Non-Constitutional
Initiate another major airdrop and growth campaign of 500 Million ARB from the DAO treasury. With 50% being given to builders who deployed contracts on Arbitrum or its Orbit chains, weighted by gas fees generated by those contracts. And 50% to users of Arbitrum or its Orbit chains, weighted by actions they took which grew the DAO and gas fees spent.

Next month will be the 2 year anniversary of the original ARB airdrop. Combined with the incentive detox, Arbitrum has been offering significantly less direct rewards to builders than new competing chains like Unichain and Optimism, which are both offering significant retro-active token grants, for example.
Unichain Builder Program:

Arbitrum must do more to attract builders and talent to the chain. Opening the possibility of future airdrops will be a solid move to do that, and bring users home. The previous airdrop created a period of significant growth, and since that has wained, TVL has largely stagnated long term. We should aim to double Arbitrum TVL over the next year, which will require attracting a lot more users, which requires more builders and the possibility of more retroactive incentives for good behavior.

Timeline & steps
Specifications The exact specifics for who to include should be part of a larger discussion and unique proposal voted on the DAO in April.
The first step is to fund a small working group to work with ARDC to make a recommendation on which groups to include and vesting requirements.
Overall Cost $100k USD in funding for a 6 person working group to create lists, present to recommendations to the DAO, and do all the data scraping and merkle root setup over the next 2-3 months.
500 Million ARB (roughly half the size of Airdrop 1)
re: this needs a clear plan before we can support re: we need more analysis re: have you calcualted xyz re: this is not a fully flushed out plan we need more details to decide
I’m not responding to any of these^ kind of questions directly.
This project is MASSIVE. It will be extremely important to get lots of things right:
Figuring those things out shouldnt come from just me or any one person. It should be part of a long term discussion with input from hundreds of people. Getting that input and creating a solid plan is a full time job for several people for months. This is a proposal to get started and we have already solicited many good ideas that should be taken into account. Keep them coming.
Non-Constitutional
Initiate another major airdrop and growth campaign of 500 Million ARB from the DAO treasury. With 50% being given to builders who deployed contracts on Arbitrum or its Orbit chains, weighted by gas fees generated by those contracts. And 50% to users of Arbitrum or its Orbit chains, weighted by actions they took which grew the DAO and gas fees spent.

Next month will be the 2 year anniversary of the original ARB airdrop. Combined with the incentive detox, Arbitrum has been offering significantly less direct rewards to builders than new competing chains like Unichain and Optimism, which are both offering significant retro-active token grants, for example.
Unichain Builder Program:

Arbitrum must do more to attract builders and talent to the chain. Opening the possibility of future airdrops will be a solid move to do that, and bring users home. The previous airdrop created a period of significant growth, and since that has wained, TVL has largely stagnated long term. We should aim to double Arbitrum TVL over the next year, which will require attracting a lot more users, which requires more builders and the possibility of more retroactive incentives for good behavior.

Timeline & steps
Specifications The exact specifics for who to include should be part of a larger discussion and unique proposal voted on the DAO in April.
The first step is to fund a small working group to work with ARDC to make a recommendation on which groups to include and vesting requirements.
Overall Cost $100k USD in funding for a 6 person working group to create lists, present to recommendations to the DAO, and do all the data scraping and merkle root setup over the next 2-3 months.
500 Million ARB (roughly half the size of Airdrop 1)
re: this needs a clear plan before we can support re: we need more analysis re: have you calcualted xyz re: this is not a fully flushed out plan we need more details to decide
I’m not responding to any of these^ kind of questions directly.
This project is MASSIVE. It will be extremely important to get lots of things right:
Figuring those things out shouldnt come from just me or any one person. It should be part of a long term discussion with input from hundreds of people. Getting that input and creating a solid plan is a full time job for several people for months. This is a proposal to get started and we have already solicited many good ideas that should be taken into account. Keep them coming.
Second airdrop may be a good idea. How about we calculate fees generated by users/protocol to determine its relative size for each eoa/protocol, as in proposal. Then we vest it for 2 years with montly unlocks, percentage of unlocks is determined by activity (eg. fees) since vesting is started. That way we ensure activity on chain is constantly rewarded. The future activity can be same or higher (coefficient is chosen by dao). It is not clear rn how absolute fee value is different over time, but it is sure possible to calculate. Users/protocols loyal to the Arbitrum eco will get rewards, mercenaries dont. Any unvested tokens will return to the treasury in 2 years. This is just a general idea, thanks for your time
Second airdrop may be a good idea. How about we calculate fees generated by users/protocol to determine its relative size for each eoa/protocol, as in proposal. Then we vest it for 2 years with montly unlocks, percentage of unlocks is determined by activity (eg. fees) since vesting is started. That way we ensure activity on chain is constantly rewarded. The future activity can be same or higher (coefficient is chosen by dao). It is not clear rn how absolute fee value is different over time, but it is sure possible to calculate. Users/protocols loyal to the Arbitrum eco will get rewards, mercenaries dont. Any unvested tokens will return to the treasury in 2 years. This is just a general idea, thanks for your time
Personally, I would be purely selfish: for example, to distribute 2nd drop tokens to the wallets who hold tokens from the first drop and vote properly as an option
Personally, I would be purely selfish: for example, to distribute 2nd drop tokens to the wallets who hold tokens from the first drop and vote properly as an option
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
The proposed allocation of 500 million ARB tokens for an airdrop raises significant concerns regarding its effectiveness, sustainability, and impact on the DAO’s long-term financial health.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
The proposed allocation of 500 million ARB tokens for an airdrop raises significant concerns regarding its effectiveness, sustainability, and impact on the DAO’s long-term financial health.
Instead of a one-time, high-risk airdrop, the DAO should focus on incentive structures that ensure long-term alignment, sustained engagement, and ecosystem resilience.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
The proposed allocation of 500 million ARB tokens for an airdrop raises significant concerns regarding its effectiveness, sustainability, and impact on the DAO’s long-term financial health.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
The proposed allocation of 500 million ARB tokens for an airdrop raises significant concerns regarding its effectiveness, sustainability, and impact on the DAO’s long-term financial health.
Instead of a one-time, high-risk airdrop, the DAO should focus on incentive structures that ensure long-term alignment, sustained engagement, and ecosystem resilience.
gm, I find myself aligned with the comments from @pedrob @Argonaut and @Entropy and strongly against this proposal despite our urgent need to attract new builders to Arbitrum.
The goal is right, but airdrops are the wrong approach IMO. Creating a builder flywheel requires structured support systems, not scattered token distributions that have proven to only retain (users and builders) short term.
gm, I find myself aligned with the comments from @pedrob @Argonaut and @Entropy and strongly against this proposal despite our urgent need to attract new builders to Arbitrum.
The goal is right, but airdrops are the wrong approach IMO. Creating a builder flywheel requires structured support systems, not scattered token distributions that have proven to only retain (users and builders) short term.
What we need is a comprehensive builder incubation program that provides resources, mentorship, and targeted incentives tied to development milestones.
I have the highest respect for builders like the OP and want to see more innovation on Arbitrum. Let's channel our resources into programs that actually give builders what they need to succeed long-term.
Thanks
What we need is a comprehensive builder incubation program that provides resources, mentorship, and targeted incentives tied to development milestones.
okay where's the proposal for this?
I think we want the same things, let's make this happen. And thank you for the serious response.
Below is the perspective of the UADP:
The motivation behind this proposal makes sense, and we are on board with establishing more programs to appreciate builders. However, it seems irresponsible to conduct a second airdrop round because the benefits of such a program seem flimsy, leading to nothing more than exacerbated sell pressure.
Below is the perspective of the UADP:
The motivation behind this proposal makes sense, and we are on board with establishing more programs to appreciate builders. However, it seems irresponsible to conduct a second airdrop round because the benefits of such a program seem flimsy, leading to nothing more than exacerbated sell pressure.
The crux of the issue really is the amount of long-term value that the 500M would bring to the ecosystem. More than likely, giving protocols with high usage—based on gas for example—will reward large, existing protocols as opposed to bringing in new talent. That is, unless, we conduct this operation on a continual or tranched basis where newer builders enter due to future expected rewards. Dividing the 500M up over time would make more sense. A lump sum retroactive distribution would not prioritize new entrants and would concentrate sell pressure into a short timespan.
