The Onboarding Working Group is planning to publish the onchain proposal (live vote: here) on Monday (10th) for voting to start on Thursday (13th). This post is an update on what to expect. Thank you to everyone who provided feedback and support. We are eager to move this initiative forward!
--
On December 12, 2024, the Snapshot vote to launch the Arbitrum Governance Bootcamp successfully passed.
One area of feedback questioned the level of interest in protocol matching. In response, we’re pleased to share that Areta, Event Horizon, Gains Network, Gitcoin, Tally, Plutus DAO, and Uniswap Foundation are eager to work with a Governance Fellow to support their governance needs and strengthen their alignment with the DAO. If your organization is interested in working with a Governance Fellow, please complete this survey.
To ensure the program is impactful, we’ve taken a data-driven approach, gathering insights from 14 Arbitrum stakeholders — including protocols and service providers — on their needs, pain points, and priorities for working with a Governance Fellow. These findings have shaped curriculum refinements and additional program improvements to better serve the DAO.
The rest of this update will highlight the changes that we have made between the Snapshot vote and the ongoing Tally vote.
Note: We have created a Chatbot to assist you with reviewing the details of the proposal.
We’re thrilled to welcome Bhaumik Patel, founder of Atrium Academy, as an advisor to our team! Atrium Academy, a Uniswap Foundation grantee, builds immersive cohort-based experiences for advanced solidity developers, with a focus on V4 hooks. See this case study and this hooks directory to learn more about Atrium and its impact.
With deep experience building and shipping educational programs, both at Atrium Academy and in previous roles, Bhaumik brings invaluable insights to the Onboarding Working Group. He has already been instrumental in enhancing our operations and refining the curriculum.
Meanwhile, Manu and Angela have transitioned to new roles elsewhere.
We made the following changes to the curriculum based on survey responses to better align with delegate needs:
1. Governance Goals & Strategic Alignment
Delegates identified two primary goals with their governance participation:
To support these goals, we have added a workshop on Strategic Governance that will cover the following topics:
2. Governance Fellow Support & Key Responsibilities
Delegates highlighted the following areas where Governance Fellows can add the most value:
To address these needs, we have added the following workshops:
3. Enhancing Visibility & Influence in the DAO
Some respondents noted challenges in gaining visibility and influence within the DAO. To help address this, we have added the following workshop:
Additionally, the Onboarding Working Group will offer Fellows 1:1 office hours during their Fellowship for personalized support.
| Week | Workshop Title |
|---|---|
| 1 | Arbitrum DAO Governance Basics |
| 2 | Strategic Governance |
| 3 | Governance Reports & Dashboards |
| 4 | Governance Project Management |
| 5 | Arbitrum Tech Deep Dive |
| 6 | DAO Relationship Management |
| 7 | Work on Exercises |
| 8 | Work on Exercises |
Participants will have access to video tutorials and additional reference materials created by the Onboarding Working Group. All workshops will be recorded.
Detailed workshop materials are available in the Appendix.
At the conclusion of the six-week workshop series, participants will have two weeks to complete practical exercises, applying the knowledge they have gained.
The top 10 submissions will have the opportunity to be matched with an Arbitrum Protocol or Service Provider, where they will gain real-world governance experience as Governance Fellows.
Participants who are not selected for matching will be invited to join the next cohort on a fast-track basis, bypassing the application and interview process. This creates a positive feedback loop, ensuring multiple opportunities for individuals to engage with Arbitrum governance and contribute meaningfully over time. Each cohort will feature updated content and refined sessions to enhance the learning experience.
The next section provides sample exercises, which may be adjusted to better align with the evolving needs of the DAO.
These exercises provide Governance Trainees with hands-on experience in core governance activities—commenting on forum posts, analyzing proposals, and engaging in DAO-wide calls—while also increasing their visibility on social media and the Governance Forum.
The exercises are designed to address the governance needs of onboarded Service Providers and Protocols, incorporating insights from collected survey responses.
To graduate and be eligible for matching with a Protocol, Governance Trainees must complete all five mandatory exercises. Bonus points will be awarded for completing optional exercises.
1. Draft and submit a proposal idea
2.Analyze a recent governance proposal
3.Engage in Governance Forum discussions
4.Attend an Open Discussion of Proposals call & share insights
5.Identify and summarize a grant opportunity
These exercises ensure that trainees develop essential governance skills while actively contributing to Arbitrum DAO’s governance ecosystem.
Workshops will be led by experienced stakeholders from the Arbitrum DAO ecosystem, selected through an application process managed by the Onboarding Working Group. Interested facilitators can apply by selecting up to two workshops they are willing to lead. Those chosen will complete a Facilitator Workshop to ensure they are equipped to run engaging and effective sessions.
The Facilitator Workshop prepares participants to deliver high-quality governance training through the following key areas:
1.Understanding the Role of a Facilitator
2.Designing an Engaging Learning Experience
3.Handling Questions & Discussions
To further support facilitators, the Onboarding Working Group will provide comprehensive resources and materials to assist with presentation design.
Big thank you to the following individuals who helped shape this proposal over many months of brainstorming, feedback, and iteration:
Alice Corsini from Karpatkey, Ana-Maria Yanakieva from Arbitrum Ventures Initiative, Bhaumik Patel from Atrium Academy, Cole Schendl from 404 DAO, Cliff and Raam from Arbitrum Foundation, David Paperno from The Mount Vernon School, Erin Koen from Uniswap Foundation, Eugene Leventhal from Scroll Foundation, Frisson from Tally, Joe McKenzie from R3gen Finance, Katerina Bohle-Carbonell from Together-Crew, Krzys and Sinkas from L2Beat, Liz Yang from Azuki, Nestor Bonilla, Sov from Gitcoin, and Tnorm from Gauntlet.
Live Workshops
Arbitrum DAO Governance Basics
Arbitrum Tech Deep Dive
Video Tutorials
Arbitrum DAO Tools and Resources
Resources
Arbitrum DAO: Important Proposals
Arbitrum DAO: Important Initiatives
Arbitrum DAO Tools and Resources
Thank you to everyone who shared feedback! We have incorporated your input and made the following updates:
Added KPIs for Governance Fellows. To ensure alignment with existing DAO programs, the Onboarding Program's KPIs will be based on the metrics tracked in the Delegate Incentive Program (DIP v1.5). For more details, please refer to the KPIs section.
Changed the Program start date (if the on-chain vote passes) to February 10th from January 6th. This better coincides with the timing of the on-chain Tally vote.
Extended the Fellowship to 3 months from 2 months, adding an additional month to the Program (7 months from 6 months). Fellows will have more time to make a meaningful impact with a Protocol. The budget and timeline have been updated accordingly. (Note: Any unused ARB will be returned to the DAO)
Minor changes to Curriculum materials. Added workshop materials to Grants, Governance Basics, and DAO Tools and Resources.
Added a FAQs section
What happens if there are more Fellows than interested Protocols?
Our team is actively doing both inbound and outbound work to identify interested Protocols. The Foundation is also helping to support our efforts. As a reminder, if you work at a Protocol that is interested in being matched with a Fellow to assist with Governance work, please reach out to Angela or Rika on Telegram (TG handles: @ocandocrypto @rikagoldberg)
Should the Program provide participants with a temporary delegation to enable them to vote?
In V2, our primary objective is not to enhance participants’ DAO voting power but to educate them on the DAO’s governance processes and provide hands-on governance experience by working directly with a Protocol. That said, we are open to considering a temporary delegation, or the like, for participants in future phases of the Program.
[details= How do we ensure retention after a Fellow completes their work with a Protocol?] After considering feedback and suggestions about retention strategies shared in the forum, we have concluded that implementing a selective application and interview process that focuses an individual’s long-term commitment, intrinsic motivation, and self-starter qualities will better ensure Fellows stay actively engaged with Arbitrum governance beyond the Fellowship period. [/details]
[details= Should the DAO pay Governance Analysts during their training?] We are open to exploring the possibility of providing Analysts with an additional small stipend during the program. However, our rationale for not doing so is based on the value we are already offering: fully subsidized training and paid opportunities for Analysts who become Fellows. [/details]
This proposal requests $193,138 USD paid in ARB for the Onboarding Working Group to run V2 of Arbitrum DAO’s Onboarding Program for 7 months.
Earlier this year, the Onboarding Working Group ran a three-month Pilot Program (V1) to bring new participants into the DAO. Based on feedback from delegates and ecosystem participants, we’ve applied key lessons learned to create V2—a more robust and refined iteration of the program.
V2 will function like a Governance Bootcamp and the Onboarding Working Group will act akin to a recruitment agency, sourcing and training a select group of new DAO contributors.
The Onboarding Working Group is comprised of the following individuals: @Manugotsuka from @SEEDGov, @ocandocrypto from @web3citizenxyz, @san from Reserve Protocol, and @RikaGoldberg from @404DAO. Our advisors are @krst and @Sinkas from L2Beat.
Arbitrum DAO needs to onboard high-quality and diverse (see note 1) governance participants to thrive in the future. Currently, fragmented information, siloed resources, and private communication channels create a culture of exclusivity, making it challenging for newcomers to navigate the governance process and contribute meaningfully.
In V1, we pioneered a solution by running a Pilot Program where we hosted weekly onboarding calls and grouped participants into one of five Fellowship tracks based on their interests and skills. Ultimately, each Fellowship was expected to collaborate and work on a Proposal to publish on the forum.
Based on the lessons learned in V1 (details are here), we have developed V2, a more robust and meritocratic Onboarding Program. V2 focuses on selecting high-quality participants, training them, and assessing their skills— ultimately matching top performers with Arbitrum Protocols that need a Governance Fellow. (see note 2)
Note 1: In an effort to increase diversity within Arbitrum, we are committed to ensuring that at least 25% of program participants are female/non-binary. This ratio is aligned with the representation in the Pilot Program (V1). We will also focus on inclusivity, creating opportunities for LGBTQ+ and applicants from underrepresented regions, including developing countries, throughout the application and interview process.
Note 2: V2 does not guarantee program participants with long-term placement in the DAO.
Governance Analyst — An individual who is selected into V2 based on their application and interview.
Governance Fellow — A Governance Analyst who successfully graduates from the program and is subsequently matched with a Protocol to assist with Governance work.
The Onboarding Program consists of the following components:
These components are described in detail below.
To assess candidates for experience and cultural fit, V2 will include a one-month rolling application period followed by a month of interviews, after which twenty applicants will be selected to join the program.
We will be seeking applicants with specific characteristics, including a positive mindset, an ability to work well with others, an aptitude to engage in healthy debate, and an eagerness to learn. Furthermore, applicants should have a high-level of familiarity with Ethereum and L2s.
Over the course of 6 weeks, the selected cohort of 20 Governance Analysts will participate in weekly workshops that cover critical concepts (see Curriculum section) of Arbitrum DAO’s governance process.
The workshops will be primarily facilitated by Manugotsuka (Manu), a Governance Contributor at @SeedGov, who is most notably involved in managing Arbitrum’s Delegate Incentive Program. Members of the SEEDGov team will also support Manu as needed.
The following governance content will be covered in the workshops:
Arbitrum Protocol Basics
Arbitrum DAO Governance Basics
An Introduction to the Arbitrum Foundation
Arbitrum DAO: Important Proposals
Arbitrum DAO: Important Initiatives
Arbitrum Tech Deep Dive
Arbitrum DAO Tools and Resources
Note: Recordings will be shared on X to maximize the educational content’s distribution and reach.
A week-over-week schedule is presented in the below table:
| Week | Workshop Title | In-Scope Content |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Welcome to Arbitrum DAO | Arbitrum Protocol Basics & |
| Arbitrum Governance Basics | ||
| 2 | The Arbitrum Foundation | Foundation vs. DAO |
| 3 | Arbitrum DAO: Deep Dive Part I | Important Proposals |
| 4 | Arbitrum DAO: Deep Dive Part 2 | Important Initiatives |
| 5 | Arbitrum Tech Deep Dive | |
| 6 | Arbitrum DAO: Tools and Resources | Tools and Resources |
| 7 | Work on Exercises | Office Hours |
| 8 | Work on Exercises | Office Hours |
At the conclusion of the 6 weeks of workshops, participants will have two weeks to work on practical exercises to apply the knowledge they gained.
These exercises, along with the grading rubric, will be designed by Sandra Carillo (a V1 Pilot Program Fellow, Project Manager at Reserve Protocol, and Developer).
The top 10 submissions will be eligible to be matched with an Arbitrum Protocol where they will acquire real-world governance experience as Governance Fellows (more details in the ‘Governance Fellows’ section).
Those not selected for matching will be invited to participate in the next cohort on a “fast-track,” bypassing the application and interview process. This creates a positive feedback loop, providing multiple opportunities for individuals to be matched with a Protocol and contribute to Arbitrum governance.
The next section provides Sample Exercises.
These exercises will give Governance Analysts visibility on Social Media and in the Governance Forum, while providing hands-on experience with fundamental governance activities such as commenting on forum posts, writing proposals, and participating in DAO-wide calls.
In order to graduate from the program and be eligible for matching with a Protocol, Governance Trainees will need to complete all five mandatory exercises. Bonus points will be awarded for completing the optional exercises.
Mandatory:
Bonus points:
Write a tweet or a cast about the Arbitrum DAO Onboarding Program on X or Farcaster: Share your thoughts or highlights from the onboarding experience, spreading the word about how others can get involved.
Share your insights after each workshop in an X or Farcaster thread: Reflect on key takeaways and learnings from the workshops, helping others benefit from your knowledge and fostering community discussion.
Write a thread summarizing recent governance proposals and share it on X or Farcaster: Provide a clear, concise overview of the latest proposals to keep the community informed and encourage broader participation.
Write a tweet thread explaining how ARB token holders can participate in governance and share it on X or Farcaster: Educate the broader community by breaking down how ARB holders can engage in governance, making the process more accessible and encouraging more involvement.
Note: These exercises will be refined before V2 starts.
The rubric that we will use to grade Exercise submissions is provided in the below table. We drew inspiration from the Rubric created by SeedGov for the Delegate Incentive Program.
Maximum points per exercise: 25 points Maximum points for completing 5 mandatory exercises: 125 points Maximum points for completing 5 mandatory exercises and 2 bonus exercises: 175 points
The highest-scoring Governance Analysts (up to 10 individuals), based on rubric evaluations, will graduate to become Governance Fellows and will be matched with a protocol to assist with governance work.
Each Fellow will be paid a monthly stipend of $1,500 USD in ARB. The Onboarding Working Groups will support Fellows during these two-months to ensure maximum alignment and success.
Ocandocrypto (Angela), a Contributor at Web3Citizen and an Arbitrum DAO Delegate, will manage the relationships between Protocols, Governance Fellows, and the Onboarding Program.
If your protocol is interested in working with a Governance Fellow, please indicate that in your comment on this forum post or reach out directly to Angela @ocandocrypto on Telegram.
We will be measuring the Onboarding program’s success with quantitative KPIs. To ensure alignment and leverage existing DAO programs, we will base these KPIs on the metrics tracked in the Delegate Incentive Program (DIP v1.5).
Specifically, we will be using the following metrics (please refer to the Karma delegate dashboard):
We will use a 6-month trailing average will be used to calculate the program's starting baseline for each metric, smoothing out monthly variability in the number of proposals. For the program's endpoint, we will use a 3-month trailing average, aligned with the 3-month duration of the Fellowship.
To ensure realistic expectations for Fellows, we will use a 5% increase as a baseline goal for each metric.
Governance Fellows will need to KYC with the Foundation in order to receive the stipend. We will work with the Foundation on this process.
We plan to use the MSS services for payment.
We have intentionally allocated ample time, 2 weeks, for delegates to respond and provide feedback on the forum. We will incorporate the feedback and make necessary revisions before posting to Snapshot.
Expected Timeline:
We are planning to start the Program on February 10, 2025 and end on September 29, 2025.
We are proposing a budget of $193,138 USD (including a 30% volatility buffer and accounting for an ARB price of $0.69) paid in ARB over 7 months. Any unused ARB will be returned to the DAO.
A detailed budget breakdown can be found here: Arbitrum Onboarding WG Budget V1
Big thank you to the following individuals who helped shape this proposal over many months of brainstorming, feedback, and iteration:
Alice Corsini from Karpatkey, Ana-Maria Yanakieva from Arbitrum Ventures Initiative, Bhaumik Patel from Atrium Academy, Cole Schendl from 404 DAO, Cliff and Raam from Arbitrum Foundation, David Paperno from The Mount Vernon School, Erin Koen from Uniswap Foundation, Eugene Leventhal from Scroll Foundation, Frisson from Tally, Joe McKenzie from R3gen Finance, Katerina Bohle-Carbonell from Together-Crew, Krzys and Sinkas from L2Beat, Liz Yang from Azuki, Nestor Bonilla, Sov from Gitcoin, and Tnorm from Gauntlet.
The Onboarding Working Group is planning to publish the onchain proposal (live vote: here) on Monday (10th) for voting to start on Thursday (13th). This post is an update on what to expect. Thank you to everyone who provided feedback and support. We are eager to move this initiative forward!
--
On December 12, 2024, the Snapshot vote to launch the Arbitrum Governance Bootcamp successfully passed.
One area of feedback questioned the level of interest in protocol matching. In response, we’re pleased to share that Areta, Event Horizon, Gains Network, Gitcoin, Tally, Plutus DAO, and Uniswap Foundation are eager to work with a Governance Fellow to support their governance needs and strengthen their alignment with the DAO. If your organization is interested in working with a Governance Fellow, please complete this survey.
To ensure the program is impactful, we’ve taken a data-driven approach, gathering insights from 14 Arbitrum stakeholders — including protocols and service providers — on their needs, pain points, and priorities for working with a Governance Fellow. These findings have shaped curriculum refinements and additional program improvements to better serve the DAO.
The rest of this update will highlight the changes that we have made between the Snapshot vote and the ongoing Tally vote.
Note: We have created a Chatbot to assist you with reviewing the details of the proposal.
We’re thrilled to welcome Bhaumik Patel, founder of Atrium Academy, as an advisor to our team! Atrium Academy, a Uniswap Foundation grantee, builds immersive cohort-based experiences for advanced solidity developers, with a focus on V4 hooks. See this case study and this hooks directory to learn more about Atrium and its impact.
With deep experience building and shipping educational programs, both at Atrium Academy and in previous roles, Bhaumik brings invaluable insights to the Onboarding Working Group. He has already been instrumental in enhancing our operations and refining the curriculum.
Meanwhile, Manu and Angela have transitioned to new roles elsewhere.
We made the following changes to the curriculum based on survey responses to better align with delegate needs:
1. Governance Goals & Strategic Alignment
Delegates identified two primary goals with their governance participation:
To support these goals, we have added a workshop on Strategic Governance that will cover the following topics:
2. Governance Fellow Support & Key Responsibilities
Delegates highlighted the following areas where Governance Fellows can add the most value:
To address these needs, we have added the following workshops:
3. Enhancing Visibility & Influence in the DAO
Some respondents noted challenges in gaining visibility and influence within the DAO. To help address this, we have added the following workshop:
Additionally, the Onboarding Working Group will offer Fellows 1:1 office hours during their Fellowship for personalized support.
| Week | Workshop Title |
|---|---|
| 1 | Arbitrum DAO Governance Basics |
| 2 | Strategic Governance |
| 3 | Governance Reports & Dashboards |
| 4 | Governance Project Management |
| 5 | Arbitrum Tech Deep Dive |
| 6 | DAO Relationship Management |
| 7 | Work on Exercises |
| 8 | Work on Exercises |
Participants will have access to video tutorials and additional reference materials created by the Onboarding Working Group. All workshops will be recorded.
Detailed workshop materials are available in the Appendix.
At the conclusion of the six-week workshop series, participants will have two weeks to complete practical exercises, applying the knowledge they have gained.
The top 10 submissions will have the opportunity to be matched with an Arbitrum Protocol or Service Provider, where they will gain real-world governance experience as Governance Fellows.
Participants who are not selected for matching will be invited to join the next cohort on a fast-track basis, bypassing the application and interview process. This creates a positive feedback loop, ensuring multiple opportunities for individuals to engage with Arbitrum governance and contribute meaningfully over time. Each cohort will feature updated content and refined sessions to enhance the learning experience.
The next section provides sample exercises, which may be adjusted to better align with the evolving needs of the DAO.
These exercises provide Governance Trainees with hands-on experience in core governance activities—commenting on forum posts, analyzing proposals, and engaging in DAO-wide calls—while also increasing their visibility on social media and the Governance Forum.
The exercises are designed to address the governance needs of onboarded Service Providers and Protocols, incorporating insights from collected survey responses.
To graduate and be eligible for matching with a Protocol, Governance Trainees must complete all five mandatory exercises. Bonus points will be awarded for completing optional exercises.
1. Draft and submit a proposal idea
2.Analyze a recent governance proposal
3.Engage in Governance Forum discussions
4.Attend an Open Discussion of Proposals call & share insights
5.Identify and summarize a grant opportunity
These exercises ensure that trainees develop essential governance skills while actively contributing to Arbitrum DAO’s governance ecosystem.
Workshops will be led by experienced stakeholders from the Arbitrum DAO ecosystem, selected through an application process managed by the Onboarding Working Group. Interested facilitators can apply by selecting up to two workshops they are willing to lead. Those chosen will complete a Facilitator Workshop to ensure they are equipped to run engaging and effective sessions.
The Facilitator Workshop prepares participants to deliver high-quality governance training through the following key areas:
1.Understanding the Role of a Facilitator
2.Designing an Engaging Learning Experience
3.Handling Questions & Discussions
To further support facilitators, the Onboarding Working Group will provide comprehensive resources and materials to assist with presentation design.
Big thank you to the following individuals who helped shape this proposal over many months of brainstorming, feedback, and iteration:
Alice Corsini from Karpatkey, Ana-Maria Yanakieva from Arbitrum Ventures Initiative, Bhaumik Patel from Atrium Academy, Cole Schendl from 404 DAO, Cliff and Raam from Arbitrum Foundation, David Paperno from The Mount Vernon School, Erin Koen from Uniswap Foundation, Eugene Leventhal from Scroll Foundation, Frisson from Tally, Joe McKenzie from R3gen Finance, Katerina Bohle-Carbonell from Together-Crew, Krzys and Sinkas from L2Beat, Liz Yang from Azuki, Nestor Bonilla, Sov from Gitcoin, and Tnorm from Gauntlet.
Live Workshops
Arbitrum DAO Governance Basics
Arbitrum Tech Deep Dive
Video Tutorials
Arbitrum DAO Tools and Resources
Resources
Arbitrum DAO: Important Proposals
Arbitrum DAO: Important Initiatives
Arbitrum DAO Tools and Resources
Thank you to everyone who shared feedback! We have incorporated your input and made the following updates:
Added KPIs for Governance Fellows. To ensure alignment with existing DAO programs, the Onboarding Program's KPIs will be based on the metrics tracked in the Delegate Incentive Program (DIP v1.5). For more details, please refer to the KPIs section.
Changed the Program start date (if the on-chain vote passes) to February 10th from January 6th. This better coincides with the timing of the on-chain Tally vote.
Extended the Fellowship to 3 months from 2 months, adding an additional month to the Program (7 months from 6 months). Fellows will have more time to make a meaningful impact with a Protocol. The budget and timeline have been updated accordingly. (Note: Any unused ARB will be returned to the DAO)
Minor changes to Curriculum materials. Added workshop materials to Grants, Governance Basics, and DAO Tools and Resources.
Added a FAQs section
What happens if there are more Fellows than interested Protocols?
Our team is actively doing both inbound and outbound work to identify interested Protocols. The Foundation is also helping to support our efforts. As a reminder, if you work at a Protocol that is interested in being matched with a Fellow to assist with Governance work, please reach out to Angela or Rika on Telegram (TG handles: @ocandocrypto @rikagoldberg)
Should the Program provide participants with a temporary delegation to enable them to vote?
In V2, our primary objective is not to enhance participants’ DAO voting power but to educate them on the DAO’s governance processes and provide hands-on governance experience by working directly with a Protocol. That said, we are open to considering a temporary delegation, or the like, for participants in future phases of the Program.
[details= How do we ensure retention after a Fellow completes their work with a Protocol?] After considering feedback and suggestions about retention strategies shared in the forum, we have concluded that implementing a selective application and interview process that focuses an individual’s long-term commitment, intrinsic motivation, and self-starter qualities will better ensure Fellows stay actively engaged with Arbitrum governance beyond the Fellowship period. [/details]
[details= Should the DAO pay Governance Analysts during their training?] We are open to exploring the possibility of providing Analysts with an additional small stipend during the program. However, our rationale for not doing so is based on the value we are already offering: fully subsidized training and paid opportunities for Analysts who become Fellows. [/details]
This proposal requests $193,138 USD paid in ARB for the Onboarding Working Group to run V2 of Arbitrum DAO’s Onboarding Program for 7 months.
Earlier this year, the Onboarding Working Group ran a three-month Pilot Program (V1) to bring new participants into the DAO. Based on feedback from delegates and ecosystem participants, we’ve applied key lessons learned to create V2—a more robust and refined iteration of the program.
V2 will function like a Governance Bootcamp and the Onboarding Working Group will act akin to a recruitment agency, sourcing and training a select group of new DAO contributors.
The Onboarding Working Group is comprised of the following individuals: @Manugotsuka from @SEEDGov, @ocandocrypto from @web3citizenxyz, @san from Reserve Protocol, and @RikaGoldberg from @404DAO. Our advisors are @krst and @Sinkas from L2Beat.
Arbitrum DAO needs to onboard high-quality and diverse (see note 1) governance participants to thrive in the future. Currently, fragmented information, siloed resources, and private communication channels create a culture of exclusivity, making it challenging for newcomers to navigate the governance process and contribute meaningfully.
In V1, we pioneered a solution by running a Pilot Program where we hosted weekly onboarding calls and grouped participants into one of five Fellowship tracks based on their interests and skills. Ultimately, each Fellowship was expected to collaborate and work on a Proposal to publish on the forum.
Based on the lessons learned in V1 (details are here), we have developed V2, a more robust and meritocratic Onboarding Program. V2 focuses on selecting high-quality participants, training them, and assessing their skills— ultimately matching top performers with Arbitrum Protocols that need a Governance Fellow. (see note 2)
Note 1: In an effort to increase diversity within Arbitrum, we are committed to ensuring that at least 25% of program participants are female/non-binary. This ratio is aligned with the representation in the Pilot Program (V1). We will also focus on inclusivity, creating opportunities for LGBTQ+ and applicants from underrepresented regions, including developing countries, throughout the application and interview process.
Note 2: V2 does not guarantee program participants with long-term placement in the DAO.
Governance Analyst — An individual who is selected into V2 based on their application and interview.
Governance Fellow — A Governance Analyst who successfully graduates from the program and is subsequently matched with a Protocol to assist with Governance work.
The Onboarding Program consists of the following components:
These components are described in detail below.
To assess candidates for experience and cultural fit, V2 will include a one-month rolling application period followed by a month of interviews, after which twenty applicants will be selected to join the program.
We will be seeking applicants with specific characteristics, including a positive mindset, an ability to work well with others, an aptitude to engage in healthy debate, and an eagerness to learn. Furthermore, applicants should have a high-level of familiarity with Ethereum and L2s.
Over the course of 6 weeks, the selected cohort of 20 Governance Analysts will participate in weekly workshops that cover critical concepts (see Curriculum section) of Arbitrum DAO’s governance process.
The workshops will be primarily facilitated by Manugotsuka (Manu), a Governance Contributor at @SeedGov, who is most notably involved in managing Arbitrum’s Delegate Incentive Program. Members of the SEEDGov team will also support Manu as needed.
The following governance content will be covered in the workshops:
Arbitrum Protocol Basics
Arbitrum DAO Governance Basics
An Introduction to the Arbitrum Foundation
Arbitrum DAO: Important Proposals
Arbitrum DAO: Important Initiatives
Arbitrum Tech Deep Dive
Arbitrum DAO Tools and Resources
Note: Recordings will be shared on X to maximize the educational content’s distribution and reach.
A week-over-week schedule is presented in the below table:
| Week | Workshop Title | In-Scope Content |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Welcome to Arbitrum DAO | Arbitrum Protocol Basics & |
| Arbitrum Governance Basics | ||
| 2 | The Arbitrum Foundation | Foundation vs. DAO |
| 3 | Arbitrum DAO: Deep Dive Part I | Important Proposals |
| 4 | Arbitrum DAO: Deep Dive Part 2 | Important Initiatives |
| 5 | Arbitrum Tech Deep Dive | |
| 6 | Arbitrum DAO: Tools and Resources | Tools and Resources |
| 7 | Work on Exercises | Office Hours |
| 8 | Work on Exercises | Office Hours |
At the conclusion of the 6 weeks of workshops, participants will have two weeks to work on practical exercises to apply the knowledge they gained.
These exercises, along with the grading rubric, will be designed by Sandra Carillo (a V1 Pilot Program Fellow, Project Manager at Reserve Protocol, and Developer).
The top 10 submissions will be eligible to be matched with an Arbitrum Protocol where they will acquire real-world governance experience as Governance Fellows (more details in the ‘Governance Fellows’ section).
Those not selected for matching will be invited to participate in the next cohort on a “fast-track,” bypassing the application and interview process. This creates a positive feedback loop, providing multiple opportunities for individuals to be matched with a Protocol and contribute to Arbitrum governance.
The next section provides Sample Exercises.
These exercises will give Governance Analysts visibility on Social Media and in the Governance Forum, while providing hands-on experience with fundamental governance activities such as commenting on forum posts, writing proposals, and participating in DAO-wide calls.
In order to graduate from the program and be eligible for matching with a Protocol, Governance Trainees will need to complete all five mandatory exercises. Bonus points will be awarded for completing the optional exercises.
Mandatory:
Bonus points:
Write a tweet or a cast about the Arbitrum DAO Onboarding Program on X or Farcaster: Share your thoughts or highlights from the onboarding experience, spreading the word about how others can get involved.
Share your insights after each workshop in an X or Farcaster thread: Reflect on key takeaways and learnings from the workshops, helping others benefit from your knowledge and fostering community discussion.
Write a thread summarizing recent governance proposals and share it on X or Farcaster: Provide a clear, concise overview of the latest proposals to keep the community informed and encourage broader participation.
Write a tweet thread explaining how ARB token holders can participate in governance and share it on X or Farcaster: Educate the broader community by breaking down how ARB holders can engage in governance, making the process more accessible and encouraging more involvement.
Note: These exercises will be refined before V2 starts.
The rubric that we will use to grade Exercise submissions is provided in the below table. We drew inspiration from the Rubric created by SeedGov for the Delegate Incentive Program.
Maximum points per exercise: 25 points Maximum points for completing 5 mandatory exercises: 125 points Maximum points for completing 5 mandatory exercises and 2 bonus exercises: 175 points
The highest-scoring Governance Analysts (up to 10 individuals), based on rubric evaluations, will graduate to become Governance Fellows and will be matched with a protocol to assist with governance work.
Each Fellow will be paid a monthly stipend of $1,500 USD in ARB. The Onboarding Working Groups will support Fellows during these two-months to ensure maximum alignment and success.
Ocandocrypto (Angela), a Contributor at Web3Citizen and an Arbitrum DAO Delegate, will manage the relationships between Protocols, Governance Fellows, and the Onboarding Program.
If your protocol is interested in working with a Governance Fellow, please indicate that in your comment on this forum post or reach out directly to Angela @ocandocrypto on Telegram.
We will be measuring the Onboarding program’s success with quantitative KPIs. To ensure alignment and leverage existing DAO programs, we will base these KPIs on the metrics tracked in the Delegate Incentive Program (DIP v1.5).
Specifically, we will be using the following metrics (please refer to the Karma delegate dashboard):
We will use a 6-month trailing average will be used to calculate the program's starting baseline for each metric, smoothing out monthly variability in the number of proposals. For the program's endpoint, we will use a 3-month trailing average, aligned with the 3-month duration of the Fellowship.
To ensure realistic expectations for Fellows, we will use a 5% increase as a baseline goal for each metric.
Governance Fellows will need to KYC with the Foundation in order to receive the stipend. We will work with the Foundation on this process.
We plan to use the MSS services for payment.
We have intentionally allocated ample time, 2 weeks, for delegates to respond and provide feedback on the forum. We will incorporate the feedback and make necessary revisions before posting to Snapshot.
Expected Timeline:
We are planning to start the Program on February 10, 2025 and end on September 29, 2025.
We are proposing a budget of $193,138 USD (including a 30% volatility buffer and accounting for an ARB price of $0.69) paid in ARB over 7 months. Any unused ARB will be returned to the DAO.
