit to fully understand the proposed milestones and the final objective of this proposal.
Is the goal to launch a reporting and oversight system from day one?
Is it to conduct research on the best way to implement that reporting system and fund said research? Or is it both?
Hey Alex,
What are you basing the below on though?
" Tracking Aligns Organizations and Reporting Supports Alignment
** DAO initiatives currently lack a systematic framework for tracking performance, which leads to:*
Hey @AlexLumley! Thank you for this proposal. I think it's a very forward-thinking idea, and systematic documentation will indeed benefit the long-term development of Arbitrum DAO.
I have a few questions I’d like you to clarify further. First, what is the specific budget for this proposal? Second, if this proposal is approved, what will be the final deliverable? Will it be a document, a website, or an application? Third, we must acknowledge that there is often a significant gap between theory and practice. Is what this proposal aims to achieve feasible and practical? Will it be something that Delegates and Arbitrum DAO can efficiently utilize?
The following reflects the views of our team, @ocandocrypto and @eugenia.
Alex thank you for the proposal, we see the value in the mission and support it. It makes sense to have a standarized framework to track progress, performance, and results, not just in terms of efficiency but also to propose new initiatives in the future, track spending, general initiative and success tracking, having DAO benchmarks.
We believe the proposal needs refining for clarity, so we're glad to see you plan to move to a second snapshot with the improvements. Our main concern lies in KPI, targets of the proposal and clarity of the approach. We also do agree with the points raised above on the high budget and retroactive pay by other delegates.
We'll be voting against for now in the snapshot. But we are open to changing our vote.
We're voting against the proposal
in short the idea and need for better insight and reporting is there but this specific proposal doesnt seem like the best way to go about it in our opinion.
Thanks for this super in-depth proposal! Some thoughts:
Some concerns:
Hi @AlexLumley ,
sorry for not posting this earlier. Please find below my 2cents:
As also discussed last week, I strongly believe that the foundational work (analysis of status quo) is key. This will enable everyone to
Hi @AlexLumley ,
sorry for not posting this earlier. Please find below my 2cents:
As also discussed last week, I strongly believe that the foundational work (analysis of status quo) is key. This will enable everyone to
I wonder whether splitting the proposal in parts might make sense? This would also reduce the uncertainty around OpCo etc...
Hey all, thank you very much for the feedback.
We will respond back in the next 24 hours as we are busy setting up for the Bi-Weekly Discussions and GRC calls.
Directional not final proposal: This feedback is awesome for us to better understand what the community needs. Timeline for next snapshot:
Hey all, thank you very much for the feedback.
We will respond back in the next 24 hours as we are busy setting up for the Bi-Weekly Discussions and GRC calls.
Directional not final proposal: This feedback is awesome for us to better understand what the community needs. Timeline for next snapshot:
Events this week: We will host:
CC: @cp0x @pedrob @JoJo @Juanrah @duokongcrypto @Euphoria @0xTALVO.ETH_MTY
Alex, thank you again for the proposal. For now, I will vote against this proposal for the reasons detailed below.
The first thing I want to address is that we’ve recently observed deviations from the social consensus regarding the timing for posting proposals on Snapshot. The last three proposals were posted on a Friday, and in particular, this one was modified in substantial aspects—such as the budget, responsibilities, and executors—on the same day it was moved to Snapshot.
Alex, thank you again for the proposal. For now, I will vote against this proposal for the reasons detailed below.
The first thing I want to address is that we’ve recently observed deviations from the social consensus regarding the timing for posting proposals on Snapshot. The last three proposals were posted on a Friday, and in particular, this one was modified in substantial aspects—such as the budget, responsibilities, and executors—on the same day it was moved to Snapshot.
Although there is no rule preventing proposals from being posted on Snapshot immediately after being edited, I believe that when the text undergoes substantial changes, a TL;DR of the modifications should be provided, and the proposal should remain open for some time (72 hours?) for review. This would allow time to address any new questions or concerns before it reaches the binary decision phase on Snapshot. I'm not sure if formalizing this as part of the DAO’s social consensus is necessary, but I do think it helps structure the discussion more effectively.
