This is an Events Budget Proposal
approval on Snapshot will result in direct funding without requiring a Tally vote
Live Snapshot: https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xab1a7ff1a294882315f3beaa77fa0d4b2ec68633792046b941714108209ce737
The Arbitrum Growth Circle is a three-month, eight-event series designed to empower the community as a self-sustaining support system for early-stage and high growth (pre-token) protocols. Running bi-weekly, each two-hour session creates a focused environment where protocols, developers, and ecosystem participants can gain insights, share experiences, and build lasting connections. The sessions surface hidden expertise within the community and provide a structured space for peer-led support.
This series is a direct response to findings from the AVI Pilot’s ecosystem investment thesis, which emphasizes the importance of empowering skilled builders to become leaders within the ecosystem. By creating a scalable peer support network, we can create an environment that’s less dependent on direct engagement with any one expert group.
Sessions include breakout discussions, expert clinics, and guided workshops, ensuring participants receive actionable guidance while expanding Arbitrum’s network of skilled builders. By surfacing and rewarding community expertise, the Growth Circle creates a self-sustaining support system that drives long-term ecosystem growth.
Some examples of session topics include:
Farstar, the group behind the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative, has successfully executed similar programs at large-scales across 10+ countries, managing parallel teams and an annual events budget in excess of $1.5M+. We’ve been recognised for our work in startup communities like the Royal Academy of Engineering in the UK and alongside the likes of Oxford University and Imperial College.
As the direct event organizer, our team will handle all aspects of:
The Arbitrum Growth Circle creates a scalable solution for the growing demand for direct support within the ecosystem. This aligns closely with AVI’s goals of empowering entrepreneurs to act as leaders within the ecosystem and serves as a natural continuation of the flywheel effect started by the AVI Pilot.
Scalable Support: Streamlines expertise sharing, lowers bottleneck effects, while empowering community-driven problem-solving and knowledge sharing within the ecosystem.
Ecosystem Growth: Accelerates onboarding, expands access to market makers and liquidity providers by helping protocols to understand how to engage them and drives adoption of Arbitrum.
Market Connections: Bridges gaps between loosely connected community members and establishes direct support-related feedback loops.
Empowering Community: Elevates emerging experts, fosters peer-led problem-solving, and builds a sustainable mentor network.
Total Budget: $67.2k USD
We have extensive experience running similar events and have established budget tracking processes to ensure funds are used effectively to maximize impact while maintaining financial integrity.
| KPI | Target | Tracking Method |
|---|---|---|
| Net Promoter Score | Target +50 | Post-session surveys of all participants |
| Qualitative | At least 5 specific impact stories published in the report. *Usually time needs to allow for these to materialize. Meaning might be expanded within 3 months after final event. | Qualifying anecdotes from surveys and conversations clearly demonstrating both impact and attribution to our intervention in alignment to the logic model |
| Consistent Attendance and Participation | Maintain a core cohort of at least 20 ‘activated’ participants, who attend at least 1/3 of the events | Have the program manager track registered people, attendees during the sessions and engagement with surveys. |
| Network development | 50%+ | % of ‘activated’ participants report that they have met their original relationship development target, because of the event series as measured by entry and exit surveys (Eg with investors, market makers, partners, employees. Activated means they have participated in over ⅓ of the available sessions). |
All of these metrics are meant to align with a Theory of Change and Logic Model ultimately demonstrating how we are driving Primary Outcomes such as Orbit and Stylus adoption, more protocols launching on Arbitrum, more token launches, more high quality sticky liquidity on Arbitrum One and Orbits.
This will be a virtual-first event with in-person participation at major conferences our team is attending (eg. ETH Denver, EthCC). The Farstar team will handle all online logistics, including Zoom webinars, Miro boards, worksheets, and Gathertown coordination.
1. ETH Denver: On-ground curation to identify & onboard protocols
2. Seven Virtual Clinics across 2–3 months. Each session ~2 hours, featuring expert presentation + interactive "live coaching.” An example of a virtual clinic is “Building Effective Market Maker Relationships" which includes:
3. Unconference: Invite only for select protocols becoming part of the Arbitrum Growth Circle
No external service providers needed.
The Arbitrum Growth Circles naturally align with the community engagement efforts from AVI Phase 1, allowing us to seed participation through referrals even without formal support from the DAO or ADPC. However, reaching a broader audience—including DAO contributors who can share their expertise—will further strengthen the initiative. To achieve this, we will request marketing support from ADPC, amplification from AF through retweets and promotion in relevant Arbitrum Telegram groups.
Provide a detailed execution timeline and key milestones assuming the proposal is approved.
IRL Engagement & Onboarding The Farstar team will use ETH Denver as a key touchpoint to connect, onboard, and mobilize relevant participants. Many meetings with relevant participants have already been scheduled through AVI. And the Farstar team is running office hours on the 1st of March on the Arbitrum booth in the main venues.
Furthermore we will rally participants for an Arbitrum builder gathering around any event where there might be an overlap of attendance and our team is present (e.g. ETH Bucharest).
Most importantly, we will conclude in EthCC in Cannes where we expect a large presence. This is an opportunity to aid Arbitrum Growth Circle participants in mobilizing each other toward achieving shared goals.
Session Development & Participant Curation While AVI has provided a strong foundation through prior discussions with dozens of participants, additional outreach and effort will be required to engage new stakeholders and refine session topics to align with emerging interests.
Speaker & Mentor Coordination We will collaborate closely with speakers/mentors to align on session formats, securing speakers, and optimizing knowledge-sharing opportunities.
Our primary focus is high-potential protocols that are relatively new to building in the Arbitrum ecosystem or are currently underserved. To reach them, we will:
Regular promotional content and participant success stories to maintain visibility and drive engagement. Updates will be shared via the Arbitrum Forum (structured updates), Twitter/X (broader reach), Discord (direct interaction), and additional relevant channels.
The Arbitrum Growth Circle directly advances Arbitrum's mission by:
Our report will include:
This is an Events Budget Proposal
approval on Snapshot will result in direct funding without requiring a Tally vote
Live Snapshot: https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xab1a7ff1a294882315f3beaa77fa0d4b2ec68633792046b941714108209ce737
The Arbitrum Growth Circle is a three-month, eight-event series designed to empower the community as a self-sustaining support system for early-stage and high growth (pre-token) protocols. Running bi-weekly, each two-hour session creates a focused environment where protocols, developers, and ecosystem participants can gain insights, share experiences, and build lasting connections. The sessions surface hidden expertise within the community and provide a structured space for peer-led support.
This series is a direct response to findings from the AVI Pilot’s ecosystem investment thesis, which emphasizes the importance of empowering skilled builders to become leaders within the ecosystem. By creating a scalable peer support network, we can create an environment that’s less dependent on direct engagement with any one expert group.
Sessions include breakout discussions, expert clinics, and guided workshops, ensuring participants receive actionable guidance while expanding Arbitrum’s network of skilled builders. By surfacing and rewarding community expertise, the Growth Circle creates a self-sustaining support system that drives long-term ecosystem growth.
Some examples of session topics include:
Farstar, the group behind the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative, has successfully executed similar programs at large-scales across 10+ countries, managing parallel teams and an annual events budget in excess of $1.5M+. We’ve been recognised for our work in startup communities like the Royal Academy of Engineering in the UK and alongside the likes of Oxford University and Imperial College.
As the direct event organizer, our team will handle all aspects of:
The Arbitrum Growth Circle creates a scalable solution for the growing demand for direct support within the ecosystem. This aligns closely with AVI’s goals of empowering entrepreneurs to act as leaders within the ecosystem and serves as a natural continuation of the flywheel effect started by the AVI Pilot.
Scalable Support: Streamlines expertise sharing, lowers bottleneck effects, while empowering community-driven problem-solving and knowledge sharing within the ecosystem.
Ecosystem Growth: Accelerates onboarding, expands access to market makers and liquidity providers by helping protocols to understand how to engage them and drives adoption of Arbitrum.
Market Connections: Bridges gaps between loosely connected community members and establishes direct support-related feedback loops.
Empowering Community: Elevates emerging experts, fosters peer-led problem-solving, and builds a sustainable mentor network.
Total Budget: $67.2k USD
We have extensive experience running similar events and have established budget tracking processes to ensure funds are used effectively to maximize impact while maintaining financial integrity.
| KPI | Target | Tracking Method |
|---|---|---|
| Net Promoter Score | Target +50 | Post-session surveys of all participants |
| Qualitative | At least 5 specific impact stories published in the report. *Usually time needs to allow for these to materialize. Meaning might be expanded within 3 months after final event. | Qualifying anecdotes from surveys and conversations clearly demonstrating both impact and attribution to our intervention in alignment to the logic model |
| Consistent Attendance and Participation | Maintain a core cohort of at least 20 ‘activated’ participants, who attend at least 1/3 of the events | Have the program manager track registered people, attendees during the sessions and engagement with surveys. |
| Network development | 50%+ | % of ‘activated’ participants report that they have met their original relationship development target, because of the event series as measured by entry and exit surveys (Eg with investors, market makers, partners, employees. Activated means they have participated in over ⅓ of the available sessions). |
All of these metrics are meant to align with a Theory of Change and Logic Model ultimately demonstrating how we are driving Primary Outcomes such as Orbit and Stylus adoption, more protocols launching on Arbitrum, more token launches, more high quality sticky liquidity on Arbitrum One and Orbits.
This will be a virtual-first event with in-person participation at major conferences our team is attending (eg. ETH Denver, EthCC). The Farstar team will handle all online logistics, including Zoom webinars, Miro boards, worksheets, and Gathertown coordination.
1. ETH Denver: On-ground curation to identify & onboard protocols
2. Seven Virtual Clinics across 2–3 months. Each session ~2 hours, featuring expert presentation + interactive "live coaching.” An example of a virtual clinic is “Building Effective Market Maker Relationships" which includes:
3. Unconference: Invite only for select protocols becoming part of the Arbitrum Growth Circle
No external service providers needed.
The Arbitrum Growth Circles naturally align with the community engagement efforts from AVI Phase 1, allowing us to seed participation through referrals even without formal support from the DAO or ADPC. However, reaching a broader audience—including DAO contributors who can share their expertise—will further strengthen the initiative. To achieve this, we will request marketing support from ADPC, amplification from AF through retweets and promotion in relevant Arbitrum Telegram groups.
Provide a detailed execution timeline and key milestones assuming the proposal is approved.
IRL Engagement & Onboarding The Farstar team will use ETH Denver as a key touchpoint to connect, onboard, and mobilize relevant participants. Many meetings with relevant participants have already been scheduled through AVI. And the Farstar team is running office hours on the 1st of March on the Arbitrum booth in the main venues.
Furthermore we will rally participants for an Arbitrum builder gathering around any event where there might be an overlap of attendance and our team is present (e.g. ETH Bucharest).
Most importantly, we will conclude in EthCC in Cannes where we expect a large presence. This is an opportunity to aid Arbitrum Growth Circle participants in mobilizing each other toward achieving shared goals.
Session Development & Participant Curation While AVI has provided a strong foundation through prior discussions with dozens of participants, additional outreach and effort will be required to engage new stakeholders and refine session topics to align with emerging interests.
Speaker & Mentor Coordination We will collaborate closely with speakers/mentors to align on session formats, securing speakers, and optimizing knowledge-sharing opportunities.
Our primary focus is high-potential protocols that are relatively new to building in the Arbitrum ecosystem or are currently underserved. To reach them, we will:
Regular promotional content and participant success stories to maintain visibility and drive engagement. Updates will be shared via the Arbitrum Forum (structured updates), Twitter/X (broader reach), Discord (direct interaction), and additional relevant channels.
The Arbitrum Growth Circle directly advances Arbitrum's mission by:
Our report will include:
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/59?u=bob-rossi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/58?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/59?u=bob-rossi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/58?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/56?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/55?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/54?u=maxlomu
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/52?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/51?u=griff
The Event Horizon Community voted on this proposal (ehARB-85): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-85
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this proposal (ehARB-85): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-85
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/50?u=linzerd
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/49?u=amira
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/48
the monetary ask is not that big for the return this can have, the DAO needs regular events like this to attract good and honest founders into Arbitrum, the Farstar team is competent and has done this before at the highest level, and the timeline proposed seems doable. Also, I believe the Events Budget 2025 is exactly the avenue that should fund this type of proposal, and as a reminder for my fellow distinguished delegates that are worried about spending the Events Budget 2025, I would like to remind them that that budget and committee was funded through onchain vote more than 3 months ago, with $1.5M USD in total to be spend, and at the moment it has only spent $55,800 USD for ETH Bucharest 2025. Which means that, excluding the $400K USD that were already reserved for the Arbitrum Foundation this year and that are going to be used fully for ETH Denver in the next couple weeks, in the last quarter, the DAO has only spend 5.05% of this annual events budget ($1.5M in total - $400K for the AF = $1.1M remaining and therefore the $55.8K allocated to ETH Bucharest is 5.05% of 1.1M). And I’m not arguing that we should be voting For in every proposal that comes to the DAO trying to get funded through that budget, but I believe we should be more worried about the fact that almost no service provider comes forward and tries to propose an event or series of events that use that budget. That was the original intention of the 2025 Events Budget, and at this rate, is not being fulfilled at all. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/46?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/45?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/44?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/41
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/43?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/juanrah-delegate-communication-thread/27395/28?u=juanrah
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/38?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/37?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/36?u=pedrob
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/35?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/33?u=dragonawr
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/32?u=tempetechie
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/29
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/28?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/26
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/27?u=gabriel
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/25?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/24
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/22?u=danielm
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/122?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/56?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/55?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/54?u=maxlomu
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/52?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/51?u=griff
The Event Horizon Community voted on this proposal (ehARB-85): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-85
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this proposal (ehARB-85): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-85
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/50?u=linzerd
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/49?u=amira
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/48
the monetary ask is not that big for the return this can have, the DAO needs regular events like this to attract good and honest founders into Arbitrum, the Farstar team is competent and has done this before at the highest level, and the timeline proposed seems doable. Also, I believe the Events Budget 2025 is exactly the avenue that should fund this type of proposal, and as a reminder for my fellow distinguished delegates that are worried about spending the Events Budget 2025, I would like to remind them that that budget and committee was funded through onchain vote more than 3 months ago, with $1.5M USD in total to be spend, and at the moment it has only spent $55,800 USD for ETH Bucharest 2025. Which means that, excluding the $400K USD that were already reserved for the Arbitrum Foundation this year and that are going to be used fully for ETH Denver in the next couple weeks, in the last quarter, the DAO has only spend 5.05% of this annual events budget ($1.5M in total - $400K for the AF = $1.1M remaining and therefore the $55.8K allocated to ETH Bucharest is 5.05% of 1.1M). And I’m not arguing that we should be voting For in every proposal that comes to the DAO trying to get funded through that budget, but I believe we should be more worried about the fact that almost no service provider comes forward and tries to propose an event or series of events that use that budget. That was the original intention of the 2025 Events Budget, and at this rate, is not being fulfilled at all. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/46?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/45?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/44?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/41
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/43?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/juanrah-delegate-communication-thread/27395/28?u=juanrah
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/38?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/37?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/36?u=pedrob
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/35?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/33?u=dragonawr
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/32?u=tempetechie
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/29
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/28?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/26
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/27?u=gabriel
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/25?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/24
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-growth-circles-event-proposal/28375/22?u=danielm
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/122?u=larva
Thank you everyone for the great engagement. While the vote did not pass, we are happy to see that it has generated a ton of actionable feedback in a short period of time. A lot of it is aligned with what we’ve seen when we’ve launched similar P2P learning and support programs.
Thank you everyone for the great engagement. While the vote did not pass, we are happy to see that it has generated a ton of actionable feedback in a short period of time. A lot of it is aligned with what we’ve seen when we’ve launched similar P2P learning and support programs.
What’s important and most valuable is creating the framework and flywheel. And while we get that it is hard to support it without seeing a particular implementation, if you focus on the implementation (eg exact topics, schedule, who are the experts, specific lists of participants etc) the main point of the approach can get lost. However, we understand that it is always easier to envision and risk manage with a specific implementation in mind and this is what people tend to often support on the first round.
With this taken into account, we’ll aim to provide a plan that has more specificity while maintaining the necessary flexibility to not lose the core benefits of the P2P approach.
The main rationale as having it as an event budget proposal has been shared. We’ve received feedback that while it technically fits well in the categories of educational workshops, delegates would prefer to focus the events budget on large events.
Other delegates explicitly expressed strong preference that initiatives like this should be in the events budget which has been so far underutilised.
Others still suggested the first version of the program should be run as a community, educational and events domain allocator initiative and then should be brought back to the DAO thereafter. Since then, season 3 of the DAO was approved and we are investigating the viability to run it through there too.
We also think that this is a critical point and have taken steps to figure out how to create an integrated journey for those being supported and will strive to be in a more clear and stronger position before resubmitting a proposal.
This is also a common misconception that we’ve seen often. Quite a few delegates looked at the proposal in terms of what’s the reach, what will we put on X, and how many activations we’ll drive per $.
For the avoidance of doubt we have no such primary objectives with an initiative like this. The experience we’re looking for is more like the dinners y-combinator organizes for their cohorts.
To support this discussion we released this post. Naturally, there's a tendency to prioritize easily measurable, high-visibility outcomes. While understandable, at this early stage a broader perspective can lead to more sustainable success. Effective KPIs should not only track progress for our ecosystem’s primary outcomes, but also make the builders the heroes of the story if we want the best one to work with us. When the focus is on enabling long-term impact rather than just immediate returns, the entire ecosystem benefits a lot more. It's encouraging to see more conversations around how we can better support early-stage builders, even when their contributions take time to fully emerge.
In discussions around costs, we’ve noticed that comparisons are often made using benchmarks that may not fully align with the nature of our work. This misunderstanding has led to misaligned expectations for the budget. What we’re proposing isn’t a marketing-driven events program but a highly engaged, hands-on support initiative. Our experience suggests that getting the same results with an online format, especially when running shorter sessions is in fact more expensive than doing longer sessions IRL.
Eg getting the same quality of attention in more compact sessions, which is required because participants are less susceptible to longer calls, requires a lot more work and direct individual participant engagement beforehand being done by the team though. The challenge is that there are no obvious locations to run continuous IRL sessions of this nature or strictly expecting longer in-sync time commitment would drive adverse selection on how senior people would be willing to participate and likely increase drop-out rates.
Fortunately, with 67.2k we are able to support ~45 participants over a 3 month period, we can expect significant behavior change, substantial relationships in the group and a sense of belonging. This would amount to about $1,500, per participant. If you compare it to the typical cost of a weekend workshop of a similar caliber aiming to help a professional adopt a new technology or a business person figure out GTM in a new industry, learning what’s not written in the books from the core industry players, could be seen as quite a bargain considering the significantly higher impact.
When we walked delegates privately over the support and outcomes entailed, we got better feedback than based on the forum write up. We’ll strive to be more effective in communicating it in the next proposal.