A detailed budget breakdown can be found here: Arbitrum Onboarding WG Budget V1
Big thank you to the following individuals who helped shape this proposal over many months of brainstorming, feedback, and iteration:
Alice Corsini from Karpatkey, Ana-Maria Yanakieva from Arbitrum Ventures Initiative, Bhaumik Patel from Atrium Academy, Cole Schendl from 404 DAO, Cliff and Raam from Arbitrum Foundation, David Paperno from The Mount Vernon School, Erin Koen from Uniswap Foundation, Eugene Leventhal from Scroll Foundation, Frisson from Tally, Joe McKenzie from R3gen Finance, Katerina Bohle-Carbonell from Together-Crew, Krzys and Sinkas from L2Beat, Liz Yang from Azuki, Nestor Bonilla, Sov from Gitcoin, and Tnorm from Gauntlet.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/160?u=linzerd
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/159?u=ocandocrypto
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/160?u=linzerd
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/159?u=ocandocrypto
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
We vote AGAINST the proposal. We know the importance of encouraging DAO governance to bring in quality people to contribute to the organization. Increasing participation and attracting/retaining talent is key to Arbitrum continuing to grow. However, the budget for the proposal is high for the return it will generate for the DAO. There will only be 10 Governance Fellows working on governance and with $45K, other methods to bring new voters/participants to Arbitrum could be implemented. What motivated us to vote against the project is that the cost of the team to run the bootcamp is 2.5x higher than the capital spent on those who will work for the DAO. We understand that it is specialized work - and there is a reference, from Glassdoor - but it is something that could be balanced - with more people on the team, a lower remuneration in this proposal and gradually increased. The governance bootcamp idea is great and should be implemented! But we need changes to the budget so that we can vote to approve it.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/157?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/156
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this Proposal (ehARB-89): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-89
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/juanrah-delegate-communication-thread/27395/34?u=juanrah
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/153?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tempetechie-eth-delegate-communication-thread/27225/6#p-68121-tally-proposal-non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamphttpswwwtallyxyzgovarbitrumproposal41764616447638715300612914863093416410063619332654034338488569044333128121381govideip155421610x789fc99093b09ad01c34dc7251d0c89ce743e5a4-9
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/152
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/150?u=blueweb
despite feeling the protocols should also pay for this program, not just the DAO, right now we don't have any onboarding effort in Arbitrum DAO and we should. So, this feels worthy to try it out. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/151?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/149?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/148
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/147?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/146?u=maxlomu
i like the Proposal , people will get more educational content and that's help people to know in easier way about Arbitrum .25% spots reserved for women and non-binary individuals also - this is best thing its help it cover all types of individuals and organising conferences in various regions helps in more inclusitivioty .
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/145?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/143?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/141?u=danielm
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/140
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/134
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/132?u=gabriel
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/82?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/127?u=tamara
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/126?u=0x_ultra
Still not convinced, as I was for the snapshot vote
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/123?u=pedrob
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/77?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/72?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/128?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/85?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/118?u=dragonawr
Continued investment into onbaording people into the ecosystem will pay dividends by expanding our contributor base, even if the program has certain inefficiencies.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/52?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/102?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/101
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/100?u=blockworksresearch
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-62: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-62
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-62: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-62
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/97
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/96
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/juanrah-delegate-communication-thread/27395/13?u=juanrah
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/93?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/92?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/90?u=tempetechie
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/89?u=todayindefi
I am voting for the Arbitrum Onboarding V2 proposal because it equips new contributors with the knowledge and skills to actively participate in governance, fostering a more diverse and engaged DAO community.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/87?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/86?u=maxlomu
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/85?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/83?u=duokongcrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/81?u=kuiclub
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/79?u=pedrob
This proposal has the potential to boost both the quality and quantity of participants in DAO.
I feel the protocols should pay for this, not the DAO, or at least they should match a little bit of the payment to ensure they are aligned. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/78?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/77?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/76?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/75?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/96?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/72?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/71?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/70?u=gabriel
This program is way to expensive to onboard people to nothing.
We vote AGAINST the proposal. We know the importance of encouraging DAO governance to bring in quality people to contribute to the organization. Increasing participation and attracting/retaining talent is key to Arbitrum continuing to grow. However, the budget for the proposal is high for the return it will generate for the DAO. There will only be 10 Governance Fellows working on governance and with $45K, other methods to bring new voters/participants to Arbitrum could be implemented. What motivated us to vote against the project is that the cost of the team to run the bootcamp is 2.5x higher than the capital spent on those who will work for the DAO. We understand that it is specialized work - and there is a reference, from Glassdoor - but it is something that could be balanced - with more people on the team, a lower remuneration in this proposal and gradually increased. The governance bootcamp idea is great and should be implemented! But we need changes to the budget so that we can vote to approve it.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/157?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/156
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this Proposal (ehARB-89): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-89
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/juanrah-delegate-communication-thread/27395/34?u=juanrah
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/153?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tempetechie-eth-delegate-communication-thread/27225/6#p-68121-tally-proposal-non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamphttpswwwtallyxyzgovarbitrumproposal41764616447638715300612914863093416410063619332654034338488569044333128121381govideip155421610x789fc99093b09ad01c34dc7251d0c89ce743e5a4-9
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/152
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/150?u=blueweb
despite feeling the protocols should also pay for this program, not just the DAO, right now we don't have any onboarding effort in Arbitrum DAO and we should. So, this feels worthy to try it out. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/151?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/149?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/148
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/147?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/146?u=maxlomu
i like the Proposal , people will get more educational content and that's help people to know in easier way about Arbitrum .25% spots reserved for women and non-binary individuals also - this is best thing its help it cover all types of individuals and organising conferences in various regions helps in more inclusitivioty .
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/145?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/143?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/141?u=danielm
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/140
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/134
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/132?u=gabriel
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/82?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/127?u=tamara
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/126?u=0x_ultra
Still not convinced, as I was for the snapshot vote
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/123?u=pedrob
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/77?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/72?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/128?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/85?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/118?u=dragonawr
Continued investment into onbaording people into the ecosystem will pay dividends by expanding our contributor base, even if the program has certain inefficiencies.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/52?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/102?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/101
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/100?u=blockworksresearch
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-62: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-62
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-62: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-62
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/97
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/96
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/juanrah-delegate-communication-thread/27395/13?u=juanrah
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/93?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/92?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/90?u=tempetechie
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/89?u=todayindefi
I am voting for the Arbitrum Onboarding V2 proposal because it equips new contributors with the knowledge and skills to actively participate in governance, fostering a more diverse and engaged DAO community.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/87?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/86?u=maxlomu
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/85?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/83?u=duokongcrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/81?u=kuiclub
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/79?u=pedrob
This proposal has the potential to boost both the quality and quantity of participants in DAO.
I feel the protocols should pay for this, not the DAO, or at least they should match a little bit of the payment to ensure they are aligned. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/78?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/77?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/76?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/75?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/96?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/72?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/71?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/70?u=gabriel
This program is way to expensive to onboard people to nothing.
As a graduate of the Onboarding Pilot program (V1) on the Social Media Fellowship team, I wanted to provide my own personal experiences from V1, and how I believe that V2 will enhance the experience of applicants to become valued contributors to the DAO, regardless if they are selected to become Fellows or not.
In V1, as a participant it felt (other than our own group who had an awesome Gandalf; @zer8) that we were very much on our own - we didn't have a lot of interaction as individuals with the onboarding team. We had to figure it out, what were the goals and how to accomplish them. Sink or swim, basically.
As a graduate of the Onboarding Pilot program (V1) on the Social Media Fellowship team, I wanted to provide my own personal experiences from V1, and how I believe that V2 will enhance the experience of applicants to become valued contributors to the DAO, regardless if they are selected to become Fellows or not.
In V1, as a participant it felt (other than our own group who had an awesome Gandalf; @zer8) that we were very much on our own - we didn't have a lot of interaction as individuals with the onboarding team. We had to figure it out, what were the goals and how to accomplish them. Sink or swim, basically.
As already stated in comments by delegates above, you recognize that it's very difficult to navigate and actively engage with the DAO to become a valued contributor. Impossible, from a newer person's experience without understanding how to navigate through-out the DAO, getting real hands-on experience and interacting with delegates to build relationships.
In this proposal, the team has really focused on a curriculum that has real meat to it, and with clear KPI's and goals for the participants to strive for. The high valued personalized of the pre and post interviews, very defined goals of the participating delegates and service providers needs from the participants, I feel will not only create a positive experience with the DAO for these applicants, but also provide them with a roadmap to become long-term contributors.
On behalf of Gains Network (gTrade) – Voting FOR on Tally
We appreciate the effort put into this proposal and wanted to provide context on why we have voted FOR on Tally.
On behalf of Gains Network (gTrade) – Voting FOR on Tally
We appreciate the effort put into this proposal and wanted to provide context on why we have voted FOR on Tally.
As Arbitrum continues to grow, so does the governance activity within the DAO. Keeping up with discussions, proposals, and developments can be challenging for teams. That’s why we see real value in being matched with a Fellow who can help us stay informed and engaged. If this program successfully connects Fellows to core protocols in Arbitrum that hold $ARB (or could become delegates) but are not yet frequent participants, it could serve as a meaningful step toward broader governance involvement.
While we acknowledge concerns around the budget, even after reductions, we believe that (governance) education is a worthwhile investment for the DAO. The second-order effects of this program — such as improving participation from protocols — make it a compelling initiative.
That said, we do believe that targeting only 10 graduates is too low and would like to see this number increased in future iterations of the program. Expanding the reach of this initiative would enhance its overall impact.
We look forward to seeing how this program evolves and contributes to stronger governance participation across the Arbitrum ecosystem.
As a graduate of the Onboarding Pilot program (V1) on the Social Media Fellowship team, I wanted to provide my own personal experiences from V1, and how I believe that V2 will enhance the experience of applicants to become valued contributors to the DAO, regardless if they are selected to become Fellows or not.
In V1, as a participant it felt (other than our own group who had an awesome Gandalf; @zer8) that we were very much on our own - we didn't have a lot of interaction as individuals with the onboarding team. We had to figure it out, what were the goals and how to accomplish them. Sink or swim, basically.
As a graduate of the Onboarding Pilot program (V1) on the Social Media Fellowship team, I wanted to provide my own personal experiences from V1, and how I believe that V2 will enhance the experience of applicants to become valued contributors to the DAO, regardless if they are selected to become Fellows or not.
In V1, as a participant it felt (other than our own group who had an awesome Gandalf; @zer8) that we were very much on our own - we didn't have a lot of interaction as individuals with the onboarding team. We had to figure it out, what were the goals and how to accomplish them. Sink or swim, basically.
As already stated in comments by delegates above, you recognize that it's very difficult to navigate and actively engage with the DAO to become a valued contributor. Impossible, from a newer person's experience without understanding how to navigate through-out the DAO, getting real hands-on experience and interacting with delegates to build relationships.
In this proposal, the team has really focused on a curriculum that has real meat to it, and with clear KPI's and goals for the participants to strive for. The high valued personalized of the pre and post interviews, very defined goals of the participating delegates and service providers needs from the participants, I feel will not only create a positive experience with the DAO for these applicants, but also provide them with a roadmap to become long-term contributors.
On behalf of Gains Network (gTrade) – Voting FOR on Tally
We appreciate the effort put into this proposal and wanted to provide context on why we have voted FOR on Tally.
On behalf of Gains Network (gTrade) – Voting FOR on Tally
We appreciate the effort put into this proposal and wanted to provide context on why we have voted FOR on Tally.
As Arbitrum continues to grow, so does the governance activity within the DAO. Keeping up with discussions, proposals, and developments can be challenging for teams. That’s why we see real value in being matched with a Fellow who can help us stay informed and engaged. If this program successfully connects Fellows to core protocols in Arbitrum that hold $ARB (or could become delegates) but are not yet frequent participants, it could serve as a meaningful step toward broader governance involvement.
While we acknowledge concerns around the budget, even after reductions, we believe that (governance) education is a worthwhile investment for the DAO. The second-order effects of this program — such as improving participation from protocols — make it a compelling initiative.
That said, we do believe that targeting only 10 graduates is too low and would like to see this number increased in future iterations of the program. Expanding the reach of this initiative would enhance its overall impact.
We look forward to seeing how this program evolves and contributes to stronger governance participation across the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Looking forward to this!
This is the most comprehensive onboarding with a purpose I have seen in a DAO, that's not based on an external provider or platform.
Thank you so much @RikaGoldberg for putting together this amazing proposal
As a newbie in governance, I am interested in joining this initiative and seeing the outcome after two months
The question is, how do we register and also what is the selection process going to be like I am also interested in helping out fine tuning the onboarding process and helping with marketing and socials
Thank you so much @RikaGoldberg for putting together this amazing proposal
As a newbie in governance, I am interested in joining this initiative and seeing the outcome after two months
The question is, how do we register and also what is the selection process going to be like I am also interested in helping out fine tuning the onboarding process and helping with marketing and socials
I also do think we can do so much more with the marketing and even making this into a full time educational hub I am very willing to assist with this and look forward to working with you
Thank you
Erin here from the Uniswap Foundation - would be down to see how we could work with a Governance Fellow. Great initiative here!
Looking forward to this!
This is the most comprehensive onboarding with a purpose I have seen in a DAO, that's not based on an external provider or platform.
Thank you so much @RikaGoldberg for putting together this amazing proposal
As a newbie in governance, I am interested in joining this initiative and seeing the outcome after two months
The question is, how do we register and also what is the selection process going to be like I am also interested in helping out fine tuning the onboarding process and helping with marketing and socials
Thank you so much @RikaGoldberg for putting together this amazing proposal
As a newbie in governance, I am interested in joining this initiative and seeing the outcome after two months
The question is, how do we register and also what is the selection process going to be like I am also interested in helping out fine tuning the onboarding process and helping with marketing and socials
I also do think we can do so much more with the marketing and even making this into a full time educational hub I am very willing to assist with this and look forward to working with you
Thank you
Erin here from the Uniswap Foundation - would be down to see how we could work with a Governance Fellow. Great initiative here!
Thanks for publishing this proposal. Highly interested in knowing how to attend this program.
Hello @RikaGoldberg! This initiative sounds amazing. Could you please share how one can apply for the program? Also, where will announcements about the application process be published? Thanks!
Thanks for publishing this proposal. Highly interested in knowing how to attend this program.
Hello @RikaGoldberg! This initiative sounds amazing. Could you please share how one can apply for the program? Also, where will announcements about the application process be published? Thanks!
Replying here to voice my support for this proposal.
The approach to matching qualified contributors with protocols fills a clear need. From my experience, this kind of targeted program can deliver value.
Particularly appreciate the points @gauntlet raises about the industry-standard comp, protocol matching, and social engagement elements.
Great proposal. Looking forward for it to be accepted.
Replying here to voice my support for this proposal.
The approach to matching qualified contributors with protocols fills a clear need. From my experience, this kind of targeted program can deliver value.
Particularly appreciate the points @gauntlet raises about the industry-standard comp, protocol matching, and social engagement elements.
Great proposal. Looking forward for it to be accepted.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, and consensus of various committee members.
As referenced in our previous comments, we have voted AGAINST this proposal.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, and consensus of various committee members.
As referenced in our previous comments, we have voted AGAINST this proposal.
We believe that an onboarding program for the DAO can help deepen engagement within governance. However, in the updated proposal, despite its revision, the size and financial cost are still expensive relative to what is being offered.
The revised budget is $171,481 to train 20 participants for 8 weeks, and then 10 participants are paired with protocols. That is $8,475 / student taking the course, and an acquisition cost of $17,148 for 10 fellows to assist protocols. We should be aiming for significantly lower cost to onboard new participants and build programs that can target a much larger cohort size.
We believe that an onboarding program for the DAO can help deepen engagement within governance. However, in the updated proposal, despite its revision, the size and financial cost are still expensive relative to what is being offered.
The revised budget is $171,481 to train 20 participants for 8 weeks, and then 10 participants are paired with protocols. That is $8,475 / student taking the course, and an acquisition cost of $17,148 for 10 fellows to assist protocols. We should be aiming for significantly lower cost to onboard new participants and build programs that can target a much larger cohort size.
In the proposal’s current state, we believe it is overly priced and it should be significantly revised. We recommend the DAO to reject the proposal if it is put up for a vote.
It would also be helpful for the proposal author to clarify who will be conducting the interviews and filtering through the applications, as well as more concrete criteria in evaluating the applications.
Additionally, the proposal could consider the following:
Refreshing the proposed curriculum as it has been some time since it was drafted & there might be new interesting content to include. Strategic, important initiatives like the OpCo, GCP, STEP, and the Treasury Management v1.2 proposal are examples that should definitely be included in the curriculum.
Extending this to being an open, virtual course for anyone to attend, and for the top submissions to be paired with protocols.
Beyond protocols, the proposal could be significantly stronger if it were to be expanded to include organizations that have meaningful partnerships and/or capital deployed in the Arbitrum ecosystem. This could include names like Pendle, Proof of Play, Azuki, and Xai, all of which don’t currently have a governance presence within the DAO. Their success could be intricately linked to the broader success of the Arbitrum ecosystem, which would warrant greater participation in the governance of Arbitrum.
Distinguish between assisting protocols with governance, and a pathway for independent contributors to get started.
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 Arbitrum Onboarding V2: Governance Bootcamp has the potential to address key challenges within the DAO, such as improving contributor pipelines and governance participation. However, there are areas where further clarity and justification are needed to ensure the program delivers measurable value to the ecosystem.
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 Arbitrum Onboarding V2: Governance Bootcamp has the potential to address key challenges within the DAO, such as improving contributor pipelines and governance participation. However, there are areas where further clarity and justification are needed to ensure the program delivers measurable value to the ecosystem.
While we appreciate the continuation of efforts from V1, we believe a thorough evaluation of the pilot program’s outcomes is critical. A detailed V1 post-mortem should outline its successes, shortcomings, and how they inform V2. Without this, it is difficult to gauge the necessity and expected impact of scaling up the initiative.
Success metrics remain unclear in the proposal. If V2 is to achieve its goals, the DAO should define what success looks like—be it employment of contributors, measurable impact on governance, or broader engagement in DAO activities. This will not only provide accountability but also align expectations for the program’s outcomes.
The budget may appear reasonable for a six-month program of this scope, but we would question the level of oversight required for such an initiative and add that the lack of clarity around demand raises concerns. It is uncertain whether there is sufficient interest from protocols in onboarding governance analysts. This should have been explored more thoroughly to validate the program’s purpose and ensure it meets actual ecosystem needs.
Finally, long-term integration of contributors is a critical aspect. Sustaining engagement beyond the program’s duration requires more defined pathways, ensuring participants continue to add value to the DAO and its protocols.
While GMX supports initiatives to build capacity and foster inclusivity within the DAO, this proposal requires greater clarity around past outcomes, success metrics, and demand validation. We encourage the Working Group to address these concerns and provide a stronger foundation for scaling this initiative.
We believe that an onboarding program for the DAO can help deepen engagement within governance. However, in the updated proposal, despite its revision, the size and financial cost are still expensive relative to what is being offered.
The revised budget is $171,481 to train 20 participants for 8 weeks, and then 10 participants are paired with protocols. That is $8,475 / student taking the course, and an acquisition cost of $17,148 for 10 fellows to assist protocols. We should be aiming for significantly lower cost to onboard new participants and build programs that can target a much larger cohort size.
We believe that an onboarding program for the DAO can help deepen engagement within governance. However, in the updated proposal, despite its revision, the size and financial cost are still expensive relative to what is being offered.
The revised budget is $171,481 to train 20 participants for 8 weeks, and then 10 participants are paired with protocols. That is $8,475 / student taking the course, and an acquisition cost of $17,148 for 10 fellows to assist protocols. We should be aiming for significantly lower cost to onboard new participants and build programs that can target a much larger cohort size.
In the proposal’s current state, we believe it is overly priced and it should be significantly revised. We recommend the DAO to reject the proposal if it is put up for a vote.
It would also be helpful for the proposal author to clarify who will be conducting the interviews and filtering through the applications, as well as more concrete criteria in evaluating the applications.
Additionally, the proposal could consider the following:
Refreshing the proposed curriculum as it has been some time since it was drafted & there might be new interesting content to include. Strategic, important initiatives like the OpCo, GCP, STEP, and the Treasury Management v1.2 proposal are examples that should definitely be included in the curriculum.
Extending this to being an open, virtual course for anyone to attend, and for the top submissions to be paired with protocols.
Beyond protocols, the proposal could be significantly stronger if it were to be expanded to include organizations that have meaningful partnerships and/or capital deployed in the Arbitrum ecosystem. This could include names like Pendle, Proof of Play, Azuki, and Xai, all of which don’t currently have a governance presence within the DAO. Their success could be intricately linked to the broader success of the Arbitrum ecosystem, which would warrant greater participation in the governance of Arbitrum.
Distinguish between assisting protocols with governance, and a pathway for independent contributors to get started.
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 Arbitrum Onboarding V2: Governance Bootcamp has the potential to address key challenges within the DAO, such as improving contributor pipelines and governance participation. However, there are areas where further clarity and justification are needed to ensure the program delivers measurable value to the ecosystem.
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 Arbitrum Onboarding V2: Governance Bootcamp has the potential to address key challenges within the DAO, such as improving contributor pipelines and governance participation. However, there are areas where further clarity and justification are needed to ensure the program delivers measurable value to the ecosystem.
While we appreciate the continuation of efforts from V1, we believe a thorough evaluation of the pilot program’s outcomes is critical. A detailed V1 post-mortem should outline its successes, shortcomings, and how they inform V2. Without this, it is difficult to gauge the necessity and expected impact of scaling up the initiative.
Success metrics remain unclear in the proposal. If V2 is to achieve its goals, the DAO should define what success looks like—be it employment of contributors, measurable impact on governance, or broader engagement in DAO activities. This will not only provide accountability but also align expectations for the program’s outcomes.
The budget may appear reasonable for a six-month program of this scope, but we would question the level of oversight required for such an initiative and add that the lack of clarity around demand raises concerns. It is uncertain whether there is sufficient interest from protocols in onboarding governance analysts. This should have been explored more thoroughly to validate the program’s purpose and ensure it meets actual ecosystem needs.
Finally, long-term integration of contributors is a critical aspect. Sustaining engagement beyond the program’s duration requires more defined pathways, ensuring participants continue to add value to the DAO and its protocols.
While GMX supports initiatives to build capacity and foster inclusivity within the DAO, this proposal requires greater clarity around past outcomes, success metrics, and demand validation. We encourage the Working Group to address these concerns and provide a stronger foundation for scaling this initiative.
We will be voting AGAINST this proposal.
First, we want to thank the proposers for putting this forward—it's clear that a lot of thought and effort went into crafting the proposal. We appreciate the overall idea and direction, and we believe that with a different approach, this initiative could return in a stronger form.
We will be voting AGAINST this proposal.
First, we want to thank the proposers for putting this forward—it's clear that a lot of thought and effort went into crafting the proposal. We appreciate the overall idea and direction, and we believe that with a different approach, this initiative could return in a stronger form.
Our main concerns revolve around the high budget relative to the tangible value currently outlined. While the proposal has potential to create impact, demonstrating that impact in a measurable way is complex. Additionally, we feel it could be more connected with other ongoing Arbitrum initiatives.
The number of participants is very limited, and they would start with low or zero delegations. While we acknowledge the issue of echo chambers and agree that onboarding new members is essential to refresh the DAO’s dynamics, we worry that these new participants might not gain enough visibility or influence to shift the status quo.
As L2Beat pointed out, we are not against the idea of onboarding new contributors. However, at this stage, we believe the initiative is somewhat premature. It also lacks clear, tangible impact in terms of engagement, active participation, and deeper connectivity with the broader Arbitrum ecosystem. We want to ensure that new contributors are not just added to the DAO, but that they actively help drive it forward.
I’m voting FOR from a frame of Capability Building.
DAOs don’t just need code and capital - we need context-aware contributors who know how to navigate decentralized coordination, stakeholder tension, and governance nuance.
DAOplomats voted ABSTAIN on this proposal on Tally.
While we initially supported the proposal during the temperature check, we opted to abstain in the onchain vote. Our primary concerns align with those raised by other delegates regarding the budget (despite its revisions); however, our main reason for abstaining stems from dissatisfaction with the overall structure of the program.
DAOplomats voted ABSTAIN on this proposal on Tally.
While we initially supported the proposal during the temperature check, we opted to abstain in the onchain vote. Our primary concerns align with those raised by other delegates regarding the budget (despite its revisions); however, our main reason for abstaining stems from dissatisfaction with the overall structure of the program.
We believe that onboarding should take a research-driven approach rather than simply matching participants to protocols. In essence, we advocate for a model where participants come in, learn about the community, research on pain points (which can then translate to proposals), and then we have these contributions rewarded.
Additionally, while some delegates have expressed concerns that the DAO is not currently in the right position to support such an initiative, we take a different stance. Sometimes it's good to get thrown into turmoil. Challenges and uncertainty can often serve as catalysts for growth, fostering a deeper understanding of the complexities inherent in any org/community.
In summary, we remain supportive of the initiative’s broader goals but believe a more strategic, research-oriented approach to onboarding would be more effective than direct protocol matching
Voted For: I do share some concerns from fellow candidates that voted against this proposal, but I do still think that opportunity costs are much higher to not do it. I see this program as a way to bring 20 highly invested, talented people to Arbitrum DAO.
From that 20 people, we might see some take up even more active roles in our DAO, like working on individual proposals, helping define strategy, or even offering services. There will always be more important stuff to focus on in the DAO than to bring new people to governance, but we must find a way to get a new flow of people in the DAO. And this bootcamp seemed like a good way to do it. I support the idea.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
First of all, we would like to thank @RikaGoldberg and the entire team involved in this initiative. The proposal has been live for months now and we recognize the time, effort, and coordination it has taken from the working group to shape it into its current form. We truly appreciate the commitment shown.
Voting "Against" On Tally. While during the Snapshot phase I felt this was an interesting proposal and wanted to see where it was headed, I don't believe my concerns about 'stickiness' of the Governance Analysts has been addressed.
We will be voting AGAINST this proposal.
First, we want to thank the proposers for putting this forward—it's clear that a lot of thought and effort went into crafting the proposal. We appreciate the overall idea and direction, and we believe that with a different approach, this initiative could return in a stronger form.
We will be voting AGAINST this proposal.
First, we want to thank the proposers for putting this forward—it's clear that a lot of thought and effort went into crafting the proposal. We appreciate the overall idea and direction, and we believe that with a different approach, this initiative could return in a stronger form.
Our main concerns revolve around the high budget relative to the tangible value currently outlined. While the proposal has potential to create impact, demonstrating that impact in a measurable way is complex. Additionally, we feel it could be more connected with other ongoing Arbitrum initiatives.
The number of participants is very limited, and they would start with low or zero delegations. While we acknowledge the issue of echo chambers and agree that onboarding new members is essential to refresh the DAO’s dynamics, we worry that these new participants might not gain enough visibility or influence to shift the status quo.
As L2Beat pointed out, we are not against the idea of onboarding new contributors. However, at this stage, we believe the initiative is somewhat premature. It also lacks clear, tangible impact in terms of engagement, active participation, and deeper connectivity with the broader Arbitrum ecosystem. We want to ensure that new contributors are not just added to the DAO, but that they actively help drive it forward.
I’m voting FOR from a frame of Capability Building.
DAOs don’t just need code and capital - we need context-aware contributors who know how to navigate decentralized coordination, stakeholder tension, and governance nuance.
DAOplomats voted ABSTAIN on this proposal on Tally.
While we initially supported the proposal during the temperature check, we opted to abstain in the onchain vote. Our primary concerns align with those raised by other delegates regarding the budget (despite its revisions); however, our main reason for abstaining stems from dissatisfaction with the overall structure of the program.
DAOplomats voted ABSTAIN on this proposal on Tally.
While we initially supported the proposal during the temperature check, we opted to abstain in the onchain vote. Our primary concerns align with those raised by other delegates regarding the budget (despite its revisions); however, our main reason for abstaining stems from dissatisfaction with the overall structure of the program.
We believe that onboarding should take a research-driven approach rather than simply matching participants to protocols. In essence, we advocate for a model where participants come in, learn about the community, research on pain points (which can then translate to proposals), and then we have these contributions rewarded.
Additionally, while some delegates have expressed concerns that the DAO is not currently in the right position to support such an initiative, we take a different stance. Sometimes it's good to get thrown into turmoil. Challenges and uncertainty can often serve as catalysts for growth, fostering a deeper understanding of the complexities inherent in any org/community.
In summary, we remain supportive of the initiative’s broader goals but believe a more strategic, research-oriented approach to onboarding would be more effective than direct protocol matching
Voted For: I do share some concerns from fellow candidates that voted against this proposal, but I do still think that opportunity costs are much higher to not do it. I see this program as a way to bring 20 highly invested, talented people to Arbitrum DAO.
From that 20 people, we might see some take up even more active roles in our DAO, like working on individual proposals, helping define strategy, or even offering services. There will always be more important stuff to focus on in the DAO than to bring new people to governance, but we must find a way to get a new flow of people in the DAO. And this bootcamp seemed like a good way to do it. I support the idea.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
First of all, we would like to thank @RikaGoldberg and the entire team involved in this initiative. The proposal has been live for months now and we recognize the time, effort, and coordination it has taken from the working group to shape it into its current form. We truly appreciate the commitment shown.
Voting "Against" On Tally. While during the Snapshot phase I felt this was an interesting proposal and wanted to see where it was headed, I don't believe my concerns about 'stickiness' of the Governance Analysts has been addressed.
I’m voting FOR from a frame of Capability Building.
DAOs don’t just need code and capital - we need context-aware contributors who know how to navigate decentralized coordination, stakeholder tension, and governance nuance.
This proposal doesn’t need to solve every aspect of the contributor funnel up front, the delivery team and participants have 7-months and can co-evolve alongside the activation timeline of OpCo and SOS. What this Bootcamp does offer is structured R&D into how we identify, train, and activate governance talent, a vital capability as Arbitrum matures and we can begin accruing that capability today.
The opportunity cost of not doing this today is talent goes and builds their context, alignment, loyalty elsewhere, we lose 3-6 months in setup of other structures when we could be priming the bench today.
I think of this as investing in human infrastructure. We fund developer tooling to improve the protocol layer. This is the equivalent for the people layer - not just for this cohort, but for what we learn in the process.
L&D (learning & development) is a standard spend in most organisations, DAOs that are forward thinking and fund this will stand out.
I appreciate the team’s responsiveness to feedback, the shift toward practical training, and the ecosystem collaborations already underway that shore-up the demand-side utilisation of the talent developed.
The current DAO wait-and-see approach i.e. lets wait till the OpCo, SOS, OCL/AF gets more hands isn't the only way to play, that's playing a sequential game to capability building when a parallel in-sync cohort of collaborative organisations and individual contributors could net net produce more value faster for the Arbitrum Ecosystem.
I see this as a strategic experiment that positions the DAO as a learning organization [1] that co-evolves a set of talent together, and that can start today.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
First of all, we would like to thank @RikaGoldberg and the entire team involved in this initiative. The proposal has been live for months now and we recognize the time, effort, and coordination it has taken from the working group to shape it into its current form. We truly appreciate the commitment shown.
We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting.
That said, we agree with some points already raised by other delegates. While the proposal's intention is great, we think there is still room for improvement, especially around the budget and structure.
For example, the revised budget is still quite high. We feel the team could explore alternative models - for instance, instead of the DAO paying the fellows directly, maybe interested protocols who want governance support could offer stipends themselves. This might better align incentives and also reduce direct costs for the DAO.
On concerns raised by others about whether fellows might leave for other ecosystems after the program, our view is that every investment carries some risk. Some fellows may stay, and some may leave but that’s true for any open ecosystem. The key is to design a strong selection process, which the proposal already includes, and trust it will bring in people with a long-term interest in Arbitrum.
There are also smaller orgs and contributors who want to participate in governance and be part of the DAO but lack the time, knowledge, or expertise. These fellows can help fill that gap. And if they perform well, they may even get retained by teams or protocols later on, which would be a great outcome.
Looking at the curriculum, it seems like an all-round introduction to Arbitrum governance. If the program continues, we’d love to see modules added on OCL, OpCo, MVP, and the upcoming SOS as these are important areas for governance contributors to understand to contribute in the future.
We know our single vote may not change the outcome of this proposal looking at the current status, but we’re voting in favor because we support efforts that bring new talent into the Arbitrum DAO which is needed currently to increase governance participation and build long-term contributor pipelines.
We didn’t get a chance to be involved earlier in this initiative, but if the team plans to iterate on this in the future, we would be happy to participate and contribute in any way we can.
I voted AGAINST on Tally. Initially, I was in favor of the proposal on temp-check because I considered its cost to be reasonable at the time and believed the Bootcamp could bring new and skilled delegates to the ARB DAO’s complex environment. However, I ended up voting against after reviewing other delegates' comments -especially this one from the ARB FND- , which detailed the high cost per participant for a small group and its poor ROI. I also share L2BEAT’s view that this feels premature given the DAO’s current state. Additionally, as I noted in my previous comment, I view the analyst compensation to be unnecessary, reinforcing my decision to vote against it.