Now, regarding the proposal itself:
First, I find myself much more aligned with the structure of this version compared to the original draft. This proposal focuses more on the design and implementation of a comprehensive reporting and tracking system for proposal execution, which is a valuable contribution to the DAO.
However, to be fair and to have the adequate context for the proposal, a reporting system currently exists. Proposals have objectives, milestones that are posted in the forum, updates from the Foundation (sometimes replaced by yourself for the last months) during various calls, and bi-weekly reporting and feedback sessions for each initiative. While time-consuming, it is possible to stay informed about ongoing developments.
That said, this process can certainly be made more efficient, and I appreciate the idea of having an integrated platform to access information about proposal execution. My main concern is the cost-benefit tradeoff.
Like @JoJo , I’m not fully convinced by the budget.
My first question is:
The fee is calculated using FTE comp calibrated to match a Sr. OpCo employee (192k) plus a 30% Contractor premium for Benefits, etc.
What is the rationale behind this comparison and estimated cost?
Although not the same, the reports from Token Flow regarding the DAO’s expenses and related insights currently cost $6,650 USD per month.
This proposal has a minimum cost of approximately double that amount, not including additional costs if the DAO approves the buffer and discretionary work fund.
Can the differences between these be clarified? Additionally, I’d like to know if there’s a plan to integrate or unify both reports in some way, as the information from one provides context and is relevant for oversight.
The Program Manager has worked uncompensated since August while the date of the initiation of this statement of work is January 2025.
The first GRC call took place on August 28th. Why are you considering the entire month of August for the retroactive payment?
Additionally, could you detail the tasks carried out that justify a retroactive payment of $9K per month? I might be missing something, but as far as I understand, the task has been to host the monthly reporting call.
In this regard, I am quite aligned with Jojo’s feedback in all its aspects, so I’ll quote it here:
I will vote in favor of this initiative to signal support, for 1) the initiative 2) the persona running it. I can’t in all honesty agree with the financials, which imho should be revised down.
I want to finalize all of this by iterating that I want to support Alex. I want to see him being more involved in our DAO, work here full time, be happy about what he does, and provide value to us. I sincerely see him as a good contributor to the ecosystem, so I want to see this initiative moving forward. I don’t currently see the numbers proposed matching the expectations of the DAO tho, just that, and I think this can be fixed, which would make me extremely happy.
Regarding the execution of the proposal, I recommend removing the advisory committee. I think it’s great that the PM can rely on delegates and the foundation for advice and feedback in designing the reports. However, having such a structure will only add bureaucracy and create an unnecessary sense of dependency. The PM should have full ownership and responsibility for a task of this nature.
Once again, thank you very much for the proposal.
Hi @AlexLumley , Measuring initiatives is critical for the DAO's success, and we’re excited to see how this will be executed, especially when it comes to tackling challenges like evaluating off-chain data. We recognize the value of this initiative and will vote in favor of it.
That said, we do have some concerns about the proposed costs and would appreciate exploring potential adjustments as the work progresses.
Thank you, @AlexLumley. As a new delegate in the Arbitrum DAO, I greatly value initiatives like the GRC meeting and its tracker, which provide a macro overview of ongoing activities. In my view, this proposal moves in the right direction, but I have a few concerns:
Thank you, @AlexLumley. As a new delegate in the Arbitrum DAO, I greatly value initiatives like the GRC meeting and its tracker, which provide a macro overview of ongoing activities. In my view, this proposal moves in the right direction, but I have a few concerns:
Based on these points, for now I am voting Against this proposal but am open to reconsidering if these points are addressed in the future.
The execution team, Powerhouse and Lumen, bring extensive experience in DAO governance and operations, particularly through their successful contributions to the MakerDAO and LTIPP projects, providing a strong foundation for the implementation of this proposal. Over the past 18 months, the DAO has allocated 425 million ARB, yet it lacks systematic tracking and transparency, with no direct and clear data monitoring governance efficiency and fund usage.
This proposal aims to establish a unified reporting mechanism to address the current issues of information opacity and fragmented workflows.
