As Arbitrum seeks to grow, it’s critical to understand why builders and entrepreneurs choose to develop on this platform, and what its strengths and weaknesses are in comparison to its competitors.
Currently, Arbitrum delegates and key organisations in the ecosystem (GCP, OCL, Foundation, etc.) have multiple theories on why some developers and entrepreneurs opt for it as their technology of choice, and others don’t. And, many choices are being made to define which programs to fund and how to prioritise the technical roadmap.
We aim to interview builders and entrepreneurs to understand:
Beyond what desk research or a survey can accomplish, this research will provide the Arbitrum DAO and affiliated entities with a deep understanding of builders mental models and decision frameworks, allowing better strategic choices. To ensure relevance we’ll create a Stakeholder Council (and success bonus approved by said council) and work closely throughout the project, refining research questions, sharpening the research focus from preliminary findings, and ensuring comprehensiveness of the final report.
We'll also coordinate with the ARDC research position to compliment their work with our deep user research capabilities.
While Arbitrum has a strong brand and core competencies that separate it from competitors, it’s still unclear which of these features is most important to developers and what kind of support would be most meaningful. We don’t really know why builders choose Arbitrum instead of its competitors. Is it the capability to use a variety of programming languages? Is it the technology’s existing ecosystem? Is it something else?
Multiple technical comparisons have been done (e.g. L2Beat report, Binance report, MIIX Capital report, Tiger research). However there's a lack of research that focuses on the perspective of users.
This represents a strategic threat - how do Arbitrum organisations (GCP, OCL, Foundation, DAO, etc.) build on our collective strengths if it’s not even clear which strengths (or weaknesses) make the difference? And, how does Arbitrum effectively distinguish itself from other Layer 2 (and Layer 3) technologies if it isn’t clear on why builders might prefer those platforms?.
We propose to do intensive research with builders and entrepreneurs to establish a deep understanding of the features important to these critical members of our ecosystem. This will identify why Arbitrum has become a technology of choice among its users, where its weaknesses are, and promising directions for future development.
We will also develop profiles of the “type” of people most likely to build on Arbitrum, so we get a sense of who are existing market is (and is not) to give clarity on how to best expand the ecosystem.
This research will be done in close collaboration with Arbitrum's key organisations and stakeholders, to ensure maximum relevance and actionability. For this we're proposing to set up a Stakeholder Council including:
Our research goals include:
Understand why builders who build on Arbitrum selected it as their technology of choice. Illustrated the storyline of how people come to build on Arbitrum.
Identify key strengths and weaknesses that Arbitrum has in comparison to 2 key competitors from the perspective of builders.
Highlight key areas for future development for Arbitrum (both technical and support programs), from the standpoint of builders and entrepreneurs who use the platform.
Build a profile of prototypical Arbitrum users to better understand the types of people who tend to prefer this technology.
The research participants will include:
This composition of participants is meant to offer both a broad understanding of Arbitrum's user base, while also making sure we are able to identify nuance at the level that is relevant for actual builders. We will be able to highlight trends that are relevant Arbitrumm-wide, while also diving into the insights that help us understand the needs of builders in specific projects and with specific experiences.
Research questions:
We'll refine the research questions together with the Stakeholder Council.
Methods
Output/Deliverable
The output from this research will support Arbitrum's efforts to improve and expand, furthering its vision to become a greta home for builders. Specifically, this research will:
3 months from kickoff for project completion (Pre-eliminary findings shared from week 4 onwards)
Alex Lumley + RnDAO user research team
Daniel Stringer, PhD (project lead): User Researcher at RnDAO. Daniel founded of Stringer Research, a Design and User Researcher firm focused on cross-cultural and international research. Daniel has over 15 years experience leading user research studies and teaching companies to use human centered design in their operations at Facebook, The World Bank, Google and other organizations.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/danieltheory/
Alex Lumley (stakeholder management and coordination): Arbitrum delegate. Previously product developer and cofounder at Savvy, Jobs to be Done practitioner at ReWired Group, and consultant at Baine.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexanderlumley/
Andrea Gallagher (research planning support): Drea is research lead at RnDAO. Previously she was research lead at Google Suite, Asana and Aragon, and was an innovation catalyst at Inuit. https://www.linkedin.com/in/andreagallagher/
Stakeholder Council
The research will directly support the initiatives of stakeholders within the Arbitrum ecosystem. Representatives from stakeholder organizations will guide the research deliverables to help maximize the ability of this work to improve Aribtrum’s technology and expand the ecosystem.
Our council will include:
Membership on the council would involve a set of rituals meant to guide the research for optimal impact:
We're proposing a budget plus a discretionary success bonus. The bonus will be decided by the Stakeholder Council at 0%, 50%, or 100%
Two options for scope
Discounted by 40% for first project, as expression of our enthusiasm to build the relationship and trust in our work:
Option 1: Researching within Arbitrum only: $38,600
Option 2: Arbitrum + 2 ecosystems (e.g. Solana and Optimism): $58,400
Discretionary Bonus: $20,000
The budget includes:
The funds provided by ArbitrumDAO will be transferred to the Arbitrum MSS.
The funds are then transferred by the MSS in phases as per completion of the milestones:
Kick-off: 60% budget
Completion: 40% budget + discretionary bonus
Why doesn't the ARDC handle this?
The new version of the ARDC is setup with a single supplier per category, and unfortunately most of the candidates for the research position don't have significant User Research expertise. Multiple of them have great quant research capabilities, market analysis, etc. And some even have conducted user interviews before. However, User Research often stands as a separate skill with different foundational approaches and organisational culture. The RnDAO team counts with decades of experience in user research, including world class researchers having informed products such as Google Suite, Asana, and Facebook and with Web3 experience (however, we don't have significant blockchain data analysis expertise and hence stepped down from the ARDC application). The research and skills proposed by ARDC candidates are thus complimentary to this proposal but don't replace it. We look forward to collaborating closely with them in advancing Arbitrum.
Why user research? With user research, we refer to in-depth 1-1 interviews. The objective is to understand users' mental models that define how they make decisions (what truly matters to them). This work is important at this early stage because comparative analysis between chains can lead to highlighting qualities that are not (or no longer) most relevant for builders. For example, at some point mobile companies optimised for making phones smaller and smaller, competing with one another until this criteria was not only irrelevant but even counterproductive. The company that understood this first (Apple) dominated that market by innovating on features like touchscreens, camera, and display quality that were better aligned with users evolving needs. The insights that enabled these decisions require going deep into understanding both the details of the behaviour users exhibit (beyond what quantitative metrics can capture), the narratives that users tell themselves about their actions, and the deeper values and needs underneath said narratives and behaviours. As such, surveys, desk research, or quantitative data analysis would risk providing too shallow or even misleading results. Achieving this depth of understanding can be done through user research methodologies like Jobs To Be Done (JTBD) which emphasises the goals that builders are trying to accomplish, the tasks (i.e. jobs) they do towards said goals, the challenges they encounter, and how that makes them feel.
How will the research be used? The stakeholder council is designed as a mechanism to ensure the research questions are tied to actionable outcomes and can be used by the different representative organisations (delegates, AF, GCP, etc). The council will inform and approve the finer details of the research plan, as well as provide feedback throughout the process to dive deeper where most valuable. We also plan to continue our regular engagement in Arbitrum (as delegates, proposers, and operators of venture-building initiatives). In this capacity, we look forward to having the findings of this research to propose new and/or refine ongoing builder support programs for Arbitrum and complimentary initatives. Last but not least, the findings will be shared with the DAO (both via a written report and live presentation), enabling other delegates and service providers to develop their own builder support proposals or have research insights to assess proposals and provide feedback.
We expect this research to enable the following types of impact:
As Arbitrum seeks to grow, it’s critical to understand why builders and entrepreneurs choose to develop on this platform, and what its strengths and weaknesses are in comparison to its competitors.
Currently, Arbitrum delegates and key organisations in the ecosystem (GCP, OCL, Foundation, etc.) have multiple theories on why some developers and entrepreneurs opt for it as their technology of choice, and others don’t. And, many choices are being made to define which programs to fund and how to prioritise the technical roadmap.
We aim to interview builders and entrepreneurs to understand:
Beyond what desk research or a survey can accomplish, this research will provide the Arbitrum DAO and affiliated entities with a deep understanding of builders mental models and decision frameworks, allowing better strategic choices. To ensure relevance we’ll create a Stakeholder Council (and success bonus approved by said council) and work closely throughout the project, refining research questions, sharpening the research focus from preliminary findings, and ensuring comprehensiveness of the final report.
We'll also coordinate with the ARDC research position to compliment their work with our deep user research capabilities.
While Arbitrum has a strong brand and core competencies that separate it from competitors, it’s still unclear which of these features is most important to developers and what kind of support would be most meaningful. We don’t really know why builders choose Arbitrum instead of its competitors. Is it the capability to use a variety of programming languages? Is it the technology’s existing ecosystem? Is it something else?
Multiple technical comparisons have been done (e.g. L2Beat report, Binance report, MIIX Capital report, Tiger research). However there's a lack of research that focuses on the perspective of users.
This represents a strategic threat - how do Arbitrum organisations (GCP, OCL, Foundation, DAO, etc.) build on our collective strengths if it’s not even clear which strengths (or weaknesses) make the difference? And, how does Arbitrum effectively distinguish itself from other Layer 2 (and Layer 3) technologies if it isn’t clear on why builders might prefer those platforms?.
We propose to do intensive research with builders and entrepreneurs to establish a deep understanding of the features important to these critical members of our ecosystem. This will identify why Arbitrum has become a technology of choice among its users, where its weaknesses are, and promising directions for future development.
We will also develop profiles of the “type” of people most likely to build on Arbitrum, so we get a sense of who are existing market is (and is not) to give clarity on how to best expand the ecosystem.
This research will be done in close collaboration with Arbitrum's key organisations and stakeholders, to ensure maximum relevance and actionability. For this we're proposing to set up a Stakeholder Council including:
Our research goals include:
Understand why builders who build on Arbitrum selected it as their technology of choice. Illustrated the storyline of how people come to build on Arbitrum.
Identify key strengths and weaknesses that Arbitrum has in comparison to 2 key competitors from the perspective of builders.
Highlight key areas for future development for Arbitrum (both technical and support programs), from the standpoint of builders and entrepreneurs who use the platform.
Build a profile of prototypical Arbitrum users to better understand the types of people who tend to prefer this technology.
The research participants will include:
This composition of participants is meant to offer both a broad understanding of Arbitrum's user base, while also making sure we are able to identify nuance at the level that is relevant for actual builders. We will be able to highlight trends that are relevant Arbitrumm-wide, while also diving into the insights that help us understand the needs of builders in specific projects and with specific experiences.
Research questions:
We'll refine the research questions together with the Stakeholder Council.
Methods
Output/Deliverable
The output from this research will support Arbitrum's efforts to improve and expand, furthering its vision to become a greta home for builders. Specifically, this research will:
3 months from kickoff for project completion (Pre-eliminary findings shared from week 4 onwards)
Alex Lumley + RnDAO user research team
Daniel Stringer, PhD (project lead): User Researcher at RnDAO. Daniel founded of Stringer Research, a Design and User Researcher firm focused on cross-cultural and international research. Daniel has over 15 years experience leading user research studies and teaching companies to use human centered design in their operations at Facebook, The World Bank, Google and other organizations.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/danieltheory/
Alex Lumley (stakeholder management and coordination): Arbitrum delegate. Previously product developer and cofounder at Savvy, Jobs to be Done practitioner at ReWired Group, and consultant at Baine.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexanderlumley/
Andrea Gallagher (research planning support): Drea is research lead at RnDAO. Previously she was research lead at Google Suite, Asana and Aragon, and was an innovation catalyst at Inuit. https://www.linkedin.com/in/andreagallagher/
Stakeholder Council
The research will directly support the initiatives of stakeholders within the Arbitrum ecosystem. Representatives from stakeholder organizations will guide the research deliverables to help maximize the ability of this work to improve Aribtrum’s technology and expand the ecosystem.
Our council will include:
Membership on the council would involve a set of rituals meant to guide the research for optimal impact:
We're proposing a budget plus a discretionary success bonus. The bonus will be decided by the Stakeholder Council at 0%, 50%, or 100%
Two options for scope
Discounted by 40% for first project, as expression of our enthusiasm to build the relationship and trust in our work:
Option 1: Researching within Arbitrum only: $38,600
Option 2: Arbitrum + 2 ecosystems (e.g. Solana and Optimism): $58,400
Discretionary Bonus: $20,000
The budget includes:
The funds provided by ArbitrumDAO will be transferred to the Arbitrum MSS.
The funds are then transferred by the MSS in phases as per completion of the milestones:
Kick-off: 60% budget
Completion: 40% budget + discretionary bonus
Why doesn't the ARDC handle this?
The new version of the ARDC is setup with a single supplier per category, and unfortunately most of the candidates for the research position don't have significant User Research expertise. Multiple of them have great quant research capabilities, market analysis, etc. And some even have conducted user interviews before. However, User Research often stands as a separate skill with different foundational approaches and organisational culture. The RnDAO team counts with decades of experience in user research, including world class researchers having informed products such as Google Suite, Asana, and Facebook and with Web3 experience (however, we don't have significant blockchain data analysis expertise and hence stepped down from the ARDC application). The research and skills proposed by ARDC candidates are thus complimentary to this proposal but don't replace it. We look forward to collaborating closely with them in advancing Arbitrum.
Why user research? With user research, we refer to in-depth 1-1 interviews. The objective is to understand users' mental models that define how they make decisions (what truly matters to them). This work is important at this early stage because comparative analysis between chains can lead to highlighting qualities that are not (or no longer) most relevant for builders. For example, at some point mobile companies optimised for making phones smaller and smaller, competing with one another until this criteria was not only irrelevant but even counterproductive. The company that understood this first (Apple) dominated that market by innovating on features like touchscreens, camera, and display quality that were better aligned with users evolving needs. The insights that enabled these decisions require going deep into understanding both the details of the behaviour users exhibit (beyond what quantitative metrics can capture), the narratives that users tell themselves about their actions, and the deeper values and needs underneath said narratives and behaviours. As such, surveys, desk research, or quantitative data analysis would risk providing too shallow or even misleading results. Achieving this depth of understanding can be done through user research methodologies like Jobs To Be Done (JTBD) which emphasises the goals that builders are trying to accomplish, the tasks (i.e. jobs) they do towards said goals, the challenges they encounter, and how that makes them feel.
How will the research be used? The stakeholder council is designed as a mechanism to ensure the research questions are tied to actionable outcomes and can be used by the different representative organisations (delegates, AF, GCP, etc). The council will inform and approve the finer details of the research plan, as well as provide feedback throughout the process to dive deeper where most valuable. We also plan to continue our regular engagement in Arbitrum (as delegates, proposers, and operators of venture-building initiatives). In this capacity, we look forward to having the findings of this research to propose new and/or refine ongoing builder support programs for Arbitrum and complimentary initatives. Last but not least, the findings will be shared with the DAO (both via a written report and live presentation), enabling other delegates and service providers to develop their own builder support proposals or have research insights to assess proposals and provide feedback.
We expect this research to enable the following types of impact:
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/20
a good idea
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/81?u=blockworksresearc
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/79?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/20
a good idea
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/81?u=blockworksresearc
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/79?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/41
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/77?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/76
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/50?u=griff
I believe we should invest in User Research and do even more than what this proposal aims to do. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/75?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/74
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/73?u=0x_ultra
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-57: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-57
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-57: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-57
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/67?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/62?u=seedgov
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/66?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/64?u=tekr0x.eth
This has come up as a need multiple times
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/63?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/58?u=tempetechie
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/57?u=kuiclub
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/54?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/53?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/51?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/39?u=duokongcrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/36?u=gabriel
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/33?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
I am voting against this proposal because Arbitrum already has many builders
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/91?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/juanrah-delegate-communication-thread/27395/10?u=juanrah
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/27?u=pedrob
Scale up, let your opponents judge you, rather than revel in the good, support this initiative
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/41
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/77?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/76
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/50?u=griff
I believe we should invest in User Research and do even more than what this proposal aims to do. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/75?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/74
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/73?u=0x_ultra
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-57: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-57
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-57: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-57
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/67?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/62?u=seedgov
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/66?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/64?u=tekr0x.eth
This has come up as a need multiple times
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/63?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/58?u=tempetechie
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/57?u=kuiclub
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/54?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/53?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/51?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/39?u=duokongcrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/36?u=gabriel
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/33?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
I am voting against this proposal because Arbitrum already has many builders
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/91?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/juanrah-delegate-communication-thread/27395/10?u=juanrah
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-consitutional-user-research-why-do-people-even-build-on-arbitrum-anyway/27608/27?u=pedrob
Scale up, let your opponents judge you, rather than revel in the good, support this initiative
The Level K Delegation is voting FOR: Arbitrum + 2 others (SOL + OP). We support qualitative research that adds depth and weight to conversations about Arbitrum's place in the L2 landscape while identifying strengths and weaknesses. We hear other delegates' concerns about the lack of clear action that can be taken as a result of this research. We take the position that good research does not assume the results and as a result, you cannot predict specific outcomes of the research.
We hope there will be coordination within the council and with the ARDC Supervisory Council to identify potential areas of collaboration.
The Level K Delegation is voting FOR: Arbitrum + 2 others (SOL + OP). We support qualitative research that adds depth and weight to conversations about Arbitrum's place in the L2 landscape while identifying strengths and weaknesses. We hear other delegates' concerns about the lack of clear action that can be taken as a result of this research. We take the position that good research does not assume the results and as a result, you cannot predict specific outcomes of the research.
We hope there will be coordination within the council and with the ARDC Supervisory Council to identify potential areas of collaboration.
@danielo In favor of this initiative, and I would like to offer my perspective to this as a new builder on Arbitrum who's onboarding new users in LatAm. As part of a recent grant from Thank Arbitrum and Oasis Onchain, we addressed "Why Arbitrum?" on one of our slides. You can read about what we did here:
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/oasis-onchain-quick-grants/25057/34?u=v4n
That sounds like a good idea for a follow up to the initial study. As someone who is building for local communities in LatAm and onboarding, we have specifically chosen Aribitrum for a variety of reasons. It would be interesting to see overlap with other builders like me.
@danielo In favor of this initiative, and I would like to offer my perspective to this as a new builder on Arbitrum who's onboarding new users in LatAm. As part of a recent grant from Thank Arbitrum and Oasis Onchain, we addressed "Why Arbitrum?" on one of our slides. You can read about what we did here:
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/oasis-onchain-quick-grants/25057/34?u=v4n
That sounds like a good idea for a follow up to the initial study. As someone who is building for local communities in LatAm and onboarding, we have specifically chosen Aribitrum for a variety of reasons. It would be interesting to see overlap with other builders like me.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, and consensus of various committee members.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, and consensus of various committee members.
The team have a strong research background, Daniel is a PHD, has experience in upwork user experience insights, studying at Stanford. Savvy Cofounder, Alex is also on the team for the stakeholder management and coordination. Andrea has a good amount of experience in User/UX experiences working for Google, Asana, and Aragon. This collective evidences the potentiality of their deliverables.
It’s very clear this proposal aims to develop insights from existing stakeholders (builders, entrepeneurs, and users) to build an archetype of users who would enable the DAO and foundation to generate insights. The incentive mechanisms can align users to generate positive insights that could be quantifiable and qualitative data translated for the success of Arbitrum.
Our hesistancy, is mostly leaned on the determination, the how and what information would be collected. Additionally it’s a very broad topic to challenge, usually to solve builder attraction and retention, communication strategies, and other peripheries of this research would require extensive insights, if done right there could be more insights at the forefront.
For this research to be fulfilling on the outset, there needs to be mention of which individuals/groups they’ve outreached (to ensure incentives are not abused), what topics to focus on (narrowing the subject), what the interviewee in the past have they determined in their genuine experience, as some of these questions can be referenced in the forums or information that’s already recognised.
Additionally in typical crypto fashion, many projects are often transparent with what they share on X, forums, or other mediums to showcase their tech stack or progress in Arbitrum.
Overall, we do respect the ambition and intent of the proposal, we generally a see a lack of utilisation and applicability with how it would reflect in Arbitrum.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, and consensus of various committee members.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, and consensus of various committee members.
The team have a strong research background, Daniel is a PHD, has experience in upwork user experience insights, studying at Stanford. Savvy Cofounder, Alex is also on the team for the stakeholder management and coordination. Andrea has a good amount of experience in User/UX experiences working for Google, Asana, and Aragon. This collective evidences the potentiality of their deliverables.
It’s very clear this proposal aims to develop insights from existing stakeholders (builders, entrepeneurs, and users) to build an archetype of users who would enable the DAO and foundation to generate insights. The incentive mechanisms can align users to generate positive insights that could be quantifiable and qualitative data translated for the success of Arbitrum.
Our hesistancy, is mostly leaned on the determination, the how and what information would be collected. Additionally it’s a very broad topic to challenge, usually to solve builder attraction and retention, communication strategies, and other peripheries of this research would require extensive insights, if done right there could be more insights at the forefront.
For this research to be fulfilling on the outset, there needs to be mention of which individuals/groups they’ve outreached (to ensure incentives are not abused), what topics to focus on (narrowing the subject), what the interviewee in the past have they determined in their genuine experience, as some of these questions can be referenced in the forums or information that’s already recognised.
Additionally in typical crypto fashion, many projects are often transparent with what they share on X, forums, or other mediums to showcase their tech stack or progress in Arbitrum.
Overall, we do respect the ambition and intent of the proposal, we generally a see a lack of utilisation and applicability with how it would reflect in Arbitrum.
Against this proposal. After reading, it remains unclear, at least to myself, who the final beneficiaries of a report like this are more concretely, other than the "Arbitrum DAO". Though more information is usually positive, I don't agree with this expense at this time and around that hypothesis
Blockworks Advisory is voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.
While we recognize the value of direct interviews for user research as a step forward, helping Arbitrum identify gaps from an ecosystem perspective, we share the concerns raised by @thedevanshmehta and others. The research report has potential but must include actionable insights and clear areas of focus for user research.
Blockworks Advisory is voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.
While we recognize the value of direct interviews for user research as a step forward, helping Arbitrum identify gaps from an ecosystem perspective, we share the concerns raised by @thedevanshmehta and others. The research report has potential but must include actionable insights and clear areas of focus for user research.
For instance, the Gnosis ecosystem successfully developed a suite of revenue-generating products for its DAO, but this required extensive research and strategic hiring to address gaps. To achieve a comparable level of understanding for Arbitrum, we need detailed reports and case studies on specific protocols and their user bases within the network. Additionally, the proposal appears unnecessarily bloated. The stakeholder council feels redundant when its responsibilities could be delegated to or audited by an existing committee.
Frankly, this proposal is not yet where it needs to be. While the idea holds value, it would have benefited from further iteration and discussion in the forum before moving to Snapshot.
As others have noted, clear KPIs are essential for evaluating the success of a project like this. Moreover, we agree with @WintermuteGovernance that Arbitrum’s main competitors are currently Base and Solana. Although Arbitrum is leading, Base is on track to surpass it in stablecoin market cap and is already outperforming in DEX volume. For Arbitrum to remain competitive, it must carve out a stronger position in these areas.
gm, I voted FOR. I think having data on our builders is extremely valuable, and this approach might not necessarily fit the skills for the new ARDC member.
I would like to understand better why builders didn't choose Arbitrum, and what gaps exists today that can be removed.
Also share the sentiment that the bonus is confusing and probably not necessary.
there is indeed a potential merit for this initiative to fall under a the education, community and event domain. Is borderline, and the main fear would be a flock of subsequent requests related to research projects: for this reason, as it stands, a proposal like this would have to be tuned to be more in scope. At the same time, also in other programs like UAGP, we have had in the past grants given specifically for research projects; what happens often times than not is that these researches are dropped into a grant program due to a lack of other means for financing them, and are "una tantum" type of things that mostly comes from the experience and trust of the team proposing the research + either an active request from stakeholder or in general a loud voiced interest on the topic.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting FOR + 2 ecosystems in this proposal and below is our rationale.
gm @danielo, thank you for the proposal.
We think it's valuable for the DAO to have its own research conducted in this area and to ensure we get the right kind of report.
On the proposal specifically we have the following feedback:
gm @danielo, thank you for the proposal.
We think it's valuable for the DAO to have its own research conducted in this area and to ensure we get the right kind of report.
On the proposal specifically we have the following feedback:
We are unsure whether the focus should be on builders who have already selected Arbitrum because the report will likely be skewed toward survivorship bias. It’s not as essential for us to understand why builders have selected Arbitrum because OCL or AF should be able to provide a summary based on their interactions with builders on Arbitrum.
We agree with @paulofonseca that the focus should be on builders who i) considered Arbitrum but decided on another chain and ii) builders who did not shortlist Arbitrum in the first place.
Concerning the recommended ecosystems above, we think the following should be considered instead.
We prefer focusing on item 2 and less on 1 with this specific type of research. It would provide more actionable insights into how projects evaluate chains and the key factors of appeal outside Arbitrum.
Therefore, in its current form, we would like to see a new option that focuses a much larger proportion of the work outside of Arbitrum.
We believe that the work on Arbitrum should be a separate exercise with different questions and goals.
Overall we feel that the direction and goal of the proposal needs to be pitched more clearly as if responding to an RFQ. It needs to be better at selling the vision of the proposal to delegates. It might also help if examples of interviews and their positive impact on specific DAO stakeholders would also strengthen your proposal and its value.
In addition, we would also add, in agreement with @pedrob, that it felt premature to rush the proposal to snapshot and not give delegates sufficient time to respond. But thank you for taking the time to present a case for this, we appreciate it.
Due to the above reasons along with our running in the election for ARDC v2 Research member, we are voting to ABSTAIN.
voting Arbitrum + 2 others (SOL + OP) on the current offchain proposal because I believe we should invest in User Research and do even more than what this proposal aims to do.
Hey Olimpio, for clarity, the beneficiaries would be the members of the stakeholder council who would have put their time into this initiative because they want to leverage the research.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal and opting to contain the research within Arbitrum.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal and opting to contain the research within Arbitrum.
Overall, we’re unsure how valuable the research will be in terms of using the insights for something actionable and who it is being done for. It might be the case that we’re doing research for research’s sake.
However, we believe that just interviewing builders will be a net positive and will help us learn more about them, as right now, we don’t have anything. With that in mind, we think the proposal's overhead is reasonable compared to the potential value we can get by learning more about builders on Arbitrum. We do want to note, however, that we do not understand why there’s a bonus included in the compensation, nor do we understand what the expectations are for the bonus to be given. By default, we assume that the bonus will not be delivered unless doing the research itself proves to be extraordinarily impactful (which we find rather unlikely). We suggest that this is further clarified before the onchain vote.
That being said, we do not yet see the point of expanding into other ecosystems, as comparative research can be tricky. We believe focusing on Arbitrum is far more reasonable, and we could revisit the possibility of research in other ecosystems if the research on Arbitrum yields some actionable, valuable insights.
I am voting in favor of the option "Arbitrum + 2 others." As I mentioned previously, I believe this research has the potential to provide valuable insights, helping to guide future proposals and initiatives in the right direction. Regarding the option itself, I think a comparative approach is the best way to assess how we can improve relative to our competitors.
However, I'd like to point out a few considerations:
I am voting in favor of the option "Arbitrum + 2 others." As I mentioned previously, I believe this research has the potential to provide valuable insights, helping to guide future proposals and initiatives in the right direction. Regarding the option itself, I think a comparative approach is the best way to assess how we can improve relative to our competitors.
However, I'd like to point out a few considerations:
While we are supportive of the general scope of the intended research and believe it is valuable with a reasonable budget, we are voting against the proposal in its current form due to the available voting options.
More specifically, we are in favour of assessing other chains alongside Arbitrum but we don’t think the combination of SOL and OP is the correct choice and instead would like to see SOL and Base assessed. Ultimately, Arbitrum is competing against other chains and it would make more sense to understand the perspective of builders from chains that are highly competitive/have a larger market share than Arbitrum in certain metrics. If we take a surface-level look via DeFiLlama & L2Beat, Base is highly competitive with Arbitrum and even beats Arbitrum in certain metrics when you look at things like:
Thank you @danielo for bringing this proposal to the DAO and for your consistent communication and efforts.
The proposal to conduct independent user research on Arbitrum’s builder ecosystem as well as gain insights into builder considerations in other ecosystems is commendable in its intent and desired outcome. However, we have some concern with the claim that this approach does not duplicate efforts that could—and should—fall under the ARDC’s purview. The ARDC was established to address the DAO's research and development needs, which should include understanding the builder ecosystem. As @SEEDGov has highlighted, ARDC applicants to the new term have shown considerable competence in the verticals described in this proposal. While we see the validity of the following arguments, we feel that the structure and transparency of the ARDC is best equipped for initial exploration of such research topics.
Unfortunately, the ARDC design of selecting a single supplier means there’s a bottleneck both in terms of expertise (single supplier having to act as a jack of all trades) and capacity constrained to a single organisation too.
Hi, will you also be asking founders and developer that left the ecosystem? I think this is even more important than to know why someone decided for Arbitrum. Because if someone decided to to with Arbitrum its great, but if they decided against we need to know and then take action accordingly.
I like the idea overall and the costs are fine. But I would really love my idea to be added.
Hi, will you also be asking founders and developer that left the ecosystem? I think this is even more important than to know why someone decided for Arbitrum. Because if someone decided to to with Arbitrum its great, but if they decided against we need to know and then take action accordingly.
I like the idea overall and the costs are fine. But I would really love my idea to be added.
I will vote YES.
DAOplomats voted for Researching within Arbitrum only on Snapshot.
Conducting research is a net positive for the DAO and we voted for Arbitrum only because we are currently only interested in this data point and how we can build upon the findings.
DAOplomats voted for Researching within Arbitrum only on Snapshot.
Conducting research is a net positive for the DAO and we voted for Arbitrum only because we are currently only interested in this data point and how we can build upon the findings.
We do agree with some of the other delegates that clear focus areas need to be dialed in but we wanted to show support during the temp check as we believe these other things could be fine-tuned before moving to the onchain vote.
Against this proposal. After reading, it remains unclear, at least to myself, who the final beneficiaries of a report like this are more concretely, other than the "Arbitrum DAO". Though more information is usually positive, I don't agree with this expense at this time and around that hypothesis
Blockworks Advisory is voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.
While we recognize the value of direct interviews for user research as a step forward, helping Arbitrum identify gaps from an ecosystem perspective, we share the concerns raised by @thedevanshmehta and others. The research report has potential but must include actionable insights and clear areas of focus for user research.
Blockworks Advisory is voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.
While we recognize the value of direct interviews for user research as a step forward, helping Arbitrum identify gaps from an ecosystem perspective, we share the concerns raised by @thedevanshmehta and others. The research report has potential but must include actionable insights and clear areas of focus for user research.
For instance, the Gnosis ecosystem successfully developed a suite of revenue-generating products for its DAO, but this required extensive research and strategic hiring to address gaps. To achieve a comparable level of understanding for Arbitrum, we need detailed reports and case studies on specific protocols and their user bases within the network. Additionally, the proposal appears unnecessarily bloated. The stakeholder council feels redundant when its responsibilities could be delegated to or audited by an existing committee.
Frankly, this proposal is not yet where it needs to be. While the idea holds value, it would have benefited from further iteration and discussion in the forum before moving to Snapshot.
As others have noted, clear KPIs are essential for evaluating the success of a project like this. Moreover, we agree with @WintermuteGovernance that Arbitrum’s main competitors are currently Base and Solana. Although Arbitrum is leading, Base is on track to surpass it in stablecoin market cap and is already outperforming in DEX volume. For Arbitrum to remain competitive, it must carve out a stronger position in these areas.
gm, I voted FOR. I think having data on our builders is extremely valuable, and this approach might not necessarily fit the skills for the new ARDC member.
I would like to understand better why builders didn't choose Arbitrum, and what gaps exists today that can be removed.
Also share the sentiment that the bonus is confusing and probably not necessary.
there is indeed a potential merit for this initiative to fall under a the education, community and event domain. Is borderline, and the main fear would be a flock of subsequent requests related to research projects: for this reason, as it stands, a proposal like this would have to be tuned to be more in scope. At the same time, also in other programs like UAGP, we have had in the past grants given specifically for research projects; what happens often times than not is that these researches are dropped into a grant program due to a lack of other means for financing them, and are "una tantum" type of things that mostly comes from the experience and trust of the team proposing the research + either an active request from stakeholder or in general a loud voiced interest on the topic.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting FOR + 2 ecosystems in this proposal and below is our rationale.
gm @danielo, thank you for the proposal.
We think it's valuable for the DAO to have its own research conducted in this area and to ensure we get the right kind of report.
On the proposal specifically we have the following feedback:
gm @danielo, thank you for the proposal.
We think it's valuable for the DAO to have its own research conducted in this area and to ensure we get the right kind of report.
On the proposal specifically we have the following feedback:
We are unsure whether the focus should be on builders who have already selected Arbitrum because the report will likely be skewed toward survivorship bias. It’s not as essential for us to understand why builders have selected Arbitrum because OCL or AF should be able to provide a summary based on their interactions with builders on Arbitrum.
We agree with @paulofonseca that the focus should be on builders who i) considered Arbitrum but decided on another chain and ii) builders who did not shortlist Arbitrum in the first place.
Concerning the recommended ecosystems above, we think the following should be considered instead.
We prefer focusing on item 2 and less on 1 with this specific type of research. It would provide more actionable insights into how projects evaluate chains and the key factors of appeal outside Arbitrum.
Therefore, in its current form, we would like to see a new option that focuses a much larger proportion of the work outside of Arbitrum.
We believe that the work on Arbitrum should be a separate exercise with different questions and goals.
Overall we feel that the direction and goal of the proposal needs to be pitched more clearly as if responding to an RFQ. It needs to be better at selling the vision of the proposal to delegates. It might also help if examples of interviews and their positive impact on specific DAO stakeholders would also strengthen your proposal and its value.
In addition, we would also add, in agreement with @pedrob, that it felt premature to rush the proposal to snapshot and not give delegates sufficient time to respond. But thank you for taking the time to present a case for this, we appreciate it.
Due to the above reasons along with our running in the election for ARDC v2 Research member, we are voting to ABSTAIN.
voting Arbitrum + 2 others (SOL + OP) on the current offchain proposal because I believe we should invest in User Research and do even more than what this proposal aims to do.
Hey Olimpio, for clarity, the beneficiaries would be the members of the stakeholder council who would have put their time into this initiative because they want to leverage the research.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal and opting to contain the research within Arbitrum.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal and opting to contain the research within Arbitrum.
Overall, we’re unsure how valuable the research will be in terms of using the insights for something actionable and who it is being done for. It might be the case that we’re doing research for research’s sake.
However, we believe that just interviewing builders will be a net positive and will help us learn more about them, as right now, we don’t have anything. With that in mind, we think the proposal's overhead is reasonable compared to the potential value we can get by learning more about builders on Arbitrum. We do want to note, however, that we do not understand why there’s a bonus included in the compensation, nor do we understand what the expectations are for the bonus to be given. By default, we assume that the bonus will not be delivered unless doing the research itself proves to be extraordinarily impactful (which we find rather unlikely). We suggest that this is further clarified before the onchain vote.
That being said, we do not yet see the point of expanding into other ecosystems, as comparative research can be tricky. We believe focusing on Arbitrum is far more reasonable, and we could revisit the possibility of research in other ecosystems if the research on Arbitrum yields some actionable, valuable insights.
I am voting in favor of the option "Arbitrum + 2 others." As I mentioned previously, I believe this research has the potential to provide valuable insights, helping to guide future proposals and initiatives in the right direction. Regarding the option itself, I think a comparative approach is the best way to assess how we can improve relative to our competitors.
However, I'd like to point out a few considerations:
I am voting in favor of the option "Arbitrum + 2 others." As I mentioned previously, I believe this research has the potential to provide valuable insights, helping to guide future proposals and initiatives in the right direction. Regarding the option itself, I think a comparative approach is the best way to assess how we can improve relative to our competitors.
However, I'd like to point out a few considerations:
While we are supportive of the general scope of the intended research and believe it is valuable with a reasonable budget, we are voting against the proposal in its current form due to the available voting options.
More specifically, we are in favour of assessing other chains alongside Arbitrum but we don’t think the combination of SOL and OP is the correct choice and instead would like to see SOL and Base assessed. Ultimately, Arbitrum is competing against other chains and it would make more sense to understand the perspective of builders from chains that are highly competitive/have a larger market share than Arbitrum in certain metrics. If we take a surface-level look via DeFiLlama & L2Beat, Base is highly competitive with Arbitrum and even beats Arbitrum in certain metrics when you look at things like:
Thank you @danielo for bringing this proposal to the DAO and for your consistent communication and efforts.
The proposal to conduct independent user research on Arbitrum’s builder ecosystem as well as gain insights into builder considerations in other ecosystems is commendable in its intent and desired outcome. However, we have some concern with the claim that this approach does not duplicate efforts that could—and should—fall under the ARDC’s purview. The ARDC was established to address the DAO's research and development needs, which should include understanding the builder ecosystem. As @SEEDGov has highlighted, ARDC applicants to the new term have shown considerable competence in the verticals described in this proposal. While we see the validity of the following arguments, we feel that the structure and transparency of the ARDC is best equipped for initial exploration of such research topics.
Unfortunately, the ARDC design of selecting a single supplier means there’s a bottleneck both in terms of expertise (single supplier having to act as a jack of all trades) and capacity constrained to a single organisation too.
Hi, will you also be asking founders and developer that left the ecosystem? I think this is even more important than to know why someone decided for Arbitrum. Because if someone decided to to with Arbitrum its great, but if they decided against we need to know and then take action accordingly.
I like the idea overall and the costs are fine. But I would really love my idea to be added.
Hi, will you also be asking founders and developer that left the ecosystem? I think this is even more important than to know why someone decided for Arbitrum. Because if someone decided to to with Arbitrum its great, but if they decided against we need to know and then take action accordingly.
I like the idea overall and the costs are fine. But I would really love my idea to be added.
I will vote YES.
DAOplomats voted for Researching within Arbitrum only on Snapshot.
Conducting research is a net positive for the DAO and we voted for Arbitrum only because we are currently only interested in this data point and how we can build upon the findings.
DAOplomats voted for Researching within Arbitrum only on Snapshot.
Conducting research is a net positive for the DAO and we voted for Arbitrum only because we are currently only interested in this data point and how we can build upon the findings.
We do agree with some of the other delegates that clear focus areas need to be dialed in but we wanted to show support during the temp check as we believe these other things could be fine-tuned before moving to the onchain vote.
While we are supportive of the general scope of the intended research and believe it is valuable with a reasonable budget, we are voting against the proposal in its current form due to the available voting options.
More specifically, we are in favour of assessing other chains alongside Arbitrum but we don’t think the combination of SOL and OP is the correct choice and instead would like to see SOL and Base assessed. Ultimately, Arbitrum is competing against other chains and it would make more sense to understand the perspective of builders from chains that are highly competitive/have a larger market share than Arbitrum in certain metrics. If we take a surface-level look via DeFiLlama & L2Beat, Base is highly competitive with Arbitrum and even beats Arbitrum in certain metrics when you look at things like:
Thus, we should be learning from strong outliers in the competitive landscape.
Lastly, while this isn’t a deal breaker for us. We do agree that this type of research could certainly fall under ARDC and we’d expect whoever gets selected to deliver a great result.
If this proposal was resubmitted with the option to select SOL and Base as a part of the research group we’d be in favour!
Thank you @danielo for bringing this proposal to the DAO and for your consistent communication and efforts.
The proposal to conduct independent user research on Arbitrum’s builder ecosystem as well as gain insights into builder considerations in other ecosystems is commendable in its intent and desired outcome. However, we have some concern with the claim that this approach does not duplicate efforts that could—and should—fall under the ARDC’s purview. The ARDC was established to address the DAO's research and development needs, which should include understanding the builder ecosystem. As @SEEDGov has highlighted, ARDC applicants to the new term have shown considerable competence in the verticals described in this proposal. While we see the validity of the following arguments, we feel that the structure and transparency of the ARDC is best equipped for initial exploration of such research topics.
Unfortunately, the ARDC design of selecting a single supplier means there’s a bottleneck both in terms of expertise (single supplier having to act as a jack of all trades) and capacity constrained to a single organisation too.
We vote for Arbitrum and two others.
We support the general direction of the initiative; it's vital to understand what customers think about the product and ecosystem via user research. While the ARDC could cover this in an ideal world, we think it's acceptable for another initiative like this to cover the important initiative. Eventually, the DAO should have its continuous system to work on efforts around this user research area.
We vote for Arbitrum and two others.
We support the general direction of the initiative; it's vital to understand what customers think about the product and ecosystem via user research. While the ARDC could cover this in an ideal world, we think it's acceptable for another initiative like this to cover the important initiative. Eventually, the DAO should have its continuous system to work on efforts around this user research area.
Without compared ecosystems to research against, the research outcome will be less valuable, thus we choose the option including two others. They should not necessarily be Solana and OP Mainnet, but can be Solana and Base, or even Solana ecosystem and Superchain ecosystem, which would be more valuable.
Articulated criteria on how to choose builders for the research is critical to answer but can be further reported in the ongoing meetings (e.g. GRC)
Forming a "council" does make sense but we consider it more like a review group with different stakeholders, rather than "council" that has been more operating roles within the Arbitrum DAO, to our knowledge (e.g. LTIPP council)
On metagovernance topics like "why this proposal was rushed onto Snapshot?", we should create a certain social rule on how long a proposal should be discussed before going into its Snapshot rather than arbitrarily pointing it out as it's too short for the Snapshot phase, etc.
@SEEDGov, @JoJo @Manugotsuka - Could you chime in here?
A delegate proposed this could fall under the Education DDA as:
as the report will contain insights on why ppl build on arb > (points to highlight answer sell with further content, events, etc), pain points identified (that can be lack of knowledge about the tech, not enough documentation).
@SEEDGov, @JoJo @Manugotsuka - Could you chime in here?
A delegate proposed this could fall under the Education DDA as:
as the report will contain insights on why ppl build on arb > (points to highlight answer sell with further content, events, etc), pain points identified (that can be lack of knowledge about the tech, not enough documentation).
Education is not only focused outward. It would give a good insight into how we are perceived from the outside.
I'd love to go through questbook once it is setup, but my understanding is that Questbook education focuses instead on:
What do you think?
If this proposal was resubmitted with the option to select SOL and Base as a part of the research group we’d be in favour!
If this proposal was resubmitted with the option to select SOL and Base as a part of the research group we’d be in favour!
@WintermuteGovernance - This is great feedback and I love the thinking of "we should be learning from strong outliers in the competitive landscape."
Actually a key reason why we have the "stakeholder group" is to help define and develop the "Research Specification" (which ecosystems to focus on, theories, etc.)
This stakeholder group exemplify the entities that would leverage and build on this research.
As this proposal moves forward we'd love your feedback on this research spec. =)
Hope you had a good holiday!
why wouldn’t Arbitrum just pay a professional organization that does this?
What sorts of "Professional organizations" do you have in mind?
Those from ARDC?
RnDAO is a professional organization with depth of experience in Voice of Consumer research (different than user studies) and has people have worked at Google, Meta, Upwork, and across a variety of products.
Hope you had a good holiday!
why wouldn’t Arbitrum just pay a professional organization that does this?
What sorts of "Professional organizations" do you have in mind?
Those from ARDC?
RnDAO is a professional organization with depth of experience in Voice of Consumer research (different than user studies) and has people have worked at Google, Meta, Upwork, and across a variety of products.
Personally, I worked with a leading product development (the originators of Jobs to be Done) and worked across leading companies in cloud computing, social, robotics, HBS, etc.
On the council, this is important specifically because they represent the entities that would leverage the research. Research by itself is not worth anything, instead we need to work with those that would implement it to understand their theories, questions and also make sure they can actually use the research.
This is part of the reason we included ARDC representative / entropy in this council to make sure we can facilitate all this. To be clear, no council member is paid - they are donating their time because they want to see this research done and to leverage it.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
We would like to start by mentioning that the proposed research is highly interesting, and we believe it makes sense to establish comparison points with other ecosystems such as Solana and Optimism. If we were to vote in favor, it would be for the option that includes both, with the caveat that within Optimism, Base should also be covered at the very least.
That said, while reviewing this proposal, we asked ourselves, "Why shouldn’t the ARDC handle this?"
We came across this explanation from the proposer:
This explanation contains a claim (already mentioned by @JamesKBH in his rationale) justifying funding this initiative because "most of the candidates for the research position don’t have significant User Research expertise." When we inquired about this in the ARDC's channel within the Delegate Group, we found that several of the applicants provided a different perspective (e.g., @PYOR, Ryan from DL (joint application with @CastleCapital), and @Alice1123 from The Block). Being 100% honest, if the applicants for the position believe they have the necessary expertise to carry out this initiative, we would prefer it to be one of many that will go on-demand under the new structure approved for ARDCv2. This preference can be justified for several reasons:
There are other factors do not convince us either:
In summary, we would be happy to help push this research within the ARDC’s scope, following the process already established for on-demand work:
Once the Supervisory Council identifies a deliverable, the Operations member will issue a Request for Quotation (RFQ) to the relevant working member, outlining the anticipated hours needed.
DanielM, I’m curious, what method do you see that would be more cost-effective?
I think we can still using a detailed survey of builders instead of expensive interviews. Surveys are faster and cheaper. After that, we could run a few focused interviews only with key participants to explore deeper questions.
Thanks for the comment. No additional management structure has been proposed for this research. The Stakeholder council is simply those with an interest in directly consuming the research, as such they're already beneficiaries and don't need to be paid extra.
For clarity, the ARDC and the applicants largely come from a background on a type of research that's focused on quant analysis, surveys, and technical comparisons. They're well-equipped to handle that sort of research. Unfortunately, the ARDC design of selecting a single supplier means there's a bottleneck both in terms of expertise (single supplier having to act as a jack of all trades) and capacity constrained to a single organisation too. The DAO has many research needs, and the Foundation has for example highlighted a list of priorities that are different from the focus provided in our proposal. And with the exception of Castle Capital, the ARDC candidates have proposed different research focuses. As such, we see more value in running parallel and complimentary research initiatives with multiple specialised providers, instead of reducing all research to ARDC's initial capacity for the first few months. Ideally, we would soon have an updated design for the ARDC that allows multiple suppliers to be white-listed and hence have deeper specialisation and flexible capacity (expand with more suppliers as needed by the research needs at each moment and not constrained by design).
For a simple visualisation of how much capacity we're lacking in User Researhc in Arbitrum: https://share.cleanshot.com/yjHxrHXn0CJCJ3rHhSgn
The budget appears reasonable considering the insights/benefits it will provide. Understanding why developers prefer Arbitrum over competitors is key to strategic growth. Therefore, I'm voting 'FOR' this proposal (Arbitrum + 2 Others) on Snapshot.
Voted For: Arbitrum + 2 others (SOL+OP) This is a great initiative and a well-thought-out proposal. Builders are the main driving force of any ecosystem. While we are all building on Ethereum, there are key differences that builders need to consider when deciding where to build. Additionally, narratives change quickly in Web3, so conducting user research periodically is essential. I hope this first iteration of the program will serve as an excellent pilot for ongoing research. The results will help us shape better initiatives and programs for the future.
I would like to highlight to the team that it is crucial to gather input from a wide range of builders (from early-stage startups to late-stage ones) to gain a comprehensive understanding. I am also well-connected with some builders and can help you make connections, especially with ARB and OP builders.
I voted against the proposal, primarily due to concerns about the high budget and broad research scope, leaning towards a more conservative approach. However, I suggest breaking the proposal into two phases: initially focusing on developer research within the Arbitrum ecosystem to reduce the budget for the first phase, while gaining experience before expanding to comparative studies with other ecosystems.
After thoroughly reviewing the proposal, it is very detailed overall, but some questions remain: 1. What are the criteria for the discretionary bonus mentioned in the proposal? How is “success” defined? 2. What is the role and actual authority of the stakeholder committee? Can they influence the research direction? 3. If the research results identify issues with Arbitrum’s core technology or policies, will these findings be prioritized and acted upon?
We're supportive of this proposal. General comments before posting our rationale:
We would like to signal our support for @PGov's suggestion of including specific recommendations in the final completion phase, aiming to make it easier to utilize the outcomes of the research, including user personas and insights.
We're supportive of this proposal. General comments before posting our rationale:
We would like to signal our support for @PGov's suggestion of including specific recommendations in the final completion phase, aiming to make it easier to utilize the outcomes of the research, including user personas and insights.
Regarding the chains selected, in case it was an option, we recommend focusing on specific chains (e.g., OP Mainnet, Base) rather than a broader ecosystem of chains (such as the Superchain) to ensure a clearer comparison.
I'm voting "FOR + two others" the proposal because we truly lack a deeper understanding of how developers see Arbitrum and building on it. While I am one of these developers, I'd like to see how others think about it and how their views differ from mine.
@danielo Does the "+ two others (SOL & OP)" include all chains within the Optimism Superchain, or just OP Mainnet? If the latter, then I would suggest doing a research on Base instead of OP Mainnet. My observation is that Base is having much more developer activity than OP Mainnet, and is also the largest chain by TVL within the Superchain.
Does the “+ two others (SOL & OP)” include all chains within the Optimism Superchain, or just OP Mainnet? If the latter, then I would suggest doing a research on Base instead of OP Mainnet. My observation is that Base is having much more developer activity than OP Mainnet, and is also the largest chain by TVL within the Superchain.
I vote for Arbitrum + 2 others (SOL + OP) Understanding users' mental models is essential for the development of the entire ecosystem. This research direction is actually a weak or missing link in the construction of various chains. It is very necessary for Arbitrum to take the lead in making this attempt. I am looking forward to the results of the Know Your Users (KYU) research. In my personal judgment, it will at least enable the following impact: "increased builder attraction and retention and improved communication strategy for Arbitrum."
I voted "AGAINST" this proposal.
This is the reasoning:
I voted "AGAINST" this proposal.
This is the reasoning:
Thanks for the comments. A couple of clarifications
Thanks for the proposal. I think this is definitely an important topic to discuss to enhance Arbitrum. Well, a lot of developers choose blockchains based on grants rather than the potential of the ecosystem. Once they get the grant, they move on to other blockchains :). So I think this proposal is a good move to find projects that truly want to build on Arbitrum, not just developers looking for a quick fix.
I voted for Arbitrum + 2 others (SOL+OP) because when comparing with Solana and Optimism will help us understand the differences in user needs, habits, and behaviors between L1 and L2 ecosystems. Arbitrum can learn from the strengths and weaknesses of them stay competitive.
We're Voting for the option to research Arbitrim plus SOL and OP
The proposal presents a strong case for conducting user research to understand builder motivations and preferences. The proposed methodology, team, and focus on actionable insights are all positive aspects.
We're Voting for the option to research Arbitrim plus SOL and OP
The proposal presents a strong case for conducting user research to understand builder motivations and preferences. The proposed methodology, team, and focus on actionable insights are all positive aspects.
I have voted For this proposal, as I believe it is crucial for Arbitrum to understand why builders choose one chain over others. In my view, now is the right time to invest in such a topic, and the budget is appropriate.
We have chosen Arbitrum as our home chain for Kleros 2.0 that will allow to perform cross-chain dispute resolution and we would be more than happy to provide feedbacks as a new builder on Arbitrum ecosystem.
Thank you for your comments
While we are supportive of the general scope of the intended research and believe it is valuable with a reasonable budget, we are voting against the proposal in its current form due to the available voting options.
More specifically, we are in favour of assessing other chains alongside Arbitrum but we don’t think the combination of SOL and OP is the correct choice and instead would like to see SOL and Base assessed. Ultimately, Arbitrum is competing against other chains and it would make more sense to understand the perspective of builders from chains that are highly competitive/have a larger market share than Arbitrum in certain metrics. If we take a surface-level look via DeFiLlama & L2Beat, Base is highly competitive with Arbitrum and even beats Arbitrum in certain metrics when you look at things like:
Thus, we should be learning from strong outliers in the competitive landscape.
Lastly, while this isn’t a deal breaker for us. We do agree that this type of research could certainly fall under ARDC and we’d expect whoever gets selected to deliver a great result.
If this proposal was resubmitted with the option to select SOL and Base as a part of the research group we’d be in favour!
Thank you @danielo for bringing this proposal to the DAO and for your consistent communication and efforts.
The proposal to conduct independent user research on Arbitrum’s builder ecosystem as well as gain insights into builder considerations in other ecosystems is commendable in its intent and desired outcome. However, we have some concern with the claim that this approach does not duplicate efforts that could—and should—fall under the ARDC’s purview. The ARDC was established to address the DAO's research and development needs, which should include understanding the builder ecosystem. As @SEEDGov has highlighted, ARDC applicants to the new term have shown considerable competence in the verticals described in this proposal. While we see the validity of the following arguments, we feel that the structure and transparency of the ARDC is best equipped for initial exploration of such research topics.
Unfortunately, the ARDC design of selecting a single supplier means there’s a bottleneck both in terms of expertise (single supplier having to act as a jack of all trades) and capacity constrained to a single organisation too.
We vote for Arbitrum and two others.
We support the general direction of the initiative; it's vital to understand what customers think about the product and ecosystem via user research. While the ARDC could cover this in an ideal world, we think it's acceptable for another initiative like this to cover the important initiative. Eventually, the DAO should have its continuous system to work on efforts around this user research area.
We vote for Arbitrum and two others.
We support the general direction of the initiative; it's vital to understand what customers think about the product and ecosystem via user research. While the ARDC could cover this in an ideal world, we think it's acceptable for another initiative like this to cover the important initiative. Eventually, the DAO should have its continuous system to work on efforts around this user research area.
Without compared ecosystems to research against, the research outcome will be less valuable, thus we choose the option including two others. They should not necessarily be Solana and OP Mainnet, but can be Solana and Base, or even Solana ecosystem and Superchain ecosystem, which would be more valuable.
Articulated criteria on how to choose builders for the research is critical to answer but can be further reported in the ongoing meetings (e.g. GRC)
Forming a "council" does make sense but we consider it more like a review group with different stakeholders, rather than "council" that has been more operating roles within the Arbitrum DAO, to our knowledge (e.g. LTIPP council)
On metagovernance topics like "why this proposal was rushed onto Snapshot?", we should create a certain social rule on how long a proposal should be discussed before going into its Snapshot rather than arbitrarily pointing it out as it's too short for the Snapshot phase, etc.
@SEEDGov, @JoJo @Manugotsuka - Could you chime in here?
A delegate proposed this could fall under the Education DDA as:
as the report will contain insights on why ppl build on arb > (points to highlight answer sell with further content, events, etc), pain points identified (that can be lack of knowledge about the tech, not enough documentation).
@SEEDGov, @JoJo @Manugotsuka - Could you chime in here?
A delegate proposed this could fall under the Education DDA as:
as the report will contain insights on why ppl build on arb > (points to highlight answer sell with further content, events, etc), pain points identified (that can be lack of knowledge about the tech, not enough documentation).
Education is not only focused outward. It would give a good insight into how we are perceived from the outside.
I'd love to go through questbook once it is setup, but my understanding is that Questbook education focuses instead on:
What do you think?
If this proposal was resubmitted with the option to select SOL and Base as a part of the research group we’d be in favour!
If this proposal was resubmitted with the option to select SOL and Base as a part of the research group we’d be in favour!
@WintermuteGovernance - This is great feedback and I love the thinking of "we should be learning from strong outliers in the competitive landscape."
Actually a key reason why we have the "stakeholder group" is to help define and develop the "Research Specification" (which ecosystems to focus on, theories, etc.)
This stakeholder group exemplify the entities that would leverage and build on this research.
As this proposal moves forward we'd love your feedback on this research spec. =)
Hope you had a good holiday!
why wouldn’t Arbitrum just pay a professional organization that does this?
What sorts of "Professional organizations" do you have in mind?
Those from ARDC?
RnDAO is a professional organization with depth of experience in Voice of Consumer research (different than user studies) and has people have worked at Google, Meta, Upwork, and across a variety of products.
Hope you had a good holiday!
why wouldn’t Arbitrum just pay a professional organization that does this?
What sorts of "Professional organizations" do you have in mind?
Those from ARDC?
RnDAO is a professional organization with depth of experience in Voice of Consumer research (different than user studies) and has people have worked at Google, Meta, Upwork, and across a variety of products.
Personally, I worked with a leading product development (the originators of Jobs to be Done) and worked across leading companies in cloud computing, social, robotics, HBS, etc.
On the council, this is important specifically because they represent the entities that would leverage the research. Research by itself is not worth anything, instead we need to work with those that would implement it to understand their theories, questions and also make sure they can actually use the research.
This is part of the reason we included ARDC representative / entropy in this council to make sure we can facilitate all this. To be clear, no council member is paid - they are donating their time because they want to see this research done and to leverage it.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
We would like to start by mentioning that the proposed research is highly interesting, and we believe it makes sense to establish comparison points with other ecosystems such as Solana and Optimism. If we were to vote in favor, it would be for the option that includes both, with the caveat that within Optimism, Base should also be covered at the very least.
That said, while reviewing this proposal, we asked ourselves, "Why shouldn’t the ARDC handle this?"
We came across this explanation from the proposer:
This explanation contains a claim (already mentioned by @JamesKBH in his rationale) justifying funding this initiative because "most of the candidates for the research position don’t have significant User Research expertise." When we inquired about this in the ARDC's channel within the Delegate Group, we found that several of the applicants provided a different perspective (e.g., @PYOR, Ryan from DL (joint application with @CastleCapital), and @Alice1123 from The Block). Being 100% honest, if the applicants for the position believe they have the necessary expertise to carry out this initiative, we would prefer it to be one of many that will go on-demand under the new structure approved for ARDCv2. This preference can be justified for several reasons:
There are other factors do not convince us either:
In summary, we would be happy to help push this research within the ARDC’s scope, following the process already established for on-demand work:
Once the Supervisory Council identifies a deliverable, the Operations member will issue a Request for Quotation (RFQ) to the relevant working member, outlining the anticipated hours needed.
DanielM, I’m curious, what method do you see that would be more cost-effective?
I think we can still using a detailed survey of builders instead of expensive interviews. Surveys are faster and cheaper. After that, we could run a few focused interviews only with key participants to explore deeper questions.
Thanks for the comment. No additional management structure has been proposed for this research. The Stakeholder council is simply those with an interest in directly consuming the research, as such they're already beneficiaries and don't need to be paid extra.
For clarity, the ARDC and the applicants largely come from a background on a type of research that's focused on quant analysis, surveys, and technical comparisons. They're well-equipped to handle that sort of research. Unfortunately, the ARDC design of selecting a single supplier means there's a bottleneck both in terms of expertise (single supplier having to act as a jack of all trades) and capacity constrained to a single organisation too. The DAO has many research needs, and the Foundation has for example highlighted a list of priorities that are different from the focus provided in our proposal. And with the exception of Castle Capital, the ARDC candidates have proposed different research focuses. As such, we see more value in running parallel and complimentary research initiatives with multiple specialised providers, instead of reducing all research to ARDC's initial capacity for the first few months. Ideally, we would soon have an updated design for the ARDC that allows multiple suppliers to be white-listed and hence have deeper specialisation and flexible capacity (expand with more suppliers as needed by the research needs at each moment and not constrained by design).
For a simple visualisation of how much capacity we're lacking in User Researhc in Arbitrum: https://share.cleanshot.com/yjHxrHXn0CJCJ3rHhSgn
The budget appears reasonable considering the insights/benefits it will provide. Understanding why developers prefer Arbitrum over competitors is key to strategic growth. Therefore, I'm voting 'FOR' this proposal (Arbitrum + 2 Others) on Snapshot.
Voted For: Arbitrum + 2 others (SOL+OP) This is a great initiative and a well-thought-out proposal. Builders are the main driving force of any ecosystem. While we are all building on Ethereum, there are key differences that builders need to consider when deciding where to build. Additionally, narratives change quickly in Web3, so conducting user research periodically is essential. I hope this first iteration of the program will serve as an excellent pilot for ongoing research. The results will help us shape better initiatives and programs for the future.
I would like to highlight to the team that it is crucial to gather input from a wide range of builders (from early-stage startups to late-stage ones) to gain a comprehensive understanding. I am also well-connected with some builders and can help you make connections, especially with ARB and OP builders.
I voted against the proposal, primarily due to concerns about the high budget and broad research scope, leaning towards a more conservative approach. However, I suggest breaking the proposal into two phases: initially focusing on developer research within the Arbitrum ecosystem to reduce the budget for the first phase, while gaining experience before expanding to comparative studies with other ecosystems.
After thoroughly reviewing the proposal, it is very detailed overall, but some questions remain: 1. What are the criteria for the discretionary bonus mentioned in the proposal? How is “success” defined? 2. What is the role and actual authority of the stakeholder committee? Can they influence the research direction? 3. If the research results identify issues with Arbitrum’s core technology or policies, will these findings be prioritized and acted upon?
We're supportive of this proposal. General comments before posting our rationale:
We would like to signal our support for @PGov's suggestion of including specific recommendations in the final completion phase, aiming to make it easier to utilize the outcomes of the research, including user personas and insights.
We're supportive of this proposal. General comments before posting our rationale:
We would like to signal our support for @PGov's suggestion of including specific recommendations in the final completion phase, aiming to make it easier to utilize the outcomes of the research, including user personas and insights.
Regarding the chains selected, in case it was an option, we recommend focusing on specific chains (e.g., OP Mainnet, Base) rather than a broader ecosystem of chains (such as the Superchain) to ensure a clearer comparison.
I'm voting "FOR + two others" the proposal because we truly lack a deeper understanding of how developers see Arbitrum and building on it. While I am one of these developers, I'd like to see how others think about it and how their views differ from mine.
@danielo Does the "+ two others (SOL & OP)" include all chains within the Optimism Superchain, or just OP Mainnet? If the latter, then I would suggest doing a research on Base instead of OP Mainnet. My observation is that Base is having much more developer activity than OP Mainnet, and is also the largest chain by TVL within the Superchain.
Does the “+ two others (SOL & OP)” include all chains within the Optimism Superchain, or just OP Mainnet? If the latter, then I would suggest doing a research on Base instead of OP Mainnet. My observation is that Base is having much more developer activity than OP Mainnet, and is also the largest chain by TVL within the Superchain.
I vote for Arbitrum + 2 others (SOL + OP) Understanding users' mental models is essential for the development of the entire ecosystem. This research direction is actually a weak or missing link in the construction of various chains. It is very necessary for Arbitrum to take the lead in making this attempt. I am looking forward to the results of the Know Your Users (KYU) research. In my personal judgment, it will at least enable the following impact: "increased builder attraction and retention and improved communication strategy for Arbitrum."
I voted "AGAINST" this proposal.
This is the reasoning:
I voted "AGAINST" this proposal.
This is the reasoning:
Thanks for the comments. A couple of clarifications
Thanks for the proposal. I think this is definitely an important topic to discuss to enhance Arbitrum. Well, a lot of developers choose blockchains based on grants rather than the potential of the ecosystem. Once they get the grant, they move on to other blockchains :). So I think this proposal is a good move to find projects that truly want to build on Arbitrum, not just developers looking for a quick fix.
I voted for Arbitrum + 2 others (SOL+OP) because when comparing with Solana and Optimism will help us understand the differences in user needs, habits, and behaviors between L1 and L2 ecosystems. Arbitrum can learn from the strengths and weaknesses of them stay competitive.
We're Voting for the option to research Arbitrim plus SOL and OP
The proposal presents a strong case for conducting user research to understand builder motivations and preferences. The proposed methodology, team, and focus on actionable insights are all positive aspects.
We're Voting for the option to research Arbitrim plus SOL and OP
The proposal presents a strong case for conducting user research to understand builder motivations and preferences. The proposed methodology, team, and focus on actionable insights are all positive aspects.
I have voted For this proposal, as I believe it is crucial for Arbitrum to understand why builders choose one chain over others. In my view, now is the right time to invest in such a topic, and the budget is appropriate.
We have chosen Arbitrum as our home chain for Kleros 2.0 that will allow to perform cross-chain dispute resolution and we would be more than happy to provide feedbacks as a new builder on Arbitrum ecosystem.
Thank you for your comments
Does the “+ two others (SOL & OP)” include all chains within the Optimism Superchain, or just OP Mainnet? If the latter, then I would suggest doing a research on Base instead of OP Mainnet. My observation is that Base is having much more developer activity than OP Mainnet, and is also the largest chain by TVL within the Superchain.
Thanks for the comment. W might make the final ecosystems selection a snapshot vote (accompanying the Tally vote) as there are a lot of different opinions here. TBC
Thanks for the comments. A couple of clarifications
Which track would you suggest is a fit? Because to my understanding the Events and Communtiy track doesn't fund research. Nor does the Gaming, Developer Tooling, nor New Apps/Protocols tracks. The DAO could vote for a new track to be added to Questbook but that's basically the ARDC role already.
Thanks for the proposal. I think this is definitely an important topic to discuss to enhance Arbitrum. Well, a lot of developers choose blockchains based on grants rather than the potential of the ecosystem. Once they get the grant, they move on to other blockchains :). So I think this proposal is a good move to find projects that truly want to build on Arbitrum, not just developers looking for a quick fix.
I voted for Arbitrum + 2 others (SOL+OP) because when comparing with Solana and Optimism will help us understand the differences in user needs, habits, and behaviors between L1 and L2 ecosystems. Arbitrum can learn from the strengths and weaknesses of them stay competitive.
However, I feel the plan could be a bit more detailed. How will methods like personas and job-to-be-done ensure that the research findings will be actually applied to improve features and support for the Arbitrum ecosystem?
Thank you for your comments
This move to Snapshot feels slightly rushed, as some key details (like builder selection criteria) is still being refined.
a more transparent framework for awarding the bonus (e.g., predefined deliverable quality benchmarks) would help ensure fairness and reduce ambiguity.
Some comments and thoughts:
That's essentially what this proposal is. RnDAO was born a couple years ago seeing this gap, and we have world-class user researchers on staff who also understand web3.
The Stakeholder Council proposed is as I see it that mechanism that you suggest for Entropy as liaison (the proposed format includes Entropy plus a couple others from AF, GCP, ARDC, etc). Maybe the name council was confusing when the intention here was to have a couple of people to liaise with on the granular research questions and to assess the deliverable.
The proposal lacks clarity on how the research findings will be directly translated into actionable steps, such as new technical features, project support programs, or incentive mechanisms.
The proposal lacks clarity on how the research findings will be directly translated into actionable steps, such as new technical features, project support programs, or incentive mechanisms.
Thank you for the comment. I have added an FAQ section for this. Please let me know if any doubts remain.
We expect this research to enable the following types of impact:
cc @danielM
DanielM, I'm curious, what method do you see that would be more cost-effective?
see this is becoming a point of tension we didn’t anticipate. The rationale was that most top delegates usually only engage once a proposal is in Snapshot, so while the forum feedback by smaller delegates is useful to refine proposals, it provides little insight into the overall appetite from the DAO for the proposal. So the risk is to spend a lot of time incorporating feedback for something that’s going to fail anyway, or otherwise where the most critical feedback is missing. I see how the delegates incentive design clashes with this, and I’m not sure how to solve the issue but I’ll be thinking about it cc @SEEDGov
see this is becoming a point of tension we didn’t anticipate. The rationale was that most top delegates usually only engage once a proposal is in Snapshot, so while the forum feedback by smaller delegates is useful to refine proposals, it provides little insight into the overall appetite from the DAO for the proposal. So the risk is to spend a lot of time incorporating feedback for something that’s going to fail anyway, or otherwise where the most critical feedback is missing. I see how the delegates incentive design clashes with this, and I’m not sure how to solve the issue but I’ll be thinking about it cc @SEEDGov
I don't think is necessarily a point of tension. More like: proposal has been in the forum for a while, so people can read it. Even if I can agree that sometimes is more like smaller delegates (like me kek) who provides a feedback, doesn't mean others don't read it and don't get acquainted to the idea. Is more about giving people the opportunity, if they want, to speak on the proposal, more than having specific feedbacks in there, just that. Also this is a bit OT here but wanted to clarify the point.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR the "Arbitrum + 2 others (SOL + OP)" option in the Snapshot voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR the "Arbitrum + 2 others (SOL + OP)" option in the Snapshot voting.
This can provide valuable insights to enhance Arbitrum’s ecosystem. Many developers often select blockchains based not just on the ecosystem's capabilities, but also on the availability of grants and other short-term incentives. Understanding these underlying motivations and comparing ecosystems like Solana and Optimism with Arbitrum is a critical step toward strengthening our platform’s long-term appeal.
Since the proposal has already reached Snapshot, we would like to know what factors were considered in selecting Solana and Optimism. Additionally, would you be open to modifying these options before it moves to Tally?
We agree with this and want to see what changes can be made to this proposal before it moves to Tally. It might also be helpful to consider including other ecosystems along with Solana and Optimism to give a broader comparison.
agree with @pedrob, this could have stayed on the forum for a while more to be honest
agree with @pedrob, this could have stayed on the forum for a while more to be honest
Agreed. The current plan is to start work as soon as we have a positive Snapshot (assuming at least 80-90mn in favour), as otherwise the initiative gets pushed back to mid-February for kickoff. One of the first steps will be defining the exact approach to source builders and we'll make sure to share this publicly and get some feedback before we start actioning it (the stakeholder council is also expected to play a role in providing feedback on the research plan).
we do have a question regarding the bonus. Could you provide a bit more clarity on how it will be determined?
Hi @danielo , thanks for putting forward this proposal
We’re always in favor of initiatives that prioritize research, and this one feels like exactly what Arbitrum needs right now. Understanding why builders choose our ecosystem and what we can improve is critical for helping us focus our efforts and prioritize effectively.
Hi @danielo , thanks for putting forward this proposal
We’re always in favor of initiatives that prioritize research, and this one feels like exactly what Arbitrum needs right now. Understanding why builders choose our ecosystem and what we can improve is critical for helping us focus our efforts and prioritize effectively.
There’s so much potential here, especially in terms of onboarding more developers and strengthening the ecosystem overall. We’re happy to support this proposal and plan to vote in favor of it.
That said, we do have a question regarding the bonus. Could you provide a bit more clarity on how it will be determined?
We are voting against this proposal because while understanding builder preferences is valuable, the budget and scope seem excessive without clear assurance of actionable outcomes. Additionally, similar insights might be achieved through existing resources or more cost-effective methods.
Vote: Arbitrum + 2 others (SOL + OP)
Reasoning:
Vote: Arbitrum + 2 others (SOL + OP)
Reasoning:
The proposal clearly outlines its objectives, including understanding why developers choose Arbitrum and identifying areas for future improvement. It offers a user research-based approach to better comprehend developer needs, supporting the optimization of the technical roadmap and the expansion of the ecosystem. Additionally, the proposal provides “user profiles” that will help target the right developer audience effectively.
However,
The proposal lacks clarity on how the research findings will be directly translated into actionable steps, such as new technical features, project support programs, or incentive mechanisms.
Coming back from the holidays, so forgive us if this was already asked, but why wouldn't Arbitrum just pay a professional organization that does this? User studies are a thing, and doesn't necessarily require any kind of council. Just have Entropy or someone already on the payroll be their liaison for questions.
Hey, yeah we could run a snapshot to select between ecosystems to research
Do you have any non-subjective way of deciding the percentage granted after completion?
I see no reason not to support this proposal. I believe it is necessary to periodically conduct surveys or in-person focus groups with key figures who can provide valuable insights on improving Arbitrum.
The one-on-one interviews could help gather information, but bringing many people to the table could spark highly valuable conversations that provide better clarity on what needs improvement and what we might be doing wrong.
I see no reason not to support this proposal. I believe it is necessary to periodically conduct surveys or in-person focus groups with key figures who can provide valuable insights on improving Arbitrum.
The one-on-one interviews could help gather information, but bringing many people to the table could spark highly valuable conversations that provide better clarity on what needs improvement and what we might be doing wrong.
That said, my vote on Snapshot also includes SOL and OP, as this will offer a broader perspective, resulting in more comprehensive research.
Thank you for the proposal. We are leaning toward voting for option 2, which includes Arbitrum + 2 ecosystems. However, we would have preferred leaving the selection of the other ecosystems open to the community.
Since the proposal has already reached Snapshot, we would like to know what factors were considered in selecting Solana and Optimism. Additionally, would you be open to modifying these options before it moves to Tally?
I see no reason why this research request shouldn’t go through the ARDC. It’s a shame you withdrew RnDAO’s candidacy, although I would like you to reconsider and compete for the opportunity.
A good attempt to find out what the commitment to Arbitrum is.
On the one hand, such studies will be useful in any case, regardless of the results. It is possible that it will turn out that there are no objective reasons for the choice of blockchain by developers, but only their habits and past experience.
A good attempt to find out what the commitment to Arbitrum is.
On the one hand, such studies will be useful in any case, regardless of the results. It is possible that it will turn out that there are no objective reasons for the choice of blockchain by developers, but only their habits and past experience.
On the other hand, paying bonuses based on the results of someone's vote is a very opaque idea. Therefore, I do not support this part of the proposal.
However, in general, the budget is very small and if it were 2 times larger and without bonuses, I would have no questions about it.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you for sharing the proposal. The comprehensive approach to understanding our developer ecosystem is great.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you for sharing the proposal. The comprehensive approach to understanding our developer ecosystem is great.
We appreciate the direct interviews with builders and entrepreneurs is an excellent step forward. This approach will definitely provide actionable insights far beyond what surveys or desk research could achieve.
The deliverable will be a research report that addresses our key research goals:
We agree with what @thedevanshmehta has also mentioned. While the research report promises valuable insights, there’s a possibility that the findings may not translate into actionable outcomes. How will the DAO ensure that the recommendations are implemented effectively and not just sit as a theoretical report? There should be additional steps beyond just submitting the research report; the process should not end with the submission.
We’re proposing a budget plus a discretionary success bonus. The bonus will be decided by the Stakeholder Council at 0%, 50%, or 100%
While the success bonus incentivizes high-quality work, it introduces subjectivity. Could you clarify how the criteria for awarding the bonus will be structured to ensure fairness and transparency?
Apart from the questions, we would like to share some feedback about the timing of this proposal. The proposal was posted on Friday, November 22, and today, November 29 (also a Friday), it has already been moved to a Snapshot vote for a temperature check. This feels a bit rushed and doesn’t allow enough time for everyone to discuss and share their thoughts if we see the current engagement in this proposal.
According to the Delegate Code of Conduct, it’s recommended that Snapshot votes should start on Thursdays at 12 p.m. UTC to give enough time for proper discussion and avoid rushing decisions. But this proposal went up on Snapshot on Friday. We hope this can be kept in mind for future proposals so that there’s enough time for everyone to review, provide feedback and then vote on proposals.
I think research initiatives like this are valuable because they give us practical insights into the Arbitrum ecosystem. The goals and deliverables in this proposal could really complement other research efforts within the DAO.
The budget seems reasonable to me, and we should welcome any information that adds value. I understand @thedevanshmehta's point about wanting research to lead to concrete actions, but I believe that even if the research doesn't result in immediate proposals, it still helps inform future decisions. This information could also complement other research deliverables.
Hi, I vote 'for' the proposal. I think it's crucial we have a deep understanding of what is making users switch or stay in the chain. I also think the bonus is a bit high.
@danielo Do you have any non-subjective way of deciding the percentage granted after completion?
Does the “+ two others (SOL & OP)” include all chains within the Optimism Superchain, or just OP Mainnet? If the latter, then I would suggest doing a research on Base instead of OP Mainnet. My observation is that Base is having much more developer activity than OP Mainnet, and is also the largest chain by TVL within the Superchain.
Thanks for the comment. W might make the final ecosystems selection a snapshot vote (accompanying the Tally vote) as there are a lot of different opinions here. TBC
Thanks for the comments. A couple of clarifications
Which track would you suggest is a fit? Because to my understanding the Events and Communtiy track doesn't fund research. Nor does the Gaming, Developer Tooling, nor New Apps/Protocols tracks. The DAO could vote for a new track to be added to Questbook but that's basically the ARDC role already.
Thanks for the proposal. I think this is definitely an important topic to discuss to enhance Arbitrum. Well, a lot of developers choose blockchains based on grants rather than the potential of the ecosystem. Once they get the grant, they move on to other blockchains :). So I think this proposal is a good move to find projects that truly want to build on Arbitrum, not just developers looking for a quick fix.
I voted for Arbitrum + 2 others (SOL+OP) because when comparing with Solana and Optimism will help us understand the differences in user needs, habits, and behaviors between L1 and L2 ecosystems. Arbitrum can learn from the strengths and weaknesses of them stay competitive.
However, I feel the plan could be a bit more detailed. How will methods like personas and job-to-be-done ensure that the research findings will be actually applied to improve features and support for the Arbitrum ecosystem?
Thank you for your comments
This move to Snapshot feels slightly rushed, as some key details (like builder selection criteria) is still being refined.
a more transparent framework for awarding the bonus (e.g., predefined deliverable quality benchmarks) would help ensure fairness and reduce ambiguity.
Some comments and thoughts:
That's essentially what this proposal is. RnDAO was born a couple years ago seeing this gap, and we have world-class user researchers on staff who also understand web3.
The Stakeholder Council proposed is as I see it that mechanism that you suggest for Entropy as liaison (the proposed format includes Entropy plus a couple others from AF, GCP, ARDC, etc). Maybe the name council was confusing when the intention here was to have a couple of people to liaise with on the granular research questions and to assess the deliverable.
The proposal lacks clarity on how the research findings will be directly translated into actionable steps, such as new technical features, project support programs, or incentive mechanisms.
The proposal lacks clarity on how the research findings will be directly translated into actionable steps, such as new technical features, project support programs, or incentive mechanisms.
Thank you for the comment. I have added an FAQ section for this. Please let me know if any doubts remain.
We expect this research to enable the following types of impact:
cc @danielM
DanielM, I'm curious, what method do you see that would be more cost-effective?
see this is becoming a point of tension we didn’t anticipate. The rationale was that most top delegates usually only engage once a proposal is in Snapshot, so while the forum feedback by smaller delegates is useful to refine proposals, it provides little insight into the overall appetite from the DAO for the proposal. So the risk is to spend a lot of time incorporating feedback for something that’s going to fail anyway, or otherwise where the most critical feedback is missing. I see how the delegates incentive design clashes with this, and I’m not sure how to solve the issue but I’ll be thinking about it cc @SEEDGov
see this is becoming a point of tension we didn’t anticipate. The rationale was that most top delegates usually only engage once a proposal is in Snapshot, so while the forum feedback by smaller delegates is useful to refine proposals, it provides little insight into the overall appetite from the DAO for the proposal. So the risk is to spend a lot of time incorporating feedback for something that’s going to fail anyway, or otherwise where the most critical feedback is missing. I see how the delegates incentive design clashes with this, and I’m not sure how to solve the issue but I’ll be thinking about it cc @SEEDGov
I don't think is necessarily a point of tension. More like: proposal has been in the forum for a while, so people can read it. Even if I can agree that sometimes is more like smaller delegates (like me kek) who provides a feedback, doesn't mean others don't read it and don't get acquainted to the idea. Is more about giving people the opportunity, if they want, to speak on the proposal, more than having specific feedbacks in there, just that. Also this is a bit OT here but wanted to clarify the point.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR the "Arbitrum + 2 others (SOL + OP)" option in the Snapshot voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR the "Arbitrum + 2 others (SOL + OP)" option in the Snapshot voting.
This can provide valuable insights to enhance Arbitrum’s ecosystem. Many developers often select blockchains based not just on the ecosystem's capabilities, but also on the availability of grants and other short-term incentives. Understanding these underlying motivations and comparing ecosystems like Solana and Optimism with Arbitrum is a critical step toward strengthening our platform’s long-term appeal.
Since the proposal has already reached Snapshot, we would like to know what factors were considered in selecting Solana and Optimism. Additionally, would you be open to modifying these options before it moves to Tally?
We agree with this and want to see what changes can be made to this proposal before it moves to Tally. It might also be helpful to consider including other ecosystems along with Solana and Optimism to give a broader comparison.
agree with @pedrob, this could have stayed on the forum for a while more to be honest
agree with @pedrob, this could have stayed on the forum for a while more to be honest
Agreed. The current plan is to start work as soon as we have a positive Snapshot (assuming at least 80-90mn in favour), as otherwise the initiative gets pushed back to mid-February for kickoff. One of the first steps will be defining the exact approach to source builders and we'll make sure to share this publicly and get some feedback before we start actioning it (the stakeholder council is also expected to play a role in providing feedback on the research plan).
we do have a question regarding the bonus. Could you provide a bit more clarity on how it will be determined?
Hi @danielo , thanks for putting forward this proposal
We’re always in favor of initiatives that prioritize research, and this one feels like exactly what Arbitrum needs right now. Understanding why builders choose our ecosystem and what we can improve is critical for helping us focus our efforts and prioritize effectively.
Hi @danielo , thanks for putting forward this proposal
We’re always in favor of initiatives that prioritize research, and this one feels like exactly what Arbitrum needs right now. Understanding why builders choose our ecosystem and what we can improve is critical for helping us focus our efforts and prioritize effectively.
There’s so much potential here, especially in terms of onboarding more developers and strengthening the ecosystem overall. We’re happy to support this proposal and plan to vote in favor of it.
That said, we do have a question regarding the bonus. Could you provide a bit more clarity on how it will be determined?
We are voting against this proposal because while understanding builder preferences is valuable, the budget and scope seem excessive without clear assurance of actionable outcomes. Additionally, similar insights might be achieved through existing resources or more cost-effective methods.
Vote: Arbitrum + 2 others (SOL + OP)
Reasoning:
Vote: Arbitrum + 2 others (SOL + OP)
Reasoning:
The proposal clearly outlines its objectives, including understanding why developers choose Arbitrum and identifying areas for future improvement. It offers a user research-based approach to better comprehend developer needs, supporting the optimization of the technical roadmap and the expansion of the ecosystem. Additionally, the proposal provides “user profiles” that will help target the right developer audience effectively.
However,
The proposal lacks clarity on how the research findings will be directly translated into actionable steps, such as new technical features, project support programs, or incentive mechanisms.
Coming back from the holidays, so forgive us if this was already asked, but why wouldn't Arbitrum just pay a professional organization that does this? User studies are a thing, and doesn't necessarily require any kind of council. Just have Entropy or someone already on the payroll be their liaison for questions.
Hey, yeah we could run a snapshot to select between ecosystems to research
Do you have any non-subjective way of deciding the percentage granted after completion?
I see no reason not to support this proposal. I believe it is necessary to periodically conduct surveys or in-person focus groups with key figures who can provide valuable insights on improving Arbitrum.
The one-on-one interviews could help gather information, but bringing many people to the table could spark highly valuable conversations that provide better clarity on what needs improvement and what we might be doing wrong.
I see no reason not to support this proposal. I believe it is necessary to periodically conduct surveys or in-person focus groups with key figures who can provide valuable insights on improving Arbitrum.
The one-on-one interviews could help gather information, but bringing many people to the table could spark highly valuable conversations that provide better clarity on what needs improvement and what we might be doing wrong.
That said, my vote on Snapshot also includes SOL and OP, as this will offer a broader perspective, resulting in more comprehensive research.
Thank you for the proposal. We are leaning toward voting for option 2, which includes Arbitrum + 2 ecosystems. However, we would have preferred leaving the selection of the other ecosystems open to the community.
Since the proposal has already reached Snapshot, we would like to know what factors were considered in selecting Solana and Optimism. Additionally, would you be open to modifying these options before it moves to Tally?
I see no reason why this research request shouldn’t go through the ARDC. It’s a shame you withdrew RnDAO’s candidacy, although I would like you to reconsider and compete for the opportunity.
A good attempt to find out what the commitment to Arbitrum is.
On the one hand, such studies will be useful in any case, regardless of the results. It is possible that it will turn out that there are no objective reasons for the choice of blockchain by developers, but only their habits and past experience.
A good attempt to find out what the commitment to Arbitrum is.
On the one hand, such studies will be useful in any case, regardless of the results. It is possible that it will turn out that there are no objective reasons for the choice of blockchain by developers, but only their habits and past experience.
On the other hand, paying bonuses based on the results of someone's vote is a very opaque idea. Therefore, I do not support this part of the proposal.
However, in general, the budget is very small and if it were 2 times larger and without bonuses, I would have no questions about it.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you for sharing the proposal. The comprehensive approach to understanding our developer ecosystem is great.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you for sharing the proposal. The comprehensive approach to understanding our developer ecosystem is great.
We appreciate the direct interviews with builders and entrepreneurs is an excellent step forward. This approach will definitely provide actionable insights far beyond what surveys or desk research could achieve.
The deliverable will be a research report that addresses our key research goals:
We agree with what @thedevanshmehta has also mentioned. While the research report promises valuable insights, there’s a possibility that the findings may not translate into actionable outcomes. How will the DAO ensure that the recommendations are implemented effectively and not just sit as a theoretical report? There should be additional steps beyond just submitting the research report; the process should not end with the submission.
We’re proposing a budget plus a discretionary success bonus. The bonus will be decided by the Stakeholder Council at 0%, 50%, or 100%
While the success bonus incentivizes high-quality work, it introduces subjectivity. Could you clarify how the criteria for awarding the bonus will be structured to ensure fairness and transparency?
Apart from the questions, we would like to share some feedback about the timing of this proposal. The proposal was posted on Friday, November 22, and today, November 29 (also a Friday), it has already been moved to a Snapshot vote for a temperature check. This feels a bit rushed and doesn’t allow enough time for everyone to discuss and share their thoughts if we see the current engagement in this proposal.
According to the Delegate Code of Conduct, it’s recommended that Snapshot votes should start on Thursdays at 12 p.m. UTC to give enough time for proper discussion and avoid rushing decisions. But this proposal went up on Snapshot on Friday. We hope this can be kept in mind for future proposals so that there’s enough time for everyone to review, provide feedback and then vote on proposals.
I think research initiatives like this are valuable because they give us practical insights into the Arbitrum ecosystem. The goals and deliverables in this proposal could really complement other research efforts within the DAO.
The budget seems reasonable to me, and we should welcome any information that adds value. I understand @thedevanshmehta's point about wanting research to lead to concrete actions, but I believe that even if the research doesn't result in immediate proposals, it still helps inform future decisions. This information could also complement other research deliverables.
Hi, I vote 'for' the proposal. I think it's crucial we have a deep understanding of what is making users switch or stay in the chain. I also think the bonus is a bit high.
@danielo Do you have any non-subjective way of deciding the percentage granted after completion?
Do you have any non-subjective way of deciding the percentage granted after completion?
We also don't have any precedents of user research as a DAO so we put the bonus to create an incentive alignment to deliver high quality. And we're hoping to set a strong precedent that future initiatives could be benchmarked against.
I see no reason why this research request shouldn’t go through the ARDC. It’s a shame you withdrew RnDAO’s candidacy, although I would like you to reconsider and compete for the opportunity.
thanks for this comment. We withdrew our candidacy because only one provider is selected, which forces a single generalist to be selected as opposed to having multiple specialists. We have concerns with the candidates User Research capabilities, but RnDAO is not equipped to do quantiative blockchain data research. The design of the ARDC V2 forced candidates to create alliances but that has high coordination costs of having to create a full partnership, share reputational risk, and having to agree how to split budgets. We're primarily focused on the Hackahton Continuation and didn't understand the new shape of the ARDC until way later, so we didn't have the bandwidth to broker a parntership with the other candidates.
Hence now suggesting here a separate proposal. For context, the vote is to gather feedback quickly given the DAO end of year break.
I think research initiatives like this are valuable because they give us practical insights into the Arbitrum ecosystem. The goals and deliverables in this proposal could really complement other research efforts within the DAO.
The budget seems reasonable to me, and we should welcome any information that adds value. I understand @thedevanshmehta's point about wanting research to lead to concrete actions, but I believe that even if the research doesn't result in immediate proposals, it still helps inform future decisions. This information could also complement other research deliverables.
If there's a lack of engagement with the research results, I feel that's more about how we communicate and share the findings rather than the research itself. With the right delivery, we can make sure the insights make an impact.
Although this initiative could have been submitted through the grants process, I see no issue with applying in this manner. In fact, presenting it here may provide greater visibility for the proposal.
For these reasons, I am VOTING FOR supporting Option 2 of this proposal.
Voted AGAINST the proposal as I don't see enough information on how the research would tie into larger initiatives in the DAO.
I'm not a believer in the DAO funding research for its own sake but only as a means to some defined end. For example, firestarter research into treasury diversification led to the STEP and token swap proposals. My biggest fear with research for its own sake is that it just sits somewhere on the forum with a few 100 or 1000 people actually reading it.
Voted AGAINST the proposal as I don't see enough information on how the research would tie into larger initiatives in the DAO.
I'm not a believer in the DAO funding research for its own sake but only as a means to some defined end. For example, firestarter research into treasury diversification led to the STEP and token swap proposals. My biggest fear with research for its own sake is that it just sits somewhere on the forum with a few 100 or 1000 people actually reading it.
I want research whose end output is a snapshot proposal. This gives it an actionable thrust and also ensures that people actually engage with what is researched, since they need to vote for it. I hope to be proven wrong but as it stands I see a high probability of low engagement with the research that is funded.
I think 10 projects per chain is enough to be honest... 30 definitely seems too much and will probably get a bunch of duplicated insights after the 15th interview.
I think that if there would be only 2 additional chains, they should be Base (not Optimism) and Solana.
I think 10 projects per chain is enough to be honest... 30 definitely seems too much and will probably get a bunch of duplicated insights after the 15th interview.
I think that if there would be only 2 additional chains, they should be Base (not Optimism) and Solana.
And if there would be an option for more chains, it should be Arbitrum (30), Base (15), Polygon (15), Solana (15), Sui (15), or something along these lines.
I think it would be a good idea @Larva ; that would help us identify critical points. Having a conversation with them would bring Arbitrum back to their radar and encourage them to consider returning to evaluate the improvements that have been implemented in a future.
@danielo why did you add another $10k to the amount?
Hello, one of our team has experience in communication and strategic projects, so we think this proposal could be really useful for Arbitrum. Anyways, we'd like to share a few questions and observations:
Discounted by 40% for first project, as expression of our enthusiasm to build the relationship and trust in our work:
Hello, one of our team has experience in communication and strategic projects, so we think this proposal could be really useful for Arbitrum. Anyways, we'd like to share a few questions and observations:
Discounted by 40% for first project, as expression of our enthusiasm to build the relationship and trust in our work:
Option 1: Researching within Arbitrum only: $38,600
Option 2: Arbitrum + 2 ecosystems (e.g. Solana and Optimism): $58,400
Discretionary Bonus: $20,000
Good to see you have detailed profiles (we have been looking at the proposal since the first draft). How will you select and contact participants from external ecosystems? Do you have a process to ensure representative responses?
Do you have examples of how the "Jobs to be Done" method has generated useful insights in previous Web3 projects? To avoid bias in the interviews, have you considered including an anonymous approach for certain sensitive questions?
Just to give you a quick overview of the Stakeholder Council:
I think the Stakeholder Council is a great idea. But how will you deal with disagreements among the council members about research priorities or final conclusions? Is there a set process for dealing with these differences?
We think this study could help us find out where there's a mismatch between what people think the Arbitrum ecosystem can do and what it can actually do. Would you be up for including this (or similar) as a sub-objective? We could also look at how branding and marketing affect developers' decisions. This could go hand-in-hand with the technical and functional analysis.
3 months from kickoff for project completion (Pre-eliminary findings shared from week 4 onwards)
We're hoping this can become somewhat ongoing, thus providing the Arbitrum ecosystem a constant stream of research insights and enabling Arbitrum to be very strategic.
Then, we might be able to include the ones that are left in this first research. Everyone we include leaves someone else out so the plan is to evaluate the trade-offs and refine the plan for this first research in phase 1 of the work which is finalising the research plan together with the Stakeholder Council. We're hoping we can get a positive snapshot vote to start advancing :slight_smile:
Thank you very much for the proposal @danielo . Honestly, I really like the idea. I am very supportive of funding research, as the more data we have on how users and builders perceive the technology and the ecosystem, the better we can focus the DAO's efforts and resources to sustain its growth.
That said, I can’t help but draw a parallel between this proposal and the ETH Bucharest proposal, for which I recommended submitting such initiatives through the funding channels the DAO has made available.
Thank you very much for the proposal @danielo . Honestly, I really like the idea. I am very supportive of funding research, as the more data we have on how users and builders perceive the technology and the ecosystem, the better we can focus the DAO's efforts and resources to sustain its growth.
That said, I can’t help but draw a parallel between this proposal and the ETH Bucharest proposal, for which I recommended submitting such initiatives through the funding channels the DAO has made available.
The DAO is currently in a provider selection process where not only skills but also pricing are being evaluated. I see no reason why this research request shouldn’t go through the ARDC. It’s a shame you withdrew RnDAO’s candidacy, although I would like you to reconsider and compete for the opportunity.
Since you’ve moved this discussion to Snapshot (somewhat prematurely, as it could have waited for the ARDC's establishment and the determination of priorities), I will take the opportunity to note the DAO’s opinions. Should I be fortunate enough to join the ARDC, I will consider the delegate's opinion on this for the future.
For all these reasons, I vote against it.
The exact answer can be provided as we flesh out the research in phase 1 of the work together with the stakeholder council. As a preliminary answer, we'll probably include a couple of them, but that wouldn't be the sole focus as we need to make sure we cover a variety of pathways and verticals. A couple of interviews with hackathons participants would be useful too, but same thing, not the sole criteria for selecting builders.
I don't mind this research, on several fronts, so I am voting in favour with the 2 other ecosystems: it makes sense to do a research that even if scoped, or preliminary, can give us some insight.
Few things tho:
I don't mind this research, on several fronts, so I am voting in favour with the 2 other ecosystems: it makes sense to do a research that even if scoped, or preliminary, can give us some insight.
Few things tho:
Yes, the idea was just to use the pre-existing relationship, but is just one type of builders :+1:
Do you consider to leverage the information/teams from the Hackathon Continuation Initiative?
Revision of the budget with the team. There will be a lot of coordination complexity and the team doesn't feel they can deliver great outcomes without the budget being fair (there's still a discount being applied).
So for clarity Option 2 already includes 2 ecosystems outside of Arbitrum (30-30-30). The rationale is that we need a good understanding of Arbitrum too and because the builder base is so diverse, doing only 10 could yield unreliable results.
then, I really like the idea of doing more than 2 ecosystems, although we were thinking about that as a follow-up proposal to expand. (other follow-ups could go deeper into Rust Web2 developers for Stylus, or L3s across ecosystems, etc.)
hey @0x_ultra
Thanks a lot for the comments and suggestions. I think those ar every important considerations but I don't have an answer at this point. Given the high uncertainty and high time cost of pitching to a DAO, my research team would prefer to have some confirmation of support (ie. snapshot vote) before designing the finer details of the research. I can assure you that they care very much about having good selection criteria and a budget has been added for 'filtering' the builders to be interviewed. However, we're hoping the exact criteria and method is designed together with the Stakeholder Council as part of the first phase of work which is precisely addressing those details.
Think this is a good idea, as this is an industry that's it's not super easy to get feedback on. Feels relatively in-expensive and a report like this can be valuable to projects both existing and in the future.
If this whole project is successful, would you be willing to do a round 2 where the focus is on competitors who left / choose other chains over Arbitrum. I see the value in getting info from those who stayed now, but I agree with others that sometimes the 'why did you leave' can be more interesting then the why did you stay. So having a future round focused on that could be valuable.
Would you consider an option to interview just builders that have chosen other ecosystems?
And broaden the scope to other ecosystems like polygon, zksync, starknet, sui, aptos, cosmos?
Would you consider an option to interview just builders that have chosen other ecosystems?
And broaden the scope to other ecosystems like polygon, zksync, starknet, sui, aptos, cosmos?
the rationale behind this suggestion in that the builders that are already in the arbitrum ecosystem are potentially easy for us to access and get their feedback on. but the ones that are not here, are much harder to access and get their feedback. so an explicit research project, funded by the DAO, should focus on the ones that are harder to access.
Something like 90 interviews across 9 ecosystems (10 per ecosystem)
Option 3: 9 ecosystems (e.g. Solana, Optimism, Base, Polygon, zkSync, StarkNet, Sui, Aptos, Cosmos): $48,400
I would support this option without a hitch
Not a high budget, it’s fair enough. Will you consider to interview the builders who migrated from arbitrum ecosystem to other ecosystems?
yes absolutely! It makes a lot of sense to include many of them. We'll have to figure out how to reach them but I think it's doable and we have a budget for interviewee incentives for this reason
Proposal updated :slight_smile: We look forward to your thoughts!
Looking forward to it!
Do you have any non-subjective way of deciding the percentage granted after completion?
We also don't have any precedents of user research as a DAO so we put the bonus to create an incentive alignment to deliver high quality. And we're hoping to set a strong precedent that future initiatives could be benchmarked against.
I see no reason why this research request shouldn’t go through the ARDC. It’s a shame you withdrew RnDAO’s candidacy, although I would like you to reconsider and compete for the opportunity.
thanks for this comment. We withdrew our candidacy because only one provider is selected, which forces a single generalist to be selected as opposed to having multiple specialists. We have concerns with the candidates User Research capabilities, but RnDAO is not equipped to do quantiative blockchain data research. The design of the ARDC V2 forced candidates to create alliances but that has high coordination costs of having to create a full partnership, share reputational risk, and having to agree how to split budgets. We're primarily focused on the Hackahton Continuation and didn't understand the new shape of the ARDC until way later, so we didn't have the bandwidth to broker a parntership with the other candidates.
Hence now suggesting here a separate proposal. For context, the vote is to gather feedback quickly given the DAO end of year break.
I think research initiatives like this are valuable because they give us practical insights into the Arbitrum ecosystem. The goals and deliverables in this proposal could really complement other research efforts within the DAO.
The budget seems reasonable to me, and we should welcome any information that adds value. I understand @thedevanshmehta's point about wanting research to lead to concrete actions, but I believe that even if the research doesn't result in immediate proposals, it still helps inform future decisions. This information could also complement other research deliverables.
If there's a lack of engagement with the research results, I feel that's more about how we communicate and share the findings rather than the research itself. With the right delivery, we can make sure the insights make an impact.
Although this initiative could have been submitted through the grants process, I see no issue with applying in this manner. In fact, presenting it here may provide greater visibility for the proposal.
For these reasons, I am VOTING FOR supporting Option 2 of this proposal.
Voted AGAINST the proposal as I don't see enough information on how the research would tie into larger initiatives in the DAO.
I'm not a believer in the DAO funding research for its own sake but only as a means to some defined end. For example, firestarter research into treasury diversification led to the STEP and token swap proposals. My biggest fear with research for its own sake is that it just sits somewhere on the forum with a few 100 or 1000 people actually reading it.
Voted AGAINST the proposal as I don't see enough information on how the research would tie into larger initiatives in the DAO.
I'm not a believer in the DAO funding research for its own sake but only as a means to some defined end. For example, firestarter research into treasury diversification led to the STEP and token swap proposals. My biggest fear with research for its own sake is that it just sits somewhere on the forum with a few 100 or 1000 people actually reading it.
I want research whose end output is a snapshot proposal. This gives it an actionable thrust and also ensures that people actually engage with what is researched, since they need to vote for it. I hope to be proven wrong but as it stands I see a high probability of low engagement with the research that is funded.
I think 10 projects per chain is enough to be honest... 30 definitely seems too much and will probably get a bunch of duplicated insights after the 15th interview.
I think that if there would be only 2 additional chains, they should be Base (not Optimism) and Solana.
I think 10 projects per chain is enough to be honest... 30 definitely seems too much and will probably get a bunch of duplicated insights after the 15th interview.
I think that if there would be only 2 additional chains, they should be Base (not Optimism) and Solana.
And if there would be an option for more chains, it should be Arbitrum (30), Base (15), Polygon (15), Solana (15), Sui (15), or something along these lines.
I think it would be a good idea @Larva ; that would help us identify critical points. Having a conversation with them would bring Arbitrum back to their radar and encourage them to consider returning to evaluate the improvements that have been implemented in a future.
@danielo why did you add another $10k to the amount?
Hello, one of our team has experience in communication and strategic projects, so we think this proposal could be really useful for Arbitrum. Anyways, we'd like to share a few questions and observations:
Discounted by 40% for first project, as expression of our enthusiasm to build the relationship and trust in our work:
Hello, one of our team has experience in communication and strategic projects, so we think this proposal could be really useful for Arbitrum. Anyways, we'd like to share a few questions and observations:
Discounted by 40% for first project, as expression of our enthusiasm to build the relationship and trust in our work:
Option 1: Researching within Arbitrum only: $38,600
Option 2: Arbitrum + 2 ecosystems (e.g. Solana and Optimism): $58,400
Discretionary Bonus: $20,000
Good to see you have detailed profiles (we have been looking at the proposal since the first draft). How will you select and contact participants from external ecosystems? Do you have a process to ensure representative responses?
Do you have examples of how the "Jobs to be Done" method has generated useful insights in previous Web3 projects? To avoid bias in the interviews, have you considered including an anonymous approach for certain sensitive questions?
Just to give you a quick overview of the Stakeholder Council:
I think the Stakeholder Council is a great idea. But how will you deal with disagreements among the council members about research priorities or final conclusions? Is there a set process for dealing with these differences?
We think this study could help us find out where there's a mismatch between what people think the Arbitrum ecosystem can do and what it can actually do. Would you be up for including this (or similar) as a sub-objective? We could also look at how branding and marketing affect developers' decisions. This could go hand-in-hand with the technical and functional analysis.
3 months from kickoff for project completion (Pre-eliminary findings shared from week 4 onwards)
We're hoping this can become somewhat ongoing, thus providing the Arbitrum ecosystem a constant stream of research insights and enabling Arbitrum to be very strategic.
Then, we might be able to include the ones that are left in this first research. Everyone we include leaves someone else out so the plan is to evaluate the trade-offs and refine the plan for this first research in phase 1 of the work which is finalising the research plan together with the Stakeholder Council. We're hoping we can get a positive snapshot vote to start advancing :slight_smile:
Thank you very much for the proposal @danielo . Honestly, I really like the idea. I am very supportive of funding research, as the more data we have on how users and builders perceive the technology and the ecosystem, the better we can focus the DAO's efforts and resources to sustain its growth.
That said, I can’t help but draw a parallel between this proposal and the ETH Bucharest proposal, for which I recommended submitting such initiatives through the funding channels the DAO has made available.
Thank you very much for the proposal @danielo . Honestly, I really like the idea. I am very supportive of funding research, as the more data we have on how users and builders perceive the technology and the ecosystem, the better we can focus the DAO's efforts and resources to sustain its growth.
That said, I can’t help but draw a parallel between this proposal and the ETH Bucharest proposal, for which I recommended submitting such initiatives through the funding channels the DAO has made available.
The DAO is currently in a provider selection process where not only skills but also pricing are being evaluated. I see no reason why this research request shouldn’t go through the ARDC. It’s a shame you withdrew RnDAO’s candidacy, although I would like you to reconsider and compete for the opportunity.
Since you’ve moved this discussion to Snapshot (somewhat prematurely, as it could have waited for the ARDC's establishment and the determination of priorities), I will take the opportunity to note the DAO’s opinions. Should I be fortunate enough to join the ARDC, I will consider the delegate's opinion on this for the future.
For all these reasons, I vote against it.
The exact answer can be provided as we flesh out the research in phase 1 of the work together with the stakeholder council. As a preliminary answer, we'll probably include a couple of them, but that wouldn't be the sole focus as we need to make sure we cover a variety of pathways and verticals. A couple of interviews with hackathons participants would be useful too, but same thing, not the sole criteria for selecting builders.
I don't mind this research, on several fronts, so I am voting in favour with the 2 other ecosystems: it makes sense to do a research that even if scoped, or preliminary, can give us some insight.
Few things tho:
I don't mind this research, on several fronts, so I am voting in favour with the 2 other ecosystems: it makes sense to do a research that even if scoped, or preliminary, can give us some insight.
Few things tho:
Yes, the idea was just to use the pre-existing relationship, but is just one type of builders :+1:
Do you consider to leverage the information/teams from the Hackathon Continuation Initiative?
Revision of the budget with the team. There will be a lot of coordination complexity and the team doesn't feel they can deliver great outcomes without the budget being fair (there's still a discount being applied).
So for clarity Option 2 already includes 2 ecosystems outside of Arbitrum (30-30-30). The rationale is that we need a good understanding of Arbitrum too and because the builder base is so diverse, doing only 10 could yield unreliable results.
then, I really like the idea of doing more than 2 ecosystems, although we were thinking about that as a follow-up proposal to expand. (other follow-ups could go deeper into Rust Web2 developers for Stylus, or L3s across ecosystems, etc.)
hey @0x_ultra
Thanks a lot for the comments and suggestions. I think those ar every important considerations but I don't have an answer at this point. Given the high uncertainty and high time cost of pitching to a DAO, my research team would prefer to have some confirmation of support (ie. snapshot vote) before designing the finer details of the research. I can assure you that they care very much about having good selection criteria and a budget has been added for 'filtering' the builders to be interviewed. However, we're hoping the exact criteria and method is designed together with the Stakeholder Council as part of the first phase of work which is precisely addressing those details.
Think this is a good idea, as this is an industry that's it's not super easy to get feedback on. Feels relatively in-expensive and a report like this can be valuable to projects both existing and in the future.
If this whole project is successful, would you be willing to do a round 2 where the focus is on competitors who left / choose other chains over Arbitrum. I see the value in getting info from those who stayed now, but I agree with others that sometimes the 'why did you leave' can be more interesting then the why did you stay. So having a future round focused on that could be valuable.
Would you consider an option to interview just builders that have chosen other ecosystems?
And broaden the scope to other ecosystems like polygon, zksync, starknet, sui, aptos, cosmos?
Would you consider an option to interview just builders that have chosen other ecosystems?
And broaden the scope to other ecosystems like polygon, zksync, starknet, sui, aptos, cosmos?
the rationale behind this suggestion in that the builders that are already in the arbitrum ecosystem are potentially easy for us to access and get their feedback on. but the ones that are not here, are much harder to access and get their feedback. so an explicit research project, funded by the DAO, should focus on the ones that are harder to access.
Something like 90 interviews across 9 ecosystems (10 per ecosystem)
Option 3: 9 ecosystems (e.g. Solana, Optimism, Base, Polygon, zkSync, StarkNet, Sui, Aptos, Cosmos): $48,400
I would support this option without a hitch
Not a high budget, it’s fair enough. Will you consider to interview the builders who migrated from arbitrum ecosystem to other ecosystems?
yes absolutely! It makes a lot of sense to include many of them. We'll have to figure out how to reach them but I think it's doable and we have a budget for interviewee incentives for this reason
Proposal updated :slight_smile: We look forward to your thoughts!
Looking forward to it!
hey @0x_ultra
Thanks a lot for the comments and suggestions. I think those ar every important considerations but I don't have an answer at this point. Given the high uncertainty and high time cost of pitching to a DAO, my research team would prefer to have some confirmation of support (ie. snapshot vote) before designing the finer details of the research. I can assure you that they care very much about having good selection criteria and a budget has been added for 'filtering' the builders to be interviewed. However, we're hoping the exact criteria and method is designed together with the Stakeholder Council as part of the first phase of work which is precisely addressing those details.
I hope that's ok to support a snapshot vote?
Think this is a good idea, as this is an industry that's it's not super easy to get feedback on. Feels relatively in-expensive and a report like this can be valuable to projects both existing and in the future.
If this whole project is successful, would you be willing to do a round 2 where the focus is on competitors who left / choose other chains over Arbitrum. I see the value in getting info from those who stayed now, but I agree with others that sometimes the 'why did you leave' can be more interesting then the why did you stay. So having a future round focused on that could be valuable.
Editing to save forum space: I will be voting "For - Arbitrum Only" As I stated before I think the idea is good but I'd rather see the 'those who left / choose other chains' be addressed in a second, more focused iteration.
Hey @danielo , thanks for coming up with this proposal. I generally support it, as it could provide valuable insights for Arbitrum’s future. However, I have a few questions and suggestions:
How will you select the builders? Will there be specific criteria or methods for identifying participants? How do you plan to ensure a diverse and representative group of builders?
Have you considered an open call for builders? Instead of directly distributing funds, perhaps offering a prize pool with a minimal filtering process could engage a larger group of participants. This would allow more responses for the same budget or potentially reduce the overall cost while still encouraging builders to compete for the reward.
Cross-chain comparison: I like the idea of expanding this research to include builders from other chains as well. Comparing Arbitrum to other DAOs could help us better understand its strengths and weaknesses in relation to its competitors.
Hey @danielo , thanks for coming up with this proposal. I generally support it, as it could provide valuable insights for Arbitrum’s future. However, I have a few questions and suggestions:
How will you select the builders? Will there be specific criteria or methods for identifying participants? How do you plan to ensure a diverse and representative group of builders?
Have you considered an open call for builders? Instead of directly distributing funds, perhaps offering a prize pool with a minimal filtering process could engage a larger group of participants. This would allow more responses for the same budget or potentially reduce the overall cost while still encouraging builders to compete for the reward.
Cross-chain comparison: I like the idea of expanding this research to include builders from other chains as well. Comparing Arbitrum to other DAOs could help us better understand its strengths and weaknesses in relation to its competitors.
I believe it would be valuable to link this research to Arbitrum’s larger vision of becoming the go-to chain for experimentation and innovation. These results could inform future proposals that push Arbitrum in this direction based on the insights gathered from the research. I look forward to seeing how this proposal evolves!
Hey @danielo. Thanks for this interesting proposal. But maybe you left out writing exactly what the budget is? And I think the interviews should be expanded to at least some people who previously developed on arbitrum, but moved to other ecologies, and their input is valuable. Wdyt?
how much would this cost @danielo ?
also, why didn’t you follow the arbitrum proposal template that is specified in the docs?
Cool! It would be great!
it's never really followed in my experience. All the critical categories are there (except budget which we'll post soon) but the precedent is to take some creative freedom to adapt the format to the intention of each proposal
cc @Larva
hey @0x_ultra
Thanks a lot for the comments and suggestions. I think those ar every important considerations but I don't have an answer at this point. Given the high uncertainty and high time cost of pitching to a DAO, my research team would prefer to have some confirmation of support (ie. snapshot vote) before designing the finer details of the research. I can assure you that they care very much about having good selection criteria and a budget has been added for 'filtering' the builders to be interviewed. However, we're hoping the exact criteria and method is designed together with the Stakeholder Council as part of the first phase of work which is precisely addressing those details.
I hope that's ok to support a snapshot vote?
Think this is a good idea, as this is an industry that's it's not super easy to get feedback on. Feels relatively in-expensive and a report like this can be valuable to projects both existing and in the future.
If this whole project is successful, would you be willing to do a round 2 where the focus is on competitors who left / choose other chains over Arbitrum. I see the value in getting info from those who stayed now, but I agree with others that sometimes the 'why did you leave' can be more interesting then the why did you stay. So having a future round focused on that could be valuable.
Editing to save forum space: I will be voting "For - Arbitrum Only" As I stated before I think the idea is good but I'd rather see the 'those who left / choose other chains' be addressed in a second, more focused iteration.
Hey @danielo , thanks for coming up with this proposal. I generally support it, as it could provide valuable insights for Arbitrum’s future. However, I have a few questions and suggestions:
How will you select the builders? Will there be specific criteria or methods for identifying participants? How do you plan to ensure a diverse and representative group of builders?
Have you considered an open call for builders? Instead of directly distributing funds, perhaps offering a prize pool with a minimal filtering process could engage a larger group of participants. This would allow more responses for the same budget or potentially reduce the overall cost while still encouraging builders to compete for the reward.
Cross-chain comparison: I like the idea of expanding this research to include builders from other chains as well. Comparing Arbitrum to other DAOs could help us better understand its strengths and weaknesses in relation to its competitors.
Hey @danielo , thanks for coming up with this proposal. I generally support it, as it could provide valuable insights for Arbitrum’s future. However, I have a few questions and suggestions:
How will you select the builders? Will there be specific criteria or methods for identifying participants? How do you plan to ensure a diverse and representative group of builders?
Have you considered an open call for builders? Instead of directly distributing funds, perhaps offering a prize pool with a minimal filtering process could engage a larger group of participants. This would allow more responses for the same budget or potentially reduce the overall cost while still encouraging builders to compete for the reward.
Cross-chain comparison: I like the idea of expanding this research to include builders from other chains as well. Comparing Arbitrum to other DAOs could help us better understand its strengths and weaknesses in relation to its competitors.
I believe it would be valuable to link this research to Arbitrum’s larger vision of becoming the go-to chain for experimentation and innovation. These results could inform future proposals that push Arbitrum in this direction based on the insights gathered from the research. I look forward to seeing how this proposal evolves!
Hey @danielo. Thanks for this interesting proposal. But maybe you left out writing exactly what the budget is? And I think the interviews should be expanded to at least some people who previously developed on arbitrum, but moved to other ecologies, and their input is valuable. Wdyt?
how much would this cost @danielo ?
also, why didn’t you follow the arbitrum proposal template that is specified in the docs?
Cool! It would be great!
it's never really followed in my experience. All the critical categories are there (except budget which we'll post soon) but the precedent is to take some creative freedom to adapt the format to the intention of each proposal
cc @Larva