We are not convinced that loyalty through an airdrop would increase either—that's why increasing the builder cohort may be more important than retaining existing builders. Large protocols who are entrenched in Arbitrum are more than likely to stay in the ecosystem. And if a protocol is more fickle and is thinking about existing Arbitrum already, they may just see this as a final payday before exiting.
If we want to appreciate builders, it’s likely best to continue expending capital on either developer tooling/operations (this is more salient for newer builders) or through user-oriented incentives like the LTIPP/STIP because builders, at the end of the day, would be highly appreciative of an opportunity to attract more users to their protocol. A team that’s aligned with staying on Arbitrum, upon reception of an airdrop, may even decide to use that allocation for incentives. So why not just give out more user incentives at that point?
If an argument can be made that simply airdropping more tokens to builders leads to more loyalty which would otherwise wane, we'd be open to hearing that perspective. But no matter which way we twist this, the justification for going forward with an airdrop to builders over more developer grants/user-based incentives seems subpar.
We oppose this proposal. We believe given the incentives detox, the general mood of reducing spend in the DAO, and the questionable value of an airdrop at this stage of Arbitrum's development compared to more targeted growth spend, this would be a poor use of DAO funds.
We encourage the DAO to think critically about large spend like this and consider the vast amount being spent with few clear KPIs, metrics, or desired outcomes being targeted by the spend.
gm, I find myself aligned with the comments from @pedrob @Argonaut and @Entropy and strongly against this proposal despite our urgent need to attract new builders to Arbitrum.
The goal is right, but airdrops are the wrong approach IMO. Creating a builder flywheel requires structured support systems, not scattered token distributions that have proven to only retain (users and builders) short term.
gm, I find myself aligned with the comments from @pedrob @Argonaut and @Entropy and strongly against this proposal despite our urgent need to attract new builders to Arbitrum.
The goal is right, but airdrops are the wrong approach IMO. Creating a builder flywheel requires structured support systems, not scattered token distributions that have proven to only retain (users and builders) short term.
What we need is a comprehensive builder incubation program that provides resources, mentorship, and targeted incentives tied to development milestones.
I have the highest respect for builders like the OP and want to see more innovation on Arbitrum. Let's channel our resources into programs that actually give builders what they need to succeed long-term.
Thanks
What we need is a comprehensive builder incubation program that provides resources, mentorship, and targeted incentives tied to development milestones.
okay where's the proposal for this?
I think we want the same things, let's make this happen. And thank you for the serious response.
Below is the perspective of the UADP:
The motivation behind this proposal makes sense, and we are on board with establishing more programs to appreciate builders. However, it seems irresponsible to conduct a second airdrop round because the benefits of such a program seem flimsy, leading to nothing more than exacerbated sell pressure.
Below is the perspective of the UADP:
The motivation behind this proposal makes sense, and we are on board with establishing more programs to appreciate builders. However, it seems irresponsible to conduct a second airdrop round because the benefits of such a program seem flimsy, leading to nothing more than exacerbated sell pressure.
The crux of the issue really is the amount of long-term value that the 500M would bring to the ecosystem. More than likely, giving protocols with high usage—based on gas for example—will reward large, existing protocols as opposed to bringing in new talent. That is, unless, we conduct this operation on a continual or tranched basis where newer builders enter due to future expected rewards. Dividing the 500M up over time would make more sense. A lump sum retroactive distribution would not prioritize new entrants and would concentrate sell pressure into a short timespan.
We are not convinced that loyalty through an airdrop would increase either—that's why increasing the builder cohort may be more important than retaining existing builders. Large protocols who are entrenched in Arbitrum are more than likely to stay in the ecosystem. And if a protocol is more fickle and is thinking about existing Arbitrum already, they may just see this as a final payday before exiting.
If we want to appreciate builders, it’s likely best to continue expending capital on either developer tooling/operations (this is more salient for newer builders) or through user-oriented incentives like the LTIPP/STIP because builders, at the end of the day, would be highly appreciative of an opportunity to attract more users to their protocol. A team that’s aligned with staying on Arbitrum, upon reception of an airdrop, may even decide to use that allocation for incentives. So why not just give out more user incentives at that point?
If an argument can be made that simply airdropping more tokens to builders leads to more loyalty which would otherwise wane, we'd be open to hearing that perspective. But no matter which way we twist this, the justification for going forward with an airdrop to builders over more developer grants/user-based incentives seems subpar.
We oppose this proposal. We believe given the incentives detox, the general mood of reducing spend in the DAO, and the questionable value of an airdrop at this stage of Arbitrum's development compared to more targeted growth spend, this would be a poor use of DAO funds.
We encourage the DAO to think critically about large spend like this and consider the vast amount being spent with few clear KPIs, metrics, or desired outcomes being targeted by the spend.
Being builders who are committed to Arbitrum ourselves, we obviously have a strong bias.
Therefore, we don't want to comment too much on the idea aside from being supportive in general.
Though, given that all the essential details regarding the execution are still outstanding, we're not sure what could be voted on at this moment.
Being builders who are committed to Arbitrum ourselves, we obviously have a strong bias.
Therefore, we don't want to comment too much on the idea aside from being supportive in general.
Though, given that all the essential details regarding the execution are still outstanding, we're not sure what could be voted on at this moment.
In our opinion, 500M ARB is a lot, yet could make sense under certain conditions. But depending on the execution strategy, a smaller amount could be more adequate, so we don't think that voting on the airdrop amount can be separated from the execution strategy.
At this moment, a temperature check for the general idea with an attached expense, workload & timeline estimation seems most appropriate?
Would you be the project manager for this? @cupojoseph If not, we would prefer if there was someone volunteering as PM or ideally even the whole working group being assembled before voting on the expenses to avoid approving the budget before execution can be assumed.
My initial gut reaction is 'damn, this is a lot of money'. I understand the sentiment from this proposal but something tells me that its a bit too early for another airdrop.
I want to take a step back here. What is the problem we are trying to solve here? The motivation points to other programs and encourages us to copy them -- but why are we copying them?
My initial gut reaction is 'damn, this is a lot of money'. I understand the sentiment from this proposal but something tells me that its a bit too early for another airdrop.
I want to take a step back here. What is the problem we are trying to solve here? The motivation points to other programs and encourages us to copy them -- but why are we copying them?
The rationale is the standard rationale for any incentive program IMO. We should analyse the period of significant growth a lot more deeper too -- was it actually tied to that? how long did it last? why was it short lasting?
I think the author is aware of that this is a massive task and there's a lot to figure out and I appreciate that. There really is a lot to figure out here. Start small, research the problem and the effect of the prev airdrop.
Maybe I'm out of the loop here too, so it might be a dumb question, but doesn't the dao employ a team to help with these tasks before getting another working group?
I see you are well intended. But airdropping this amount of tokens doesn't solve anything on the long term except depleting our treasury and create huge sell pressure. Would be much better to have delegations from treasury plus a path like the one suggested above for builders in our chain.
Thanks for sharing this proposal, @cupojoseph.
A 500m airdrop program is certainly bold, and there’s a lot to unpack before deciding whether this approach makes sense. As you mentioned:
This project is MASSIVE. It will be extremely important to get lots of things right
First and foremost, we really admire the enthusiasm and passion @cupojoseph has for Arbitrum, and recognize the good-intentions behind this proposal.
With that being said, we believe spending 500M ARB on a retroactive airdrop to be a very bad idea. This would represent ~17% of the ARB remaining in the DAO’s treasury, and it only rewards existing builders rather than trying to onboard new cohorts. We understand the intention is to “lure” new builders to Arbitrum by signaling the willingness to support them retroactively, but we do not believe this desired result would be achieved in practice through this proposal.
I must say this is a well intentioned proposal. Rewarding builders based on their activity can motivate them to create valuable products/ services for Arbitrum.
That said, with 500 million ARB, this is quite a financial strain :). The DAO has already funded many builders from the start to encourage new ideas to integrate with Arbitrum, and now we’re rewarding their success (which is great), but it feels like double funding :)
I must say this is a well intentioned proposal. Rewarding builders based on their activity can motivate them to create valuable products/ services for Arbitrum.