Thank you everyone for the great engagement. While the vote did not pass, we are happy to see that it has generated a ton of actionable feedback in a short period of time. A lot of it is aligned with what we’ve seen when we’ve launched similar P2P learning and support programs.
Thank you everyone for the great engagement. While the vote did not pass, we are happy to see that it has generated a ton of actionable feedback in a short period of time. A lot of it is aligned with what we’ve seen when we’ve launched similar P2P learning and support programs.
What’s important and most valuable is creating the framework and flywheel. And while we get that it is hard to support it without seeing a particular implementation, if you focus on the implementation (eg exact topics, schedule, who are the experts, specific lists of participants etc) the main point of the approach can get lost. However, we understand that it is always easier to envision and risk manage with a specific implementation in mind and this is what people tend to often support on the first round.
With this taken into account, we’ll aim to provide a plan that has more specificity while maintaining the necessary flexibility to not lose the core benefits of the P2P approach.
The main rationale as having it as an event budget proposal has been shared. We’ve received feedback that while it technically fits well in the categories of educational workshops, delegates would prefer to focus the events budget on large events.
Other delegates explicitly expressed strong preference that initiatives like this should be in the events budget which has been so far underutilised.
Others still suggested the first version of the program should be run as a community, educational and events domain allocator initiative and then should be brought back to the DAO thereafter. Since then, season 3 of the DAO was approved and we are investigating the viability to run it through there too.
We also think that this is a critical point and have taken steps to figure out how to create an integrated journey for those being supported and will strive to be in a more clear and stronger position before resubmitting a proposal.
This is also a common misconception that we’ve seen often. Quite a few delegates looked at the proposal in terms of what’s the reach, what will we put on X, and how many activations we’ll drive per $.
For the avoidance of doubt we have no such primary objectives with an initiative like this. The experience we’re looking for is more like the dinners y-combinator organizes for their cohorts.
To support this discussion we released this post. Naturally, there's a tendency to prioritize easily measurable, high-visibility outcomes. While understandable, at this early stage a broader perspective can lead to more sustainable success. Effective KPIs should not only track progress for our ecosystem’s primary outcomes, but also make the builders the heroes of the story if we want the best one to work with us. When the focus is on enabling long-term impact rather than just immediate returns, the entire ecosystem benefits a lot more. It's encouraging to see more conversations around how we can better support early-stage builders, even when their contributions take time to fully emerge.
In discussions around costs, we’ve noticed that comparisons are often made using benchmarks that may not fully align with the nature of our work. This misunderstanding has led to misaligned expectations for the budget. What we’re proposing isn’t a marketing-driven events program but a highly engaged, hands-on support initiative. Our experience suggests that getting the same results with an online format, especially when running shorter sessions is in fact more expensive than doing longer sessions IRL.
Eg getting the same quality of attention in more compact sessions, which is required because participants are less susceptible to longer calls, requires a lot more work and direct individual participant engagement beforehand being done by the team though. The challenge is that there are no obvious locations to run continuous IRL sessions of this nature or strictly expecting longer in-sync time commitment would drive adverse selection on how senior people would be willing to participate and likely increase drop-out rates.
Fortunately, with 67.2k we are able to support ~45 participants over a 3 month period, we can expect significant behavior change, substantial relationships in the group and a sense of belonging. This would amount to about $1,500, per participant. If you compare it to the typical cost of a weekend workshop of a similar caliber aiming to help a professional adopt a new technology or a business person figure out GTM in a new industry, learning what’s not written in the books from the core industry players, could be seen as quite a bargain considering the significantly higher impact.
When we walked delegates privately over the support and outcomes entailed, we got better feedback than based on the forum write up. We’ll strive to be more effective in communicating it in the next proposal.
Thanks to everyone for the great engagement. We appreciate the thoughtful discussions and feedback. They seem to fit in a few categories and this is an attempt to cover the majority of them even where we might not have answered every response individually. We also had a fruitful discussion on most of these in the AGC Office Hours yesterday. Please review the recording for deeper explanations or ask further questions here.
Thanks to everyone for the great engagement. We appreciate the thoughtful discussions and feedback. They seem to fit in a few categories and this is an attempt to cover the majority of them even where we might not have answered every response individually. We also had a fruitful discussion on most of these in the AGC Office Hours yesterday. Please review the recording for deeper explanations or ask further questions here.
The idea sounds good, but who exactly has a good track record in these topics that will be available to participants? Who would be the instructors for each area, and who is making sure they are qualified to give more than general advice?
We just want to make sure this isn’t paying money and taking time for builders to be given advice by people who haven’t actually don’t things like gone to market. And it’s not as if there’s a wealth of Orbit chain teams available who themselves would be able to give proven advice.
The target audience outreach makes sense and sounds promising to reach out to protocols building on Arbitrum that might benefit from the initiative. Is there a proposed outreach to secure Arbitrum experts for the virtual clinics and the unconference?
Your concern is valid and addresses a key risk in peer-to-peer learning programs. As a general principle we allow people to only speak out of personal experience, rather than teach what they’ve read about or be taught.
Our facilitators are not intended to be instructors, but instead aid the sharing of recent, practical experiences and valuing both successes and failures, as failures often provide deeper learning insights.
Research indicates that learning from peers who are in their “zone of proximal development,” those just ahead in experience, is highly effective due to the relevance of shared experiences. Given the rapid growth of Orbit chains, from a few to approximately 100 within a year, we can also use it as a chance to identify common challenges and bridge gaps in understanding. Individuals unfamiliar with Orbit chains can still offer valuable insights by connecting its benefits to broader applications.
In fact the very fact that there isn’t a wealth of recognised experts on a topic like Orbit, which is very new, makes it the perfect fit for having the proposed approach. Frontier topics like these are the default environment in which we’ve done most of our work.
We have successfully applied this approach across various industries where often we had less personal expertise to start with (from aerospace to off-grid agriculture) by facilitating the exchange of insights rather than relying on singular experts. We feel quite confident about the current situation.
All that being said, the approach allows us to work with certain well recognised figures to provide social proof and leverage their experience in supporting us to weed out any actors who are not meaningfully contributing to the learning process. More of how we’re approaching the recruitment is visible in the marketing section.
More about our team here. We will share our Go-To-Market experiences in a future post.
Analyzing the budget, it would be helpful to understand how you arrived to the proposed numbers. For example, is the 15K$ budget to cover for the facilitators or how is it spent? Same on 1:1 support and Unconference.
The topic of costs and budgets was discussed in the office hours and we feel that this is very welcome towards establishing norms, so different proposals can be compared.
Ultimately I think we should be doing a better job to express both the value as well as the costs involved. We made an update to the explanation of what fits in every category.
How we reached these numbers:
We used time estimates of how long these activities typically take from previous programs we’ve run. In the case of the clinics, here is what’s the work involved:
It’s worth also keeping in mind that running these activities online is often more costly than doing them in person if you are aiming at the same level of experience. Additionally if you want to have higher caliber participants, the sessions need to be very tight and high value, which also means that the team organising them needs to be more senior and spend more time preparing them. Eg running a 4h session might cost less or the same compared to 2h one if the aim is to achieve the same output.
Finally, I am still a bit puzzled of the AVI findings, not only we have to receive all deliverables but I have yet to see a compacted finalized finding. So far I have seen several threads, with several deliverables, and there should be an effort to unify and simplify the findings with then specific follow ups on specific verticals. This is a bit OT here but partially related in the sense that part of the request is tied to the findings of the AVI research.
By funding this proposal, the DAO would be preemptively signaling support of their findings and extending the AVI’s mandate to interact with Arbitrum builders on behalf of the DAO. Before continuing to support the Farstar team and the AVI, Entropy would like to see all of the Pilot’s deliverables and make a judgement on whether this is worthwhile for the DAO to continue spending resources towards.
Additionally, we fully acknowledge the delays with AVI and the shortcomings in how we’ve communicated our work to delegates. Stakeholder alignment and management was more complex than we expected. There have been many efforts to address this, including engaging you and others on this, and strengthening the ability to efficiently align AVI’s work with the DAO is one of our top priorities.
As a part of this effort, we’ve scheduled three follow-up sessions in response to last week’s presentation (the lumas can be found here: Wednesday, Thursday, Friday) and additional AVI Office Hours. We would greatly appreciate your input.
Regarding budget transparency, we welcome a discussion on how our costs compared to other benchmarks and have provided more detailed breakdowns in the main post.
Voting against
Would have liked to see this as part of a more holistic approach to recruit/attract and continuously coach/support participants (longer than just 3 months). Also as already mentioned by some it doesn’t fall into the events category
Our market research findings show that founders in the Arbitrum ecosystem, especially the more early stage, want a shared space where they’re encouraged to work with others around a shared purpose with a community of like-minded builders.
I believe the above can be achieved with a much smaller budget (if any). An idea would be to try out “Masterminds”
bring builders on Arbitrum together (thinking super simple such as tg channels etc)
brake them into smaller groups based on similarity (size, domain etc)
set up a call, where for each call someone is in the “hot seat” and shares a topic/area they are struggling with, while the others are there to give advice
Could be a boostrapped way to test some sort of shared space.
In terms of the events category, yes as discussed on the office hours yesterday, we do recognise it might be a borderline case. Thank you for attending and engaging! We were under the impression that it fit under the educational workshops subcategory. That said, we now recognize this has led to confusion about the series, with some perceiving it as a simple speaker event and podcast rather than the more intentionally curated and hands on support initiative it actually is. This was designed with a clear structure, as we’ve watched many informal attempts fail to generate meaningful results.
I will vote against.
On the one hand, as I mentioned above, this is a good marketing ploy to attract attention to the Arbitrum ecosystem. But on the other hand, we already have many interesting events, such as: ETHDenver, ETHBucharest etc. We also have Stylus Sprint and maybe in the future Arbitrum audit program.
Of course, I would like to hold this event, but there is not enough money for everyone. Let’s not be overwhelmed by many tasks and events this year. This can lead to poor implementation of other activities due to lack of budget for everyone. But next year, I believe, maybe it will be possible to allocate part of the funds for this great idea.
This is my main reason why I am against this proposal, even if the idea might be good.
We as a DAO should have a clear focus on costs this year. Last year the DAO spend millions for initiatives and we haven’t seen any fruits yet.
Draining the new event budget straight from the beginning with an initiative we don’t know the if the outcome will be in any way positive is simply extracting value for other really important events.
We need to focus on less but very high quality events to make sure Arbitrum, the DAO and its delegates as well will be seen as something positive and supportive. This isn’t the case right now, the DAO is seen as a burden and many decide even against Arbitrum because of this.
We should change this.
Going to vote NO.
We agree that we should focus on providing value through the events that are proposed. Since we are approaching the end of Q1 and only EthBucharest has been approved, we believe that these educational workshops fit well within their expressed aims and can provide the value outlined here.
We’d also like to clarify that this is not primarily meant for marketing, though it might be a secondary benefit.
I am not mentioning the aboves to just criticize full around, but I am mentioning it to explain why protocols and builders won’t come to us. We are not starting from an advantageous point, as a DAO, and the approach to me should be the opposite: we, as a collective, should start chasing some protocols, likely a very few (and most important ones) at the beginning, understand what they need and understand how we can give them what they need compared to the goals we have as a DAO. And after we create these successfull initiatives, we enlarge the scope out to the point we - hopefully - turn the table in term of reputation, so that builders see us a value added for the chain and not value extracting.
To conclude, I think the AVI team is well intended. And I don’t want to question their expertise here nor the network that they have build in the last year. But I just think the approach should be different: if we embark in a 3, 4, 6 months adventure in this sense, we will lose valuable time and so we will lose opportunities in a market that is getting narrower and narrower.
We agree that short-term strategies matter, and we also need to think long-term. As a DAO, we have the ability to do both. That being said, we wholeheartedly disagree that the sentiment is all negative, there’s a segment of founders that build on Arbitrum because the tech works and they are barely aware of the DAO or have hardly interacted with it or the social media discussions around it (some never have).
We should focus on identifying lanes that make sense long-term, not just because they are trends, but because they align with Arbitrum’s ability to generate real ‘on-chain GDP’ and strengthen its core assets. This is the foundation of the AVI thesis. If we limit ourselves to competing on what might become zero sum games in an oversupplied infrastructure market (where 50k developers have 100 chains to choose from, many indistinguishable) we risk stagnation. A more balanced approach ensures both short-term traction and meaningful long-term differentiation.
Even though it’s mentioned in a comment, we also encourage the proposal author to make it explicitly clear, preferably at the top of the proposal, that funds are being requested from the 2025 Events Budget. This is to reduce that chance that delegates are misinformed and believe a Tally vote is required.
Thank you for pointing this out. We’ve corrected it on the forum, with an emphasis on highlighting the information about the lack of Tally.
We’re voting AGAINST this proposal.
As builders in this space since 2017, we’ve seen that serious teams find their way without managed networking events or facilitated workshops. The reality is simple: if a team can’t navigate basic documentation, join Telegram groups, or network within existing channels, they likely lack the fundamental capabilities needed for successful protocol development.
The $67.2k budget effectively subsidizes basic research and networking that competent teams already do as part of their development process. Quality builders naturally gravitate toward resources and connections they need - it’s a core competency, not a service to be outsourced.
True ecosystem strength comes from teams who demonstrate initiative and resourcefulness from day one. Let’s focus our resources on direct protocol development rather than creating artificial support structures.
McFly, some of what you’re saying has merit. However, many people would agree that YC’s $0.6T+ in portfolio value has been at least to an extent enabled by their support, while certainly some of these companies would have made it otherwise too. And furthermore they’ve been able to capture a lot of this value. In a competitive environment where Solana is doing an excellent job of already doing a lot more for application layer builders there’s merit in the Arbitrum ecosystem helping itself to be even more competitive.
Is there a final report where we can see output from Phase 1 and results that can help us see the need for the program and proposed structure?
I would suggest including more metrics you would track on the proposal above if these apply or metrics beyond meeting their target relationship development, attending meeting and qualitative feedback that are tied to the primary outcomes. Let me know if i’m mixing writeups that don’t relate to the proposal, i’m finding it difficult to keep up with which AVI posts apply here.
We’re glad to see people engaging with the materials on the forum and your attention to metrics is appreciated. While there isn't a final report for Phase one yet, if you attend the AVI thesis events (found here: Wednesday, Thursday, Friday) you can get more insights and meet with some of the parties interested in collaborating. While objective metrics are possible in the long-term, meaningful insights rely on a high-context, high-integrity stakeholder group with skin in the game. This is why we are pushing the AVI Snapshot related to the Interim Experts Council.
In the meantime, we aim to:
The recording of the office hours can be found here and we’ll link it at the bottom of the main proposal post.
The last few Arbitrum events (like Devcon) have had a relatively heavy expert presence. We can see the need for a more consistent presence for development resources, but we ask why this needs to be a 3 month effort of virtual meetings, why is this any better suited than possibly promoting development-oriented education content on the OCL Youtube?
Thanks to everyone for the great engagement. We appreciate the thoughtful discussions and feedback. They seem to fit in a few categories and this is an attempt to cover the majority of them even where we might not have answered every response individually. We also had a fruitful discussion on most of these in the AGC Office Hours yesterday. Please review the recording for deeper explanations or ask further questions here.
Thanks to everyone for the great engagement. We appreciate the thoughtful discussions and feedback. They seem to fit in a few categories and this is an attempt to cover the majority of them even where we might not have answered every response individually. We also had a fruitful discussion on most of these in the AGC Office Hours yesterday. Please review the recording for deeper explanations or ask further questions here.
The idea sounds good, but who exactly has a good track record in these topics that will be available to participants? Who would be the instructors for each area, and who is making sure they are qualified to give more than general advice?
We just want to make sure this isn’t paying money and taking time for builders to be given advice by people who haven’t actually don’t things like gone to market. And it’s not as if there’s a wealth of Orbit chain teams available who themselves would be able to give proven advice.
The target audience outreach makes sense and sounds promising to reach out to protocols building on Arbitrum that might benefit from the initiative. Is there a proposed outreach to secure Arbitrum experts for the virtual clinics and the unconference?
Your concern is valid and addresses a key risk in peer-to-peer learning programs. As a general principle we allow people to only speak out of personal experience, rather than teach what they’ve read about or be taught.
Our facilitators are not intended to be instructors, but instead aid the sharing of recent, practical experiences and valuing both successes and failures, as failures often provide deeper learning insights.
Research indicates that learning from peers who are in their “zone of proximal development,” those just ahead in experience, is highly effective due to the relevance of shared experiences. Given the rapid growth of Orbit chains, from a few to approximately 100 within a year, we can also use it as a chance to identify common challenges and bridge gaps in understanding. Individuals unfamiliar with Orbit chains can still offer valuable insights by connecting its benefits to broader applications.
In fact the very fact that there isn’t a wealth of recognised experts on a topic like Orbit, which is very new, makes it the perfect fit for having the proposed approach. Frontier topics like these are the default environment in which we’ve done most of our work.
We have successfully applied this approach across various industries where often we had less personal expertise to start with (from aerospace to off-grid agriculture) by facilitating the exchange of insights rather than relying on singular experts. We feel quite confident about the current situation.
All that being said, the approach allows us to work with certain well recognised figures to provide social proof and leverage their experience in supporting us to weed out any actors who are not meaningfully contributing to the learning process. More of how we’re approaching the recruitment is visible in the marketing section.
More about our team here. We will share our Go-To-Market experiences in a future post.
Analyzing the budget, it would be helpful to understand how you arrived to the proposed numbers. For example, is the 15K$ budget to cover for the facilitators or how is it spent? Same on 1:1 support and Unconference.
The topic of costs and budgets was discussed in the office hours and we feel that this is very welcome towards establishing norms, so different proposals can be compared.
Ultimately I think we should be doing a better job to express both the value as well as the costs involved. We made an update to the explanation of what fits in every category.
How we reached these numbers:
We used time estimates of how long these activities typically take from previous programs we’ve run. In the case of the clinics, here is what’s the work involved:
It’s worth also keeping in mind that running these activities online is often more costly than doing them in person if you are aiming at the same level of experience. Additionally if you want to have higher caliber participants, the sessions need to be very tight and high value, which also means that the team organising them needs to be more senior and spend more time preparing them. Eg running a 4h session might cost less or the same compared to 2h one if the aim is to achieve the same output.
Finally, I am still a bit puzzled of the AVI findings, not only we have to receive all deliverables but I have yet to see a compacted finalized finding. So far I have seen several threads, with several deliverables, and there should be an effort to unify and simplify the findings with then specific follow ups on specific verticals. This is a bit OT here but partially related in the sense that part of the request is tied to the findings of the AVI research.
By funding this proposal, the DAO would be preemptively signaling support of their findings and extending the AVI’s mandate to interact with Arbitrum builders on behalf of the DAO. Before continuing to support the Farstar team and the AVI, Entropy would like to see all of the Pilot’s deliverables and make a judgement on whether this is worthwhile for the DAO to continue spending resources towards.
