The OpCo - Scale, Structure, & Synergy

The OpCo - To Scale, Structure, & Synergize

TLDR: THIS IS VERY MUCH A WIP, BUT LETS START THE DISCUSSION

Creating an Operation Company (OpCo) laser-focused on driving growth, fostering collaboration, and creating onchain experiences, will supercharge the Arbitrum ecosystem’s growth, lower coordination costs, and cement its position as the leading L2.

The OpCo’s mandate is ambitious yet achievable: attract and nurture top-tier talent, boost agility and efficiency, catalyze ecosystem expansion, amplify brand presence, forge strategic alliances, engage and support the vibrant Arbitrum community, and continuously adapt to the ever-changing needs of the ecosystem. Guided by an elected board’s wisdom and unwavering commitment to transparency, the OpCo will serve as a powerful catalyst for innovation and value creation.

With a well-defined roadmap and a budget of 25 million $ARB over two years, the OpCo is poised to unlock the boundless potential of the Arbitrum DAO.

To start, we are going deep into the mandates the OpCo will have. Then, we will roll up to generics as we get closer to the company charter, but I think it’s important we agree on responsibilities first. We have included the higher-level mandates in-line, but for further drill-down, I recommend starting here.

︎ HackMD Mandate Exploration ︎

Thanks!

Introduction:

The Arbitrum ecosystem has witnessed remarkable growth and adoption since its genesis, highlighting the immense potential of layer 2 scaling solutions in facilitating fast, cost-effective, and secure transactions on the Ethereum network. As the ecosystem expands, the Arbitrum DAO encounters increasingly complex challenges in managing operations, driving innovation, and ensuring sustainable growth. To tackle these challenges head-on and unlock new frontiers of opportunity, this AIP proposes the creation of an Operation Company (OpCo) to support the Arbitrum DAO and complement the Foundation.

The OpCo will serve as the execution arm of the Arbitrum DAO, collaborating closely with the Arbitrum Foundation to bring to life the strategies and initiatives set forth by the DAO’s governance process. By establishing a dedicated entity singularly focused on operational excellence, the Arbitrum DAO can significantly enhance its agility, efficiency, and impact on the ecosystem.

The OpCo’s primary objectives include attracting and retaining top talent, improving operational agility, scaling the DAO’s impact, enhancing visibility and influence, and ensuring accountability and alignment with the Arbitrum DAO’s goals. By leveraging the OpCo’s streamlined decision-making processes and dedicated resources, the Arbitrum DAO can quickly adapt to emerging opportunities, proactively address challenges, and maintain its competitive edge in the rapidly evolving blockchain landscape.

Creating an OpCo is a strategic imperative for the Arbitrum DAO to navigate the complexities and capitalize on the opportunities of a dynamic ecosystem. By synergizing the agility and efficiency of a focused operational entity with the collective wisdom and inclusivity of decentralized governance, the Arbitrum DAO can unlock its full potential and drive meaningful, long-term value for its community and the broader blockchain industry.

Abstract:

This AIP proposes the creation of an Operation Company (OpCo) to support the Arbitrum DAO and Foundation in fostering the growth and development of the Arbitrum ecosystem. The OpCo, led by an elected board of ecosystem participants, will hire full-time contributors, improve operational agility, and scale the DAO’s impact through enhanced collaboration, resource allocation, and visibility. The AIP requests a budget of 25 million $ARB to cover the OpCo’s setup costs and operational expenses for the first two years.

Motivation:

Motivation:

Creating an Operation Company (OpCo) is a strategic imperative to drive the Arbitrum DAO forward in an increasingly competitive landscape. This comprehensive framework empowers the OpCo to identify and target critical areas or mandates where it can deliver maximum value to the Arbitrum DAO and its community.