That said, with 500 million ARB, this is quite a financial strain :). The DAO has already funded many builders from the start to encourage new ideas to integrate with Arbitrum, and now we’re rewarding their success (which is great), but it feels like double funding :)
I agree with other delegates, this could put selling pressure on ARB, leading to inflation and a decrease in ARB's value.
Also, the $100K cost for a 2-3 month project with 6 people seems a bit high to me, to be honest.
I also think future airdrops should be forward looking, for example announcing them in advance and inviting builders to build, rather than rewarding past activity.
Not ready to say yes yet.
Hello! Thanks for your proposal.
I have a few questions, as some items looks contradicting each other.
Arbitrum must do more to attract builders and talent to the chain. Opening the possibility of future airdrops will be a solid move to do that, and bring users home.
Great response! Too often delegates have expected to get all answers without funding the work to produce the needed answers...
That being said, I think the scope of the WG should start by mapping and considering multiple ecosystem development strategies out of which Airdrops is one path. We're doing something that goes in that direction for another ecosystem (we suggested doing it here first but there was no tracking) and I think the initiative could be copied here:
Why not implement a more targeted distribution where recipients are required to add value and complete milestones
Goodhart's Law
Completely disagree. We are at all time low because we have not been making investments in the future of arbitrum or attracting new builders like we need to be. Will you sit on your hands while you hope and pray the price will come back? is there any time in history that worked? This has been significantly LESS tokens leaving our treasury going directly to users and builders because of the incentive detox and other fear of losing control influenced decisions.
A large release of tokens can cause the price to drop rapidly, affecting market stability and damaging the long-term value of the project. Massive airdrops mostly attract speculators rather than users who genuinely care about the project’s development and use cases, undermining ARB investors' confidence. Currently, liquidity is very scarce, and I am against it. For the sake of ecosystem development, I hope to see better proposals.
The proposals I support must have a clear plan and specific measurable criteria, rather than simply stating: “We need an airdrop of 500 million ARB tokens to bring users and developers back.”
incentivizing builders is a good thing to do, and doing it related to gas fees generated is a really interesting idea which seems to be working for Sonic.
That being said this proposal is a massive amount of ARB, at a time when ARB doesn't have otherwise equal buying pressure to offset it.
incentivizing builders is a good thing to do, and doing it related to gas fees generated is a really interesting idea which seems to be working for Sonic.
That being said this proposal is a massive amount of ARB, at a time when ARB doesn't have otherwise equal buying pressure to offset it.
If the proposal could be designed in a way where the fees generated offset the ARB distributed it would be a lot more sustainable.
Without a more sustainable economic design there's no way we'd support this as ARB holders and delegates and I think many other holders and voters would say the same .
Being builders who are committed to Arbitrum ourselves, we obviously have a strong bias.
Therefore, we don't want to comment too much on the idea aside from being supportive in general.
Though, given that all the essential details regarding the execution are still outstanding, we're not sure what could be voted on at this moment.
Being builders who are committed to Arbitrum ourselves, we obviously have a strong bias.
Therefore, we don't want to comment too much on the idea aside from being supportive in general.
Though, given that all the essential details regarding the execution are still outstanding, we're not sure what could be voted on at this moment.
In our opinion, 500M ARB is a lot, yet could make sense under certain conditions. But depending on the execution strategy, a smaller amount could be more adequate, so we don't think that voting on the airdrop amount can be separated from the execution strategy.
At this moment, a temperature check for the general idea with an attached expense, workload & timeline estimation seems most appropriate?
Would you be the project manager for this? @cupojoseph If not, we would prefer if there was someone volunteering as PM or ideally even the whole working group being assembled before voting on the expenses to avoid approving the budget before execution can be assumed.
My initial gut reaction is 'damn, this is a lot of money'. I understand the sentiment from this proposal but something tells me that its a bit too early for another airdrop.
I want to take a step back here. What is the problem we are trying to solve here? The motivation points to other programs and encourages us to copy them -- but why are we copying them?
My initial gut reaction is 'damn, this is a lot of money'. I understand the sentiment from this proposal but something tells me that its a bit too early for another airdrop.
I want to take a step back here. What is the problem we are trying to solve here? The motivation points to other programs and encourages us to copy them -- but why are we copying them?
The rationale is the standard rationale for any incentive program IMO. We should analyse the period of significant growth a lot more deeper too -- was it actually tied to that? how long did it last? why was it short lasting?
I think the author is aware of that this is a massive task and there's a lot to figure out and I appreciate that. There really is a lot to figure out here. Start small, research the problem and the effect of the prev airdrop.
Maybe I'm out of the loop here too, so it might be a dumb question, but doesn't the dao employ a team to help with these tasks before getting another working group?
I see you are well intended. But airdropping this amount of tokens doesn't solve anything on the long term except depleting our treasury and create huge sell pressure. Would be much better to have delegations from treasury plus a path like the one suggested above for builders in our chain.
Thanks for sharing this proposal, @cupojoseph.
A 500m airdrop program is certainly bold, and there’s a lot to unpack before deciding whether this approach makes sense. As you mentioned:
This project is MASSIVE. It will be extremely important to get lots of things right
First and foremost, we really admire the enthusiasm and passion @cupojoseph has for Arbitrum, and recognize the good-intentions behind this proposal.
With that being said, we believe spending 500M ARB on a retroactive airdrop to be a very bad idea. This would represent ~17% of the ARB remaining in the DAO’s treasury, and it only rewards existing builders rather than trying to onboard new cohorts. We understand the intention is to “lure” new builders to Arbitrum by signaling the willingness to support them retroactively, but we do not believe this desired result would be achieved in practice through this proposal.
I must say this is a well intentioned proposal. Rewarding builders based on their activity can motivate them to create valuable products/ services for Arbitrum.
That said, with 500 million ARB, this is quite a financial strain :). The DAO has already funded many builders from the start to encourage new ideas to integrate with Arbitrum, and now we’re rewarding their success (which is great), but it feels like double funding :)
I must say this is a well intentioned proposal. Rewarding builders based on their activity can motivate them to create valuable products/ services for Arbitrum.
That said, with 500 million ARB, this is quite a financial strain :). The DAO has already funded many builders from the start to encourage new ideas to integrate with Arbitrum, and now we’re rewarding their success (which is great), but it feels like double funding :)
I agree with other delegates, this could put selling pressure on ARB, leading to inflation and a decrease in ARB's value.
Also, the $100K cost for a 2-3 month project with 6 people seems a bit high to me, to be honest.
I also think future airdrops should be forward looking, for example announcing them in advance and inviting builders to build, rather than rewarding past activity.
Not ready to say yes yet.
Hello! Thanks for your proposal.
I have a few questions, as some items looks contradicting each other.
Arbitrum must do more to attract builders and talent to the chain. Opening the possibility of future airdrops will be a solid move to do that, and bring users home.
Great response! Too often delegates have expected to get all answers without funding the work to produce the needed answers...
That being said, I think the scope of the WG should start by mapping and considering multiple ecosystem development strategies out of which Airdrops is one path. We're doing something that goes in that direction for another ecosystem (we suggested doing it here first but there was no tracking) and I think the initiative could be copied here:
Why not implement a more targeted distribution where recipients are required to add value and complete milestones
Goodhart's Law
Completely disagree. We are at all time low because we have not been making investments in the future of arbitrum or attracting new builders like we need to be. Will you sit on your hands while you hope and pray the price will come back? is there any time in history that worked? This has been significantly LESS tokens leaving our treasury going directly to users and builders because of the incentive detox and other fear of losing control influenced decisions.
A large release of tokens can cause the price to drop rapidly, affecting market stability and damaging the long-term value of the project. Massive airdrops mostly attract speculators rather than users who genuinely care about the project’s development and use cases, undermining ARB investors' confidence. Currently, liquidity is very scarce, and I am against it. For the sake of ecosystem development, I hope to see better proposals.
The proposals I support must have a clear plan and specific measurable criteria, rather than simply stating: “We need an airdrop of 500 million ARB tokens to bring users and developers back.”
incentivizing builders is a good thing to do, and doing it related to gas fees generated is a really interesting idea which seems to be working for Sonic.
That being said this proposal is a massive amount of ARB, at a time when ARB doesn't have otherwise equal buying pressure to offset it.
incentivizing builders is a good thing to do, and doing it related to gas fees generated is a really interesting idea which seems to be working for Sonic.