The revised budget is $171,481 to train 20 participants for 8 weeks, and then 10 participants are paired with protocols. That is $8,475 / student taking the course, and an acquisition cost of $17,148 for 10 fellows to assist protocols. We should be aiming for significantly lower cost to onboard new participants and build programs that can target a much larger cohort size.
I voted AGAINST on Tally. Initially, I was in favor of the proposal on temp-check because I considered its cost to be reasonable at the time and believed the Bootcamp could bring new and skilled delegates to the ARB DAO’s complex environment. However, I ended up voting against after reviewing other delegates' comments -especially this one from the ARB FND- , which detailed the high cost per participant for a small group and its poor ROI. I also share L2BEAT’s view that this feels premature given the DAO’s current state. Additionally, as I noted in my previous comment, I view the analyst compensation to be unnecessary, reinforcing my decision to vote against it.
The revised budget is $171,481 to train 20 participants for 8 weeks, and then 10 participants are paired with protocols. That is $8,475 / student taking the course, and an acquisition cost of $17,148 for 10 fellows to assist protocols. We should be aiming for significantly lower cost to onboard new participants and build programs that can target a much larger cohort size.
Even if the proposal seems it won't pass, I'm voting FOR. It seems preposterous that a proposal passed through snapshot gets blocked even when executing the changes proposed and applying budget reductions needed.
Investing in high-quality governance elements is a must: If this proposal fails to pass, I invite @RikaGoldberg to keep it up and present a similar proposal without the involvement of third parties, with the budget required for a less onerous approach to teaching new delegates about the DAO.
Even if the proposal seems it won't pass, I'm voting FOR. It seems preposterous that a proposal passed through snapshot gets blocked even when executing the changes proposed and applying budget reductions needed.
Investing in high-quality governance elements is a must: If this proposal fails to pass, I invite @RikaGoldberg to keep it up and present a similar proposal without the involvement of third parties, with the budget required for a less onerous approach to teaching new delegates about the DAO.
Nonetheless, I support this kind of proposal even if the investment seems high, as resources are already being spent for less impactful purposes.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation. Voting ABSTAIN. Below the rationale:
I am voting FOR this proposal on Tally.
I believe this initiative offers a pathway for newcomers that want to get involved and contribute. I also think it is the right time for this, as growing our contributor base is essential for addressing our current challenges.
I am voting FOR this proposal on Tally.
I believe this initiative offers a pathway for newcomers that want to get involved and contribute. I also think it is the right time for this, as growing our contributor base is essential for addressing our current challenges.
I like that the structure of the program matches top performers with protocols that need governance help. I believe this bootcamp will help its participants gain skills to distinguish valuable contributions.
I'm voting against this proposal. As I said for the Snapshot I would love to see this submitted through questbook,OpCo or some other program, a DAO vote is just overkill for this sort of thing.
I also think in general we would be better served by one person, maybe @RikaGoldberg, taking on a part time role to just help the delegates when they need it on demand... a bootcamp might be overkill.
Voting AGAINST this proposal for the reasons outlined here
While the initiative aims to enhance governance participation, the proposed budget of $193,138 USD may be considered excessive for a seven-month program, especially given the DAO's need to prioritize resource allocation for core protocol development or other pressing ecosystem needs. Additionally, the program's impact relies heavily on the assumption of high engagement and retention of Governance Fellows, which is not guaranteed, potentially limiting its long-term value relative to the cost. For the aforementioned reasons, we'll vote against it.
gm, I voted AGAINST on Tally following an analogous vote on Snapshot.
I agree with the recommendation from the Arbitrum Foundations and other delegates: it doesn't seem the onboarding analysts would have a clear role in the DAO, and we risk training analysis for the sake of it.
The cost per fellow is still exorbitant and doesn't feel a positive ROI can be achieved.
Voting AGAINST on Tally
I wanted to follow up on our Snapshot vote, where we voted against the Arbitrum Onboarding V2 proposal. While I appreciate the effort to lower the budget to $171K and get seven protocols on board, I’m still not convinced this is the best way to go for the DAO.
Voting AGAINST on Tally
I wanted to follow up on our Snapshot vote, where we voted against the Arbitrum Onboarding V2 proposal. While I appreciate the effort to lower the budget to $171K and get seven protocols on board, I’m still not convinced this is the best way to go for the DAO.
The new workshops, like Governance Reports and DAO Relationship Management, seem more practical, and having protocols like Gitcoin and Uniswap Foundation interested in working with fellows is a step in the right direction. But we’re still looking at a $17K-per-fellow cost to train just 10 people.
What I’d love to see instead is a more decentralized approach that puts protocols in the driver’s seat. Why not give protocols small grants—say, $5K each—to onboard their own community members as delegates? Take a protocol like Gains Network, who’s already on board with this proposal. They could tap into their community, find people who are already passionate about their project, and train them to represent their interests in the DAO or manage their ARB treasury. With a $50K budget, we could support 10 protocols, each bringing in 1-2 delegates, which could mean 10-20 new contributors at a much lower cost than the current setup. It feels like a more organic way to grow governance participation, and it would align delegates with the protocols they’re representing from the get-go.
On top of that, I still think we’re missing a big opportunity with the educational materials. The recorded workshops and video tutorials sound great, but why limit them to a 20-person program? If we poured those resources into revamping the Onboarding Hub—making it a one-stop shop for all delegates with up-to-date guides on everything from writing proposals to understanding Arbitrum’s tech—we’d be helping way more people. Newcomers, current delegates, even protocol teams could dip in whenever they need to, without the overhead of a formal bootcamp. Plus, it’d be easier to keep that hub fresh as the DAO evolves, which is harder to do with a cohort-based program.
Our opinion has not changed and we have decided to vote against on tally. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/82?u=castlecapital
I maintain my position and have decided to vote in favor of Tally for what I mentioned above:
I believe there is a robust and highly committed team behind this. I think there is an opportunity to continue training current and new members with practical exercises. I understand the importance of inclusion, but I also support and believe that everyone should have the same opportunities to participate in these programs. I hope that the implementation of workshops for the public, for anyone who wants to learn about the ecosystem and build connections, has been considered.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas. It’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We’re voting AGAINST the proposal.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas. It’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We’re voting AGAINST the proposal.
As we commented during the temp-check vote on this initiative, we are supportive of the overall idea of bringing new contributors into the DAO. However, given the DAO’s current state and the unresolved pressing priorities, this initiative feels premature.
Without a well-defined vision and specific ways to contribute, we risk setting newcomers up for failure. Before allocating resources to onboarding, addressing the organizational gaps in the DAO is crucial so that future contributors can immediately step in and add value in a more streamlined way.
We remain supportive of exploring this path again once a more cohesive structure is in place. Until then, we see a stronger case for focusing on immediate DAO needs before bringing in additional contributors.
voting FOR on the current onchain proposal because despite feeling the protocols should also pay for this program, not just the DAO, right now we don't have any onboarding effort in Arbitrum DAO and we should. So, this feels worthy to try it out.
Voted FOR on Tally, my position remains the same: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/88?u=danielm
I did vote in favor in snapshot and i am confirming my vote here, but for reasons that are slightly different that I want to explore.
I did vote in favor in snapshot and i am confirming my vote here, but for reasons that are slightly different that I want to explore.
The landscape of Arbitrum DAO has changed a lot in the last quarter, both due to the new political landscape, the market dynamics and an higher involvement of AF/OCL. This is leading us, chaotically sometimes, toward new sentiment tied to exclusivity of contributors, quality of works, cutting spending that is not deemed necessary. Nothing wrong with any of this.
But, has also created a concerning byproduct in my view: is becoming complex to work and contribute in the DAO.
We can talk a lot about what contributing to this DAO means, we have a degree of flavours that go from being a small delegate in DIP (deemed, by several, as something net negative, bringing noise at a high monetary cost and also indirect reputational damage outside of our sphere) to being a service provider for ARDC, with all that happens in between. The common denominator is: is becoming harder and harder to be part of programs, regardless if you are "aligned", want to do a good job, want to bring value to both your team and the ecosystem. We have seen this first hand:
This is, useless to say, my personal opinion. But also the opinion of someone that engaged, directly or indirectly, with most delegates and participated to several programs. You really need a thick skin to work in Arbitrum.
So, why all of this introduction? Because while
I think we have to be more proactive and less miopic and think a few quarters ahead.
This, to me, is an experiment to understand if in-house training can partially be a solution to find new workforces. And honestly it could be: when you hire junior people in a company, you hire them based on previous experience and competence, but also you train them to the culture, framework and modus operandi of your company, and you train them to know the intricacy of the people working in there, the overall goals etc.
I think this is a very expensive experiment. But knowing the outcome of this 200k initiative, knowing what things will and won't work from it, can probably be more valuable than the base cost if the collective goal is to think about our DAO more as a company moving forward. It can help us find our "corporate" identity, and specifically help us try to understand if in this way we can facilitate to have valuable new people in Arbitrum.
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
We would like to continue to support this program and express gratitude to @RikaGoldberg and the contributors to this proposal, especially on the additional efforts in reaching out potential partners and continuous updates to address feedback from delegates. We would also like to point out a couple of perspectives in this proposal as a critical direction that the DAO needs to consider:
I'm voting in favor of this proposal on Tally. It's true that the cost is in the high end, but as a new member of the community, I'd love to have someone who can share the history of Arbitrum—why we are here and where we came from—so I can have better context when making decisions. I not new to DAOs and am comfortable reading and figuring things out on my own, but I also value the comfort of having a place where I can ask "dumb" questions and have someone take the time to answer. Getting people fully onboarded will be beneficial.
Still voting "FOR" in Tally. There is a line-up of protocols willing to engange with this program and having them active in the governance process is a win for the DAO.
We continue to vote in favor, using the same rationale as on Snapshot.
In my view, proposals like this are excellent pathways toward establishing very important programs that improve with each iteration over time. Although many may currently struggle to see the immediate benefits, I believe this reflects a shortsighted view regarding the long-term governance needs of our community.
I will maintain my "For" vote and would also emphasize that the proposed cost is relatively modest, especially when considering that we already allocate more substantial amounts on a monthly basis for delegate compensation. Investing now positions us strategically for stronger, more effective governance structures in the future.
I’m voting FOR from a frame of Capability Building.
DAOs don’t just need code and capital - we need context-aware contributors who know how to navigate decentralized coordination, stakeholder tension, and governance nuance.
This proposal doesn’t need to solve every aspect of the contributor funnel up front, the delivery team and participants have 7-months and can co-evolve alongside the activation timeline of OpCo and SOS. What this Bootcamp does offer is structured R&D into how we identify, train, and activate governance talent, a vital capability as Arbitrum matures and we can begin accruing that capability today.
The opportunity cost of not doing this today is talent goes and builds their context, alignment, loyalty elsewhere, we lose 3-6 months in setup of other structures when we could be priming the bench today.
I think of this as investing in human infrastructure. We fund developer tooling to improve the protocol layer. This is the equivalent for the people layer - not just for this cohort, but for what we learn in the process.
L&D (learning & development) is a standard spend in most organisations, DAOs that are forward thinking and fund this will stand out.
I appreciate the team’s responsiveness to feedback, the shift toward practical training, and the ecosystem collaborations already underway that shore-up the demand-side utilisation of the talent developed.
The current DAO wait-and-see approach i.e. lets wait till the OpCo, SOS, OCL/AF gets more hands isn't the only way to play, that's playing a sequential game to capability building when a parallel in-sync cohort of collaborative organisations and individual contributors could net net produce more value faster for the Arbitrum Ecosystem.
I see this as a strategic experiment that positions the DAO as a learning organization [1] that co-evolves a set of talent together, and that can start today.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
First of all, we would like to thank @RikaGoldberg and the entire team involved in this initiative. The proposal has been live for months now and we recognize the time, effort, and coordination it has taken from the working group to shape it into its current form. We truly appreciate the commitment shown.
We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting.
That said, we agree with some points already raised by other delegates. While the proposal's intention is great, we think there is still room for improvement, especially around the budget and structure.
For example, the revised budget is still quite high. We feel the team could explore alternative models - for instance, instead of the DAO paying the fellows directly, maybe interested protocols who want governance support could offer stipends themselves. This might better align incentives and also reduce direct costs for the DAO.
On concerns raised by others about whether fellows might leave for other ecosystems after the program, our view is that every investment carries some risk. Some fellows may stay, and some may leave but that’s true for any open ecosystem. The key is to design a strong selection process, which the proposal already includes, and trust it will bring in people with a long-term interest in Arbitrum.
There are also smaller orgs and contributors who want to participate in governance and be part of the DAO but lack the time, knowledge, or expertise. These fellows can help fill that gap. And if they perform well, they may even get retained by teams or protocols later on, which would be a great outcome.
Looking at the curriculum, it seems like an all-round introduction to Arbitrum governance. If the program continues, we’d love to see modules added on OCL, OpCo, MVP, and the upcoming SOS as these are important areas for governance contributors to understand to contribute in the future.
We know our single vote may not change the outcome of this proposal looking at the current status, but we’re voting in favor because we support efforts that bring new talent into the Arbitrum DAO which is needed currently to increase governance participation and build long-term contributor pipelines.
We didn’t get a chance to be involved earlier in this initiative, but if the team plans to iterate on this in the future, we would be happy to participate and contribute in any way we can.
I voted AGAINST on Tally. Initially, I was in favor of the proposal on temp-check because I considered its cost to be reasonable at the time and believed the Bootcamp could bring new and skilled delegates to the ARB DAO’s complex environment. However, I ended up voting against after reviewing other delegates' comments -especially this one from the ARB FND- , which detailed the high cost per participant for a small group and its poor ROI. I also share L2BEAT’s view that this feels premature given the DAO’s current state. Additionally, as I noted in my previous comment, I view the analyst compensation to be unnecessary, reinforcing my decision to vote against it.
The revised budget is $171,481 to train 20 participants for 8 weeks, and then 10 participants are paired with protocols. That is $8,475 / student taking the course, and an acquisition cost of $17,148 for 10 fellows to assist protocols. We should be aiming for significantly lower cost to onboard new participants and build programs that can target a much larger cohort size.
I voted AGAINST on Tally. Initially, I was in favor of the proposal on temp-check because I considered its cost to be reasonable at the time and believed the Bootcamp could bring new and skilled delegates to the ARB DAO’s complex environment. However, I ended up voting against after reviewing other delegates' comments -especially this one from the ARB FND- , which detailed the high cost per participant for a small group and its poor ROI. I also share L2BEAT’s view that this feels premature given the DAO’s current state. Additionally, as I noted in my previous comment, I view the analyst compensation to be unnecessary, reinforcing my decision to vote against it.
The revised budget is $171,481 to train 20 participants for 8 weeks, and then 10 participants are paired with protocols. That is $8,475 / student taking the course, and an acquisition cost of $17,148 for 10 fellows to assist protocols. We should be aiming for significantly lower cost to onboard new participants and build programs that can target a much larger cohort size.
Even if the proposal seems it won't pass, I'm voting FOR. It seems preposterous that a proposal passed through snapshot gets blocked even when executing the changes proposed and applying budget reductions needed.
Investing in high-quality governance elements is a must: If this proposal fails to pass, I invite @RikaGoldberg to keep it up and present a similar proposal without the involvement of third parties, with the budget required for a less onerous approach to teaching new delegates about the DAO.
Even if the proposal seems it won't pass, I'm voting FOR. It seems preposterous that a proposal passed through snapshot gets blocked even when executing the changes proposed and applying budget reductions needed.
Investing in high-quality governance elements is a must: If this proposal fails to pass, I invite @RikaGoldberg to keep it up and present a similar proposal without the involvement of third parties, with the budget required for a less onerous approach to teaching new delegates about the DAO.
Nonetheless, I support this kind of proposal even if the investment seems high, as resources are already being spent for less impactful purposes.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation. Voting ABSTAIN. Below the rationale:
I am voting FOR this proposal on Tally.
I believe this initiative offers a pathway for newcomers that want to get involved and contribute. I also think it is the right time for this, as growing our contributor base is essential for addressing our current challenges.
I am voting FOR this proposal on Tally.
I believe this initiative offers a pathway for newcomers that want to get involved and contribute. I also think it is the right time for this, as growing our contributor base is essential for addressing our current challenges.
I like that the structure of the program matches top performers with protocols that need governance help. I believe this bootcamp will help its participants gain skills to distinguish valuable contributions.
I'm voting against this proposal. As I said for the Snapshot I would love to see this submitted through questbook,OpCo or some other program, a DAO vote is just overkill for this sort of thing.
I also think in general we would be better served by one person, maybe @RikaGoldberg, taking on a part time role to just help the delegates when they need it on demand... a bootcamp might be overkill.
Voting AGAINST this proposal for the reasons outlined here
While the initiative aims to enhance governance participation, the proposed budget of $193,138 USD may be considered excessive for a seven-month program, especially given the DAO's need to prioritize resource allocation for core protocol development or other pressing ecosystem needs. Additionally, the program's impact relies heavily on the assumption of high engagement and retention of Governance Fellows, which is not guaranteed, potentially limiting its long-term value relative to the cost. For the aforementioned reasons, we'll vote against it.
gm, I voted AGAINST on Tally following an analogous vote on Snapshot.
I agree with the recommendation from the Arbitrum Foundations and other delegates: it doesn't seem the onboarding analysts would have a clear role in the DAO, and we risk training analysis for the sake of it.
The cost per fellow is still exorbitant and doesn't feel a positive ROI can be achieved.
Voting AGAINST on Tally
I wanted to follow up on our Snapshot vote, where we voted against the Arbitrum Onboarding V2 proposal. While I appreciate the effort to lower the budget to $171K and get seven protocols on board, I’m still not convinced this is the best way to go for the DAO.
Voting AGAINST on Tally
I wanted to follow up on our Snapshot vote, where we voted against the Arbitrum Onboarding V2 proposal. While I appreciate the effort to lower the budget to $171K and get seven protocols on board, I’m still not convinced this is the best way to go for the DAO.
The new workshops, like Governance Reports and DAO Relationship Management, seem more practical, and having protocols like Gitcoin and Uniswap Foundation interested in working with fellows is a step in the right direction. But we’re still looking at a $17K-per-fellow cost to train just 10 people.
What I’d love to see instead is a more decentralized approach that puts protocols in the driver’s seat. Why not give protocols small grants—say, $5K each—to onboard their own community members as delegates? Take a protocol like Gains Network, who’s already on board with this proposal. They could tap into their community, find people who are already passionate about their project, and train them to represent their interests in the DAO or manage their ARB treasury. With a $50K budget, we could support 10 protocols, each bringing in 1-2 delegates, which could mean 10-20 new contributors at a much lower cost than the current setup. It feels like a more organic way to grow governance participation, and it would align delegates with the protocols they’re representing from the get-go.
On top of that, I still think we’re missing a big opportunity with the educational materials. The recorded workshops and video tutorials sound great, but why limit them to a 20-person program? If we poured those resources into revamping the Onboarding Hub—making it a one-stop shop for all delegates with up-to-date guides on everything from writing proposals to understanding Arbitrum’s tech—we’d be helping way more people. Newcomers, current delegates, even protocol teams could dip in whenever they need to, without the overhead of a formal bootcamp. Plus, it’d be easier to keep that hub fresh as the DAO evolves, which is harder to do with a cohort-based program.
Our opinion has not changed and we have decided to vote against on tally. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/82?u=castlecapital
I maintain my position and have decided to vote in favor of Tally for what I mentioned above:
I believe there is a robust and highly committed team behind this. I think there is an opportunity to continue training current and new members with practical exercises. I understand the importance of inclusion, but I also support and believe that everyone should have the same opportunities to participate in these programs. I hope that the implementation of workshops for the public, for anyone who wants to learn about the ecosystem and build connections, has been considered.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas. It’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We’re voting AGAINST the proposal.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas. It’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We’re voting AGAINST the proposal.
As we commented during the temp-check vote on this initiative, we are supportive of the overall idea of bringing new contributors into the DAO. However, given the DAO’s current state and the unresolved pressing priorities, this initiative feels premature.
Without a well-defined vision and specific ways to contribute, we risk setting newcomers up for failure. Before allocating resources to onboarding, addressing the organizational gaps in the DAO is crucial so that future contributors can immediately step in and add value in a more streamlined way.
We remain supportive of exploring this path again once a more cohesive structure is in place. Until then, we see a stronger case for focusing on immediate DAO needs before bringing in additional contributors.
voting FOR on the current onchain proposal because despite feeling the protocols should also pay for this program, not just the DAO, right now we don't have any onboarding effort in Arbitrum DAO and we should. So, this feels worthy to try it out.
Voted FOR on Tally, my position remains the same: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/88?u=danielm
I did vote in favor in snapshot and i am confirming my vote here, but for reasons that are slightly different that I want to explore.
I did vote in favor in snapshot and i am confirming my vote here, but for reasons that are slightly different that I want to explore.
The landscape of Arbitrum DAO has changed a lot in the last quarter, both due to the new political landscape, the market dynamics and an higher involvement of AF/OCL. This is leading us, chaotically sometimes, toward new sentiment tied to exclusivity of contributors, quality of works, cutting spending that is not deemed necessary. Nothing wrong with any of this.
But, has also created a concerning byproduct in my view: is becoming complex to work and contribute in the DAO.
We can talk a lot about what contributing to this DAO means, we have a degree of flavours that go from being a small delegate in DIP (deemed, by several, as something net negative, bringing noise at a high monetary cost and also indirect reputational damage outside of our sphere) to being a service provider for ARDC, with all that happens in between. The common denominator is: is becoming harder and harder to be part of programs, regardless if you are "aligned", want to do a good job, want to bring value to both your team and the ecosystem. We have seen this first hand:
This is, useless to say, my personal opinion. But also the opinion of someone that engaged, directly or indirectly, with most delegates and participated to several programs. You really need a thick skin to work in Arbitrum.
So, why all of this introduction? Because while
I think we have to be more proactive and less miopic and think a few quarters ahead.
This, to me, is an experiment to understand if in-house training can partially be a solution to find new workforces. And honestly it could be: when you hire junior people in a company, you hire them based on previous experience and competence, but also you train them to the culture, framework and modus operandi of your company, and you train them to know the intricacy of the people working in there, the overall goals etc.
I think this is a very expensive experiment. But knowing the outcome of this 200k initiative, knowing what things will and won't work from it, can probably be more valuable than the base cost if the collective goal is to think about our DAO more as a company moving forward. It can help us find our "corporate" identity, and specifically help us try to understand if in this way we can facilitate to have valuable new people in Arbitrum.
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
We would like to continue to support this program and express gratitude to @RikaGoldberg and the contributors to this proposal, especially on the additional efforts in reaching out potential partners and continuous updates to address feedback from delegates. We would also like to point out a couple of perspectives in this proposal as a critical direction that the DAO needs to consider:
I'm voting in favor of this proposal on Tally. It's true that the cost is in the high end, but as a new member of the community, I'd love to have someone who can share the history of Arbitrum—why we are here and where we came from—so I can have better context when making decisions. I not new to DAOs and am comfortable reading and figuring things out on my own, but I also value the comfort of having a place where I can ask "dumb" questions and have someone take the time to answer. Getting people fully onboarded will be beneficial.
Still voting "FOR" in Tally. There is a line-up of protocols willing to engange with this program and having them active in the governance process is a win for the DAO.
We continue to vote in favor, using the same rationale as on Snapshot.
In my view, proposals like this are excellent pathways toward establishing very important programs that improve with each iteration over time. Although many may currently struggle to see the immediate benefits, I believe this reflects a shortsighted view regarding the long-term governance needs of our community.
I will maintain my "For" vote and would also emphasize that the proposed cost is relatively modest, especially when considering that we already allocate more substantial amounts on a monthly basis for delegate compensation. Investing now positions us strategically for stronger, more effective governance structures in the future.
I maintain my position and have decided to vote in favor of Tally for what I mentioned above:
I believe there is a robust and highly committed team behind this. I think there is an opportunity to continue training current and new members with practical exercises. I understand the importance of inclusion, but I also support and believe that everyone should have the same opportunities to participate in these programs. I hope that the implementation of workshops for the public, for anyone who wants to learn about the ecosystem and build connections, has been considered.
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
We would like to continue to support this program and express gratitude to @RikaGoldberg and the contributors to this proposal, especially on the additional efforts in reaching out potential partners and continuous updates to address feedback from delegates. We would also like to point out a couple of perspectives in this proposal as a critical direction that the DAO needs to consider:
We believe ~$171k in ARB is a solid deal for what the DAO gets. It covers a few months of training, mentorship, stipends, and content; basically everything needed to bring new contributors up to speed. If we end up with 10 strong contributors, that’s about $17k each. Not bad for people who’ll be around long-term, actually doing the work and helping ecosystem partners along the way. Plus, the workshop content doesn’t go to waste. It can be reused, refined, and scaled for future cohorts.
We’ve often seen this; some long-time contributors dismiss the need for new voices. But we believe the DAO can’t grow without a clear way to bring in and level up fresh talent. Without it, we stay in the same loop with the same people. This program helps fix that. It trains motivated newcomers, gives them the tools to contribute, and gets them involved fast. That’s how we build resilience and avoid turning into a closed-off bubble.
We’re not just training people for the sake of it. We’re plugging them into real Arbitrum-aligned projects. That creates tighter bonds across the ecosystem. Over time, those connections help projects collaborate more, align on priorities, and move faster together. It’s a win-win for everyone involved.
In my view, proposals like this are excellent pathways toward establishing very important programs that improve with each iteration over time. Although many may currently struggle to see the immediate benefits, I believe this reflects a shortsighted view regarding the long-term governance needs of our community.
I will maintain my "For" vote and would also emphasize that the proposed cost is relatively modest, especially when considering that we already allocate more substantial amounts on a monthly basis for delegate compensation. Investing now positions us strategically for stronger, more effective governance structures in the future.
Furthermore, the current structure has no mechanisms to ensure that these analysts stay fully aligned with Arbitrum, and there is a risk that the best talent is pulled into other DAOs in the industry.
Furthermore, the current structure has no mechanisms to ensure that these analysts stay fully aligned with Arbitrum, and there is a risk that the best talent is pulled into other DAOs in the industry.
If other DAOs are more appealing for analysts that have specifically been trained on Arbitrum DAO, this signals a problem with the DAO, not with the program.
I voted in favor during the Snapshot vote, but I’ll vote against onchain. Well I still think this proposal could help improve DAO participation in the long run.
That said, over the past three months, we’ve already seen a increase in both the quality and number of delegates. The DIP program is running well, with stricter rules but still encouraging new and existing delegates to engage.
I voted in favor during the Snapshot vote, but I’ll vote against onchain. Well I still think this proposal could help improve DAO participation in the long run.
That said, over the past three months, we’ve already seen a increase in both the quality and number of delegates. The DIP program is running well, with stricter rules but still encouraging new and existing delegates to engage.
And even with the reduced budget, the breakdown still doesn’t feel right to me tbh. 73.5% of the funds go to salaries, with some positions getting above market rates. Advisor making total $20K for just 5 hours a week is hard to justify.
We believe the Governance Bootcamp is an effective initiative to onboard people into Arbitrum DAO, which will then grow into direct DAO contributors, delegates or governance analysts for organisations involved in the Arbitrum ecosystem. For this reason, we voted IN FAVOUR.
The DAO has struggled to foster genuine engagement. Discussions around the DIP have revealed several inefficiencies, such as delegates repeatedly making the same points, proposals stalling for months before moving forward, and well-funded initiatives ultimately failing to deliver value. We need initiatives that attract and develop top talent for the Arbitrum DAO—people who actively contribute to the ecosystem. The Governance Bootcamp is one such initiative.
We believe the Governance Bootcamp is an effective initiative to onboard people into Arbitrum DAO, which will then grow into direct DAO contributors, delegates or governance analysts for organisations involved in the Arbitrum ecosystem. For this reason, we voted IN FAVOUR.
The DAO has struggled to foster genuine engagement. Discussions around the DIP have revealed several inefficiencies, such as delegates repeatedly making the same points, proposals stalling for months before moving forward, and well-funded initiatives ultimately failing to deliver value. We need initiatives that attract and develop top talent for the Arbitrum DAO—people who actively contribute to the ecosystem. The Governance Bootcamp is one such initiative.
Cross-posted our reasoning for further visibility.
For me this was a though decision but I ended up voting against.
What spoke in favor
For me this was a though decision but I ended up voting against.
What spoke in favor
What spoke against
What could be explored in the future
As I have also commented to other marketing intiatives/incentives etc.: I am missing the whole picture which could be the following:
I voted in favor due to the quality and the long time frame of the program, along with the comprehensive approach covering a wide range of topics. This is why I reiterate my vote as I did on snapshot. I also appreciate the budget reduction and I insist on how this proposal can bring new users in the ecosystem and give them the possibility to fully integrate it.
We recognize the extensive effort that the authors have put into this proposal and appreciate the reframing of its focus since passing on Snapshot into a program that attempts to meet the governance needs of certain protocols and service providers. However, there are a few aspects of this program, and supply-based onboarding programs in general, that have led us to vote AGAINST on Tally.
Through previous attempts at onboarding, both through GovHack and version 1 of the onboarding program, we have seen that providing individuals with basic governance knowledge is insufficient and generally falls short when it comes to positioning those individuals in a manner that provides value to the DAO. As was brought up on Tuesday’s proposal discussion call, if the DAO does not have clear responsibilities and a need for these analysts post-program, then we are simply paying individuals to learn about Arbitrum for the sake of learning about Arbitrum. While the authors have made revisions to the program in an attempt to address this concern by matching high-performing individuals with the listed service providers/protocols, we still have concerns that there is a lack of clarity surrounding the actual responsibilities and roles of these analysts.
We recognize the extensive effort that the authors have put into this proposal and appreciate the reframing of its focus since passing on Snapshot into a program that attempts to meet the governance needs of certain protocols and service providers. However, there are a few aspects of this program, and supply-based onboarding programs in general, that have led us to vote AGAINST on Tally.
Through previous attempts at onboarding, both through GovHack and version 1 of the onboarding program, we have seen that providing individuals with basic governance knowledge is insufficient and generally falls short when it comes to positioning those individuals in a manner that provides value to the DAO. As was brought up on Tuesday’s proposal discussion call, if the DAO does not have clear responsibilities and a need for these analysts post-program, then we are simply paying individuals to learn about Arbitrum for the sake of learning about Arbitrum. While the authors have made revisions to the program in an attempt to address this concern by matching high-performing individuals with the listed service providers/protocols, we still have concerns that there is a lack of clarity surrounding the actual responsibilities and roles of these analysts.
Furthermore, the current structure has no mechanisms to ensure that these analysts stay fully aligned with Arbitrum, and there is a risk that the best talent is pulled into other DAOs in the industry. It appears to our team that the DAO would essentially be paying the onboarding costs and, as such, take on the initial risk for other organizations to eventually hire an analyst into their own ecosystem.
Lastly, and speaking generally, a problem that plagues both DAOs and organizations is that as the number of initiatives increases, eventually, an overwhelming amount of context and time is necessary to navigate the bureaucracy. It has now been evident for some time that Arbitrum DAO has fallen victim to this phenomenon, as reflected in the fact that many key stakeholders do not actively participate in governance due to the enormous barriers to entry and time-consuming administrative work. While this proposal seeks to remedy the symptoms of this issue, and this is in no way the fault of the authors, it fails to address the underlying core issue facing the Arbitrum DAO. In our opinion, the goal should be to reduce the burden of a delegate to the point where key stakeholders find it appealing to engage as opposed to continuing down this path of increasingly complex activities to the point that the DAO has to pay for specialized analysts on behalf of these parties.
I really wanted to vote FOR, but after much thought, I decided to vote AGAINST.
Despite the fact that the initiative itself is good and I would like such training to be held regularly, there are several negative aspects:
I really wanted to vote FOR, but after much thought, I decided to vote AGAINST.
Despite the fact that the initiative itself is good and I would like such training to be held regularly, there are several negative aspects:
We echo other sentiment here in saying that the principle is one we support as governance onboarding is useful and it can be hard to develop the skills and connections required to succeed in this.
However, we believe the budget is too high for the benefit delivered to the DAO. In light of this we will be voting AGAINST this proposal. We encourage the authors to continue to explore ways of increasing high quality governance participation and would support future proposals in this area if the cost is in line with the benefit delivered to the DAO.
After much consideration, I have decided to maintain my tempcheck vote and vote against the proposal.
The main reason is the one I pointed out when I shared my initial feedback:
On Governance Analysts and Fellows:
After much consideration, I have decided to maintain my tempcheck vote and vote against the proposal.
The main reason is the one I pointed out when I shared my initial feedback:
On Governance Analysts and Fellows:
I see a potential flaw in having the DAO fully finance the fellow. The protocol might lack the necessary skin in the game to ensure the fellow learns and receives adequate attention. It might be more interesting to move toward a shared system where protocols cover part of the cost or even commit to reimbursing the DAO if they later hire the fellow.
In this regard, my concerns expressed when voting against it in the temp check remain unchanged.