The execution team, Powerhouse and Lumen, bring extensive experience in DAO governance and operations, particularly through their successful contributions to the MakerDAO and LTIPP projects, providing a strong foundation for the implementation of this proposal. Over the past 18 months, the DAO has allocated 425 million ARB, yet it lacks systematic tracking and transparency, with no direct and clear data monitoring governance efficiency and fund usage.
This proposal aims to establish a unified reporting mechanism to address the current issues of information opacity and fragmented workflows.
However, while the proposal emphasizes reporting and transparency, what tangible benefits will this bring to the DAO? For example, can these improvements directly enhance governance efficiency or enable better resource allocation? Are there measurable targets, such as increasing transparency by a specific percentage or reducing manual operations?
The proposed budget of nearly $260,000 is substantial. Although it is broken into multiple phases, the expenditures appear overly scattered. For instance, is the $45,000 allocated for backpay justified by the actual workload? Additionally, the “buffer estimate” of over $20,000 seems vague. Could the cost breakdown be more transparent, clearly distinguishing essential expenses from areas that could be optimized?
Given the unpredictable outcomes of the proposal and the apparent lack of focus on addressing core issues, I cast a vote against this proposal.
I think it's always a good idea to have someone taking notes on the most relevant points discussed in our bi-weekly calls. We shouldn't let that information slip away, and organizing it would make our workflow and data capture more efficient. As you mentioned @AlexLumley , it would create a vast database of information for the marketing team. I'm looking forward to seeing these final adjustments to the processes and workflows. I'll cast my vote in favor on Snapshot and hope to join the December call to learn more about how this proposal will be implemented.
Your detailed proposal shows some good points to improve the transparency of the DAO. But I have some comments and questions regarding the development and execution that I would like to address.
Create a transparent, systematic structure for tracking initiative performance
Your detailed proposal shows some good points to improve the transparency of the DAO. But I have some comments and questions regarding the development and execution that I would like to address.
Create a transparent, systematic structure for tracking initiative performance
The "Key Objectives" section states that the system will improve transparency, accountability, and decision-making. However, it does not specify the metrics that will be used to measure the success of these objectives. It'd be good if you could include some KPIs, like the percentage of initiatives that adopt the system after a certain period of time, the reduction in access times to key information, or satisfaction surveys.
Scheduling and Coordinating Monthly calls with Initiative Leads and community stakeholders.
It is mentioned that feedback will be solicited from the community, but it is not clear how their engagement will be ensured. What incentives are planned to encourage active participation of delegates and stakeholders in the system? One possible solution is a communication plan and incentives to motivate collaboration, such as public recognition or tangible benefits.
The system will be transferred to OpCo or the DAO government, but there is no plan in place to keep it operational. How will the system be funded in the long term? There is no plan to maintain the infrastructure. Could consideration be given to creating a dedicated team to maintain the system?
I like the idea itself.
At some point, any organization needs to audit their functions and procedures. This is what the Big Four accounting firms do. This helps companies run their business more efficiently.
However, I don't like the following in this proposal:
I like the idea itself.
At some point, any organization needs to audit their functions and procedures. This is what the Big Four accounting firms do. This helps companies run their business more efficiently.
However, I don't like the following in this proposal:
Since the issue is only about funding, I would suggest @AlexLumley to make the second option with a reduced salary. The main idea behind this proposal was to reduce costs, but such salaries will not help in this at all.
Appreciate you Ultra. Ive spent a bunch of time over the last week working with @Lumen of powerhouse defining the work and flows.
I am currently updating the proposal and sharpening the focus.
Appreciate you Ultra. Ive spent a bunch of time over the last week working with @Lumen of powerhouse defining the work and flows.
I am currently updating the proposal and sharpening the focus.
The core of proposal will be maintaining the current governance work and then starting to map the "information dissemination" which includes asynchronous reporting, internal DAO communications and feeding information to the marketing arm.
I don't think this will ever be able to be automated, but we can start to define some of the processes.
Also, you can see the current work we have done here: current GRC Tracker and DB
And previous GRC calls here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/20th-grc-governance-reporting-call-wednesday-october-30th/27327
Also, I invite you to join the 21st GRC next week: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/21st-grc-calls-a-wed-dec-5th-b-thurs-dec-6th/27648
Thanks for the proposal and the work already done in the GRC initiative. My understanding is that the primary goal is to have a standardized way to report/track the proposals' lifecycle.