That being said this proposal is a massive amount of ARB, at a time when ARB doesn't have otherwise equal buying pressure to offset it.
If the proposal could be designed in a way where the fees generated offset the ARB distributed it would be a lot more sustainable.
Without a more sustainable economic design there's no way we'd support this as ARB holders and delegates and I think many other holders and voters would say the same .
Thanks for sharing this proposal, @cupojoseph.
A 500m airdrop program is certainly bold, and there’s a lot to unpack before deciding whether this approach makes sense. As you mentioned:
This project is MASSIVE. It will be extremely important to get lots of things right
We’re not opposed to considering a program of this nature, but tying the idea to a hard 500m token allocation right from the start may draw attention away from some essential questions:
These points are important, regardless of the exact shape or size of any potential future airdrop.
Additionally, clarification is needed on how the proposed $100k would be spent. The current breakdown doesn’t offer enough detail on how the funding would be allocated:
Overall Cost $100k USD in funding for a 6 person working group to create lists, present to recommendations to the DAO, and do all the data scraping and merkle root setup over the next 2-3 months.
One approach worth considering is to engage the ARDC for a viability study first as also mentioned by @Chris_Areta. That step could help us gather a broader range of insights before the formation of a dedicated committee focused on execution. It might also help refine the proposal so we have a clearer path to fostering growth and alignment in the Arbitrum community, rather than just tackling an airdrop head-on.
First and foremost, we really admire the enthusiasm and passion @cupojoseph has for Arbitrum, and recognize the good-intentions behind this proposal.
With that being said, we believe spending 500M ARB on a retroactive airdrop to be a very bad idea. This would represent ~17% of the ARB remaining in the DAO’s treasury, and it only rewards existing builders rather than trying to onboard new cohorts. We understand the intention is to “lure” new builders to Arbitrum by signaling the willingness to support them retroactively, but we do not believe this desired result would be achieved in practice through this proposal.
Entropy firmly believes that it is time for the DAO to focus on long-term sustainability after ~2 years of “spray and pray” spend, and that this proposal goes directly against that idea. If the DAO wants to support its ecosystem into perpetuity, it needs to begin seriously considering how it can fund the ecosystem from revenue generation rather than relying solely on ARB as a funding source. We envision a future where the yield generated from hundreds of millions of non-native assets passively earning are funneled to builders/users, but it will take 2-4 years of time and effort to get to that point.
While user incentives can spur activity over the short-to-medium term, we firmly believe the success of Arbitrum will depend on attracting innovative builders who in turn create applications that naturally attract users through true product market fit. Entropy is in favor of programs and initiatives that support builders, but in a way that treats newcomers and incumbents equally and in a manner that establishes confidence in the DAO’s ability to support them into perpetuity.
In summary, we recognize the author’s intentions and respect that important details are proposed to be determined through a funded working group, but this proposal ultimately requests a level of frivolous spending that directly conflicts with Entropy’s goals of sustainability, and thus we are firmly against it.
Hello! Thanks for your proposal.
I have a few questions, as some items looks contradicting each other.
Arbitrum must do more to attract builders and talent to the chain. Opening the possibility of future airdrops will be a solid move to do that, and bring users home.
In the previous statement, you mention that Arbitrum needs to attract more builders and talent (I agree with that). And then you proceed with "Opening the possibility of future airdrops will be a solid move to do that, and bring users home." (here, we disagree, but this will come later).
A few lines below, you wrote this:
Here, I have my questions:
Regarding the execution:
I understand that framing such massive proposal is not a work to be done by one guy (as you mentioned in one of your replies). But in this proposal, you are already framing most of the relevant concepts for the incentives, leaving for this WG the execution of the strategy.
(now the part we disagree) As we are talking about an incentive program, what makes you not consider the other ideas already proposed, like:
@Entropy DRIP framework:
And others that were discussed in the Detox period?
It seems more reasonable to follow a structured program with other metrics besides gas fees, for instance.
Thanks in advance!
Great response! Too often delegates have expected to get all answers without funding the work to produce the needed answers...
That being said, I think the scope of the WG should start by mapping and considering multiple ecosystem development strategies out of which Airdrops is one path. We're doing something that goes in that direction for another ecosystem (we suggested doing it here first but there was no tracking) and I think the initiative could be copied here:
https://forum.scroll.io/t/proposal-research-to-inform-a-builder-support-strategy/368
Why not implement a more targeted distribution where recipients are required to add value and complete milestones
Goodhart's Law
why opt for an airdrop or retroactive funding instead of a forward-looking plan that incentivizes future work
Completely disagree. We are at all time low because we have not been making investments in the future of arbitrum or attracting new builders like we need to be. Will you sit on your hands while you hope and pray the price will come back? is there any time in history that worked? This has been significantly LESS tokens leaving our treasury going directly to users and builders because of the incentive detox and other fear of losing control influenced decisions.
It's time to invest in the future and grow.
re: this needs a clear plan before we can support re: we need more analysis re: have you calcualted xyz re:this is not a fully flushed out plan we need more details to decide
I'm not responding to any of these^ kind of questions directly.
This project is MASSIVE. It will be extremely important to get lots of things right:
re: this needs a clear plan before we can support re: we need more analysis re: have you calcualted xyz re:this is not a fully flushed out plan we need more details to decide
I'm not responding to any of these^ kind of questions directly.
This project is MASSIVE. It will be extremely important to get lots of things right:
Figuring those things out shouldnt come from just me or any one person. It should be part of a long term discussion with input from hundreds of people. Getting that input and creating a solid plan is a full time job for several people for months. This is a proposal to specifically create and fund a working group to come up with the plan and different options for all the various details.
While the criteria could be discussed and refined to so that the airdrop goes to ecosystem aligned builders and boosts excitement, we ultimately don't see an airdrop as an effective method for driving engagement and it risks contributing to downward price pressure.
I like that this proposal is helping to open the discussion of airdrops and the possibility of a future airdrop. I think this topic needs to be thoroughly discussed to create the right incentive alignment, ensuring that the end result translates into a net benefit for the token and the ARB ecosystem. I am more inclined toward smaller, more targeted airdrops rather than a large new airdrop, which would create sell pressure and hurt the token price, ultimately lowering the treasury’s value.
As for the current proposal, I think it is too large, and anyone with some financial knowledge can synthetically sell the airdrop, so the unlock time becomes irrelevant. Also, I disagree with the motivation. Do you have any clear data to confirm that airdrops "attract builders"? Builders in the Arbitrum ecosystem already have access to grants, support, and new programs that are being rolled out to support them.
I like that this proposal is helping to open the discussion of airdrops and the possibility of a future airdrop. I think this topic needs to be thoroughly discussed to create the right incentive alignment, ensuring that the end result translates into a net benefit for the token and the ARB ecosystem. I am more inclined toward smaller, more targeted airdrops rather than a large new airdrop, which would create sell pressure and hurt the token price, ultimately lowering the treasury’s value.
As for the current proposal, I think it is too large, and anyone with some financial knowledge can synthetically sell the airdrop, so the unlock time becomes irrelevant. Also, I disagree with the motivation. Do you have any clear data to confirm that airdrops "attract builders"? Builders in the Arbitrum ecosystem already have access to grants, support, and new programs that are being rolled out to support them.
Lastly, I think the costs and details are a bit vague. I would like to ask who the six people in the group will be and how they will be chosen. What skill sets or experience should/will they have?
Thanks for opening the conversation.
In that case, why opt for an airdrop or retroactive funding instead of a forward-looking plan that incentivizes future work rather than rewarding past contributions?
Why not implement a more targeted distribution where recipients are required to add value and complete milestones? Why not use ARB to attract liquidity?
In that case, why opt for an airdrop or retroactive funding instead of a forward-looking plan that incentivizes future work rather than rewarding past contributions?
Why not implement a more targeted distribution where recipients are required to add value and complete milestones? Why not use ARB to attract liquidity?
I do find the builder appreciation approach adequate, though I believe it’s something Arbitrum DAO is focused on (which again, doesn’t mean it cannot be improved): the Stylus Sprint, Questbook grants (New protocol ideas & Dev tooling + Orbit new one), the gaming investment initiative, and the upcoming incentive programs. The framework Entropy has been working on is particularly interesting (see working group calls for more info).