The reasons for my vote against this proposal at this time are as follows:
I disagree with using the DIP metrics to evaluate the success of this program, particularly the chosen metrics. Voting is accessible to anyone, and commenting on proposals is too. The challenge and the core work @SEEDGov performs in the DIP lies in assessing the quality of that participation.
There is no prior alignment—at least not shared in this proposal—with Arbitrum protocols for its implementation. I believe that if the DAO is going to fund the training of new participants, it should be with the concrete goal of integrating them into Arbitrum protocols (e.g., DAO leads or DAO analysts), thereby fostering the involvement of builders in governance. As it stands, the proposal and its KPIs seem to focus on funding participants for the sake of participation alone. While this is not inherently wrong, I believe that, given DAO funding, the focus should be different.
It is true that, compared to the temp check proposal, some progress was made by integrating some projects. However, it is unclear to me what level of integration and commitment these projects will actually have. The proposal mentions matching the top 10 students, yet there are only 7 projects. Additionally, there is no clear commitment from these projects to integrate them, nor is there a signal of demand for fellows working with them.
Moreover, the KPIs or criteria for evaluating the program's success have not been adjusted. As I mentioned before, the DIP metrics do not seem particularly useful for assessing the medium-term impact or effectiveness of this program.
Finally, I agree with AF's comment:
The revised budget is $171,481 to train 20 participants for 8 weeks, and then 10 participants are paired with protocols. That is $8,475 / student taking the course, and an acquisition cost of $17,148 for 10 fellows to assist protocols. We should be aiming for significantly lower cost to onboard new participants and build programs that can target a much larger cohort size.
I believe the budget for the program is somewhat high. This could have been mitigated if it were integrated with protocols that are genuinely interested in incorporating the fellows. I wonder if this is due to a lack of demand for these profiles within Arbitrum’s protocols.
I also don't fully understand the role of the Advisor.
Many thanks to Rika and the team for all the work on this proposal.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
LobbyFi perceives this proposal as benefiting a wider range of parties, potentially empowering some of the community members who could become a great return on the cost spent. Hence, we will activate the auction for this proposal.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
LobbyFi perceives this proposal as benefiting a wider range of parties, potentially empowering some of the community members who could become a great return on the cost spent. Hence, we will activate the auction for this proposal.
The voting power for this proposal will be priced based on the body of the total amount being requested: $171,481 * 1% ≈ 1 ETH (we would approximate the price since it is relatively low anyway).
I am voting "For" on Tally. Based on my own experiences trying to fully grasp how to effectively and productively imbibe the absolute torrent of relevant information as a new participant, as well as finding the right channels through which to collaborate and participate, I fully support the goals set forth here. It can be a challenge to navigate.
It is unfortunate that the number of participants is limited to 20, but there seems to be a commitment to make a great deal of the materials produced available to the public beyond just those 20 selected individuals so that will probably be of great use to future comers, even after the conclusion of the program.
Furthermore, the current structure has no mechanisms to ensure that these analysts stay fully aligned with Arbitrum, and there is a risk that the best talent is pulled into other DAOs in the industry. It appears to our team that the DAO would essentially be paying the onboarding costs and, as such, take on the initial risk for other organizations to eventually hire an analyst into their own ecosystem.
LFG! I recently joined DIP, and this will be helpful. Looking forward to it
Foundation, thanks a lot for this feedback. We need you to be more active and we are all seeing some great first steps here.
Just one thing: expressing this valuation a couple of days before the onchain vote, after the proposals has been in the forum for months, means that either the proposal changes it totally compared to snapshot with a big delay or just goes his own route. Maybe, next time, a more timely update could be more helpful. Thanks!
I will be voting FOR on Tally. My reasoning being the following: I became active in the forum around the time this was first pitched and have joined the DIP since then. Creating proper resources for those who want to somehow contribute or work on the DAO or Arbitrum as a whole would help a ton of people through this process, as opposed to having to figure everything out themselves.
Building an evergreen curriculum and reusable materials can help anyone get started way quicker, even outside the bootcamp.
Thank you, @Arbitrum for your thoughtful feedback.
Budget Since the Snapshot, we have reduced the budget by approximately 10% ($20,000). Additionally, a key consideration is that the budget includes a $4,500 stipend per Fellow, which is exclusively for their work assisting protocols and will not be used for team member compensation. Additionally, we are planning for up to 10 Fellows, with the final number determined by performance. As discussed with delegates during the RFC and Snapshot phases, successfully onboarding 3-5 high-performing governance contributors would be considered a win. Any unused funds will be returned to the DAO.
I have voted to ABSTAIN rationale provided under my delegate communication channel: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/donofdaos-delegate-communication-thread/28521/3?u=donofdaos
I maintain my position and have decided to vote in favor of Tally for what I mentioned above:
I believe there is a robust and highly committed team behind this. I think there is an opportunity to continue training current and new members with practical exercises. I understand the importance of inclusion, but I also support and believe that everyone should have the same opportunities to participate in these programs. I hope that the implementation of workshops for the public, for anyone who wants to learn about the ecosystem and build connections, has been considered.
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
We would like to continue to support this program and express gratitude to @RikaGoldberg and the contributors to this proposal, especially on the additional efforts in reaching out potential partners and continuous updates to address feedback from delegates. We would also like to point out a couple of perspectives in this proposal as a critical direction that the DAO needs to consider:
We believe ~$171k in ARB is a solid deal for what the DAO gets. It covers a few months of training, mentorship, stipends, and content; basically everything needed to bring new contributors up to speed. If we end up with 10 strong contributors, that’s about $17k each. Not bad for people who’ll be around long-term, actually doing the work and helping ecosystem partners along the way. Plus, the workshop content doesn’t go to waste. It can be reused, refined, and scaled for future cohorts.
We’ve often seen this; some long-time contributors dismiss the need for new voices. But we believe the DAO can’t grow without a clear way to bring in and level up fresh talent. Without it, we stay in the same loop with the same people. This program helps fix that. It trains motivated newcomers, gives them the tools to contribute, and gets them involved fast. That’s how we build resilience and avoid turning into a closed-off bubble.
We’re not just training people for the sake of it. We’re plugging them into real Arbitrum-aligned projects. That creates tighter bonds across the ecosystem. Over time, those connections help projects collaborate more, align on priorities, and move faster together. It’s a win-win for everyone involved.
In my view, proposals like this are excellent pathways toward establishing very important programs that improve with each iteration over time. Although many may currently struggle to see the immediate benefits, I believe this reflects a shortsighted view regarding the long-term governance needs of our community.
I will maintain my "For" vote and would also emphasize that the proposed cost is relatively modest, especially when considering that we already allocate more substantial amounts on a monthly basis for delegate compensation. Investing now positions us strategically for stronger, more effective governance structures in the future.
Furthermore, the current structure has no mechanisms to ensure that these analysts stay fully aligned with Arbitrum, and there is a risk that the best talent is pulled into other DAOs in the industry.
Furthermore, the current structure has no mechanisms to ensure that these analysts stay fully aligned with Arbitrum, and there is a risk that the best talent is pulled into other DAOs in the industry.
If other DAOs are more appealing for analysts that have specifically been trained on Arbitrum DAO, this signals a problem with the DAO, not with the program.
I voted in favor during the Snapshot vote, but I’ll vote against onchain. Well I still think this proposal could help improve DAO participation in the long run.
That said, over the past three months, we’ve already seen a increase in both the quality and number of delegates. The DIP program is running well, with stricter rules but still encouraging new and existing delegates to engage.
I voted in favor during the Snapshot vote, but I’ll vote against onchain. Well I still think this proposal could help improve DAO participation in the long run.
That said, over the past three months, we’ve already seen a increase in both the quality and number of delegates. The DIP program is running well, with stricter rules but still encouraging new and existing delegates to engage.
And even with the reduced budget, the breakdown still doesn’t feel right to me tbh. 73.5% of the funds go to salaries, with some positions getting above market rates. Advisor making total $20K for just 5 hours a week is hard to justify.
We believe the Governance Bootcamp is an effective initiative to onboard people into Arbitrum DAO, which will then grow into direct DAO contributors, delegates or governance analysts for organisations involved in the Arbitrum ecosystem. For this reason, we voted IN FAVOUR.
The DAO has struggled to foster genuine engagement. Discussions around the DIP have revealed several inefficiencies, such as delegates repeatedly making the same points, proposals stalling for months before moving forward, and well-funded initiatives ultimately failing to deliver value. We need initiatives that attract and develop top talent for the Arbitrum DAO—people who actively contribute to the ecosystem. The Governance Bootcamp is one such initiative.
We believe the Governance Bootcamp is an effective initiative to onboard people into Arbitrum DAO, which will then grow into direct DAO contributors, delegates or governance analysts for organisations involved in the Arbitrum ecosystem. For this reason, we voted IN FAVOUR.
The DAO has struggled to foster genuine engagement. Discussions around the DIP have revealed several inefficiencies, such as delegates repeatedly making the same points, proposals stalling for months before moving forward, and well-funded initiatives ultimately failing to deliver value. We need initiatives that attract and develop top talent for the Arbitrum DAO—people who actively contribute to the ecosystem. The Governance Bootcamp is one such initiative.
Cross-posted our reasoning for further visibility.
For me this was a though decision but I ended up voting against.
What spoke in favor
For me this was a though decision but I ended up voting against.
What spoke in favor
What spoke against
What could be explored in the future
As I have also commented to other marketing intiatives/incentives etc.: I am missing the whole picture which could be the following:
I voted in favor due to the quality and the long time frame of the program, along with the comprehensive approach covering a wide range of topics. This is why I reiterate my vote as I did on snapshot. I also appreciate the budget reduction and I insist on how this proposal can bring new users in the ecosystem and give them the possibility to fully integrate it.
We recognize the extensive effort that the authors have put into this proposal and appreciate the reframing of its focus since passing on Snapshot into a program that attempts to meet the governance needs of certain protocols and service providers. However, there are a few aspects of this program, and supply-based onboarding programs in general, that have led us to vote AGAINST on Tally.
Through previous attempts at onboarding, both through GovHack and version 1 of the onboarding program, we have seen that providing individuals with basic governance knowledge is insufficient and generally falls short when it comes to positioning those individuals in a manner that provides value to the DAO. As was brought up on Tuesday’s proposal discussion call, if the DAO does not have clear responsibilities and a need for these analysts post-program, then we are simply paying individuals to learn about Arbitrum for the sake of learning about Arbitrum. While the authors have made revisions to the program in an attempt to address this concern by matching high-performing individuals with the listed service providers/protocols, we still have concerns that there is a lack of clarity surrounding the actual responsibilities and roles of these analysts.
We recognize the extensive effort that the authors have put into this proposal and appreciate the reframing of its focus since passing on Snapshot into a program that attempts to meet the governance needs of certain protocols and service providers. However, there are a few aspects of this program, and supply-based onboarding programs in general, that have led us to vote AGAINST on Tally.
Through previous attempts at onboarding, both through GovHack and version 1 of the onboarding program, we have seen that providing individuals with basic governance knowledge is insufficient and generally falls short when it comes to positioning those individuals in a manner that provides value to the DAO. As was brought up on Tuesday’s proposal discussion call, if the DAO does not have clear responsibilities and a need for these analysts post-program, then we are simply paying individuals to learn about Arbitrum for the sake of learning about Arbitrum. While the authors have made revisions to the program in an attempt to address this concern by matching high-performing individuals with the listed service providers/protocols, we still have concerns that there is a lack of clarity surrounding the actual responsibilities and roles of these analysts.
Furthermore, the current structure has no mechanisms to ensure that these analysts stay fully aligned with Arbitrum, and there is a risk that the best talent is pulled into other DAOs in the industry. It appears to our team that the DAO would essentially be paying the onboarding costs and, as such, take on the initial risk for other organizations to eventually hire an analyst into their own ecosystem.
Lastly, and speaking generally, a problem that plagues both DAOs and organizations is that as the number of initiatives increases, eventually, an overwhelming amount of context and time is necessary to navigate the bureaucracy. It has now been evident for some time that Arbitrum DAO has fallen victim to this phenomenon, as reflected in the fact that many key stakeholders do not actively participate in governance due to the enormous barriers to entry and time-consuming administrative work. While this proposal seeks to remedy the symptoms of this issue, and this is in no way the fault of the authors, it fails to address the underlying core issue facing the Arbitrum DAO. In our opinion, the goal should be to reduce the burden of a delegate to the point where key stakeholders find it appealing to engage as opposed to continuing down this path of increasingly complex activities to the point that the DAO has to pay for specialized analysts on behalf of these parties.
I really wanted to vote FOR, but after much thought, I decided to vote AGAINST.
Despite the fact that the initiative itself is good and I would like such training to be held regularly, there are several negative aspects:
I really wanted to vote FOR, but after much thought, I decided to vote AGAINST.
Despite the fact that the initiative itself is good and I would like such training to be held regularly, there are several negative aspects:
We echo other sentiment here in saying that the principle is one we support as governance onboarding is useful and it can be hard to develop the skills and connections required to succeed in this.
However, we believe the budget is too high for the benefit delivered to the DAO. In light of this we will be voting AGAINST this proposal. We encourage the authors to continue to explore ways of increasing high quality governance participation and would support future proposals in this area if the cost is in line with the benefit delivered to the DAO.
After much consideration, I have decided to maintain my tempcheck vote and vote against the proposal.
The main reason is the one I pointed out when I shared my initial feedback:
On Governance Analysts and Fellows:
After much consideration, I have decided to maintain my tempcheck vote and vote against the proposal.
The main reason is the one I pointed out when I shared my initial feedback:
On Governance Analysts and Fellows:
I see a potential flaw in having the DAO fully finance the fellow. The protocol might lack the necessary skin in the game to ensure the fellow learns and receives adequate attention. It might be more interesting to move toward a shared system where protocols cover part of the cost or even commit to reimbursing the DAO if they later hire the fellow.
In this regard, my concerns expressed when voting against it in the temp check remain unchanged.
The reasons for my vote against this proposal at this time are as follows:
I disagree with using the DIP metrics to evaluate the success of this program, particularly the chosen metrics. Voting is accessible to anyone, and commenting on proposals is too. The challenge and the core work @SEEDGov performs in the DIP lies in assessing the quality of that participation.
There is no prior alignment—at least not shared in this proposal—with Arbitrum protocols for its implementation. I believe that if the DAO is going to fund the training of new participants, it should be with the concrete goal of integrating them into Arbitrum protocols (e.g., DAO leads or DAO analysts), thereby fostering the involvement of builders in governance. As it stands, the proposal and its KPIs seem to focus on funding participants for the sake of participation alone. While this is not inherently wrong, I believe that, given DAO funding, the focus should be different.
It is true that, compared to the temp check proposal, some progress was made by integrating some projects. However, it is unclear to me what level of integration and commitment these projects will actually have. The proposal mentions matching the top 10 students, yet there are only 7 projects. Additionally, there is no clear commitment from these projects to integrate them, nor is there a signal of demand for fellows working with them.
Moreover, the KPIs or criteria for evaluating the program's success have not been adjusted. As I mentioned before, the DIP metrics do not seem particularly useful for assessing the medium-term impact or effectiveness of this program.
Finally, I agree with AF's comment:
The revised budget is $171,481 to train 20 participants for 8 weeks, and then 10 participants are paired with protocols. That is $8,475 / student taking the course, and an acquisition cost of $17,148 for 10 fellows to assist protocols. We should be aiming for significantly lower cost to onboard new participants and build programs that can target a much larger cohort size.
I believe the budget for the program is somewhat high. This could have been mitigated if it were integrated with protocols that are genuinely interested in incorporating the fellows. I wonder if this is due to a lack of demand for these profiles within Arbitrum’s protocols.
I also don't fully understand the role of the Advisor.
Many thanks to Rika and the team for all the work on this proposal.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
LobbyFi perceives this proposal as benefiting a wider range of parties, potentially empowering some of the community members who could become a great return on the cost spent. Hence, we will activate the auction for this proposal.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
LobbyFi perceives this proposal as benefiting a wider range of parties, potentially empowering some of the community members who could become a great return on the cost spent. Hence, we will activate the auction for this proposal.
The voting power for this proposal will be priced based on the body of the total amount being requested: $171,481 * 1% ≈ 1 ETH (we would approximate the price since it is relatively low anyway).
I am voting "For" on Tally. Based on my own experiences trying to fully grasp how to effectively and productively imbibe the absolute torrent of relevant information as a new participant, as well as finding the right channels through which to collaborate and participate, I fully support the goals set forth here. It can be a challenge to navigate.
It is unfortunate that the number of participants is limited to 20, but there seems to be a commitment to make a great deal of the materials produced available to the public beyond just those 20 selected individuals so that will probably be of great use to future comers, even after the conclusion of the program.
Furthermore, the current structure has no mechanisms to ensure that these analysts stay fully aligned with Arbitrum, and there is a risk that the best talent is pulled into other DAOs in the industry. It appears to our team that the DAO would essentially be paying the onboarding costs and, as such, take on the initial risk for other organizations to eventually hire an analyst into their own ecosystem.
LFG! I recently joined DIP, and this will be helpful. Looking forward to it
Foundation, thanks a lot for this feedback. We need you to be more active and we are all seeing some great first steps here.
Just one thing: expressing this valuation a couple of days before the onchain vote, after the proposals has been in the forum for months, means that either the proposal changes it totally compared to snapshot with a big delay or just goes his own route. Maybe, next time, a more timely update could be more helpful. Thanks!
I will be voting FOR on Tally. My reasoning being the following: I became active in the forum around the time this was first pitched and have joined the DIP since then. Creating proper resources for those who want to somehow contribute or work on the DAO or Arbitrum as a whole would help a ton of people through this process, as opposed to having to figure everything out themselves.
Building an evergreen curriculum and reusable materials can help anyone get started way quicker, even outside the bootcamp.
Thank you, @Arbitrum for your thoughtful feedback.
Budget Since the Snapshot, we have reduced the budget by approximately 10% ($20,000). Additionally, a key consideration is that the budget includes a $4,500 stipend per Fellow, which is exclusively for their work assisting protocols and will not be used for team member compensation. Additionally, we are planning for up to 10 Fellows, with the final number determined by performance. As discussed with delegates during the RFC and Snapshot phases, successfully onboarding 3-5 high-performing governance contributors would be considered a win. Any unused funds will be returned to the DAO.
I have voted to ABSTAIN rationale provided under my delegate communication channel: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/donofdaos-delegate-communication-thread/28521/3?u=donofdaos
Furthermore, the current structure has no mechanisms to ensure that these analysts stay fully aligned with Arbitrum, and there is a risk that the best talent is pulled into other DAOs in the industry. It appears to our team that the DAO would essentially be paying the onboarding costs and, as such, take on the initial risk for other organizations to eventually hire an analyst into their own ecosystem.
Would you perhaps agree that this concern could be largely addressed or at least ameliorated by increasing the number of candidates being trained in one go, and reducing the cost per candidate? I think that would be the natural progression of consecutive iterations of a program like this, and it could make the loss of individual trainees/graduates less painful.
I will be voting FOR on Tally. My reasoning being the following: I became active in the forum around the time this was first pitched and have joined the DIP since then. Creating proper resources for those who want to somehow contribute or work on the DAO or Arbitrum as a whole would help a ton of people through this process, as opposed to having to figure everything out themselves.
Building an evergreen curriculum and reusable materials can help anyone get started way quicker, even outside the bootcamp.
Seeing as initial budget concerns have been -at least- partially addressed, I can definitely back this initiative.
Thank you, @Arbitrum for your thoughtful feedback.
Budget Since the Snapshot, we have reduced the budget by approximately 10% ($20,000). Additionally, a key consideration is that the budget includes a $4,500 stipend per Fellow, which is exclusively for their work assisting protocols and will not be used for team member compensation. Additionally, we are planning for up to 10 Fellows, with the final number determined by performance. As discussed with delegates during the RFC and Snapshot phases, successfully onboarding 3-5 high-performing governance contributors would be considered a win. Any unused funds will be returned to the DAO.
It’s also important to highlight that the Onboarding Working Group has spent many months preparing and designing this initiative, including engaging with protocols, conducting user research, designing a rubric and exercises, creating a project plan, and setting up a MSS, ensuring we can execute swiftly upon a successful vote. All of this work has been done without any compensation to date. Furthermore, the compensation presented in the budget is aligned with market rates from Glassdoor.
Interviews and Filtering Applications The Onboarding Working Group—comprising Sandra, Bhaumik, and myself—will be responsible for conducting interviews and filtering applications. As outlined in the Snapshot proposal, we will prioritize candidates who demonstrate:
To ensure fairness and minimize bias, we will use a structured evaluation rubric throughout the selection process.
Additional Considerations We are fully aligned to support both existing and new priorities from the DAO. We will refresh the curriculum to incorporate OpCo, GCP, STEP, and Treasury Management v1.2. Additionally, we will maintain a dynamic approach, updating the curriculum as new strategic initiatives are passed.
We plan to record all sessions for public access and make the exercises publicly available to allow future participants interested in contributing to Arbitrum access to course material.
We also support the idea of engaging organizations with meaningful partnerships and/or capital deployed in the Arbitrum ecosystem e.g., Pendle, Proof of Play, Azuki, and Xai, as well as Franklin Templeton and Robinhood. We would be eager to explore potential collaborations and would appreciate any introductions to facilitate those conversations.
Lastly, we are open to differentiating between governance assistance for protocols and establishing a structured pathway for independent contributors. However, this approach will require a clear commitment from working groups, similar to the commitments already made by protocols and service providers.
Thank you again for your thoughtful feedback! We’re happy to answer any additional questions and make improvements as needed.
Update: The Onboarding Working Group is planning to publish the onchain proposal on Monday (10th) for voting to start on Thursday (13th). The post has been updated to reflect changes made since the Snapshot vote passed.
Thank you to everyone who provided feedback and support. We are eager to move this initiative forward!
I voted FOR on this proposal. As improvements for Tally, it would be interesting to see more protocols to work with the Governance Fellows (so we have this locked in before the proposal passes the onchain vote)
hey @paulofonseca yes, we're working towards that.
hey @RikaGoldberg how is this going? is this going to onchain vote soon?
DAOplomats voted FOR on Snapshot.
We are aware more clarity is needed on some areas before this proposal goes to an onchain vote but we were okay supporting this at least during this temp check stage. We agree with @NathanVDH re reporting as this would indeed be crucial in determining the success of this initiative.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Due to our clear Conflict of Interest with respect to this proposal we have decided to abstain.
We support this proposal as it builds on the successful Pilot Program, refining the onboarding process with a structured curriculum, measurable KPIs, and a focus on diversity. With a clear plan to enhance governance participation, this initiative is worth pursuing to strengthen Arbitrum DAO’s governance ecosystem.
Thank you for the proposal. Overall, it looks solid, and we understand how challenging it is to onboard delegates—it requires understanding, expertise, and passion. We’re excited to see how much value this experiment could bring to the DAO, as it offers a valuable learning opportunity. We don’t have much to add regarding the budget, as other delegates have already raised their concerns.
We support this proposal as it builds on the successful Pilot Program, refining the onboarding process with a structured curriculum, measurable KPIs, and a focus on diversity. With a clear plan to enhance governance participation, this initiative is worth pursuing to strengthen Arbitrum DAO’s governance ecosystem.
Thank you for the proposal. Overall, it looks solid, and we understand how challenging it is to onboard delegates—it requires understanding, expertise, and passion. We’re excited to see how much value this experiment could bring to the DAO, as it offers a valuable learning opportunity. We don’t have much to add regarding the budget, as other delegates have already raised their concerns.
Voting for, as stated above I think the proposal is well thought out and creates a unique idea to try and attract talent that ultimately doesn't cost the DAO that much. I still maintain a concern about 'stickiness', but at the end of the day that can't be answered unless we try it. I think this is something worth pursuing as a test, if it fails so be it... but it's worth trying out.
I'll re-ask my initial question as I don't thin kit was directly addressed and would like to see before a possibly Tally vote.
Voting for, as stated above I think the proposal is well thought out and creates a unique idea to try and attract talent that ultimately doesn't cost the DAO that much. I still maintain a concern about 'stickiness', but at the end of the day that can't be answered unless we try it. I think this is something worth pursuing as a test, if it fails so be it... but it's worth trying out.
I'll re-ask my initial question as I don't thin kit was directly addressed and would like to see before a possibly Tally vote.
Probably my only concern would be ‘stickiness’ of the Governance Analysts to be able to remain employed by the Ten Protocols. A lot of that is beyond our control, but has there been any discussion on ensuring these analysts have a long-term impact? Whether that is front-end stuff (deciding which 10 protocols to pick) or the back-end (if there is analyst that just loses their job 2 months in there are backup protocols or a pool or potential protocols to rotate to?).
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
While we haven't received a clear answer to the compensation structure in our comment below, we agree with the general direction of the concept and this proposal should go for an onchain vote. We also believe the DAO should pay governance analysts and program contributors, but there should be a compensation structure that is aligned with what the program can achieve with clear goal that comes with the KPIs. While being challenging to set the right KPIs to monitor the ongoing impact from the governance fellows, it's critical to design the program to dare to address the ultimate issues that the DAO has.
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
While we haven't received a clear answer to the compensation structure in our comment below, we agree with the general direction of the concept and this proposal should go for an onchain vote. We also believe the DAO should pay governance analysts and program contributors, but there should be a compensation structure that is aligned with what the program can achieve with clear goal that comes with the KPIs. While being challenging to set the right KPIs to monitor the ongoing impact from the governance fellows, it's critical to design the program to dare to address the ultimate issues that the DAO has.
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 AGAINST the proposal.
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 AGAINST the proposal.
Although we are not against the concept of onboarding new contributors to the DAO -if anything, we’re in favor of it, as proven by the fact that we facilitated the creation of the onboarding working group- we’re not confident in the timing of the proposal.
As things are in the DAO right now, even seasoned participants have a hard time making meaningful contributions due to the lack of overarching vision and direction, and the fact that many things are still being figured out would make it hard for a new participant to participate.
The onboarding working group we facilitated clearly showed that as a DAO we struggle to define meaningful ways for new contributors to add value to the ecosystem. We think it's solvable, and hopefully we'll soon have enough open opportunities for newcomers to fill. But for now, we think this initiative is a bit premature.
That said, we believe the overall direction of the proposal to be worthwhile to explore—maybe with some amendments—down the line when there are actually areas in which new contributors will be able to contribute.
Blockworks Advisory will be voting in favor of this proposal on Snapshot.
The cost is reasonable given the length of the program and the required overhead, and the onboarding working group has completed decent work with good reporting from the last effort. We still believe that the DAO should pay governance analyst during their training, and have a possible path toward working within the DAO. Arbitrum DAO actively needs more participants that can represent its own interests distinctly from others. There is a cost to having representation of your interests, both an individuals time and value they can generate in that time represent that cost. Moving forward, we would genuinely like to see the co-op program be built out in the next version of this proposal, either with analysts working in-DAO or out at the conclusion of the program.
I voted in favour. The cost is reasonable given the time frame of 7 months, and in a competitive and usually extremely scattered environment (this is especially true in the ARB DAO) projects like this can contribute to having a structure and order. All comments from @pedrob @Atomist above also make a lot of sense, to consider before the Tally vote.
We voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
We do appreciate the work @RikaGoldberg with 404 and the rest of the contributors do a lot, and see the willingness to get this right. We are mindful this is not an easy task to get right / this is still somewhat experimental. Saying that, we'd like to see more tangible success outcomes of the program this time (i.e., how do we ensure high quality of participants and turn them into value for the DAO). I believe the ideas of this iteration are a reasonably good approach and the involved parties are capable.
I voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot. V1 was a pilot project, so it makes sense to do a V2 based on everything that the proposal team learned from V1. After V2 is completed and evaluation done, we'll have a better picture whether such program works and perhaps repeat it in the future.
We align with the measured experimentation in this proposal. Continued trials for expanding DAO participation and onboarding effective members of the Arbitrum Community is worth exploring. We believe the budget is acceptable and look forward to working with @RikaGoldberg and the team to assist in making this program a success.
Voted For: DAO governance is such a new industry, and experimentation is much needed. I agree with feedback from fellow delegates that we should take a more strategic approach with clear KPIs attached to this proposal. However, at this point, I would like to see this move forward to Tally. The proposal is not too expensive, and the experiment could bring us new ideas on how to tackle the lack of participation in governance. This is why I decided to support this proposal.
I've voted for this proposal. I think that at the very least it will give us quality data about onboarding on Arbitrum at a price that, when seeing the budget of the DAO, feels reasonable. Again, the value of this lies partly in the reporting so I hope this will be high quality and communicated broadly.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting abstain in this proposal and below is our rationale.
Furthermore, the current structure has no mechanisms to ensure that these analysts stay fully aligned with Arbitrum, and there is a risk that the best talent is pulled into other DAOs in the industry. It appears to our team that the DAO would essentially be paying the onboarding costs and, as such, take on the initial risk for other organizations to eventually hire an analyst into their own ecosystem.
Would you perhaps agree that this concern could be largely addressed or at least ameliorated by increasing the number of candidates being trained in one go, and reducing the cost per candidate? I think that would be the natural progression of consecutive iterations of a program like this, and it could make the loss of individual trainees/graduates less painful.
I will be voting FOR on Tally. My reasoning being the following: I became active in the forum around the time this was first pitched and have joined the DIP since then. Creating proper resources for those who want to somehow contribute or work on the DAO or Arbitrum as a whole would help a ton of people through this process, as opposed to having to figure everything out themselves.
Building an evergreen curriculum and reusable materials can help anyone get started way quicker, even outside the bootcamp.
Seeing as initial budget concerns have been -at least- partially addressed, I can definitely back this initiative.
Thank you, @Arbitrum for your thoughtful feedback.
Budget Since the Snapshot, we have reduced the budget by approximately 10% ($20,000). Additionally, a key consideration is that the budget includes a $4,500 stipend per Fellow, which is exclusively for their work assisting protocols and will not be used for team member compensation. Additionally, we are planning for up to 10 Fellows, with the final number determined by performance. As discussed with delegates during the RFC and Snapshot phases, successfully onboarding 3-5 high-performing governance contributors would be considered a win. Any unused funds will be returned to the DAO.
It’s also important to highlight that the Onboarding Working Group has spent many months preparing and designing this initiative, including engaging with protocols, conducting user research, designing a rubric and exercises, creating a project plan, and setting up a MSS, ensuring we can execute swiftly upon a successful vote. All of this work has been done without any compensation to date. Furthermore, the compensation presented in the budget is aligned with market rates from Glassdoor.
Interviews and Filtering Applications The Onboarding Working Group—comprising Sandra, Bhaumik, and myself—will be responsible for conducting interviews and filtering applications. As outlined in the Snapshot proposal, we will prioritize candidates who demonstrate:
To ensure fairness and minimize bias, we will use a structured evaluation rubric throughout the selection process.
Additional Considerations We are fully aligned to support both existing and new priorities from the DAO. We will refresh the curriculum to incorporate OpCo, GCP, STEP, and Treasury Management v1.2. Additionally, we will maintain a dynamic approach, updating the curriculum as new strategic initiatives are passed.
We plan to record all sessions for public access and make the exercises publicly available to allow future participants interested in contributing to Arbitrum access to course material.
We also support the idea of engaging organizations with meaningful partnerships and/or capital deployed in the Arbitrum ecosystem e.g., Pendle, Proof of Play, Azuki, and Xai, as well as Franklin Templeton and Robinhood. We would be eager to explore potential collaborations and would appreciate any introductions to facilitate those conversations.
Lastly, we are open to differentiating between governance assistance for protocols and establishing a structured pathway for independent contributors. However, this approach will require a clear commitment from working groups, similar to the commitments already made by protocols and service providers.
Thank you again for your thoughtful feedback! We’re happy to answer any additional questions and make improvements as needed.
Update: The Onboarding Working Group is planning to publish the onchain proposal on Monday (10th) for voting to start on Thursday (13th). The post has been updated to reflect changes made since the Snapshot vote passed.
Thank you to everyone who provided feedback and support. We are eager to move this initiative forward!
I voted FOR on this proposal. As improvements for Tally, it would be interesting to see more protocols to work with the Governance Fellows (so we have this locked in before the proposal passes the onchain vote)
hey @paulofonseca yes, we're working towards that.
hey @RikaGoldberg how is this going? is this going to onchain vote soon?
DAOplomats voted FOR on Snapshot.
We are aware more clarity is needed on some areas before this proposal goes to an onchain vote but we were okay supporting this at least during this temp check stage. We agree with @NathanVDH re reporting as this would indeed be crucial in determining the success of this initiative.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Due to our clear Conflict of Interest with respect to this proposal we have decided to abstain.
We support this proposal as it builds on the successful Pilot Program, refining the onboarding process with a structured curriculum, measurable KPIs, and a focus on diversity. With a clear plan to enhance governance participation, this initiative is worth pursuing to strengthen Arbitrum DAO’s governance ecosystem.