@AlexLumley , thanks for the proposal. I appreciate the idea of establishing a standardized reporting process, but I’m still unclear on how it will be implemented practically. If I understand correctly, the objective is to create a reporting framework that, once in place, reduces the need for direct intervention from the working group. However, I’m not certain whether the ultimate goal is to fully automate the process or if there will always be a requirement for ongoing oversight and coordination by someone.
Without a clear budget, it’s challenging to fully evaluate the proposal’s feasibility.
Something this proposal omits is audit capacity. A good practice is to add things like 'gemba' (random walks) to gather data outside of reporting, and otherwise have the ability to do periodic and aleatory audits into initiatives. Of course that audit capacity is a new thing in DAOs, but would be great to include here some experiment in that direction.
The other thing is that the ability to have archives here seems quite important. Issues might surface months after and in those occasions having a good data repository is key to asses whether the issue could have been identified early or what data was missing and could be collected moving forward.
Do we really have lack of transperancy, accountability etc. when most if not all initiatives do consistent reporting, calls, consultations, the DAO having the ability to wind down programs, most programs having decision-making re. their scope etc. ?
I want to support this proposal, but I also have some doubts.
This doubts are not on the function. I think we need an overall reporting authority with experience in the dao. Is also not on the person. I think Alex has stick around in our ecosystem for a while, showing he is willing to work and contribute here, both in virtual and in irl meetings.
I want to support this proposal, but I also have some doubts.
This doubts are not on the function. I think we need an overall reporting authority with experience in the dao. Is also not on the person. I think Alex has stick around in our ecosystem for a while, showing he is willing to work and contribute here, both in virtual and in irl meetings.
I think there is value in the mission. And I think Alex is well positioned for this task due to his experience in the DAO.
As every initiative, in the end the evaluation comes down to the following paramters:
While I briefly answered to 1, 2 and 3 are still up for discussion. What follows comes down to the fact that, is quoted, we will have around 1.03 FTE in 1 year (please clarify if that is not the case, understanding that there is a 45k discretionary budget to potentially hire other members).
As far as I understood (and claude helped me spoiler) we are talking, for the 1.03 FTE, of
Basically, a $12.5k monthly salary, with a $10k bonus.
This, for reporting and oversight work, is the high side of the barrel I will be honest. I would expect a level of scrutiny that is almost at a military grade level, to be blunt. I would expect you to physically chase people who don't answer you in telegram to get the info you need, and this is no hyperbole, cause sometimes is just so hard to get info from people in chat. The main doubts from a quantitative standpoint comes from basically plugging the whole initiative, and the persona, at an OpCo level, when OpCo is still in discussion. I easily see this initiative, if it moves forward, being incorporated by opco, and likely at the same initial price. But, if we had the opco live now, would it be done in these financial terms? Not sure.
I will vote in favor of this initiative to signal support, for 1) the initiative 2) the persona running it. I can't in all honesty agree with the financials, which imho should be revised down. It's a bit hard for me to suggest numbers: you reference the senior opco level, but in an org like the opco (in any org, tbh), the scope of work would probably naturally expand based on the needs and would be leveraged in a team to bring additional value as the needs come over time. On what is a 12.5+10 potential monthly salary, I could see for example a reduction to 10+5. There is also the problem of the quarterly evaluation and release of bonus which as other mentioned doesn't seem to be addressed, and needs a clarification.
On top of everything, we have a 45k retroactive for the 5 months of GCR working which is 9k/m and you mentioned a discounted rate of 0.75%. I appreciated your hard work, but the 75% rate on the proposal seems high: again is hard to suggest numbers here, if i had to take an educated guess, would maybe put 50% of base which in my suggestion above is 10k, so overall 25k. No hard opinions here, except that charging 75% on the base seems too high.
I want to finalize all of this by iterating that I want to support Alex. I want to see him being more involved in our DAO, work here full time, be happy about what he does, and provide value to us. I sincerely see him as a good contributor to the ecosystem, so I want to see this initiative moving forward. I don't currently see the numbers proposed matching the expectations of the DAO tho, just that, and I think this can be fixed, which would make me extremely happy.
