Proposal: Arbitrum Sponsorship at RWA Paris 2025
Event Description
RWA Paris 2025, a flagship stage of NFT Paris, will spotlight the future of tokenization and decentralized finance. The event is set to attract over 7,000 attendees focused on RWAs, including 200-300 high-level actors from institutions, blockchain foundations, and financial innovators. Steven Goldfeder, Offchain Labs' CEO is speaker on the stage.
Arbitrum’s sponsorship will highlight its scalability, cost-efficiency, and suitability for real-world financial applications, positioning itself as the blockchain of choice for institutional adoption.
Event Organizer
NFT Paris will oversee all event logistics, marketing, and operations in collaboration with Arbitrum representatives to ensure seamless execution of their sponsorship package.
Benefits of the Event to Arbitrum
Proposed Budget
Total: The proposal aim to use 65 000€ from the DAO Events Budget.
Budget Tracking
NFT Paris will provide signed contracts and invoices for all expenses. A detailed financial report post-event will include receipts, expenditure summaries, and KPI achievements.
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
KPI Target Tracking Method
Attendees Focused on RWA 10k+ Attendance analytics and registration data.
Institutional Engagement 50+ new connections with financial institutions Follow-ups and partnership discussions post-event.
Branding Impressions 1,000,000+ Analytics from social media, and attendees feedback.
Breakfast Participants 200 Registration and attendee check-ins.
Media Coverage 200+ media mentions Post-event analytics of press and social media.
Event Logistics
Service Providers Required
Timeline
Communication Plan
Weekly updates will be provided to Arbitrum DAO delegates via forum posts, detailing progress on logistics, marketing, and KPIs.
Marketing Plan
Arbitrum’s sponsorship will be promoted across NFT Paris’ channels:
Alignment with Arbitrum’s Mission, Vision, and Purpose
RWA Paris directly supports Arbitrum’s mission by:
Post-Event Impact Report
NFT Paris will provide a detailed post-event report, including:
Proposal: Arbitrum Sponsorship at RWA Paris 2025
Event Description
RWA Paris 2025, a flagship stage of NFT Paris, will spotlight the future of tokenization and decentralized finance. The event is set to attract over 7,000 attendees focused on RWAs, including 200-300 high-level actors from institutions, blockchain foundations, and financial innovators. Steven Goldfeder, Offchain Labs' CEO is speaker on the stage.
Arbitrum’s sponsorship will highlight its scalability, cost-efficiency, and suitability for real-world financial applications, positioning itself as the blockchain of choice for institutional adoption.
Event Organizer
NFT Paris will oversee all event logistics, marketing, and operations in collaboration with Arbitrum representatives to ensure seamless execution of their sponsorship package.
Benefits of the Event to Arbitrum
Proposed Budget
Total: The proposal aim to use 65 000€ from the DAO Events Budget.
Budget Tracking
NFT Paris will provide signed contracts and invoices for all expenses. A detailed financial report post-event will include receipts, expenditure summaries, and KPI achievements.
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
KPI Target Tracking Method
Attendees Focused on RWA 10k+ Attendance analytics and registration data.
Institutional Engagement 50+ new connections with financial institutions Follow-ups and partnership discussions post-event.
Branding Impressions 1,000,000+ Analytics from social media, and attendees feedback.
Breakfast Participants 200 Registration and attendee check-ins.
Media Coverage 200+ media mentions Post-event analytics of press and social media.
Event Logistics
Service Providers Required
Timeline
Communication Plan
Weekly updates will be provided to Arbitrum DAO delegates via forum posts, detailing progress on logistics, marketing, and KPIs.
Marketing Plan
Arbitrum’s sponsorship will be promoted across NFT Paris’ channels:
Alignment with Arbitrum’s Mission, Vision, and Purpose
RWA Paris directly supports Arbitrum’s mission by:
Post-Event Impact Report
NFT Paris will provide a detailed post-event report, including:
NFT Paris is a top-tier NFT event and having Arbitrum there as a speaker is a 100% good idea.
In general, from my experience, this could bring a lot of attention to NFT-focused project promotion and explain the benefits of building on Arbitrum.
I would vote for it if some of the budget details were broken down.
NFT Paris is a top-tier NFT event and having Arbitrum there as a speaker is a 100% good idea.
In general, from my experience, this could bring a lot of attention to NFT-focused project promotion and explain the benefits of building on Arbitrum.
I would vote for it if some of the budget details were broken down.
The proposal feels a bit rushed and last-minute. Both in terms of the proposed timeline, which doesn't seem feasible for the DAO to actually make the most of it, and in terms of the attention to detail.
Aside from that, decisions regarding event sponsorships should really be made in the context of the broader events strategy.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
Some of us have attended NFT Paris in the past, and came away with a good impression.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
Some of us have attended NFT Paris in the past, and came away with a good impression.
That said, the proposal feels impractically timed. Looking at the short timeline, it doesn’t seem feasible for the DAO to make the most of a big event presence like this. The lead time and DAO voting process will take up most of the available prep time. That leaves very little time to properly, let alone optimally, execute. Specifically on something like a high-level, private breakfast with hundreds of guests in attendance.
Additionally, decisions regarding event sponsorships should preferably be made in the context of the broader events strategy. Starting with deciding on the year’s top events, where a DAO presence is crucial, and prioritising accordingly. We concur with EzR3aL that this would offer significant benefits;
Hello,
Thank you for your feedback and for sharing your perspective on the timeline and funding recommendations.
We understand that the timeline may appear tight for a DAO decision, especially given the other significant budgets allocated to events by the Arbitrum Foundation, Entropy, and ADPC. However, we believe this collaboration still holds significant potential to deliver value for Arbitrum.
Hello,
Thank you for your feedback and for sharing your perspective on the timeline and funding recommendations.
We understand that the timeline may appear tight for a DAO decision, especially given the other significant budgets allocated to events by the Arbitrum Foundation, Entropy, and ADPC. However, we believe this collaboration still holds significant potential to deliver value for Arbitrum.
Thank you again for your insights. Please let us know if there are additional steps we can take to refine the proposal or align it better with the DAO’s priorities.
Hello,
Thank you for your feedback and suggestions!
Hello,
Thank you for your feedback and suggestions!
Hello Oni,
Thank you for your detailed feedback and thoughtful suggestions regarding the sponsorship proposal for RWA Paris 2025. I’d like to address each of your concerns:
Hello Oni,
Thank you for your detailed feedback and thoughtful suggestions regarding the sponsorship proposal for RWA Paris 2025. I’d like to address each of your concerns:
We are open to adjusting the proposal based on the community’s preferences to ensure the sponsorship delivers maximum value for Arbitrum. Please let us know if you have further questions or would like us to refine any specific aspect of the proposal.
The proposal feels a bit rushed and last-minute. Both in terms of the proposed timeline, which doesn't seem feasible for the DAO to actually make the most of it, and in terms of the attention to detail.
Aside from that, decisions regarding event sponsorships should really be made in the context of the broader events strategy.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
Some of us have attended NFT Paris in the past, and came away with a good impression.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
Some of us have attended NFT Paris in the past, and came away with a good impression.
That said, the proposal feels impractically timed. Looking at the short timeline, it doesn’t seem feasible for the DAO to make the most of a big event presence like this. The lead time and DAO voting process will take up most of the available prep time. That leaves very little time to properly, let alone optimally, execute. Specifically on something like a high-level, private breakfast with hundreds of guests in attendance.
Additionally, decisions regarding event sponsorships should preferably be made in the context of the broader events strategy. Starting with deciding on the year’s top events, where a DAO presence is crucial, and prioritising accordingly. We concur with EzR3aL that this would offer significant benefits;
Hello,
Thank you for your feedback and for sharing your perspective on the timeline and funding recommendations.
We understand that the timeline may appear tight for a DAO decision, especially given the other significant budgets allocated to events by the Arbitrum Foundation, Entropy, and ADPC. However, we believe this collaboration still holds significant potential to deliver value for Arbitrum.
Hello,
Thank you for your feedback and for sharing your perspective on the timeline and funding recommendations.
We understand that the timeline may appear tight for a DAO decision, especially given the other significant budgets allocated to events by the Arbitrum Foundation, Entropy, and ADPC. However, we believe this collaboration still holds significant potential to deliver value for Arbitrum.
Thank you again for your insights. Please let us know if there are additional steps we can take to refine the proposal or align it better with the DAO’s priorities.
Hello,
Thank you for your feedback and suggestions!
Hello,
Thank you for your feedback and suggestions!
Hello Oni,
Thank you for your detailed feedback and thoughtful suggestions regarding the sponsorship proposal for RWA Paris 2025. I’d like to address each of your concerns:
Hello Oni,
Thank you for your detailed feedback and thoughtful suggestions regarding the sponsorship proposal for RWA Paris 2025. I’d like to address each of your concerns:
We are open to adjusting the proposal based on the community’s preferences to ensure the sponsorship delivers maximum value for Arbitrum. Please let us know if you have further questions or would like us to refine any specific aspect of the proposal.