Why is half a billion ARB better invested on an airdrop instead of these programs?
While I totally agree that you need to fund and boost the ecosystem with incentives, but throwing this kind of amount in one step will kill the price and thus many initiatives like the GCP and others. They will all ask for more funding and drain the treasury causing the price to crash even more. Why arent we considering to follow the EF and deposit these assets into Aave, borrow against them with a super high HF and distribute stablecoins over a vesting period? This way the treasury will stay healthy, when the price recovers that loan can be paid back and the DAO stays solvent or even made some money by depositing. At the current stage I would be against this proposal.
Thanks for the proposal. While I'm curious about how this would impact governance dynamics, dropping 500M ARB seems too aggressive right now - especially since we hit ATL just 10 days ago as Argonaut pointed out.
I align with Tekr0x about wanting to see more innovative solutions rather than copying other L2s' retro funding.
Thanks for the proposal. While I'm curious about how this would impact governance dynamics, dropping 500M ARB seems too aggressive right now - especially since we hit ATL just 10 days ago as Argonaut pointed out.
I align with Tekr0x about wanting to see more innovative solutions rather than copying other L2s' retro funding.
Would you be open to exploring more targeted approaches that don't require such a large token distribution?
we honestly can't drop half a billy of arb on top of users. Would destroy every shred of price (despite being "only" 5 months of unlock).
better focus energies on spearheading the 2% inflation of staking and sharing timeboost revenue with builders in a way that makes sense from core protocols, multichain protocols and new protocols.
We don’t think distributing a second airdrop is a good idea. There’s a high chance that most of it will end up being sold on the market. The DAO needs to ensure ARB’s price remains stable, otherwise, there’s no incentive for people to hold it.
Check the price action of ARB:

We don’t think distributing a second airdrop is a good idea. There’s a high chance that most of it will end up being sold on the market. The DAO needs to ensure ARB’s price remains stable, otherwise, there’s no incentive for people to hold it.
Check the price action of ARB:

Just 10 days ago, we were at All-Time Lows. As a DAO, we need to avoid initiatives that contribute to sell pressure. Otherwise, demand for ARB will decline, and people will lose trust in the DAO’s ability to create value for ARB holders.
There are far more effective ways to allocate 500 million ARB to drive growth. We could use it to incentivize liquidity to migrate to Arbitrum instead of competing networks or to encourage more protocols to deploy on Arbitrum (for example, Morpho and Euler).
Once people receive the airdrop, they’ll know there won’t be another one anytime soon. This won’t motivate them to keep building, as the incentive will have already been distributed.
Thanks for the proposal, we’re not against the idea, but we have some serious concerns. Why would Airdrop #2 deliver more value to the DAO compared to alternative approaches like grants or targeted incentive programs? Airdrops might sound straightforward, but executing them is challenging. We risk giving tokens to the wrong hands, bots or short-term traders who will dump them immediately,resulting in heavy sell pressure that could harm the price and derail many initiatives on Arbitrum plus introducing an extra 500M ARB could seriously skew our governance balance, especially when our current votable supply is around 326M.
Our analysis of the OP airdrop shows that while it initially boosted engagement, much of the effect was short-lived as tokens were sold off. In light of these risks, we believe that exploring more sustainable alternatives might ultimately benefit the DAO more in the long run.
This program presents issues of clarity. The allocation of 50% to "builders" based on generated gas fees is ambiguous, as it does not distinguish between valuable contracts and spam, potentially incentivizing artificial activity without real impact. Similarly, the 50% allocated to users lacks concrete metrics to assess their contributions, opening the door to speculative farming.
Furthermore, the precedent set by the first airdrop demonstrates that initial growth can be fleeting if the incentives are not designed for retention. Issuing 500M ARB could trigger massive sell pressure, especially if the funds for builders are not subject to vesting periods. How do they plan to mitigate this risk? Rather than repeating an approach that has already shown limitations, why not opt for more sustainable incentives such as recurring grants or technical support?
This program presents issues of clarity. The allocation of 50% to "builders" based on generated gas fees is ambiguous, as it does not distinguish between valuable contracts and spam, potentially incentivizing artificial activity without real impact. Similarly, the 50% allocated to users lacks concrete metrics to assess their contributions, opening the door to speculative farming.
Furthermore, the precedent set by the first airdrop demonstrates that initial growth can be fleeting if the incentives are not designed for retention. Issuing 500M ARB could trigger massive sell pressure, especially if the funds for builders are not subject to vesting periods. How do they plan to mitigate this risk? Rather than repeating an approach that has already shown limitations, why not opt for more sustainable incentives such as recurring grants or technical support?
There is also concern about the lack of alignment with long-term objectives. Doubling the TVL does not guarantee success if it is not accompanied by user retention and the development of critical infrastructure. Funds could be better allocated to audits, strategic grants, or developer education rather than rewarding transaction volume that lacks added value...
The execution process also appears rushed. Forming a working group, validating addresses, and approving lists within two months is risky, especially in light of previous errors like the exclusion of legitimate users in the first airdrop. Additionally, the selection process for the team is not detailed. How will they prevent capture by specific interests? Why not decentralize the process using community verifiers or transparent on-chain criteria?
MAKE ARBITRUM GREAT AGAIN! I support the airdrop initiative. Rewarding builders and users can increase activity and grow the ecosystem.
This will also be a very good advertisement for the ARBITRUM, a marketing move on the part of the project, so to speak. We will gain more recognition and respect from the community. As an example, you can take OPTIMISM and its already successfully played several drops. They had a very positive influence on the project and made amazing advertising. Almost all crypto communities use OPTIMISM as an example to other projects and L2. And this in turn brings more users and developers to the ecosystem. So why doesn't the ARBITRUM do the same?
love this! let's put it for offchain vote asap =)
but what about:
airdropping vested tokens or at least some percentage of them vested to the first group as well?
the claiming website requiring people to delegate those new tokens to active delegates to be able to get their new airdrop, like Safe did?
Thanks for bringing this straightforward proposal @cupojoseph
The first step is to fund a small working group to work with ARDC to make a recommendation on which groups to include and vesting requirements.
Thanks for the proposal. It is very straightforward.
Airdropping 500M ARB to builders sounds like a good way to reward and encourage builders to grow Arbitrum. On the other side, it would also result in huge selling pressure. Also, 500M ARB is 17% of our treasury. This would significantly decrease our runway and budget for any other proposals. Also, it could result in crashing our DAO structure by introducing such a big VP to the market at once.
Thanks for the proposal @cupojoseph and for your work building on Arbitrum through One Dollar and now Nerite. I find the proposal compelling and would be interested in the further exploration of the framework and effort a widespread airdrop such as this may require. We all saw with prior programs such as STIP that not only was it inefficient for the DAO to decide on such a variety of proposals but also resulted in an ineffective distribution of funds. The sting from that lack of success has severely reduced motivations to give large scale grants to the ecosystem. It is clear that airdrops, though potentially posing risks to price, do offer instant attention and a spir of excitement in the ecosystem. It begs the question of what setting a precedent of additional airdrops may lead to down the road, but for now we can focus on this proposal.
There is no doubt that part of the TVL gains from the first airdrop were also from the sheer creation of capital via $ARB tokens and while this may have a similar impact, distributing purely to builders are unlikely to result in the assets then finding themselves used throughout the ecosystem.
I didn't quite understand the motivation:
Hi
In my opinion, airdrops are a terrible idea. They don't reward long-term commitment or contribute to the Arbitrum chain growth.
Hi
In my opinion, airdrops are a terrible idea. They don't reward long-term commitment or contribute to the Arbitrum chain growth.
Arbitrum must do more to attract builders and talent to the chain. Opening the possibility of future airdrops will be a solid move to do that, and bring users home
I don’t understand how you relate this rationale—which I could agree with (there's always room for improvement)—to conducting an airdrop to achieve it. If there's one thing airdrops attract, and the reason they are in decline, it's mercenary capital. At least the STIP and LTIPP tried to implement liquidity mining to bootstrap protocols, aiming for them to become self-sustainable afterward and put in place stickiness mechanisms.