Thank you for the proposal. Overall, it looks solid, and we understand how challenging it is to onboard delegates—it requires understanding, expertise, and passion. We’re excited to see how much value this experiment could bring to the DAO, as it offers a valuable learning opportunity. We don’t have much to add regarding the budget, as other delegates have already raised their concerns.
We support this proposal as it builds on the successful Pilot Program, refining the onboarding process with a structured curriculum, measurable KPIs, and a focus on diversity. With a clear plan to enhance governance participation, this initiative is worth pursuing to strengthen Arbitrum DAO’s governance ecosystem.
Thank you for the proposal. Overall, it looks solid, and we understand how challenging it is to onboard delegates—it requires understanding, expertise, and passion. We’re excited to see how much value this experiment could bring to the DAO, as it offers a valuable learning opportunity. We don’t have much to add regarding the budget, as other delegates have already raised their concerns.
Voting for, as stated above I think the proposal is well thought out and creates a unique idea to try and attract talent that ultimately doesn't cost the DAO that much. I still maintain a concern about 'stickiness', but at the end of the day that can't be answered unless we try it. I think this is something worth pursuing as a test, if it fails so be it... but it's worth trying out.
I'll re-ask my initial question as I don't thin kit was directly addressed and would like to see before a possibly Tally vote.
Voting for, as stated above I think the proposal is well thought out and creates a unique idea to try and attract talent that ultimately doesn't cost the DAO that much. I still maintain a concern about 'stickiness', but at the end of the day that can't be answered unless we try it. I think this is something worth pursuing as a test, if it fails so be it... but it's worth trying out.
I'll re-ask my initial question as I don't thin kit was directly addressed and would like to see before a possibly Tally vote.
Probably my only concern would be ‘stickiness’ of the Governance Analysts to be able to remain employed by the Ten Protocols. A lot of that is beyond our control, but has there been any discussion on ensuring these analysts have a long-term impact? Whether that is front-end stuff (deciding which 10 protocols to pick) or the back-end (if there is analyst that just loses their job 2 months in there are backup protocols or a pool or potential protocols to rotate to?).
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
While we haven't received a clear answer to the compensation structure in our comment below, we agree with the general direction of the concept and this proposal should go for an onchain vote. We also believe the DAO should pay governance analysts and program contributors, but there should be a compensation structure that is aligned with what the program can achieve with clear goal that comes with the KPIs. While being challenging to set the right KPIs to monitor the ongoing impact from the governance fellows, it's critical to design the program to dare to address the ultimate issues that the DAO has.
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
While we haven't received a clear answer to the compensation structure in our comment below, we agree with the general direction of the concept and this proposal should go for an onchain vote. We also believe the DAO should pay governance analysts and program contributors, but there should be a compensation structure that is aligned with what the program can achieve with clear goal that comes with the KPIs. While being challenging to set the right KPIs to monitor the ongoing impact from the governance fellows, it's critical to design the program to dare to address the ultimate issues that the DAO has.
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 AGAINST the proposal.
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 AGAINST the proposal.
Although we are not against the concept of onboarding new contributors to the DAO -if anything, we’re in favor of it, as proven by the fact that we facilitated the creation of the onboarding working group- we’re not confident in the timing of the proposal.
As things are in the DAO right now, even seasoned participants have a hard time making meaningful contributions due to the lack of overarching vision and direction, and the fact that many things are still being figured out would make it hard for a new participant to participate.
The onboarding working group we facilitated clearly showed that as a DAO we struggle to define meaningful ways for new contributors to add value to the ecosystem. We think it's solvable, and hopefully we'll soon have enough open opportunities for newcomers to fill. But for now, we think this initiative is a bit premature.
That said, we believe the overall direction of the proposal to be worthwhile to explore—maybe with some amendments—down the line when there are actually areas in which new contributors will be able to contribute.
Blockworks Advisory will be voting in favor of this proposal on Snapshot.
The cost is reasonable given the length of the program and the required overhead, and the onboarding working group has completed decent work with good reporting from the last effort. We still believe that the DAO should pay governance analyst during their training, and have a possible path toward working within the DAO. Arbitrum DAO actively needs more participants that can represent its own interests distinctly from others. There is a cost to having representation of your interests, both an individuals time and value they can generate in that time represent that cost. Moving forward, we would genuinely like to see the co-op program be built out in the next version of this proposal, either with analysts working in-DAO or out at the conclusion of the program.
I voted in favour. The cost is reasonable given the time frame of 7 months, and in a competitive and usually extremely scattered environment (this is especially true in the ARB DAO) projects like this can contribute to having a structure and order. All comments from @pedrob @Atomist above also make a lot of sense, to consider before the Tally vote.
We voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
We do appreciate the work @RikaGoldberg with 404 and the rest of the contributors do a lot, and see the willingness to get this right. We are mindful this is not an easy task to get right / this is still somewhat experimental. Saying that, we'd like to see more tangible success outcomes of the program this time (i.e., how do we ensure high quality of participants and turn them into value for the DAO). I believe the ideas of this iteration are a reasonably good approach and the involved parties are capable.
I voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot. V1 was a pilot project, so it makes sense to do a V2 based on everything that the proposal team learned from V1. After V2 is completed and evaluation done, we'll have a better picture whether such program works and perhaps repeat it in the future.
We align with the measured experimentation in this proposal. Continued trials for expanding DAO participation and onboarding effective members of the Arbitrum Community is worth exploring. We believe the budget is acceptable and look forward to working with @RikaGoldberg and the team to assist in making this program a success.
Voted For: DAO governance is such a new industry, and experimentation is much needed. I agree with feedback from fellow delegates that we should take a more strategic approach with clear KPIs attached to this proposal. However, at this point, I would like to see this move forward to Tally. The proposal is not too expensive, and the experiment could bring us new ideas on how to tackle the lack of participation in governance. This is why I decided to support this proposal.
I've voted for this proposal. I think that at the very least it will give us quality data about onboarding on Arbitrum at a price that, when seeing the budget of the DAO, feels reasonable. Again, the value of this lies partly in the reporting so I hope this will be high quality and communicated broadly.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting abstain in this proposal and below is our rationale.
Blockworks Advisory will be voting in favor of this proposal on Snapshot.
The cost is reasonable given the length of the program and the required overhead, and the onboarding working group has completed decent work with good reporting from the last effort. We still believe that the DAO should pay governance analyst during their training, and have a possible path toward working within the DAO. Arbitrum DAO actively needs more participants that can represent its own interests distinctly from others. There is a cost to having representation of your interests, both an individuals time and value they can generate in that time represent that cost. Moving forward, we would genuinely like to see the co-op program be built out in the next version of this proposal, either with analysts working in-DAO or out at the conclusion of the program.
Is there the possibility that the Arbitrum Deep Dives could be condensed and the time could be put into more exercises for the DAO analysts? Of course, more KPI development would need to be done here. Furthermore, we find that the onboarding final report was a decent insight into the original program’s performance; though, we would like to see improved milestone reporting moving forward. The milestone reports were relatively less descript.
We agree with GMX insofar as that this proposal needs more details on KPIs for these governance analysts moving forward; however, we think this proposal should pass at the temperature check level, but perhaps requires further iteration prior to Tally.
We voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
We do appreciate the work @RikaGoldberg with 404 and the rest of the contributors do a lot, and see the willingness to get this right. We are mindful this is not an easy task to get right / this is still somewhat experimental. Saying that, we'd like to see more tangible success outcomes of the program this time (i.e., how do we ensure high quality of participants and turn them into value for the DAO). I believe the ideas of this iteration are a reasonably good approach and the involved parties are capable.
To support the program, we'd be considering working with a fellow to support the initiative. We'll take the decision whenever there is more certainty around next step and intakes.
I voted in favor of this proposal.
I share some of the concerns expressed above: it's a bit unclear the value that the initiative will have 1 year from now because we don't know where these trained analyst will end up being, if in protocols, in our dao, in others etc.
I voted in favor of this proposal.
I share some of the concerns expressed above: it's a bit unclear the value that the initiative will have 1 year from now because we don't know where these trained analyst will end up being, if in protocols, in our dao, in others etc.
At the same time, I want to be mindful of a trend we have been seeing lately and that few delegates shared privately with me, which is new contributors, in the DAO, entering with a decent amount of criticism in every initiative without necessarily providing solutions or alternatives (or, when that is done, is done through solutions that are quite superficial and don't necessarily tackle the initial issue). This is partially due on how the DIP is structure, in which de facto commenting increases the amount of point, and part due to the human nature: sounding pessimism and being critic is the easiest way to sound smart to be blunt. (note: nothing against seed here or anyone in particular. It is what it is, and is a byproduct of our dao growing more and more over time).
For the reason above, I hope this program will indeed elevate the quality of new contributors, and this is why I am voting in favor. I share the concern that of the 193k allocated only 30k goes to analysts: to me it means that the expectation, end of program, is to have 20 kickass black belt governance analysts, I am expecting no less with an opex of 160k.
I also think we should find a way for weaponize these new analysts, and right now one of the biggest gap we have is the protocols' participations. We should find a way to advertise this pool of participants to protocols (a bit hard: every team tends to internalize people that they trust, not necessarily suggested by third party sources). I also suggest to select people with also a technical background, that have experience in designing protocols, tokenomics and lst. We don't need only people that know about governance, we also need people who are technically knowleageable, cause up to some degree we saw partially the limitation of knowledge of delegates during the working group for designing arb staking. I would really like to have more people that have been builders to be trained in governance.
Finally, i agree that DIP kpi are not the right one here. Success, to me, means that the trained analyst end up contributing to our dao, either through specific dao roles, or by being integrated in protocols as part of their personnel etc.
All in all I don't have all the answers to the questions above, and I hope @RikaGoldberg and gang will iterate between this and tally to try and address some of these concerns.
After carefully reviewing all responses and considering other delegates’ feedback, I’ve decided to vote in favor. My reasons are: 1. This proposal builds on the V1 pilot and incorporates previous lessons and feedback to create a more refined V2 plan. This iterative improvement will help the Arbitrum DAO continually optimize the composition and quality of its governance participants. 2. Clear KPIs will measure the effectiveness of training Governance Analysts and Fellows, providing a basis for future evaluations and ongoing improvements. 3. A comprehensive selection and training process will enable promising newcomers to quickly integrate and receive guidance, continually injecting fresh talent into the DAO.
Voting AGAINST this proposal
We think there are some positive aspects of the onboarding program/proposal: -onboarding materials creation (v1 created the onboarding hub) -recognizing protocols need good delegates and trying to help them do so.
Voting AGAINST this proposal
We think there are some positive aspects of the onboarding program/proposal: -onboarding materials creation (v1 created the onboarding hub) -recognizing protocols need good delegates and trying to help them do so.
but the questions and negatives in our opinion outweigh it: -this thread has 86 replies. is the DAO in desperate need of more delegates and activity? -does seeking and training random people and assigning them to protocols make sense?
in our opinion the key things highlighted are: Governance needs education. in our opinion this is absolutely true. it took us a while to get up to speed on both logistics, tech, and background.
But in our opinion a workshop, homework and calls for a select group of people is not the best way.
Educational material, perhaps produced by Manu, made availalbe online for all delegates, or wannabe delegates, would be amazing and beneficial for all delegates here.
Expanding/revamping the onboarding hub into a general onboarding hub for arbitrum delegates, and keeping it up to date, would be an amazing use of arbitrum resources that woudl help the DAO
protocols need good delegates protocol teams are often busy building and may not be able to govern well. but they often have communities of people who may be interested in doing so.
If there is a training program, it may make sense to to do so through a grant, fellowship, or training program that is directed towards protocols to hire or onboard community members to represent their interests in the DAO or help them govern their ARB treasuries.
In our opinion the current version of this proposal targeting general onboarding to the DAO doesnt make a ton of sense, but
may make sense, and would be much easier to run.
Happy to jam on either of these in the delegate tg chat or DMs.
Thanks @RikaGoldberg for this proposal.
We have voted for the Arbitrum Onboarding V2 proposal. We think it helps new people learn how to join and work in the DAO. The program teaches important skills and makes it easier for everyone to understand and take part in governance. It will bring fresh ideas and more voices to the Arbitrum community. And it's 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.
We are voting FOR the proposal 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 proposal in the Snapshot voting.
We are in favor of the onboarding program as it represents a strategic approach to growing our governance ecosystem with fresh talent and diverse perspectives.
We support this initiative because it creates a structured pathway for new contributors to learn and engage with Arbitrum DAO. The program's focus on diversity, skill development, and providing opportunities for participants to become governance fellows with monetary stipends makes it a key catalyst for expanding our ecosystem and bringing fresh perspectives into our governance process.
We believe the outcome of this initiative will be on the positive side and the program will be a success.
gm,
I’ve voted AGAINST this program.
I’m skeptical about its potential impact and think resources could be better spent on onboarding more Arbitrum protocols into governance, as others have suggested. Why aren’t these protocols involved already? If they lack analysts, we could focus on helping them recruit and train talent rather than using a top-down push approach.
gm,
I’ve voted AGAINST this program.
I’m skeptical about its potential impact and think resources could be better spent on onboarding more Arbitrum protocols into governance, as others have suggested. Why aren’t these protocols involved already? If they lack analysts, we could focus on helping them recruit and train talent rather than using a top-down push approach.
As it stands, the proposal and its KPIs feel more like funding participation for participation’s sake, without a clear path to meaningful results.
The compensation structure for the working group also seems out of step with market standards, raising questions about its efficiency and sustainability.
I hope we can revisit and refine this before moving forward.
After much consideration, I am voting AGAINST this proposal in its current structure.
First, I want to thank @RikaGoldberg and the team for their work on v1 and this proposal. I do believe there is value in a program of this nature, and I would like to see it implemented in the future.
The reasons for my vote against this proposal at this time are as follows:
After much consideration, I am voting AGAINST this proposal in its current structure.
First, I want to thank @RikaGoldberg and the team for their work on v1 and this proposal. I do believe there is value in a program of this nature, and I would like to see it implemented in the future.
The reasons for my vote against this proposal at this time are as follows:
I disagree with using the DIP metrics to evaluate the success of this program, particularly the chosen metrics. Voting is accessible to anyone, and commenting on proposals is too. The challenge and the core work @SEEDGov performs in the DIP lies in assessing the quality of that participation.
There is no prior alignment—at least not shared in this proposal—with Arbitrum protocols for its implementation. I believe that if the DAO is going to fund the training of new participants, it should be with the concrete goal of integrating them into Arbitrum protocols (e.g., DAO leads or DAO analysts), thereby fostering the involvement of builders in governance. As it stands, the proposal and its KPIs seem to focus on funding participants for the sake of participation alone. While this is not inherently wrong, I believe that, given DAO funding, the focus should be different.
Additionally, a suggestion I consider important was not included:
On Governance Analysts and Fellows:
I see a potential flaw in having the DAO fully finance the fellow. The protocol might lack the necessary skin in the game to ensure the fellow learns and receives adequate attention. It might be more interesting to move toward a shared system where protocols cover part of the cost or even commit to reimbursing the DAO if they later hire the fellow.
Lastly, no mechanisms for retaining the fellows have been incorporated, raising doubts about this investment's short-term effectiveness.
Something interesting to consider is what @danielo mentions:
I would spend 30-40k on a research initiative to deeply understand how/why protocols engage or not and what they would like. Then IF the problem is lack of analysts, help them recruit one, but I’d need to see a job description first. And only IF there are no analysts available, then train them.
For all these reasons, I am voting against this proposal. However, I support the idea, and if the proposal is modified to address the points I’ve raised, I will change my vote to support it.
I strongly support this proposal as it aligns with the DAO's vision for improved governance and transparency. However, I suggest adding more details about the implementation steps, addressing potential risks, and incorporating community feedback at key stages to ensure the plan remains aligned with members' expectations.
Castle agrees on the importance of facilitating governance onboarding. We are very well familiar with the intricacies of the DAO and this is surely a positive addition.
We have a few comments on this:
Castle agrees on the importance of facilitating governance onboarding. We are very well familiar with the intricacies of the DAO and this is surely a positive addition.
We have a few comments on this:
We’d also want to make sure that the proposal as it stands doesn’t end up after the two-month period: do you have any plans for what will happen between the protocols and the analysts?
Is there any plan to make sure the work done retains its impact beyond the timeline?
The last point concerns the budget. While it is in line with other programs, it is unclear how the dao will benefit from this program, given the protocols' lack of clear demand for analysts. Of the proposed costs, only $30k will end up going to analysts, with the majority going to op expenses.
While we believe in principle in the need for strong governance participation, we will not be in favour of this proposal without these elements.
I will vote in favor of the proposal on Snapshot. I genuinely believe we need to work toward having more professional and diverse representatives. The updated plan feels more comprehensive—helping newcomers get involved in Arbitrum’s governance while offering clear KPIs and ongoing support. By extending the timeframe and increasing training depth, the governance fellows we train can bring greater long-term value. I’m casting a “yes” vote, hoping this initiative will foster a healthier and more vibrant Arbitrum ecosystem.
The Snapshot went live yesterday. We appreciate your votes!
voting Against on the current offchain proposal because I feel the protocols should pay for this, not the DAO, or at least they should match a little bit of the payment to ensure they are aligned.
I decided to vote in favor. As I mentioned in the discussions a few weeks ago, I believe this is a great opportunity to help newcomers familiarize themselves with the DAO and connect with protocols and delegates. In the long term, this will lead to greater expertise, quality and diversity among delegates. I also appreciate that @RikaGoldberg incorporated community feedback and provided clear KPIs. I'm excited to see this proposal progress in the coming steps!
After reflection, I have ultimately decided to vote "Against" in this proposal. While the goal of training new participants in governance is commendable, I am skeptical about its ultimate impact and benefits for the DAO, especially if these participants do not possess significant voting power. Unfortunately, those without at least 50k ARB will not be eligible for the DIP. As for the "inclusivity aspect," I appreciate crypto's meritocratic nature, where anonymity allows work to be valued solely on its quality, and feel the clause on this proposal may not fully align with that ethos.
The cost of this proposal is substantially higher—twenty times that of the initial pilot—and there seems to be no guaranteed return on investment, as participants could simply apply their new skills in other DAOs.
I voted in favor on Snapshot after listening to ocandocrypto in the bi-weekly call. I believe there is a robust and highly committed team behind this. I think there is an opportunity to continue training current and new members with practical exercises. I understand the importance of inclusion, but I also support and believe that everyone should have the same opportunities to participate in these programs. I hope that the implementation of workshops for the public, for anyone who wants to learn about the ecosystem and build connections, has been considered.
We will be seeking applicants who express an interest and commitment to doing Governance work, therefore they will likely already be Delegates or strongly interested in becoming a Delegate — individually or with an organization.
FranklinDAO agrees with the conerns of @danielo - We believe that there's a key problem of coordination under a unified strategy in Arbitrum. We encourage diversity and more voices in Arbitrum governance, but think that at this time it's more important to prioritize focus and coordination. Training members to be delegates without guaranteeing their participation in the future doesn't solve this problem in our view. Hence, we voted Against this proposal.
Unfortunately i havent received any answer on my questions, which is why i voted NO.
Just voted in favor of this proposal on Snapshot. The team behind this proposal is top-notch, and I’m confident they’ll make it a success. As I mentioned earlier, I like it's meritocratic approach and I'm eager to see the impact this will have on the Arbitrum DAO.
I will vote in favor of the proposal on Snapshot. I do think we need to work towards having better delegates with more expertise and diversity. Although I don't agree that we should impose hard percentages on LGBTQ+ participants, as everyone should be treated equally, I believe the intention is fair.
Blockworks Advisory will be voting in favor of this proposal on Snapshot.
The cost is reasonable given the length of the program and the required overhead, and the onboarding working group has completed decent work with good reporting from the last effort. We still believe that the DAO should pay governance analyst during their training, and have a possible path toward working within the DAO. Arbitrum DAO actively needs more participants that can represent its own interests distinctly from others. There is a cost to having representation of your interests, both an individuals time and value they can generate in that time represent that cost. Moving forward, we would genuinely like to see the co-op program be built out in the next version of this proposal, either with analysts working in-DAO or out at the conclusion of the program.
Is there the possibility that the Arbitrum Deep Dives could be condensed and the time could be put into more exercises for the DAO analysts? Of course, more KPI development would need to be done here. Furthermore, we find that the onboarding final report was a decent insight into the original program’s performance; though, we would like to see improved milestone reporting moving forward. The milestone reports were relatively less descript.
We agree with GMX insofar as that this proposal needs more details on KPIs for these governance analysts moving forward; however, we think this proposal should pass at the temperature check level, but perhaps requires further iteration prior to Tally.
We voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
We do appreciate the work @RikaGoldberg with 404 and the rest of the contributors do a lot, and see the willingness to get this right. We are mindful this is not an easy task to get right / this is still somewhat experimental. Saying that, we'd like to see more tangible success outcomes of the program this time (i.e., how do we ensure high quality of participants and turn them into value for the DAO). I believe the ideas of this iteration are a reasonably good approach and the involved parties are capable.
To support the program, we'd be considering working with a fellow to support the initiative. We'll take the decision whenever there is more certainty around next step and intakes.
I voted in favor of this proposal.
I share some of the concerns expressed above: it's a bit unclear the value that the initiative will have 1 year from now because we don't know where these trained analyst will end up being, if in protocols, in our dao, in others etc.
I voted in favor of this proposal.
I share some of the concerns expressed above: it's a bit unclear the value that the initiative will have 1 year from now because we don't know where these trained analyst will end up being, if in protocols, in our dao, in others etc.
At the same time, I want to be mindful of a trend we have been seeing lately and that few delegates shared privately with me, which is new contributors, in the DAO, entering with a decent amount of criticism in every initiative without necessarily providing solutions or alternatives (or, when that is done, is done through solutions that are quite superficial and don't necessarily tackle the initial issue). This is partially due on how the DIP is structure, in which de facto commenting increases the amount of point, and part due to the human nature: sounding pessimism and being critic is the easiest way to sound smart to be blunt. (note: nothing against seed here or anyone in particular. It is what it is, and is a byproduct of our dao growing more and more over time).
For the reason above, I hope this program will indeed elevate the quality of new contributors, and this is why I am voting in favor. I share the concern that of the 193k allocated only 30k goes to analysts: to me it means that the expectation, end of program, is to have 20 kickass black belt governance analysts, I am expecting no less with an opex of 160k.
I also think we should find a way for weaponize these new analysts, and right now one of the biggest gap we have is the protocols' participations. We should find a way to advertise this pool of participants to protocols (a bit hard: every team tends to internalize people that they trust, not necessarily suggested by third party sources). I also suggest to select people with also a technical background, that have experience in designing protocols, tokenomics and lst. We don't need only people that know about governance, we also need people who are technically knowleageable, cause up to some degree we saw partially the limitation of knowledge of delegates during the working group for designing arb staking. I would really like to have more people that have been builders to be trained in governance.
Finally, i agree that DIP kpi are not the right one here. Success, to me, means that the trained analyst end up contributing to our dao, either through specific dao roles, or by being integrated in protocols as part of their personnel etc.
All in all I don't have all the answers to the questions above, and I hope @RikaGoldberg and gang will iterate between this and tally to try and address some of these concerns.
After carefully reviewing all responses and considering other delegates’ feedback, I’ve decided to vote in favor. My reasons are: 1. This proposal builds on the V1 pilot and incorporates previous lessons and feedback to create a more refined V2 plan. This iterative improvement will help the Arbitrum DAO continually optimize the composition and quality of its governance participants. 2. Clear KPIs will measure the effectiveness of training Governance Analysts and Fellows, providing a basis for future evaluations and ongoing improvements. 3. A comprehensive selection and training process will enable promising newcomers to quickly integrate and receive guidance, continually injecting fresh talent into the DAO.
Voting AGAINST this proposal
We think there are some positive aspects of the onboarding program/proposal: -onboarding materials creation (v1 created the onboarding hub) -recognizing protocols need good delegates and trying to help them do so.
Voting AGAINST this proposal
We think there are some positive aspects of the onboarding program/proposal: -onboarding materials creation (v1 created the onboarding hub) -recognizing protocols need good delegates and trying to help them do so.
but the questions and negatives in our opinion outweigh it: -this thread has 86 replies. is the DAO in desperate need of more delegates and activity? -does seeking and training random people and assigning them to protocols make sense?
in our opinion the key things highlighted are: Governance needs education. in our opinion this is absolutely true. it took us a while to get up to speed on both logistics, tech, and background.
But in our opinion a workshop, homework and calls for a select group of people is not the best way.
Educational material, perhaps produced by Manu, made availalbe online for all delegates, or wannabe delegates, would be amazing and beneficial for all delegates here.
Expanding/revamping the onboarding hub into a general onboarding hub for arbitrum delegates, and keeping it up to date, would be an amazing use of arbitrum resources that woudl help the DAO
protocols need good delegates protocol teams are often busy building and may not be able to govern well. but they often have communities of people who may be interested in doing so.
If there is a training program, it may make sense to to do so through a grant, fellowship, or training program that is directed towards protocols to hire or onboard community members to represent their interests in the DAO or help them govern their ARB treasuries.
In our opinion the current version of this proposal targeting general onboarding to the DAO doesnt make a ton of sense, but
may make sense, and would be much easier to run.
Happy to jam on either of these in the delegate tg chat or DMs.
Thanks @RikaGoldberg for this proposal.
We have voted for the Arbitrum Onboarding V2 proposal. We think it helps new people learn how to join and work in the DAO. The program teaches important skills and makes it easier for everyone to understand and take part in governance. It will bring fresh ideas and more voices to the Arbitrum community. And it's 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.
We are voting FOR the proposal 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 proposal in the Snapshot voting.
We are in favor of the onboarding program as it represents a strategic approach to growing our governance ecosystem with fresh talent and diverse perspectives.
We support this initiative because it creates a structured pathway for new contributors to learn and engage with Arbitrum DAO. The program's focus on diversity, skill development, and providing opportunities for participants to become governance fellows with monetary stipends makes it a key catalyst for expanding our ecosystem and bringing fresh perspectives into our governance process.
We believe the outcome of this initiative will be on the positive side and the program will be a success.
gm,
I’ve voted AGAINST this program.
I’m skeptical about its potential impact and think resources could be better spent on onboarding more Arbitrum protocols into governance, as others have suggested. Why aren’t these protocols involved already? If they lack analysts, we could focus on helping them recruit and train talent rather than using a top-down push approach.
gm,
I’ve voted AGAINST this program.
I’m skeptical about its potential impact and think resources could be better spent on onboarding more Arbitrum protocols into governance, as others have suggested. Why aren’t these protocols involved already? If they lack analysts, we could focus on helping them recruit and train talent rather than using a top-down push approach.
As it stands, the proposal and its KPIs feel more like funding participation for participation’s sake, without a clear path to meaningful results.
The compensation structure for the working group also seems out of step with market standards, raising questions about its efficiency and sustainability.
I hope we can revisit and refine this before moving forward.
After much consideration, I am voting AGAINST this proposal in its current structure.
First, I want to thank @RikaGoldberg and the team for their work on v1 and this proposal. I do believe there is value in a program of this nature, and I would like to see it implemented in the future.
The reasons for my vote against this proposal at this time are as follows:
After much consideration, I am voting AGAINST this proposal in its current structure.
First, I want to thank @RikaGoldberg and the team for their work on v1 and this proposal. I do believe there is value in a program of this nature, and I would like to see it implemented in the future.
The reasons for my vote against this proposal at this time are as follows:
I disagree with using the DIP metrics to evaluate the success of this program, particularly the chosen metrics. Voting is accessible to anyone, and commenting on proposals is too. The challenge and the core work @SEEDGov performs in the DIP lies in assessing the quality of that participation.
There is no prior alignment—at least not shared in this proposal—with Arbitrum protocols for its implementation. I believe that if the DAO is going to fund the training of new participants, it should be with the concrete goal of integrating them into Arbitrum protocols (e.g., DAO leads or DAO analysts), thereby fostering the involvement of builders in governance. As it stands, the proposal and its KPIs seem to focus on funding participants for the sake of participation alone. While this is not inherently wrong, I believe that, given DAO funding, the focus should be different.
Additionally, a suggestion I consider important was not included:
On Governance Analysts and Fellows:
I see a potential flaw in having the DAO fully finance the fellow. The protocol might lack the necessary skin in the game to ensure the fellow learns and receives adequate attention. It might be more interesting to move toward a shared system where protocols cover part of the cost or even commit to reimbursing the DAO if they later hire the fellow.
Lastly, no mechanisms for retaining the fellows have been incorporated, raising doubts about this investment's short-term effectiveness.
Something interesting to consider is what @danielo mentions:
I would spend 30-40k on a research initiative to deeply understand how/why protocols engage or not and what they would like. Then IF the problem is lack of analysts, help them recruit one, but I’d need to see a job description first. And only IF there are no analysts available, then train them.
For all these reasons, I am voting against this proposal. However, I support the idea, and if the proposal is modified to address the points I’ve raised, I will change my vote to support it.
I strongly support this proposal as it aligns with the DAO's vision for improved governance and transparency. However, I suggest adding more details about the implementation steps, addressing potential risks, and incorporating community feedback at key stages to ensure the plan remains aligned with members' expectations.
Castle agrees on the importance of facilitating governance onboarding. We are very well familiar with the intricacies of the DAO and this is surely a positive addition.
We have a few comments on this:
Castle agrees on the importance of facilitating governance onboarding. We are very well familiar with the intricacies of the DAO and this is surely a positive addition.
We have a few comments on this:
We’d also want to make sure that the proposal as it stands doesn’t end up after the two-month period: do you have any plans for what will happen between the protocols and the analysts?
Is there any plan to make sure the work done retains its impact beyond the timeline?
The last point concerns the budget. While it is in line with other programs, it is unclear how the dao will benefit from this program, given the protocols' lack of clear demand for analysts. Of the proposed costs, only $30k will end up going to analysts, with the majority going to op expenses.
While we believe in principle in the need for strong governance participation, we will not be in favour of this proposal without these elements.
I will vote in favor of the proposal on Snapshot. I genuinely believe we need to work toward having more professional and diverse representatives. The updated plan feels more comprehensive—helping newcomers get involved in Arbitrum’s governance while offering clear KPIs and ongoing support. By extending the timeframe and increasing training depth, the governance fellows we train can bring greater long-term value. I’m casting a “yes” vote, hoping this initiative will foster a healthier and more vibrant Arbitrum ecosystem.
The Snapshot went live yesterday. We appreciate your votes!
voting Against on the current offchain proposal because I feel the protocols should pay for this, not the DAO, or at least they should match a little bit of the payment to ensure they are aligned.
I decided to vote in favor. As I mentioned in the discussions a few weeks ago, I believe this is a great opportunity to help newcomers familiarize themselves with the DAO and connect with protocols and delegates. In the long term, this will lead to greater expertise, quality and diversity among delegates. I also appreciate that @RikaGoldberg incorporated community feedback and provided clear KPIs. I'm excited to see this proposal progress in the coming steps!
After reflection, I have ultimately decided to vote "Against" in this proposal. While the goal of training new participants in governance is commendable, I am skeptical about its ultimate impact and benefits for the DAO, especially if these participants do not possess significant voting power. Unfortunately, those without at least 50k ARB will not be eligible for the DIP. As for the "inclusivity aspect," I appreciate crypto's meritocratic nature, where anonymity allows work to be valued solely on its quality, and feel the clause on this proposal may not fully align with that ethos.
The cost of this proposal is substantially higher—twenty times that of the initial pilot—and there seems to be no guaranteed return on investment, as participants could simply apply their new skills in other DAOs.
I voted in favor on Snapshot after listening to ocandocrypto in the bi-weekly call. I believe there is a robust and highly committed team behind this. I think there is an opportunity to continue training current and new members with practical exercises. I understand the importance of inclusion, but I also support and believe that everyone should have the same opportunities to participate in these programs. I hope that the implementation of workshops for the public, for anyone who wants to learn about the ecosystem and build connections, has been considered.
We will be seeking applicants who express an interest and commitment to doing Governance work, therefore they will likely already be Delegates or strongly interested in becoming a Delegate — individually or with an organization.
FranklinDAO agrees with the conerns of @danielo - We believe that there's a key problem of coordination under a unified strategy in Arbitrum. We encourage diversity and more voices in Arbitrum governance, but think that at this time it's more important to prioritize focus and coordination. Training members to be delegates without guaranteeing their participation in the future doesn't solve this problem in our view. Hence, we voted Against this proposal.
Unfortunately i havent received any answer on my questions, which is why i voted NO.
Just voted in favor of this proposal on Snapshot. The team behind this proposal is top-notch, and I’m confident they’ll make it a success. As I mentioned earlier, I like it's meritocratic approach and I'm eager to see the impact this will have on the Arbitrum DAO.
I will vote in favor of the proposal on Snapshot. I do think we need to work towards having better delegates with more expertise and diversity. Although I don't agree that we should impose hard percentages on LGBTQ+ participants, as everyone should be treated equally, I believe the intention is fair.