Hello, Thank you for your interest in the proposal and for your questions!
To clarify, I am part of the NFT Paris team, and you can find more information about my professional background on my LinkedIn profile here: Maxence Perrin - LinkedIn.
Hello, Thank you for your interest in the proposal and for your questions!
To clarify, I am part of the NFT Paris team, and you can find more information about my professional background on my LinkedIn profile here: Maxence Perrin - LinkedIn.
Regarding the transfer amounts, I will ensure that the proposal specifies they will be in ARB, equivalent to the amounts already mentioned, for greater clarity.
Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional details!
Additionally, I have some questions about the KPIs. For example:
Additionally, I have some questions about the KPIs. For example:
• The goal of 1,000,000 brand impressions sounds good, but more specific actionable metrics might be more meaningful, such as how many institutions agree to pilot RWA solutions or how many participants express interest in testing on Arbitrum.
• For the breakfast interaction goal (200 participants), it would be better to specify whether there will be speeches or discussion content, rather than just open networking.
I suggest tracking new institutional connections after the event, clarifying follow-up plans with content and timelines to ensure actionable results instead of simply ending the interactions.
The total budget could also be further detailed, such as specific arrangements for main stage branding or the detailed costs for breakfast (venue, catering, branding setup, etc.), to make it easier for the community to understand how the funds are being spent.
It is necessary to further optimize KPI practicality, post-event follow-up mechanisms, and community engagement to ensure the maximum return on investment.
Hello,
Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed feedback. Your points are well taken, and I’d like to address them to provide further clarity and demonstrate the value of this collaboration:
Thank you again for your valuable feedback. We’re committed to refining the proposal to ensure it meets the community’s expectations and delivers tangible value. Please let us know if there are any additional questions or suggestions!
Hi mate,
Thank you for your message and clarification request!
We are already in contact with an Arbitrum ambassador based in Paris who will be able to handle the management of invitations and on-site access directly. This ensures everything will be coordinated locally and efficiently without requiring additional support from the DAO.
Hi mate,
Thank you for your message and clarification request!
We are already in contact with an Arbitrum ambassador based in Paris who will be able to handle the management of invitations and on-site access directly. This ensures everything will be coordinated locally and efficiently without requiring additional support from the DAO.
If there’s anything further you’d like us to detail or clarify in the proposal, feel free to let me know. I’ll also reach out on Telegram to discuss further if needed!
Hello James,
Thank you for your message and for highlighting these points!
To clarify and expand on the support we would require (or would be nice to have) from ArbitrumDAO, here’s the updated list:
Hello James,
Thank you for your message and for highlighting these points!
To clarify and expand on the support we would require (or would be nice to have) from ArbitrumDAO, here’s the updated list:
If there’s anything you’d like us to adjust or further elaborate on, we’d be happy to accommodate. Looking forward to your thoughts!
Hello,
Thank you for your thoughtful input and suggestions! I have reached out to both @Entropy and @JoJo to discuss the two scenarios outlined in your response.
Looking forward to aligning with them to ensure the best outcome for this proposal. Please don’t hesitate to share any additional insights or questions!
Hello, Thank you for your interest in the proposal and for your questions!
To clarify, I am part of the NFT Paris team, and you can find more information about my professional background on my LinkedIn profile here: Maxence Perrin - LinkedIn.
Hello, Thank you for your interest in the proposal and for your questions!
To clarify, I am part of the NFT Paris team, and you can find more information about my professional background on my LinkedIn profile here: Maxence Perrin - LinkedIn.
Regarding the transfer amounts, I will ensure that the proposal specifies they will be in ARB, equivalent to the amounts already mentioned, for greater clarity.
Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional details!
Additionally, I have some questions about the KPIs. For example:
Additionally, I have some questions about the KPIs. For example:
• The goal of 1,000,000 brand impressions sounds good, but more specific actionable metrics might be more meaningful, such as how many institutions agree to pilot RWA solutions or how many participants express interest in testing on Arbitrum.
• For the breakfast interaction goal (200 participants), it would be better to specify whether there will be speeches or discussion content, rather than just open networking.
I suggest tracking new institutional connections after the event, clarifying follow-up plans with content and timelines to ensure actionable results instead of simply ending the interactions.
The total budget could also be further detailed, such as specific arrangements for main stage branding or the detailed costs for breakfast (venue, catering, branding setup, etc.), to make it easier for the community to understand how the funds are being spent.
It is necessary to further optimize KPI practicality, post-event follow-up mechanisms, and community engagement to ensure the maximum return on investment.
Hello,
Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed feedback. Your points are well taken, and I’d like to address them to provide further clarity and demonstrate the value of this collaboration:
Thank you again for your valuable feedback. We’re committed to refining the proposal to ensure it meets the community’s expectations and delivers tangible value. Please let us know if there are any additional questions or suggestions!
Hi mate,
Thank you for your message and clarification request!
We are already in contact with an Arbitrum ambassador based in Paris who will be able to handle the management of invitations and on-site access directly. This ensures everything will be coordinated locally and efficiently without requiring additional support from the DAO.
Hi mate,
Thank you for your message and clarification request!
We are already in contact with an Arbitrum ambassador based in Paris who will be able to handle the management of invitations and on-site access directly. This ensures everything will be coordinated locally and efficiently without requiring additional support from the DAO.
If there’s anything further you’d like us to detail or clarify in the proposal, feel free to let me know. I’ll also reach out on Telegram to discuss further if needed!
Hello James,
Thank you for your message and for highlighting these points!
To clarify and expand on the support we would require (or would be nice to have) from ArbitrumDAO, here’s the updated list:
Hello James,
Thank you for your message and for highlighting these points!
To clarify and expand on the support we would require (or would be nice to have) from ArbitrumDAO, here’s the updated list:
If there’s anything you’d like us to adjust or further elaborate on, we’d be happy to accommodate. Looking forward to your thoughts!
Hello,
Thank you for your thoughtful input and suggestions! I have reached out to both @Entropy and @JoJo to discuss the two scenarios outlined in your response.
Looking forward to aligning with them to ensure the best outcome for this proposal. Please don’t hesitate to share any additional insights or questions!
You're welcome! Yes, the invitations will be distributed by Arbitrum DAO according to the number of people attending, to avoid giving out invitations to people who won't be able to come.
You're welcome! Yes, the invitations will be distributed by Arbitrum DAO according to the number of people attending, to avoid giving out invitations to people who won't be able to come.
Hello, Thank you for your input!
Reducing or eliminating the breakfast from the budget is indeed something we can consider if it aligns better with the community's preferences.
For more details regarding the breakfast and its intended value, please refer to my response to Larva, where I’ve outlined the setup, purpose, and benefits for the Arbitrum community and its partners.
Hello, Thank you for your input!
Reducing or eliminating the breakfast from the budget is indeed something we can consider if it aligns better with the community's preferences.
For more details regarding the breakfast and its intended value, please refer to my response to Larva, where I’ve outlined the setup, purpose, and benefits for the Arbitrum community and its partners.
Let me know if there are any additional points you'd like to discuss!
Hello Larva, Thank you for your pertinent question!
Steven's presence has indeed been confirmed; however, travel expenses are not included in the proposal.
Hello Larva, Thank you for your pertinent question!
Steven's presence has indeed been confirmed; however, travel expenses are not included in the proposal.
Regarding the breakfast privatization, the venue is a 300-square-meter balcony, fully equipped with logistics, branding, and catering services for up to 100 participants. This setup is exclusively designed to host the Arbitrum community and its partners.
Additionally, we are collaborating with an ambassador who will be onsite to coordinate and ensure the event runs smoothly. Moreover, all attendees of the Arbitrum breakfast will be provided with event tickets, adding direct value for both the community and partners.
Please let me know if you have any further questions!
Hello, Thank you for your input!
Reducing or eliminating the breakfast from the budget is indeed something we can consider if it aligns better with the community's preferences.
For more details regarding the breakfast and its intended value, please refer to my response to Larva, where I’ve outlined the setup, purpose, and benefits for the Arbitrum community and its partners.
Hello, Thank you for your input!
Reducing or eliminating the breakfast from the budget is indeed something we can consider if it aligns better with the community's preferences.
For more details regarding the breakfast and its intended value, please refer to my response to Larva, where I’ve outlined the setup, purpose, and benefits for the Arbitrum community and its partners.
Let me know if there are any additional points you'd like to discuss!
Hello Larva, Thank you for your pertinent question!
Steven's presence has indeed been confirmed; however, travel expenses are not included in the proposal.
Hello Larva, Thank you for your pertinent question!
Steven's presence has indeed been confirmed; however, travel expenses are not included in the proposal.
Regarding the breakfast privatization, the venue is a 300-square-meter balcony, fully equipped with logistics, branding, and catering services for up to 100 participants. This setup is exclusively designed to host the Arbitrum community and its partners.
Additionally, we are collaborating with an ambassador who will be onsite to coordinate and ensure the event runs smoothly. Moreover, all attendees of the Arbitrum breakfast will be provided with event tickets, adding direct value for both the community and partners.