The airdrop trend emerged due to regulatory uncertainty, as a way to distribute tokens to protocol users (after ICOs boom). This had some value in 2020 when airdrops became popular, but after 3 or 4 successful airdrops, it turned into a mercenary capital scheme aimed at gaming the system for maximum benefit at minimal cost—plus VCs dumping on retail investors. It’s not necessarily wrong, but I don’t think it’s the behavior that Arbitrum should be encouraging through the DAO.
I do find the builder appreciation approach adequate, though I believe it’s something Arbitrum DAO is focused on (which again, doesn't mean it cannot be improved): the Stylus Sprint, Questbook grants (New protocol ideas & Dev tooling + Orbit new one), the gaming investment initiative, and the upcoming incentive programs. The framework Entropy has been working on is particularly interesting (see working group calls for more info).
Thanks for sharing this proposal, @cupojoseph.
A 500m airdrop program is certainly bold, and there’s a lot to unpack before deciding whether this approach makes sense. As you mentioned:
This project is MASSIVE. It will be extremely important to get lots of things right
We’re not opposed to considering a program of this nature, but tying the idea to a hard 500m token allocation right from the start may draw attention away from some essential questions:
These points are important, regardless of the exact shape or size of any potential future airdrop.
Additionally, clarification is needed on how the proposed $100k would be spent. The current breakdown doesn’t offer enough detail on how the funding would be allocated:
Overall Cost $100k USD in funding for a 6 person working group to create lists, present to recommendations to the DAO, and do all the data scraping and merkle root setup over the next 2-3 months.
One approach worth considering is to engage the ARDC for a viability study first as also mentioned by @Chris_Areta. That step could help us gather a broader range of insights before the formation of a dedicated committee focused on execution. It might also help refine the proposal so we have a clearer path to fostering growth and alignment in the Arbitrum community, rather than just tackling an airdrop head-on.
First and foremost, we really admire the enthusiasm and passion @cupojoseph has for Arbitrum, and recognize the good-intentions behind this proposal.
With that being said, we believe spending 500M ARB on a retroactive airdrop to be a very bad idea. This would represent ~17% of the ARB remaining in the DAO’s treasury, and it only rewards existing builders rather than trying to onboard new cohorts. We understand the intention is to “lure” new builders to Arbitrum by signaling the willingness to support them retroactively, but we do not believe this desired result would be achieved in practice through this proposal.
Entropy firmly believes that it is time for the DAO to focus on long-term sustainability after ~2 years of “spray and pray” spend, and that this proposal goes directly against that idea. If the DAO wants to support its ecosystem into perpetuity, it needs to begin seriously considering how it can fund the ecosystem from revenue generation rather than relying solely on ARB as a funding source. We envision a future where the yield generated from hundreds of millions of non-native assets passively earning are funneled to builders/users, but it will take 2-4 years of time and effort to get to that point.
While user incentives can spur activity over the short-to-medium term, we firmly believe the success of Arbitrum will depend on attracting innovative builders who in turn create applications that naturally attract users through true product market fit. Entropy is in favor of programs and initiatives that support builders, but in a way that treats newcomers and incumbents equally and in a manner that establishes confidence in the DAO’s ability to support them into perpetuity.
In summary, we recognize the author’s intentions and respect that important details are proposed to be determined through a funded working group, but this proposal ultimately requests a level of frivolous spending that directly conflicts with Entropy’s goals of sustainability, and thus we are firmly against it.
Hello! Thanks for your proposal.
I have a few questions, as some items looks contradicting each other.
Arbitrum must do more to attract builders and talent to the chain. Opening the possibility of future airdrops will be a solid move to do that, and bring users home.
In the previous statement, you mention that Arbitrum needs to attract more builders and talent (I agree with that). And then you proceed with "Opening the possibility of future airdrops will be a solid move to do that, and bring users home." (here, we disagree, but this will come later).
A few lines below, you wrote this:
Here, I have my questions:
Regarding the execution:
I understand that framing such massive proposal is not a work to be done by one guy (as you mentioned in one of your replies). But in this proposal, you are already framing most of the relevant concepts for the incentives, leaving for this WG the execution of the strategy.
(now the part we disagree) As we are talking about an incentive program, what makes you not consider the other ideas already proposed, like:
@Entropy DRIP framework:
And others that were discussed in the Detox period?
It seems more reasonable to follow a structured program with other metrics besides gas fees, for instance.
Thanks in advance!
Great response! Too often delegates have expected to get all answers without funding the work to produce the needed answers...
That being said, I think the scope of the WG should start by mapping and considering multiple ecosystem development strategies out of which Airdrops is one path. We're doing something that goes in that direction for another ecosystem (we suggested doing it here first but there was no tracking) and I think the initiative could be copied here:
https://forum.scroll.io/t/proposal-research-to-inform-a-builder-support-strategy/368
Why not implement a more targeted distribution where recipients are required to add value and complete milestones
Goodhart's Law
why opt for an airdrop or retroactive funding instead of a forward-looking plan that incentivizes future work
Completely disagree. We are at all time low because we have not been making investments in the future of arbitrum or attracting new builders like we need to be. Will you sit on your hands while you hope and pray the price will come back? is there any time in history that worked? This has been significantly LESS tokens leaving our treasury going directly to users and builders because of the incentive detox and other fear of losing control influenced decisions.
It's time to invest in the future and grow.
re: this needs a clear plan before we can support re: we need more analysis re: have you calcualted xyz re:this is not a fully flushed out plan we need more details to decide
I'm not responding to any of these^ kind of questions directly.
This project is MASSIVE. It will be extremely important to get lots of things right:
re: this needs a clear plan before we can support re: we need more analysis re: have you calcualted xyz re:this is not a fully flushed out plan we need more details to decide
I'm not responding to any of these^ kind of questions directly.
This project is MASSIVE. It will be extremely important to get lots of things right:
Figuring those things out shouldnt come from just me or any one person. It should be part of a long term discussion with input from hundreds of people. Getting that input and creating a solid plan is a full time job for several people for months. This is a proposal to specifically create and fund a working group to come up with the plan and different options for all the various details.
While the criteria could be discussed and refined to so that the airdrop goes to ecosystem aligned builders and boosts excitement, we ultimately don't see an airdrop as an effective method for driving engagement and it risks contributing to downward price pressure.
I like that this proposal is helping to open the discussion of airdrops and the possibility of a future airdrop. I think this topic needs to be thoroughly discussed to create the right incentive alignment, ensuring that the end result translates into a net benefit for the token and the ARB ecosystem. I am more inclined toward smaller, more targeted airdrops rather than a large new airdrop, which would create sell pressure and hurt the token price, ultimately lowering the treasury’s value.
As for the current proposal, I think it is too large, and anyone with some financial knowledge can synthetically sell the airdrop, so the unlock time becomes irrelevant. Also, I disagree with the motivation. Do you have any clear data to confirm that airdrops "attract builders"? Builders in the Arbitrum ecosystem already have access to grants, support, and new programs that are being rolled out to support them.
I like that this proposal is helping to open the discussion of airdrops and the possibility of a future airdrop. I think this topic needs to be thoroughly discussed to create the right incentive alignment, ensuring that the end result translates into a net benefit for the token and the ARB ecosystem. I am more inclined toward smaller, more targeted airdrops rather than a large new airdrop, which would create sell pressure and hurt the token price, ultimately lowering the treasury’s value.
As for the current proposal, I think it is too large, and anyone with some financial knowledge can synthetically sell the airdrop, so the unlock time becomes irrelevant. Also, I disagree with the motivation. Do you have any clear data to confirm that airdrops "attract builders"? Builders in the Arbitrum ecosystem already have access to grants, support, and new programs that are being rolled out to support them.
Lastly, I think the costs and details are a bit vague. I would like to ask who the six people in the group will be and how they will be chosen. What skill sets or experience should/will they have?
Thanks for opening the conversation.
In that case, why opt for an airdrop or retroactive funding instead of a forward-looking plan that incentivizes future work rather than rewarding past contributions?
Why not implement a more targeted distribution where recipients are required to add value and complete milestones? Why not use ARB to attract liquidity?
In that case, why opt for an airdrop or retroactive funding instead of a forward-looking plan that incentivizes future work rather than rewarding past contributions?
Why not implement a more targeted distribution where recipients are required to add value and complete milestones? Why not use ARB to attract liquidity?