After reflection, I have ultimately decided to vote "Against" in this proposal. While the goal of training new participants in governance is commendable, I am skeptical about its ultimate impact and benefits for the DAO, especially if these participants do not possess significant voting power. Unfortunately, those without at least 50k ARB will not be eligible for the DIP. As for the "inclusivity aspect," I appreciate crypto's meritocratic nature, where anonymity allows work to be valued solely on its quality, and feel the clause on this proposal may not fully align with that ethos.
The cost of this proposal is substantially higher—twenty times that of the initial pilot—and there seems to be no guaranteed return on investment, as participants could simply apply their new skills in other DAOs.
While I recognize that the mentors could provide considerable value, my main concern is that this proposal does not address the primary governance priority, which is to increase ARB percentage voting. I could support such program if this was its core priority from the start, with having at some point ARB delegated from the DAO Treasury to the participant for example. Thank you for this well-written proposal @RikaGoldberg and for the work done there much appreciated
We will be seeking applicants who express an interest and commitment to doing Governance work, therefore they will likely already be Delegates or strongly interested in becoming a Delegate — individually or with an organization.
Nice! This would greatly enhance the value of this proposal. In fact, many Delegates might also benefit from such training, not just those who are newly joining the DAO.
I think this proposal has the potential to boost both the quality and quantity of participants in DAO, which will make it more sustainable in the long run. Specifically, with a professional leadership team, important decisions can be made more accurately.
As many delegates have mentioned regarding the program's budget, I'm fully convinced that DAO will make the best adjustments to protect funds long-term. So it's worth giving it a shot, and I'll vote yes on Snapshot!
Voting against.
Arbitrum DAO needs to onboard high-quality and diverse (see note 1) governance participants to thrive in the future.
Voting against.
Arbitrum DAO needs to onboard high-quality and diverse (see note 1) governance participants to thrive in the future.
Another problem statement that has been mentioned is that of protocols not participating in governance. However, I don't know if we have a robust understanding of why that is, so we might be solving the wrong problem. I would spend 30-40k on a research initiative to deeply understand how/why protocols engage or not and what they would like. Then IF the problem is lack of analysts, help them recruit one, but I'd need to see a job description first. And only IF there are no analysts available, then train them. Otherwise we're putting the cart before the wheels it seems.
The following is the opinion of Blockworks Advisory.
We appreciate the thoughtful governance proposal and offer a few constructive comments for consideration. The budget seems appropriate especially given the prior work done by the Onboarding Group. As others have pointed out, stickiness is a factor. The V1 program had tracks for cohort contributors to join, like the social media working group, etc. While we appreciate the current structure, there is some merit to the co-op like design from earlier. Matching these people with protocols within the Arbitrum ecosystem makes sense naturally; however, is there some path where these people can be integrated within DAO organizations as well, like the GCP, STEP, GC, or the TMG?
The following is the opinion of Blockworks Advisory.
We appreciate the thoughtful governance proposal and offer a few constructive comments for consideration. The budget seems appropriate especially given the prior work done by the Onboarding Group. As others have pointed out, stickiness is a factor. The V1 program had tracks for cohort contributors to join, like the social media working group, etc. While we appreciate the current structure, there is some merit to the co-op like design from earlier. Matching these people with protocols within the Arbitrum ecosystem makes sense naturally; however, is there some path where these people can be integrated within DAO organizations as well, like the GCP, STEP, GC, or the TMG?
We think that it is a good thing that the program does not guarantee placement within the DAO, as there should be some meritocratic aspect to these analysts for incentivization purposes, but an open path might make sense. To clarify, we are not saying throw out the current structure, but could there exist some possibility for there to be a DAO-specific path (post-grad co-op) and a protocol matching path?
Additionally, were there any thoughst about possibly having the best performing analysts at governance events for the next year? Either at ETHDenver or something along those lines? It’s understandable that this would likely increase the program’s expenses drastically though.
Candidly, we agree that there should be a cap on the managed governance analysts to ensure the quality of the program. 20 people itself is a lot, honestly.
Hi Joe, our objective in V2 is not to increase participants' voting power, but rather to equip them with governance education and hands-on experience. With that said, we are open to exploring voting power in future phases of the Program.
How is this not training more noise if they don’t have voting power? If they don’t receive voting power, what are they being onboarded to? I guess I don’t understand how we do an onboarding program without any paid roles to onboard them to.
As mentioned earlier, we are focused on training participants in Arbitrum DAO governance. At this stage, we believe voting power is unnecessary, as the primary goal is to educate and provide hands-on experience for Governance Analysts. Those who advance from Analysts to Fellows will have the opportunity to engage in voting through the Protocols they are matched with.
Hi @Euphoria thank you for your comments and questions. Please see responses below.
Will there be some specific slots reserved for the “fast-track” participants in the next cohort?
Hi @Euphoria thank you for your comments and questions. Please see responses below.
Will there be some specific slots reserved for the “fast-track” participants in the next cohort?
We haven't thought about the mechanics yet to "fast-track" participants, but reserving specific slots could be a good idea. Thanks for the suggestion.
Have you considered bringing in guest speakers from successful DAOs or governance experts for specific content in the curriculum? This could provide diverse perspectives and reduce dependency on a single facilitator.
We will consider this. Thank you.
Since there’s no guaranteed position after the program, how will you keep participants motivated? Maybe connecting them with current delegates during the program could help them build relationships and find opportunities in the DAO.
This is a good idea. Thank you.
The allocation for Fellow stipends ($30,000) assumes all 10 Fellows will complete the full two months. What contingency plans exist if Fellows drop out mid-program? Would these funds be returned to the DAO or reallocated to other program aspects?
Yes, any unused funds will be returned to the DAO.
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 putting forward this detailed proposal. This proposal is thoughtfully designed to address key barriers in onboarding new contributors to Arbitrum DAO governance.
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 putting forward this detailed proposal. This proposal is thoughtfully designed to address key barriers in onboarding new contributors to Arbitrum DAO governance.
Note 1: In an effort to increase diversity within Arbitrum, we are committed to ensuring that at least 25% of program participants are female/non-binary. This ratio is aligned with the representation in the Pilot Program (V1). We will also focus on inclusivity, creating opportunities for LGBTQ+ and applicants from underrepresented regions, including developing countries, throughout the application and interview process.
The inclusivity target of at least 25% of program participants being female/non-binary is particularly nice, and the structured workshops covering the Proposal Lifecycle and other governance basics are a strong foundation for new participants.
Those not selected for matching will be invited to participate in the next cohort on a “fast-track,” bypassing the application and interview process. This creates a positive feedback loop, providing multiple opportunities for individuals to be matched with a Protocol and contribute to Arbitrum governance.
We like that participants who don't become Fellows can join the next cohort through fast-track. We want to make sure there's always room for new participants while being fair to those who want another chance. Will there be some specific slots reserved for the "fast-track" participants in the next cohort?
While @Manugotsuka's expertise is no doubt valuable, having a single primary facilitator might create a bottleneck. Have you considered bringing in guest speakers from successful DAOs or governance experts for specific content in the curriculum? This could provide diverse perspectives and reduce dependency on a single facilitator.
Note 2: V2 does not guarantee program participants with long-term placement in the DAO.
Since there's no guaranteed position after the program, how will you keep participants motivated? Maybe connecting them with current delegates during the program could help them build relationships and find opportunities in the DAO.
The highest-scoring Governance Analysts (up to 10 individuals), based on rubric evaluations, will graduate to become Governance Fellows and will be matched with a protocol to assist with governance work.
The allocation for Fellow stipends ($30,000) assumes all 10 Fellows will complete the full two months. What contingency plans exist if Fellows drop out mid-program? Would these funds be returned to the DAO or reallocated to other program aspects?
I'm not able to square up what this proposal intends as impact.
Outcome seems to be that new people to the DAO will be able to participate more effectively. How much of voting power will this affect?
I don't see a need to help people to do something that has little effect.
I'm not able to square up what this proposal intends as impact.
Outcome seems to be that new people to the DAO will be able to participate more effectively. How much of voting power will this affect?
I don't see a need to help people to do something that has little effect.
How is this not training more noise if they don't have voting power? If they don't receive voting power, what are they being onboarded to? I guess I don't understand how we do an onboarding program without any paid roles to onboard them to.
Great work on this proposal—it's got a lot of detail. I just wanted to flag one thing to discuss:
Incorporate Long-Term Impact Metrics. The focus on hands-on exercises and graduation to Fellows is sound, but the program must also include clear metrics that measure its impact on the DAO over the long term. This will help us assess not only the immediate success of participants, but also their sustained contribution to the ecosystem.
Great work on this proposal—it's got a lot of detail. I just wanted to flag one thing to discuss:
Incorporate Long-Term Impact Metrics. The focus on hands-on exercises and graduation to Fellows is sound, but the program must also include clear metrics that measure its impact on the DAO over the long term. This will help us assess not only the immediate success of participants, but also their sustained contribution to the ecosystem.
The top 10 submissions will be eligible to be matched with an Arbitrum Protocol where they will acquire real-world governance experience as Governance Fellows
Include these metrics to assess impact more effectively and communicate it to the community. This will ensure continued support for future iterations of the program. We measure contributions to DAO in two ways:
Thank you, Daniel. At this early stage of the Program, as we focus on building the proof-of-concept, we believe Protocols should not contribute to subsidizing the stipend. However, we will revisit this consideration in a future iteration of the program.
Regarding a list of Protocols interested in hiring, we are actively doing inbound and outbound work to identify Protocols that are interested in being matched with a Fellow.
Thank you, Daniel. At this early stage of the Program, as we focus on building the proof-of-concept, we believe Protocols should not contribute to subsidizing the stipend. However, we will revisit this consideration in a future iteration of the program.
Regarding a list of Protocols interested in hiring, we are actively doing inbound and outbound work to identify Protocols that are interested in being matched with a Fellow.
Regarding your last point about a governance analyst supporting minority projects, we agree. Our goal is to collaborate with Protocols that need help to increase their governance participation.
From the Argonaut team, we would like to see further details on how you plan to retain the grantees
From the Argonaut team, we would like to see further details on how you plan to retain the grantees
We believe that implementing a selective application and interview process that focuses on an individual’s long-term commitment, intrinsic motivation, and self-starter qualities will better ensure Fellows stay actively engaged with Arbitrum governance beyond the Fellowship period.
Is this something you are considering? How do you currently plan to measure the program’s success?
Yes, we are definitely considering it. We will share an updated proposal next week with clear KPIs. These KPIs will be based on the metrics tracked in the Delegate Incentive Program.
While KPIs are mentioned, it would be valuable to specify them upfront.
Agreed! We will share an updated proposal next week with clear KPIs. These KPIs will be based on the metrics tracked in the Delegate Incentive Program.
Finally, to increase the visibility of this program, reference was made to the DAO’s official social media channels and a Twitter space. We think that reaching out to universities, particularly those that offer blockchain-related courses could prove valuable, given that it is likely such students may be interested in getting some real-world experience within the space, but may find the Web3 space a little intimidating. For example, one of our hires recently completed his Master of Science in Blockchain and Distributed Technology at the University of Malta, which includes a unit requiring them to actively participate within the Web3 space to earn their credits. Collaborating with such institutions could align perfectly with the program’s goals, help build synergies, and increase awareness of Arbitrum DAO.
Outlining clear KPIs at this stage would strengthen the proposal. Some examples which come to mind include the number of proposals for which program graduates contributed, retention rates of Governance fellows in DAO activities and feedback from protocols on the contributions of matched Fellows.
We noted that several replies highlighted retention as a critical factor for the long-term success of this initiative. A possible solution could involve creating a shared resource (e.g. a Google Sheet) where protocols, delegates, or service providers can list part-time opportunities, internships, or areas where they need support. Participants could use this resource to identify roles that align with their interests, availability, and compensation expectations (if any), making it easier for them to stay engaged within the ecosystem.
While we second the importance of a meritocratic and inclusive approach, we feel that that note to “ensure that at least 25% of program participants are female/non-binary” may contradict this principle, and rather should be addressed during the outreach phase. On this note, how do you intend to ensure this, given that the candidates will be scored against the evaluation criteria set out? (Although the intentions are benevolent here, this could also easily be gamed as well)
First of all, thank you to Rika and the team for drafting this well-thought-out proposal. We believe that this builds on the V1 program and creates a pathway to attract new talent and voices to the DAO, delivering long-term benefits
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Joseph.
Offering participants who meaningfully contributed to the V1 the opportunity to speak or contribute to the program. These individuals can share their first-hand experiences, lessons learned, and practical advice with the new cohort, integrating them further into the Arbitrum ecosystem, while providing relatable insights for incoming participants.
Looking at this proposal, the emphasis on practical exercises, such as commenting on proposals and drafting mock governance submissions, is compelling. We appreciate the transparent breakdown of the budget and the detailed curriculum.
One of the main challenges with such programs is retaining participants after the fellowship ends. While the proposal mentions guidance and support for Fellows, it would be beneficial to outline concrete mechanisms for retention. For example:
After reflection, I have ultimately decided to vote "Against" in this proposal. While the goal of training new participants in governance is commendable, I am skeptical about its ultimate impact and benefits for the DAO, especially if these participants do not possess significant voting power. Unfortunately, those without at least 50k ARB will not be eligible for the DIP. As for the "inclusivity aspect," I appreciate crypto's meritocratic nature, where anonymity allows work to be valued solely on its quality, and feel the clause on this proposal may not fully align with that ethos.
The cost of this proposal is substantially higher—twenty times that of the initial pilot—and there seems to be no guaranteed return on investment, as participants could simply apply their new skills in other DAOs.
While I recognize that the mentors could provide considerable value, my main concern is that this proposal does not address the primary governance priority, which is to increase ARB percentage voting. I could support such program if this was its core priority from the start, with having at some point ARB delegated from the DAO Treasury to the participant for example. Thank you for this well-written proposal @RikaGoldberg and for the work done there much appreciated
We will be seeking applicants who express an interest and commitment to doing Governance work, therefore they will likely already be Delegates or strongly interested in becoming a Delegate — individually or with an organization.
Nice! This would greatly enhance the value of this proposal. In fact, many Delegates might also benefit from such training, not just those who are newly joining the DAO.
I think this proposal has the potential to boost both the quality and quantity of participants in DAO, which will make it more sustainable in the long run. Specifically, with a professional leadership team, important decisions can be made more accurately.
As many delegates have mentioned regarding the program's budget, I'm fully convinced that DAO will make the best adjustments to protect funds long-term. So it's worth giving it a shot, and I'll vote yes on Snapshot!
Voting against.
Arbitrum DAO needs to onboard high-quality and diverse (see note 1) governance participants to thrive in the future.
Voting against.
Arbitrum DAO needs to onboard high-quality and diverse (see note 1) governance participants to thrive in the future.
Another problem statement that has been mentioned is that of protocols not participating in governance. However, I don't know if we have a robust understanding of why that is, so we might be solving the wrong problem. I would spend 30-40k on a research initiative to deeply understand how/why protocols engage or not and what they would like. Then IF the problem is lack of analysts, help them recruit one, but I'd need to see a job description first. And only IF there are no analysts available, then train them. Otherwise we're putting the cart before the wheels it seems.
The following is the opinion of Blockworks Advisory.
We appreciate the thoughtful governance proposal and offer a few constructive comments for consideration. The budget seems appropriate especially given the prior work done by the Onboarding Group. As others have pointed out, stickiness is a factor. The V1 program had tracks for cohort contributors to join, like the social media working group, etc. While we appreciate the current structure, there is some merit to the co-op like design from earlier. Matching these people with protocols within the Arbitrum ecosystem makes sense naturally; however, is there some path where these people can be integrated within DAO organizations as well, like the GCP, STEP, GC, or the TMG?
The following is the opinion of Blockworks Advisory.
We appreciate the thoughtful governance proposal and offer a few constructive comments for consideration. The budget seems appropriate especially given the prior work done by the Onboarding Group. As others have pointed out, stickiness is a factor. The V1 program had tracks for cohort contributors to join, like the social media working group, etc. While we appreciate the current structure, there is some merit to the co-op like design from earlier. Matching these people with protocols within the Arbitrum ecosystem makes sense naturally; however, is there some path where these people can be integrated within DAO organizations as well, like the GCP, STEP, GC, or the TMG?
We think that it is a good thing that the program does not guarantee placement within the DAO, as there should be some meritocratic aspect to these analysts for incentivization purposes, but an open path might make sense. To clarify, we are not saying throw out the current structure, but could there exist some possibility for there to be a DAO-specific path (post-grad co-op) and a protocol matching path?
Additionally, were there any thoughst about possibly having the best performing analysts at governance events for the next year? Either at ETHDenver or something along those lines? It’s understandable that this would likely increase the program’s expenses drastically though.
Candidly, we agree that there should be a cap on the managed governance analysts to ensure the quality of the program. 20 people itself is a lot, honestly.
Hi Joe, our objective in V2 is not to increase participants' voting power, but rather to equip them with governance education and hands-on experience. With that said, we are open to exploring voting power in future phases of the Program.
How is this not training more noise if they don’t have voting power? If they don’t receive voting power, what are they being onboarded to? I guess I don’t understand how we do an onboarding program without any paid roles to onboard them to.
As mentioned earlier, we are focused on training participants in Arbitrum DAO governance. At this stage, we believe voting power is unnecessary, as the primary goal is to educate and provide hands-on experience for Governance Analysts. Those who advance from Analysts to Fellows will have the opportunity to engage in voting through the Protocols they are matched with.
Hi @Euphoria thank you for your comments and questions. Please see responses below.
Will there be some specific slots reserved for the “fast-track” participants in the next cohort?
Hi @Euphoria thank you for your comments and questions. Please see responses below.
Will there be some specific slots reserved for the “fast-track” participants in the next cohort?
We haven't thought about the mechanics yet to "fast-track" participants, but reserving specific slots could be a good idea. Thanks for the suggestion.
Have you considered bringing in guest speakers from successful DAOs or governance experts for specific content in the curriculum? This could provide diverse perspectives and reduce dependency on a single facilitator.
We will consider this. Thank you.
Since there’s no guaranteed position after the program, how will you keep participants motivated? Maybe connecting them with current delegates during the program could help them build relationships and find opportunities in the DAO.
This is a good idea. Thank you.
The allocation for Fellow stipends ($30,000) assumes all 10 Fellows will complete the full two months. What contingency plans exist if Fellows drop out mid-program? Would these funds be returned to the DAO or reallocated to other program aspects?
Yes, any unused funds will be returned to the DAO.
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 putting forward this detailed proposal. This proposal is thoughtfully designed to address key barriers in onboarding new contributors to Arbitrum DAO governance.
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 putting forward this detailed proposal. This proposal is thoughtfully designed to address key barriers in onboarding new contributors to Arbitrum DAO governance.
Note 1: In an effort to increase diversity within Arbitrum, we are committed to ensuring that at least 25% of program participants are female/non-binary. This ratio is aligned with the representation in the Pilot Program (V1). We will also focus on inclusivity, creating opportunities for LGBTQ+ and applicants from underrepresented regions, including developing countries, throughout the application and interview process.
The inclusivity target of at least 25% of program participants being female/non-binary is particularly nice, and the structured workshops covering the Proposal Lifecycle and other governance basics are a strong foundation for new participants.
Those not selected for matching will be invited to participate in the next cohort on a “fast-track,” bypassing the application and interview process. This creates a positive feedback loop, providing multiple opportunities for individuals to be matched with a Protocol and contribute to Arbitrum governance.
We like that participants who don't become Fellows can join the next cohort through fast-track. We want to make sure there's always room for new participants while being fair to those who want another chance. Will there be some specific slots reserved for the "fast-track" participants in the next cohort?
While @Manugotsuka's expertise is no doubt valuable, having a single primary facilitator might create a bottleneck. Have you considered bringing in guest speakers from successful DAOs or governance experts for specific content in the curriculum? This could provide diverse perspectives and reduce dependency on a single facilitator.
Note 2: V2 does not guarantee program participants with long-term placement in the DAO.
Since there's no guaranteed position after the program, how will you keep participants motivated? Maybe connecting them with current delegates during the program could help them build relationships and find opportunities in the DAO.
The highest-scoring Governance Analysts (up to 10 individuals), based on rubric evaluations, will graduate to become Governance Fellows and will be matched with a protocol to assist with governance work.
The allocation for Fellow stipends ($30,000) assumes all 10 Fellows will complete the full two months. What contingency plans exist if Fellows drop out mid-program? Would these funds be returned to the DAO or reallocated to other program aspects?
I'm not able to square up what this proposal intends as impact.
Outcome seems to be that new people to the DAO will be able to participate more effectively. How much of voting power will this affect?
I don't see a need to help people to do something that has little effect.
I'm not able to square up what this proposal intends as impact.
Outcome seems to be that new people to the DAO will be able to participate more effectively. How much of voting power will this affect?
I don't see a need to help people to do something that has little effect.
How is this not training more noise if they don't have voting power? If they don't receive voting power, what are they being onboarded to? I guess I don't understand how we do an onboarding program without any paid roles to onboard them to.
Great work on this proposal—it's got a lot of detail. I just wanted to flag one thing to discuss:
Incorporate Long-Term Impact Metrics. The focus on hands-on exercises and graduation to Fellows is sound, but the program must also include clear metrics that measure its impact on the DAO over the long term. This will help us assess not only the immediate success of participants, but also their sustained contribution to the ecosystem.
Great work on this proposal—it's got a lot of detail. I just wanted to flag one thing to discuss:
Incorporate Long-Term Impact Metrics. The focus on hands-on exercises and graduation to Fellows is sound, but the program must also include clear metrics that measure its impact on the DAO over the long term. This will help us assess not only the immediate success of participants, but also their sustained contribution to the ecosystem.
The top 10 submissions will be eligible to be matched with an Arbitrum Protocol where they will acquire real-world governance experience as Governance Fellows
Include these metrics to assess impact more effectively and communicate it to the community. This will ensure continued support for future iterations of the program. We measure contributions to DAO in two ways:
Thank you, Daniel. At this early stage of the Program, as we focus on building the proof-of-concept, we believe Protocols should not contribute to subsidizing the stipend. However, we will revisit this consideration in a future iteration of the program.
Regarding a list of Protocols interested in hiring, we are actively doing inbound and outbound work to identify Protocols that are interested in being matched with a Fellow.
Thank you, Daniel. At this early stage of the Program, as we focus on building the proof-of-concept, we believe Protocols should not contribute to subsidizing the stipend. However, we will revisit this consideration in a future iteration of the program.
Regarding a list of Protocols interested in hiring, we are actively doing inbound and outbound work to identify Protocols that are interested in being matched with a Fellow.
Regarding your last point about a governance analyst supporting minority projects, we agree. Our goal is to collaborate with Protocols that need help to increase their governance participation.
From the Argonaut team, we would like to see further details on how you plan to retain the grantees
From the Argonaut team, we would like to see further details on how you plan to retain the grantees
We believe that implementing a selective application and interview process that focuses on an individual’s long-term commitment, intrinsic motivation, and self-starter qualities will better ensure Fellows stay actively engaged with Arbitrum governance beyond the Fellowship period.
Is this something you are considering? How do you currently plan to measure the program’s success?
Yes, we are definitely considering it. We will share an updated proposal next week with clear KPIs. These KPIs will be based on the metrics tracked in the Delegate Incentive Program.
While KPIs are mentioned, it would be valuable to specify them upfront.
Agreed! We will share an updated proposal next week with clear KPIs. These KPIs will be based on the metrics tracked in the Delegate Incentive Program.
Finally, to increase the visibility of this program, reference was made to the DAO’s official social media channels and a Twitter space. We think that reaching out to universities, particularly those that offer blockchain-related courses could prove valuable, given that it is likely such students may be interested in getting some real-world experience within the space, but may find the Web3 space a little intimidating. For example, one of our hires recently completed his Master of Science in Blockchain and Distributed Technology at the University of Malta, which includes a unit requiring them to actively participate within the Web3 space to earn their credits. Collaborating with such institutions could align perfectly with the program’s goals, help build synergies, and increase awareness of Arbitrum DAO.
Outlining clear KPIs at this stage would strengthen the proposal. Some examples which come to mind include the number of proposals for which program graduates contributed, retention rates of Governance fellows in DAO activities and feedback from protocols on the contributions of matched Fellows.
We noted that several replies highlighted retention as a critical factor for the long-term success of this initiative. A possible solution could involve creating a shared resource (e.g. a Google Sheet) where protocols, delegates, or service providers can list part-time opportunities, internships, or areas where they need support. Participants could use this resource to identify roles that align with their interests, availability, and compensation expectations (if any), making it easier for them to stay engaged within the ecosystem.
While we second the importance of a meritocratic and inclusive approach, we feel that that note to “ensure that at least 25% of program participants are female/non-binary” may contradict this principle, and rather should be addressed during the outreach phase. On this note, how do you intend to ensure this, given that the candidates will be scored against the evaluation criteria set out? (Although the intentions are benevolent here, this could also easily be gamed as well)
First of all, thank you to Rika and the team for drafting this well-thought-out proposal. We believe that this builds on the V1 program and creates a pathway to attract new talent and voices to the DAO, delivering long-term benefits
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Joseph.
Offering participants who meaningfully contributed to the V1 the opportunity to speak or contribute to the program. These individuals can share their first-hand experiences, lessons learned, and practical advice with the new cohort, integrating them further into the Arbitrum ecosystem, while providing relatable insights for incoming participants.
Looking at this proposal, the emphasis on practical exercises, such as commenting on proposals and drafting mock governance submissions, is compelling. We appreciate the transparent breakdown of the budget and the detailed curriculum.
One of the main challenges with such programs is retaining participants after the fellowship ends. While the proposal mentions guidance and support for Fellows, it would be beneficial to outline concrete mechanisms for retention. For example:
Thank you for this suggestion. We believe the best way to ensure retention is through a selective application process that evaluates an individual’s long-term commitment, intrinsic motivation, and self-starter qualities. This approach will help ensure Fellows remain engaged with Arbitrum governance even after their Fellowship concludes.
Finally, to increase the visibility of this program, reference was made to the DAO’s official social media channels and a Twitter space. We think that reaching out to universities, particularly those that offer blockchain-related courses could prove valuable, given that it is likely such students may be interested in getting some real-world experience within the space, but may find the Web3 space a little intimidating. For example, one of our hires recently completed his Master of Science in Blockchain and Distributed Technology at the University of Malta, which includes a unit requiring them to actively participate within the Web3 space to earn their credits. Collaborating with such institutions could align perfectly with the program’s goals, help build synergies, and increase awareness of Arbitrum DAO.
Thank you for this suggestion.
Outlining clear KPIs at this stage would strengthen the proposal. Some examples which come to mind include the number of proposals for which program graduates contributed, retention rates of Governance fellows in DAO activities and feedback from protocols on the contributions of matched Fellows.
Thank you. We will share an updated proposal next week with clear KPIs. These KPIs will be based on the metrics tracked in the Delegate Incentive Program.
We noted that several replies highlighted retention as a critical factor for the long-term success of this initiative. A possible solution could involve creating a shared resource (e.g. a Google Sheet) where protocols, delegates, or service providers can list part-time opportunities, internships, or areas where they need support. Participants could use this resource to identify roles that align with their interests, availability, and compensation expectations (if any), making it easier for them to stay engaged within the ecosystem.
Thank you. We will consider this suggestion.
While we second the importance of a meritocratic and inclusive approach, we feel that that note to “ensure that at least 25% of program participants are female/non-binary” may contradict this principle, and rather should be addressed during the outreach phase. On this note, how do you intend to ensure this, given that the candidates will be scored against the evaluation criteria set out? (Although the intentions are benevolent here, this could also easily be gamed as well)
We plan to use the Rubric shared in the proposal and to reach team consensus on each applicant before moving forward.
Offering participants who meaningfully contributed to the V1 the opportunity to speak or contribute to the program. These individuals can share their first-hand experiences, lessons learned, and practical advice with the new cohort, integrating them further into the Arbitrum ecosystem, while providing relatable insights for incoming participants.
This is a good idea! We will consider this suggestion.
Looking at this proposal, the emphasis on practical exercises, such as commenting on proposals and drafting mock governance submissions, is compelling. We appreciate the transparent breakdown of the budget and the detailed curriculum.
One of the main challenges with such programs is retaining participants after the fellowship ends. While the proposal mentions guidance and support for Fellows, it would be beneficial to outline concrete mechanisms for retention. For example:
Measuring Success:
Overall, we think the compensation for the working group members is reasonable for their expertise and efforts. We think this program has great potential to elevate the quality and engagement of Arbitrum's governance.
First of all, thank you to Rika and the team for drafting this well-thought-out proposal. We believe that this builds on the V1 program and creates a pathway to attract new talent and voices to the DAO, delivering long-term benefits. Below are some additional ideas and suggestions to enhance the proposal further:
First of all, thank you to Rika and the team for drafting this well-thought-out proposal. We believe that this builds on the V1 program and creates a pathway to attract new talent and voices to the DAO, delivering long-term benefits. Below are some additional ideas and suggestions to enhance the proposal further:
Once again, thank you for putting together such a thoughtful and impactful proposal. With these refinements, we believe the program could have an even greater impact on strengthening Arbitrum DAO’s governance ecosystem.
Kind regards, Joseph Axis Advisory
On point 4, yes, I mean the curator, Course Facilitator
I'm a bit unsure. I see a well-constructed proposal, but I keep wondering if the DAO should pay for this.
Then, what's the value of protocols engaging... well that indeed helps the DAO be governed by (somewhat) incentive-aligned actors. But should it be only the dao paying to upskill people?
I'm a bit unsure. I see a well-constructed proposal, but I keep wondering if the DAO should pay for this.
Then, what's the value of protocols engaging... well that indeed helps the DAO be governed by (somewhat) incentive-aligned actors. But should it be only the dao paying to upskill people?
So, I'm thinking the proposal could be taken a bit further. The idea would be to tighten the "so what" part of this proposal. A few ideas to be explored:
Something in that direction would help
As outlined by @cpox, scaling the program to include more than 20 Governance Analysts could broaden its impact, especially given that only 10 will receive compensation, thus, not increasing the program’s financial burden.
As outlined by @cpox, scaling the program to include more than 20 Governance Analysts could broaden its impact, especially given that only 10 will receive compensation, thus, not increasing the program’s financial burden.
While we recognize that scaling the program could broaden its impact, at this proof-of-concept stage, our priority is quality over quantity. We aim to onboard a small group of highly impactful individuals (up to 10, though even 3-5 would suffice) who can drive meaningful impact in the DAO. Once we demonstrate tangible results, we can focus on scaling the program in future iterations.
I think this is a pretty well-thought-out proposal and I don’t have much to critique. Seems like a unique project to try and attract talent that won’t cost that DAO that much. Probably my only concern would be ‘stickiness’ of the Governance Analysts to be able to remain employed by the Ten Protocols. A lot of that is beyond our control, but has there been any discussion on ensuring these analysts have a long-term impact? Whether that is front-end stuff (deciding which 10 protocols to pick) or the back-end (if there is analyst that just loses their job 2 months in there are backup protocols or a pool or potential protocols to rotate to?).
Also, just as an idea... I forget whatever happened of that one proposal to take like a million ARB from the treasury and give it to lesser delegates to de-centralize some of the voting power… but maybe if that ever becomes relevant again this could be a good project to train people for that. So even if some of these analysts don't work long at the other protocols we have a crop of users to work in that capacity.
Thank you for the proposal. Overall, it looks solid, and we understand how challenging it is to onboard delegates—it requires understanding, expertise, and passion. We’re excited to see how much value this experiment could bring to the DAO, as it offers a valuable learning opportunity. We don’t have much to add regarding the budget, as other delegates have already raised their concerns.
Thanks for your reply. We are asking what "onboard high-quality and diverse governance participants into the DAO" exactly means in a quantifiable way (e.g. a predefined KPI) and whether it is possible to consider a portion of the compensation would be paid out based on the achievement of the KPI.
To clarify, are you asking if we have a retention plan after Fellows complete their 2 months with a Protocol?
we are asking if there is a plan outside protocols
I read the feedback from participants and the available data on the results of the program, however I would like to know if you could provide more info about the long-term results of the program. How many participants have actually actively entered and integrated the DAO? How many took part in it and then didn’t pursue? I’m asking this cause I think that it’s a key element to evaluate the success of the previous version
I read the feedback from participants and the available data on the results of the program, however I would like to know if you could provide more info about the long-term results of the program. How many participants have actually actively entered and integrated the DAO? How many took part in it and then didn’t pursue? I’m asking this cause I think that it’s a key element to evaluate the success of the previous version
In V1, 52 participants were matched to a Fellowship, and 17 of them were added to a DAO’s New Contributors List. For more details, see the Milestone 3 Report here. Notably, one of the new contributors, @san, has become a valuable member in the Onboarding Working Group.