Please let me know if you have any further questions!
The dao has set a cap of $50k for the sponsorship of events.
The dao has set a cap of $50k for the sponsorship of events.
and adhere to the funding limits approved by the DAO — specifically, a maximum of 50K.
this is not correct. the DAO can decide to fund whatever it wants with whatever amount it wants.
the questbook grants domain for events, which is not active as of now, and will maybe be active in about a month if it passes its onchain vote, as a cap of $50k per project.
but the DAO has not set a cap of $50k for funding events. not at all.
I'm not defending the funding of this specific proposal. If this goes to a vote I'm still not sure if I would vote For or Against.
I just wanted to clarify that yours and @Curia comment that I quoted above could be read as misinformation by others. The DAO does not have a cap to spend money on events.
I'm not defending the funding of this specific proposal. If this goes to a vote I'm still not sure if I would vote For or Against.
I just wanted to clarify that yours and @Curia comment that I quoted above could be read as misinformation by others. The DAO does not have a cap to spend money on events.
Also, regarding this:
In my opinion, this proposal does not follow the proper procedures to receive funding through either of these channels. The first, due to timing, as it should have requested funds during Season 2. The second, due to the type of proposed sponsorship.
I disagree. It can be argued that this proposal for sponsoring NFT Paris is actually perfectly suited to be funded by the Events Budget, because, as you quoted from the original proposal:
The proposed breakfast could be seen as a Delegate Gathering mentioned in point 1, and NFT Paris can be considered a major events that we would like to sponsor, making it part of the "Sponsoring of major events" in point 2.
So I believe this proposal is following the correct procedure to get funding from Arbitrum DAO, and is doubly suited to get funding from the 2025 Events budget since it complies with both key categories in the original proposal. So, in my opinion, this proposal is actually a great example of a service provider looking to get funded by Arbitrum DAO.
Hello everyone,
First, we’d like to express our alignment with @Entropy's response. We believe the current timeline is insufficient to develop an appropriate marketing strategy and that the Events Budget should focus on higher-scale proposals. However, the issue remains that there is no mechanism to bridge the gap between proposals up to 50k and those that exceed this amount without reaching the scale of major initiatives.
Hello everyone,
First, we’d like to express our alignment with @Entropy's response. We believe the current timeline is insufficient to develop an appropriate marketing strategy and that the Events Budget should focus on higher-scale proposals. However, the issue remains that there is no mechanism to bridge the gap between proposals up to 50k and those that exceed this amount without reaching the scale of major initiatives.
Additionally, one concern that has arisen (which we also noticed with ETH Bucharest) is that the current Events Budget committee lacks a mandate to negotiate budget terms with the various proposers. Ideally, if the DAO approves a proposal, it should only signify support for the idea while setting a MAXIMUM budget. The committee should then evaluate/renegotiate the terms, possibly rejecting the sponsorship if they believe the costs do not align with the value offered. In such cases, the proposer must seek funding through Tally to move forward.
Regarding Questbook, as previously mentioned, the application phase for Season 2 has concluded, and we still do not know who the DAs for each vertical will be in Season 3 (in fact, the latter hasn’t even been approved on Tally yet). Considering the event’s start date, it seems unlikely that it will be able to apply for the new Season.
It is a pity, considering that the DAO is positioning itself in RWA, the event could bring value to Arbitrum.
Thanks for the proposal. You're spot on with proposing Arbitrum as the most cost-efficient and scalable layer-2 solution for Ethereum, especially when it comes to tokenizing RWAs. I think Arbitrum really needs this exposure right now :)
Well I took a quick look at your Twitter, but honestly, I didn’t see many impressions there (aside from the pinned post). It’s a bit hard to gauge Arbitrum’s pre- event impact. Maybe if the DAO approves the proposal, NFT Paris could get all partners to share event posts for better exposure.
Thanks for the proposal. You're spot on with proposing Arbitrum as the most cost-efficient and scalable layer-2 solution for Ethereum, especially when it comes to tokenizing RWAs. I think Arbitrum really needs this exposure right now :)
Well I took a quick look at your Twitter, but honestly, I didn’t see many impressions there (aside from the pinned post). It’s a bit hard to gauge Arbitrum’s pre- event impact. Maybe if the DAO approves the proposal, NFT Paris could get all partners to share event posts for better exposure.
I don’t have a strong opinion on the budget, but I like this event idea :)
Also, I really really really don't like the argument of:
"we delegates shouldn't be bothered to decide on individual event sponsorships, because we don't want to have more proposals to analyze and vote on"
Also, I really really really don't like the argument of:
"we delegates shouldn't be bothered to decide on individual event sponsorships, because we don't want to have more proposals to analyze and vote on"
We need to be mindful that right now, the DAO is spending about a quarter of a million dollars every month, to incentivize delegates to participate in governance, through DIP 1.5. so I feel it's kinda rich, for delegates that are literally being well paid to analyze and vote on proposals, to complain that they have too many proposals to vote on, and argue to outsource that responsibility to yet another committee that the DAO would maybe have to spend even more money to fund.
The dao has set a cap of $50k for the sponsorship of events.
The dao has set a cap of $50k for the sponsorship of events.
and adhere to the funding limits approved by the DAO — specifically, a maximum of 50K.
this is not correct. the DAO can decide to fund whatever it wants with whatever amount it wants.
the questbook grants domain for events, which is not active as of now, and will maybe be active in about a month if it passes its onchain vote, as a cap of $50k per project.
but the DAO has not set a cap of $50k for funding events. not at all.
I'm not defending the funding of this specific proposal. If this goes to a vote I'm still not sure if I would vote For or Against.
I just wanted to clarify that yours and @Curia comment that I quoted above could be read as misinformation by others. The DAO does not have a cap to spend money on events.
I'm not defending the funding of this specific proposal. If this goes to a vote I'm still not sure if I would vote For or Against.
I just wanted to clarify that yours and @Curia comment that I quoted above could be read as misinformation by others. The DAO does not have a cap to spend money on events.
Also, regarding this:
In my opinion, this proposal does not follow the proper procedures to receive funding through either of these channels. The first, due to timing, as it should have requested funds during Season 2. The second, due to the type of proposed sponsorship.
I disagree. It can be argued that this proposal for sponsoring NFT Paris is actually perfectly suited to be funded by the Events Budget, because, as you quoted from the original proposal:
The proposed breakfast could be seen as a Delegate Gathering mentioned in point 1, and NFT Paris can be considered a major events that we would like to sponsor, making it part of the "Sponsoring of major events" in point 2.
So I believe this proposal is following the correct procedure to get funding from Arbitrum DAO, and is doubly suited to get funding from the 2025 Events budget since it complies with both key categories in the original proposal. So, in my opinion, this proposal is actually a great example of a service provider looking to get funded by Arbitrum DAO.
Hello everyone,
First, we’d like to express our alignment with @Entropy's response. We believe the current timeline is insufficient to develop an appropriate marketing strategy and that the Events Budget should focus on higher-scale proposals. However, the issue remains that there is no mechanism to bridge the gap between proposals up to 50k and those that exceed this amount without reaching the scale of major initiatives.
Hello everyone,
First, we’d like to express our alignment with @Entropy's response. We believe the current timeline is insufficient to develop an appropriate marketing strategy and that the Events Budget should focus on higher-scale proposals. However, the issue remains that there is no mechanism to bridge the gap between proposals up to 50k and those that exceed this amount without reaching the scale of major initiatives.
Additionally, one concern that has arisen (which we also noticed with ETH Bucharest) is that the current Events Budget committee lacks a mandate to negotiate budget terms with the various proposers. Ideally, if the DAO approves a proposal, it should only signify support for the idea while setting a MAXIMUM budget. The committee should then evaluate/renegotiate the terms, possibly rejecting the sponsorship if they believe the costs do not align with the value offered. In such cases, the proposer must seek funding through Tally to move forward.
Regarding Questbook, as previously mentioned, the application phase for Season 2 has concluded, and we still do not know who the DAs for each vertical will be in Season 3 (in fact, the latter hasn’t even been approved on Tally yet). Considering the event’s start date, it seems unlikely that it will be able to apply for the new Season.
It is a pity, considering that the DAO is positioning itself in RWA, the event could bring value to Arbitrum.
Thanks for the proposal. You're spot on with proposing Arbitrum as the most cost-efficient and scalable layer-2 solution for Ethereum, especially when it comes to tokenizing RWAs. I think Arbitrum really needs this exposure right now :)
Well I took a quick look at your Twitter, but honestly, I didn’t see many impressions there (aside from the pinned post). It’s a bit hard to gauge Arbitrum’s pre- event impact. Maybe if the DAO approves the proposal, NFT Paris could get all partners to share event posts for better exposure.
Thanks for the proposal. You're spot on with proposing Arbitrum as the most cost-efficient and scalable layer-2 solution for Ethereum, especially when it comes to tokenizing RWAs. I think Arbitrum really needs this exposure right now :)
Well I took a quick look at your Twitter, but honestly, I didn’t see many impressions there (aside from the pinned post). It’s a bit hard to gauge Arbitrum’s pre- event impact. Maybe if the DAO approves the proposal, NFT Paris could get all partners to share event posts for better exposure.