The Arbitrum DAO faces several challenges today, which the OpCo aims to address:

1. Lack of dedicated resources to execute strategies and initiatives efficiently
2. Difficulty in attracting and retaining top talent across critical functions
3. Limited agility in adapting to the rapidly evolving needs of the ecosystem
4. Insufficient coordination and collaboration among ecosystem participants
5. Inadequate performance tracking and transparency in DAO activities and resource utilization
6. Suboptimal community engagement and support for new members and projects

The OpCo’s agile structure catalyzes growth, fostering synergies across the ecosystem and attracting a diverse array of stakeholders united by a shared vision. By forming the Arbitrum Protocol Guild, the OpCo will coordinate and support the core protocol teams building the Arbitrum technology stack, driving innovation, and solidifying Arbitrum’s current position.

The OpCo’s mandate to implement robust on-chain performance tracking and transparent reporting mechanisms will significantly enhance the Arbitrum DAO’s accountability and credibility. By leveraging data analytics and clear metrics, the OpCo will provide stakeholders with unparalleled insights into the DAO’s activities, performance, and use of funds, strengthening trust within the community and attracting a wider pool of contributors and investors.

The OpCo’s unwavering focus on community engagement, onchain experiences, and support will be the bedrock of Arbitrum’s long-term success. By delivering comprehensive onboarding resources, fostering a vibrant and inclusive community, and actively seeking and implementing feedback, the OpCo will cultivate a loyal and passionate user base that is genuinely invested in the future of the Arbitrum ecosystem.

In essence, the OpCo represents a transformative leap forward for the Arbitrum DAO, empowering it to navigate the challenges and seize the opportunities of a rapidly evolving landscape. By combining the OpCo’s operational prowess with the DAO’s decentralized governance, Arbitrum will be poised to thrive in the Web3 era.

Rationale:

The establishment of an Operation Company (OpCo) is perfectly aligned with the Arbitrum community’s mission and guiding values, serving as a catalyst for growth, inclusivity, and innovation within the ecosystem.

1. Transparency and Accountability: The OpCo ensures transparency, accountability, and effective decision-making at scale, harmonizing seamlessly with Arbitrum’s ethos of decentralization.

2. Inclusivity and Accessibility: By fostering diversity and inclusion, the OpCo creates a vibrant and welcoming community that empowers users from all backgrounds to participate in the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem actively.

3. User-Centric Focus: The OpCo’s unwavering commitment to serving the needs and interests of users ensures that the Arbitrum ecosystem remains user-centric at its core, fostering trust and loyalty among the community.

4. Open Collaboration and Innovation: By maintaining a neutral stance and promoting open collaboration, the OpCo cultivates an environment where groundbreaking projects and partnerships can thrive, pushing the boundaries of decentralized finance.

5. Alignment with Ethereum: The OpCo’s efforts to drive adoption, collaboration, and innovation within the Arbitrum ecosystem ultimately benefit Ethereum as a whole, contributing to the growth and success of the broader Ethereum community.

6. Sustainable Growth: The OpCo enables the Arbitrum DAO to make strategic, long-term decisions and investments that promote the ecosystem’s sustainable growth, ensuring that initiatives are designed for lasting impact.

The creation of the OpCo is not merely aligned with the Arbitrum community’s mission and values – it is a natural and necessary extension of them. By providing a dedicated entity to drive the DAO’s operational and ecosystem growth initiatives, the OpCo will serve as a powerful tool for helping the Arbitrum community achieve its goals while staying true to its core principles of decentralization, inclusivity, and innovation.

Key Terms:

TBD - Still working on this graphic (Click Here to Expand)

OpCo-2024-03-28-1842033840×894 136 KB

Arbitrum DAO Diagram-2024-04-03-0544351920×1236 116 KB

OpCoMandates-2024-04-03-0156423840×756 319 KB

Specifications:

Mandates for the Arbitrum OpCo:

- **Overview**: Build and maintain an engaged, inclusive, and well-supported Arbitrum community
- **Objectives**: Develop community engagement strategies, provide support and resources, gather and analyze feedback, help new members navigate opportunities, and foster a culture of experimentation and innovation
- **Strategies**: Implement a multi-faceted approach focusing on onboarding, education, technical assistance, feedback analysis, and fostering a culture of experimentation and innovation
- **Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)**: Number of new members onboarded, participation rates in educational initiatives, resolution time and satisfaction scores for technical support, volume and sentiment of community feedback, and number and quality of community-driven innovations and contributions
- **Roadmap**: Develop and launch the onboarding process and initial educational content, establish technical support channels and feedback gathering mechanisms, implement initiatives to foster experimentation and innovation, and analyze and refine community engagement and support strategies
- **Resources**: Dedicated community management and support team within the OpCo, budget allocation for educational content development and events, and technical infrastructure for onboarding and experimentation platforms

- **Overview**: Identify and pursue strategic partnerships to drive growth and innovation within the Arbitrum ecosystem
- **Objectives**: Identify and pursue partnerships, negotiate and manage agreements, and collaborate on joint initiatives
- **Strategies**: Implement a structured approach to identifying, negotiating, and managing partnerships that align with the ecosystem's goals and values
- **Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)**: Number and quality of partnerships established, value generated through partnerships, successful execution of joint initiatives, partner satisfaction and retention rates, and contribution to the overall growth and success of the ecosystem
- **Roadmap**: Develop partnership criteria and best practices, identify and pursue initial partnerships, collaborate on joint initiatives with established partners, and expand and refine partnership strategies
- **Resources**: Dedicated business development team with expertise in partnership management and blockchain technology, budget allocation for industry events and joint initiatives, and collaboration tools and platforms

- **Overview**: Ensure the OpCo maintains the internal capabilities and talent required to deliver on its commitments to the Arbitrum ecosystem
- **Objectives**: Operate under the guidance of the Transitory Congress, maintain internal capabilities and talent, and maintain transparency through regular reporting
- **Strategies**: Implement a well-structured governance body, focus on talent management and internal capabilities, and commit to transparency through regular reporting
- **Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)**: Diversity and expertise of the Transitory Congress members, alignment of OpCo activities with the DAO's objectives, talent retention rate and employee satisfaction, efficiency gains from streamlined processes, and timely and accurate reporting
- **Roadmap**: Establish the Transitory Congress and governance structure, assess and enhance internal capabilities and talent, develop and implement a comprehensive reporting framework, and evaluate and refine administration and sustainability practices
- **Resources**: Dedicated team within the OpCo focused on governance, talent management, and reporting, budget allocation for talent acquisition and professional development, and collaboration tools and blockchain-based accounting systems

By focusing on these core mandates, the Arbitrum OpCo will be well-positioned to support the growth, sustainability, and success of the Arbitrum ecosystem, while remaining accountable to the Arbitrum DAO and its community.

Steps to Implement:

Overall Cost:

The total cost to implement the AIP and establish the Operation Company (OpCo) is estimated to be 25 million $ARB covering 2 years. This budget covers both the initial setup costs and the recurring operating expenses for the first two years. The breakdown of the costs is as follows:

Totally threw some High-Level Numbers here - This will need revision indefinitely

Total Fixed Costs: 4,000,000 $ARB

Total Recurring Costs (Two Years): 21,000,000 $ARB

Grand Total (Two Years): 25,000,000 $ARB

This two-year budget allocation allows the OpCo to establish a strong foundation, maintain operational stability, and adapt to the evolving needs of the Arbitrum ecosystem over an extended period. The Arbitrum DAO can reassess the OpCo’s performance and budget requirements after the initial two years to ensure ongoing alignment with the ecosystem’s growth and the DAO’s objectives.

Will update and revise often as this is just the beginning of what this could become!

someone was cooking.

Ok, first feedback: please post the graph above with a better resolution, maybe it was me but i was having an hard time reading it.

Second, i think we have a size at this point in which we need to have something like this.
Several dao have it, the one in whic I had experience was balancer dao in which there was an OpCo that basically over time hired several service providers for several roles (implementation of code, management of UX, marketing etcetera). Sometimes it ended up well sometimes it did not.

But having an entity that can decide indepdently and report to the DAO and then the DAO will evaluate every X months what is going on, is likely the agility we need to avoid to succumb to ourself. This is why I like the idea.

I think the opco should focus first on pain points area tho. AKA having a priority list could make sense. Of the mandates, i see in this orders the needs:

• marketing + community (we have a detatchment from what we do here and what is out there)
• growth
• parnership
• everything else.

Just thinking out loud, one thing that has come up this week is the separation of

1. Initiative Funding
2. Admin & Operational Expenses

Will add this as a relevant use case to implement within the OpCos remit.

Another question that came up is re: ownership, there is a call this week with the ecosystems legal council, so I defer to what their recommendation will be, however speculatively, I see 3 potential paths

1. Subsidiary of the Foundation
2. Ownership rolls into a Purpose Trust, with a similar purpose to that of the Foundation
3. A new complementary foundation

Also regarding the important business matters surrounding the naming of the OpCo, open to DAO suggestions, but I’m partial to something referring to a Carbuncle because arb is in the name, it’s cute and memorable (meme-able), and I have taken it upon myself to establish a mascot.
That or Onchain Research lol.

See, cmon, shes very marketable.

cute carby1920×1920 109 KB

i like the idea - Arbitrum DAO is one of the largest DAOs by most metrics (treasury value, projects in the ecosystem, TVL, users, etc.) and OpCo in charge of more top-down strategic thinking and agility to execute the plan will help Arbitrum ecosystem in the long-run. It’s too much of random ideas flying around in the DAO right now, and we need an entity that can take a step back and think of the bigger picture and help coordinate the piecemeal actions.

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

Taking a step back, what do you think about having an overall structure for the DAO, that incorporates existing committees (ARDC, Procurement Committee)?

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

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

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

Cross-stream Collaboration

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

Scoping Challenges

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

Marketing Questions

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

Okay I have included a link to the mermaid diagram

I also tried to make it a little more digestible by adding accordians. I have also completely revamped the mandate section to include more relevant objectives.

I appreciate all the effort put into this! This has clearly been in the works for some time now.

I have the following questions, some of which have been asked but bear repeating;

1. How would this interface with existing ARDC, Procurement Committee members?

2. The functions you describe require individuals who are initiative takers and self-starters. There’s always the danger of bloat, ghost teams and over-hiring, how do we prevent that especially when we have to aggressively recruit over a short time period?

3. One of the reasons SpaceX worked as well as it did is that NASA encouraged many of their best employees to move over to their company. As an equivalent, have you spoken to Arbitrum Foundation or OCL over whether we can take over any of their existing functions or staff and perform these roles from our budget?

4. How is this substantively different from @DisruptionJoe work with Plurality Labs, which has hired DAO contributors through firestarters and also lured promising projects to our ecosystem…

5. The advantage of a separate OpCo is nimbleness and autonomy. I fear the danger will be losing what makes ArbitrumDAO special, a fully onchain, permissionless organization where anyone can propose without feeling shut out by councils, committees or organizations.

I’m not averse to the idea and it might be what we require, as the DAO is beginning to professionalize. I do remember that @BlockworksResearch and @MattOnChain were working on something similar around employees for the DAO and compensation too, so I would check with them too and try joining forces if possible.

Heading in this direction seems like a smart decision. It could significantly enhance the impact of the Arbitrum DAO.

However, there are a few things I’m worried about:

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

Sometimes, it’s just more efficient to clearly define what’s needed, pay someone, and have them get it done.

Considering Arbitrum’s size, though, we might not have a lot of alternatives.

Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

This is a great proposal and a great idea. If this works, it will maintain consistency across proposals and initiatives, enabling persistence of vision on a medium-term basis. In line with the objectives stated at the outset of the proposal, I’d hope a successful outcome could meet the following criteria:

• reduced start-up time for new DAO initiatives
• reduced duplication of effort for new work
• creation of well-known points of contact with low barriers for finding them
• reliably “pick up the phone”; dependable service; DAO can always be reached, in a sense

I think I share some concerns with others regarding non-essential tasks. One side-quest I’ve seen often enough is for teams to invest resources into its own overhead/maintenance, with hopes of gaining operational efficiencies. Even so, it’s worth the risk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Untitled diagram-2024-03-28-1850543840×464 62.3 KB

there is a merit in clarifyin stakejolders duty/mission. In this case, offchain labs, foundation, dao. For sure some overlap will always be present but likely swith slightly different mission, vision and also elasticity in execution. Which is quite normal in a huge org like what the arbi ecosystem is becoming.

LegalEntity1079×763 165 KB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

welcome, welcome!

Cross-stream Collaboration

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

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

Scoping Challenges

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

Marketing Questions

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

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

Appreciate your thoughtful comments and questions! Keep em coming.

hey devansh i appreciate you.

1. Interfacing with existing ARDC and Procurement Committee members:
   The OpCo should work closely with and complement the efforts of the ARDC and Procurement Committee. For example, I wouldn’t expect OpCo to invest time or resources into anything that they could put into the ARDC’s work queue. We envision regular communication and coordination between the OpCo and these existing bodies to ensure that their work is aligned and mutually supportive.
   Procurement, though, is a little less cut and dry. To hit economies of scale with a large-scale procurement program, we probably need to invest more resources than 3 part-time contributors. I would really like to see some tangible deliveries and milestones hit from the procurement team, but it has yet to be seen (I will give them the benefit of the doubt since they have only been live for a month), but in my eyes, we need to accelerate procurement. Also, procurement doesn’t have any funding yet for what they can offer projects building in the ecosystem, once the Security Service providers have been onboarded, we are going to need to do a funding request, I can see the OpCo helping in that regard, managing funding requests so procurement can focus on onboarding and engagements. But need to think this through more.

2. Preventing bloat, ghost teams, and over-hiring:
   This is a valid concern, and we are committed to building a lean and efficient organization. Right now, the problem is the opposite, though; the demand for coordination far exceeds the supply of willing contributors. I would instead hire one all-star, pay them a lot, and load responsibilities until they are hitting capacity constraints and having to prioritize before moving to hire additional team members. Still, I guess we will have to make sure whoever runs the OpCo has a similar mentality. However, we should establish clear performance metrics and regularly assess OpCo’s staffing needs to ensure we have the right people in the right roles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the in depth and detailed responses! Broadly on board, especially like the hiring approach of a few all stars and ramping up from there as their workload starts becoming unmanageable as well as the framing of scaling up firestarters. I still think there are some important issues like governance of the OpCo that haven’t been touched upon which I’d like clarified before moving to a vote (for example how do we decide who is the top dog of OpCo)

One other question i had was on the time management of OpCo staff for working on their own initiatives versus helping contributors with their proposals. Something I’ve seen is that after being appointed, employees identify a strategic project and then spend all their time on that.

Nothing wrong with that, but it leads to a lack of general support for DAO contributors as the paid staff are all pigeonholed on their narrow issue. So I wanted to know whether the priority would be for the OpCo team to help contributors with their proposals to the DAO, come up with their own proposals or a mix of both.

Edit to also ask: @dk3 , what role if any do you specifically see for yourself in the OpCo? It’s ok if you don’t know that yet!

Since the Mandates are probably the single most important topic here to agree on, started to really drill down into those. Have thrown them into HackMD Table of Contents as each one is starting to get quite expansive.

Or you can jump directly here:

Jump Directly to Specific Mandate Page

1. Talent Acquisition and Program Management
2. Arbitrum Ecosystem Coordination
3. On-Chain Performance Tracking
4. Transparency & Analysis
5. Decentralized Objective Setting
6. Marketing and Brand Awareness (Memetics)
7. Governance Engagement
8. Open & Competitive Service Provider Selection
9. Growth and Collaboration (Betting on Builders)
10. Community Engagement and Support (Onboarding)
11. Strategic Partnerships (Business Development)
12. Administration & Sustainability

idk why it replied to JoJo directly sorry, idk how to fix that

My Thoughts

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

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

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

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

What @jengajojo cited (another legal) entity spinning up and cloning has already happened. I cite the Curve-Saddlesore IP appropriation …

The problem with open source is that people attempt to front-run trying to get big b4 getting out. There is little one can due if the defendent is a JohnDoe (court hate this) and don’t even ask about JaneDoe plaintiffs (some rare situations where need to protect the victim but otherwise the existing system throws a sissy fit).

Trying to scale up DAOs is harder than people think … look at the Bankless backdraft and what used to be a vibrant community feels like a ghost town (comparatively). Lights might be on but nobody’s home.