ArbitrumThe proposal pinpoints a real bottleneck. Delegates have watched promising ideas wither while each step—draft, OAT review, Snapshot, on-chain execution—grinds forward, so letting OpCo co-design solutions with service providers before a formal DAO vote could shrink timelines, surface realistic budgets sooner, and keep momentum alive. We share that goal, and we agree that some discretionary spend is essential to avoid bureaucratic gridlock. Where we part ways is on scope and safeguards. The charter already lets OpCo draw up to $500k a month with no vote, climbing to an OAT or DAO check above that. After covering the exemplary $5.2 M annual budgeting, about $436k per month, roughly $64k in “excess” cash would still be available every month. Under the amendment, that surplus could finance external work without pre-defined limits or public sign-off, effectively repurposing the treasury while the community learns only in hindsight. Agility does not require a blank cheque. A practical compromise would: - create a “discovery pool” capped at, say, $10k per engagement and $30k per quarter; - require unanimous OAT sign-off for each draw and publish the contract summary in the next monthly report; These guardrails keep the spirit of fast, iterative vendor collaboration while ensuring that material sums still pass through the DAO’s accountability mechanisms. Until such parameters are built into the text, we would vote against and invite the authors to return with a tighter, budget-bounded revision.