I don’t have a strong opinion on the budget, but I like this event idea :)
Also, I really really really don't like the argument of:
"we delegates shouldn't be bothered to decide on individual event sponsorships, because we don't want to have more proposals to analyze and vote on"
Also, I really really really don't like the argument of:
"we delegates shouldn't be bothered to decide on individual event sponsorships, because we don't want to have more proposals to analyze and vote on"
We need to be mindful that right now, the DAO is spending about a quarter of a million dollars every month, to incentivize delegates to participate in governance, through DIP 1.5. so I feel it's kinda rich, for delegates that are literally being well paid to analyze and vote on proposals, to complain that they have too many proposals to vote on, and argue to outsource that responsibility to yet another committee that the DAO would maybe have to spend even more money to fund.
We are not in support of this proposal. There is already work being done in the DAO from multiple teams on events, which we think is already too much spent on this activity without much clear additional value.
We will vote NO on this proposal if it comes up, as in line with our continued stance against wasteful spending.
Thanks for adding context @paulofonseca. yes, we were referring to the questbook grants for events.
gm! Thanks for the proposal.
I will remain consistent with my previous statements and vote regarding the sponsorship proposal for Eth Bucharest.
I believe that sponsorship requests of this kind should follow the appropriate channels and adhere to the funding limits approved by the DAO — specifically, a maximum of 50K.
gm! Thanks for the proposal.
I will remain consistent with my previous statements and vote regarding the sponsorship proposal for Eth Bucharest.
I believe that sponsorship requests of this kind should follow the appropriate channels and adhere to the funding limits approved by the DAO — specifically, a maximum of 50K.
Regarding this particular proposal, I see this as an issue of a missed opportunity rather than a timing problem with Questbook Season 3. As @JoJo explained clearly:
I think what I posted above is not necessarily clear, will try to rewrite: what is happening in phase 2 is that, when a project is approved, it has up to 6 months to complete their deliverable. Since season 2, at full capacity, has finished 25 days ago, it means that we have up to 5 months for projects to complete. This explains why the % of completion seems low but is not necessarily low: we have until beginning of may for projects to finish what they promised.
Submissions for Phase 2 concluded in December, with a six-month execution window. This proposal should have been channeled through Questbook Season 2, not via this pathway.
Therefore, I will vote against it if moved to Snapshot.
Wasn't the dao budget event specifically thought for certain events such as ethcc/devcon and others? We are at the beginning of the year and if the trend stays like this we are going to see the budget slowly depleted toward other type of events which are yes important but either minor or not focused on the general idea we had on the event budget.
this is not correct. the DAO can decide to fund whatever it wants with whatever amount it wants.
Hey Paulo,
this is not correct. the DAO can decide to fund whatever it wants with whatever amount it wants.
Hey Paulo,
Thank you for your comment. You’re absolutely right— the DAO can approve any amount of funding at any time for events or any other proposed initiatives.
However, the point I was trying to make was different, and I clearly failed to communicate it effectively. The DAO has reached a level of maturity where we need to ensure consistency both in what we vote on and in our internal processes in order to: (1) avoid overwhelming ourselves by having to review hundreds of proposals like this, and (2) provide external proponents with clear guidelines on the appropriate channels to use, so time isn’t wasted on discussions that could have been resolved more efficiently.
The DAO has already voted on two distinct channels for event funding.
One is through Questbook and its seasons, which clearly covers sponsorships of this type, where Arbitrum gains brand visibility and offers some form of educational content.
During the two Questbook seasons, more than 60 initiatives for event sponsorships or educational content funding were approved. None of them exceeded the $50K USD cap. In fact, the vast majority stayed well below this limit. Only two of those requests surpassed Questbook's initial internal cap of $25K per Domain.
In this proposal, I don’t see a single reference explaining why this event is special or why it warrants funding that is more than triple the amount of 62 out of 64 initiatives approved through Questbook.
As I mentioned in my Eth Bucharest proposal vote:
This elevated level of scrutiny stems from the fact that through the DDA program, the DAO has already set a precedent for the amount it is willing to allocate to this type of sponsorship (50k max).
Therefore, if a proposal of this nature is to be reviewed by the DAO instead of the Domain Allocator and seeks more funds than what is typically approved for such sponsorships, I expect the level of detail to be exceptionally high.
the questbook grants domain for events, which is not active as of not, and will maybe be active in about a month if it passes its onchain vote, as a cap of $50k per project.
I know that Season 3 is not yet active, but as I mentioned in my comment:
Submissions for Phase 2 concluded in December, with a six-month execution window. This proposal should have been channeled through Questbook Season 2, not via this pathway.
The other channel is the DAO’s event budget, which, as I believe and agree with Entropy’s concern, is intended to fund larger events where Arbitrum can host its own initiatives (like Arbitrum Day) rather than simply being one more sponsor at a given event. This budget is aimed at ensuring Arbitrum's presence at massive events on a different scale than simple sponsorships:
However, as we communicated in our rationale in voting for the ETH Bucharest proposal, Entropy strongly advises the DAO to carefully consider if it wants to further the precedent of smaller sponsorships being funded via the 2025 Events Budget. RWA Paris is not the only conference to reach out to Entropy expressing interest, and we anticipate that several similar requests will follow if this event is funded. While these may be well-run events that provide value to Arbitrum, slowly draining the ~$1.1m available with one-off sponsorships may not be the best course of action. At a certain point there will be insignificant funds to propose for example a cohesive and synergistic set of Arbitrum dedicated events.
Therefore, returning to the idea of consistency, in 2024 the DAO approved two types of funding for events in 2025: Questbook (with its Seasons 2 and 3) and the DAO Events Budget. In my opinion, this proposal does not follow the proper procedures to receive funding through either of these channels. The first, due to timing, as it should have requested funds during Season 2. The second, due to the type of proposed sponsorship.
Thanks for putting this proposal up, Rafalovic.
There's already a very clear reason to not go ahead with this (doesn't align with this 2025 Event proposal) but even if we wanted to, the timing for this is off.
Just to draw attention here for a bit
Thanks for putting this proposal up, Rafalovic.
There's already a very clear reason to not go ahead with this (doesn't align with this 2025 Event proposal) but even if we wanted to, the timing for this is off.
Just to draw attention here for a bit
Planning and funding events on a case-by-case basis are impractical due to the lead time and the lengthy DAO voting process
Other causes of concern can be seen in the proposed budget, and also here:
Engaging with Financial Giants: Connect with 200-300 institutional players exploring blockchain adoption, tokenization, and decentralized finance.
Once again, we would say that since there already is a structure in place for events, we shouldn't have to concern ourselves with one-offs like this. However, since OpCo would be taking over handling DAO events at some point, it might be worth considering setting aside some budget (maybe during the 2026 event planning) for these one-offs during situations where D.A.O. and other grant options aren't live as some do come with potential.
Thank you @Rafalovic for the proposal. The RWA Paris 2025 conference definitely sounds interesting.
The dao has set a cap of $50k for the sponsorship of events. Taking that into consideration, it would not be feasible for us to commit to both the Main Stage Branding and Breakfast Privatization. In our opinion the Breakfast Privatization can be removed from the package.
Thank you @Rafalovic for the proposal. The RWA Paris 2025 conference definitely sounds interesting.
The dao has set a cap of $50k for the sponsorship of events. Taking that into consideration, it would not be feasible for us to commit to both the Main Stage Branding and Breakfast Privatization. In our opinion the Breakfast Privatization can be removed from the package.
However, if the consensus is to fund participation in RWA Paris, funds should be utilized from the allocated DAO Events budget. That’s if RWA Paris is willing to go through the funding process and accept funds at a later date.
One question we have is who has confirmed attendance for the conference beyond OCL from other projects and protocols so far? It would give us an indication of whether the conference is something of interest.
Thank you for the proposal.
Can you share more about the participants? I’d love a profile of who will be attending. Also, the data points you’ve included about the attendees—are these based on past events or current applications for this one?
Thank you for the proposal.
Can you share more about the participants? I’d love a profile of who will be attending. Also, the data points you’ve included about the attendees—are these based on past events or current applications for this one?
For the balcony networking, will someone from the DAO or Foundation be there to represent Arbitrum? And on the main stage branding—will you handle the creation of the required assets?
The timeline feels a bit unclear, especially since we’re already in mid-January.
I’d also like to know who the other confirmed sponsors are for the event.
Finally, I agree with Entropy —our marketing efforts need to be more cohesive. Now that the mission, vision, and purpose are clear, we should let these guide our high-level marketing strategy so the implementation becomes more streamlined.
I would prefer to see this proposal striped back to the basics. What I see as valuable here is the brand awareness (main stage or other logo placement, tweets mentioning Arbitrum, etc.)
"Premium" items such as a breakfast seem low value to me. That is because we can get similar value by being an attendee there (and it's unclear who would attend anyway to do the partnerships part) than by sponsoring the whole thing. For $25k for a breakfast, we could sponsor 3-5 side events at major conferences.
It would be interesting to hear the opinion of @thedevanshmehta (the author of the treasury based on RWA)
How useful would it be for this treasury to participate in such an event, and not just be a sponsor.
Maybe we should make a presentation of our program?
I also have doubts about breakfast, which is unreasonably expensive and it is unclear what benefits it brings.
It seems to me that here it is necessary to vote only in Snapshot, as we did for ETH Bucharest.
I agree here with Entropy. Overall I do think the DAO should create a list of conferences and sponsorships for a whole year. The DAO can then decide via voting which seem to be interesting and valuable and then have a fixed budget amount. If then, for some reason, there is the need to allocate more funds then a second vote for that specific event can be considered.
The benefits would be
I agree here with Entropy. Overall I do think the DAO should create a list of conferences and sponsorships for a whole year. The DAO can then decide via voting which seem to be interesting and valuable and then have a fixed budget amount. If then, for some reason, there is the need to allocate more funds then a second vote for that specific event can be considered.
The benefits would be
Because otherwise the DAO will end up with several threads and proposals about events weekly and sometimes there is simply not enough time to evaluate things. Same like it is here.
We are not in support of this proposal. There is already work being done in the DAO from multiple teams on events, which we think is already too much spent on this activity without much clear additional value.
We will vote NO on this proposal if it comes up, as in line with our continued stance against wasteful spending.
Thanks for adding context @paulofonseca. yes, we were referring to the questbook grants for events.
gm! Thanks for the proposal.
I will remain consistent with my previous statements and vote regarding the sponsorship proposal for Eth Bucharest.
I believe that sponsorship requests of this kind should follow the appropriate channels and adhere to the funding limits approved by the DAO — specifically, a maximum of 50K.
gm! Thanks for the proposal.
I will remain consistent with my previous statements and vote regarding the sponsorship proposal for Eth Bucharest.
I believe that sponsorship requests of this kind should follow the appropriate channels and adhere to the funding limits approved by the DAO — specifically, a maximum of 50K.
Regarding this particular proposal, I see this as an issue of a missed opportunity rather than a timing problem with Questbook Season 3. As @JoJo explained clearly:
I think what I posted above is not necessarily clear, will try to rewrite: what is happening in phase 2 is that, when a project is approved, it has up to 6 months to complete their deliverable. Since season 2, at full capacity, has finished 25 days ago, it means that we have up to 5 months for projects to complete. This explains why the % of completion seems low but is not necessarily low: we have until beginning of may for projects to finish what they promised.
Submissions for Phase 2 concluded in December, with a six-month execution window. This proposal should have been channeled through Questbook Season 2, not via this pathway.
Therefore, I will vote against it if moved to Snapshot.
Wasn't the dao budget event specifically thought for certain events such as ethcc/devcon and others? We are at the beginning of the year and if the trend stays like this we are going to see the budget slowly depleted toward other type of events which are yes important but either minor or not focused on the general idea we had on the event budget.
this is not correct. the DAO can decide to fund whatever it wants with whatever amount it wants.
Hey Paulo,
this is not correct. the DAO can decide to fund whatever it wants with whatever amount it wants.
Hey Paulo,
Thank you for your comment. You’re absolutely right— the DAO can approve any amount of funding at any time for events or any other proposed initiatives.
However, the point I was trying to make was different, and I clearly failed to communicate it effectively. The DAO has reached a level of maturity where we need to ensure consistency both in what we vote on and in our internal processes in order to: (1) avoid overwhelming ourselves by having to review hundreds of proposals like this, and (2) provide external proponents with clear guidelines on the appropriate channels to use, so time isn’t wasted on discussions that could have been resolved more efficiently.
The DAO has already voted on two distinct channels for event funding.
One is through Questbook and its seasons, which clearly covers sponsorships of this type, where Arbitrum gains brand visibility and offers some form of educational content.
During the two Questbook seasons, more than 60 initiatives for event sponsorships or educational content funding were approved. None of them exceeded the $50K USD cap. In fact, the vast majority stayed well below this limit. Only two of those requests surpassed Questbook's initial internal cap of $25K per Domain.
In this proposal, I don’t see a single reference explaining why this event is special or why it warrants funding that is more than triple the amount of 62 out of 64 initiatives approved through Questbook.
As I mentioned in my Eth Bucharest proposal vote:
This elevated level of scrutiny stems from the fact that through the DDA program, the DAO has already set a precedent for the amount it is willing to allocate to this type of sponsorship (50k max).
Therefore, if a proposal of this nature is to be reviewed by the DAO instead of the Domain Allocator and seeks more funds than what is typically approved for such sponsorships, I expect the level of detail to be exceptionally high.
the questbook grants domain for events, which is not active as of not, and will maybe be active in about a month if it passes its onchain vote, as a cap of $50k per project.
I know that Season 3 is not yet active, but as I mentioned in my comment:
Submissions for Phase 2 concluded in December, with a six-month execution window. This proposal should have been channeled through Questbook Season 2, not via this pathway.
The other channel is the DAO’s event budget, which, as I believe and agree with Entropy’s concern, is intended to fund larger events where Arbitrum can host its own initiatives (like Arbitrum Day) rather than simply being one more sponsor at a given event. This budget is aimed at ensuring Arbitrum's presence at massive events on a different scale than simple sponsorships:
However, as we communicated in our rationale in voting for the ETH Bucharest proposal, Entropy strongly advises the DAO to carefully consider if it wants to further the precedent of smaller sponsorships being funded via the 2025 Events Budget. RWA Paris is not the only conference to reach out to Entropy expressing interest, and we anticipate that several similar requests will follow if this event is funded. While these may be well-run events that provide value to Arbitrum, slowly draining the ~$1.1m available with one-off sponsorships may not be the best course of action. At a certain point there will be insignificant funds to propose for example a cohesive and synergistic set of Arbitrum dedicated events.
Therefore, returning to the idea of consistency, in 2024 the DAO approved two types of funding for events in 2025: Questbook (with its Seasons 2 and 3) and the DAO Events Budget. In my opinion, this proposal does not follow the proper procedures to receive funding through either of these channels. The first, due to timing, as it should have requested funds during Season 2. The second, due to the type of proposed sponsorship.
Thanks for putting this proposal up, Rafalovic.
There's already a very clear reason to not go ahead with this (doesn't align with this 2025 Event proposal) but even if we wanted to, the timing for this is off.
Just to draw attention here for a bit
Thanks for putting this proposal up, Rafalovic.
There's already a very clear reason to not go ahead with this (doesn't align with this 2025 Event proposal) but even if we wanted to, the timing for this is off.
Just to draw attention here for a bit
Planning and funding events on a case-by-case basis are impractical due to the lead time and the lengthy DAO voting process
Other causes of concern can be seen in the proposed budget, and also here:
Engaging with Financial Giants: Connect with 200-300 institutional players exploring blockchain adoption, tokenization, and decentralized finance.
Once again, we would say that since there already is a structure in place for events, we shouldn't have to concern ourselves with one-offs like this. However, since OpCo would be taking over handling DAO events at some point, it might be worth considering setting aside some budget (maybe during the 2026 event planning) for these one-offs during situations where D.A.O. and other grant options aren't live as some do come with potential.
Thank you @Rafalovic for the proposal. The RWA Paris 2025 conference definitely sounds interesting.
The dao has set a cap of $50k for the sponsorship of events. Taking that into consideration, it would not be feasible for us to commit to both the Main Stage Branding and Breakfast Privatization. In our opinion the Breakfast Privatization can be removed from the package.
Thank you @Rafalovic for the proposal. The RWA Paris 2025 conference definitely sounds interesting.
The dao has set a cap of $50k for the sponsorship of events. Taking that into consideration, it would not be feasible for us to commit to both the Main Stage Branding and Breakfast Privatization. In our opinion the Breakfast Privatization can be removed from the package.
However, if the consensus is to fund participation in RWA Paris, funds should be utilized from the allocated DAO Events budget. That’s if RWA Paris is willing to go through the funding process and accept funds at a later date.
One question we have is who has confirmed attendance for the conference beyond OCL from other projects and protocols so far? It would give us an indication of whether the conference is something of interest.
Thank you for the proposal.
Can you share more about the participants? I’d love a profile of who will be attending. Also, the data points you’ve included about the attendees—are these based on past events or current applications for this one?
Thank you for the proposal.
Can you share more about the participants? I’d love a profile of who will be attending. Also, the data points you’ve included about the attendees—are these based on past events or current applications for this one?
For the balcony networking, will someone from the DAO or Foundation be there to represent Arbitrum? And on the main stage branding—will you handle the creation of the required assets?
The timeline feels a bit unclear, especially since we’re already in mid-January.
I’d also like to know who the other confirmed sponsors are for the event.
Finally, I agree with Entropy —our marketing efforts need to be more cohesive. Now that the mission, vision, and purpose are clear, we should let these guide our high-level marketing strategy so the implementation becomes more streamlined.
I would prefer to see this proposal striped back to the basics. What I see as valuable here is the brand awareness (main stage or other logo placement, tweets mentioning Arbitrum, etc.)
"Premium" items such as a breakfast seem low value to me. That is because we can get similar value by being an attendee there (and it's unclear who would attend anyway to do the partnerships part) than by sponsoring the whole thing. For $25k for a breakfast, we could sponsor 3-5 side events at major conferences.
It would be interesting to hear the opinion of @thedevanshmehta (the author of the treasury based on RWA)
How useful would it be for this treasury to participate in such an event, and not just be a sponsor.
Maybe we should make a presentation of our program?
I also have doubts about breakfast, which is unreasonably expensive and it is unclear what benefits it brings.
It seems to me that here it is necessary to vote only in Snapshot, as we did for ETH Bucharest.
I agree here with Entropy. Overall I do think the DAO should create a list of conferences and sponsorships for a whole year. The DAO can then decide via voting which seem to be interesting and valuable and then have a fixed budget amount. If then, for some reason, there is the need to allocate more funds then a second vote for that specific event can be considered.
The benefits would be
I agree here with Entropy. Overall I do think the DAO should create a list of conferences and sponsorships for a whole year. The DAO can then decide via voting which seem to be interesting and valuable and then have a fixed budget amount. If then, for some reason, there is the need to allocate more funds then a second vote for that specific event can be considered.
The benefits would be
Because otherwise the DAO will end up with several threads and proposals about events weekly and sometimes there is simply not enough time to evaluate things. Same like it is here.
I didn't see much discussion on it, but this seems not worth the funding IMO. Maybe this is a 'me' thing, but anytime I watch presentations I don't look at the background. And Arbitrum is a prominent enough blockchain that as a marketing tool I don't know who would be watching an RWA keynote discussion and not know what Arbitrum is. If anything, the breakfast seems more useful.
Caveat - I never go to in-person events so if people within the DAO think there is value to this I'm open to changing my opinion.
I also agree with others - this may be more relevant to the DAO Events budget process.
First, we’d like to thank @Rafalovic and the RWA Paris team for reaching out to the Arbitrum DAO with this opportunity. The speaker and sponsor lineup for the event looks quite strong and it is exciting to hear that Steven will be there speaking!
However, as we communicated in our rationale in voting for the ETH Bucharest proposal, Entropy strongly advises the DAO to carefully consider if it wants to further the precedent of smaller sponsorships being funded via the 2025 Events Budget. RWA Paris is not the only conference to reach out to Entropy expressing interest, and we anticipate that several similar requests will follow if this event is funded. While these may be well-run events that provide value to Arbitrum, slowly draining the ~$1.1m available with one-off sponsorships may not be the best course of action. At a certain point there will be insignificant funds to propose for example a cohesive and synergistic set of Arbitrum dedicated events.
First, we’d like to thank @Rafalovic and the RWA Paris team for reaching out to the Arbitrum DAO with this opportunity. The speaker and sponsor lineup for the event looks quite strong and it is exciting to hear that Steven will be there speaking!
However, as we communicated in our rationale in voting for the ETH Bucharest proposal, Entropy strongly advises the DAO to carefully consider if it wants to further the precedent of smaller sponsorships being funded via the 2025 Events Budget. RWA Paris is not the only conference to reach out to Entropy expressing interest, and we anticipate that several similar requests will follow if this event is funded. While these may be well-run events that provide value to Arbitrum, slowly draining the ~$1.1m available with one-off sponsorships may not be the best course of action. At a certain point there will be insignificant funds to propose for example a cohesive and synergistic set of Arbitrum dedicated events.
When evaluating RWA Paris’ proposal specifically, we will echo several of the concerns raised by other delegates. First, the timeline between the funds being approved and the actual event is insufficient. With just a few weeks, we’re not sure if Arbitrum will get the proper marketing value from the sponsorship.
Secondly, we are concerned that aspects of this proposal require several key representatives from both the Arbitrum Foundation and OCL to be worth the cost. For example, the following KPI is likely unachievable if the only Arbitrum representation is an Ambassador.
Institutional Engagement 50+ new connections with financial institutions Follow-ups and partnership discussions post-event.
The same can be said for the Private Breakfast sponsorship which will, in our opinion, likely have little value without representation from OCL or Foundation team members that have high-context into Arbitrum’s current needs/strategy.
Lastly, we’d like to also respond to this comment from Karpatkey by again clarifying that Entropy, ADPC, and Disruption Joe were not given a mandate to determine event strategy as part of the DAO Events Budget proposal.
However, we believe that decisions regarding event sponsorships should align with a broader events strategy to ensure the most impactful use of resources and maximize value for the ecosystem. With this in mind, we suggest that the decision-making authority for this proposal be delegated as follows:
The group is only responsible for coordinating communications between the Arbitrum Foundation and OCL event teams for the listed events in the proposal (ETHDenver, Bitcoin 2025, EthCC) and procuring event organizers when necessary. The decision to fund other events/sponsorships via the budget is determined by a Snapshot vote with quorum set at 3% of the votable token supply with a simple majority of votes in favor/abstain. The RWA Paris 2025 team has followed the correct procedure to request funds via the DAO's 2025 Event budget.
We encourage delegates to complete the public market consultation created by the ADPC to help the DAO begin aligning on event strategy. This will help inform the DAO which type of events have the most appetite for funding via the established 2025 Events Budget.
We agree with the aforementioned delegate feedback that the timeline here is too tight for a DAO decision. In addition, multiple sizable budgets have been dedicated to events by the Arbitrum Foundation, Entropy and ADPC (DAO Events Budget), and Questbook. Currently, we'd recommend looking at alternative funding routes for this timeline.
In the future, we recommend events pursue funding routes > 6 months before the event date.
Thank you for the proposal. Our team believes it would be interesting for the DAO to participate in the event. We noticed that the account used to create the proposal is new, could you clarify your connection to NFT Paris? Are you part of the NFT Paris team?
Additionally, to enhance the proposal, we think it would be helpful to specify that the amounts to be transferred will be in ARB, equivalent to the amounts you have already mentioned.
Hello! @Rafalovic reached to me on twitter to discuss the matter.
Unfortunately I don't think season 3 of D.A.O. grants can help here: looking at the timeline we have the following:
Hello! @Rafalovic reached to me on twitter to discuss the matter.
Unfortunately I don't think season 3 of D.A.O. grants can help here: looking at the timeline we have the following:
The Tally vote would literally end the first day of the event.
So, if the DAO wants to accomodate this, we either
I agree with @karpatkey, this event sponsorship request should go through the DAO Events Budget process.
RWA is an important direction for the future, and this collaboration with NFT Paris is a great opportunity for Arbitrum to build a bridge between traditional finance and Web3. However, based on the Arbitrum D.A.O. Grant Program - Season 3 proposal https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584, it seems the timing may not align.
Additionally, I have some questions about the KPIs. For example:
Hi @Rafalovic thanks for this proposal!
Just to clarify, when you say 'Invitations will be distributed by ArbitrumDAO' and 'management of invitations and access on-site will be handled by ArbitrumDAO and its representative in Paris', who are you referring to? Is it the Arbitrum ambassador based in Paris, or anyone else you had in mind from the DAO?
Hi @Rafalovic thanks for this proposal!
Just to clarify, when you say 'Invitations will be distributed by ArbitrumDAO' and 'management of invitations and access on-site will be handled by ArbitrumDAO and its representative in Paris', who are you referring to? Is it the Arbitrum ambassador based in Paris, or anyone else you had in mind from the DAO?
If the latter, would you require the support of the ADPC to procure any service providers needed to handle these aspects? If so, it would be great to mention this directly in the proposal as outlined in the Application Template, in the 'Event Organizer' section.
Please feel free to DM me on TG @explorandoahora to discuss further if you have any questions!
We appreciate the effort and thought put into this proposal and recognize the significant value that RWA Paris 2025 could bring to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
However, we believe that decisions regarding event sponsorships should align with a broader events strategy to ensure the most impactful use of resources and maximize value for the ecosystem. With this in mind, we suggest that the decision-making authority for this proposal be delegated as follows:
We appreciate the effort and thought put into this proposal and recognize the significant value that RWA Paris 2025 could bring to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
However, we believe that decisions regarding event sponsorships should align with a broader events strategy to ensure the most impactful use of resources and maximize value for the ecosystem. With this in mind, we suggest that the decision-making authority for this proposal be delegated as follows:
This approach ensures that event sponsorships are part of a coordinated, strategic framework rather than evaluated as standalone opportunities. By doing so, the Arbitrum DAO can prioritize its presence at events that align with its long-term goals and deliver the most value to the ecosystem.
I would like to discuss a few issues to consider about the sponsorship proposal for RWA Paris 2025:
1. Breakfast Budget:
The budget allocated for the privatization of the breakfast (25,000€) seems quite high and might not be the most cost-efficient option in terms of cost-benefit. It would be ideal to consider several cheaper and more effective alternatives:
I would like to discuss a few issues to consider about the sponsorship proposal for RWA Paris 2025:
1. Breakfast Budget:
The budget allocated for the privatization of the breakfast (25,000€) seems quite high and might not be the most cost-efficient option in terms of cost-benefit. It would be ideal to consider several cheaper and more effective alternatives:
An afternoon networking session could be organized with a selection of beverages (coffee, tea, soft drinks and light alcoholic beverages) and snacks. This would not only significantly reduce the cost, but also create a more relaxed atmosphere conducive to informal interactions among attendees.
2. Insufficient time between Approval and Event:
I am concerned that the time between budget approval and event date is too short. Approval is expected in mid-January and the event is scheduled for mid-February, leaving approximately one month for execution. This timeframe does not appear to be sufficient to allow for possible budget restructuring or to implement significant improvements. Also, if no changes are made, isn't one month a very limited time to run an effective marketing campaign to attract attendees?
3. Clarification of Expected Benefits:
The proposal mentions several potential benefits, but lacks clear details on how these benefits will be measured and how they will translate into tangible impact for Arbitrum.
It mentions over 1,000,000 brand impressions as a target, which is impressive, but we need to understand how this number will be achieved and how its impact will be tracked. The specific marketing strategies and channels used need to be detailed for clarity.
On the other hand, the proposal mentions the possibility of more than 50 new connections with different institutions. It would be helpful to be clear which institutions it refers to.
Also, it is indicated in the proposal that more than 200 media mentions are expected. It is important to provide a list of target media and strategies to ensure media coverage can provide more certainty about this benefit.
The rest seems to be in order.
Hi @Rafalovic,
Thanks for the proposal. First, I would urge you to take a look at the timeline because it seems a little tight. Also, I think the best place to submit the proposal would be Questbook, but Season 3 is still going through nominations.
Hi @Rafalovic,
Thanks for the proposal. First, I would urge you to take a look at the timeline because it seems a little tight. Also, I think the best place to submit the proposal would be Questbook, but Season 3 is still going through nominations.
As for the proposal, I would ask how you could justify the €25,000 for the breakfast — I think this is excessive and not something the DAO should be paying for. Also, who is the Arbitrum community that would use the balcony, and what are the possible benefits you see other that a "VIP" section?
On a last point, I would like a more detailed version of what you mean by "prominent placement of the Arbitrum logo."
I didn't see much discussion on it, but this seems not worth the funding IMO. Maybe this is a 'me' thing, but anytime I watch presentations I don't look at the background. And Arbitrum is a prominent enough blockchain that as a marketing tool I don't know who would be watching an RWA keynote discussion and not know what Arbitrum is. If anything, the breakfast seems more useful.
Caveat - I never go to in-person events so if people within the DAO think there is value to this I'm open to changing my opinion.
I also agree with others - this may be more relevant to the DAO Events budget process.
First, we’d like to thank @Rafalovic and the RWA Paris team for reaching out to the Arbitrum DAO with this opportunity. The speaker and sponsor lineup for the event looks quite strong and it is exciting to hear that Steven will be there speaking!
However, as we communicated in our rationale in voting for the ETH Bucharest proposal, Entropy strongly advises the DAO to carefully consider if it wants to further the precedent of smaller sponsorships being funded via the 2025 Events Budget. RWA Paris is not the only conference to reach out to Entropy expressing interest, and we anticipate that several similar requests will follow if this event is funded. While these may be well-run events that provide value to Arbitrum, slowly draining the ~$1.1m available with one-off sponsorships may not be the best course of action. At a certain point there will be insignificant funds to propose for example a cohesive and synergistic set of Arbitrum dedicated events.
First, we’d like to thank @Rafalovic and the RWA Paris team for reaching out to the Arbitrum DAO with this opportunity. The speaker and sponsor lineup for the event looks quite strong and it is exciting to hear that Steven will be there speaking!
However, as we communicated in our rationale in voting for the ETH Bucharest proposal, Entropy strongly advises the DAO to carefully consider if it wants to further the precedent of smaller sponsorships being funded via the 2025 Events Budget. RWA Paris is not the only conference to reach out to Entropy expressing interest, and we anticipate that several similar requests will follow if this event is funded. While these may be well-run events that provide value to Arbitrum, slowly draining the ~$1.1m available with one-off sponsorships may not be the best course of action. At a certain point there will be insignificant funds to propose for example a cohesive and synergistic set of Arbitrum dedicated events.
When evaluating RWA Paris’ proposal specifically, we will echo several of the concerns raised by other delegates. First, the timeline between the funds being approved and the actual event is insufficient. With just a few weeks, we’re not sure if Arbitrum will get the proper marketing value from the sponsorship.
Secondly, we are concerned that aspects of this proposal require several key representatives from both the Arbitrum Foundation and OCL to be worth the cost. For example, the following KPI is likely unachievable if the only Arbitrum representation is an Ambassador.
Institutional Engagement 50+ new connections with financial institutions Follow-ups and partnership discussions post-event.
The same can be said for the Private Breakfast sponsorship which will, in our opinion, likely have little value without representation from OCL or Foundation team members that have high-context into Arbitrum’s current needs/strategy.
Lastly, we’d like to also respond to this comment from Karpatkey by again clarifying that Entropy, ADPC, and Disruption Joe were not given a mandate to determine event strategy as part of the DAO Events Budget proposal.
However, we believe that decisions regarding event sponsorships should align with a broader events strategy to ensure the most impactful use of resources and maximize value for the ecosystem. With this in mind, we suggest that the decision-making authority for this proposal be delegated as follows:
The group is only responsible for coordinating communications between the Arbitrum Foundation and OCL event teams for the listed events in the proposal (ETHDenver, Bitcoin 2025, EthCC) and procuring event organizers when necessary. The decision to fund other events/sponsorships via the budget is determined by a Snapshot vote with quorum set at 3% of the votable token supply with a simple majority of votes in favor/abstain. The RWA Paris 2025 team has followed the correct procedure to request funds via the DAO's 2025 Event budget.
We encourage delegates to complete the public market consultation created by the ADPC to help the DAO begin aligning on event strategy. This will help inform the DAO which type of events have the most appetite for funding via the established 2025 Events Budget.
We agree with the aforementioned delegate feedback that the timeline here is too tight for a DAO decision. In addition, multiple sizable budgets have been dedicated to events by the Arbitrum Foundation, Entropy and ADPC (DAO Events Budget), and Questbook. Currently, we'd recommend looking at alternative funding routes for this timeline.
In the future, we recommend events pursue funding routes > 6 months before the event date.
Thank you for the proposal. Our team believes it would be interesting for the DAO to participate in the event. We noticed that the account used to create the proposal is new, could you clarify your connection to NFT Paris? Are you part of the NFT Paris team?
Additionally, to enhance the proposal, we think it would be helpful to specify that the amounts to be transferred will be in ARB, equivalent to the amounts you have already mentioned.
Hello! @Rafalovic reached to me on twitter to discuss the matter.
Unfortunately I don't think season 3 of D.A.O. grants can help here: looking at the timeline we have the following:
Hello! @Rafalovic reached to me on twitter to discuss the matter.
Unfortunately I don't think season 3 of D.A.O. grants can help here: looking at the timeline we have the following:
The Tally vote would literally end the first day of the event.
So, if the DAO wants to accomodate this, we either
I agree with @karpatkey, this event sponsorship request should go through the DAO Events Budget process.
RWA is an important direction for the future, and this collaboration with NFT Paris is a great opportunity for Arbitrum to build a bridge between traditional finance and Web3. However, based on the Arbitrum D.A.O. Grant Program - Season 3 proposal https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584, it seems the timing may not align.
Additionally, I have some questions about the KPIs. For example:
Hi @Rafalovic thanks for this proposal!
Just to clarify, when you say 'Invitations will be distributed by ArbitrumDAO' and 'management of invitations and access on-site will be handled by ArbitrumDAO and its representative in Paris', who are you referring to? Is it the Arbitrum ambassador based in Paris, or anyone else you had in mind from the DAO?
Hi @Rafalovic thanks for this proposal!
Just to clarify, when you say 'Invitations will be distributed by ArbitrumDAO' and 'management of invitations and access on-site will be handled by ArbitrumDAO and its representative in Paris', who are you referring to? Is it the Arbitrum ambassador based in Paris, or anyone else you had in mind from the DAO?
If the latter, would you require the support of the ADPC to procure any service providers needed to handle these aspects? If so, it would be great to mention this directly in the proposal as outlined in the Application Template, in the 'Event Organizer' section.
Please feel free to DM me on TG @explorandoahora to discuss further if you have any questions!
We appreciate the effort and thought put into this proposal and recognize the significant value that RWA Paris 2025 could bring to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
However, we believe that decisions regarding event sponsorships should align with a broader events strategy to ensure the most impactful use of resources and maximize value for the ecosystem. With this in mind, we suggest that the decision-making authority for this proposal be delegated as follows:
We appreciate the effort and thought put into this proposal and recognize the significant value that RWA Paris 2025 could bring to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
However, we believe that decisions regarding event sponsorships should align with a broader events strategy to ensure the most impactful use of resources and maximize value for the ecosystem. With this in mind, we suggest that the decision-making authority for this proposal be delegated as follows:
This approach ensures that event sponsorships are part of a coordinated, strategic framework rather than evaluated as standalone opportunities. By doing so, the Arbitrum DAO can prioritize its presence at events that align with its long-term goals and deliver the most value to the ecosystem.
I would like to discuss a few issues to consider about the sponsorship proposal for RWA Paris 2025:
1. Breakfast Budget:
The budget allocated for the privatization of the breakfast (25,000€) seems quite high and might not be the most cost-efficient option in terms of cost-benefit. It would be ideal to consider several cheaper and more effective alternatives:
I would like to discuss a few issues to consider about the sponsorship proposal for RWA Paris 2025:
1. Breakfast Budget:
The budget allocated for the privatization of the breakfast (25,000€) seems quite high and might not be the most cost-efficient option in terms of cost-benefit. It would be ideal to consider several cheaper and more effective alternatives:
An afternoon networking session could be organized with a selection of beverages (coffee, tea, soft drinks and light alcoholic beverages) and snacks. This would not only significantly reduce the cost, but also create a more relaxed atmosphere conducive to informal interactions among attendees.
2. Insufficient time between Approval and Event:
I am concerned that the time between budget approval and event date is too short. Approval is expected in mid-January and the event is scheduled for mid-February, leaving approximately one month for execution. This timeframe does not appear to be sufficient to allow for possible budget restructuring or to implement significant improvements. Also, if no changes are made, isn't one month a very limited time to run an effective marketing campaign to attract attendees?
3. Clarification of Expected Benefits:
The proposal mentions several potential benefits, but lacks clear details on how these benefits will be measured and how they will translate into tangible impact for Arbitrum.
It mentions over 1,000,000 brand impressions as a target, which is impressive, but we need to understand how this number will be achieved and how its impact will be tracked. The specific marketing strategies and channels used need to be detailed for clarity.
On the other hand, the proposal mentions the possibility of more than 50 new connections with different institutions. It would be helpful to be clear which institutions it refers to.
Also, it is indicated in the proposal that more than 200 media mentions are expected. It is important to provide a list of target media and strategies to ensure media coverage can provide more certainty about this benefit.
The rest seems to be in order.
Hi @Rafalovic,
Thanks for the proposal. First, I would urge you to take a look at the timeline because it seems a little tight. Also, I think the best place to submit the proposal would be Questbook, but Season 3 is still going through nominations.
Hi @Rafalovic,
Thanks for the proposal. First, I would urge you to take a look at the timeline because it seems a little tight. Also, I think the best place to submit the proposal would be Questbook, but Season 3 is still going through nominations.
As for the proposal, I would ask how you could justify the €25,000 for the breakfast — I think this is excessive and not something the DAO should be paying for. Also, who is the Arbitrum community that would use the balcony, and what are the possible benefits you see other that a "VIP" section?
On a last point, I would like a more detailed version of what you mean by "prominent placement of the Arbitrum logo."
RWA is an important direction for the future, and this collaboration with NFT Paris is a great opportunity for Arbitrum to build a bridge between traditional finance and Web3. However, based on the Arbitrum D.A.O. Grant Program - Season 3 proposal https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584, it seems the timing may not align.
Additionally, I have some questions about the KPIs. For example:
• The goal of 1,000,000 brand impressions sounds good, but more specific actionable metrics might be more meaningful, such as how many institutions agree to pilot RWA solutions or how many participants express interest in testing on Arbitrum.
• For the breakfast interaction goal (200 participants), it would be better to specify whether there will be speeches or discussion content, rather than just open networking.
I suggest tracking new institutional connections after the event, clarifying follow-up plans with content and timelines to ensure actionable results instead of simply ending the interactions.
The total budget could also be further detailed, such as specific arrangements for main stage branding or the detailed costs for breakfast (venue, catering, branding setup, etc.), to make it easier for the community to understand how the funds are being spent.
It is necessary to further optimize KPI practicality, post-event follow-up mechanisms, and community engagement to ensure the maximum return on investment.
Thank you for this proposal. Could you please provide a detailed explanation of the Breakfast Privatization? Is it a venue rented for Arbitrum to host activities, or is it that Arbitrum has purchased one or more tickets to participate in the breakfast? Additionally, I would like to confirm if Steven Goldfeder has already confirmed his attendance and speech. Are his travel expenses included in the budget outlined in this proposal?
I echo Larva's reply and would like to learn more about the $25K breakfast, as I believe it might be an overkill. If we reduce or eliminate the breakfast from the budget, the total would be under $50K, allowing y'all to proceed with a Questbook application instead.
Thanks for the proposal!
Seeing your last reply, it would be nice to add in the proposal what else would be required (or would be nice to have) from ArbitrumDAO
Thanks for the proposal!
Seeing your last reply, it would be nice to add in the proposal what else would be required (or would be nice to have) from ArbitrumDAO
Yes, the invitations will be distributed by Arbitrum DAO according to the number of people attending, to avoid giving out invitations to people who won’t be able to come.
From what I can assume, this would be:
Can you confirm if this correct and/or expand a list of those type of items (support besides funding)
Thanks in advance!
Steven’s presence has indeed been confirmed; however, travel expenses are not included in the proposal.
Steven’s presence has indeed been confirmed; however, travel expenses are not included in the proposal.
Regarding the breakfast privatization, the venue is a 300-square-meter balcony, fully equipped with logistics, branding, and catering services for up to 100 participants. This setup is exclusively designed to host the Arbitrum community and its partners.
Additionally, we are collaborating with an ambassador who will be onsite to coordinate and ensure the event runs smoothly. Moreover, all attendees of the Arbitrum breakfast will be provided with event tickets, adding direct value for both the community and partners.
Please let me know if you have any further questions!
Nice! Thanks for the clarification. It would be a great event. All attendees of the Arbitrum breakfast will be invited by Arbitrum DAO itself right?
RWA is an important direction for the future, and this collaboration with NFT Paris is a great opportunity for Arbitrum to build a bridge between traditional finance and Web3. However, based on the Arbitrum D.A.O. Grant Program - Season 3 proposal https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584, it seems the timing may not align.
Additionally, I have some questions about the KPIs. For example:
• The goal of 1,000,000 brand impressions sounds good, but more specific actionable metrics might be more meaningful, such as how many institutions agree to pilot RWA solutions or how many participants express interest in testing on Arbitrum.
• For the breakfast interaction goal (200 participants), it would be better to specify whether there will be speeches or discussion content, rather than just open networking.
I suggest tracking new institutional connections after the event, clarifying follow-up plans with content and timelines to ensure actionable results instead of simply ending the interactions.
The total budget could also be further detailed, such as specific arrangements for main stage branding or the detailed costs for breakfast (venue, catering, branding setup, etc.), to make it easier for the community to understand how the funds are being spent.
It is necessary to further optimize KPI practicality, post-event follow-up mechanisms, and community engagement to ensure the maximum return on investment.
Thank you for this proposal. Could you please provide a detailed explanation of the Breakfast Privatization? Is it a venue rented for Arbitrum to host activities, or is it that Arbitrum has purchased one or more tickets to participate in the breakfast? Additionally, I would like to confirm if Steven Goldfeder has already confirmed his attendance and speech. Are his travel expenses included in the budget outlined in this proposal?
I echo Larva's reply and would like to learn more about the $25K breakfast, as I believe it might be an overkill. If we reduce or eliminate the breakfast from the budget, the total would be under $50K, allowing y'all to proceed with a Questbook application instead.
Thanks for the proposal!
Seeing your last reply, it would be nice to add in the proposal what else would be required (or would be nice to have) from ArbitrumDAO
Thanks for the proposal!
Seeing your last reply, it would be nice to add in the proposal what else would be required (or would be nice to have) from ArbitrumDAO
Yes, the invitations will be distributed by Arbitrum DAO according to the number of people attending, to avoid giving out invitations to people who won’t be able to come.
From what I can assume, this would be:
Can you confirm if this correct and/or expand a list of those type of items (support besides funding)
Thanks in advance!
Steven’s presence has indeed been confirmed; however, travel expenses are not included in the proposal.
Steven’s presence has indeed been confirmed; however, travel expenses are not included in the proposal.
Regarding the breakfast privatization, the venue is a 300-square-meter balcony, fully equipped with logistics, branding, and catering services for up to 100 participants. This setup is exclusively designed to host the Arbitrum community and its partners.
Additionally, we are collaborating with an ambassador who will be onsite to coordinate and ensure the event runs smoothly. Moreover, all attendees of the Arbitrum breakfast will be provided with event tickets, adding direct value for both the community and partners.
Please let me know if you have any further questions!
Nice! Thanks for the clarification. It would be a great event. All attendees of the Arbitrum breakfast will be invited by Arbitrum DAO itself right?