I do find the builder appreciation approach adequate, though I believe it’s something Arbitrum DAO is focused on (which again, doesn’t mean it cannot be improved): the Stylus Sprint, Questbook grants (New protocol ideas & Dev tooling + Orbit new one), the gaming investment initiative, and the upcoming incentive programs. The framework Entropy has been working on is particularly interesting (see working group calls for more info).
Why is half a billion ARB better invested on an airdrop instead of these programs?
While I totally agree that you need to fund and boost the ecosystem with incentives, but throwing this kind of amount in one step will kill the price and thus many initiatives like the GCP and others. They will all ask for more funding and drain the treasury causing the price to crash even more. Why arent we considering to follow the EF and deposit these assets into Aave, borrow against them with a super high HF and distribute stablecoins over a vesting period? This way the treasury will stay healthy, when the price recovers that loan can be paid back and the DAO stays solvent or even made some money by depositing. At the current stage I would be against this proposal.
Thanks for the proposal. While I'm curious about how this would impact governance dynamics, dropping 500M ARB seems too aggressive right now - especially since we hit ATL just 10 days ago as Argonaut pointed out.
I align with Tekr0x about wanting to see more innovative solutions rather than copying other L2s' retro funding.
Thanks for the proposal. While I'm curious about how this would impact governance dynamics, dropping 500M ARB seems too aggressive right now - especially since we hit ATL just 10 days ago as Argonaut pointed out.
I align with Tekr0x about wanting to see more innovative solutions rather than copying other L2s' retro funding.
Would you be open to exploring more targeted approaches that don't require such a large token distribution?
we honestly can't drop half a billy of arb on top of users. Would destroy every shred of price (despite being "only" 5 months of unlock).
better focus energies on spearheading the 2% inflation of staking and sharing timeboost revenue with builders in a way that makes sense from core protocols, multichain protocols and new protocols.
We don’t think distributing a second airdrop is a good idea. There’s a high chance that most of it will end up being sold on the market. The DAO needs to ensure ARB’s price remains stable, otherwise, there’s no incentive for people to hold it.
Check the price action of ARB:

We don’t think distributing a second airdrop is a good idea. There’s a high chance that most of it will end up being sold on the market. The DAO needs to ensure ARB’s price remains stable, otherwise, there’s no incentive for people to hold it.
Check the price action of ARB:

Just 10 days ago, we were at All-Time Lows. As a DAO, we need to avoid initiatives that contribute to sell pressure. Otherwise, demand for ARB will decline, and people will lose trust in the DAO’s ability to create value for ARB holders.
There are far more effective ways to allocate 500 million ARB to drive growth. We could use it to incentivize liquidity to migrate to Arbitrum instead of competing networks or to encourage more protocols to deploy on Arbitrum (for example, Morpho and Euler).
Once people receive the airdrop, they’ll know there won’t be another one anytime soon. This won’t motivate them to keep building, as the incentive will have already been distributed.
Thanks for the proposal, we’re not against the idea, but we have some serious concerns. Why would Airdrop #2 deliver more value to the DAO compared to alternative approaches like grants or targeted incentive programs? Airdrops might sound straightforward, but executing them is challenging. We risk giving tokens to the wrong hands, bots or short-term traders who will dump them immediately,resulting in heavy sell pressure that could harm the price and derail many initiatives on Arbitrum plus introducing an extra 500M ARB could seriously skew our governance balance, especially when our current votable supply is around 326M.
Our analysis of the OP airdrop shows that while it initially boosted engagement, much of the effect was short-lived as tokens were sold off. In light of these risks, we believe that exploring more sustainable alternatives might ultimately benefit the DAO more in the long run.
This program presents issues of clarity. The allocation of 50% to "builders" based on generated gas fees is ambiguous, as it does not distinguish between valuable contracts and spam, potentially incentivizing artificial activity without real impact. Similarly, the 50% allocated to users lacks concrete metrics to assess their contributions, opening the door to speculative farming.
Furthermore, the precedent set by the first airdrop demonstrates that initial growth can be fleeting if the incentives are not designed for retention. Issuing 500M ARB could trigger massive sell pressure, especially if the funds for builders are not subject to vesting periods. How do they plan to mitigate this risk? Rather than repeating an approach that has already shown limitations, why not opt for more sustainable incentives such as recurring grants or technical support?
This program presents issues of clarity. The allocation of 50% to "builders" based on generated gas fees is ambiguous, as it does not distinguish between valuable contracts and spam, potentially incentivizing artificial activity without real impact. Similarly, the 50% allocated to users lacks concrete metrics to assess their contributions, opening the door to speculative farming.
Furthermore, the precedent set by the first airdrop demonstrates that initial growth can be fleeting if the incentives are not designed for retention. Issuing 500M ARB could trigger massive sell pressure, especially if the funds for builders are not subject to vesting periods. How do they plan to mitigate this risk? Rather than repeating an approach that has already shown limitations, why not opt for more sustainable incentives such as recurring grants or technical support?
There is also concern about the lack of alignment with long-term objectives. Doubling the TVL does not guarantee success if it is not accompanied by user retention and the development of critical infrastructure. Funds could be better allocated to audits, strategic grants, or developer education rather than rewarding transaction volume that lacks added value...
The execution process also appears rushed. Forming a working group, validating addresses, and approving lists within two months is risky, especially in light of previous errors like the exclusion of legitimate users in the first airdrop. Additionally, the selection process for the team is not detailed. How will they prevent capture by specific interests? Why not decentralize the process using community verifiers or transparent on-chain criteria?
MAKE ARBITRUM GREAT AGAIN! I support the airdrop initiative. Rewarding builders and users can increase activity and grow the ecosystem.
This will also be a very good advertisement for the ARBITRUM, a marketing move on the part of the project, so to speak. We will gain more recognition and respect from the community. As an example, you can take OPTIMISM and its already successfully played several drops. They had a very positive influence on the project and made amazing advertising. Almost all crypto communities use OPTIMISM as an example to other projects and L2. And this in turn brings more users and developers to the ecosystem. So why doesn't the ARBITRUM do the same?
love this! let's put it for offchain vote asap =)
but what about:
airdropping vested tokens or at least some percentage of them vested to the first group as well?
the claiming website requiring people to delegate those new tokens to active delegates to be able to get their new airdrop, like Safe did?
Thanks for bringing this straightforward proposal @cupojoseph
The first step is to fund a small working group to work with ARDC to make a recommendation on which groups to include and vesting requirements.
Thanks for the proposal. It is very straightforward.
Airdropping 500M ARB to builders sounds like a good way to reward and encourage builders to grow Arbitrum. On the other side, it would also result in huge selling pressure. Also, 500M ARB is 17% of our treasury. This would significantly decrease our runway and budget for any other proposals. Also, it could result in crashing our DAO structure by introducing such a big VP to the market at once.
Thanks for the proposal @cupojoseph and for your work building on Arbitrum through One Dollar and now Nerite. I find the proposal compelling and would be interested in the further exploration of the framework and effort a widespread airdrop such as this may require. We all saw with prior programs such as STIP that not only was it inefficient for the DAO to decide on such a variety of proposals but also resulted in an ineffective distribution of funds. The sting from that lack of success has severely reduced motivations to give large scale grants to the ecosystem. It is clear that airdrops, though potentially posing risks to price, do offer instant attention and a spir of excitement in the ecosystem. It begs the question of what setting a precedent of additional airdrops may lead to down the road, but for now we can focus on this proposal.
There is no doubt that part of the TVL gains from the first airdrop were also from the sheer creation of capital via $ARB tokens and while this may have a similar impact, distributing purely to builders are unlikely to result in the assets then finding themselves used throughout the ecosystem.
I didn't quite understand the motivation:
Hi
In my opinion, airdrops are a terrible idea. They don't reward long-term commitment or contribute to the Arbitrum chain growth.
Hi
In my opinion, airdrops are a terrible idea. They don't reward long-term commitment or contribute to the Arbitrum chain growth.
Arbitrum must do more to attract builders and talent to the chain. Opening the possibility of future airdrops will be a solid move to do that, and bring users home
I don’t understand how you relate this rationale—which I could agree with (there's always room for improvement)—to conducting an airdrop to achieve it. If there's one thing airdrops attract, and the reason they are in decline, it's mercenary capital. At least the STIP and LTIPP tried to implement liquidity mining to bootstrap protocols, aiming for them to become self-sustainable afterward and put in place stickiness mechanisms.