Additionally, we fully acknowledge the delays with AVI and the shortcomings in how we’ve communicated our work to delegates. Stakeholder alignment and management was more complex than we expected. There have been many efforts to address this, including engaging you and others on this, and strengthening the ability to efficiently align AVI’s work with the DAO is one of our top priorities.
As a part of this effort, we’ve scheduled three follow-up sessions in response to last week’s presentation (the lumas can be found here: Wednesday, Thursday, Friday) and additional AVI Office Hours. We would greatly appreciate your input.
Regarding budget transparency, we welcome a discussion on how our costs compared to other benchmarks and have provided more detailed breakdowns in the main post.
Voting against
Would have liked to see this as part of a more holistic approach to recruit/attract and continuously coach/support participants (longer than just 3 months). Also as already mentioned by some it doesn’t fall into the events category
Our market research findings show that founders in the Arbitrum ecosystem, especially the more early stage, want a shared space where they’re encouraged to work with others around a shared purpose with a community of like-minded builders.
I believe the above can be achieved with a much smaller budget (if any). An idea would be to try out “Masterminds”
bring builders on Arbitrum together (thinking super simple such as tg channels etc)
brake them into smaller groups based on similarity (size, domain etc)
set up a call, where for each call someone is in the “hot seat” and shares a topic/area they are struggling with, while the others are there to give advice
Could be a boostrapped way to test some sort of shared space.
In terms of the events category, yes as discussed on the office hours yesterday, we do recognise it might be a borderline case. Thank you for attending and engaging! We were under the impression that it fit under the educational workshops subcategory. That said, we now recognize this has led to confusion about the series, with some perceiving it as a simple speaker event and podcast rather than the more intentionally curated and hands on support initiative it actually is. This was designed with a clear structure, as we’ve watched many informal attempts fail to generate meaningful results.
I will vote against.
On the one hand, as I mentioned above, this is a good marketing ploy to attract attention to the Arbitrum ecosystem. But on the other hand, we already have many interesting events, such as: ETHDenver, ETHBucharest etc. We also have Stylus Sprint and maybe in the future Arbitrum audit program.
Of course, I would like to hold this event, but there is not enough money for everyone. Let’s not be overwhelmed by many tasks and events this year. This can lead to poor implementation of other activities due to lack of budget for everyone. But next year, I believe, maybe it will be possible to allocate part of the funds for this great idea.
This is my main reason why I am against this proposal, even if the idea might be good.
We as a DAO should have a clear focus on costs this year. Last year the DAO spend millions for initiatives and we haven’t seen any fruits yet.
Draining the new event budget straight from the beginning with an initiative we don’t know the if the outcome will be in any way positive is simply extracting value for other really important events.
We need to focus on less but very high quality events to make sure Arbitrum, the DAO and its delegates as well will be seen as something positive and supportive. This isn’t the case right now, the DAO is seen as a burden and many decide even against Arbitrum because of this.
We should change this.
Going to vote NO.
We agree that we should focus on providing value through the events that are proposed. Since we are approaching the end of Q1 and only EthBucharest has been approved, we believe that these educational workshops fit well within their expressed aims and can provide the value outlined here.
We’d also like to clarify that this is not primarily meant for marketing, though it might be a secondary benefit.
I am not mentioning the aboves to just criticize full around, but I am mentioning it to explain why protocols and builders won’t come to us. We are not starting from an advantageous point, as a DAO, and the approach to me should be the opposite: we, as a collective, should start chasing some protocols, likely a very few (and most important ones) at the beginning, understand what they need and understand how we can give them what they need compared to the goals we have as a DAO. And after we create these successfull initiatives, we enlarge the scope out to the point we - hopefully - turn the table in term of reputation, so that builders see us a value added for the chain and not value extracting.
To conclude, I think the AVI team is well intended. And I don’t want to question their expertise here nor the network that they have build in the last year. But I just think the approach should be different: if we embark in a 3, 4, 6 months adventure in this sense, we will lose valuable time and so we will lose opportunities in a market that is getting narrower and narrower.
We agree that short-term strategies matter, and we also need to think long-term. As a DAO, we have the ability to do both. That being said, we wholeheartedly disagree that the sentiment is all negative, there’s a segment of founders that build on Arbitrum because the tech works and they are barely aware of the DAO or have hardly interacted with it or the social media discussions around it (some never have).
We should focus on identifying lanes that make sense long-term, not just because they are trends, but because they align with Arbitrum’s ability to generate real ‘on-chain GDP’ and strengthen its core assets. This is the foundation of the AVI thesis. If we limit ourselves to competing on what might become zero sum games in an oversupplied infrastructure market (where 50k developers have 100 chains to choose from, many indistinguishable) we risk stagnation. A more balanced approach ensures both short-term traction and meaningful long-term differentiation.
Even though it’s mentioned in a comment, we also encourage the proposal author to make it explicitly clear, preferably at the top of the proposal, that funds are being requested from the 2025 Events Budget. This is to reduce that chance that delegates are misinformed and believe a Tally vote is required.
Thank you for pointing this out. We’ve corrected it on the forum, with an emphasis on highlighting the information about the lack of Tally.
We’re voting AGAINST this proposal.
As builders in this space since 2017, we’ve seen that serious teams find their way without managed networking events or facilitated workshops. The reality is simple: if a team can’t navigate basic documentation, join Telegram groups, or network within existing channels, they likely lack the fundamental capabilities needed for successful protocol development.
The $67.2k budget effectively subsidizes basic research and networking that competent teams already do as part of their development process. Quality builders naturally gravitate toward resources and connections they need - it’s a core competency, not a service to be outsourced.
True ecosystem strength comes from teams who demonstrate initiative and resourcefulness from day one. Let’s focus our resources on direct protocol development rather than creating artificial support structures.
McFly, some of what you’re saying has merit. However, many people would agree that YC’s $0.6T+ in portfolio value has been at least to an extent enabled by their support, while certainly some of these companies would have made it otherwise too. And furthermore they’ve been able to capture a lot of this value. In a competitive environment where Solana is doing an excellent job of already doing a lot more for application layer builders there’s merit in the Arbitrum ecosystem helping itself to be even more competitive.
Is there a final report where we can see output from Phase 1 and results that can help us see the need for the program and proposed structure?
I would suggest including more metrics you would track on the proposal above if these apply or metrics beyond meeting their target relationship development, attending meeting and qualitative feedback that are tied to the primary outcomes. Let me know if i’m mixing writeups that don’t relate to the proposal, i’m finding it difficult to keep up with which AVI posts apply here.
We’re glad to see people engaging with the materials on the forum and your attention to metrics is appreciated. While there isn't a final report for Phase one yet, if you attend the AVI thesis events (found here: Wednesday, Thursday, Friday) you can get more insights and meet with some of the parties interested in collaborating. While objective metrics are possible in the long-term, meaningful insights rely on a high-context, high-integrity stakeholder group with skin in the game. This is why we are pushing the AVI Snapshot related to the Interim Experts Council.
In the meantime, we aim to:
The recording of the office hours can be found here and we’ll link it at the bottom of the main proposal post.
The last few Arbitrum events (like Devcon) have had a relatively heavy expert presence. We can see the need for a more consistent presence for development resources, but we ask why this needs to be a 3 month effort of virtual meetings, why is this any better suited than possibly promoting development-oriented education content on the OCL Youtube?
The last few Arbitrum events (like Devcon) have had a relatively heavy expert presence. We can see the need for a more consistent presence for development resources, but we ask why this needs to be a 3 month effort of virtual meetings, why is this any better suited than possibly promoting development-oriented education content on the OCL Youtube?
Is there a plan to record these five virtual clinics on video, to maximise the number of people who can benefit from them?
@BlockworksResearch Thank you for jumping on a call yesterday and offering suggestions on how to approach the KPIs. We tried to apply them within the constraints we discussed. Writing up here for visibility:
Our market research findings show that founders in the Arbitrum ecosystem, especially the more early stage, want a shared space where they’re encouraged to work with others around a shared purpose with a community of like-minded builders. Thinking holistically about the builder’s journey and how each piece of the story fits together, we find that a 3-month sprint of virtual events is an effective way to plant a flag and seed a supportive peer community for founders. This also supports AVI’s ecosystem investment thesis which prioritizes empowering founders as the true leaders of new initiatives by providing the resources they need to succeed.
If this proposal is to move forward we would like to see a clearly defined agenda coupled with better defined KPIs for the virtual session.
Effective P2P learning programs thrive on prioritizing Agency, Responsiveness, and Hyperconnectivity. Keeping things too rigid—especially when agendas are set by administrators instead of participants—can get in the way of these principles and make the experience less effective. That being said, in the last couple of days we did begin the process of making the program flow more rich and clear, as well as well integrated with IRL touch points for the group, while maintaining responsiveness to emerging topics and needs design.
KPIs
We’ve put together a post that dives into the logic model driving our KPIs. Beyond our core metrics, listed above, we’ll be proactively tracking a variety of additional indicators.
Also the core goal of this proposal is to increase builder engagement with Offchain Labs, and as such has there been any component of this greenlit with them?
In this section, it seems this proposal is a way to build a structure around OCL to facilitate their engagement with the ecosystem.
That is not the core goal of the proposal, although we see how it came across this way. It does however stem from such a problem statement. Since these comments we’ve clarified the purpose by moving even further from this framing. Even though it’s designed to make it easy for them to plug in and get/create value, the main goal is to create a P2P learning and support flywheel. If anything we want to decrease the dependence of builder engagement with any one expert group.
If we are to see an agenda for the virtual component, will there be OCL attendees or OCL-created content
We decided to pivot away from this as a core idea, while at the same time have made an effort to align it with our understanding of the core challenges we believe around them and make it easy for them and AF to plug in and drive value.
KPIs are too soft. Where’s the actual builder outcomes? Need to track:
Projects that actually deploy post-sessions
TVL growth from participants
Real market maker relationships formed
We covered how we believe we drive these suggested outcomes in this write up
The first 2 we’d consider Primary Outcomes, requiring rigorous tracking, ideally by an independent evaluator. Properly tracking and attributing outcomes to specific activities—without reducing them to vanity metrics or incentivizing the team to claim easy wins—is complex. Measuring meaningful impact is challenging and should typically be done on an annual basis, rather than rushing to report on it immediately after the first activities. For now, any measured impact will be captured through qualitative anecdotes, for critical thinking discussions with high context stakeholders, rather than premature data reporting.
For the 3rd, about relationships, this is a better metric for this phase, because the attribution case can be much more clear. We’d consider it a Secondary Outcome. Defining a ‘formed relationship’ can be tricky, but again that can be aided by qualifying anecdotes and surveying the participants (eg. before and after the series of activities and then surveying them again 6, 12 months later). We made this a formal KPI in the published proposal.
Besides seeing the Arbitrum ecosystem thriving, what are incentives for the experts to engage in such a program? Can you share the plans to secure participation? It would be interesting to have this locked before approving the proposal.
That’s a great question! Generally speaking we use the word ‘expert’ as a shortcut to make the proposal more understandable, but a core approach of the methodology is to strip people’s ‘expert status’ and put everyone on the same plane. Answering the question on incentives succinctly enough for a comment is a little tricky, but in a nutshell founders would participate in the early stages of this community because they have skin in the game in the ecosystem and supporting earlier stage teams is a big part of growing vibrant ecosystems.
TL;DR, founders need and find value in peer support networks. In our market consultations from the AVI pilot some of the most requested help was centered around relationship building.
Usually when you’re building a community like this you need a good mix of intrinsic and extrinsic motivators ideally leading with the former. On that it’s a very human founder behavior to get in the ditches with other founders and talk war stories, which for some reason we all enjoy. This is especially true when you get a chance to have your pain be converted into an immediate pain relief for someone else adding more meaning to ones journey. In the many years in which we’ve supported such interactions, one of the things we have often gotten as feedback from in some cases very capable senior people, is that we create spaces which are filtered for high integrity and intellectual honesty and naturally excommunicate people driven primarily by self promotion. Often this is driven by pushing back on being transactional around driving funder objectives and focusing on catering to the participants as the ultimate clients rather than the other way around. This of course over a longer period of time benefits the funders substantially more when it works.
Looking at this more extrinsically, careful orchestration of these experiences across a carefully developed venn diagram of participants, who can unlock value for each, but are not yet meeting and talking effectively is very value generating. Especially for forward looking people who can recognise that getting involved in these communities ‘before it’s cool’ is the highest leverage moment to build deeper relationships and learn. While not strictly limited to that as motivation, this is the ideal persona we are looking for.
Do you want to get funding from the Arbitrum events program, the budget of which was adopted for this year?
I would like to understand how much is spent on which phase, i.e. a more detailed breakdown.
I would appreciate a bit more detailed cost break down for the proposed budget.
Yes, we want it to be a part of the events program. We now have the KPIs and budget breakdown listed above.
To clarify, there is no demand for their participation. The goal is to create a flywheel of peer support to lessen the reliance on any one expert group. OCL was used as one example in the core problem statement of builders wanting more organic engagement and interaction with them and while being met where they are.
One key concern is the absence of detailed metrics to assess long-term impact. While the proposal highlights community building, it does not outline how success will be measured beyond attendance. Metrics such as protocol retention, on-chain activity, or the number of successful integrations and collaborations formed post-event would provide a clearer picture of effectiveness. We recommend tying specific success indicators to funding milestones to ensure accountability and measurable outcomes.
Additionally, expanding accessibility is crucial to ensure that knowledge and resources benefit a broader range of protocols, rather than being concentrated among a limited group of participants.
Finally, considering the total budget request of $50,000, we believe this initiative would be better suited for the Arbitrum D.A.O. program, under the Education track, which is structured to support community-driven educational initiatives. This alignment would provide a more suitable framework for funding and oversight.
We absolutely agree with the focus on long term effects. We are using the term Primacy Outcomes rather than long term metrics in this writeup of a proposed Logic Model. In some cases hopefully we should be able to achieve them in the short term and retain the results.
That being said, we feel that at this stage it’s premature to try to put all the effort and patience into doing this well. Instead we can make a bet on the theory reflected in the logic model, that if we make builder life on Arbitrum better, this will very likely lead to some of these bigger benefits. Then ofc we need to separately challenge this critically and introduce the necessary metrics to be able to drive optimising a more scaled up version of this work, should such be funded.
So the metrics we are proposing are trying to measure if we are making builder life better via creating a community and P2P support flywheel. And we are keen to deepen the discussion around them. But ideally not at the expense of doing what we believe is fairly safe to try in a more timely manner and plant the flag. To our knowledge the education track is currently not live and this budget is the best fit.
The general idea behind this proposal is interesting, and there’s definitely value in fostering peer-led collaboration within the ecosystem. But, the positioning feels somewhat off. As it stands, the initiative seems to provide too little in terms of structured support for early-stage projects (as an incubator/accelerator would) while focusing more on study group-style discussions.
A more effective approach might be something akin to Uniswap’s Hook Incubator—offering structured mentorship, technical guidance, and direct ecosystem integrations for emerging projects. Of course, such a program would require a larger budget, but it could yield more impactful outcomes for the Arbitrum ecosystem.
That said, if the goal is to maintain the proposal in its current form, it might be a better fit for the Arbitrum D.A.O. Grants program rather than a DAO-approved initiative.
We think what you’re saying makes complete sense. But step by step. It’s in the pipeline more on all the parts of the AVI portfolio construction being considered here: https://docsend.com/view/kgbynrgwa85dktvv.
On the point of Arbitrum D.A.O. Grants program point, to our knowledge there is no such live program at the moment to consider and the events budget is the best fit.
We’ll say more during the office hours scheduled for Monday
The last few Arbitrum events (like Devcon) have had a relatively heavy expert presence. We can see the need for a more consistent presence for development resources, but we ask why this needs to be a 3 month effort of virtual meetings, why is this any better suited than possibly promoting development-oriented education content on the OCL Youtube?
Is there a plan to record these five virtual clinics on video, to maximise the number of people who can benefit from them?
@BlockworksResearch Thank you for jumping on a call yesterday and offering suggestions on how to approach the KPIs. We tried to apply them within the constraints we discussed. Writing up here for visibility:
Our market research findings show that founders in the Arbitrum ecosystem, especially the more early stage, want a shared space where they’re encouraged to work with others around a shared purpose with a community of like-minded builders. Thinking holistically about the builder’s journey and how each piece of the story fits together, we find that a 3-month sprint of virtual events is an effective way to plant a flag and seed a supportive peer community for founders. This also supports AVI’s ecosystem investment thesis which prioritizes empowering founders as the true leaders of new initiatives by providing the resources they need to succeed.
If this proposal is to move forward we would like to see a clearly defined agenda coupled with better defined KPIs for the virtual session.
Effective P2P learning programs thrive on prioritizing Agency, Responsiveness, and Hyperconnectivity. Keeping things too rigid—especially when agendas are set by administrators instead of participants—can get in the way of these principles and make the experience less effective. That being said, in the last couple of days we did begin the process of making the program flow more rich and clear, as well as well integrated with IRL touch points for the group, while maintaining responsiveness to emerging topics and needs design.
KPIs
We’ve put together a post that dives into the logic model driving our KPIs. Beyond our core metrics, listed above, we’ll be proactively tracking a variety of additional indicators.
Also the core goal of this proposal is to increase builder engagement with Offchain Labs, and as such has there been any component of this greenlit with them?
In this section, it seems this proposal is a way to build a structure around OCL to facilitate their engagement with the ecosystem.
That is not the core goal of the proposal, although we see how it came across this way. It does however stem from such a problem statement. Since these comments we’ve clarified the purpose by moving even further from this framing. Even though it’s designed to make it easy for them to plug in and get/create value, the main goal is to create a P2P learning and support flywheel. If anything we want to decrease the dependence of builder engagement with any one expert group.
If we are to see an agenda for the virtual component, will there be OCL attendees or OCL-created content
We decided to pivot away from this as a core idea, while at the same time have made an effort to align it with our understanding of the core challenges we believe around them and make it easy for them and AF to plug in and drive value.
KPIs are too soft. Where’s the actual builder outcomes? Need to track:
Projects that actually deploy post-sessions
TVL growth from participants
Real market maker relationships formed
We covered how we believe we drive these suggested outcomes in this write up
The first 2 we’d consider Primary Outcomes, requiring rigorous tracking, ideally by an independent evaluator. Properly tracking and attributing outcomes to specific activities—without reducing them to vanity metrics or incentivizing the team to claim easy wins—is complex. Measuring meaningful impact is challenging and should typically be done on an annual basis, rather than rushing to report on it immediately after the first activities. For now, any measured impact will be captured through qualitative anecdotes, for critical thinking discussions with high context stakeholders, rather than premature data reporting.
For the 3rd, about relationships, this is a better metric for this phase, because the attribution case can be much more clear. We’d consider it a Secondary Outcome. Defining a ‘formed relationship’ can be tricky, but again that can be aided by qualifying anecdotes and surveying the participants (eg. before and after the series of activities and then surveying them again 6, 12 months later). We made this a formal KPI in the published proposal.
Besides seeing the Arbitrum ecosystem thriving, what are incentives for the experts to engage in such a program? Can you share the plans to secure participation? It would be interesting to have this locked before approving the proposal.
That’s a great question! Generally speaking we use the word ‘expert’ as a shortcut to make the proposal more understandable, but a core approach of the methodology is to strip people’s ‘expert status’ and put everyone on the same plane. Answering the question on incentives succinctly enough for a comment is a little tricky, but in a nutshell founders would participate in the early stages of this community because they have skin in the game in the ecosystem and supporting earlier stage teams is a big part of growing vibrant ecosystems.
TL;DR, founders need and find value in peer support networks. In our market consultations from the AVI pilot some of the most requested help was centered around relationship building.
Usually when you’re building a community like this you need a good mix of intrinsic and extrinsic motivators ideally leading with the former. On that it’s a very human founder behavior to get in the ditches with other founders and talk war stories, which for some reason we all enjoy. This is especially true when you get a chance to have your pain be converted into an immediate pain relief for someone else adding more meaning to ones journey. In the many years in which we’ve supported such interactions, one of the things we have often gotten as feedback from in some cases very capable senior people, is that we create spaces which are filtered for high integrity and intellectual honesty and naturally excommunicate people driven primarily by self promotion. Often this is driven by pushing back on being transactional around driving funder objectives and focusing on catering to the participants as the ultimate clients rather than the other way around. This of course over a longer period of time benefits the funders substantially more when it works.
Looking at this more extrinsically, careful orchestration of these experiences across a carefully developed venn diagram of participants, who can unlock value for each, but are not yet meeting and talking effectively is very value generating. Especially for forward looking people who can recognise that getting involved in these communities ‘before it’s cool’ is the highest leverage moment to build deeper relationships and learn. While not strictly limited to that as motivation, this is the ideal persona we are looking for.
Do you want to get funding from the Arbitrum events program, the budget of which was adopted for this year?
I would like to understand how much is spent on which phase, i.e. a more detailed breakdown.
I would appreciate a bit more detailed cost break down for the proposed budget.
Yes, we want it to be a part of the events program. We now have the KPIs and budget breakdown listed above.
To clarify, there is no demand for their participation. The goal is to create a flywheel of peer support to lessen the reliance on any one expert group. OCL was used as one example in the core problem statement of builders wanting more organic engagement and interaction with them and while being met where they are.
One key concern is the absence of detailed metrics to assess long-term impact. While the proposal highlights community building, it does not outline how success will be measured beyond attendance. Metrics such as protocol retention, on-chain activity, or the number of successful integrations and collaborations formed post-event would provide a clearer picture of effectiveness. We recommend tying specific success indicators to funding milestones to ensure accountability and measurable outcomes.
Additionally, expanding accessibility is crucial to ensure that knowledge and resources benefit a broader range of protocols, rather than being concentrated among a limited group of participants.
Finally, considering the total budget request of $50,000, we believe this initiative would be better suited for the Arbitrum D.A.O. program, under the Education track, which is structured to support community-driven educational initiatives. This alignment would provide a more suitable framework for funding and oversight.
We absolutely agree with the focus on long term effects. We are using the term Primacy Outcomes rather than long term metrics in this writeup of a proposed Logic Model. In some cases hopefully we should be able to achieve them in the short term and retain the results.
That being said, we feel that at this stage it’s premature to try to put all the effort and patience into doing this well. Instead we can make a bet on the theory reflected in the logic model, that if we make builder life on Arbitrum better, this will very likely lead to some of these bigger benefits. Then ofc we need to separately challenge this critically and introduce the necessary metrics to be able to drive optimising a more scaled up version of this work, should such be funded.
So the metrics we are proposing are trying to measure if we are making builder life better via creating a community and P2P support flywheel. And we are keen to deepen the discussion around them. But ideally not at the expense of doing what we believe is fairly safe to try in a more timely manner and plant the flag. To our knowledge the education track is currently not live and this budget is the best fit.
The general idea behind this proposal is interesting, and there’s definitely value in fostering peer-led collaboration within the ecosystem. But, the positioning feels somewhat off. As it stands, the initiative seems to provide too little in terms of structured support for early-stage projects (as an incubator/accelerator would) while focusing more on study group-style discussions.
A more effective approach might be something akin to Uniswap’s Hook Incubator—offering structured mentorship, technical guidance, and direct ecosystem integrations for emerging projects. Of course, such a program would require a larger budget, but it could yield more impactful outcomes for the Arbitrum ecosystem.
That said, if the goal is to maintain the proposal in its current form, it might be a better fit for the Arbitrum D.A.O. Grants program rather than a DAO-approved initiative.
We think what you’re saying makes complete sense. But step by step. It’s in the pipeline more on all the parts of the AVI portfolio construction being considered here: https://docsend.com/view/kgbynrgwa85dktvv.
On the point of Arbitrum D.A.O. Grants program point, to our knowledge there is no such live program at the moment to consider and the events budget is the best fit.
We’ll say more during the office hours scheduled for Monday
We voted against on this. We do see the potential value in a series of discussions/workshops like these but also believe we need to be conservative with the events budget and preserve it for something we find more substantial, especially given how the foundation is intending to use the funds they requested.
We voted against on this. We do see the potential value in a series of discussions/workshops like these but also believe we need to be conservative with the events budget and preserve it for something we find more substantial, especially given how the foundation is intending to use the funds they requested.
I agree with the general aim of helping early-stage projects navigate the Arbitrum ecosystem, learn from experts, and build a strong support network. That's valuable.
As the ambition is for this workshop series to “address the growing demand for Offchain Labs (OCL) engagement by creating a scalable format where their highly skilled team can efficiently share knowledge with a multitude of stakeholders.”
I agree with the general aim of helping early-stage projects navigate the Arbitrum ecosystem, learn from experts, and build a strong support network. That's valuable.
As the ambition is for this workshop series to “address the growing demand for Offchain Labs (OCL) engagement by creating a scalable format where their highly skilled team can efficiently share knowledge with a multitude of stakeholders.”
Is there a plan to record these five virtual clinics on video, to maximise the number of people who can benefit from them? Make sure they're available publically in an effective, condensed format for interested builders in the years to come..? That seems to me to be an obvious way to truly share OCL's expertise as widely and efficiently as possible.
I agree with the general aim of helping early-stage projects navigate the Arbitrum ecosystem, learn from experts, and build a strong support network. That's valuable.
As the ambition is for this workshop series to “address the growing demand for Offchain Labs (OCL) engagement by creating a scalable format where their highly skilled team can efficiently share knowledge with a multitude of stakeholders.”
I agree with the general aim of helping early-stage projects navigate the Arbitrum ecosystem, learn from experts, and build a strong support network. That's valuable.
As the ambition is for this workshop series to “address the growing demand for Offchain Labs (OCL) engagement by creating a scalable format where their highly skilled team can efficiently share knowledge with a multitude of stakeholders.”
Is there a plan to record these five virtual clinics on video, to maximise the number of people who can benefit from them? Make sure they're available publically in an effective, condensed format for interested builders in the years to come..? That seems to me to be an obvious way to truly share OCL's expertise as widely and efficiently as possible.
LobbyFi voted abstain on the Growth Circles proposal since neither of the pools reached the threshold needed to get the VP (10% of the instant buy price, 0.05 ETH).
On behalf of the UADP, after reviewing this proposal, we have two primary concerns:
On behalf of the UADP, after reviewing this proposal, we have two primary concerns:
Addressing these concerns would put us generally in support and align with Arb's overall strategic goals and past approvals in our eyes.
DAOplomats voted AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.
Our major concern with the proposal aside the budget (which we believe was on the high side) was the proposal details. Information on session content and measurable outcomes was not comprehensive enough.
I voted against in this proposal. I found comments and concerns raised by Entropy and other delegates insightful and valid (especially regarding budget), and didn't feel confident approving at this time.
Blockworks Advisory will be voting against this proposal on Snapshot.
We've expressed our concern to the AVI team in outside communications and we're happy with the direction the proposal moved; however, as others have pointed out this is a short term initiative and candidly we need more long-term but smaller scale solutions for a developer community. At the same time, there is the matter of the deliverables related to the AVI pilot that should be prioritized. Candidly, this proposal is also a bit last minute relative to the first event it proposes.
I voted against this proposal at the temp check stage. I think it's a generally worthy idea and I appreciate the hard work of the Farstar team. However, I would prefer to concentrate the DAO event budget resources on larger investments. I anticipate logistical and comms challenges associated with generating awareness around and follow up from this event give its size and resourcing.
We vote FOR the proposal.
While acknowledging the concerns from other delegates, we value the insights and findings from the Farstar team, the reasonable budget amount compared to the whole budget allocated to the Events budget (where we agree with @paulofonseca) and any initiative to potentially accelerate the growth of the developers and protocols within the Arbitrum ecosystem. We believe the Farstar team who has been involved in the governance and the AVI initiative can provide proper support and potential value for Arbitrum.
I am voting FOR this proposal. My rationale aligns with my previous stance on ETH Bucharest. I believe that now is the opportune time for the Arbitrum DAO to invest and attract builders, given the intense competition in the Layer 2 space. Capitalizing on the network effect is crucial, and a dollar invested now is worth more than a dollar invested in 2 or 3 years.
I fully agree with @paulofonseca's comment. A budget of $1.1M was voted on and should be utilized. In my opinion, this amount is not excessive. For context, an aggregator like 1inch spent $1.6M in 2024.
gm, I voted AGAINST.
Supporting builders' GTM strategy is a critical gap in our ecosystem. We focus heavily on deployment but offer minimal structured support for what comes after - and that's where most builders struggle.
In three months, you plan to organize eight events, most of which are online meetings with a few offline sessions. Your budget is too high.
You mentioned expert groups introducing the Arbitrum network to others, which raises my concerns. It is unclear who these experts are. Perhaps it would be more beneficial if the Arbitrum founders themselves provid
In three months, you plan to organize eight events, most of which are online meetings with a few offline sessions. Your budget is too high.
You mentioned expert groups introducing the Arbitrum network to others, which raises my concerns. It is unclear who these experts are. Perhaps it would be more beneficial if the Arbitrum founders themselves provid
— Benefits of the Event to Arbitrum — Expanding access to market makers and liquidity providers? Are these just promises on paper, or are there concrete metrics to measure success? Additionally, if you hire inappropriate speakers to represent Arbitrum, I worry that it could lead to negative effects and create unfavorable sentiment among the public.
Against !！
As in @web3citizenxyz representation. Voting AGAINST. Below the rationale:
I voted against this proposal in the current form. I believe we need contributors locked for the sessions, so we are sure they will be worthy and will benefit all attending. I also echo the reasoning that this event can be submitted to the Arbitrum D.A.O session 3.
LobbyFi voted abstain on the Growth Circles proposal since neither of the pools reached the threshold needed to get the VP (10% of the instant buy price, 0.05 ETH).
On behalf of the UADP, after reviewing this proposal, we have two primary concerns:
On behalf of the UADP, after reviewing this proposal, we have two primary concerns:
Addressing these concerns would put us generally in support and align with Arb's overall strategic goals and past approvals in our eyes.
DAOplomats voted AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.
Our major concern with the proposal aside the budget (which we believe was on the high side) was the proposal details. Information on session content and measurable outcomes was not comprehensive enough.
I voted against in this proposal. I found comments and concerns raised by Entropy and other delegates insightful and valid (especially regarding budget), and didn't feel confident approving at this time.
Blockworks Advisory will be voting against this proposal on Snapshot.
We've expressed our concern to the AVI team in outside communications and we're happy with the direction the proposal moved; however, as others have pointed out this is a short term initiative and candidly we need more long-term but smaller scale solutions for a developer community. At the same time, there is the matter of the deliverables related to the AVI pilot that should be prioritized. Candidly, this proposal is also a bit last minute relative to the first event it proposes.
I voted against this proposal at the temp check stage. I think it's a generally worthy idea and I appreciate the hard work of the Farstar team. However, I would prefer to concentrate the DAO event budget resources on larger investments. I anticipate logistical and comms challenges associated with generating awareness around and follow up from this event give its size and resourcing.
We vote FOR the proposal.
While acknowledging the concerns from other delegates, we value the insights and findings from the Farstar team, the reasonable budget amount compared to the whole budget allocated to the Events budget (where we agree with @paulofonseca) and any initiative to potentially accelerate the growth of the developers and protocols within the Arbitrum ecosystem. We believe the Farstar team who has been involved in the governance and the AVI initiative can provide proper support and potential value for Arbitrum.
I am voting FOR this proposal. My rationale aligns with my previous stance on ETH Bucharest. I believe that now is the opportune time for the Arbitrum DAO to invest and attract builders, given the intense competition in the Layer 2 space. Capitalizing on the network effect is crucial, and a dollar invested now is worth more than a dollar invested in 2 or 3 years.
I fully agree with @paulofonseca's comment. A budget of $1.1M was voted on and should be utilized. In my opinion, this amount is not excessive. For context, an aggregator like 1inch spent $1.6M in 2024.
gm, I voted AGAINST.
Supporting builders' GTM strategy is a critical gap in our ecosystem. We focus heavily on deployment but offer minimal structured support for what comes after - and that's where most builders struggle.
In three months, you plan to organize eight events, most of which are online meetings with a few offline sessions. Your budget is too high.
You mentioned expert groups introducing the Arbitrum network to others, which raises my concerns. It is unclear who these experts are. Perhaps it would be more beneficial if the Arbitrum founders themselves provid
In three months, you plan to organize eight events, most of which are online meetings with a few offline sessions. Your budget is too high.
You mentioned expert groups introducing the Arbitrum network to others, which raises my concerns. It is unclear who these experts are. Perhaps it would be more beneficial if the Arbitrum founders themselves provid
— Benefits of the Event to Arbitrum — Expanding access to market makers and liquidity providers? Are these just promises on paper, or are there concrete metrics to measure success? Additionally, if you hire inappropriate speakers to represent Arbitrum, I worry that it could lead to negative effects and create unfavorable sentiment among the public.
Against !！
As in @web3citizenxyz representation. Voting AGAINST. Below the rationale:
I voted against this proposal in the current form. I believe we need contributors locked for the sessions, so we are sure they will be worthy and will benefit all attending. I also echo the reasoning that this event can be submitted to the Arbitrum D.A.O session 3.
Blockworks Advisory will be voting against this proposal on Snapshot.
We've expressed our concern to the AVI team in outside communications and we're happy with the direction the proposal moved; however, as others have pointed out this is a short term initiative and candidly we need more long-term but smaller scale solutions for a developer community. At the same time, there is the matter of the deliverables related to the AVI pilot that should be prioritized. Candidly, this proposal is also a bit last minute relative to the first event it proposes.
Furthermore, we think it would be helpful to have OCL or developer-oriented parties weigh in more hrere.
I am voting FOR this proposal. My rationale aligns with my previous stance on ETH Bucharest. I believe that now is the opportune time for the Arbitrum DAO to invest and attract builders, given the intense competition in the Layer 2 space. Capitalizing on the network effect is crucial, and a dollar invested now is worth more than a dollar invested in 2 or 3 years.
I fully agree with @paulofonseca's comment. A budget of $1.1M was voted on and should be utilized. In my opinion, this amount is not excessive. For context, an aggregator like 1inch spent $1.6M in 2024.
The Farstar team is competent and well-aligned with the Arbitrum ecosystem through the AVI initiative, which I believe can bring substantial value to Arbitrum. This event is well integrated in this strategic planning as one of its first steps, that's also why I am supporting it.
gm, I voted AGAINST.
Supporting builders' GTM strategy is a critical gap in our ecosystem. We focus heavily on deployment but offer minimal structured support for what comes after - and that's where most builders struggle.
I think we should, together with the SOS framework, create a positive flywheel where we help builders succeed post-deployment:
I would be supportive of this initiative if it fell within a more comprehensive user journey for builders.
Suggestion: Rework this aligned with the upcoming SOS framework, with trimmed budget (online events don't need this much) and clearer deliverables.
Thanks
I'm voting against this proposal.
I like the idea of a peer-led support network, but the proposal’s too vague and probably too expensive. The budget needs to be more detailed, and the KPIs are weak. If there were hard metrics on outcomes and liquidity, or commitments from the “experts” that are supposed to be involved, I would be more likely to vote yes.
I'm voting against this proposal.
I like the idea of a peer-led support network, but the proposal’s too vague and probably too expensive. The budget needs to be more detailed, and the KPIs are weak. If there were hard metrics on outcomes and liquidity, or commitments from the “experts” that are supposed to be involved, I would be more likely to vote yes.
I agree with JoJo that we should do more outbound instead of letting people come to us… but not sure I agree that we are perceived as a leech in the ecosystem… that seems a bit harsh. LOL
I voted FOR this proposal.
I completely side with @paulofonseca on this one, more so with the funds already allocated in the Events Budget for 2025. I was inclined to vote yes from the start given that this kind of event, if done right, can have a multiplying effect on the developer community. With a detailed description of the actions that this proposal includes and Farstar at its help, I see no reason to deny the possibilities that this might open.
I voted FOR this proposal.
I completely side with @paulofonseca on this one, more so with the funds already allocated in the Events Budget for 2025. I was inclined to vote yes from the start given that this kind of event, if done right, can have a multiplying effect on the developer community. With a detailed description of the actions that this proposal includes and Farstar at its help, I see no reason to deny the possibilities that this might open.
Also, blocking this kind of proposal can spread apathy among other parties wishing to present similar activities to receive support, leaving Arbitrum at a disadvantage compared to other projects that allocate funding for these initiatives and consider them more relevant.
I'm voting AGAINST this proposal.
It doesn't align with the cohesive marketing efforts that we are aiming for.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas. It’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We’re voting AGAINST the proposal.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas. It’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We’re voting AGAINST the proposal.
We’ve given our feedback and expressed our concerns to the AVI team directly, and in general, we share the concerns brought forward by other delegates in the comments above. We feel that it’s a bit premature to discuss this initiative at this moment. Not only is the initiative built on the findings of AVI Pilot, which at this time are incomplete, but the justification for the requested budget, as well as the KPIs, feel lackluster.
While we appreciate Farstar’s work in AVI Pilot so far and the effort put into this proposal, we cannot justify voting in favor of it in its current form and at this time. Once the AVI fully wraps up, we discuss its results and internalize the learnings, then we could revisit the topic.
voting For on the current offchain vote because the monetary ask is not that big for the return this can have, the DAO needs regular events like this to attract good and honest founders into Arbitrum, the Farstar team is competent and has done this before at the highest level, and the timeline proposed seems doable. Also, I believe the Events Budget 2025 is exactly the avenue that should fund this type of proposal, and as a reminder for my fellow distinguished delegates that are worried about spending the Events Budget 2025, I would like to remind them that that budget and committee was funded through onchain vote more than 3 months ago, with $1.5M USD in total to be spend, and at the moment it has only spent $55,800 USD for ETH Bucharest 2025. Which means that, excluding the $400K USD that were already reserved for the Arbitrum Foundation this year and that are going to be used fully for ETH Denver in the next couple weeks, the DAO has only spent ~5% of this annual events budget, in the last 3 months ($1.5M in total - $400K for the AF = $1.1M remaining and therefore the $55.8K allocated to ETH Bucharest is 5.05% of 1.1M). And I'm not arguing that we should be voting For in every proposal that comes to the DAO trying to get funded through that budget, but I believe we should be more worried about the fact that almost no service provider comes forward and tries to propose an event or series of events that use that budget. That was the original intention of the 2025 Events Budget, and at this rate, is not being fulfilled at all.
Gauntlet intends to vote "Against" this proposal, due to similar feedback we have provided other events that the DAO and the Arbitrum Foundation have already allocated meaningful resources and capital to events. At this time, we prefer that events are managed via already-established channels.
Thanks for the proposal, Still,
Given the current market conditions, we should be more cautious in utilizing funds.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros 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 on Snapshot voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros 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 on Snapshot voting.
After reviewing the proposal and attending the office hour, we acknowledge the intent behind this initiative to support early-stage protocols and builders in the Arbitrum ecosystem. We believe providing mentorship, guidance, and structured peer discussions can benefit ecosystem growth.
As several delegates have pointed out, we echo with the point that this proposal does not align with the Events budget.
The proposal itself mentions this, suggesting that the initiative could have been better positioned as a follow-up to AVI rather than a standalone event. If that were the case, the value proposition of this proposal would be completely different today.
Additionally, we understand that this program is essential before ETHDenver; however, it should have been planned and proposed much earlier. The timing of the proposal raises concerns about execution readiness, especially with ETHDenver just under four days away.
Another concern that felt important to us in the proposal is the lack of a clear roadmap beyond the three-month program post-reporting. The proposal does not explain how the learnings, network, or participant engagement will continue beyond the Growth Circles.
We believe in the Farstar team and appreciate their efforts in proposing Arbitrum Growth Circles. However, we encourage them to incorporate the feedback from the delegates, refine the proposal with a clearer long-term plan, and see if the revised proposal fits in Questbook Season 3.
Voted Against: As my initial feedback, I still think this proposal is a "nice-to-have." I do support the idea of trying and experimenting with different approaches, but this idea seems quite basic and not innovative enough. Virtual workshops are known to be a lot less effective, and spending a budget of $67K seems quite excessive.
If this proposal moves to Tally, I would love to see a clear indicator from the community (builders) that they are interested in this type of event (maybe an interest list or pre-application form?). Also, I would love to see more detailed KPIs (how will we know if this proposal is successful or not?) and a more detailed budget breakdown.
After reviewing the proposal and delegate feedback, we have decided to vote against this proposal. While we share the vision of empowering our community, we agree with other delegates that this plan is flawed. It assumes protocols will approach us despite our current reputation and lacks clear details on session topics and qualified speakers. Moreover, allocating $67K for a largely virtual series appears excessive, particularly given the unclear connection to the 2025 Events Budget and the pending AVI Pilot deliverables.
I will be voting "Against" this project. I agree with others that the events budget should be targeted towards larger events and I think that a project of this size can find funding from different programs in Arbitrum.
Thank you for your time developing this the proposal Farstar. After reading this proposal and the comments I’ve decided to abstain my vote, I do believe there is value in this project and this idea, but there is still a lot of questions to answer regarding the budget and the benefits of all this events. It is not clear to us. Not to mention the demand of this events is also unclear…Maybe if there was a little more details on justifying all this... I will voted For.
I've decided to vote against this proposal. While I believe empowering the community by creating support networks is essential overall, I don't think this approach is the most effective way to achieve that goal. My main concern is that the costs are not justified well, and the budget seems high compared to the structure and goals outlined.
I feel like the proposal lacks essential information concerning covered topics, ... , falling short of the level of detail I'd expect for a Snapshot vote. While I appreciate that early discussions can stimulate debate, I think that proposals reaching the Snapshot stage should be more thoroughly outlined. This is especially important given that, in this case, the Snapshot approval would be sufficient for implementation.
I will be voting FOR this proposal in Snapshot.
I do believe there is a gap for projects that are beginning to grow and this type of support is something that has to be tackled. This proposal will ultimately help in growing the community of builders. Other ecosystems could have limited teams to give this support, Arbitrum’s advantage should be our structure and community expertise. We should leverage this.
I will be voting FOR this proposal in Snapshot.
I do believe there is a gap for projects that are beginning to grow and this type of support is something that has to be tackled. This proposal will ultimately help in growing the community of builders. Other ecosystems could have limited teams to give this support, Arbitrum’s advantage should be our structure and community expertise. We should leverage this.
I also think the Events Budget is an ideal funding mechanism, as it was approved, it tried to “get protocols building on Arbitrum aligned with the overall events strategy.” The Events Budget also passed with the idea to “enable the DAO to move more nimbly while also getting better pricing”. This proposal will be launched at ETHDenver and culminate in ETHCC which could help sustain momentum between events.
A traditional conference approach is normally more expensive than what is being proposed here. Additionally, this program will span several months, produce documented resources, and create infrastructure for future builder support which I think is positive overall for the ecosystem.
Hey @Farstar, thanks for putting this proposal together. After reviewing it and discussing it in your earlier Office Hours, we’ll be voting AGAINST on Snapshot for a couple of main reasons:
The Events Category might not be the right fit We believe Arbitrum Growth Circles should complement the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative (AVI) rather than be separated as a standalone event. When viewed in isolation, the value proposition and ROI aren’t totally clear. However, as a program focused on nurturing new builders within Arbitrum, it’s easier to see the potential. Incorporating this directly into AVI’s broader strategy would be more holistic and was echoed in your response to Blockworks:
Our market research findings show that founders in the Arbitrum ecosystem, especially the more early stage, want a shared space where they’re encouraged to work with others around a shared purpose with a community of like-minded builders. Thinking holistically about the builder’s journey and how each piece of the story fits together, we find that a 3-month sprint of virtual events is an effective way to plant a flag and seed a supportive peer community for founders. This also supports AVI’s ecosystem investment thesis, prioritizing empowering founders as the true leaders of new initiatives by providing the resources they need to succeed.
Cost per Attendee With a budget of $67.2k for a relatively small audience, it doesn’t seem like the best use of the events budget, which is meant to support high-impact, larger-scale initiatives.
Hi! I’m sharing the concern raised by @Entropy regarding the use of the events budget. I’ve already expressed my thoughts on this in previous votes (here, here & here), to which I refer to avoid being redundant. For that, I vote against this proposal.
Regarding the content of the proposal, I believe there is value in the idea, which is why I encourage the team to bring it to the domain allocator. There, you can discuss the details with @SEEDGov as the events domain allocator (it could even be considered as a joint initiative with @maxlomu , given that his domain is focused on Orbit) and design the proposal with detailed plans for speakers, workshops, and everything else required before it is approved.
After careful consideration, we’re voting against the proposal on Snapshot.
We think the proposal offers a solid vision for decentralized growth by empowering skilled builders to take on leadership roles, reducing reliance on expert groups, and promoting community-driven development. It also creates opportunities for direct interaction between makers and the broader ecosystem, which helps showcase Arbitrum’s live ecosystem in action. The initiative has good potential as a marketing tool, drawing attention to Arbitrum and helping early-stage projects grow.
I’m voting against on Snapshot.
I believe event benefits and KPIs should be tightly linked, but they feel disconnected here. For example:
I’m voting against on Snapshot.
I believe event benefits and KPIs should be tightly linked, but they feel disconnected here. For example:
I think scalable support should answer how it reduces barriers. How many issues get resolved. How does the community self support....
Measurable impact after an event such as how many builders onboard. How many sign ups or clicks. Any growth in followers on X or other channels.
Like other delegates, I also disagree with the budget since there’s no clear outcome commitment. More projects joining doesn’t mean they’ll stay or bring long term value to Arbitrum :)
To me, the expected results feel too vague. Can’t say yes to this
I voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot. I think we need such initiatives to increase builder activity on Arbitrum.
My only suggestion is to not invite only early stage web3 startups, but also include more established web3 projects. A mix of new and experienced builders will provide better results, and better understanding of project needs at different stages of their business lifecycle.
I voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot. I think we need such initiatives to increase builder activity on Arbitrum.
My only suggestion is to not invite only early stage web3 startups, but also include more established web3 projects. A mix of new and experienced builders will provide better results, and better understanding of project needs at different stages of their business lifecycle.
The budget does not seem excesive given that there will also be in-person events at major conferences. Meeting peers and delegates in person helps develop stronger bonds and is more likely to result in collaboration between projects.
I will be voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot. While I don't have the best grasp on all the ins and outs for putting together an event of this nature, the budget seems quite steep for what is largely an online event.
Since I've been voting and going over proposals I've come across others that do a better job at justifying their cost structure or at least offer far more value/ROI/leads in relation to cost.
Blockworks Advisory will be voting against this proposal on Snapshot.
We've expressed our concern to the AVI team in outside communications and we're happy with the direction the proposal moved; however, as others have pointed out this is a short term initiative and candidly we need more long-term but smaller scale solutions for a developer community. At the same time, there is the matter of the deliverables related to the AVI pilot that should be prioritized. Candidly, this proposal is also a bit last minute relative to the first event it proposes.
Furthermore, we think it would be helpful to have OCL or developer-oriented parties weigh in more hrere.
I am voting FOR this proposal. My rationale aligns with my previous stance on ETH Bucharest. I believe that now is the opportune time for the Arbitrum DAO to invest and attract builders, given the intense competition in the Layer 2 space. Capitalizing on the network effect is crucial, and a dollar invested now is worth more than a dollar invested in 2 or 3 years.
I fully agree with @paulofonseca's comment. A budget of $1.1M was voted on and should be utilized. In my opinion, this amount is not excessive. For context, an aggregator like 1inch spent $1.6M in 2024.
The Farstar team is competent and well-aligned with the Arbitrum ecosystem through the AVI initiative, which I believe can bring substantial value to Arbitrum. This event is well integrated in this strategic planning as one of its first steps, that's also why I am supporting it.
gm, I voted AGAINST.
Supporting builders' GTM strategy is a critical gap in our ecosystem. We focus heavily on deployment but offer minimal structured support for what comes after - and that's where most builders struggle.
I think we should, together with the SOS framework, create a positive flywheel where we help builders succeed post-deployment:
I would be supportive of this initiative if it fell within a more comprehensive user journey for builders.
Suggestion: Rework this aligned with the upcoming SOS framework, with trimmed budget (online events don't need this much) and clearer deliverables.
Thanks
I'm voting against this proposal.
I like the idea of a peer-led support network, but the proposal’s too vague and probably too expensive. The budget needs to be more detailed, and the KPIs are weak. If there were hard metrics on outcomes and liquidity, or commitments from the “experts” that are supposed to be involved, I would be more likely to vote yes.
I'm voting against this proposal.
I like the idea of a peer-led support network, but the proposal’s too vague and probably too expensive. The budget needs to be more detailed, and the KPIs are weak. If there were hard metrics on outcomes and liquidity, or commitments from the “experts” that are supposed to be involved, I would be more likely to vote yes.
I agree with JoJo that we should do more outbound instead of letting people come to us… but not sure I agree that we are perceived as a leech in the ecosystem… that seems a bit harsh. LOL
I voted FOR this proposal.
I completely side with @paulofonseca on this one, more so with the funds already allocated in the Events Budget for 2025. I was inclined to vote yes from the start given that this kind of event, if done right, can have a multiplying effect on the developer community. With a detailed description of the actions that this proposal includes and Farstar at its help, I see no reason to deny the possibilities that this might open.
I voted FOR this proposal.
I completely side with @paulofonseca on this one, more so with the funds already allocated in the Events Budget for 2025. I was inclined to vote yes from the start given that this kind of event, if done right, can have a multiplying effect on the developer community. With a detailed description of the actions that this proposal includes and Farstar at its help, I see no reason to deny the possibilities that this might open.
Also, blocking this kind of proposal can spread apathy among other parties wishing to present similar activities to receive support, leaving Arbitrum at a disadvantage compared to other projects that allocate funding for these initiatives and consider them more relevant.
I'm voting AGAINST this proposal.
It doesn't align with the cohesive marketing efforts that we are aiming for.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas. It’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We’re voting AGAINST the proposal.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas. It’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We’re voting AGAINST the proposal.
We’ve given our feedback and expressed our concerns to the AVI team directly, and in general, we share the concerns brought forward by other delegates in the comments above. We feel that it’s a bit premature to discuss this initiative at this moment. Not only is the initiative built on the findings of AVI Pilot, which at this time are incomplete, but the justification for the requested budget, as well as the KPIs, feel lackluster.
While we appreciate Farstar’s work in AVI Pilot so far and the effort put into this proposal, we cannot justify voting in favor of it in its current form and at this time. Once the AVI fully wraps up, we discuss its results and internalize the learnings, then we could revisit the topic.
voting For on the current offchain vote because the monetary ask is not that big for the return this can have, the DAO needs regular events like this to attract good and honest founders into Arbitrum, the Farstar team is competent and has done this before at the highest level, and the timeline proposed seems doable. Also, I believe the Events Budget 2025 is exactly the avenue that should fund this type of proposal, and as a reminder for my fellow distinguished delegates that are worried about spending the Events Budget 2025, I would like to remind them that that budget and committee was funded through onchain vote more than 3 months ago, with $1.5M USD in total to be spend, and at the moment it has only spent $55,800 USD for ETH Bucharest 2025. Which means that, excluding the $400K USD that were already reserved for the Arbitrum Foundation this year and that are going to be used fully for ETH Denver in the next couple weeks, the DAO has only spent ~5% of this annual events budget, in the last 3 months ($1.5M in total - $400K for the AF = $1.1M remaining and therefore the $55.8K allocated to ETH Bucharest is 5.05% of 1.1M). And I'm not arguing that we should be voting For in every proposal that comes to the DAO trying to get funded through that budget, but I believe we should be more worried about the fact that almost no service provider comes forward and tries to propose an event or series of events that use that budget. That was the original intention of the 2025 Events Budget, and at this rate, is not being fulfilled at all.
Gauntlet intends to vote "Against" this proposal, due to similar feedback we have provided other events that the DAO and the Arbitrum Foundation have already allocated meaningful resources and capital to events. At this time, we prefer that events are managed via already-established channels.
Thanks for the proposal, Still,
Given the current market conditions, we should be more cautious in utilizing funds.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros 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 on Snapshot voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros 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 on Snapshot voting.
After reviewing the proposal and attending the office hour, we acknowledge the intent behind this initiative to support early-stage protocols and builders in the Arbitrum ecosystem. We believe providing mentorship, guidance, and structured peer discussions can benefit ecosystem growth.
As several delegates have pointed out, we echo with the point that this proposal does not align with the Events budget.
The proposal itself mentions this, suggesting that the initiative could have been better positioned as a follow-up to AVI rather than a standalone event. If that were the case, the value proposition of this proposal would be completely different today.
Additionally, we understand that this program is essential before ETHDenver; however, it should have been planned and proposed much earlier. The timing of the proposal raises concerns about execution readiness, especially with ETHDenver just under four days away.
Another concern that felt important to us in the proposal is the lack of a clear roadmap beyond the three-month program post-reporting. The proposal does not explain how the learnings, network, or participant engagement will continue beyond the Growth Circles.
We believe in the Farstar team and appreciate their efforts in proposing Arbitrum Growth Circles. However, we encourage them to incorporate the feedback from the delegates, refine the proposal with a clearer long-term plan, and see if the revised proposal fits in Questbook Season 3.
Voted Against: As my initial feedback, I still think this proposal is a "nice-to-have." I do support the idea of trying and experimenting with different approaches, but this idea seems quite basic and not innovative enough. Virtual workshops are known to be a lot less effective, and spending a budget of $67K seems quite excessive.
If this proposal moves to Tally, I would love to see a clear indicator from the community (builders) that they are interested in this type of event (maybe an interest list or pre-application form?). Also, I would love to see more detailed KPIs (how will we know if this proposal is successful or not?) and a more detailed budget breakdown.
After reviewing the proposal and delegate feedback, we have decided to vote against this proposal. While we share the vision of empowering our community, we agree with other delegates that this plan is flawed. It assumes protocols will approach us despite our current reputation and lacks clear details on session topics and qualified speakers. Moreover, allocating $67K for a largely virtual series appears excessive, particularly given the unclear connection to the 2025 Events Budget and the pending AVI Pilot deliverables.
I will be voting "Against" this project. I agree with others that the events budget should be targeted towards larger events and I think that a project of this size can find funding from different programs in Arbitrum.
Thank you for your time developing this the proposal Farstar. After reading this proposal and the comments I’ve decided to abstain my vote, I do believe there is value in this project and this idea, but there is still a lot of questions to answer regarding the budget and the benefits of all this events. It is not clear to us. Not to mention the demand of this events is also unclear…Maybe if there was a little more details on justifying all this... I will voted For.
I've decided to vote against this proposal. While I believe empowering the community by creating support networks is essential overall, I don't think this approach is the most effective way to achieve that goal. My main concern is that the costs are not justified well, and the budget seems high compared to the structure and goals outlined.
I feel like the proposal lacks essential information concerning covered topics, ... , falling short of the level of detail I'd expect for a Snapshot vote. While I appreciate that early discussions can stimulate debate, I think that proposals reaching the Snapshot stage should be more thoroughly outlined. This is especially important given that, in this case, the Snapshot approval would be sufficient for implementation.
I will be voting FOR this proposal in Snapshot.
I do believe there is a gap for projects that are beginning to grow and this type of support is something that has to be tackled. This proposal will ultimately help in growing the community of builders. Other ecosystems could have limited teams to give this support, Arbitrum’s advantage should be our structure and community expertise. We should leverage this.
I will be voting FOR this proposal in Snapshot.
I do believe there is a gap for projects that are beginning to grow and this type of support is something that has to be tackled. This proposal will ultimately help in growing the community of builders. Other ecosystems could have limited teams to give this support, Arbitrum’s advantage should be our structure and community expertise. We should leverage this.
I also think the Events Budget is an ideal funding mechanism, as it was approved, it tried to “get protocols building on Arbitrum aligned with the overall events strategy.” The Events Budget also passed with the idea to “enable the DAO to move more nimbly while also getting better pricing”. This proposal will be launched at ETHDenver and culminate in ETHCC which could help sustain momentum between events.
A traditional conference approach is normally more expensive than what is being proposed here. Additionally, this program will span several months, produce documented resources, and create infrastructure for future builder support which I think is positive overall for the ecosystem.
Hey @Farstar, thanks for putting this proposal together. After reviewing it and discussing it in your earlier Office Hours, we’ll be voting AGAINST on Snapshot for a couple of main reasons:
The Events Category might not be the right fit We believe Arbitrum Growth Circles should complement the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative (AVI) rather than be separated as a standalone event. When viewed in isolation, the value proposition and ROI aren’t totally clear. However, as a program focused on nurturing new builders within Arbitrum, it’s easier to see the potential. Incorporating this directly into AVI’s broader strategy would be more holistic and was echoed in your response to Blockworks:
Our market research findings show that founders in the Arbitrum ecosystem, especially the more early stage, want a shared space where they’re encouraged to work with others around a shared purpose with a community of like-minded builders. Thinking holistically about the builder’s journey and how each piece of the story fits together, we find that a 3-month sprint of virtual events is an effective way to plant a flag and seed a supportive peer community for founders. This also supports AVI’s ecosystem investment thesis, prioritizing empowering founders as the true leaders of new initiatives by providing the resources they need to succeed.
Cost per Attendee With a budget of $67.2k for a relatively small audience, it doesn’t seem like the best use of the events budget, which is meant to support high-impact, larger-scale initiatives.
Hi! I’m sharing the concern raised by @Entropy regarding the use of the events budget. I’ve already expressed my thoughts on this in previous votes (here, here & here), to which I refer to avoid being redundant. For that, I vote against this proposal.
Regarding the content of the proposal, I believe there is value in the idea, which is why I encourage the team to bring it to the domain allocator. There, you can discuss the details with @SEEDGov as the events domain allocator (it could even be considered as a joint initiative with @maxlomu , given that his domain is focused on Orbit) and design the proposal with detailed plans for speakers, workshops, and everything else required before it is approved.
After careful consideration, we’re voting against the proposal on Snapshot.
We think the proposal offers a solid vision for decentralized growth by empowering skilled builders to take on leadership roles, reducing reliance on expert groups, and promoting community-driven development. It also creates opportunities for direct interaction between makers and the broader ecosystem, which helps showcase Arbitrum’s live ecosystem in action. The initiative has good potential as a marketing tool, drawing attention to Arbitrum and helping early-stage projects grow.
I’m voting against on Snapshot.
I believe event benefits and KPIs should be tightly linked, but they feel disconnected here. For example:
I’m voting against on Snapshot.
I believe event benefits and KPIs should be tightly linked, but they feel disconnected here. For example:
I think scalable support should answer how it reduces barriers. How many issues get resolved. How does the community self support....
Measurable impact after an event such as how many builders onboard. How many sign ups or clicks. Any growth in followers on X or other channels.
Like other delegates, I also disagree with the budget since there’s no clear outcome commitment. More projects joining doesn’t mean they’ll stay or bring long term value to Arbitrum :)
To me, the expected results feel too vague. Can’t say yes to this
I voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot. I think we need such initiatives to increase builder activity on Arbitrum.
My only suggestion is to not invite only early stage web3 startups, but also include more established web3 projects. A mix of new and experienced builders will provide better results, and better understanding of project needs at different stages of their business lifecycle.
I voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot. I think we need such initiatives to increase builder activity on Arbitrum.
My only suggestion is to not invite only early stage web3 startups, but also include more established web3 projects. A mix of new and experienced builders will provide better results, and better understanding of project needs at different stages of their business lifecycle.
The budget does not seem excesive given that there will also be in-person events at major conferences. Meeting peers and delegates in person helps develop stronger bonds and is more likely to result in collaboration between projects.
I will be voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot. While I don't have the best grasp on all the ins and outs for putting together an event of this nature, the budget seems quite steep for what is largely an online event.
Since I've been voting and going over proposals I've come across others that do a better job at justifying their cost structure or at least offer far more value/ROI/leads in relation to cost.
I've decided to vote against this proposal. While I believe empowering the community by creating support networks is essential overall, I don't think this approach is the most effective way to achieve that goal. My main concern is that the costs are not justified well, and the budget seems high compared to the structure and goals outlined.
I feel like the proposal lacks essential information concerning covered topics, ... , falling short of the level of detail I'd expect for a Snapshot vote. While I appreciate that early discussions can stimulate debate, I think that proposals reaching the Snapshot stage should be more thoroughly outlined. This is especially important given that, in this case, the Snapshot approval would be sufficient for implementation.
My view on this is that we should allocate the Event budget towards larger, more impactful events that can drive significant growth. As I said, even if I see the point of this proposal, it risks using resources without achieving our broader objectives. I still want to thank @Farstar for their initiative and effort in crafting this proposal. I hope we can collaborate on refining this concept or developing alternative approaches to effectively support the ecosystem in the future
Hey @Farstar, thanks for putting this proposal together. After reviewing it and discussing it in your earlier Office Hours, we’ll be voting AGAINST on Snapshot for a couple of main reasons:
The Events Category might not be the right fit We believe Arbitrum Growth Circles should complement the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative (AVI) rather than be separated as a standalone event. When viewed in isolation, the value proposition and ROI aren’t totally clear. However, as a program focused on nurturing new builders within Arbitrum, it’s easier to see the potential. Incorporating this directly into AVI’s broader strategy would be more holistic and was echoed in your response to Blockworks:
Our market research findings show that founders in the Arbitrum ecosystem, especially the more early stage, want a shared space where they’re encouraged to work with others around a shared purpose with a community of like-minded builders. Thinking holistically about the builder’s journey and how each piece of the story fits together, we find that a 3-month sprint of virtual events is an effective way to plant a flag and seed a supportive peer community for founders. This also supports AVI’s ecosystem investment thesis, prioritizing empowering founders as the true leaders of new initiatives by providing the resources they need to succeed.
Cost per Attendee With a budget of $67.2k for a relatively small audience, it doesn’t seem like the best use of the events budget, which is meant to support high-impact, larger-scale initiatives.
Overall, we appreciate the concept, it reminds us of a Y Combinator’s Startup School approach, which could be valuable for developing the next generation of Arbitrum builders. We just think it should happen under AVI’s umbrella for better alignment and clearer ROI. We hope you’ll consider all the feedback, refine the proposal (including lifecycle and value creation as discussed with Insomniac), and come back with an updated plan.
Looking forward to seeing where you take this next!
After careful consideration, we’re voting against the proposal on Snapshot.
We think the proposal offers a solid vision for decentralized growth by empowering skilled builders to take on leadership roles, reducing reliance on expert groups, and promoting community-driven development. It also creates opportunities for direct interaction between makers and the broader ecosystem, which helps showcase Arbitrum’s live ecosystem in action. The initiative has good potential as a marketing tool, drawing attention to Arbitrum and helping early-stage projects grow.
But the actual demands for this kind of event remains unclear to us. We might need more concrete evidence or feedback from early-stage teams. Besides, the KPIs are too vague, with little focus on more measurable outcomes—like actual projects launched or liquidity growth. Additionally, the budget felt high given that the majority of the events are virtual. Lastly, the $67K budget also raised questions, especially with a relatively small group of 20 participants.
The Arbitrum Growth Circle has a lot of potential to build a self-sustaining support network within the ecosystem. However, there are still lingering questions about demand, KPIs, and return on investment. If the program can address these and demonstrate ability to deliver clear, measurable outcomes, it will likely be an excellent resource for Arbitrum’s growth.
Voting against
Would have liked to see this as part of a more holistic approach to recruit/attract and continuously coach/support participants (longer than just 3 months). Also as already mentioned by some it doesn’t fall into the events category
Voting against
Would have liked to see this as part of a more holistic approach to recruit/attract and continuously coach/support participants (longer than just 3 months). Also as already mentioned by some it doesn’t fall into the events category
Our market research findings show that founders in the Arbitrum ecosystem, especially the more early stage, want a shared space where they’re encouraged to work with others around a shared purpose with a community of like-minded builders.
I believe the above can be achieved with a much smaller budget (if any). An idea would be to try out "Masterminds"
Could be a boostrapped way to test some sort of shared space.
We're voting AGAINST this proposal.
As builders in this space since 2017, we've seen that serious teams find their way without managed networking events or facilitated workshops. The reality is simple: if a team can't navigate basic documentation, join Telegram groups, or network within existing channels, they likely lack the fundamental capabilities needed for successful protocol development.
We're voting AGAINST this proposal.
As builders in this space since 2017, we've seen that serious teams find their way without managed networking events or facilitated workshops. The reality is simple: if a team can't navigate basic documentation, join Telegram groups, or network within existing channels, they likely lack the fundamental capabilities needed for successful protocol development.
The $67.2k budget effectively subsidizes basic research and networking that competent teams already do as part of their development process. Quality builders naturally gravitate toward resources and connections they need - it's a core competency, not a service to be outsourced.
True ecosystem strength comes from teams who demonstrate initiative and resourcefulness from day one. Let's focus our resources on direct protocol development rather than creating artificial support structures.
I decided to vote 'abstain' in snapshot proposal as I find myself not convinced enough to vote for or against. I truly understand the need to support early-stage protocols and the value that working sessions can bring to them if they are correctly executed, but I also resonate with most of @Entropy’s and other delegates' comments on the specifics, the budget, and the KPIs.
If the proposal doesn’t find enough support, I would love to see it reworked based on most of the feedback, with a lower budget to maybe have a small first pilot, and posted on Questbook, as I see a lot of value in the general idea.
I voted no. Like Entropy said, its too vague with inflated costs. When I commented on this last week I thought it was gonna be meditated and refined before going to snapshot. That Program Design & Development line - 10k just to figure out what to do? I thought we were doing that on the forums. I get that work needs funds but at least outline the plan first. I'd love to see proposals with more meat before approval, not just "we'll figure it out later". Arbitrum needs efficient spending, not blank checks for good intentions because that kills token value.
I also want to echo the sentiment of limiting spending this year. I'd love us to focus first on the Mission and values of Arbitrum - that initiative is already started and when we are clear on how Arbitrum will support Ethereum then we have a purpose to make decisions and it will be easier to make proposals and also to vote.
Entropy will again point out that the DAO should hold proposals pulling from the DAO’s 2025 Event Budget to a high standard
Entropy will again point out that the DAO should hold proposals pulling from the DAO’s 2025 Event Budget to a high standard
We need to focus on less but very high quality events to make sure Arbitrum, the DAO and its delegates as well will be seen as something positive and supportive. This isn't the case right now, the DAO is seen as a burden and many decide even against Arbitrum because of this. We should change this.
Going to vote NO.
I am voting against this proposal.
The idea is well intended but, to me, it starts from a totally wrong premise. We partially covered in the entropy call, will reiterate in the forum: the whole approach here is about making protocol come to the dao, help them, give them a hand, having this back and forth to make everything better.
This vision is totally detached from reality.
As of now
I am voting against this proposal.
The idea is well intended but, to me, it starts from a totally wrong premise. We partially covered in the entropy call, will reiterate in the forum: the whole approach here is about making protocol come to the dao, help them, give them a hand, having this back and forth to make everything better.
This vision is totally detached from reality.
As of now
I am not mentioning the aboves to just criticize full around, but I am mentioning it to explain why protocols and builders won't come to us. We are not starting from an advantageous point, as a DAO, and the approach to me should be the opposite: we, as a collective, should start chasing some protocols, likely a very few (and most important ones) at the beginning, understand what they need and understand how we can give them what they need compared to the goals we have as a DAO. And after we create these successfull initiatives, we enlarge the scope out to the point we - hopefully - turn the table in term of reputation, so that builders see us a value added for the chain and not value extracting.
To be clear: I am not saying that the DAO is value extracting. But this is how we are perceived by most builders that have hands down in the chain everyday.
This is the main reason i am voting against this proposal. I want to also echo some of the feedbacks received here:
Lastly, as per the AVI’s latest update, the DAO is still waiting to receive all of the deliverables from the Pilot Program.
I agree that this habit of chipping out money from the event budget is something I don't personally like. With the current position in the market that Arbitrum ecosyste has, I really think we should focus on the biggest impact possible, and in this sense is likely that 10 events of 60k have less impact than a single event of 600k (quite superficial but you get the idea).
Finally, I am still a bit puzzled of the AVI findings, not only we have to receive all deliverables but I have yet to see a compacted finalized finding. So far I have seen several threads, with several deliverables, and there should be an effort to unify and simplify the findings with then specific follow ups on specific verticals. This is a bit OT here but partially related in the sense that part of the request is tied to the findings of the AVI research.
To conclude, I think the AVI team is well intended. And I don't want to question their expertise here nor the network that they have build in the last year. But I just think the approach should be different: if we embark in a 3, 4, 6 months adventure in this sense, we will lose valuable time and so we will lose opportunities in a market that is getting narrower and narrower.
Finally, is worth waiting for the SOS goals to come live. It will be way easier for us to understand how we can help protocols if we know what goals we have as a collective.
After reviewing the proposal and considering the discussions, I still have mixed feelings about this initiative, so I will vote ABSTAIN.
While I understand the importance of fostering community-driven events, I see no evidence that the community or the market needs this particular event in the current ecosystem. The proposal suggests a fairly high budget of $67k to activate just 20 participants.
After reviewing the proposal and considering the discussions, I still have mixed feelings about this initiative, so I will vote ABSTAIN.
While I understand the importance of fostering community-driven events, I see no evidence that the community or the market needs this particular event in the current ecosystem. The proposal suggests a fairly high budget of $67k to activate just 20 participants.
In my opinion, what is needed are more ambitious proposals with innovative ideas that can create a greater impact. I want to see a community where people actively want to join and contribute, rather than one that relies solely on in this case ARBITRUM funding it. Empowering the potential participants to take ownership and lead these efforts would lead to a more sustainable and thriving ecosystem.
I will vote against. On the one hand, as I mentioned above, this is a good marketing ploy to attract attention to the Arbitrum ecosystem. But on the other hand, we already have many interesting events, such as: ETHDenver, ETHBucharest etc. We also have Stylus Sprint and maybe in the future Arbitrum audit program. Of course, I would like to hold this event, but there is not enough money for everyone. Let's not be overwhelmed by many tasks and events this year. This can lead to poor implementation of other activities due to lack of budget for everyone. But next year, I believe, maybe it will be possible to allocate part of the funds for this great idea.
Voting AGAINST
I support the idea of offering P2P support for mature protocols. However, the proposal seems to be developed backwards, trying to justify a $50k budget ($12k marketing spent including an event report while there's an additional $9.6k for reporting and DAO engagement).
Voting AGAINST
I support the idea of offering P2P support for mature protocols. However, the proposal seems to be developed backwards, trying to justify a $50k budget ($12k marketing spent including an event report while there's an additional $9.6k for reporting and DAO engagement).
I belive there's value in this initiative but the proposal needs to be reworked, trimmed down, and likely made through Questbook to start.
Nice to see some new people at the dao, some comments we had and are curious about:
Nice to see some new people at the dao, some comments we had and are curious about:
Overall, we like it, but have no strong opinions, and aren't familiar with the team's work. Maybe some more on this would be nice!
We recognise the potential of the Arbitrum Growth Circles proposal to foster collaboration and engagement within the ecosystem. The initiative presents an interesting approach, but several areas require refinement to ensure sustained value beyond the events themselves.
One key concern is the absence of detailed metrics to assess long-term impact. While the proposal highlights community building, it does not outline how success will be measured beyond attendance. Metrics such as protocol retention, on-chain activity, or the number of successful integrations and collaborations formed post-event would provide a clearer picture of effectiveness. We recommend tying specific success indicators to funding milestones to ensure accountability and measurable outcomes.
Thanks for the proposal, it's quite detailed, but I have some questions about it:
Entropy has voted against this proposal. While we recognize the importance and potential for creating builder support networks, the outlined virtual event series lacks necessary details to inspire confidence that this will be executed at a high level. Only a few examples of the session topics are presented with no clarity into what speakers/mentors will be brought in to share expertise. The DAO has no means to verify that the “experts” speaking to these early builders are qualified or will point the founders in the correct direction. The original wording of the proposal and comments from Farstar seem to imply that the point of this program is to alleviate the load on OCL, but without collaboration, we are not confident that the right people can be attracted to the program. The lack of clear next steps and alignment with Arbitrum’s other entities, increase the risk that the program will “die out” post ETH CC.
A secondary concern is the overall budget. Even with an in-person component, $67k for what is mostly a virtual call series is very high. Entropy will again point out that the DAO should hold proposals pulling from the DAO’s 2025 Event Budget to a high standard. Letting this budget slowly be chipped away $60-70K at a time reduces the possibility for a larger scale, more professionally organized Arbitrum event to be funded. Even though it's mentioned in a comment, we also encourage the proposal author to make it explicitly clear, preferably at the top of the proposal, that funds are being requested from the 2025 Events Budget. This is to reduce that chance that delegates are misinformed and believe a Tally vote is required.
Thank you for the proposal Farstar.
The target audience outreach makes sense and sounds promising to reach out to protocols building on Arbitrum that might benefit from the initiative. Is there a proposed outreach to secure Arbitrum experts for the virtual clinics and the unconference?
Thank you for the proposal Farstar.
The target audience outreach makes sense and sounds promising to reach out to protocols building on Arbitrum that might benefit from the initiative. Is there a proposed outreach to secure Arbitrum experts for the virtual clinics and the unconference?
Analyzing the budget, it would be helpful to understand how you arrived to the proposed numbers. For example, is the 15K$ budget to cover for the facilitators or how is it spent? Same on 1:1 support and Unconference.
Is there a final report where we can see output from Phase 1 and results that can help us see the need for the program and proposed structure?
I would suggest including more metrics you would track on the proposal above if these apply or metrics beyond meeting their target relationship development, attending meeting and qualitative feedback that are tied to the primary outcomes. Let me know if i'm mixing writeups that don't relate to the proposal, i'm finding it difficult to keep up with which AVI posts apply here.
Also, can you post the office hours recording here?
The idea sounds good, but who exactly has a good track record in these topics that will be available to participants? Who would be the instructors for each area, and who is making sure they are qualified to give more than general advice?
The general idea behind this proposal is interesting, and there's definitely value in fostering peer-led collaboration within the ecosystem. But, the positioning feels somewhat off. As it stands, the initiative seems to provide too little in terms of structured support for early-stage projects (as an incubator/accelerator would) while focusing more on study group-style discussions.
A more effective approach might be something akin to Uniswap's Hook Incubator—offering structured mentorship, technical guidance, and direct ecosystem integrations for emerging projects. Of course, such a program would require a larger budget, but it could yield more impactful outcomes for the Arbitrum ecosystem.
The general idea behind this proposal is interesting, and there's definitely value in fostering peer-led collaboration within the ecosystem. But, the positioning feels somewhat off. As it stands, the initiative seems to provide too little in terms of structured support for early-stage projects (as an incubator/accelerator would) while focusing more on study group-style discussions.
A more effective approach might be something akin to Uniswap's Hook Incubator—offering structured mentorship, technical guidance, and direct ecosystem integrations for emerging projects. Of course, such a program would require a larger budget, but it could yield more impactful outcomes for the Arbitrum ecosystem.
That said, if the goal is to maintain the proposal in its current form, it might be a better fit for the Arbitrum D.A.O. Grants program rather than a DAO-approved initiative.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
Firstly, we are in line with the feedback of some of the delegates and agree that the impact of the proposals is to be questioned. We also appreciate that some of the feedback has been incorporated into the final proposal.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
Firstly, we are in line with the feedback of some of the delegates and agree that the impact of the proposals is to be questioned. We also appreciate that some of the feedback has been incorporated into the final proposal.
After consideration, we will be making our voting power available, with a community auction taking place, as we see a broader group of potential beneficiaries rather than just one. LobbyFi will be willing to charge 2% of the requested amount ($67.2k * 2% ≈ 0.5 ETH). It is also worthwhile to mention that LobbyFi is launching a new feature to prevent the VP from being sold in auction for too little - a reserve price. For the beginning, it will be set at a 10% multiplier - meaning that a pool must reach a minimum of 0.05 ETH (10% of the instant buy price) to acquire the voting power; otherwise, an Abstain vote will be cast. A more detailed documentation will be shared publicly as soon as the upgrade is deployed. The proposal will be posted on LobbyFi immediately after.
Thanks for the proposal! We think that it's a great idea - helping early-stage projects grow in the Arbitrum ecosystem. The idea of creating a strong support network and reducing dependence on Offchain Labs is very useful. We believe that this is a good marketing ploy to attract attention to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We would like to know how exactly will the $50,000 be spent? Also, how will the success of the program be measured beyond surveys and participation numbers? It would be helpful to see a plan for keeping the Growth Circles active after the three-month period.
We are still workshopping the details of how the intervention should work with the intention to put for a vote next Thursday
Also, why wouldn't this be a questbook proposal?
Thanks for your proposal!
Can you clarify one point?
In this section, it seems this proposal is a way to build a structure around OCL to facilitate their engagement with the ecosystem.
Thanks for your proposal!
Can you clarify one point?
In this section, it seems this proposal is a way to build a structure around OCL to facilitate their engagement with the ecosystem.
The series addresses the growing demand for Offchain Labs (OCL) engagement by creating a scalable format where their highly skilled team can efficiently share knowledge with a multitude of stakeholders, ultimately creating a peer support environment that’s less dependent on any particular one expert group.
But in the following ones, it seems the proposal is relying on other "experts".
1. ETH Denver (or next qualifying event): On-ground curation to identify & onboard protocols
2. Five Virtual Clinics across 2–3 months. Each session ~2 hours, featuring expert presentation + interactive “live coaching.” An example of a virtual clinic is “Building Effective Market Maker Relationships” which includes:
3. Unconference: Invite only for select protocols becoming part of the Arbitrum Growth Circle
Can you clarify this (I assume it is an evolution, helping the program to scale)? A follow-up question is:
Besides seeing the Arbitrum ecosystem thriving, what are incentives for the experts to engage in such a program? Can you share the plans to secure participation? It would be interesting to have this locked before approving the proposal.
Thanks in advance!
I've decided to vote against this proposal. While I believe empowering the community by creating support networks is essential overall, I don't think this approach is the most effective way to achieve that goal. My main concern is that the costs are not justified well, and the budget seems high compared to the structure and goals outlined.
I feel like the proposal lacks essential information concerning covered topics, ... , falling short of the level of detail I'd expect for a Snapshot vote. While I appreciate that early discussions can stimulate debate, I think that proposals reaching the Snapshot stage should be more thoroughly outlined. This is especially important given that, in this case, the Snapshot approval would be sufficient for implementation.
My view on this is that we should allocate the Event budget towards larger, more impactful events that can drive significant growth. As I said, even if I see the point of this proposal, it risks using resources without achieving our broader objectives. I still want to thank @Farstar for their initiative and effort in crafting this proposal. I hope we can collaborate on refining this concept or developing alternative approaches to effectively support the ecosystem in the future
Hey @Farstar, thanks for putting this proposal together. After reviewing it and discussing it in your earlier Office Hours, we’ll be voting AGAINST on Snapshot for a couple of main reasons:
The Events Category might not be the right fit We believe Arbitrum Growth Circles should complement the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative (AVI) rather than be separated as a standalone event. When viewed in isolation, the value proposition and ROI aren’t totally clear. However, as a program focused on nurturing new builders within Arbitrum, it’s easier to see the potential. Incorporating this directly into AVI’s broader strategy would be more holistic and was echoed in your response to Blockworks:
Our market research findings show that founders in the Arbitrum ecosystem, especially the more early stage, want a shared space where they’re encouraged to work with others around a shared purpose with a community of like-minded builders. Thinking holistically about the builder’s journey and how each piece of the story fits together, we find that a 3-month sprint of virtual events is an effective way to plant a flag and seed a supportive peer community for founders. This also supports AVI’s ecosystem investment thesis, prioritizing empowering founders as the true leaders of new initiatives by providing the resources they need to succeed.
Cost per Attendee With a budget of $67.2k for a relatively small audience, it doesn’t seem like the best use of the events budget, which is meant to support high-impact, larger-scale initiatives.
Overall, we appreciate the concept, it reminds us of a Y Combinator’s Startup School approach, which could be valuable for developing the next generation of Arbitrum builders. We just think it should happen under AVI’s umbrella for better alignment and clearer ROI. We hope you’ll consider all the feedback, refine the proposal (including lifecycle and value creation as discussed with Insomniac), and come back with an updated plan.
Looking forward to seeing where you take this next!
After careful consideration, we’re voting against the proposal on Snapshot.
We think the proposal offers a solid vision for decentralized growth by empowering skilled builders to take on leadership roles, reducing reliance on expert groups, and promoting community-driven development. It also creates opportunities for direct interaction between makers and the broader ecosystem, which helps showcase Arbitrum’s live ecosystem in action. The initiative has good potential as a marketing tool, drawing attention to Arbitrum and helping early-stage projects grow.
But the actual demands for this kind of event remains unclear to us. We might need more concrete evidence or feedback from early-stage teams. Besides, the KPIs are too vague, with little focus on more measurable outcomes—like actual projects launched or liquidity growth. Additionally, the budget felt high given that the majority of the events are virtual. Lastly, the $67K budget also raised questions, especially with a relatively small group of 20 participants.
The Arbitrum Growth Circle has a lot of potential to build a self-sustaining support network within the ecosystem. However, there are still lingering questions about demand, KPIs, and return on investment. If the program can address these and demonstrate ability to deliver clear, measurable outcomes, it will likely be an excellent resource for Arbitrum’s growth.
Voting against
Would have liked to see this as part of a more holistic approach to recruit/attract and continuously coach/support participants (longer than just 3 months). Also as already mentioned by some it doesn’t fall into the events category
Voting against
Would have liked to see this as part of a more holistic approach to recruit/attract and continuously coach/support participants (longer than just 3 months). Also as already mentioned by some it doesn’t fall into the events category
Our market research findings show that founders in the Arbitrum ecosystem, especially the more early stage, want a shared space where they’re encouraged to work with others around a shared purpose with a community of like-minded builders.
I believe the above can be achieved with a much smaller budget (if any). An idea would be to try out "Masterminds"
Could be a boostrapped way to test some sort of shared space.
We're voting AGAINST this proposal.
As builders in this space since 2017, we've seen that serious teams find their way without managed networking events or facilitated workshops. The reality is simple: if a team can't navigate basic documentation, join Telegram groups, or network within existing channels, they likely lack the fundamental capabilities needed for successful protocol development.
We're voting AGAINST this proposal.
As builders in this space since 2017, we've seen that serious teams find their way without managed networking events or facilitated workshops. The reality is simple: if a team can't navigate basic documentation, join Telegram groups, or network within existing channels, they likely lack the fundamental capabilities needed for successful protocol development.
The $67.2k budget effectively subsidizes basic research and networking that competent teams already do as part of their development process. Quality builders naturally gravitate toward resources and connections they need - it's a core competency, not a service to be outsourced.
True ecosystem strength comes from teams who demonstrate initiative and resourcefulness from day one. Let's focus our resources on direct protocol development rather than creating artificial support structures.
I decided to vote 'abstain' in snapshot proposal as I find myself not convinced enough to vote for or against. I truly understand the need to support early-stage protocols and the value that working sessions can bring to them if they are correctly executed, but I also resonate with most of @Entropy’s and other delegates' comments on the specifics, the budget, and the KPIs.
If the proposal doesn’t find enough support, I would love to see it reworked based on most of the feedback, with a lower budget to maybe have a small first pilot, and posted on Questbook, as I see a lot of value in the general idea.
I voted no. Like Entropy said, its too vague with inflated costs. When I commented on this last week I thought it was gonna be meditated and refined before going to snapshot. That Program Design & Development line - 10k just to figure out what to do? I thought we were doing that on the forums. I get that work needs funds but at least outline the plan first. I'd love to see proposals with more meat before approval, not just "we'll figure it out later". Arbitrum needs efficient spending, not blank checks for good intentions because that kills token value.
I also want to echo the sentiment of limiting spending this year. I'd love us to focus first on the Mission and values of Arbitrum - that initiative is already started and when we are clear on how Arbitrum will support Ethereum then we have a purpose to make decisions and it will be easier to make proposals and also to vote.
Entropy will again point out that the DAO should hold proposals pulling from the DAO’s 2025 Event Budget to a high standard
Entropy will again point out that the DAO should hold proposals pulling from the DAO’s 2025 Event Budget to a high standard
We need to focus on less but very high quality events to make sure Arbitrum, the DAO and its delegates as well will be seen as something positive and supportive. This isn't the case right now, the DAO is seen as a burden and many decide even against Arbitrum because of this. We should change this.
Going to vote NO.
I am voting against this proposal.
The idea is well intended but, to me, it starts from a totally wrong premise. We partially covered in the entropy call, will reiterate in the forum: the whole approach here is about making protocol come to the dao, help them, give them a hand, having this back and forth to make everything better.
This vision is totally detached from reality.
As of now
I am voting against this proposal.
The idea is well intended but, to me, it starts from a totally wrong premise. We partially covered in the entropy call, will reiterate in the forum: the whole approach here is about making protocol come to the dao, help them, give them a hand, having this back and forth to make everything better.
This vision is totally detached from reality.
As of now
I am not mentioning the aboves to just criticize full around, but I am mentioning it to explain why protocols and builders won't come to us. We are not starting from an advantageous point, as a DAO, and the approach to me should be the opposite: we, as a collective, should start chasing some protocols, likely a very few (and most important ones) at the beginning, understand what they need and understand how we can give them what they need compared to the goals we have as a DAO. And after we create these successfull initiatives, we enlarge the scope out to the point we - hopefully - turn the table in term of reputation, so that builders see us a value added for the chain and not value extracting.
To be clear: I am not saying that the DAO is value extracting. But this is how we are perceived by most builders that have hands down in the chain everyday.
This is the main reason i am voting against this proposal. I want to also echo some of the feedbacks received here:
Lastly, as per the AVI’s latest update, the DAO is still waiting to receive all of the deliverables from the Pilot Program.
I agree that this habit of chipping out money from the event budget is something I don't personally like. With the current position in the market that Arbitrum ecosyste has, I really think we should focus on the biggest impact possible, and in this sense is likely that 10 events of 60k have less impact than a single event of 600k (quite superficial but you get the idea).
Finally, I am still a bit puzzled of the AVI findings, not only we have to receive all deliverables but I have yet to see a compacted finalized finding. So far I have seen several threads, with several deliverables, and there should be an effort to unify and simplify the findings with then specific follow ups on specific verticals. This is a bit OT here but partially related in the sense that part of the request is tied to the findings of the AVI research.
To conclude, I think the AVI team is well intended. And I don't want to question their expertise here nor the network that they have build in the last year. But I just think the approach should be different: if we embark in a 3, 4, 6 months adventure in this sense, we will lose valuable time and so we will lose opportunities in a market that is getting narrower and narrower.
Finally, is worth waiting for the SOS goals to come live. It will be way easier for us to understand how we can help protocols if we know what goals we have as a collective.
After reviewing the proposal and considering the discussions, I still have mixed feelings about this initiative, so I will vote ABSTAIN.
While I understand the importance of fostering community-driven events, I see no evidence that the community or the market needs this particular event in the current ecosystem. The proposal suggests a fairly high budget of $67k to activate just 20 participants.
After reviewing the proposal and considering the discussions, I still have mixed feelings about this initiative, so I will vote ABSTAIN.
While I understand the importance of fostering community-driven events, I see no evidence that the community or the market needs this particular event in the current ecosystem. The proposal suggests a fairly high budget of $67k to activate just 20 participants.
In my opinion, what is needed are more ambitious proposals with innovative ideas that can create a greater impact. I want to see a community where people actively want to join and contribute, rather than one that relies solely on in this case ARBITRUM funding it. Empowering the potential participants to take ownership and lead these efforts would lead to a more sustainable and thriving ecosystem.
I will vote against. On the one hand, as I mentioned above, this is a good marketing ploy to attract attention to the Arbitrum ecosystem. But on the other hand, we already have many interesting events, such as: ETHDenver, ETHBucharest etc. We also have Stylus Sprint and maybe in the future Arbitrum audit program. Of course, I would like to hold this event, but there is not enough money for everyone. Let's not be overwhelmed by many tasks and events this year. This can lead to poor implementation of other activities due to lack of budget for everyone. But next year, I believe, maybe it will be possible to allocate part of the funds for this great idea.
Voting AGAINST
I support the idea of offering P2P support for mature protocols. However, the proposal seems to be developed backwards, trying to justify a $50k budget ($12k marketing spent including an event report while there's an additional $9.6k for reporting and DAO engagement).
Voting AGAINST
I support the idea of offering P2P support for mature protocols. However, the proposal seems to be developed backwards, trying to justify a $50k budget ($12k marketing spent including an event report while there's an additional $9.6k for reporting and DAO engagement).
I belive there's value in this initiative but the proposal needs to be reworked, trimmed down, and likely made through Questbook to start.
Nice to see some new people at the dao, some comments we had and are curious about:
Nice to see some new people at the dao, some comments we had and are curious about:
Overall, we like it, but have no strong opinions, and aren't familiar with the team's work. Maybe some more on this would be nice!
We recognise the potential of the Arbitrum Growth Circles proposal to foster collaboration and engagement within the ecosystem. The initiative presents an interesting approach, but several areas require refinement to ensure sustained value beyond the events themselves.
One key concern is the absence of detailed metrics to assess long-term impact. While the proposal highlights community building, it does not outline how success will be measured beyond attendance. Metrics such as protocol retention, on-chain activity, or the number of successful integrations and collaborations formed post-event would provide a clearer picture of effectiveness. We recommend tying specific success indicators to funding milestones to ensure accountability and measurable outcomes.
Thanks for the proposal, it's quite detailed, but I have some questions about it:
Entropy has voted against this proposal. While we recognize the importance and potential for creating builder support networks, the outlined virtual event series lacks necessary details to inspire confidence that this will be executed at a high level. Only a few examples of the session topics are presented with no clarity into what speakers/mentors will be brought in to share expertise. The DAO has no means to verify that the “experts” speaking to these early builders are qualified or will point the founders in the correct direction. The original wording of the proposal and comments from Farstar seem to imply that the point of this program is to alleviate the load on OCL, but without collaboration, we are not confident that the right people can be attracted to the program. The lack of clear next steps and alignment with Arbitrum’s other entities, increase the risk that the program will “die out” post ETH CC.
A secondary concern is the overall budget. Even with an in-person component, $67k for what is mostly a virtual call series is very high. Entropy will again point out that the DAO should hold proposals pulling from the DAO’s 2025 Event Budget to a high standard. Letting this budget slowly be chipped away $60-70K at a time reduces the possibility for a larger scale, more professionally organized Arbitrum event to be funded. Even though it's mentioned in a comment, we also encourage the proposal author to make it explicitly clear, preferably at the top of the proposal, that funds are being requested from the 2025 Events Budget. This is to reduce that chance that delegates are misinformed and believe a Tally vote is required.
Thank you for the proposal Farstar.
The target audience outreach makes sense and sounds promising to reach out to protocols building on Arbitrum that might benefit from the initiative. Is there a proposed outreach to secure Arbitrum experts for the virtual clinics and the unconference?
Thank you for the proposal Farstar.
The target audience outreach makes sense and sounds promising to reach out to protocols building on Arbitrum that might benefit from the initiative. Is there a proposed outreach to secure Arbitrum experts for the virtual clinics and the unconference?
Analyzing the budget, it would be helpful to understand how you arrived to the proposed numbers. For example, is the 15K$ budget to cover for the facilitators or how is it spent? Same on 1:1 support and Unconference.
Is there a final report where we can see output from Phase 1 and results that can help us see the need for the program and proposed structure?
I would suggest including more metrics you would track on the proposal above if these apply or metrics beyond meeting their target relationship development, attending meeting and qualitative feedback that are tied to the primary outcomes. Let me know if i'm mixing writeups that don't relate to the proposal, i'm finding it difficult to keep up with which AVI posts apply here.
Also, can you post the office hours recording here?
The idea sounds good, but who exactly has a good track record in these topics that will be available to participants? Who would be the instructors for each area, and who is making sure they are qualified to give more than general advice?
The general idea behind this proposal is interesting, and there's definitely value in fostering peer-led collaboration within the ecosystem. But, the positioning feels somewhat off. As it stands, the initiative seems to provide too little in terms of structured support for early-stage projects (as an incubator/accelerator would) while focusing more on study group-style discussions.
A more effective approach might be something akin to Uniswap's Hook Incubator—offering structured mentorship, technical guidance, and direct ecosystem integrations for emerging projects. Of course, such a program would require a larger budget, but it could yield more impactful outcomes for the Arbitrum ecosystem.
The general idea behind this proposal is interesting, and there's definitely value in fostering peer-led collaboration within the ecosystem. But, the positioning feels somewhat off. As it stands, the initiative seems to provide too little in terms of structured support for early-stage projects (as an incubator/accelerator would) while focusing more on study group-style discussions.
A more effective approach might be something akin to Uniswap's Hook Incubator—offering structured mentorship, technical guidance, and direct ecosystem integrations for emerging projects. Of course, such a program would require a larger budget, but it could yield more impactful outcomes for the Arbitrum ecosystem.
That said, if the goal is to maintain the proposal in its current form, it might be a better fit for the Arbitrum D.A.O. Grants program rather than a DAO-approved initiative.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
Firstly, we are in line with the feedback of some of the delegates and agree that the impact of the proposals is to be questioned. We also appreciate that some of the feedback has been incorporated into the final proposal.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
Firstly, we are in line with the feedback of some of the delegates and agree that the impact of the proposals is to be questioned. We also appreciate that some of the feedback has been incorporated into the final proposal.
After consideration, we will be making our voting power available, with a community auction taking place, as we see a broader group of potential beneficiaries rather than just one. LobbyFi will be willing to charge 2% of the requested amount ($67.2k * 2% ≈ 0.5 ETH). It is also worthwhile to mention that LobbyFi is launching a new feature to prevent the VP from being sold in auction for too little - a reserve price. For the beginning, it will be set at a 10% multiplier - meaning that a pool must reach a minimum of 0.05 ETH (10% of the instant buy price) to acquire the voting power; otherwise, an Abstain vote will be cast. A more detailed documentation will be shared publicly as soon as the upgrade is deployed. The proposal will be posted on LobbyFi immediately after.
Thanks for the proposal! We think that it's a great idea - helping early-stage projects grow in the Arbitrum ecosystem. The idea of creating a strong support network and reducing dependence on Offchain Labs is very useful. We believe that this is a good marketing ploy to attract attention to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We would like to know how exactly will the $50,000 be spent? Also, how will the success of the program be measured beyond surveys and participation numbers? It would be helpful to see a plan for keeping the Growth Circles active after the three-month period.
We are still workshopping the details of how the intervention should work with the intention to put for a vote next Thursday
Also, why wouldn't this be a questbook proposal?
Thanks for your proposal!
Can you clarify one point?
In this section, it seems this proposal is a way to build a structure around OCL to facilitate their engagement with the ecosystem.
Thanks for your proposal!
Can you clarify one point?
In this section, it seems this proposal is a way to build a structure around OCL to facilitate their engagement with the ecosystem.
The series addresses the growing demand for Offchain Labs (OCL) engagement by creating a scalable format where their highly skilled team can efficiently share knowledge with a multitude of stakeholders, ultimately creating a peer support environment that’s less dependent on any particular one expert group.
But in the following ones, it seems the proposal is relying on other "experts".
1. ETH Denver (or next qualifying event): On-ground curation to identify & onboard protocols
2. Five Virtual Clinics across 2–3 months. Each session ~2 hours, featuring expert presentation + interactive “live coaching.” An example of a virtual clinic is “Building Effective Market Maker Relationships” which includes:
3. Unconference: Invite only for select protocols becoming part of the Arbitrum Growth Circle
Can you clarify this (I assume it is an evolution, helping the program to scale)? A follow-up question is:
Besides seeing the Arbitrum ecosystem thriving, what are incentives for the experts to engage in such a program? Can you share the plans to secure participation? It would be interesting to have this locked before approving the proposal.
Thanks in advance!
We recognise the potential of the Arbitrum Growth Circles proposal to foster collaboration and engagement within the ecosystem. The initiative presents an interesting approach, but several areas require refinement to ensure sustained value beyond the events themselves.
One key concern is the absence of detailed metrics to assess long-term impact. While the proposal highlights community building, it does not outline how success will be measured beyond attendance. Metrics such as protocol retention, on-chain activity, or the number of successful integrations and collaborations formed post-event would provide a clearer picture of effectiveness. We recommend tying specific success indicators to funding milestones to ensure accountability and measurable outcomes.
Additionally, expanding accessibility is crucial to ensure that knowledge and resources benefit a broader range of protocols, rather than being concentrated among a limited group of participants.
Finally, considering the total budget request of $50,000, we believe this initiative would be better suited for the Arbitrum D.A.O. program, under the Education track, which is structured to support community-driven educational initiatives. This alignment would provide a more suitable framework for funding and oversight.
Entropy has voted against this proposal. While we recognize the importance and potential for creating builder support networks, the outlined virtual event series lacks necessary details to inspire confidence that this will be executed at a high level. Only a few examples of the session topics are presented with no clarity into what speakers/mentors will be brought in to share expertise. The DAO has no means to verify that the “experts” speaking to these early builders are qualified or will point the founders in the correct direction. The original wording of the proposal and comments from Farstar seem to imply that the point of this program is to alleviate the load on OCL, but without collaboration, we are not confident that the right people can be attracted to the program. The lack of clear next steps and alignment with Arbitrum’s other entities, increase the risk that the program will “die out” post ETH CC.
A secondary concern is the overall budget. Even with an in-person component, $67k for what is mostly a virtual call series is very high. Entropy will again point out that the DAO should hold proposals pulling from the DAO’s 2025 Event Budget to a high standard. Letting this budget slowly be chipped away $60-70K at a time reduces the possibility for a larger scale, more professionally organized Arbitrum event to be funded. Even though it's mentioned in a comment, we also encourage the proposal author to make it explicitly clear, preferably at the top of the proposal, that funds are being requested from the 2025 Events Budget. This is to reduce that chance that delegates are misinformed and believe a Tally vote is required.
Lastly, as per the AVI’s latest update, the DAO is still waiting to receive all of the deliverables from the Pilot Program.
By funding this proposal, the DAO would be preemptively signaling support of their findings and extending the AVI’s mandate to interact with Arbitrum builders on behalf of the DAO. Before continuing to support the Farstar team and the AVI, Entropy would like to see all of the Pilot’s deliverables and make a judgement on whether this is worthwhile for the DAO to continue spending resources towards.
The idea sounds good, but who exactly has a good track record in these topics that will be available to participants? Who would be the instructors for each area, and who is making sure they are qualified to give more than general advice?
We just want to make sure this isn't paying money and taking time for builders to be given advice by people who haven't actually don't things like gone to market. And it's not as if there's a wealth of Orbit chain teams available who themselves would be able to give proven advice.
Thanks for the proposal! We think that it's a great idea - helping early-stage projects grow in the Arbitrum ecosystem. The idea of creating a strong support network and reducing dependence on Offchain Labs is very useful. We believe that this is a good marketing ploy to attract attention to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We would like to know how exactly will the $50,000 be spent? Also, how will the success of the program be measured beyond surveys and participation numbers? It would be helpful to see a plan for keeping the Growth Circles active after the three-month period.
The proposal does not indicate clear criteria for selecting the best participants for the final event in the “unconference” format. What metrics will be used? Who will make the decision? What percentage of participants will be able to make it to the final event?
It would also be nice to know what are the criteria for getting into "Unconference".
Interesting proposal but I've got mixed feelings on this one.
Budget "TBD" is a red flag and KPIs are too soft. Where's the actual builder outcomes? Need to track:
Interesting proposal but I've got mixed feelings on this one.
Budget "TBD" is a red flag and KPIs are too soft. Where's the actual builder outcomes? Need to track:
The scaling OCL expertise part makes sense but let's cut the fluff. $50k should have clear allocation upfront and focus on measurable results, not just feel-good workshops.
Btw love @blockworksresearch suggestion about promoting development-oriented education content on the OCL Youtube - could tie in well with this initiative.
I'd back this with harder metrics and a transparent budget.
My concern is that this proposal is a “nice-to-have,” but in real life, it is not really needed. I don’t see any indication from you that there is a demand for this type of event/workshop. What made you start thinking about this concept? Was there a request from the founders/teams (early-stage and high-growth)? Which ones?
My concern is that this proposal is a “nice-to-have,” but in real life, it is not really needed. I don’t see any indication from you that there is a demand for this type of event/workshop. What made you start thinking about this concept? Was there a request from the founders/teams (early-stage and high-growth)? Which ones?
Thank you this is a great question and suggestion. The genesis of this initiative is in the AVI Phase 1. As part of it we've so far done interviews and meetings with over 60 protocols and 25 fund managers, market makers or potential LPs. What we did with some of the initial findings is that we went to stress test them with various stakeholders including OCL. As part of these conversation we saw validation from their POV on some of the problem statements as well as demand for the DAO to contribute, where they're falling short of capacity, or the DAO is better positioned to act in the first place. Thus we are confident in the demand.
Everything you are seeing in this proposal is the direct result of that collaboration and that is why a number of ppl there have volunteered time to engage with the work. That being said it is important to note that the whole point of the exercise is to alleviate load from the OCL team, while creating a more scalable and value adding solution for specific segments of the target audience. We are still workshopping the details of how the intervention should work with the intention to put for a vote next Thursday, so if supported by the DAO we can make good use of ETH Denver where our team will be present anyway.
@Linzerd, to your point yes you're right to ask for details and planned work and value for money. We are working out the details ourselves and will put this info ahead of the SS vote.
In the mean time getting the sentiment of the DAO and mapping out peoples other concerns is really helpful for us to scope appropriately.
Hi Farstar and Co,
The last few Arbitrum events (like Devcon) have had a relatively heavy expert presence. We can see the need for a more consistent presence for development resources, but we ask why this needs to be a 3 month effort of virtual meetings, why is this any better suited than possibly promoting development-oriented education content on the OCL Youtube?
Hi Farstar and Co,
The last few Arbitrum events (like Devcon) have had a relatively heavy expert presence. We can see the need for a more consistent presence for development resources, but we ask why this needs to be a 3 month effort of virtual meetings, why is this any better suited than possibly promoting development-oriented education content on the OCL Youtube?
Wurthermore, we would need more guarantees on the virtual component of this event structure. There's also the matter of a more detailed cost-structure breakdown.
If this proposal is to move forward we would like to see a clearly defined agenda coupled with better defined KPIs for the virtual session. The KPIs listed can be diluted and are not necessarily clear metrics, thus we ask if there is a way to include more objective KPIs. Also the core goal of this proposal is to increase builder engagement with Offchain Labs, and as such has there been any component of this greenlit with them? If we are to see an agenda for the virtual component, will there be OCL attendees or OCL-created content to help advise development?
I would appreciate a bit more detailed cost break down for the proposed budget.
Kudos for well-structured and easy-to-read proposal :raised_hands:
Thank you for posting the proposal. It is well structured.
My concern is that this proposal is a "nice-to-have," but in real life, it is not really needed. I don't see any indication from you that there is a demand for this type of event/workshop. What made you start thinking about this concept? Was there a request from the founders/teams (early-stage and high-growth)? Which ones?
I believe that the proposal goes in the right direction of reaching the people in the know and showing the benefits of belonging to the Arbitrum environment.
Many times teams are searching for the right chain to build upon, and this kind of initiative helps them decide, showing that there is a vibrant community of developers/architects available to help them in each step.
I believe that the proposal goes in the right direction of reaching the people in the know and showing the benefits of belonging to the Arbitrum environment.
Many times teams are searching for the right chain to build upon, and this kind of initiative helps them decide, showing that there is a vibrant community of developers/architects available to help them in each step.
I'm not familiar with the current logistics of these events, so I cannot in good faith criticize the cost of this proposal. I do believe the amount is a little steep and would call for a more granular description of the specific prices of the proposal's activities for the consideration of other delegates with more experience on this. I'm inclined to vote yes on this due to the direct contact that it will promote between makers and the community as such, strengthening the integration between these and demonstrating that Arbitrum is a live ecosystem.
We recognise the potential of the Arbitrum Growth Circles proposal to foster collaboration and engagement within the ecosystem. The initiative presents an interesting approach, but several areas require refinement to ensure sustained value beyond the events themselves.
One key concern is the absence of detailed metrics to assess long-term impact. While the proposal highlights community building, it does not outline how success will be measured beyond attendance. Metrics such as protocol retention, on-chain activity, or the number of successful integrations and collaborations formed post-event would provide a clearer picture of effectiveness. We recommend tying specific success indicators to funding milestones to ensure accountability and measurable outcomes.
Additionally, expanding accessibility is crucial to ensure that knowledge and resources benefit a broader range of protocols, rather than being concentrated among a limited group of participants.
Finally, considering the total budget request of $50,000, we believe this initiative would be better suited for the Arbitrum D.A.O. program, under the Education track, which is structured to support community-driven educational initiatives. This alignment would provide a more suitable framework for funding and oversight.
Entropy has voted against this proposal. While we recognize the importance and potential for creating builder support networks, the outlined virtual event series lacks necessary details to inspire confidence that this will be executed at a high level. Only a few examples of the session topics are presented with no clarity into what speakers/mentors will be brought in to share expertise. The DAO has no means to verify that the “experts” speaking to these early builders are qualified or will point the founders in the correct direction. The original wording of the proposal and comments from Farstar seem to imply that the point of this program is to alleviate the load on OCL, but without collaboration, we are not confident that the right people can be attracted to the program. The lack of clear next steps and alignment with Arbitrum’s other entities, increase the risk that the program will “die out” post ETH CC.
A secondary concern is the overall budget. Even with an in-person component, $67k for what is mostly a virtual call series is very high. Entropy will again point out that the DAO should hold proposals pulling from the DAO’s 2025 Event Budget to a high standard. Letting this budget slowly be chipped away $60-70K at a time reduces the possibility for a larger scale, more professionally organized Arbitrum event to be funded. Even though it's mentioned in a comment, we also encourage the proposal author to make it explicitly clear, preferably at the top of the proposal, that funds are being requested from the 2025 Events Budget. This is to reduce that chance that delegates are misinformed and believe a Tally vote is required.
Lastly, as per the AVI’s latest update, the DAO is still waiting to receive all of the deliverables from the Pilot Program.
By funding this proposal, the DAO would be preemptively signaling support of their findings and extending the AVI’s mandate to interact with Arbitrum builders on behalf of the DAO. Before continuing to support the Farstar team and the AVI, Entropy would like to see all of the Pilot’s deliverables and make a judgement on whether this is worthwhile for the DAO to continue spending resources towards.
The idea sounds good, but who exactly has a good track record in these topics that will be available to participants? Who would be the instructors for each area, and who is making sure they are qualified to give more than general advice?
We just want to make sure this isn't paying money and taking time for builders to be given advice by people who haven't actually don't things like gone to market. And it's not as if there's a wealth of Orbit chain teams available who themselves would be able to give proven advice.
Thanks for the proposal! We think that it's a great idea - helping early-stage projects grow in the Arbitrum ecosystem. The idea of creating a strong support network and reducing dependence on Offchain Labs is very useful. We believe that this is a good marketing ploy to attract attention to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We would like to know how exactly will the $50,000 be spent? Also, how will the success of the program be measured beyond surveys and participation numbers? It would be helpful to see a plan for keeping the Growth Circles active after the three-month period.
The proposal does not indicate clear criteria for selecting the best participants for the final event in the “unconference” format. What metrics will be used? Who will make the decision? What percentage of participants will be able to make it to the final event?
It would also be nice to know what are the criteria for getting into "Unconference".
Interesting proposal but I've got mixed feelings on this one.
Budget "TBD" is a red flag and KPIs are too soft. Where's the actual builder outcomes? Need to track:
Interesting proposal but I've got mixed feelings on this one.
Budget "TBD" is a red flag and KPIs are too soft. Where's the actual builder outcomes? Need to track:
The scaling OCL expertise part makes sense but let's cut the fluff. $50k should have clear allocation upfront and focus on measurable results, not just feel-good workshops.
Btw love @blockworksresearch suggestion about promoting development-oriented education content on the OCL Youtube - could tie in well with this initiative.
I'd back this with harder metrics and a transparent budget.
My concern is that this proposal is a “nice-to-have,” but in real life, it is not really needed. I don’t see any indication from you that there is a demand for this type of event/workshop. What made you start thinking about this concept? Was there a request from the founders/teams (early-stage and high-growth)? Which ones?
My concern is that this proposal is a “nice-to-have,” but in real life, it is not really needed. I don’t see any indication from you that there is a demand for this type of event/workshop. What made you start thinking about this concept? Was there a request from the founders/teams (early-stage and high-growth)? Which ones?
Thank you this is a great question and suggestion. The genesis of this initiative is in the AVI Phase 1. As part of it we've so far done interviews and meetings with over 60 protocols and 25 fund managers, market makers or potential LPs. What we did with some of the initial findings is that we went to stress test them with various stakeholders including OCL. As part of these conversation we saw validation from their POV on some of the problem statements as well as demand for the DAO to contribute, where they're falling short of capacity, or the DAO is better positioned to act in the first place. Thus we are confident in the demand.
Everything you are seeing in this proposal is the direct result of that collaboration and that is why a number of ppl there have volunteered time to engage with the work. That being said it is important to note that the whole point of the exercise is to alleviate load from the OCL team, while creating a more scalable and value adding solution for specific segments of the target audience. We are still workshopping the details of how the intervention should work with the intention to put for a vote next Thursday, so if supported by the DAO we can make good use of ETH Denver where our team will be present anyway.
@Linzerd, to your point yes you're right to ask for details and planned work and value for money. We are working out the details ourselves and will put this info ahead of the SS vote.
In the mean time getting the sentiment of the DAO and mapping out peoples other concerns is really helpful for us to scope appropriately.
Hi Farstar and Co,
The last few Arbitrum events (like Devcon) have had a relatively heavy expert presence. We can see the need for a more consistent presence for development resources, but we ask why this needs to be a 3 month effort of virtual meetings, why is this any better suited than possibly promoting development-oriented education content on the OCL Youtube?
Hi Farstar and Co,
The last few Arbitrum events (like Devcon) have had a relatively heavy expert presence. We can see the need for a more consistent presence for development resources, but we ask why this needs to be a 3 month effort of virtual meetings, why is this any better suited than possibly promoting development-oriented education content on the OCL Youtube?
Wurthermore, we would need more guarantees on the virtual component of this event structure. There's also the matter of a more detailed cost-structure breakdown.
If this proposal is to move forward we would like to see a clearly defined agenda coupled with better defined KPIs for the virtual session. The KPIs listed can be diluted and are not necessarily clear metrics, thus we ask if there is a way to include more objective KPIs. Also the core goal of this proposal is to increase builder engagement with Offchain Labs, and as such has there been any component of this greenlit with them? If we are to see an agenda for the virtual component, will there be OCL attendees or OCL-created content to help advise development?
I would appreciate a bit more detailed cost break down for the proposed budget.
Kudos for well-structured and easy-to-read proposal :raised_hands:
Thank you for posting the proposal. It is well structured.
My concern is that this proposal is a "nice-to-have," but in real life, it is not really needed. I don't see any indication from you that there is a demand for this type of event/workshop. What made you start thinking about this concept? Was there a request from the founders/teams (early-stage and high-growth)? Which ones?
I believe that the proposal goes in the right direction of reaching the people in the know and showing the benefits of belonging to the Arbitrum environment.
Many times teams are searching for the right chain to build upon, and this kind of initiative helps them decide, showing that there is a vibrant community of developers/architects available to help them in each step.
I believe that the proposal goes in the right direction of reaching the people in the know and showing the benefits of belonging to the Arbitrum environment.
Many times teams are searching for the right chain to build upon, and this kind of initiative helps them decide, showing that there is a vibrant community of developers/architects available to help them in each step.
I'm not familiar with the current logistics of these events, so I cannot in good faith criticize the cost of this proposal. I do believe the amount is a little steep and would call for a more granular description of the specific prices of the proposal's activities for the consideration of other delegates with more experience on this. I'm inclined to vote yes on this due to the direct contact that it will promote between makers and the community as such, strengthening the integration between these and demonstrating that Arbitrum is a live ecosystem.