V1 was a significantly lower-effort, less formal, and less selective program compared to V2. Additionally, V1 had a different objective: rather than training Governance Analysts, the focus was on helping participants identify and address problem areas within the DAO, such as social media, business development, and developer relations.
during the bi-weekly call it was mentioned that V2 wasn’t going to focus on newcomers only, aiming to bring diversity among applicants. My question here is: how do you intend to diversify levels in order for everyone to make progress?
I also echo some other comments concerning the selection process. How do you intend to provide transparency? Do you have specific criterias and scores?
You are not the first person to bring up this suggestion! We will explore the idea of creating levels in the curriculum.
We will share the application and selection criteria with the DAO; however, to protect individuals' privacy, we will not disclose names or specific applications. If you have suggestions on how to make the application and interview process more transparent while maintaining privacy, we would appreciate your input!
Yes, exactly. Writing a proposal as an exercise, rather than the final deliverable in V1, will alleviate the pressure that participants felt.
What’s your plan to help this bootcamp get visibility? Do you intend to make any changes or improvements compared to the previous version?
Yes, we plan to have a Twitter/X space and market the initiative through the DAO’s official social media channels.
We would like to start by stating that we find this proposal highly valuable for the DAO, as it aims to attract and involve high-quality delegates. We also deeply appreciate the time you dedicate to responding to everyone.
From the Argonaut team, we would like to see further details on how you plan to retain the grantees. We believe it is crucial for participants to continue contributing to the DAO beyond the two months of paid engagement, and we are unsure if this approach is the most effective way to achieve that goal. For example, just as grantees must meet specific objectives to receive the grant, perhaps additional goals could be introduced to maintain it. The grant amount could also be divided into performance-based rewards tied to achievements over an extended period.
We would like to start by stating that we find this proposal highly valuable for the DAO, as it aims to attract and involve high-quality delegates. We also deeply appreciate the time you dedicate to responding to everyone.
From the Argonaut team, we would like to see further details on how you plan to retain the grantees. We believe it is crucial for participants to continue contributing to the DAO beyond the two months of paid engagement, and we are unsure if this approach is the most effective way to achieve that goal. For example, just as grantees must meet specific objectives to receive the grant, perhaps additional goals could be introduced to maintain it. The grant amount could also be divided into performance-based rewards tied to achievements over an extended period.
Additionally, we think it is important to evaluate the program’s success by analyzing whether participants and/or grantees from all iterations of the program continue contributing to the DAO several months after completing a cycle. This would provide a more comprehensive view of how much the program has contributed to the DAO. Is this something you are considering? How do you currently plan to measure the program's success?
Thanks @Gabriel. We are actively working on creating KPIs. As a start, we are thinking of creating KPIs that are aligned with the Delegate Incentive Program, e.g, commenting on proposals & posting voting rationale. If you have suggestions for KPIs, we would love to hear them!
My question concerns the governance fellows. Based on this post, a/the measure of success for this initiative is matching these fellows to an Arbitrum protocol. Several delegates highlighted the possibility of increasing that number from 10 to maybe 20. However, my question is, what is the plan if there are not enough protocols looking to bring in these governance fellows?
Hi @Tekr0x.eth, our objective in V2 is not to increase participants' DAO voting power, but we are open to exploring this in a future phase of the Program.
@RikaGoldberg , Thank you for addressing my questions. Regarding transparency in the selection process, I believe it would be more beneficial to provide a summarized overview of key information (such as experiences, skills, etc.) in an anonymized format, rather than sharing individual applications. While I understand the value of sharing the selection criteria, I think this approach would be sufficient.
My only question is whether the recruitment for this proposal is limited to Delegates, non-Delegates, or if both are eligible?
Firstly, we should agree on implementing retrospective compensation policies for onboarding participants who invest significant time and effort to become active DAO members. However, I still have concerns: if, after extensive training, we are unable to retain these representatives, what would be the point of this initiative? I would like to hear your personal thoughts on this, Rika.
Thank you for this suggestion. We believe the best way to ensure retention is through a selective application process that evaluates an individual’s long-term commitment, intrinsic motivation, and self-starter qualities. This approach will help ensure Fellows remain engaged with Arbitrum governance even after their Fellowship concludes.
Finally, to increase the visibility of this program, reference was made to the DAO’s official social media channels and a Twitter space. We think that reaching out to universities, particularly those that offer blockchain-related courses could prove valuable, given that it is likely such students may be interested in getting some real-world experience within the space, but may find the Web3 space a little intimidating. For example, one of our hires recently completed his Master of Science in Blockchain and Distributed Technology at the University of Malta, which includes a unit requiring them to actively participate within the Web3 space to earn their credits. Collaborating with such institutions could align perfectly with the program’s goals, help build synergies, and increase awareness of Arbitrum DAO.
Thank you for this suggestion.
Outlining clear KPIs at this stage would strengthen the proposal. Some examples which come to mind include the number of proposals for which program graduates contributed, retention rates of Governance fellows in DAO activities and feedback from protocols on the contributions of matched Fellows.
Thank you. We will share an updated proposal next week with clear KPIs. These KPIs will be based on the metrics tracked in the Delegate Incentive Program.
We noted that several replies highlighted retention as a critical factor for the long-term success of this initiative. A possible solution could involve creating a shared resource (e.g. a Google Sheet) where protocols, delegates, or service providers can list part-time opportunities, internships, or areas where they need support. Participants could use this resource to identify roles that align with their interests, availability, and compensation expectations (if any), making it easier for them to stay engaged within the ecosystem.
Thank you. We will consider this suggestion.
While we second the importance of a meritocratic and inclusive approach, we feel that that note to “ensure that at least 25% of program participants are female/non-binary” may contradict this principle, and rather should be addressed during the outreach phase. On this note, how do you intend to ensure this, given that the candidates will be scored against the evaluation criteria set out? (Although the intentions are benevolent here, this could also easily be gamed as well)
We plan to use the Rubric shared in the proposal and to reach team consensus on each applicant before moving forward.
Offering participants who meaningfully contributed to the V1 the opportunity to speak or contribute to the program. These individuals can share their first-hand experiences, lessons learned, and practical advice with the new cohort, integrating them further into the Arbitrum ecosystem, while providing relatable insights for incoming participants.
This is a good idea! We will consider this suggestion.
Looking at this proposal, the emphasis on practical exercises, such as commenting on proposals and drafting mock governance submissions, is compelling. We appreciate the transparent breakdown of the budget and the detailed curriculum.
One of the main challenges with such programs is retaining participants after the fellowship ends. While the proposal mentions guidance and support for Fellows, it would be beneficial to outline concrete mechanisms for retention. For example:
Measuring Success:
Overall, we think the compensation for the working group members is reasonable for their expertise and efforts. We think this program has great potential to elevate the quality and engagement of Arbitrum's governance.
First of all, thank you to Rika and the team for drafting this well-thought-out proposal. We believe that this builds on the V1 program and creates a pathway to attract new talent and voices to the DAO, delivering long-term benefits. Below are some additional ideas and suggestions to enhance the proposal further:
First of all, thank you to Rika and the team for drafting this well-thought-out proposal. We believe that this builds on the V1 program and creates a pathway to attract new talent and voices to the DAO, delivering long-term benefits. Below are some additional ideas and suggestions to enhance the proposal further:
Once again, thank you for putting together such a thoughtful and impactful proposal. With these refinements, we believe the program could have an even greater impact on strengthening Arbitrum DAO’s governance ecosystem.
Kind regards, Joseph Axis Advisory
On point 4, yes, I mean the curator, Course Facilitator
I'm a bit unsure. I see a well-constructed proposal, but I keep wondering if the DAO should pay for this.
Then, what's the value of protocols engaging... well that indeed helps the DAO be governed by (somewhat) incentive-aligned actors. But should it be only the dao paying to upskill people?
I'm a bit unsure. I see a well-constructed proposal, but I keep wondering if the DAO should pay for this.
Then, what's the value of protocols engaging... well that indeed helps the DAO be governed by (somewhat) incentive-aligned actors. But should it be only the dao paying to upskill people?
So, I'm thinking the proposal could be taken a bit further. The idea would be to tighten the "so what" part of this proposal. A few ideas to be explored:
Something in that direction would help
As outlined by @cpox, scaling the program to include more than 20 Governance Analysts could broaden its impact, especially given that only 10 will receive compensation, thus, not increasing the program’s financial burden.
As outlined by @cpox, scaling the program to include more than 20 Governance Analysts could broaden its impact, especially given that only 10 will receive compensation, thus, not increasing the program’s financial burden.
While we recognize that scaling the program could broaden its impact, at this proof-of-concept stage, our priority is quality over quantity. We aim to onboard a small group of highly impactful individuals (up to 10, though even 3-5 would suffice) who can drive meaningful impact in the DAO. Once we demonstrate tangible results, we can focus on scaling the program in future iterations.
I think this is a pretty well-thought-out proposal and I don’t have much to critique. Seems like a unique project to try and attract talent that won’t cost that DAO that much. Probably my only concern would be ‘stickiness’ of the Governance Analysts to be able to remain employed by the Ten Protocols. A lot of that is beyond our control, but has there been any discussion on ensuring these analysts have a long-term impact? Whether that is front-end stuff (deciding which 10 protocols to pick) or the back-end (if there is analyst that just loses their job 2 months in there are backup protocols or a pool or potential protocols to rotate to?).
Also, just as an idea... I forget whatever happened of that one proposal to take like a million ARB from the treasury and give it to lesser delegates to de-centralize some of the voting power… but maybe if that ever becomes relevant again this could be a good project to train people for that. So even if some of these analysts don't work long at the other protocols we have a crop of users to work in that capacity.
Thank you for the proposal. Overall, it looks solid, and we understand how challenging it is to onboard delegates—it requires understanding, expertise, and passion. We’re excited to see how much value this experiment could bring to the DAO, as it offers a valuable learning opportunity. We don’t have much to add regarding the budget, as other delegates have already raised their concerns.
Thanks for your reply. We are asking what "onboard high-quality and diverse governance participants into the DAO" exactly means in a quantifiable way (e.g. a predefined KPI) and whether it is possible to consider a portion of the compensation would be paid out based on the achievement of the KPI.
To clarify, are you asking if we have a retention plan after Fellows complete their 2 months with a Protocol?
we are asking if there is a plan outside protocols
I read the feedback from participants and the available data on the results of the program, however I would like to know if you could provide more info about the long-term results of the program. How many participants have actually actively entered and integrated the DAO? How many took part in it and then didn’t pursue? I’m asking this cause I think that it’s a key element to evaluate the success of the previous version
I read the feedback from participants and the available data on the results of the program, however I would like to know if you could provide more info about the long-term results of the program. How many participants have actually actively entered and integrated the DAO? How many took part in it and then didn’t pursue? I’m asking this cause I think that it’s a key element to evaluate the success of the previous version
In V1, 52 participants were matched to a Fellowship, and 17 of them were added to a DAO’s New Contributors List. For more details, see the Milestone 3 Report here. Notably, one of the new contributors, @san, has become a valuable member in the Onboarding Working Group.
V1 was a significantly lower-effort, less formal, and less selective program compared to V2. Additionally, V1 had a different objective: rather than training Governance Analysts, the focus was on helping participants identify and address problem areas within the DAO, such as social media, business development, and developer relations.
during the bi-weekly call it was mentioned that V2 wasn’t going to focus on newcomers only, aiming to bring diversity among applicants. My question here is: how do you intend to diversify levels in order for everyone to make progress?
I also echo some other comments concerning the selection process. How do you intend to provide transparency? Do you have specific criterias and scores?
You are not the first person to bring up this suggestion! We will explore the idea of creating levels in the curriculum.
We will share the application and selection criteria with the DAO; however, to protect individuals' privacy, we will not disclose names or specific applications. If you have suggestions on how to make the application and interview process more transparent while maintaining privacy, we would appreciate your input!
Yes, exactly. Writing a proposal as an exercise, rather than the final deliverable in V1, will alleviate the pressure that participants felt.
What’s your plan to help this bootcamp get visibility? Do you intend to make any changes or improvements compared to the previous version?
Yes, we plan to have a Twitter/X space and market the initiative through the DAO’s official social media channels.
We would like to start by stating that we find this proposal highly valuable for the DAO, as it aims to attract and involve high-quality delegates. We also deeply appreciate the time you dedicate to responding to everyone.
From the Argonaut team, we would like to see further details on how you plan to retain the grantees. We believe it is crucial for participants to continue contributing to the DAO beyond the two months of paid engagement, and we are unsure if this approach is the most effective way to achieve that goal. For example, just as grantees must meet specific objectives to receive the grant, perhaps additional goals could be introduced to maintain it. The grant amount could also be divided into performance-based rewards tied to achievements over an extended period.
We would like to start by stating that we find this proposal highly valuable for the DAO, as it aims to attract and involve high-quality delegates. We also deeply appreciate the time you dedicate to responding to everyone.
From the Argonaut team, we would like to see further details on how you plan to retain the grantees. We believe it is crucial for participants to continue contributing to the DAO beyond the two months of paid engagement, and we are unsure if this approach is the most effective way to achieve that goal. For example, just as grantees must meet specific objectives to receive the grant, perhaps additional goals could be introduced to maintain it. The grant amount could also be divided into performance-based rewards tied to achievements over an extended period.
Additionally, we think it is important to evaluate the program’s success by analyzing whether participants and/or grantees from all iterations of the program continue contributing to the DAO several months after completing a cycle. This would provide a more comprehensive view of how much the program has contributed to the DAO. Is this something you are considering? How do you currently plan to measure the program's success?
Thanks @Gabriel. We are actively working on creating KPIs. As a start, we are thinking of creating KPIs that are aligned with the Delegate Incentive Program, e.g, commenting on proposals & posting voting rationale. If you have suggestions for KPIs, we would love to hear them!
My question concerns the governance fellows. Based on this post, a/the measure of success for this initiative is matching these fellows to an Arbitrum protocol. Several delegates highlighted the possibility of increasing that number from 10 to maybe 20. However, my question is, what is the plan if there are not enough protocols looking to bring in these governance fellows?
Hi @Tekr0x.eth, our objective in V2 is not to increase participants' DAO voting power, but we are open to exploring this in a future phase of the Program.
@RikaGoldberg , Thank you for addressing my questions. Regarding transparency in the selection process, I believe it would be more beneficial to provide a summarized overview of key information (such as experiences, skills, etc.) in an anonymized format, rather than sharing individual applications. While I understand the value of sharing the selection criteria, I think this approach would be sufficient.
My only question is whether the recruitment for this proposal is limited to Delegates, non-Delegates, or if both are eligible?
Firstly, we should agree on implementing retrospective compensation policies for onboarding participants who invest significant time and effort to become active DAO members. However, I still have concerns: if, after extensive training, we are unable to retain these representatives, what would be the point of this initiative? I would like to hear your personal thoughts on this, Rika.
My question concerns the governance fellows. Based on this post, a/the measure of success for this initiative is matching these fellows to an Arbitrum protocol. Several delegates highlighted the possibility of increasing that number from 10 to maybe 20. However, my question is, what is the plan if there are not enough protocols looking to bring in these governance fellows?
Hey @WinVerse,
Our team is actively doing both inbound and outbound work to find interested Protocols. The Foundation is also helping to support our efforts. As a reminder, if a Protocol is interested in working with a Fellow to assist with Governance work, please reach out to us.
You said something about inviting those not selected to participate in the next cohort but that still leads to the same possibility of not enough protocols willing to participate. Is there a plan beyond matching these fellows to protocols?
To clarify, are you asking if we have a retention plan after Fellows complete their 2 months with a Protocol?
Hi @kuiclub thanks for your questions.
V1 was a significantly lower-effort, less formal, and less selective program compared to V2, which resulted in much lower costs. We operated V1 for over three months with just a $10,000 Questbook grant. Additionally, V1 had a different objective: rather than training Governance Fellow, the focus was on helping participants identify and address problem areas within the DAO, such as social media, business development, and developer relations.
Thank you, we will consider this suggestion.
My only question is whether the recruitment for this proposal is limited to Delegates, non-Delegates, or if both are eligible?
We will be seeking applicants who express an interest and commitment to doing Governance work, therefore they will likely already be Delegates or strongly interested in becoming a Delegate — individually or with an organization.
As written in the proposal, “We will be seeking applicants with specific characteristics, including a positive mindset, an ability to work well with others, an aptitude to engage in healthy debate, and an eagerness to learn. Furthermore, applicants should have a high-level of familiarity with Ethereum and L2s.”
If there is other criteria that you think could be relevant, please let us know!
Hi @duokongcrypto, thanks for your suggestions/questions.
Yes, we plan to record all sessions and make them, along with the course materials, publicly accessible. Regarding V1 costs, we received a $10,000 Questbook grant to run the Program for 3 months.
To avoid subjectivity in grading exercises, we have created a Rubric (as seen in the Proposal). Regarding the specific value to the DAO of the 10 selected Fellows, we are actively working on creating KPIs. As a start, we are thinking of creating KPIs that are aligned with the Delegate Incentive Program, e.g, commenting on proposals & posting voting rationale. If you have suggestions for KPIs, we would love to hear them!
Thanks for the suggestion. We will definitely consider it.
Firstly, we should agree on implementing retrospective compensation policies for onboarding participants who invest significant time and effort to become active DAO members. However, I still have concerns: if, after extensive training, we are unable to retain these representatives, what would be the point of this initiative? I would like to hear your personal thoughts on this, Rika.
Agreed that retention is important, and we are actively thinking about mechanisms to put in place to retain Fellows. However, as we wrote in the proposal “the Program does not guarantee placement within the DAO.” Ultimately, it will be up to each Fellow to find a role in the DAO after the Fellowship ends, but we will be there to provide guidance and support.”
If you have ideas for retention mechanisms, we would love to hear them!
Hi cp0x, thank your for your questions.
While admitting more people doesn't necessarily require additional funding, it does demand more resources and attention from our team. As a result, we’ve decided to accept a manageable number of Governance Analysts to ensure we can provide them with a “white glove” experience.
We are actively exploring mechanisms to retain Fellows within the DAO. However, as outlined in the proposal, “the Program does not guarantee placement within the DAO.” With that said, we are committed to providing guidance and support to Fellows throughout. If you have ideas for how to retain Fellows, we would love to hear them.
Thanks for flagging this.
To clarify, when you say “Management Specialist”, do you mean the Course Facilitator?
Now, my first question is: who is the program aimed at, and what would be the “job description” these workshops are targeting? What is the demand for these skills?
Now, my first question is: who is the program aimed at, and what would be the “job description” these workshops are targeting? What is the demand for these skills?
The program is aimed at individuals who have a high-level of familiarity with Ethereum and L2s and aspire to work as Governance Analysts, which means they need to demonstrate a high-aptitude for writing and reading comprehension. As far as soft skills, we will be seeking applicants with a positive mindset, an ability to work well with others, an aptitude to engage in healthy debate, and an eagerness to learn.
We believe there is significant demand for these skills, as many protocols listed on Tally could benefit from increased governance participation.
From the content, it seems the program provides a general overview of the DAO and its current initiatives, which would make the participant someone knowledgeable about the Arbitrum DAO context.
However, if that person later wants to join as a governance analyst in a protocol or a professional delegate team, would these isolated pieces of knowledge be sufficient for that role? Maybe that’s not the goal, and I’m overthinking it. But in that case, what is the objective?
Has this already been discussed and guaranteed? What happens if you can’t find 10 protocols that are interested?
Yes, @ocandocrypto is actively engaging with protocols, and we’re also receiving support from the Foundation in these efforts. Protocols interested in collaborating are welcome to reach out to us directly.
Great, thank you! We will definitely consider it.
I see a potential flaw in having the DAO fully finance the fellow. The protocol might lack the necessary skin in the game to ensure the fellow learns and receives adequate attention. It might be more interesting to move toward a shared system where protocols cover part of the cost or even commit to reimbursing the DAO if they later hire the fellow.
Thanks for this feedback. We will consider it.
I would like to see a clear disclosure of what percentage of the budget each participant will receive.
We included this disclosure in the Budget spreadsheet here Arbitrum Onboarding WG Budget V1.
The first onboarding program had well-defined quantitative and qualitative KPIs, which allowed for conclusions that shaped this proposal—a very positive aspect. I believe KPIs for this initiative should also be determined before moving forward.
Agreed. We are working on creating KPIs. As a start, we are thinking of creating KPIs that are aligned with the Delegate Incentive Program, e.g., commenting on proposals & posting voting rationale. If you have suggestions, please let us know!
How do you envision retention within the DAO or Arbitrum for these fellows? How did retention work in v1, and what mechanisms do you think could be implemented to ensure the effort and resources invested in teaching are not quickly diluted?
Agreed that retention is important, and we are actively thinking about mechanisms to put in place to retain Fellows. However, as we wrote in the proposal “the Program does not guarantee placement within the DAO.” Ultimately, it will be up to each Fellow to find a role in the DAO after the Fellowship ends, but we will be there to provide guidance and support. With that said, if you have suggestions for retention mechanisms, please let us know!
Lastly, I would like to suggest that the proposal opens up opportunities for other DAO participants interested in taking on the proposed roles. While I understand the reasons why continuity between v1 and v2 makes sense, this proposal aims to include new participants in the DAO, yet we don’t practice that inclusion when it comes to execution. We have many valuable DAO members who might be interested in taking on some of these roles—of course, only if suitable candidates express interest.
Lastly, I would like to suggest that the proposal opens up opportunities for other DAO participants interested in taking on the proposed roles. While I understand the reasons why continuity between v1 and v2 makes sense, this proposal aims to include new participants in the DAO, yet we don’t practice that inclusion when it comes to execution. We have many valuable DAO members who might be interested in taking on some of these roles—of course, only if suitable candidates express interest.
Yes, we agree and welcome existing DAO members to apply. However we are mindful of @cp0x's comment about creating rules for who is ineligible to apply e.g, delegates who are participating in DIP. We will need to think through this more.
Hi Tane, thanks for your questions.
Could you please share how one can apply for the program? Also, where will announcements about the application process be published? Thanks!
Thank you. We will announce the program and details about how to apply in Q1 2025.
After hearing @ocandocrypto on the call, I think this is a great proposal. I also tend to agree with the comments in the call that maybe we could align some incentives to help retain good candidates, such as having some ARB delegated to the top 3 or 5.
I would also like to see what success looks like and/or what the KPIs for V2 are.
The Governance Bootcamp will bring new delegates into ArbitrumDAO, so I support the idea.
I do think we could do better with the stipends. From my understanding, participants make quite big-time investments, and the stipends seem too low. I suggest increasing the stipends to make sure we attract high-quality delegates.
The Governance Bootcamp will bring new delegates into ArbitrumDAO, so I support the idea.
I do think we could do better with the stipends. From my understanding, participants make quite big-time investments, and the stipends seem too low. I suggest increasing the stipends to make sure we attract high-quality delegates.
If we can help them with a bigger stipend, then they could easily reach 50k ARB voting power and potentially join the DIP program. This is how we know they would stick around and become active in all aspects of the DAO.
Hey @RikaGoldberg
This is a good proposal. Really love how you are thinking about the working group and workshops for these analysts.
Hey @RikaGoldberg
This is a good proposal. Really love how you are thinking about the working group and workshops for these analysts.
My question concerns the governance fellows. Based on this post, a/the measure of success for this initiative is matching these fellows to an Arbitrum protocol. Several delegates highlighted the possibility of increasing that number from 10 to maybe 20. However, my question is, what is the plan if there are not enough protocols looking to bring in these governance fellows?
You said something about inviting those not selected to participate in the next cohort but that still leads to the same possibility of not enough protocols willing to participate. Is there a plan beyond matching these fellows to protocols?
Hello! Thank you very much for the proposal. I am very supportive of the idea in general, although I have several questions about its execution.
First of all, congratulations on the results of the first onboarding program. I appreciate that you are iterating and applying the lessons outlined there.
Regarding the workshops:
Hello! Thank you very much for the proposal. I am very supportive of the idea in general, although I have several questions about its execution.
First of all, congratulations on the results of the first onboarding program. I appreciate that you are iterating and applying the lessons outlined there.
Regarding the workshops:
I think it’s great to have multiple workshops focusing on Arbitrum governance and the various DAO initiatives.
Now, my first question is: who is the program aimed at, and what would be the "job description" these workshops are targeting? What is the demand for these skills?
From the content, it seems the program provides a general overview of the DAO and its current initiatives, which would make the participant someone knowledgeable about the Arbitrum DAO context.
However, if that person later wants to join as a governance analyst in a protocol or a professional delegate team, would these isolated pieces of knowledge be sufficient for that role? Maybe that’s not the goal, and I’m overthinking it. But in that case, what is the objective?
Perhaps some more general topics could be included, such as the main challenges in a DAO and how Arbitrum addresses them compared to XYZ. Additionally, a few other useful elements related to general theory could be added.
The top 10 submissions will be eligible to be matched with an Arbitrum Protocol where they will acquire real-world governance experience as Governance Fellows (more details in the ‘Governance Fellows’ section).
Has this already been discussed and guaranteed? What happens if you can’t find 10 protocols that are interested?
Regarding the sample exercise:
Governance analysts and DAO leads are key roles in protocols today, although many protocols don’t have one yet. For this reason, I suggest including the following mandatory essay: Why is the role of a DAO lead/governance analyst important in a protocol? How can they operate, and what benefits do they bring? Additionally, ask the participants to provide a concrete case they are personally interested in.
On Governance Analysts and Fellows:
I see a potential flaw in having the DAO fully finance the fellow. The protocol might lack the necessary skin in the game to ensure the fellow learns and receives adequate attention. It might be more interesting to move toward a shared system where protocols cover part of the cost or even commit to reimbursing the DAO if they later hire the fellow.
Regarding the budget:
I would like to see a clear disclosure of what percentage of the budget each participant will receive.
Additional considerations:
KPIs:
The first onboarding program had well-defined quantitative and qualitative KPIs, which allowed for conclusions that shaped this proposal—a very positive aspect. I believe KPIs for this initiative should also be determined before moving forward.
Retention:
How do you envision retention within the DAO or Arbitrum for these fellows? How did retention work in v1, and what mechanisms do you think could be implemented to ensure the effort and resources invested in teaching are not quickly diluted?
Lastly, I would like to suggest that the proposal opens up opportunities for other DAO participants interested in taking on the proposed roles. While I understand the reasons why continuity between v1 and v2 makes sense, this proposal aims to include new participants in the DAO, yet we don’t practice that inclusion when it comes to execution. We have many valuable DAO members who might be interested in taking on some of these roles—of course, only if suitable candidates express interest.
I know I’ve raised many points, but I am very aligned with the idea. I look forward to seeing it grow and succeed!
The general idea of the proposal is very supportive, especially for delegates like myself who are new to the program and would like to be active under the Governance Skills and DAO framework by participating in the course.
Personal perspective, I hope to participate in governance work can be efficient, and easy to land, after all, the professional proposal behind the fact that a lot of content is very difficult to understand.
The general idea of the proposal is very supportive, especially for delegates like myself who are new to the program and would like to be active under the Governance Skills and DAO framework by participating in the course.
Personal perspective, I hope to participate in governance work can be efficient, and easy to land, after all, the professional proposal behind the fact that a lot of content is very difficult to understand.
Hello! Thanks for the proposal! It seems a step in the right direction!
I have a few questions, as I was not able to find the reasoning for it in the text:
There is a budget request for 6 months of pay to the WG but, if I got it right, we will have:
Hello! Thanks for the proposal! It seems a step in the right direction!
I have a few questions, as I was not able to find the reasoning for it in the text:
There is a budget request for 6 months of pay to the WG but, if I got it right, we will have:
We are asking for possible candidates to go through a 4-months selection process for 2 months of subsidies. Is it possible to grant something to the 20 selected members? (like 500/month)
And I believe that there is a typo in the spreadsheet, as the stipend is meant for the "Governance Fellows", correct?
We strongly support the Governance Bootcamp initiative. Its well-structured approach and tailored curriculum for the Arbitrum DAO effectively lower entry barriers while equipping participants with the knowledge and tools to contribute meaningfully.
The program not only attracts high-quality contributors but also creates a valuable resource pool for professional delegates. This initiative is a promising step toward fostering a more capable and engaged governance community, contributing to the DAO’s long-term success.
Hey @RikaGoldberg thank you for the proposal. I read the retrospective from the previous version and I really appreciate the way you integrated those key lessons to improve the current one. I think that we should give the possibility to newcomers to both get familiar with the DAO and to be connected to protocols or delegates, this bootcamp seems to go in that direction. I just have a few questions here (some only out of curiosity) after going through the proposal and the final report:
And I believe that there is a typo in the spreadsheet, as the stipend is meant for the “Governance Fellows”, correct?
Excited to see the proposal and the onboarding group maturing drawing from previous learnings. Rika, Angela and the L2 beat team have been amazingly helpful to us in the Social Media Fellowship, the only group from V1 that survived and still exists in the DAO.
Arbitrum needs an a dedicated onboarding group and this team has proved consistency in action.
Excited to see the proposal and the onboarding group maturing drawing from previous learnings. Rika, Angela and the L2 beat team have been amazingly helpful to us in the Social Media Fellowship, the only group from V1 that survived and still exists in the DAO.
Arbitrum needs an a dedicated onboarding group and this team has proved consistency in action.
Over the course of 6 weeks, the selected cohort of 20 Governance Analysts will participate in weekly workshops that cover critical concepts (see Curriculum section) of Arbitrum DAO’s governance process.
I am supportive of this proposal and only have one question: What is the selection criteria of the Governance Fellows? :smiley:
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/onboarding-pilot-program-final-report-milestone-3/26046/2 Referring to the previous v1 report and comments, RIKA emphasized: help newbies navigate DAO and make meaningful contributions. It is not our intention to design a program to educate people on how DAO works. We are considering creating workshops and tutorials so that newcomers understand the specific needs of DAO.
The new V2 proposal does not clearly explain how the contributions and value of the 10 selected Fellows to the DAO will be measured, such as the number of proposals they contribute to or their governance activity level. Clear key performance indicators (KPIs) are essential.
Thanks for this proposal. This proposal is very professional. My only question is whether the recruitment for this proposal is limited to Delegates, non-Delegates, or if both are eligible?
It's great to see proposals like this, and as a delegated representative from the Mandarin-speaking region, I've been involved in Arbitrum's governance since its early days. However, I have not seen similar training and guidelines during this time. This proposal will help many potentially high quality participants who are interested in governance to get on board, and is really in line with the development needs of the DAO.
In my opinion, the governance bootcamp in V1 was not as effective as it could have been, or even perceived to be. This proposal is more detailed and better than V1, the budget of $178,138 seems reasonable, and I see a specific breakdown of the budget allocation in the proposal:Arbitrum Onboarding WG Budget V1. I do have some questions and suggestions though:
A very thoughtful proposal, it is immediately obvious that you have been preparing it for a long time.
I have several questions:
A very thoughtful proposal, it is immediately obvious that you have been preparing it for a long time.
I have several questions:
I fully support this proposal. As someone who understands the hurdles of initially collaborating with the DAO, this program is a breath of fresh air for newcomers and a critical step toward enhancing accessibility and engagement. Thank you, @RikaGoldberg, for this structured and thoughtful proposal, I’ve been looking forward to it.
In addition to the points outlined, I’d love to see more details regarding the criteria for candidate selection. Transparency on this front would help ensure alignment with the goals of inclusivity and meritocracy while clarifying what qualities the DAO values in its future contributors. Assessing participants' skills is a fantastic approach, not only to bring more meaningful engagement but also to equip participants with the tools they need to carve out their own paths within the ecosystem.
This is a great proposal that will significantly contribute to onboarding new members into the Arbitrum DAO, a crucial step for ensuring its long-term success. I really like that this program builds on the foundation laid by the previous version, using feedback and data to create a stronger and more refined approach. By learning from past experiences, this initiative has great potential to deliver impactful results.
The meritocratic structure of the program is a highlight for me. The inclusion of practical exercises and a well-designed grading rubric ensures that only qualified participants graduate to become Governance Fellows. This focus on competence and merit is essential for maintaining the quality and integrity of the DAO's governance.
Thanks @RikaGoldberg for putting together the proposal on the continuation of the Arbitrum contributor onboarding program. We have been interested in how we can increase the number of DAO contributors from the bottom-up and the V1 and this proposal can be an interesting experiment for Arbitrum and the DAO ecosystem as a whole.
We also appreciate the retrospective from V1 and the detailed specification of the new program and the budget breakdown in the separate spreadsheet. We want to ask a couple of things though:
My question concerns the governance fellows. Based on this post, a/the measure of success for this initiative is matching these fellows to an Arbitrum protocol. Several delegates highlighted the possibility of increasing that number from 10 to maybe 20. However, my question is, what is the plan if there are not enough protocols looking to bring in these governance fellows?
Hey @WinVerse,
Our team is actively doing both inbound and outbound work to find interested Protocols. The Foundation is also helping to support our efforts. As a reminder, if a Protocol is interested in working with a Fellow to assist with Governance work, please reach out to us.
You said something about inviting those not selected to participate in the next cohort but that still leads to the same possibility of not enough protocols willing to participate. Is there a plan beyond matching these fellows to protocols?
To clarify, are you asking if we have a retention plan after Fellows complete their 2 months with a Protocol?
Hi @kuiclub thanks for your questions.
V1 was a significantly lower-effort, less formal, and less selective program compared to V2, which resulted in much lower costs. We operated V1 for over three months with just a $10,000 Questbook grant. Additionally, V1 had a different objective: rather than training Governance Fellow, the focus was on helping participants identify and address problem areas within the DAO, such as social media, business development, and developer relations.
Thank you, we will consider this suggestion.
My only question is whether the recruitment for this proposal is limited to Delegates, non-Delegates, or if both are eligible?
We will be seeking applicants who express an interest and commitment to doing Governance work, therefore they will likely already be Delegates or strongly interested in becoming a Delegate — individually or with an organization.
As written in the proposal, “We will be seeking applicants with specific characteristics, including a positive mindset, an ability to work well with others, an aptitude to engage in healthy debate, and an eagerness to learn. Furthermore, applicants should have a high-level of familiarity with Ethereum and L2s.”
If there is other criteria that you think could be relevant, please let us know!
Hi @duokongcrypto, thanks for your suggestions/questions.
Yes, we plan to record all sessions and make them, along with the course materials, publicly accessible. Regarding V1 costs, we received a $10,000 Questbook grant to run the Program for 3 months.
To avoid subjectivity in grading exercises, we have created a Rubric (as seen in the Proposal). Regarding the specific value to the DAO of the 10 selected Fellows, we are actively working on creating KPIs. As a start, we are thinking of creating KPIs that are aligned with the Delegate Incentive Program, e.g, commenting on proposals & posting voting rationale. If you have suggestions for KPIs, we would love to hear them!
Thanks for the suggestion. We will definitely consider it.
Firstly, we should agree on implementing retrospective compensation policies for onboarding participants who invest significant time and effort to become active DAO members. However, I still have concerns: if, after extensive training, we are unable to retain these representatives, what would be the point of this initiative? I would like to hear your personal thoughts on this, Rika.
Agreed that retention is important, and we are actively thinking about mechanisms to put in place to retain Fellows. However, as we wrote in the proposal “the Program does not guarantee placement within the DAO.” Ultimately, it will be up to each Fellow to find a role in the DAO after the Fellowship ends, but we will be there to provide guidance and support.”
If you have ideas for retention mechanisms, we would love to hear them!
Hi cp0x, thank your for your questions.
While admitting more people doesn't necessarily require additional funding, it does demand more resources and attention from our team. As a result, we’ve decided to accept a manageable number of Governance Analysts to ensure we can provide them with a “white glove” experience.
We are actively exploring mechanisms to retain Fellows within the DAO. However, as outlined in the proposal, “the Program does not guarantee placement within the DAO.” With that said, we are committed to providing guidance and support to Fellows throughout. If you have ideas for how to retain Fellows, we would love to hear them.
Thanks for flagging this.
To clarify, when you say “Management Specialist”, do you mean the Course Facilitator?
Now, my first question is: who is the program aimed at, and what would be the “job description” these workshops are targeting? What is the demand for these skills?
Now, my first question is: who is the program aimed at, and what would be the “job description” these workshops are targeting? What is the demand for these skills?
The program is aimed at individuals who have a high-level of familiarity with Ethereum and L2s and aspire to work as Governance Analysts, which means they need to demonstrate a high-aptitude for writing and reading comprehension. As far as soft skills, we will be seeking applicants with a positive mindset, an ability to work well with others, an aptitude to engage in healthy debate, and an eagerness to learn.
We believe there is significant demand for these skills, as many protocols listed on Tally could benefit from increased governance participation.
From the content, it seems the program provides a general overview of the DAO and its current initiatives, which would make the participant someone knowledgeable about the Arbitrum DAO context.
However, if that person later wants to join as a governance analyst in a protocol or a professional delegate team, would these isolated pieces of knowledge be sufficient for that role? Maybe that’s not the goal, and I’m overthinking it. But in that case, what is the objective?
Has this already been discussed and guaranteed? What happens if you can’t find 10 protocols that are interested?
Yes, @ocandocrypto is actively engaging with protocols, and we’re also receiving support from the Foundation in these efforts. Protocols interested in collaborating are welcome to reach out to us directly.
Great, thank you! We will definitely consider it.
I see a potential flaw in having the DAO fully finance the fellow. The protocol might lack the necessary skin in the game to ensure the fellow learns and receives adequate attention. It might be more interesting to move toward a shared system where protocols cover part of the cost or even commit to reimbursing the DAO if they later hire the fellow.
Thanks for this feedback. We will consider it.
I would like to see a clear disclosure of what percentage of the budget each participant will receive.
We included this disclosure in the Budget spreadsheet here Arbitrum Onboarding WG Budget V1.
The first onboarding program had well-defined quantitative and qualitative KPIs, which allowed for conclusions that shaped this proposal—a very positive aspect. I believe KPIs for this initiative should also be determined before moving forward.
Agreed. We are working on creating KPIs. As a start, we are thinking of creating KPIs that are aligned with the Delegate Incentive Program, e.g., commenting on proposals & posting voting rationale. If you have suggestions, please let us know!
How do you envision retention within the DAO or Arbitrum for these fellows? How did retention work in v1, and what mechanisms do you think could be implemented to ensure the effort and resources invested in teaching are not quickly diluted?
Agreed that retention is important, and we are actively thinking about mechanisms to put in place to retain Fellows. However, as we wrote in the proposal “the Program does not guarantee placement within the DAO.” Ultimately, it will be up to each Fellow to find a role in the DAO after the Fellowship ends, but we will be there to provide guidance and support. With that said, if you have suggestions for retention mechanisms, please let us know!
Lastly, I would like to suggest that the proposal opens up opportunities for other DAO participants interested in taking on the proposed roles. While I understand the reasons why continuity between v1 and v2 makes sense, this proposal aims to include new participants in the DAO, yet we don’t practice that inclusion when it comes to execution. We have many valuable DAO members who might be interested in taking on some of these roles—of course, only if suitable candidates express interest.
Lastly, I would like to suggest that the proposal opens up opportunities for other DAO participants interested in taking on the proposed roles. While I understand the reasons why continuity between v1 and v2 makes sense, this proposal aims to include new participants in the DAO, yet we don’t practice that inclusion when it comes to execution. We have many valuable DAO members who might be interested in taking on some of these roles—of course, only if suitable candidates express interest.
Yes, we agree and welcome existing DAO members to apply. However we are mindful of @cp0x's comment about creating rules for who is ineligible to apply e.g, delegates who are participating in DIP. We will need to think through this more.
Hi Tane, thanks for your questions.
Could you please share how one can apply for the program? Also, where will announcements about the application process be published? Thanks!
Thank you. We will announce the program and details about how to apply in Q1 2025.
After hearing @ocandocrypto on the call, I think this is a great proposal. I also tend to agree with the comments in the call that maybe we could align some incentives to help retain good candidates, such as having some ARB delegated to the top 3 or 5.
I would also like to see what success looks like and/or what the KPIs for V2 are.
The Governance Bootcamp will bring new delegates into ArbitrumDAO, so I support the idea.
I do think we could do better with the stipends. From my understanding, participants make quite big-time investments, and the stipends seem too low. I suggest increasing the stipends to make sure we attract high-quality delegates.
The Governance Bootcamp will bring new delegates into ArbitrumDAO, so I support the idea.
I do think we could do better with the stipends. From my understanding, participants make quite big-time investments, and the stipends seem too low. I suggest increasing the stipends to make sure we attract high-quality delegates.
If we can help them with a bigger stipend, then they could easily reach 50k ARB voting power and potentially join the DIP program. This is how we know they would stick around and become active in all aspects of the DAO.
Hey @RikaGoldberg
This is a good proposal. Really love how you are thinking about the working group and workshops for these analysts.
Hey @RikaGoldberg
This is a good proposal. Really love how you are thinking about the working group and workshops for these analysts.
My question concerns the governance fellows. Based on this post, a/the measure of success for this initiative is matching these fellows to an Arbitrum protocol. Several delegates highlighted the possibility of increasing that number from 10 to maybe 20. However, my question is, what is the plan if there are not enough protocols looking to bring in these governance fellows?
You said something about inviting those not selected to participate in the next cohort but that still leads to the same possibility of not enough protocols willing to participate. Is there a plan beyond matching these fellows to protocols?
Hello! Thank you very much for the proposal. I am very supportive of the idea in general, although I have several questions about its execution.
First of all, congratulations on the results of the first onboarding program. I appreciate that you are iterating and applying the lessons outlined there.
Regarding the workshops:
Hello! Thank you very much for the proposal. I am very supportive of the idea in general, although I have several questions about its execution.
First of all, congratulations on the results of the first onboarding program. I appreciate that you are iterating and applying the lessons outlined there.
Regarding the workshops:
I think it’s great to have multiple workshops focusing on Arbitrum governance and the various DAO initiatives.
Now, my first question is: who is the program aimed at, and what would be the "job description" these workshops are targeting? What is the demand for these skills?
From the content, it seems the program provides a general overview of the DAO and its current initiatives, which would make the participant someone knowledgeable about the Arbitrum DAO context.
However, if that person later wants to join as a governance analyst in a protocol or a professional delegate team, would these isolated pieces of knowledge be sufficient for that role? Maybe that’s not the goal, and I’m overthinking it. But in that case, what is the objective?
Perhaps some more general topics could be included, such as the main challenges in a DAO and how Arbitrum addresses them compared to XYZ. Additionally, a few other useful elements related to general theory could be added.
The top 10 submissions will be eligible to be matched with an Arbitrum Protocol where they will acquire real-world governance experience as Governance Fellows (more details in the ‘Governance Fellows’ section).
Has this already been discussed and guaranteed? What happens if you can’t find 10 protocols that are interested?
Regarding the sample exercise:
Governance analysts and DAO leads are key roles in protocols today, although many protocols don’t have one yet. For this reason, I suggest including the following mandatory essay: Why is the role of a DAO lead/governance analyst important in a protocol? How can they operate, and what benefits do they bring? Additionally, ask the participants to provide a concrete case they are personally interested in.
On Governance Analysts and Fellows:
I see a potential flaw in having the DAO fully finance the fellow. The protocol might lack the necessary skin in the game to ensure the fellow learns and receives adequate attention. It might be more interesting to move toward a shared system where protocols cover part of the cost or even commit to reimbursing the DAO if they later hire the fellow.
Regarding the budget:
I would like to see a clear disclosure of what percentage of the budget each participant will receive.
Additional considerations:
KPIs:
The first onboarding program had well-defined quantitative and qualitative KPIs, which allowed for conclusions that shaped this proposal—a very positive aspect. I believe KPIs for this initiative should also be determined before moving forward.
Retention:
How do you envision retention within the DAO or Arbitrum for these fellows? How did retention work in v1, and what mechanisms do you think could be implemented to ensure the effort and resources invested in teaching are not quickly diluted?
Lastly, I would like to suggest that the proposal opens up opportunities for other DAO participants interested in taking on the proposed roles. While I understand the reasons why continuity between v1 and v2 makes sense, this proposal aims to include new participants in the DAO, yet we don’t practice that inclusion when it comes to execution. We have many valuable DAO members who might be interested in taking on some of these roles—of course, only if suitable candidates express interest.
I know I’ve raised many points, but I am very aligned with the idea. I look forward to seeing it grow and succeed!
The general idea of the proposal is very supportive, especially for delegates like myself who are new to the program and would like to be active under the Governance Skills and DAO framework by participating in the course.
Personal perspective, I hope to participate in governance work can be efficient, and easy to land, after all, the professional proposal behind the fact that a lot of content is very difficult to understand.
The general idea of the proposal is very supportive, especially for delegates like myself who are new to the program and would like to be active under the Governance Skills and DAO framework by participating in the course.
Personal perspective, I hope to participate in governance work can be efficient, and easy to land, after all, the professional proposal behind the fact that a lot of content is very difficult to understand.
Hello! Thanks for the proposal! It seems a step in the right direction!
I have a few questions, as I was not able to find the reasoning for it in the text:
There is a budget request for 6 months of pay to the WG but, if I got it right, we will have:
Hello! Thanks for the proposal! It seems a step in the right direction!
I have a few questions, as I was not able to find the reasoning for it in the text:
There is a budget request for 6 months of pay to the WG but, if I got it right, we will have:
We are asking for possible candidates to go through a 4-months selection process for 2 months of subsidies. Is it possible to grant something to the 20 selected members? (like 500/month)
And I believe that there is a typo in the spreadsheet, as the stipend is meant for the "Governance Fellows", correct?
We strongly support the Governance Bootcamp initiative. Its well-structured approach and tailored curriculum for the Arbitrum DAO effectively lower entry barriers while equipping participants with the knowledge and tools to contribute meaningfully.
The program not only attracts high-quality contributors but also creates a valuable resource pool for professional delegates. This initiative is a promising step toward fostering a more capable and engaged governance community, contributing to the DAO’s long-term success.
Hey @RikaGoldberg thank you for the proposal. I read the retrospective from the previous version and I really appreciate the way you integrated those key lessons to improve the current one. I think that we should give the possibility to newcomers to both get familiar with the DAO and to be connected to protocols or delegates, this bootcamp seems to go in that direction. I just have a few questions here (some only out of curiosity) after going through the proposal and the final report:
And I believe that there is a typo in the spreadsheet, as the stipend is meant for the “Governance Fellows”, correct?
Excited to see the proposal and the onboarding group maturing drawing from previous learnings. Rika, Angela and the L2 beat team have been amazingly helpful to us in the Social Media Fellowship, the only group from V1 that survived and still exists in the DAO.
Arbitrum needs an a dedicated onboarding group and this team has proved consistency in action.
Excited to see the proposal and the onboarding group maturing drawing from previous learnings. Rika, Angela and the L2 beat team have been amazingly helpful to us in the Social Media Fellowship, the only group from V1 that survived and still exists in the DAO.
Arbitrum needs an a dedicated onboarding group and this team has proved consistency in action.
Over the course of 6 weeks, the selected cohort of 20 Governance Analysts will participate in weekly workshops that cover critical concepts (see Curriculum section) of Arbitrum DAO’s governance process.
I am supportive of this proposal and only have one question: What is the selection criteria of the Governance Fellows? :smiley:
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/onboarding-pilot-program-final-report-milestone-3/26046/2 Referring to the previous v1 report and comments, RIKA emphasized: help newbies navigate DAO and make meaningful contributions. It is not our intention to design a program to educate people on how DAO works. We are considering creating workshops and tutorials so that newcomers understand the specific needs of DAO.
The new V2 proposal does not clearly explain how the contributions and value of the 10 selected Fellows to the DAO will be measured, such as the number of proposals they contribute to or their governance activity level. Clear key performance indicators (KPIs) are essential.
Thanks for this proposal. This proposal is very professional. My only question is whether the recruitment for this proposal is limited to Delegates, non-Delegates, or if both are eligible?
It's great to see proposals like this, and as a delegated representative from the Mandarin-speaking region, I've been involved in Arbitrum's governance since its early days. However, I have not seen similar training and guidelines during this time. This proposal will help many potentially high quality participants who are interested in governance to get on board, and is really in line with the development needs of the DAO.
In my opinion, the governance bootcamp in V1 was not as effective as it could have been, or even perceived to be. This proposal is more detailed and better than V1, the budget of $178,138 seems reasonable, and I see a specific breakdown of the budget allocation in the proposal:Arbitrum Onboarding WG Budget V1. I do have some questions and suggestions though:
A very thoughtful proposal, it is immediately obvious that you have been preparing it for a long time.
I have several questions:
A very thoughtful proposal, it is immediately obvious that you have been preparing it for a long time.
I have several questions:
I fully support this proposal. As someone who understands the hurdles of initially collaborating with the DAO, this program is a breath of fresh air for newcomers and a critical step toward enhancing accessibility and engagement. Thank you, @RikaGoldberg, for this structured and thoughtful proposal, I’ve been looking forward to it.
In addition to the points outlined, I’d love to see more details regarding the criteria for candidate selection. Transparency on this front would help ensure alignment with the goals of inclusivity and meritocracy while clarifying what qualities the DAO values in its future contributors. Assessing participants' skills is a fantastic approach, not only to bring more meaningful engagement but also to equip participants with the tools they need to carve out their own paths within the ecosystem.
This is a great proposal that will significantly contribute to onboarding new members into the Arbitrum DAO, a crucial step for ensuring its long-term success. I really like that this program builds on the foundation laid by the previous version, using feedback and data to create a stronger and more refined approach. By learning from past experiences, this initiative has great potential to deliver impactful results.
The meritocratic structure of the program is a highlight for me. The inclusion of practical exercises and a well-designed grading rubric ensures that only qualified participants graduate to become Governance Fellows. This focus on competence and merit is essential for maintaining the quality and integrity of the DAO's governance.
Thanks @RikaGoldberg for putting together the proposal on the continuation of the Arbitrum contributor onboarding program. We have been interested in how we can increase the number of DAO contributors from the bottom-up and the V1 and this proposal can be an interesting experiment for Arbitrum and the DAO ecosystem as a whole.
We also appreciate the retrospective from V1 and the detailed specification of the new program and the budget breakdown in the separate spreadsheet. We want to ask a couple of things though:
Hey @RikaGoldberg thank you for the proposal. I read the retrospective from the previous version and I really appreciate the way you integrated those key lessons to improve the current one. I think that we should give the possibility to newcomers to both get familiar with the DAO and to be connected to protocols or delegates, this bootcamp seems to go in that direction. I just have a few questions here (some only out of curiosity) after going through the proposal and the final report:
Apart from these questions, I think that this initiative is really interesting and I’m looking forward for it to be approved!
And I believe that there is a typo in the spreadsheet, as the stipend is meant for the “Governance Fellows”, correct?
We are open to exploring the possibility of providing participants with an additional small stipend during the program. However, our rationale for not doing so is based on the value we are already offering: fully subsidized training and opportunities for participants. We believe this intangible benefit should be considered when evaluating whether an additional stipend is necessary.
Yes, that was a typo. Fixed, thanks.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/onboarding-pilot-program-final-report-milestone-3/26046/2 Referring to the previous v1 report and comments, RIKA emphasized: help newbies navigate DAO and make meaningful contributions. It is not our intention to design a program to educate people on how DAO works. We are considering creating workshops and tutorials so that newcomers understand the specific needs of DAO.
The new V2 proposal does not clearly explain how the contributions and value of the 10 selected Fellows to the DAO will be measured, such as the number of proposals they contribute to or their governance activity level. Clear key performance indicators (KPIs) are essential.
Firstly, we should agree on implementing retrospective compensation policies for onboarding participants who invest significant time and effort to become active DAO members. However, I still have concerns: if, after extensive training, we are unable to retain these representatives, what would be the point of this initiative? I would like to hear your personal thoughts on this, Rika.
It's great to see proposals like this, and as a delegated representative from the Mandarin-speaking region, I've been involved in Arbitrum's governance since its early days. However, I have not seen similar training and guidelines during this time. This proposal will help many potentially high quality participants who are interested in governance to get on board, and is really in line with the development needs of the DAO.
In my opinion, the governance bootcamp in V1 was not as effective as it could have been, or even perceived to be. This proposal is more detailed and better than V1, the budget of $178,138 seems reasonable, and I see a specific breakdown of the budget allocation in the proposal:Arbitrum Onboarding WG Budget V1. I do have some questions and suggestions though:
Questions / suggestions:
1、 regarding the transparency of the budget and the high costs: The proposal mentions very high compensation and course development costs for WG members, e.g. $49,000 for Rika and $30,000 for all other members. Does it take into account the long-term reuse value of these courses and content? Also, what are the changes and improvements in this cost compared to V1? Can you provide a clearer comparison? 2. Fairness of the participant screening and evaluation mechanism: How can the screening and post-scoring of the 20 participants avoid subjectivity or internal preferences? Is there a more objective scoring mechanism, or is there a third-party review to ensure fairness? Also, I noticed that each Governance Fellow is awarded $3,000, but what is the specific value to the DAO of the final 10 selected? Is it an increase in the quality of proposals or more active participants? Is there a clear quantitative measure, rather than just some simple data as mentioned in V1? 3. Suggestions for incentives: Could the $3,000 incentive be more diversified? Governance is long-term and requires a certain amount of delegation and responsibility. In order to avoid the incentive to become a formalized exercise, I would suggest a stepped reward model, for example: - 1st place: $5,000 - Second through fifth place: $3,500 - Sixth through tenth place: $2,000. - Eleventh through fifteenth place: $1,500. - Sixteenth through twentieth place: $1,000.
This incentivizes top participants and allows more participants to feel rewarded while increasing their actual contributions to the DAO.
This proposal is overall a step in the right direction and has a better structure, but there are still some questions that need to be answered about budget transparency, fairness of selection, and measurement of program benefits. In addition, incentives could be further optimized and openness to community feedback and resources could be increased. If these issues can be addressed, I will fully support the proposal.
I fully support this proposal. As someone who understands the hurdles of initially collaborating with the DAO, this program is a breath of fresh air for newcomers and a critical step toward enhancing accessibility and engagement. Thank you, @RikaGoldberg, for this structured and thoughtful proposal, I’ve been looking forward to it.
In addition to the points outlined, I’d love to see more details regarding the criteria for candidate selection. Transparency on this front would help ensure alignment with the goals of inclusivity and meritocracy while clarifying what qualities the DAO values in its future contributors. Assessing participants' skills is a fantastic approach, not only to bring more meaningful engagement but also to equip participants with the tools they need to carve out their own paths within the ecosystem.
Regarding inclusivity of diversity, I stand firmly by the DAO's constitutional principle: “The community should be open and welcoming to all people who wish to participate constructively.” This is to be embraced in every proposal, grant, activity, or discussion within the DAO and it should go without saying.
Cheers!
This is a great proposal that will significantly contribute to onboarding new members into the Arbitrum DAO, a crucial step for ensuring its long-term success. I really like that this program builds on the foundation laid by the previous version, using feedback and data to create a stronger and more refined approach. By learning from past experiences, this initiative has great potential to deliver impactful results.
The meritocratic structure of the program is a highlight for me. The inclusion of practical exercises and a well-designed grading rubric ensures that only qualified participants graduate to become Governance Fellows. This focus on competence and merit is essential for maintaining the quality and integrity of the DAO's governance.
Additionally, I have a lot of confidence in the team behind this proposal. Having met some of them personally, I can vouch for their strong work ethic and dedication to the space, which makes me even more optimistic about the success of this initiative.
That said, I would like to share a perspective on the focus on specific identity-based groups. While I am a huge supporter of bringing new people into the space, I believe crypto’s core ethos is openness, permissionlessness, and borderlessness. Proposals that prioritize certain identity groups—however well-intentioned—risk unintentionally excluding others, which feels counterintuitive to these principles.
I fully support and value the contributions of women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and others from underrepresented backgrounds. However, my broader view is that anyone willing to contribute positively to the ecosystem should be equally welcomed and encouraged. Focusing solely on specific groups may create an unnecessary layer of exclusion in a space that should remain open to all.
Overall, this is a well-thought-out proposal with strong potential, and I am excited to see it move forward while maintaining the inclusivity that defines crypto.
Thanks @RikaGoldberg for putting together the proposal on the continuation of the Arbitrum contributor onboarding program. We have been interested in how we can increase the number of DAO contributors from the bottom-up and the V1 and this proposal can be an interesting experiment for Arbitrum and the DAO ecosystem as a whole.
We also appreciate the retrospective from V1 and the detailed specification of the new program and the budget breakdown in the separate spreadsheet. We want to ask a couple of things though:
Onboarding for DAOs is often difficult to execute and can be controversial in its ability to attract talented contributors vs. creating additional noise in an already noisy environment. After discussing Arbitrum Onboarding V2 with @RikaGoldberg, we believe this program balances bringing new contributors into the ecosystem and providing rails for continued involvement while solving existing needs.
A few of the additions to the program we like are:
Onboarding for DAOs is often difficult to execute and can be controversial in its ability to attract talented contributors vs. creating additional noise in an already noisy environment. After discussing Arbitrum Onboarding V2 with @RikaGoldberg, we believe this program balances bringing new contributors into the ecosystem and providing rails for continued involvement while solving existing needs.
A few of the additions to the program we like are:
Many of the DAO's current contributors and delegates began interfacing with DAOs through similar programs. We look forward to hearing the rest of the community's thoughts and feedback on the proposal, but we largely favor the Arbitrum Onboarding V2 proposal in its current state.
Hi,
and thanks for this proposal. Can you please tell me what the outcome for v1 was? How many of those that participated in v1 are still active delegates? Where do you "recruit" those potential delegates? Do they sign up somewhere or how does this work?
Thank you for the proposal. I believe that we should all have the same opportunities to participate in these programs. It would be a good idea to open the workshops to the public so that anyone who wants to learn about the ecosystem can have access. This project could be linked to the delegate program. Having completed the 6 weeks of the workshop could grant the user an emblem and this could represent a significant score when counting participation. I believe that the team behind this proposal is very active in the forum and that generates confidence in me.
Hey @RikaGoldberg thank you for the proposal. I read the retrospective from the previous version and I really appreciate the way you integrated those key lessons to improve the current one. I think that we should give the possibility to newcomers to both get familiar with the DAO and to be connected to protocols or delegates, this bootcamp seems to go in that direction. I just have a few questions here (some only out of curiosity) after going through the proposal and the final report:
Apart from these questions, I think that this initiative is really interesting and I’m looking forward for it to be approved!
And I believe that there is a typo in the spreadsheet, as the stipend is meant for the “Governance Fellows”, correct?
We are open to exploring the possibility of providing participants with an additional small stipend during the program. However, our rationale for not doing so is based on the value we are already offering: fully subsidized training and opportunities for participants. We believe this intangible benefit should be considered when evaluating whether an additional stipend is necessary.
Yes, that was a typo. Fixed, thanks.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/onboarding-pilot-program-final-report-milestone-3/26046/2 Referring to the previous v1 report and comments, RIKA emphasized: help newbies navigate DAO and make meaningful contributions. It is not our intention to design a program to educate people on how DAO works. We are considering creating workshops and tutorials so that newcomers understand the specific needs of DAO.
The new V2 proposal does not clearly explain how the contributions and value of the 10 selected Fellows to the DAO will be measured, such as the number of proposals they contribute to or their governance activity level. Clear key performance indicators (KPIs) are essential.
Firstly, we should agree on implementing retrospective compensation policies for onboarding participants who invest significant time and effort to become active DAO members. However, I still have concerns: if, after extensive training, we are unable to retain these representatives, what would be the point of this initiative? I would like to hear your personal thoughts on this, Rika.
It's great to see proposals like this, and as a delegated representative from the Mandarin-speaking region, I've been involved in Arbitrum's governance since its early days. However, I have not seen similar training and guidelines during this time. This proposal will help many potentially high quality participants who are interested in governance to get on board, and is really in line with the development needs of the DAO.
In my opinion, the governance bootcamp in V1 was not as effective as it could have been, or even perceived to be. This proposal is more detailed and better than V1, the budget of $178,138 seems reasonable, and I see a specific breakdown of the budget allocation in the proposal:Arbitrum Onboarding WG Budget V1. I do have some questions and suggestions though:
Questions / suggestions:
1、 regarding the transparency of the budget and the high costs: The proposal mentions very high compensation and course development costs for WG members, e.g. $49,000 for Rika and $30,000 for all other members. Does it take into account the long-term reuse value of these courses and content? Also, what are the changes and improvements in this cost compared to V1? Can you provide a clearer comparison? 2. Fairness of the participant screening and evaluation mechanism: How can the screening and post-scoring of the 20 participants avoid subjectivity or internal preferences? Is there a more objective scoring mechanism, or is there a third-party review to ensure fairness? Also, I noticed that each Governance Fellow is awarded $3,000, but what is the specific value to the DAO of the final 10 selected? Is it an increase in the quality of proposals or more active participants? Is there a clear quantitative measure, rather than just some simple data as mentioned in V1? 3. Suggestions for incentives: Could the $3,000 incentive be more diversified? Governance is long-term and requires a certain amount of delegation and responsibility. In order to avoid the incentive to become a formalized exercise, I would suggest a stepped reward model, for example: - 1st place: $5,000 - Second through fifth place: $3,500 - Sixth through tenth place: $2,000. - Eleventh through fifteenth place: $1,500. - Sixteenth through twentieth place: $1,000.
This incentivizes top participants and allows more participants to feel rewarded while increasing their actual contributions to the DAO.
This proposal is overall a step in the right direction and has a better structure, but there are still some questions that need to be answered about budget transparency, fairness of selection, and measurement of program benefits. In addition, incentives could be further optimized and openness to community feedback and resources could be increased. If these issues can be addressed, I will fully support the proposal.
I fully support this proposal. As someone who understands the hurdles of initially collaborating with the DAO, this program is a breath of fresh air for newcomers and a critical step toward enhancing accessibility and engagement. Thank you, @RikaGoldberg, for this structured and thoughtful proposal, I’ve been looking forward to it.
In addition to the points outlined, I’d love to see more details regarding the criteria for candidate selection. Transparency on this front would help ensure alignment with the goals of inclusivity and meritocracy while clarifying what qualities the DAO values in its future contributors. Assessing participants' skills is a fantastic approach, not only to bring more meaningful engagement but also to equip participants with the tools they need to carve out their own paths within the ecosystem.
Regarding inclusivity of diversity, I stand firmly by the DAO's constitutional principle: “The community should be open and welcoming to all people who wish to participate constructively.” This is to be embraced in every proposal, grant, activity, or discussion within the DAO and it should go without saying.
Cheers!
This is a great proposal that will significantly contribute to onboarding new members into the Arbitrum DAO, a crucial step for ensuring its long-term success. I really like that this program builds on the foundation laid by the previous version, using feedback and data to create a stronger and more refined approach. By learning from past experiences, this initiative has great potential to deliver impactful results.
The meritocratic structure of the program is a highlight for me. The inclusion of practical exercises and a well-designed grading rubric ensures that only qualified participants graduate to become Governance Fellows. This focus on competence and merit is essential for maintaining the quality and integrity of the DAO's governance.
Additionally, I have a lot of confidence in the team behind this proposal. Having met some of them personally, I can vouch for their strong work ethic and dedication to the space, which makes me even more optimistic about the success of this initiative.
That said, I would like to share a perspective on the focus on specific identity-based groups. While I am a huge supporter of bringing new people into the space, I believe crypto’s core ethos is openness, permissionlessness, and borderlessness. Proposals that prioritize certain identity groups—however well-intentioned—risk unintentionally excluding others, which feels counterintuitive to these principles.
I fully support and value the contributions of women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and others from underrepresented backgrounds. However, my broader view is that anyone willing to contribute positively to the ecosystem should be equally welcomed and encouraged. Focusing solely on specific groups may create an unnecessary layer of exclusion in a space that should remain open to all.
Overall, this is a well-thought-out proposal with strong potential, and I am excited to see it move forward while maintaining the inclusivity that defines crypto.
Thanks @RikaGoldberg for putting together the proposal on the continuation of the Arbitrum contributor onboarding program. We have been interested in how we can increase the number of DAO contributors from the bottom-up and the V1 and this proposal can be an interesting experiment for Arbitrum and the DAO ecosystem as a whole.
We also appreciate the retrospective from V1 and the detailed specification of the new program and the budget breakdown in the separate spreadsheet. We want to ask a couple of things though:
Onboarding for DAOs is often difficult to execute and can be controversial in its ability to attract talented contributors vs. creating additional noise in an already noisy environment. After discussing Arbitrum Onboarding V2 with @RikaGoldberg, we believe this program balances bringing new contributors into the ecosystem and providing rails for continued involvement while solving existing needs.
A few of the additions to the program we like are:
Onboarding for DAOs is often difficult to execute and can be controversial in its ability to attract talented contributors vs. creating additional noise in an already noisy environment. After discussing Arbitrum Onboarding V2 with @RikaGoldberg, we believe this program balances bringing new contributors into the ecosystem and providing rails for continued involvement while solving existing needs.
A few of the additions to the program we like are:
Many of the DAO's current contributors and delegates began interfacing with DAOs through similar programs. We look forward to hearing the rest of the community's thoughts and feedback on the proposal, but we largely favor the Arbitrum Onboarding V2 proposal in its current state.
Hi,
and thanks for this proposal. Can you please tell me what the outcome for v1 was? How many of those that participated in v1 are still active delegates? Where do you "recruit" those potential delegates? Do they sign up somewhere or how does this work?
Thank you for the proposal. I believe that we should all have the same opportunities to participate in these programs. It would be a good idea to open the workshops to the public so that anyone who wants to learn about the ecosystem can have access. This project could be linked to the delegate program. Having completed the 6 weeks of the workshop could grant the user an emblem and this could represent a significant score when counting participation. I believe that the team behind this proposal is very active in the forum and that generates confidence in me.