On this, I am voting in favor, expecting a broader discussion and adjustment on tally on numbers and on way to evaluate the bonus.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you for putting forward this detailed proposal.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you for putting forward this detailed proposal.
Transparent, standardized reporting that empowers delegates and enhances accountability.
The emphasis on creating a transparent and standardized reporting function is a vital step forward. This will not only empower delegates but also build trust among stakeholders and community members, which is a critical element for any DAO’s long-term success.
We believe this initiative is important and will benefit the DAO, but we feel the budget is a bit high. Along with the salary, the proposal also includes a performance bonus, which adds to the total cost.
The total ARB bonus to cover the entire scope shall be 220,240 ARB and will be paid out quarterly according to the FTE proportion.
The proposal mentions that the performance bonus will be paid quarterly, but it doesn’t explain how the bonus will be decided. Are there specific goals or metrics that need to be met for the bonus to be paid? Having this clarity would help ensure the bonuses are tied to the results.
We also agree with @cp0x's point about appreciating the work done before this proposal, like hosting calls, maintaining documents and trackers, and drafting the proposal itself. However, the retroactive funding for past work also adds to the overall budget, which makes it feel even higher.
Overall, we support the idea of having a group like this to improve reporting and governance for the DAO. However, our main concern is the total budget involved right now.
how much would this cost @AlexLumley ?
also, why didn’t you follow the proposal template specified in the docs?
Hello! Thanks for the proposal.
To be honest, I'm struggling a bit to fully understand the proposed milestones and the final objective of this proposal.
Is the goal to launch a reporting and oversight system from day one?
Is it to conduct research on the best way to implement that reporting system and fund said research? Or is it both?
Hey Alex,
What are you basing the below on though?
" Tracking Aligns Organizations and Reporting Supports Alignment
** DAO initiatives currently lack a systematic framework for tracking performance, which leads to:*
Hey @AlexLumley! Thank you for this proposal. I think it's a very forward-thinking idea, and systematic documentation will indeed benefit the long-term development of Arbitrum DAO.
I have a few questions I’d like you to clarify further. First, what is the specific budget for this proposal? Second, if this proposal is approved, what will be the final deliverable? Will it be a document, a website, or an application? Third, we must acknowledge that there is often a significant gap between theory and practice. Is what this proposal aims to achieve feasible and practical? Will it be something that Delegates and Arbitrum DAO can efficiently utilize?
Thanks for the proposal and the work already done in the GRC initiative. My understanding is that the primary goal is to have a standardized way to report/track the proposals' lifecycle.
However, I'm missing a few definitions/clarifications (I'm not sure if this was left open as will be part of the research itself):
Thanks in advance!
Do we really have lack of transperancy, accountability etc. when most if not all initiatives do consistent reporting, calls, consultations, the DAO having the ability to wind down programs, most programs having decision-making re. their scope etc. ?
While it's true that many initiatives within the DAO have their own reporting mechanisms, they do not seem to be standardized. This makes it harder to keep all our projects aligned with the DAO's overall mission. If we had a unified system, it'd be easier to spot duplicate efforts and focus on new initiatives that offer a better return on investment. It would also improve accountability, as contributors would be measured against the same set of clear, predefined metrics.
A system like this could help identify overlapping efforts or create opportunities for collaboration. It would also make it easier for delegates and decision-makers to guide resource allocation and strategic planning.
To include some suggestions to the proposal I would say its important to involve the community for feedback at key stages as this would make sure the system works for everyone. Automating parts of the tracking process could save time and make things smoother. Its also important to have a clear scope of what the reporting function will actually cover.
I would also add that it could be practical to start with a few key variables or metrics to monitor. This will allow to test and refine the system on a smaller scale before expanding it to cover more aspects of the DAO's operations/initiatives.
I think a standardized system like this is the next natural step in the DAO’s evolution. It’ll bring more transparency and order. If this initiative works as expected it should be seamlessly adopted by the OpCo.
Of course its important to take into account budget considerations for this proposal.
Hello! Thanks for the proposal.
To be honest, I'm struggling a bit to fully understand the proposed milestones and the final objective of this proposal.
Is the goal to launch a reporting and oversight system from day one?
Is it to conduct research on the best way to implement that reporting system and fund said research? Or is it both?
I see value and support the idea of having a party responsible for the tasks described in the "Reporting Activities" section:
| Activity | Description |
|---|---|
| Biweekly Proposal Discussions (currently run by the foundation) | Two discussions per month focused on tracking active initiatives and addressing blockers. |
| Monthly Governance Reporting Call (GRC) | A dedicated call to provide updates on the status of all tracked initiatives. Includes a detailed review of initiative progress, risks, and next steps. |
| Biweekly syncs/Check-Ins | Asynchronous updates to minimize meeting overhead. Dedicated calls for initiatives requiring immediate support or troubleshooting. |
| Asynchronous Updates | Initiative teams submit updates via posts or shared documents. Consolidated into a comprehensive report shared with delegates. |
| Outreach and Marketing | Newsletter or tweet thread summarizing progress, key wins, and risks. Keeps the community informed and engaged while showcasing accountability. |
The only thing is that I wouldn't replace the foundation's call. It's valuable to have them involved, and besides, why should the DAO take on a cost that they have already decided to cover?
Also, if marketing efforts are to be undertaken, it would be good to coordinate with the foundation's Twitter accounts to avoid further fragmenting communication channels.
What’s also unclear to me is the need for working groups. Couldn’t these tasks be handled by the PM instead?
Lastly, even though you describe the tasks as having a complex definition, a budget is necessary to fully evaluate the proposal.
Thank you very much!
Hey Alex,
What are you basing the below on though?
" Tracking Aligns Organizations and Reporting Supports Alignment
** DAO initiatives currently lack a systematic framework for tracking performance, which leads to:*
Do we really have lack of transperancy, accountability etc. when most if not all initiatives do consistent reporting, calls, consultations, the DAO having the ability to wind down programs, most programs having decision-making re. their scope etc. ?
I don't think the above depicts a clear and true statement of the current status quo personally but if you can provide examples that'd be helpful!
Kind Regards, Immutablelawyer Axis Advisory
The proposal’s goal is commendable, as it aims to provide clearer project management and streamline information flows. This proposal must have taken a significant amount of your time—thank you for your dedication.
In the proposal, manual reporting workflows seem to be the primary focus in the initial phase. However, manual processes could result in high management costs and efficiency challenges. Is there a clear plan to transition these manual workflows into automated tools as soon as possible? Has a preliminary feasibility study been conducted on potential software solutions?
The proposal’s goal is commendable, as it aims to provide clearer project management and streamline information flows. This proposal must have taken a significant amount of your time—thank you for your dedication.
In the proposal, manual reporting workflows seem to be the primary focus in the initial phase. However, manual processes could result in high management costs and efficiency challenges. Is there a clear plan to transition these manual workflows into automated tools as soon as possible? Has a preliminary feasibility study been conducted on potential software solutions?
The proposal mentions the inclusion of three stakeholder representatives, but is this number sufficient? Should more community members or smaller delegate representatives be included to ensure a broader range of perspectives?
UPDATE: Thursday, November 28th - 1640 UTC
I accidentally posted the above forum post but I can't edit nor update it. Will fix the mistakes when I can.
Saving for future updates and comments from the team.
Thanks for the proposal and the work already done in the GRC initiative. My understanding is that the primary goal is to have a standardized way to report/track the proposals' lifecycle.
However, I'm missing a few definitions/clarifications (I'm not sure if this was left open as will be part of the research itself):
Thanks in advance!
Do we really have lack of transperancy, accountability etc. when most if not all initiatives do consistent reporting, calls, consultations, the DAO having the ability to wind down programs, most programs having decision-making re. their scope etc. ?
While it's true that many initiatives within the DAO have their own reporting mechanisms, they do not seem to be standardized. This makes it harder to keep all our projects aligned with the DAO's overall mission. If we had a unified system, it'd be easier to spot duplicate efforts and focus on new initiatives that offer a better return on investment. It would also improve accountability, as contributors would be measured against the same set of clear, predefined metrics.
A system like this could help identify overlapping efforts or create opportunities for collaboration. It would also make it easier for delegates and decision-makers to guide resource allocation and strategic planning.
To include some suggestions to the proposal I would say its important to involve the community for feedback at key stages as this would make sure the system works for everyone. Automating parts of the tracking process could save time and make things smoother. Its also important to have a clear scope of what the reporting function will actually cover.
I would also add that it could be practical to start with a few key variables or metrics to monitor. This will allow to test and refine the system on a smaller scale before expanding it to cover more aspects of the DAO's operations/initiatives.
I think a standardized system like this is the next natural step in the DAO’s evolution. It’ll bring more transparency and order. If this initiative works as expected it should be seamlessly adopted by the OpCo.
Of course its important to take into account budget considerations for this proposal.
Hello! Thanks for the proposal.
To be honest, I'm struggling a bit to fully understand the proposed milestones and the final objective of this proposal.
Is the goal to launch a reporting and oversight system from day one?
Is it to conduct research on the best way to implement that reporting system and fund said research? Or is it both?
I see value and support the idea of having a party responsible for the tasks described in the "Reporting Activities" section:
| Activity | Description |
|---|---|
| Biweekly Proposal Discussions (currently run by the foundation) | Two discussions per month focused on tracking active initiatives and addressing blockers. |
| Monthly Governance Reporting Call (GRC) | A dedicated call to provide updates on the status of all tracked initiatives. Includes a detailed review of initiative progress, risks, and next steps. |
| Biweekly syncs/Check-Ins | Asynchronous updates to minimize meeting overhead. Dedicated calls for initiatives requiring immediate support or troubleshooting. |
| Asynchronous Updates | Initiative teams submit updates via posts or shared documents. Consolidated into a comprehensive report shared with delegates. |
| Outreach and Marketing | Newsletter or tweet thread summarizing progress, key wins, and risks. Keeps the community informed and engaged while showcasing accountability. |
The only thing is that I wouldn't replace the foundation's call. It's valuable to have them involved, and besides, why should the DAO take on a cost that they have already decided to cover?
Also, if marketing efforts are to be undertaken, it would be good to coordinate with the foundation's Twitter accounts to avoid further fragmenting communication channels.
What’s also unclear to me is the need for working groups. Couldn’t these tasks be handled by the PM instead?
Lastly, even though you describe the tasks as having a complex definition, a budget is necessary to fully evaluate the proposal.
Thank you very much!
Hey Alex,
What are you basing the below on though?
" Tracking Aligns Organizations and Reporting Supports Alignment
** DAO initiatives currently lack a systematic framework for tracking performance, which leads to:*
Do we really have lack of transperancy, accountability etc. when most if not all initiatives do consistent reporting, calls, consultations, the DAO having the ability to wind down programs, most programs having decision-making re. their scope etc. ?
I don't think the above depicts a clear and true statement of the current status quo personally but if you can provide examples that'd be helpful!
Kind Regards, Immutablelawyer Axis Advisory
The proposal’s goal is commendable, as it aims to provide clearer project management and streamline information flows. This proposal must have taken a significant amount of your time—thank you for your dedication.
In the proposal, manual reporting workflows seem to be the primary focus in the initial phase. However, manual processes could result in high management costs and efficiency challenges. Is there a clear plan to transition these manual workflows into automated tools as soon as possible? Has a preliminary feasibility study been conducted on potential software solutions?
The proposal’s goal is commendable, as it aims to provide clearer project management and streamline information flows. This proposal must have taken a significant amount of your time—thank you for your dedication.
In the proposal, manual reporting workflows seem to be the primary focus in the initial phase. However, manual processes could result in high management costs and efficiency challenges. Is there a clear plan to transition these manual workflows into automated tools as soon as possible? Has a preliminary feasibility study been conducted on potential software solutions?
The proposal mentions the inclusion of three stakeholder representatives, but is this number sufficient? Should more community members or smaller delegate representatives be included to ensure a broader range of perspectives?
UPDATE: Thursday, November 28th - 1640 UTC
I accidentally posted the above forum post but I can't edit nor update it. Will fix the mistakes when I can.
Saving for future updates and comments from the team.