The airdrop trend emerged due to regulatory uncertainty, as a way to distribute tokens to protocol users (after ICOs boom). This had some value in 2020 when airdrops became popular, but after 3 or 4 successful airdrops, it turned into a mercenary capital scheme aimed at gaming the system for maximum benefit at minimal cost—plus VCs dumping on retail investors. It’s not necessarily wrong, but I don’t think it’s the behavior that Arbitrum should be encouraging through the DAO.
I do find the builder appreciation approach adequate, though I believe it’s something Arbitrum DAO is focused on (which again, doesn't mean it cannot be improved): the Stylus Sprint, Questbook grants (New protocol ideas & Dev tooling + Orbit new one), the gaming investment initiative, and the upcoming incentive programs. The framework Entropy has been working on is particularly interesting (see working group calls for more info).
MAKE ARBITRUM GREAT AGAIN! I support the airdrop initiative. Rewarding builders and users can increase activity and grow the ecosystem.
This will also be a very good advertisement for the ARBITRUM, a marketing move on the part of the project, so to speak. We will gain more recognition and respect from the community. As an example, you can take OPTIMISM and its already successfully played several drops. They had a very positive influence on the project and made amazing advertising. Almost all crypto communities use OPTIMISM as an example to other projects and L2. And this in turn brings more users and developers to the ecosystem. So why doesn't the ARBITRUM do the same?
But of course, when distributing drops, we need to take into account many nuances.
nitiate another major airdrop and growth campaign of 500 Million ARB from the DAO treasury.
Thirdly, it would be nice to include in the drop active delegates :slightly_smiling_face: who are active on the forum and take part in the life of the DAO. These people have proven that they are interested in the project and the development of the ecosystem and therefore they are unlikely to dump the price by selling tokens from the received drop
love this! let's put it for offchain vote asap =)
but what about:
airdropping vested tokens or at least some percentage of them vested to the first group as well?
the claiming website requiring people to delegate those new tokens to active delegates to be able to get their new airdrop, like Safe did?
1 would ease the selling pressure and 2 would revitalize the governance in this DAO with more voting power being distributed, and helping with reaching quorum more easily as well.
Thanks for bringing this straightforward proposal @cupojoseph
The first step is to fund a small working group to work with ARDC to make a recommendation on which groups to include and vesting requirements.
Incentivizing builders and users to drive on-chain growth is not a bad idea. However, its important to get the right approach. Do you think the proposed mechanism (i.e., airdrops) is the most effective option, given the budget size and DAO context? We would like to see more research / analysis around this.
We would rather see the ARDC conduct some impact assessment on this proposal and check relevance for ArbitrumDAO as a next step. With that, we can determine whether to progress with funding a working group to execute, deciding on program specifics, etc.
Thanks for the proposal. It is very straightforward.
Airdropping 500M ARB to builders sounds like a good way to reward and encourage builders to grow Arbitrum. On the other side, it would also result in huge selling pressure. Also, 500M ARB is 17% of our treasury. This would significantly decrease our runway and budget for any other proposals. Also, it could result in crashing our DAO structure by introducing such a big VP to the market at once.
Since Arbitrum DAO is a leader in decentralized governance, let's not try to copy things from others. Let's experiment. Let's try different ways to reward builders and users. So many great proposals are rolling in that require way less funding but just might be innovative enough to make a difference. We don't win by copying others but by inventing new ideas.
Thanks for the proposal @cupojoseph and for your work building on Arbitrum through One Dollar and now Nerite. I find the proposal compelling and would be interested in the further exploration of the framework and effort a widespread airdrop such as this may require. We all saw with prior programs such as STIP that not only was it inefficient for the DAO to decide on such a variety of proposals but also resulted in an ineffective distribution of funds. The sting from that lack of success has severely reduced motivations to give large scale grants to the ecosystem. It is clear that airdrops, though potentially posing risks to price, do offer instant attention and a spir of excitement in the ecosystem. It begs the question of what setting a precedent of additional airdrops may lead to down the road, but for now we can focus on this proposal.
There is no doubt that part of the TVL gains from the first airdrop were also from the sheer creation of capital via $ARB tokens and while this may have a similar impact, distributing purely to builders are unlikely to result in the assets then finding themselves used throughout the ecosystem.
I would be curious to hear your thoughts on the the following:
Knowing the DAO, a more detailed breakdown justifying a $100k spend on the initial working group would also be required as such costs over a 2-3 month period seem quite high; however, handing a sum of up to 500M $ARB is worth getting right.
I didn't quite understand the motivation:
MAKE ARBITRUM GREAT AGAIN! I support the airdrop initiative. Rewarding builders and users can increase activity and grow the ecosystem.
This will also be a very good advertisement for the ARBITRUM, a marketing move on the part of the project, so to speak. We will gain more recognition and respect from the community. As an example, you can take OPTIMISM and its already successfully played several drops. They had a very positive influence on the project and made amazing advertising. Almost all crypto communities use OPTIMISM as an example to other projects and L2. And this in turn brings more users and developers to the ecosystem. So why doesn't the ARBITRUM do the same?
But of course, when distributing drops, we need to take into account many nuances.
nitiate another major airdrop and growth campaign of 500 Million ARB from the DAO treasury.
Thirdly, it would be nice to include in the drop active delegates :slightly_smiling_face: who are active on the forum and take part in the life of the DAO. These people have proven that they are interested in the project and the development of the ecosystem and therefore they are unlikely to dump the price by selling tokens from the received drop
love this! let's put it for offchain vote asap =)
but what about:
airdropping vested tokens or at least some percentage of them vested to the first group as well?
the claiming website requiring people to delegate those new tokens to active delegates to be able to get their new airdrop, like Safe did?
1 would ease the selling pressure and 2 would revitalize the governance in this DAO with more voting power being distributed, and helping with reaching quorum more easily as well.
Thanks for bringing this straightforward proposal @cupojoseph
The first step is to fund a small working group to work with ARDC to make a recommendation on which groups to include and vesting requirements.
Incentivizing builders and users to drive on-chain growth is not a bad idea. However, its important to get the right approach. Do you think the proposed mechanism (i.e., airdrops) is the most effective option, given the budget size and DAO context? We would like to see more research / analysis around this.
We would rather see the ARDC conduct some impact assessment on this proposal and check relevance for ArbitrumDAO as a next step. With that, we can determine whether to progress with funding a working group to execute, deciding on program specifics, etc.
Thanks for the proposal. It is very straightforward.
Airdropping 500M ARB to builders sounds like a good way to reward and encourage builders to grow Arbitrum. On the other side, it would also result in huge selling pressure. Also, 500M ARB is 17% of our treasury. This would significantly decrease our runway and budget for any other proposals. Also, it could result in crashing our DAO structure by introducing such a big VP to the market at once.
Since Arbitrum DAO is a leader in decentralized governance, let's not try to copy things from others. Let's experiment. Let's try different ways to reward builders and users. So many great proposals are rolling in that require way less funding but just might be innovative enough to make a difference. We don't win by copying others but by inventing new ideas.
Thanks for the proposal @cupojoseph and for your work building on Arbitrum through One Dollar and now Nerite. I find the proposal compelling and would be interested in the further exploration of the framework and effort a widespread airdrop such as this may require. We all saw with prior programs such as STIP that not only was it inefficient for the DAO to decide on such a variety of proposals but also resulted in an ineffective distribution of funds. The sting from that lack of success has severely reduced motivations to give large scale grants to the ecosystem. It is clear that airdrops, though potentially posing risks to price, do offer instant attention and a spir of excitement in the ecosystem. It begs the question of what setting a precedent of additional airdrops may lead to down the road, but for now we can focus on this proposal.
There is no doubt that part of the TVL gains from the first airdrop were also from the sheer creation of capital via $ARB tokens and while this may have a similar impact, distributing purely to builders are unlikely to result in the assets then finding themselves used throughout the ecosystem.
I would be curious to hear your thoughts on the the following:
Knowing the DAO, a more detailed breakdown justifying a $100k spend on the initial working group would also be required as such costs over a 2-3 month period seem quite high; however, handing a sum of up to 500M $ARB is worth getting right.
I didn't quite understand the motivation: