After further consideration and taking into account the outcome/discussion from the ArbitrumDAO Off-site Snapshot, the quoted group has decided to remove the planned delegate offsite at Token2049 Dubai. This will leave more funds available for ecosystem growth events. Delegate offsites can still be proposed by individuals or event service providers and pull funds from the established budget.
This change was made to ensure everyone is aware that the AF/OCL will be involved throughout this process to better align the DAO's various contributors on a unified goal and overall events strategy.
The 3 members of this group will lean on OCL and the Arbitrum Foundation to ensure that any events organized by the DAO are aligned with the broader ecosystem of contributors, work towards a unified message/brand, and are synergistic with events led by the Foundation and OCL.
We updated the Snapshot voting criteria to better account for changes to the votable token supply rather than setting an arbitrary quorum. The language has been changed throughout the proposal to support this change.
passes a Snapshot vote that garners at least 3% of the votable token supply with a simple majority For/Abstain
This language was removed, as the ADPC looks poised to recieve funding after a succesful Snapshot vote. If the ongoing Tally vote contradicts this, we will again adjust the language of this proposal accordingly.
Note that if the ADPC is not re-elected, this proposal may be updated to include pay for the ADPC. We will clearly articulate that change if it is required prior to moving on to a Snapshot vote.
The following language was added to support @krst and @Sinkas suggestion of attempting to get protocols building on Arbitrum aligned with the overall events strategy. While this proposal is primarily aiming to earmark an events budget for the next year in order to enable the DAO to move more nimbly while also getting better pricing, we are excited about this idea.
It may also be possible for protocols within the Arbitrum ecosystem to partake in events that are put together with funds from this budget. For example, if a community member has an idea for the DAO to have representation at RustConf with an emphasis on showcasing some of the products built with Stylus, Entropy, Disruption Joe, and the ADPC could reach out to protocols building on Stylus to attend the event and showcase their products. Protocols could be expected to “bolster” the events budget. E.g., the DAO spends $100K while 2 Stylus projects put up $10K each to sit at the same booth. This increases the total budget by $20K at no additional cost to the DAO, and these two protocols could showcase their products in a shared booth with Arbitrum branding. This is just one example of how this could look, with the exact structures managed on a case-by-case basis.
The following language was added to the proposal to address some of the concerns around measurable KPIs.
It is expected that the contributor requesting a specific event is tasked with defining the measurable KPIs. The DAO will be tasked with deeming a specific events proposal worthwhile via Snapshot, and we encourage delegates to hold these authors to a high standard when it comes to measuring a given event’s impact and how it pushes Arbitrum’s mission forward.
Other minor changes were made to this proposal, but none of which were structural changes. A majority of the small changes were made to reassure community members that the AF and OCL will be involved throughout this process to ensure there are no "competing events" within the Arbitrum community at the same place.
To ensure Arbitrum’s continued presence at the industry’s most prominent events, and to enable the DAO to host in-person initiatives to accelerate collaboration and increase efficiency of operations, we (Entropy Advisors, the ADPC, and Disruption Joe) would like to earmark a budget for events for 2025 and take lead on running ongoing RFPs to satisfy the DAOs event demands. The 3 members of this group will lean on OCL and the Arbitrum Foundation to ensure that any events organized by the DAO are aligned with the broader ecosystem of contributors, work towards a unified message/brand, and are synergistic with events led by the Foundation and OCL.
Our proposed Events strategy should focus on 2 key categories:
The selection of event provider(s) will follow a two-step process: Together with the ADPC and Disruption Joe, we will gauge community sentiment/attendance levels regarding certain events. If there is consensus to put on a certain event but there is no PM/event coordinator to lead the effort, the group will procure, select, and support service providers to make the vision a reality. It is highly likely the OCL or the Arbitrum Foundation will lead many of these events, which is made apparent by the preliminary schedule proposed below. Alternatively, if an events provider comes to the DAO with a proposal for an event that passes a Snapshot vote that garners at least 3% of the votable token supply with a simple majority For/Abstain, the funds for that proposal will come from the 2025 events budget brought forth in this proposal.
We propose the earmarking of $1.5M USD to fund this initiative, with any unused funds at the end of 2025 to be returned to the DAO treasury. 4M ARB will be sent to a Foundation-controlled address to be liquidated into stablecoins, with any excess ARB immediately returned to the DAO treasury and the stablecoins to an MSS-controlled address. The ADPC, Entropy, and Disruption Joe will be waiving payment to get this stood up, but we expect this initiative to fall under the OpCo once it becomes fully operational. We also envision a dedicated employee to lead the DAO’s event strategy within the OpCo, so this is more of an effort to get the ball rolling so we are properly prepared for 2025. We plan to have the OpCo established in mid 2025, and once an events coordinator is employed by this entity, the funds will be transferred to the OpCo while Entropy, the ADPC, and Disruption Joe will be relieved of their duties thereafter.
Events play a crucial role in strengthening the Arbitrum community and brand, attracting more users and developers to the ecosystem, expediting DAO initiatives by facilitating in-person collaboration, and providing avenues for alliance with other partners within the industry. While the Questbook program has done an excellent job in ensuring the Arbitrum brand is represented at smaller conferences across multiple regions, the DAO does not currently have a dedicated plan or budget for events. Larger Arbitrum events, such as Arbitrum Day, are left to the Arbitrum Foundation or Offchain Labs to organize. The DAO certainly appreciates what the Foundation and OCL do on the events front, but the DAO should serve a complementary role – which if enabled – will maximize Arbitrum’s overall ability to grow a healthy ecosystem and capture network effects in our speed and flexibility for deployment.
There is significant value in aligning on the scope/timing of hackathons, GovHack-type events, and major events presence (such as EthCC, DevCon, etc). For example, Stylus represents one of the most significant software upgrades in Arbitrum’s history – it could be wise for the DAO to ensure a Stylus-focused hackathon is planned for 2025 in an effort to bring more developers into our ecosystem and to improve dev tooling/infra. In addition to ecosystem events, it is very important for delegates to meet up in person at a regular cadence. We see how much more we can accomplish in-person time and time again, and we believe the DAO could formulate and execute on a grander strategy if these delegate offsites were formally planned/coordinated.
Hosting events requires substantial upfront time and capital, typically involving 4-6 months of planning and $25-100k in down payments for venues, travel, accommodations, catering, and other expenses. Planning and funding events on a case-by-case basis are impractical due to the lead time and the lengthy DAO voting process. Recently, the DAO approved $309k to host an event at EthCC in Brussels. However, the proposal was not executed on-chain until approximately five weeks before the event. Hack Humanity, the entity behind the GovHack event, took on substantial risk by using its funds to secure a venue, caterers, and other necessities without a guarantee of DAO funding. Although Hack Humanity felt comfortable taking this risk due to previous collaboration with the DAO and assistance from Entropy Advisors, this upfront financial burden should not fall on service providers in the future. One off RFP processes would enable organizers to plan higher-quality events with the extra time & budget provided. Alternatively, any service provider can gauge DAO sentiment directly via snapshot, which will drastically reduce the burden of the Arbitrum DAO governance process put on service providers.
To ensure the Arbitrum DAO has the ability to represent itself at various events and to create new in-person experiences, we propose earmarking funds so this can be achieved in a streamlined manner. While we propose 3 core events in the section below, any DAO member can make a proposal to utilize these earmarked funds at any time. We are also happy to alter the below calendar in accordance with feedback received on the forum.
The above events were chosen based on the need to bolster Arbitrum’s presence at the industry’s top events. As mentioned above, the Questbook program has done an excellent job at making sure Arbitrum has a presence at smaller events across the globe. To date the events track has funded event initiatives in the following regions: Latam (8), Africa (6), India (4), APAC (4), and Europe (2).
There are also ample opportunities to fund events in the back half of 2025 that align with Arbitrum’s strategic objectives (Ex. RustConf, GamesCon, Solana Breakpoint). However, with the expectation that a more comprehensive events strategy will be rolled up into OpCo upon the hiring of a full time events coordinator, we felt it was better suited to only establish a rough strategy for the first half of 2025 while leaving the door open for other service providers and community members to bring forth their own ideas.
ETHDenver is an Ethereum centric conference that has one of the largest attendee lists of any event throughout 2025. Arbitrum has historically had a presence here, but we would like to partner with OCL to bolster the DAO’s representation. We envision a very large floor space at ETHDenver (see photo below of Near’s booth at ETHDenver in 2024 for inspiration), with plenty of room for Arbitrum projects to showcase their products, delegates and other DAO contributors to talk to people who are interested in getting involved, and an area for more technical folks to ask OCL questions about the Arbitrum roadmap and tech upgrades. Last year, Arbitrum had a smaller 10x20 or 20x20 floor space at ETHDenver, but this year we want to go bigger. OCL will lead the charge on this front, but the ADPC, Disruption Joe, and Entropy can assist as needed and funnel ideas from the community to their team.
The Bitcoin conference is the most widely attended conference in all of crypto, and is ofcourse a Bitcoin-focused event. However, as seen with the rise of “BTC L2s”, Ordinals/Runes/other inscriptions, etc, there is a growing appetite from developers, users, and VCs to build out more functionality on Bitcoin. Additionally, there is work being done to enable OP_CAT, which could enable trust minimized bridging of BTC to other chains. As such, we believe the Arbitrum DAO should have a presence here. There is no reason Orbit should not have a presence on Bitcoin, and the DAO recently signaled its support for Orbit deployments on alternative settlement layers via snapshot vote. Bitcoin has served as the “Gateway” for bringing new people onchain in the past, and we believe targeting Bitcoin supporters is a good way to onboard new users into the Arbitrum ecosystem. We would like to work with OCL on this event, similar to the ETHDenver event, but the ADPC, Disruption Joe, and Entropy can procure a service provider and act as the point of contact in case OCL does not have interest in partnering with the DAO on this event.
EthCC, similar to ETHDenver, is one of the largest Ethereum-centric events of the year, and has historically been hosted in the EU. The event in 2025 is currently slated to take place in Cannes, France, but with the recent arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov in France, this could potentially change. Nevertheless, this is an event that we believe the Arbitrum DAO should have a presence at, and we again suggest supporting OCL and the Arbitrum Foundation to put this event together. In the scenario that OCL/the Foundation does not want to work with the DAO on this initiative, the ADPC, Disruption Joe, and Entropy will procure a 3rd party organizer to manage this event and will be in attendance to ensure things go smoothly. We are hopeful that OpCo will be stood up by this time, so there is a strong possibility that this event will fall under its purview rather than the aforementioned individuals/entities.
We estimate the three events outlined above to cost somewhere in the range of $250-$400k, and would thus have a budget approved that is much higher than the actual outlays. We want to avoid scenarios where we are forced to overpay for event service providers, have a limited selection of service providers, or need to rush through the DAO process in order to meet deadlines for future events. Therefore, we are requesting a budget much larger than required so that if other community members wish to push forward an event, they can do so without having to go through the full governance process.
Instead, we suggest that anyone can put forth an idea for an event in the first half of 2025, but that it can pull from these pre-approved funds via a snapshot vote that must garner 3% of the votable token supply with a simple majority of votes in favor/abstain. From there, the ADPC, Entropy, and Disruption Joe can help procure service providers to put on the event, or the proposer themselves can serve as the project manager/event coordinator. This will cut down on the lead time to put on other events and give the DAO more negotiation power when organizing events on an expedited timeline. Some other events that we had envisioned include presence at non-crypto conferences such as RustConf or CES to attract new developers and users, virtual hackathons specifically focused on Stylus or Orbit with the help of a service provider like Buidlbox, ETHGlobal, etc. It is also important to note, that events with an expected cost under $50,000 should be routed through the Questbook program. The purpose of this proposal is to establish an events strategy for larger initiatives that require substantial funds and active project managers.
It may also be possible for protocols within the Arbitrum ecosystem to partake in events that are put together with funds from this budget. For example, if a community member has an idea for the DAO to have representation at RustConf with an emphasis on showcasing some of the products built with Stylus, Entropy, Disruption Joe, and the ADPC could reach out to protocols building on Stylus to attend the event and showcase their products. Protocols could be expected to “bolster” the events budget. E.g., the DAO spends $100K while 2 Stylus projects put up $10K each to sit at the same booth. This increases the total budget by $20K at no additional cost to the DAO, and these two protocols could showcase their products in a shared booth with Arbitrum branding. This is just one example of how this could look, with the exact structures managed on a case-by-case basis.
We want to emphasize the fact that excess funds will either be moved over to the OpCo once a dedicated events coordinator has been hired, or fully returned to the DAO by the end of 2025. We felt some of the other events required a full-time project manager to ensure they go smoothly, and we do not want to take on more than we can handle. However, by requesting more budget than we require, anyone in the community can take lead on an event if there is DAO support.
In order to eliminate the potential for event overload, we are capping the number of delegate gatherings to two for the year - but are leaving the number of ecosystem growth events open-ended. These events should be planned in such a way that no two events align too closely with one another on dates, with the exception of delegate offsites which could coincide with an ecosystem growth event at a major crypto conference given the convenience of planning travel arrangements. While the primary goal of delegate offsites should be aligning ecosystem leaders and providing a dedicated place/time for more efficient in-person working hours, the ecosystem growth category is more vague in nature. However, all applicants should have clearly articulated goals for the events in line with the defined events strategy, i.e., driving the adoption of Stylus through a hackathon, generating thought-provoking governance proposals, or onboarding new people into the DAO similar to GovHack. Events brought forward by either an individual or service provider, must create a post-event impact report (example from Govhack Brussels) that includes a breakdown of actual costs. Service providers that are procured to execute on an event idea will also be required to provide a post-event impact report.
For concrete examples of how this could work, we can take a look at the 2 proposals for events currently on the forum. The GovHack Core proposal (which has since been rescinded) was brought forth by Hack Humanity, which serves as a great example of a scenario where the ADPC, Disruption Joe, and Entropy would not have been needed in the process at all. Hack Humanity could have taken their proposal to Snapshot, and because they were the service provider themselves, there was no need for any type of procurement process. If the GovHack Core proposal passed snapshot with 3% of the votable token supply with a simple majority of votes in favor/abstain, the funds would be sent from the 2025 events budget (this proposal) and Hack Humanity could have begun their planning. This would eliminate the ~4-week onchain voting process and potentially make it possible to put something together for DevCon in Bangkok in just ~2 months.
This is a prime example of how earmarking an events budget will enable the DAO to move more nimbly. Please note that this proposal is only for 2025, so the previous example is only provided for illustrative purposes. However, it is quite possible that the DAO would rather fund GovHacks on an as-needed/case-by-case basis rather than a whole year, or even open up the event type to other service providers to get new actors involved or potentially lower the price.
In an earlier iteration of a proposal from @danielo, there was no defined offsite facilitator. This is an example of a proposal that did not specify the service provider, so the ADPC, Disruption Joe, and Entropy could have worked together in procuring the proper coordinator upon the proposal passing on Snapshot with 3% of the votable token supply and a simple majority of votes in favor/abstain. The procurement process should bring down overall costs by making the process competitive amongst service providers, and again reduces the lead time by foregoing the onchain Tally vote. Note that this is just an example for illustrative purposes.
It is expected that the contributor requesting a specific event is tasked with defining the measurable KPIs. The DAO will be tasked with deeming a specific events proposal worthwhile via Snapshot, and we encourage delegates to hold these authors to a high standard when it comes to measuring a given event’s impact and how it pushes Arbitrum’s mission forward.
To cover the $1.5M dollar-denominated expenses, 4M ARB would be earmarked and sent to an Arbitrum Foundation-controlled wallet, with funds liquidated into a preferred stablecoin and then sent to a MSS-controlled address .Surplus ARB will be sent back to the DAO Treasury following the liquidation. Entropy Advisors, Disruption Joe, and the ADPC will be the point of contact for the MSS chair to greenlight any queued transactions. No transactions will be signed without confirmations from all 3 entities/individuals. The MSS may send stablecoins back to the Arbitrum Foundation in order to pay service providers with fiat if required. Excess funds will either be moved over to the OpCo once a dedicated events coordinator has been hired, or fully returned to the DAO by the end of 2025.
Updates related to funds spent, upcoming events and relevant details, a place to provide feedback or recommendations, or any other communications will be posted to the ADPC update thread on the Arbitrum Forum. Alternatively, Entropy can post these to our updates thread on the Arbitrum Forum.
We expect this process to take about 2-3 months in its entirety to get underway, which will provide the DAO ample time to prepare for its 2025 events.
The upfront ask to the DAO is $1.5M and the transfer of 4M ARB with the excess returned to the DAO post liquidation, but with just 3 ecosystem growth events outlined in this proposal, the entire budget will not be utilized. However, as mentioned earlier, earmarking these funds gives the DAO the ability to act more nimbly when there is an opportunity to host an event. This will result in the DAO getting better pricing from potential service providers while ensuring the service provider has ample time to do what they do best - organize great events. The DAO can clawback funds from the MSS at any time via a snapshot vote that garners 3% of the votable token supply with a simple majority of votes in favor/abstain.
After further consideration and taking into account the outcome/discussion from the ArbitrumDAO Off-site Snapshot, the quoted group has decided to remove the planned delegate offsite at Token2049 Dubai. This will leave more funds available for ecosystem growth events. Delegate offsites can still be proposed by individuals or event service providers and pull funds from the established budget.
This change was made to ensure everyone is aware that the AF/OCL will be involved throughout this process to better align the DAO's various contributors on a unified goal and overall events strategy.
The 3 members of this group will lean on OCL and the Arbitrum Foundation to ensure that any events organized by the DAO are aligned with the broader ecosystem of contributors, work towards a unified message/brand, and are synergistic with events led by the Foundation and OCL.
We updated the Snapshot voting criteria to better account for changes to the votable token supply rather than setting an arbitrary quorum. The language has been changed throughout the proposal to support this change.
passes a Snapshot vote that garners at least 3% of the votable token supply with a simple majority For/Abstain
This language was removed, as the ADPC looks poised to recieve funding after a succesful Snapshot vote. If the ongoing Tally vote contradicts this, we will again adjust the language of this proposal accordingly.
Note that if the ADPC is not re-elected, this proposal may be updated to include pay for the ADPC. We will clearly articulate that change if it is required prior to moving on to a Snapshot vote.
The following language was added to support @krst and @Sinkas suggestion of attempting to get protocols building on Arbitrum aligned with the overall events strategy. While this proposal is primarily aiming to earmark an events budget for the next year in order to enable the DAO to move more nimbly while also getting better pricing, we are excited about this idea.
It may also be possible for protocols within the Arbitrum ecosystem to partake in events that are put together with funds from this budget. For example, if a community member has an idea for the DAO to have representation at RustConf with an emphasis on showcasing some of the products built with Stylus, Entropy, Disruption Joe, and the ADPC could reach out to protocols building on Stylus to attend the event and showcase their products. Protocols could be expected to “bolster” the events budget. E.g., the DAO spends $100K while 2 Stylus projects put up $10K each to sit at the same booth. This increases the total budget by $20K at no additional cost to the DAO, and these two protocols could showcase their products in a shared booth with Arbitrum branding. This is just one example of how this could look, with the exact structures managed on a case-by-case basis.
The following language was added to the proposal to address some of the concerns around measurable KPIs.
It is expected that the contributor requesting a specific event is tasked with defining the measurable KPIs. The DAO will be tasked with deeming a specific events proposal worthwhile via Snapshot, and we encourage delegates to hold these authors to a high standard when it comes to measuring a given event’s impact and how it pushes Arbitrum’s mission forward.
Other minor changes were made to this proposal, but none of which were structural changes. A majority of the small changes were made to reassure community members that the AF and OCL will be involved throughout this process to ensure there are no "competing events" within the Arbitrum community at the same place.
To ensure Arbitrum’s continued presence at the industry’s most prominent events, and to enable the DAO to host in-person initiatives to accelerate collaboration and increase efficiency of operations, we (Entropy Advisors, the ADPC, and Disruption Joe) would like to earmark a budget for events for 2025 and take lead on running ongoing RFPs to satisfy the DAOs event demands. The 3 members of this group will lean on OCL and the Arbitrum Foundation to ensure that any events organized by the DAO are aligned with the broader ecosystem of contributors, work towards a unified message/brand, and are synergistic with events led by the Foundation and OCL.
Our proposed Events strategy should focus on 2 key categories:
The selection of event provider(s) will follow a two-step process: Together with the ADPC and Disruption Joe, we will gauge community sentiment/attendance levels regarding certain events. If there is consensus to put on a certain event but there is no PM/event coordinator to lead the effort, the group will procure, select, and support service providers to make the vision a reality. It is highly likely the OCL or the Arbitrum Foundation will lead many of these events, which is made apparent by the preliminary schedule proposed below. Alternatively, if an events provider comes to the DAO with a proposal for an event that passes a Snapshot vote that garners at least 3% of the votable token supply with a simple majority For/Abstain, the funds for that proposal will come from the 2025 events budget brought forth in this proposal.
We propose the earmarking of $1.5M USD to fund this initiative, with any unused funds at the end of 2025 to be returned to the DAO treasury. 4M ARB will be sent to a Foundation-controlled address to be liquidated into stablecoins, with any excess ARB immediately returned to the DAO treasury and the stablecoins to an MSS-controlled address. The ADPC, Entropy, and Disruption Joe will be waiving payment to get this stood up, but we expect this initiative to fall under the OpCo once it becomes fully operational. We also envision a dedicated employee to lead the DAO’s event strategy within the OpCo, so this is more of an effort to get the ball rolling so we are properly prepared for 2025. We plan to have the OpCo established in mid 2025, and once an events coordinator is employed by this entity, the funds will be transferred to the OpCo while Entropy, the ADPC, and Disruption Joe will be relieved of their duties thereafter.
Events play a crucial role in strengthening the Arbitrum community and brand, attracting more users and developers to the ecosystem, expediting DAO initiatives by facilitating in-person collaboration, and providing avenues for alliance with other partners within the industry. While the Questbook program has done an excellent job in ensuring the Arbitrum brand is represented at smaller conferences across multiple regions, the DAO does not currently have a dedicated plan or budget for events. Larger Arbitrum events, such as Arbitrum Day, are left to the Arbitrum Foundation or Offchain Labs to organize. The DAO certainly appreciates what the Foundation and OCL do on the events front, but the DAO should serve a complementary role – which if enabled – will maximize Arbitrum’s overall ability to grow a healthy ecosystem and capture network effects in our speed and flexibility for deployment.
There is significant value in aligning on the scope/timing of hackathons, GovHack-type events, and major events presence (such as EthCC, DevCon, etc). For example, Stylus represents one of the most significant software upgrades in Arbitrum’s history – it could be wise for the DAO to ensure a Stylus-focused hackathon is planned for 2025 in an effort to bring more developers into our ecosystem and to improve dev tooling/infra. In addition to ecosystem events, it is very important for delegates to meet up in person at a regular cadence. We see how much more we can accomplish in-person time and time again, and we believe the DAO could formulate and execute on a grander strategy if these delegate offsites were formally planned/coordinated.
Hosting events requires substantial upfront time and capital, typically involving 4-6 months of planning and $25-100k in down payments for venues, travel, accommodations, catering, and other expenses. Planning and funding events on a case-by-case basis are impractical due to the lead time and the lengthy DAO voting process. Recently, the DAO approved $309k to host an event at EthCC in Brussels. However, the proposal was not executed on-chain until approximately five weeks before the event. Hack Humanity, the entity behind the GovHack event, took on substantial risk by using its funds to secure a venue, caterers, and other necessities without a guarantee of DAO funding. Although Hack Humanity felt comfortable taking this risk due to previous collaboration with the DAO and assistance from Entropy Advisors, this upfront financial burden should not fall on service providers in the future. One off RFP processes would enable organizers to plan higher-quality events with the extra time & budget provided. Alternatively, any service provider can gauge DAO sentiment directly via snapshot, which will drastically reduce the burden of the Arbitrum DAO governance process put on service providers.
To ensure the Arbitrum DAO has the ability to represent itself at various events and to create new in-person experiences, we propose earmarking funds so this can be achieved in a streamlined manner. While we propose 3 core events in the section below, any DAO member can make a proposal to utilize these earmarked funds at any time. We are also happy to alter the below calendar in accordance with feedback received on the forum.
The above events were chosen based on the need to bolster Arbitrum’s presence at the industry’s top events. As mentioned above, the Questbook program has done an excellent job at making sure Arbitrum has a presence at smaller events across the globe. To date the events track has funded event initiatives in the following regions: Latam (8), Africa (6), India (4), APAC (4), and Europe (2).
There are also ample opportunities to fund events in the back half of 2025 that align with Arbitrum’s strategic objectives (Ex. RustConf, GamesCon, Solana Breakpoint). However, with the expectation that a more comprehensive events strategy will be rolled up into OpCo upon the hiring of a full time events coordinator, we felt it was better suited to only establish a rough strategy for the first half of 2025 while leaving the door open for other service providers and community members to bring forth their own ideas.
ETHDenver is an Ethereum centric conference that has one of the largest attendee lists of any event throughout 2025. Arbitrum has historically had a presence here, but we would like to partner with OCL to bolster the DAO’s representation. We envision a very large floor space at ETHDenver (see photo below of Near’s booth at ETHDenver in 2024 for inspiration), with plenty of room for Arbitrum projects to showcase their products, delegates and other DAO contributors to talk to people who are interested in getting involved, and an area for more technical folks to ask OCL questions about the Arbitrum roadmap and tech upgrades. Last year, Arbitrum had a smaller 10x20 or 20x20 floor space at ETHDenver, but this year we want to go bigger. OCL will lead the charge on this front, but the ADPC, Disruption Joe, and Entropy can assist as needed and funnel ideas from the community to their team.
The Bitcoin conference is the most widely attended conference in all of crypto, and is ofcourse a Bitcoin-focused event. However, as seen with the rise of “BTC L2s”, Ordinals/Runes/other inscriptions, etc, there is a growing appetite from developers, users, and VCs to build out more functionality on Bitcoin. Additionally, there is work being done to enable OP_CAT, which could enable trust minimized bridging of BTC to other chains. As such, we believe the Arbitrum DAO should have a presence here. There is no reason Orbit should not have a presence on Bitcoin, and the DAO recently signaled its support for Orbit deployments on alternative settlement layers via snapshot vote. Bitcoin has served as the “Gateway” for bringing new people onchain in the past, and we believe targeting Bitcoin supporters is a good way to onboard new users into the Arbitrum ecosystem. We would like to work with OCL on this event, similar to the ETHDenver event, but the ADPC, Disruption Joe, and Entropy can procure a service provider and act as the point of contact in case OCL does not have interest in partnering with the DAO on this event.
EthCC, similar to ETHDenver, is one of the largest Ethereum-centric events of the year, and has historically been hosted in the EU. The event in 2025 is currently slated to take place in Cannes, France, but with the recent arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov in France, this could potentially change. Nevertheless, this is an event that we believe the Arbitrum DAO should have a presence at, and we again suggest supporting OCL and the Arbitrum Foundation to put this event together. In the scenario that OCL/the Foundation does not want to work with the DAO on this initiative, the ADPC, Disruption Joe, and Entropy will procure a 3rd party organizer to manage this event and will be in attendance to ensure things go smoothly. We are hopeful that OpCo will be stood up by this time, so there is a strong possibility that this event will fall under its purview rather than the aforementioned individuals/entities.
We estimate the three events outlined above to cost somewhere in the range of $250-$400k, and would thus have a budget approved that is much higher than the actual outlays. We want to avoid scenarios where we are forced to overpay for event service providers, have a limited selection of service providers, or need to rush through the DAO process in order to meet deadlines for future events. Therefore, we are requesting a budget much larger than required so that if other community members wish to push forward an event, they can do so without having to go through the full governance process.
Instead, we suggest that anyone can put forth an idea for an event in the first half of 2025, but that it can pull from these pre-approved funds via a snapshot vote that must garner 3% of the votable token supply with a simple majority of votes in favor/abstain. From there, the ADPC, Entropy, and Disruption Joe can help procure service providers to put on the event, or the proposer themselves can serve as the project manager/event coordinator. This will cut down on the lead time to put on other events and give the DAO more negotiation power when organizing events on an expedited timeline. Some other events that we had envisioned include presence at non-crypto conferences such as RustConf or CES to attract new developers and users, virtual hackathons specifically focused on Stylus or Orbit with the help of a service provider like Buidlbox, ETHGlobal, etc. It is also important to note, that events with an expected cost under $50,000 should be routed through the Questbook program. The purpose of this proposal is to establish an events strategy for larger initiatives that require substantial funds and active project managers.
It may also be possible for protocols within the Arbitrum ecosystem to partake in events that are put together with funds from this budget. For example, if a community member has an idea for the DAO to have representation at RustConf with an emphasis on showcasing some of the products built with Stylus, Entropy, Disruption Joe, and the ADPC could reach out to protocols building on Stylus to attend the event and showcase their products. Protocols could be expected to “bolster” the events budget. E.g., the DAO spends $100K while 2 Stylus projects put up $10K each to sit at the same booth. This increases the total budget by $20K at no additional cost to the DAO, and these two protocols could showcase their products in a shared booth with Arbitrum branding. This is just one example of how this could look, with the exact structures managed on a case-by-case basis.
We want to emphasize the fact that excess funds will either be moved over to the OpCo once a dedicated events coordinator has been hired, or fully returned to the DAO by the end of 2025. We felt some of the other events required a full-time project manager to ensure they go smoothly, and we do not want to take on more than we can handle. However, by requesting more budget than we require, anyone in the community can take lead on an event if there is DAO support.
In order to eliminate the potential for event overload, we are capping the number of delegate gatherings to two for the year - but are leaving the number of ecosystem growth events open-ended. These events should be planned in such a way that no two events align too closely with one another on dates, with the exception of delegate offsites which could coincide with an ecosystem growth event at a major crypto conference given the convenience of planning travel arrangements. While the primary goal of delegate offsites should be aligning ecosystem leaders and providing a dedicated place/time for more efficient in-person working hours, the ecosystem growth category is more vague in nature. However, all applicants should have clearly articulated goals for the events in line with the defined events strategy, i.e., driving the adoption of Stylus through a hackathon, generating thought-provoking governance proposals, or onboarding new people into the DAO similar to GovHack. Events brought forward by either an individual or service provider, must create a post-event impact report (example from Govhack Brussels) that includes a breakdown of actual costs. Service providers that are procured to execute on an event idea will also be required to provide a post-event impact report.
For concrete examples of how this could work, we can take a look at the 2 proposals for events currently on the forum. The GovHack Core proposal (which has since been rescinded) was brought forth by Hack Humanity, which serves as a great example of a scenario where the ADPC, Disruption Joe, and Entropy would not have been needed in the process at all. Hack Humanity could have taken their proposal to Snapshot, and because they were the service provider themselves, there was no need for any type of procurement process. If the GovHack Core proposal passed snapshot with 3% of the votable token supply with a simple majority of votes in favor/abstain, the funds would be sent from the 2025 events budget (this proposal) and Hack Humanity could have begun their planning. This would eliminate the ~4-week onchain voting process and potentially make it possible to put something together for DevCon in Bangkok in just ~2 months.
This is a prime example of how earmarking an events budget will enable the DAO to move more nimbly. Please note that this proposal is only for 2025, so the previous example is only provided for illustrative purposes. However, it is quite possible that the DAO would rather fund GovHacks on an as-needed/case-by-case basis rather than a whole year, or even open up the event type to other service providers to get new actors involved or potentially lower the price.
In an earlier iteration of a proposal from @danielo, there was no defined offsite facilitator. This is an example of a proposal that did not specify the service provider, so the ADPC, Disruption Joe, and Entropy could have worked together in procuring the proper coordinator upon the proposal passing on Snapshot with 3% of the votable token supply and a simple majority of votes in favor/abstain. The procurement process should bring down overall costs by making the process competitive amongst service providers, and again reduces the lead time by foregoing the onchain Tally vote. Note that this is just an example for illustrative purposes.
It is expected that the contributor requesting a specific event is tasked with defining the measurable KPIs. The DAO will be tasked with deeming a specific events proposal worthwhile via Snapshot, and we encourage delegates to hold these authors to a high standard when it comes to measuring a given event’s impact and how it pushes Arbitrum’s mission forward.
To cover the $1.5M dollar-denominated expenses, 4M ARB would be earmarked and sent to an Arbitrum Foundation-controlled wallet, with funds liquidated into a preferred stablecoin and then sent to a MSS-controlled address .Surplus ARB will be sent back to the DAO Treasury following the liquidation. Entropy Advisors, Disruption Joe, and the ADPC will be the point of contact for the MSS chair to greenlight any queued transactions. No transactions will be signed without confirmations from all 3 entities/individuals. The MSS may send stablecoins back to the Arbitrum Foundation in order to pay service providers with fiat if required. Excess funds will either be moved over to the OpCo once a dedicated events coordinator has been hired, or fully returned to the DAO by the end of 2025.
Updates related to funds spent, upcoming events and relevant details, a place to provide feedback or recommendations, or any other communications will be posted to the ADPC update thread on the Arbitrum Forum. Alternatively, Entropy can post these to our updates thread on the Arbitrum Forum.
We expect this process to take about 2-3 months in its entirety to get underway, which will provide the DAO ample time to prepare for its 2025 events.
The upfront ask to the DAO is $1.5M and the transfer of 4M ARB with the excess returned to the DAO post liquidation, but with just 3 ecosystem growth events outlined in this proposal, the entire budget will not be utilized. However, as mentioned earlier, earmarking these funds gives the DAO the ability to act more nimbly when there is an opportunity to host an event. This will result in the DAO getting better pricing from potential service providers while ensuring the service provider has ample time to do what they do best - organize great events. The DAO can clawback funds from the MSS at any time via a snapshot vote that garners 3% of the votable token supply with a simple majority of votes in favor/abstain.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/90
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/90
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-52: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-52
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-52: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-52
Still voting no - https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/87?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/86?u=ocandocrypto
maintaining our stance from temp check
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/34?u=bob-rossi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/83?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/82?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/43?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/81?u=tekr0x.eth
This establishes a reasonable budget for Arbitrum governance official events for the entirety of 2025. The funds are not all earmarked, and represent a maximum, rather than an allocated, spend.
Great for reducing coordination costs for events that have made previous initiatives unviable
I think the $1.5M USD annual budget is too short for a proper strategy for events organized by the DAO. We should transition from the current reality where most Arbitrum events are organized by Offchain Labs or the Arbitrum Foundation and they should start to be organized by service providers to the Arbitrum DAO. One can argue that the few examples of events that were organized by service providers, funded by Arbitrum DAO, were of better quality and with better outcomes, than those organized by Offchain Labs or the Arbitrum Foundation. In my opinion, Arbitrum DAO should have a $15M USD annual events budget, not $1.5M USD of which most of it is already earmarked for events that were not decided by the Arbitrum DAO. Also, these funds should really not go to the previous Entropy Advisors service provider payment multisig. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/80?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/79?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/29?u=ezr3al
Reasoning: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/78?u=tempetechie
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/73?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/39
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/36?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/70?u=pedrob
I am voting against this proposal because, while I understand the importance of Arbitrum’s presence at key industry events, I feel that the proposed budget of $1.5 million is excessive and lacks sufficient detail on how these funds will be allocated. The proposal outlines only three specific events but requests a large budget, leaving too much flexibility for unspecified and potentially redundant initiatives. Although the proposal aims to streamline event planning and avoid long DAO approval processes, it risks granting too much decision-making power to a small group (ADPC, Disruption Joe, and Entropy), potentially limiting transparency and accountability. Additionally, the process for selecting events and service providers could be overly centralized, which may lead to bias and missed opportunities for diverse participation. The proposal also does not provide clear metrics to evaluate the success of these events, making it challenging for the DAO to assess whether the funds are used effectively. The potential for excess funds to be moved to the OpCo, rather than returning them to the DAO, raises concerns about the actual control the DAO would retain over these resources. The flow of funds outlined is also overly complex, involving multiple transfers and conversions of ARB into stablecoins, which could lead to unnecessary fees and complexities in fund management. Furthermore, the current governance requirements (3% of votable token supply) for approving additional events might not be enough to ensure broad DAO consensus, given the scale of the budget being requested. While I support the idea of Arbitrum hosting and attending industry events, this proposal lacks sufficient checks and balances, which risks inefficient spending and a lack of meaningful DAO oversight. A more transparent and accountable structure for budgeting and event selection would be preferable before approving such a substantial allocation of funds.
Recommendations: 1. Clearer KPI setting: It is recommended to set clearer and quantifiable KPIs before each event in order to measure the actual results. 2. Transparent communication mechanism: After the implementation of each activity, update the progress on a regular basis to maintain the transparency of the community. 3. Expand participation opportunities: Encourage more developers and contributors to participate through the RFP process to increase the diversity and impact of activities. There have been a lot of proposals on this before, and it would be nice to have an overall budget guide!
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/68?u=duokongcrypto。 This proposal provides a clear direction for Arbitrum's campaign budget and strategy for 2025, helping to manage campaign funds flexibly by adding dynamic budgets and transparent evaluation mechanisms, giving the community a clear view of how each budget is being spent and how effective it is. There was a comment submitted earlier, unfortunately it is missing. Suggestions: 1. Although the pre-set budget increases flexibility, it is recommended that the budget be evaluated on a quarterly or half-yearly basis, and dynamically adjusted according to the effect of the activity and changes in the market environment to ensure optimal results in resource allocation. 2. The proposal sets up a flexible budget, but how exactly does it ensure the supervision of the use of funds? Is there a specialized team or process to review the use and allocation of campaign funds? The relevant proposal needs to be refined here. 3. It is proposed to establish a data collection mechanism after each activity, including user participation, media exposure, feedback, etc., to form an activity report for the community's reference, so that the DAO can evaluate the effectiveness of the activity based on the data and optimize the future activity strategy. 4、It is recommended to have a long-term tracking and feedback mechanism for market coverage and brand promotion to ensure the continuity of the campaign effect and provide data support for future marketing.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/67?u=juanrah
The budget is reasonable since It has mostly support on the Snapshot vote. With a clear view of the event budget for 2025, it will help the DAO organize events more effectively and respond quickly to new opportunities, attracting more participants 🙂
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/38?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/84?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/27?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
I am For this proposal but as a named participant I will abstain
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/50?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/49
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-44: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-44
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/48?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/47?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/46?u=griff
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-44: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-44
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/45?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/13?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/44?u=mcfly
I think the $1.5M USD annual budget is too short, the event strategy was not decided in a bottoms-up way by the DAO, and because the Arbitrum Foundation already has their own events budget that they spend at their own discretion which is roughly 10 times this amount so they should not have a say in this committee as to which events should be funded. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/43?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/40?u=kuiclub
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-stable-treasury-endowment-program-2-0/26819/14?u=duokongcrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/38?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/37?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/36?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/34
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/31?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/30?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/29?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/27?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/76?u=larva
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-52: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-52
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-52: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-52
Still voting no - https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/87?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/86?u=ocandocrypto
maintaining our stance from temp check
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/34?u=bob-rossi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/83?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/82?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/43?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/81?u=tekr0x.eth
This establishes a reasonable budget for Arbitrum governance official events for the entirety of 2025. The funds are not all earmarked, and represent a maximum, rather than an allocated, spend.
Great for reducing coordination costs for events that have made previous initiatives unviable
I think the $1.5M USD annual budget is too short for a proper strategy for events organized by the DAO. We should transition from the current reality where most Arbitrum events are organized by Offchain Labs or the Arbitrum Foundation and they should start to be organized by service providers to the Arbitrum DAO. One can argue that the few examples of events that were organized by service providers, funded by Arbitrum DAO, were of better quality and with better outcomes, than those organized by Offchain Labs or the Arbitrum Foundation. In my opinion, Arbitrum DAO should have a $15M USD annual events budget, not $1.5M USD of which most of it is already earmarked for events that were not decided by the Arbitrum DAO. Also, these funds should really not go to the previous Entropy Advisors service provider payment multisig. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/80?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/79?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/29?u=ezr3al
Reasoning: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/78?u=tempetechie
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/73?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/39
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/36?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/70?u=pedrob
I am voting against this proposal because, while I understand the importance of Arbitrum’s presence at key industry events, I feel that the proposed budget of $1.5 million is excessive and lacks sufficient detail on how these funds will be allocated. The proposal outlines only three specific events but requests a large budget, leaving too much flexibility for unspecified and potentially redundant initiatives. Although the proposal aims to streamline event planning and avoid long DAO approval processes, it risks granting too much decision-making power to a small group (ADPC, Disruption Joe, and Entropy), potentially limiting transparency and accountability. Additionally, the process for selecting events and service providers could be overly centralized, which may lead to bias and missed opportunities for diverse participation. The proposal also does not provide clear metrics to evaluate the success of these events, making it challenging for the DAO to assess whether the funds are used effectively. The potential for excess funds to be moved to the OpCo, rather than returning them to the DAO, raises concerns about the actual control the DAO would retain over these resources. The flow of funds outlined is also overly complex, involving multiple transfers and conversions of ARB into stablecoins, which could lead to unnecessary fees and complexities in fund management. Furthermore, the current governance requirements (3% of votable token supply) for approving additional events might not be enough to ensure broad DAO consensus, given the scale of the budget being requested. While I support the idea of Arbitrum hosting and attending industry events, this proposal lacks sufficient checks and balances, which risks inefficient spending and a lack of meaningful DAO oversight. A more transparent and accountable structure for budgeting and event selection would be preferable before approving such a substantial allocation of funds.
Recommendations: 1. Clearer KPI setting: It is recommended to set clearer and quantifiable KPIs before each event in order to measure the actual results. 2. Transparent communication mechanism: After the implementation of each activity, update the progress on a regular basis to maintain the transparency of the community. 3. Expand participation opportunities: Encourage more developers and contributors to participate through the RFP process to increase the diversity and impact of activities. There have been a lot of proposals on this before, and it would be nice to have an overall budget guide!
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/68?u=duokongcrypto。 This proposal provides a clear direction for Arbitrum's campaign budget and strategy for 2025, helping to manage campaign funds flexibly by adding dynamic budgets and transparent evaluation mechanisms, giving the community a clear view of how each budget is being spent and how effective it is. There was a comment submitted earlier, unfortunately it is missing. Suggestions: 1. Although the pre-set budget increases flexibility, it is recommended that the budget be evaluated on a quarterly or half-yearly basis, and dynamically adjusted according to the effect of the activity and changes in the market environment to ensure optimal results in resource allocation. 2. The proposal sets up a flexible budget, but how exactly does it ensure the supervision of the use of funds? Is there a specialized team or process to review the use and allocation of campaign funds? The relevant proposal needs to be refined here. 3. It is proposed to establish a data collection mechanism after each activity, including user participation, media exposure, feedback, etc., to form an activity report for the community's reference, so that the DAO can evaluate the effectiveness of the activity based on the data and optimize the future activity strategy. 4、It is recommended to have a long-term tracking and feedback mechanism for market coverage and brand promotion to ensure the continuity of the campaign effect and provide data support for future marketing.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/67?u=juanrah
The budget is reasonable since It has mostly support on the Snapshot vote. With a clear view of the event budget for 2025, it will help the DAO organize events more effectively and respond quickly to new opportunities, attracting more participants 🙂
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/38?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/84?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/27?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
I am For this proposal but as a named participant I will abstain
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/50?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/49
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-44: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-44
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/48?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/47?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/46?u=griff
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-44: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-44
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/45?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/13?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/44?u=mcfly
I think the $1.5M USD annual budget is too short, the event strategy was not decided in a bottoms-up way by the DAO, and because the Arbitrum Foundation already has their own events budget that they spend at their own discretion which is roughly 10 times this amount so they should not have a say in this committee as to which events should be funded. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/43?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/40?u=kuiclub
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-stable-treasury-endowment-program-2-0/26819/14?u=duokongcrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/38?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/37?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/36?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/34
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/31?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/30?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/29?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/27?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/76?u=larva
just want to share that the FWB Fest webite for 2025 is live and Slow, Sensual & Messy coincides with Fest. Would love to include Arbitrum and the ecosystem in this curated integration with tech & culture leaders.
Congratulations on the success of this proposal! Chones would love to support Arbitrum and any affiliates like Entropy and Blockful, to tap into the FWB ecosystem, by requesting partnership at a multi day side event during FWB Fest, July 31-Aug 3, 2025. Please consider reviewing the partner package and how Arbitrum ecosystem can benefit from this activation, and ofc, let me know if you have any questions. Thank you <3
note: Chones is also working on coordinating a weekend event for crypto and AI founders at LA Tech Week, Oct 16-19, 2025, and would love to collaborate on ways to integrate Arbitrum ecosystem development into that event.
just want to share that the FWB Fest webite for 2025 is live and Slow, Sensual & Messy coincides with Fest. Would love to include Arbitrum and the ecosystem in this curated integration with tech & culture leaders.
Congratulations on the success of this proposal! Chones would love to support Arbitrum and any affiliates like Entropy and Blockful, to tap into the FWB ecosystem, by requesting partnership at a multi day side event during FWB Fest, July 31-Aug 3, 2025. Please consider reviewing the partner package and how Arbitrum ecosystem can benefit from this activation, and ofc, let me know if you have any questions. Thank you <3
note: Chones is also working on coordinating a weekend event for crypto and AI founders at LA Tech Week, Oct 16-19, 2025, and would love to collaborate on ways to integrate Arbitrum ecosystem development into that event.
how would people apply to host / run any of these events / ask that the teams do so?
how would people apply to host / run any of these events / ask that the teams do so?
Thanks for this. Just a few suggestions:
Thanks for this. Just a few suggestions:
Interesting proposal and planning ahead of time. Can we be more innovate in budget allocation and utilization, like collabs, sourcing etc.?
It was the vision post by us :)
We'll be posting an update shortly which I believe was discussed there. ^^
Great idea of Arbitrum week.
Hi everyone, here's our post event writeup on ETHDenver 2025, where we used $400,000 earmarked from the DAO-approved events budget.
Hi everyone, here's our post event writeup on ETHDenver 2025, where we used $400,000 earmarked from the DAO-approved events budget.
The Arbitrum Foundation participated with Offchain Labs and Arbitrum DAO in ETH Denver 2025, where as a team, we had over 25 speaking opportunities, from the main stage at the conference to side events. The total footprint encompassed sponsoring 3 side events, hosting 3 Arbitrum owned events and having a booth on the ETH Denver show floor for networking and partnership opportunities.
Comparatively to last year’s smaller ETH Denver presence, we significantly scaled our impact - owning four distinct activations, including a stronger conference presence. Leveraging both Arbitrum Foundation and DAO funds, we expanded our footprint and delivered more immersive, high-touch experiences.
Per event, we attracted over 1,000 registrants, with attendance rates averaging 60% - a minimum of 600 participants. In closing, our event footprint was a clear success, enabling the entire Arbitrum Ecosystem to show up creatively, elevate production quality, and continue our strong brand presence. By way of these curated experiences and high-quality activations, we positioned ourselves in a more compelling and memorable way compared to previous years.
Arbitrum ecosystem’s overall activations resulted in 16.5k engagements, where we enjoyed in-person engagement of 2.3K + attendees across 5 activations, making the event the second most highly engaged event after Devcon 2024, which had 4.2K with 11 activations. Also, the event reached 21.5M unique people, which puts the event at a similar level as ArbiVerse Singapore 2024 in terms of total offline + online brand reach.
Programming:
From 6PM to 7PM, we hosted a VIP invite-only cocktail hour for c-suites, execs, and department leads. This was beneficial as many of them stayed for the duration of the event, allowing attendees to have face time with high-signal folks.
From 7PM to 10PM, we opened the doors to general admission folks, and the space was quickly filled.
Verbal feedback was that the event was great - received the comment that “Arbitrum has the best food at their events”. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Event | Cost | Purpose of Contribution |
|---|---|---|
| CrossChain Collider | $131,416.50 | This contribution, accompanied with Arbitrum Foundation’s contribution, allowed us to secure a high-visibility venue in downtown Denver, hire top-tier event talent, and customize the event environment to elevate attendee experience. We were also able to offer different activations designed to drive engagement, including: on-site swag printing, a temporary tattoo station, a curated bodega featuring Asian imported snacks, and a photo booth station. |
| EthDenver Booth | $131,416.50 | This contribution, accompanied with Arbitrum Foundation’s contribution, enabled us to upgrade from last year’s booth size - a 10x10 to a 20x20. The larger booth footprint and custom booth amplified our brand presence and overall visibility on the show floor. With these additional funds, we also beefed up our merch quantities and offered a range of items including: fanny packs, beanies, hand sanitizers, lip balms, deodorant, gum, and stickers. |
| ArbiBurger | $82,167.00 | This investment enabled Arbitrum to return to Shake Shack for the third year in a row. The funds were used to meet Shake Shack’s food and beverage minimum, produce high-quality custom interior graphics, secure vendors for our gaming activation, procure premium Arbitrum merchandise, implement on-site badge printing, and hire brand ambassadors to support event execution. |
| TOTAL | $400,000 | Overall, the event circuit was a success. Per event, we attracted over 1,000 registrants, with attendance rates averaging 60% - a minimum of 600 participants at each event.The DAO’s generous support allowed us to think bigger, execute at a higher level, and deliver a more memorable experience for ETHDenver attendees compared to previous years. |
Interesting proposal and planning ahead of time. Can we be more innovate in budget allocation and utilization, like collabs, sourcing etc.?
It was the vision post by us :)
We'll be posting an update shortly which I believe was discussed there. ^^
Great idea of Arbitrum week.
Hi everyone, here's our post event writeup on ETHDenver 2025, where we used $400,000 earmarked from the DAO-approved events budget.
Hi everyone, here's our post event writeup on ETHDenver 2025, where we used $400,000 earmarked from the DAO-approved events budget.
The Arbitrum Foundation participated with Offchain Labs and Arbitrum DAO in ETH Denver 2025, where as a team, we had over 25 speaking opportunities, from the main stage at the conference to side events. The total footprint encompassed sponsoring 3 side events, hosting 3 Arbitrum owned events and having a booth on the ETH Denver show floor for networking and partnership opportunities.
Comparatively to last year’s smaller ETH Denver presence, we significantly scaled our impact - owning four distinct activations, including a stronger conference presence. Leveraging both Arbitrum Foundation and DAO funds, we expanded our footprint and delivered more immersive, high-touch experiences.
Per event, we attracted over 1,000 registrants, with attendance rates averaging 60% - a minimum of 600 participants. In closing, our event footprint was a clear success, enabling the entire Arbitrum Ecosystem to show up creatively, elevate production quality, and continue our strong brand presence. By way of these curated experiences and high-quality activations, we positioned ourselves in a more compelling and memorable way compared to previous years.
Arbitrum ecosystem’s overall activations resulted in 16.5k engagements, where we enjoyed in-person engagement of 2.3K + attendees across 5 activations, making the event the second most highly engaged event after Devcon 2024, which had 4.2K with 11 activations. Also, the event reached 21.5M unique people, which puts the event at a similar level as ArbiVerse Singapore 2024 in terms of total offline + online brand reach.
Programming:
From 6PM to 7PM, we hosted a VIP invite-only cocktail hour for c-suites, execs, and department leads. This was beneficial as many of them stayed for the duration of the event, allowing attendees to have face time with high-signal folks.
From 7PM to 10PM, we opened the doors to general admission folks, and the space was quickly filled.
Verbal feedback was that the event was great - received the comment that “Arbitrum has the best food at their events”.
|
||
|||
||
| Event | Cost | Purpose of Contribution |
|---|---|---|
| CrossChain Collider | $131,416.50 | This contribution, accompanied with Arbitrum Foundation’s contribution, allowed us to secure a high-visibility venue in downtown Denver, hire top-tier event talent, and customize the event environment to elevate attendee experience. We were also able to offer different activations designed to drive engagement, including: on-site swag printing, a temporary tattoo station, a curated bodega featuring Asian imported snacks, and a photo booth station. |
| EthDenver Booth | $131,416.50 | This contribution, accompanied with Arbitrum Foundation’s contribution, enabled us to upgrade from last year’s booth size - a 10x10 to a 20x20. The larger booth footprint and custom booth amplified our brand presence and overall visibility on the show floor. With these additional funds, we also beefed up our merch quantities and offered a range of items including: fanny packs, beanies, hand sanitizers, lip balms, deodorant, gum, and stickers. |
| ArbiBurger | $82,167.00 | This investment enabled Arbitrum to return to Shake Shack for the third year in a row. The funds were used to meet Shake Shack’s food and beverage minimum, produce high-quality custom interior graphics, secure vendors for our gaming activation, procure premium Arbitrum merchandise, implement on-site badge printing, and hire brand ambassadors to support event execution. |
| TOTAL | $400,000 | Overall, the event circuit was a success. Per event, we attracted over 1,000 registrants, with attendance rates averaging 60% - a minimum of 600 participants at each event.The DAO’s generous support allowed us to think bigger, execute at a higher level, and deliver a more memorable experience for ETHDenver attendees compared to previous years. |
Gm, gm :sparkles:
The results are in for the Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025 on-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1483
Gm, gm :sparkles:
The results are in for the Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025 on-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1483
We find this proposal to be well-structured and strategically important for Arbitrum's ecosystem development. The proposed framework effectively addresses several critical aspects of event management while maintaining appropriate checks and balances.
Strategic Value & Implementation The proposed approach demonstrates a good understanding of the challenges inherent in event planning and execution, particularly regarding the lengthy lead times and upfront capital requirements. The implementation of a pre-approved budget mechanism that enables faster execution through Snapshot voting (requiring 3% of votable token supply) is an efficient solution that balances agility with proper governance oversight.
We find this proposal to be well-structured and strategically important for Arbitrum's ecosystem development. The proposed framework effectively addresses several critical aspects of event management while maintaining appropriate checks and balances.
Strategic Value & Implementation The proposed approach demonstrates a good understanding of the challenges inherent in event planning and execution, particularly regarding the lengthy lead times and upfront capital requirements. The implementation of a pre-approved budget mechanism that enables faster execution through Snapshot voting (requiring 3% of votable token supply) is an efficient solution that balances agility with proper governance oversight.
Budget Allocation & Control The proposed budget of $1.5M (via 4M ARB) appears reasonable given:
Operational Framework The collaborative approach between Entropy Advisors, ADPC, and Disruption Joe, combined with their intention to work alongside OCL and the Arbitrum Foundation, creates a robust operational structure. This helps ensure alignment with broader ecosystem initiatives,prevention of competing or redundant events and efficient resource utilization.
One of the key aspects to be appreciated about the proposal is that it effectively upholds the decentralized and governance-oriented ethos of Arbitrum, by not introducing a centralized body that would determine the event strategy - but that it effectively leaves that up to the DAO and executes accordingly. The proposal should hence be perceived as more of an operational efficiency improvement rather than a fundamental change to how such decisions are made.
Overall, we are in support of this proposal as it represents a thoughtful approach to events management in the context of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Can confirm that we elected to use the same multisig :) since it is an Entropy-related proposal.
We find this proposal to be well-structured and strategically important for Arbitrum's ecosystem development. The proposed framework effectively addresses several critical aspects of event management while maintaining appropriate checks and balances.
Strategic Value & Implementation The proposed approach demonstrates a good understanding of the challenges inherent in event planning and execution, particularly regarding the lengthy lead times and upfront capital requirements. The implementation of a pre-approved budget mechanism that enables faster execution through Snapshot voting (requiring 3% of votable token supply) is an efficient solution that balances agility with proper governance oversight.
We find this proposal to be well-structured and strategically important for Arbitrum's ecosystem development. The proposed framework effectively addresses several critical aspects of event management while maintaining appropriate checks and balances.
Strategic Value & Implementation The proposed approach demonstrates a good understanding of the challenges inherent in event planning and execution, particularly regarding the lengthy lead times and upfront capital requirements. The implementation of a pre-approved budget mechanism that enables faster execution through Snapshot voting (requiring 3% of votable token supply) is an efficient solution that balances agility with proper governance oversight.
Budget Allocation & Control The proposed budget of $1.5M (via 4M ARB) appears reasonable given:
Operational Framework The collaborative approach between Entropy Advisors, ADPC, and Disruption Joe, combined with their intention to work alongside OCL and the Arbitrum Foundation, creates a robust operational structure. This helps ensure alignment with broader ecosystem initiatives,prevention of competing or redundant events and efficient resource utilization.
One of the key aspects to be appreciated about the proposal is that it effectively upholds the decentralized and governance-oriented ethos of Arbitrum, by not introducing a centralized body that would determine the event strategy - but that it effectively leaves that up to the DAO and executes accordingly. The proposal should hence be perceived as more of an operational efficiency improvement rather than a fundamental change to how such decisions are made.
Overall, we are in support of this proposal as it represents a thoughtful approach to events management in the context of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Can confirm that we elected to use the same multisig :) since it is an Entropy-related proposal.
The results are in for the Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025 off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1413
The results are in for the Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025 off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1413
yeah, I was also wondering this. it seems that the total cost of these events was more than the $400k the DAO made available through the Events Budget, and it would be useful to know, at least % wise, how much that $400K covered for the 3 events. @Arbitrum, could you make available a rough percentage of how much of the cost, in %, that $400K USD covered?
hey @Arbitrum in the @Entropy office hours call last week, Entropy folks said that the Foundation would be soon sharing a summarized update of what was talked about and/or decided on the other ETH Denver Arbitrum event, the Delegate Day organized by Entropy, where allegedly all the big Arbitrum delegates, by voting power, members of the Arbitrum Foundation and @offchainlabs participated for most of the day, on the 26th of February.
hey @Arbitrum in the @Entropy office hours call last week, Entropy folks said that the Foundation would be soon sharing a summarized update of what was talked about and/or decided on the other ETH Denver Arbitrum event, the Delegate Day organized by Entropy, where allegedly all the big Arbitrum delegates, by voting power, members of the Arbitrum Foundation and @offchainlabs participated for most of the day, on the 26th of February.
More than a month has gone by, could we have a report on what transpired during that private event as it concerns to the Arbitrum DAO?
Thank you!
Thanks @Arbitrum for the clear recap and detailed cost breakdown—super useful! Beyond the high participation numbers, is there any insight on the overall impact or ROI these events have generated for Arbitrum?
As of this writing, the proposal has officially passed tally and funds have been sent to an Arbitrum Foundation-controlled wallet. The Foundation should be converting the ARB to stables and sending the proceeds to an MSS-controlled address, with the remaining ARB returned to the DAO treasury over the coming week(s).
Entropy had a call with the Foundation’s new events lead and have been in regular talks with the person who holds that same position at OCL to ensure the DAO's alignment with these entities. They are moving along with their ETH Denver planning and understand that they have the DAO’s support if needed. Entropy, the ADPC, and Disruption Joe will be meeting over the coming weeks to ensure we are all on the same page. We are very pleased to have ”ready to spend” funds to get better deals from SPs, move more nimbly as a DAO, and to provide support to OCL/the Arbitrum Foundation. A dedicated communications thread for Events will be set up in short order.
As of this writing, the proposal has officially passed tally and funds have been sent to an Arbitrum Foundation-controlled wallet. The Foundation should be converting the ARB to stables and sending the proceeds to an MSS-controlled address, with the remaining ARB returned to the DAO treasury over the coming week(s).
Entropy had a call with the Foundation’s new events lead and have been in regular talks with the person who holds that same position at OCL to ensure the DAO's alignment with these entities. They are moving along with their ETH Denver planning and understand that they have the DAO’s support if needed. Entropy, the ADPC, and Disruption Joe will be meeting over the coming weeks to ensure we are all on the same page. We are very pleased to have ”ready to spend” funds to get better deals from SPs, move more nimbly as a DAO, and to provide support to OCL/the Arbitrum Foundation. A dedicated communications thread for Events will be set up in short order.
Thank you to everyone for your support on this proposal!
DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal on Tally.
We maintained our support from the temp check to the onchain vote.
it comes from page 34 of the Arbitrum Foundation transparency report released 2 months ago and available here
to be more specific, the Arbitrum Foundation spent $5.26M USD from January 1st 2024, to June 30th 2024 (6 months) in "Events,Marketing and Communications".
Hye, any progress on this, please?
This is great, thanks for the breakdown. Can you clarify the costs per event are the absolute cost to run each event or just the component amount paid for from DAO funds?
It would be great to see the absolute costs per event, would you be willing to add a column for this? This information helps other service providers that run events like myself, and delegates have a normative understanding of what real costs it takes to produce high-end events in top-tier cities. As a DAO we can then better assess and judge future events related proposals.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal.
We supported the proposal during temp-check after first discussing it with Entropy and other stakeholders and having some of our feedback incorporated into the proposal. Nothing has changed since to make us change our decision - if anything, we’ve become more convinced after attending Devcon and talking with people there.
Cooperation between the DAO and the Foundation and involvement in each other's endeavours seem to be increasing —a good example of that being Arbiverse in Bangkok, where the DAO had its own booth and led some workshops — and we want to see more of that going forward.
Going into 2025, we hope the DAO’s events budget will be allocated to more events that uphold this spirit of collaboration between the Foundation, Offchain Labs, and the DAO to create truly ecosystem-wide events.
Where does this information come from?
Are you saying that the previous events we voted for were extra funding and there was money in the Foundation's budget for them?
First thing first, we don't want to be the grumpy agent here, killing the good vibes events! We all want Arbitrum to have a strong presence at major events and more efficient planning. But this proposal is solving a problem by... creating more problems.
First thing first, we don't want to be the grumpy agent here, killing the good vibes events! We all want Arbitrum to have a strong presence at major events and more efficient planning. But this proposal is solving a problem by... creating more problems.
The Arbitrum Foundation already has an events team. They've got serious money for this - $5.26M for Events/Marketing/Comms in H1 2024. That's not pocket change. Instead of working with what we've got, this proposal wants to:
And for what? To do basically the same thing the Foundation is already doing.
Sure, the current system has issues with timing and upfront payments. But adding more layers of bureaucracy isn't the answer. It's like seeing a traffic jam and deciding the solution is to build another road right on top of the existing one.
We already have:
Instead of this complexity sandwich, why don't we:
We're essentially creating a parallel structure that will need to "coordinate" with the Foundation anyway. This isn't decentralization - it's just bureaucracy with extra steps.
We're voting NO. Not because we don't support better event planning, but because we want solutions that streamline our operations, not complicate them further.
Let's fix what we have instead of building a parallel universe.
We heard good things about the Shake Shack event at ETH Denver. Everyone loves free food. However, it would make sense to us if there were more direct ways to tie the events to ROI for the DAO.
For example, everyone had to sign in to go to those events, is there a way to have these tied to some on chain system that can then track further contributions or inputs?
We heard good things about the Shake Shack event at ETH Denver. Everyone loves free food. However, it would make sense to us if there were more direct ways to tie the events to ROI for the DAO.
For example, everyone had to sign in to go to those events, is there a way to have these tied to some on chain system that can then track further contributions or inputs?
Showing the return for the DAO should be a goal of all programs getting money from the DAO and events is notoriously hard to track for, but we think the Events team has the budget and creativity to come up with a good solution here.
yeah, I was also wondering this. it seems that the total cost of these events was more than the $400k the DAO made available through the Events Budget, and it would be useful to know, at least % wise, how much that $400K covered for the 3 events. @Arbitrum, could you make available a rough percentage of how much of the cost, in %, that $400K USD covered?
hey @Arbitrum in the @Entropy office hours call last week, Entropy folks said that the Foundation would be soon sharing a summarized update of what was talked about and/or decided on the other ETH Denver Arbitrum event, the Delegate Day organized by Entropy, where allegedly all the big Arbitrum delegates, by voting power, members of the Arbitrum Foundation and @offchainlabs participated for most of the day, on the 26th of February.
hey @Arbitrum in the @Entropy office hours call last week, Entropy folks said that the Foundation would be soon sharing a summarized update of what was talked about and/or decided on the other ETH Denver Arbitrum event, the Delegate Day organized by Entropy, where allegedly all the big Arbitrum delegates, by voting power, members of the Arbitrum Foundation and @offchainlabs participated for most of the day, on the 26th of February.
More than a month has gone by, could we have a report on what transpired during that private event as it concerns to the Arbitrum DAO?
Thank you!
Thanks @Arbitrum for the clear recap and detailed cost breakdown—super useful! Beyond the high participation numbers, is there any insight on the overall impact or ROI these events have generated for Arbitrum?
As of this writing, the proposal has officially passed tally and funds have been sent to an Arbitrum Foundation-controlled wallet. The Foundation should be converting the ARB to stables and sending the proceeds to an MSS-controlled address, with the remaining ARB returned to the DAO treasury over the coming week(s).
Entropy had a call with the Foundation’s new events lead and have been in regular talks with the person who holds that same position at OCL to ensure the DAO's alignment with these entities. They are moving along with their ETH Denver planning and understand that they have the DAO’s support if needed. Entropy, the ADPC, and Disruption Joe will be meeting over the coming weeks to ensure we are all on the same page. We are very pleased to have ”ready to spend” funds to get better deals from SPs, move more nimbly as a DAO, and to provide support to OCL/the Arbitrum Foundation. A dedicated communications thread for Events will be set up in short order.
As of this writing, the proposal has officially passed tally and funds have been sent to an Arbitrum Foundation-controlled wallet. The Foundation should be converting the ARB to stables and sending the proceeds to an MSS-controlled address, with the remaining ARB returned to the DAO treasury over the coming week(s).
Entropy had a call with the Foundation’s new events lead and have been in regular talks with the person who holds that same position at OCL to ensure the DAO's alignment with these entities. They are moving along with their ETH Denver planning and understand that they have the DAO’s support if needed. Entropy, the ADPC, and Disruption Joe will be meeting over the coming weeks to ensure we are all on the same page. We are very pleased to have ”ready to spend” funds to get better deals from SPs, move more nimbly as a DAO, and to provide support to OCL/the Arbitrum Foundation. A dedicated communications thread for Events will be set up in short order.
Thank you to everyone for your support on this proposal!
DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal on Tally.
We maintained our support from the temp check to the onchain vote.
it comes from page 34 of the Arbitrum Foundation transparency report released 2 months ago and available here
to be more specific, the Arbitrum Foundation spent $5.26M USD from January 1st 2024, to June 30th 2024 (6 months) in "Events,Marketing and Communications".
Hye, any progress on this, please?
This is great, thanks for the breakdown. Can you clarify the costs per event are the absolute cost to run each event or just the component amount paid for from DAO funds?
It would be great to see the absolute costs per event, would you be willing to add a column for this? This information helps other service providers that run events like myself, and delegates have a normative understanding of what real costs it takes to produce high-end events in top-tier cities. As a DAO we can then better assess and judge future events related proposals.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal.
We supported the proposal during temp-check after first discussing it with Entropy and other stakeholders and having some of our feedback incorporated into the proposal. Nothing has changed since to make us change our decision - if anything, we’ve become more convinced after attending Devcon and talking with people there.
Cooperation between the DAO and the Foundation and involvement in each other's endeavours seem to be increasing —a good example of that being Arbiverse in Bangkok, where the DAO had its own booth and led some workshops — and we want to see more of that going forward.
Going into 2025, we hope the DAO’s events budget will be allocated to more events that uphold this spirit of collaboration between the Foundation, Offchain Labs, and the DAO to create truly ecosystem-wide events.
Where does this information come from?
Are you saying that the previous events we voted for were extra funding and there was money in the Foundation's budget for them?
First thing first, we don't want to be the grumpy agent here, killing the good vibes events! We all want Arbitrum to have a strong presence at major events and more efficient planning. But this proposal is solving a problem by... creating more problems.
First thing first, we don't want to be the grumpy agent here, killing the good vibes events! We all want Arbitrum to have a strong presence at major events and more efficient planning. But this proposal is solving a problem by... creating more problems.
The Arbitrum Foundation already has an events team. They've got serious money for this - $5.26M for Events/Marketing/Comms in H1 2024. That's not pocket change. Instead of working with what we've got, this proposal wants to:
And for what? To do basically the same thing the Foundation is already doing.
Sure, the current system has issues with timing and upfront payments. But adding more layers of bureaucracy isn't the answer. It's like seeing a traffic jam and deciding the solution is to build another road right on top of the existing one.
We already have:
Instead of this complexity sandwich, why don't we:
We're essentially creating a parallel structure that will need to "coordinate" with the Foundation anyway. This isn't decentralization - it's just bureaucracy with extra steps.
We're voting NO. Not because we don't support better event planning, but because we want solutions that streamline our operations, not complicate them further.
Let's fix what we have instead of building a parallel universe.
We heard good things about the Shake Shack event at ETH Denver. Everyone loves free food. However, it would make sense to us if there were more direct ways to tie the events to ROI for the DAO.
For example, everyone had to sign in to go to those events, is there a way to have these tied to some on chain system that can then track further contributions or inputs?
We heard good things about the Shake Shack event at ETH Denver. Everyone loves free food. However, it would make sense to us if there were more direct ways to tie the events to ROI for the DAO.
For example, everyone had to sign in to go to those events, is there a way to have these tied to some on chain system that can then track further contributions or inputs?
Showing the return for the DAO should be a goal of all programs getting money from the DAO and events is notoriously hard to track for, but we think the Events team has the budget and creativity to come up with a good solution here.
I voted in favor on Tally for the reason I mentioned during temp-check: "Setting aside funds for events helps Arbitrum stay active in the most important crypto spaces, which keeps the community growing and engaged. I also believe that involving the AF and OCL helps unify the community and prevents conflicting events. It really brings people together and keeps everyone on the same page, which makes the Arbitrum community much stronger."
I voted 'FOR' on the proposal after reading all the documents. I maintain my view, as expressed in the temp check, that as a leading chain, we need to be present at all major events with a significant presence.
Thank you! I looked carefully, the report is very vague about what the funds were spent on.
It would be good if @Entropy made a request to the @arbitrum.foundation to understand how not to double the costs for 2025.
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
We maintain our position made at the Snapshot phase and continue to support the idea of establishing the 2025 events budget for the smooth budgeting process with a clear framework.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Tally Vote.
We voted in favor (without reservations) during the temp check, and since the proposal has not undergone significant changes, we see no reason to alter our voting position.
Here is our prior rationale:
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Tally Vote.
We voted in favor (without reservations) during the temp check, and since the proposal has not undergone significant changes, we see no reason to alter our voting position.
Here is our prior rationale:
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
We had the opportunity to provide feedback to @Entropy privately during one of our bi-weekly meetings, and we would like to take this opportunity to share it here on the forum.
It would be good to evaluate the impact that these events will have on the ecosystem with a kind of process similar to the evaluation to give a grant. In Questbook, specifically in the Education, Community Growth and Events domain, we try to put a lot of emphasis on having good budget breakdowns, KPIs, and deliverables, as it is a very efficient way to guarantee that the budgeted prices have the best possible Quality/Price ratio. Additionally, we always try to include some activities such as a workshop or a hackathon with arbitrum as the main topic within these events.
We suggested changing the voting threshold in Snapshot to match that required for a non-constitutional on-chain vote (3% of the votable supply). This feedback was incorporated into the final version.
We emphasized that in programs like this one (as well as in the Questbook domain mentioned), it is extremely important to weigh regional diversity, as it allows Arbitrum DAO to gain visibility across the globe.
Additionally, we highlighted that the maximums in Questbook (currently $50k USD) should remain aligned over time with the minimums of this proposal.
voting Against this onchain proposal because I think the $1.5M USD annual budget is too short for a proper strategy for events organized by the DAO. We should transition from the current reality where most Arbitrum events are organized by Offchain Labs or the Arbitrum Foundation and they should start to be organized by service providers to the Arbitrum DAO. One can argue that the few examples of events that were organized by service providers, funded by Arbitrum DAO, were of better quality and with better outcomes, than those organized by Offchain Labs or the Arbitrum Foundation. In my opinion, Arbitrum DAO should have a $15M USD annual events budget, not $1.5M USD of which most of it is already earmarked for events that were not decided by the Arbitrum DAO. Also, these funds should really not go to the previous Entropy Advisors service provider payment multisig.
The following reflects the views of the 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 this proposal on Tally.
The following reflects the views of the 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 this proposal on Tally.
Attending key industry events is important for Arbitrum, as past events have proven valuable alongside those managed by the Foundation. This budget proposal, planned, should help prevent last-minute rushes due to the current 4-week confirmation period.
Rest our overall thoughts remain the same as expressed in our rationale during the Snapshot voting.
We are voting FOR this proposal.
It is important for Arbitrum to be present at key industry events. In the past, events like GovHack have played a vital role alongside those managed by the Foundation. However, we’ve observed that the 4-week confirmation time has caused last-minute rushes for proposals, which this well-planned budget should help avoid.
We trust ADPC, Disruption Joe, and Entropy to smoothly transition the responsibility of organizing these events to the OpCo once it is fully operational.
Before we move to Tally, we have one point that needs clarification. Regarding the service providers, will they need a Snapshot vote to get funds approved by the DAO, or will members be able to approve the funds directly? Understanding this process will help ensure third-party providers stay motivated to organize events for the DAO.
Voted For (same reason as Snapshot vote): Events are one of the most important channels for addressing our community. They also bring new users, projects, and developers to join Arbitrum. As leaders in the Ethereum ecosystem, we should have a very strong presence at as many events as possible. I understand that these things take time and require a lot of funds, but I think it’s worth it. Having a strategy and budget like this is a huge step in the right direction. It’s much better than the rest of our industry, where things are often decided ad hoc.
I would add that having KPI reports after each event would be awesome. This way, we could have measurable results for each one. In the beginning, there might not be enough data to draw conclusions, but over time, we could shape KPIs based on which we can make decisions for future events.
I voted FOR this proposal on Tally. I think it provides a better system of organizing and funding DAO-related events.
As for whether to organize an Arbitrum-specific event not attached to any other conference, I think this sounds better on paper than in reality (at this point). I see for myself that when I travel to attend a crypto event, I choose to attend large conferences with many (side) events rather than to attend a smaller specific event with no other events around it (because it's easier to justify the personal travel cost of attending a larger conference with side events). In the future, when the Arbitrum community grows, it could have its own major conference, but for now, let's stick with side events attached to some major conference (e.g. an Ethereum conference or a non-crypto conference like krst from L2Beat proposed).
As @web3citizenxyz contributor, voted "FOR" onchain and this is our rationale.
I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage. Events are one of the few paid channels available for reaching the core crypto audience. The Arbitrum DAO should have a strong presence at every major Ethereum event. I’ve run an events program at an $200M ARR software company, so I have a reasonably informed view on costs, and $1.5M is a reasonable annual budget for an organization of Arbitrum’s scale.
I voted "FOR" on Tally. The reasoning remains the same.
Just voted FOR on Tally, for the same reasons I outlined during the temp-check: link to forum post.
Thank you @Entropy, I voted For in Tally (Reasoning)
I vote in favor of this proposal in Tally for the same reasons stated during the vote in Snapshot.
Additionally, @Entropy addressed my doubts in their last response. I'm excited to see how this budget fosters Arbitrum's presence at the best events in 2025!
I voted for on this proposal on Tally. The budget is reasonable since it has mostly support on the Snapshot vote. With a clear view of the event budget for 2025, it will help the DAO organize events more effectively and respond quickly to new opportunities, so attracting more participants 🙂
We appreciate the questions @olimpio, please find some additional context below:
It’s still not 100% perfectly clear to me why should this be done through the DAO instead of the Foundation, or Offchain Labs? Who was paying for this before the DAO existed?
Voting FOR.
Many have pointed out the need to have better accountability in these project and I think this concern is justified but I also think the individuals and entities in charge will correctly report and communicate the utilization of funds. It is important to consider that having presence in major events is an important part of the ecosystem growth and it could also help with enhancing collaboration.
Voting FOR.
Many have pointed out the need to have better accountability in these project and I think this concern is justified but I also think the individuals and entities in charge will correctly report and communicate the utilization of funds. It is important to consider that having presence in major events is an important part of the ecosystem growth and it could also help with enhancing collaboration.
My rationale for the vote is based on the idea that having a presence in major events is essential for Arbitrum. These events will help ecosystem growth, visibility, community engagement, and strategic development. It will bring increased visibility and brand awareness, help the Arbitrum ecosystem stay relevant, strengthen its credibility and attract talent.
I agree with https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/60?u=danielm
A more decentralized approach to selecting events would ensure broader coverage, reduce the likelihood of missed opportunities, and better reflect the interests of the entire DAO community. Allowing the DAO to weigh in would create a more balanced approach, leveraging diverse perspectives and maximizing the potential impact of each event. This way, decisions align more closely with the community’s goals and strengthen the DAO’s outreach and influence.
I vote FOR this proposal. In my opinion, the competition among Layer 2 solutions is currently very fierce, given the huge potential market at stake. Now is the right moment to invest and leverage the DAO Treasury to attract as many builders as possible.
In my view, a $1.5M budget is appropriately sized for a project as significant as Arbitrum. If we do a quick benchmark with 1inchDAO Events budget for 2024, it amounts to $1.6M all the details here. Like many others, I would appreciate some clear KPIs so that continuous improvement can be implemented.
I voted in favor on Tally for the reason I mentioned during temp-check: "Setting aside funds for events helps Arbitrum stay active in the most important crypto spaces, which keeps the community growing and engaged. I also believe that involving the AF and OCL helps unify the community and prevents conflicting events. It really brings people together and keeps everyone on the same page, which makes the Arbitrum community much stronger."
I voted 'FOR' on the proposal after reading all the documents. I maintain my view, as expressed in the temp check, that as a leading chain, we need to be present at all major events with a significant presence.
Thank you! I looked carefully, the report is very vague about what the funds were spent on.
It would be good if @Entropy made a request to the @arbitrum.foundation to understand how not to double the costs for 2025.
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
We maintain our position made at the Snapshot phase and continue to support the idea of establishing the 2025 events budget for the smooth budgeting process with a clear framework.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Tally Vote.
We voted in favor (without reservations) during the temp check, and since the proposal has not undergone significant changes, we see no reason to alter our voting position.
Here is our prior rationale:
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Tally Vote.
We voted in favor (without reservations) during the temp check, and since the proposal has not undergone significant changes, we see no reason to alter our voting position.
Here is our prior rationale:
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
We had the opportunity to provide feedback to @Entropy privately during one of our bi-weekly meetings, and we would like to take this opportunity to share it here on the forum.
It would be good to evaluate the impact that these events will have on the ecosystem with a kind of process similar to the evaluation to give a grant. In Questbook, specifically in the Education, Community Growth and Events domain, we try to put a lot of emphasis on having good budget breakdowns, KPIs, and deliverables, as it is a very efficient way to guarantee that the budgeted prices have the best possible Quality/Price ratio. Additionally, we always try to include some activities such as a workshop or a hackathon with arbitrum as the main topic within these events.
We suggested changing the voting threshold in Snapshot to match that required for a non-constitutional on-chain vote (3% of the votable supply). This feedback was incorporated into the final version.
We emphasized that in programs like this one (as well as in the Questbook domain mentioned), it is extremely important to weigh regional diversity, as it allows Arbitrum DAO to gain visibility across the globe.
Additionally, we highlighted that the maximums in Questbook (currently $50k USD) should remain aligned over time with the minimums of this proposal.
voting Against this onchain proposal because I think the $1.5M USD annual budget is too short for a proper strategy for events organized by the DAO. We should transition from the current reality where most Arbitrum events are organized by Offchain Labs or the Arbitrum Foundation and they should start to be organized by service providers to the Arbitrum DAO. One can argue that the few examples of events that were organized by service providers, funded by Arbitrum DAO, were of better quality and with better outcomes, than those organized by Offchain Labs or the Arbitrum Foundation. In my opinion, Arbitrum DAO should have a $15M USD annual events budget, not $1.5M USD of which most of it is already earmarked for events that were not decided by the Arbitrum DAO. Also, these funds should really not go to the previous Entropy Advisors service provider payment multisig.
The following reflects the views of the 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 this proposal on Tally.
The following reflects the views of the 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 this proposal on Tally.
Attending key industry events is important for Arbitrum, as past events have proven valuable alongside those managed by the Foundation. This budget proposal, planned, should help prevent last-minute rushes due to the current 4-week confirmation period.
Rest our overall thoughts remain the same as expressed in our rationale during the Snapshot voting.
We are voting FOR this proposal.
It is important for Arbitrum to be present at key industry events. In the past, events like GovHack have played a vital role alongside those managed by the Foundation. However, we’ve observed that the 4-week confirmation time has caused last-minute rushes for proposals, which this well-planned budget should help avoid.
We trust ADPC, Disruption Joe, and Entropy to smoothly transition the responsibility of organizing these events to the OpCo once it is fully operational.
Before we move to Tally, we have one point that needs clarification. Regarding the service providers, will they need a Snapshot vote to get funds approved by the DAO, or will members be able to approve the funds directly? Understanding this process will help ensure third-party providers stay motivated to organize events for the DAO.
Voted For (same reason as Snapshot vote): Events are one of the most important channels for addressing our community. They also bring new users, projects, and developers to join Arbitrum. As leaders in the Ethereum ecosystem, we should have a very strong presence at as many events as possible. I understand that these things take time and require a lot of funds, but I think it’s worth it. Having a strategy and budget like this is a huge step in the right direction. It’s much better than the rest of our industry, where things are often decided ad hoc.
I would add that having KPI reports after each event would be awesome. This way, we could have measurable results for each one. In the beginning, there might not be enough data to draw conclusions, but over time, we could shape KPIs based on which we can make decisions for future events.
I voted FOR this proposal on Tally. I think it provides a better system of organizing and funding DAO-related events.
As for whether to organize an Arbitrum-specific event not attached to any other conference, I think this sounds better on paper than in reality (at this point). I see for myself that when I travel to attend a crypto event, I choose to attend large conferences with many (side) events rather than to attend a smaller specific event with no other events around it (because it's easier to justify the personal travel cost of attending a larger conference with side events). In the future, when the Arbitrum community grows, it could have its own major conference, but for now, let's stick with side events attached to some major conference (e.g. an Ethereum conference or a non-crypto conference like krst from L2Beat proposed).
As @web3citizenxyz contributor, voted "FOR" onchain and this is our rationale.
I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage. Events are one of the few paid channels available for reaching the core crypto audience. The Arbitrum DAO should have a strong presence at every major Ethereum event. I’ve run an events program at an $200M ARR software company, so I have a reasonably informed view on costs, and $1.5M is a reasonable annual budget for an organization of Arbitrum’s scale.
I voted "FOR" on Tally. The reasoning remains the same.
Just voted FOR on Tally, for the same reasons I outlined during the temp-check: link to forum post.
Thank you @Entropy, I voted For in Tally (Reasoning)
I vote in favor of this proposal in Tally for the same reasons stated during the vote in Snapshot.
Additionally, @Entropy addressed my doubts in their last response. I'm excited to see how this budget fosters Arbitrum's presence at the best events in 2025!
I voted for on this proposal on Tally. The budget is reasonable since it has mostly support on the Snapshot vote. With a clear view of the event budget for 2025, it will help the DAO organize events more effectively and respond quickly to new opportunities, so attracting more participants 🙂
We appreciate the questions @olimpio, please find some additional context below:
It’s still not 100% perfectly clear to me why should this be done through the DAO instead of the Foundation, or Offchain Labs? Who was paying for this before the DAO existed?
Voting FOR.
Many have pointed out the need to have better accountability in these project and I think this concern is justified but I also think the individuals and entities in charge will correctly report and communicate the utilization of funds. It is important to consider that having presence in major events is an important part of the ecosystem growth and it could also help with enhancing collaboration.
Voting FOR.
Many have pointed out the need to have better accountability in these project and I think this concern is justified but I also think the individuals and entities in charge will correctly report and communicate the utilization of funds. It is important to consider that having presence in major events is an important part of the ecosystem growth and it could also help with enhancing collaboration.
My rationale for the vote is based on the idea that having a presence in major events is essential for Arbitrum. These events will help ecosystem growth, visibility, community engagement, and strategic development. It will bring increased visibility and brand awareness, help the Arbitrum ecosystem stay relevant, strengthen its credibility and attract talent.
I agree with https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/60?u=danielm
A more decentralized approach to selecting events would ensure broader coverage, reduce the likelihood of missed opportunities, and better reflect the interests of the entire DAO community. Allowing the DAO to weigh in would create a more balanced approach, leveraging diverse perspectives and maximizing the potential impact of each event. This way, decisions align more closely with the community’s goals and strengthen the DAO’s outreach and influence.
I vote FOR this proposal. In my opinion, the competition among Layer 2 solutions is currently very fierce, given the huge potential market at stake. Now is the right moment to invest and leverage the DAO Treasury to attract as many builders as possible.
In my view, a $1.5M budget is appropriately sized for a project as significant as Arbitrum. If we do a quick benchmark with 1inchDAO Events budget for 2024, it amounts to $1.6M all the details here. Like many others, I would appreciate some clear KPIs so that continuous improvement can be implemented.
I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage. Events are one of the few paid channels available for reaching the core crypto audience. The Arbitrum DAO should have a strong presence at every major Ethereum event. I’ve run an events program at an $200M ARR software company, so I have a reasonably informed view on costs, and $1.5M is a reasonable annual budget for an organization of Arbitrum’s scale.
I voted FOR this proposal on Tally for the reasons outlined above.
We appreciate the questions @olimpio, please find some additional context below:
It’s still not 100% perfectly clear to me why should this be done through the DAO instead of the Foundation, or Offchain Labs? Who was paying for this before the DAO existed?
Before the DAO existed, Offchain Labs was responsible for organizing and paying for Arbitrum related events. While they still have an events team, the Arbitrum Foundation has been scaling their own dedicated events team to take over this function. According to their recent 2024 H1 report, ~$5.26m was spent on “Events, Marketing, and Communications”. From Entropy’s understanding, this figure includes both the cost to organize & executive events and several key full-time employees across all three of those functions, but our team does not have exact figures to share.
We’d also point contributors to slides 19-27 of the 2024 H1 report that highlight previous events. These include major side events like Arbitrum Day at EthCC and sponsorship of conferences like the ETHDenver BUIDLathon & the Game Developers Conference in San Francisco.
While the DAO does not currently have the capability to organize a large event like Arbiverse or Arbitrum Day, it was envisioned that it could collaborate with the Foundation and OCL events team by helping bolster their budget strategically at the three mentioned conferences.
For example, Arbitrum’s booth at ETHDenver last year was only a 10x20 in the back corner of the trade floor. Compared this to Base and Near, who had major floor displays. Rather than compete with the Foundation’s plans for ETHDenver, the DAO can help support by providing additional resources.
It is important to note that this monetary support is more a secondary objective for the proposal. Its main purpose is to set aside a budget for event ideas, such as GovHack, that may be brought forward to the DAO.
It would be very helpful to have a deeper breakdown of expenses (although estimates per events were given, I saw). Will a report be published afterwards? How much time after each event? Deadlines?
Event proposals brought forward by individuals or service providers will be required to publish a post-event report. For the events mentioned above, Entropy will provide updates on how funds were spent. These will be posted after the event, likely no more than a few weeks afterwards. Below is the language included in the proposal:
Updates related to funds spent, upcoming events and relevant details, a place to provide feedback or recommendations, or any other communications will be posted to the ADPC update thread on the Arbitrum Forum. Alternatively, Entropy can post these to our updates thread on the Arbitrum Forum.
The Foundation’s events team has communicated that they are still in the early stages of planning for ETHDenver. Once the scale of the sponsorship/adjacent events are confirmed, we will provide as best of a breakdown as possible and are committed to not releasing the funds until there is clarity for what they will be spent on. However, at this point in time we can’t speak to the exact breakdowns of each event because the events themselves have not been planned.
I agree with https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/60?u=danielm
A more decentralized approach to selecting events would ensure broader coverage, reduce the likelihood of missed opportunities, and better reflect the interests of the entire DAO community. Allowing the DAO to weigh in would create a more balanced approach, leveraging diverse perspectives and maximizing the potential impact of each event. This way, decisions align more closely with the community’s goals and strengthen the DAO’s outreach and influence.
That's why I understand the position of https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/59?u=danielm. We need to have a choice to vote for the locations, because not all people have the opportunity of visiting North America and Europe. Many people live in Asia and South America. This locations would help address these barriers, ensuring that the DAO’s events are accessible to a broader, more representative audience. This adjustment would ultimately strengthen community engagement and ensure that voices from all regions are effectively included in DAO activities.
I'm voting in favor on Tally for the same resons that I mentioned during the previous temp check phase. I'm also happy to see more clear details about the events. Here you can find my rationale: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/31
Voted FOR: Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025
Proposal link: Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/32
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
Voted FOR: Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025
Proposal link: Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/32
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
This proposal offers a structured, pre-approved events budget for 2025, addressing challenges that arose from last-minute event planning in 2024. By establishing a dedicated budget managed by Entropy, ADPC, and Disruption Joe, this initiative seeks to streamline event planning and enhance Arbitrum’s presence at critical industry events. The focus on both Delegate Gatherings and Ecosystem Growth Events ensures that DAO activities can be better organized, more impactful, and strategically aligned with the broader goals of the Arbitrum community.
One area of feedback involves ensuring diverse representation in event locations, especially given feedback on the absence of Asian events like Token2049 Dubai. The proposal wisely incorporates a flexible process, allowing contributors to bring forth new event ideas through Snapshot votes, which helps ensure regional representation. Additionally, for events under $50,000, the Questbook program will be utilized to avoid unnecessary governance overload on smaller initiatives.
A centralized body deciding event strategy is not part of this proposal and the quoted group is only responsible for procuring events service providers (if necessary) and interfacing with the Foundation & OCL event teams.
A centralized body deciding event strategy is not part of this proposal and the quoted group is only responsible for procuring events service providers (if necessary) and interfacing with the Foundation & OCL event teams.
Ogh, means I read it wrong, thanks for the clarifications.
There is now an opportunity for a contributor or service provider to bring forth an idea to the DAO for an event in Asia.
Will they be subjected to an RFP? :smiley:
That's great and I believe is how things have been working for the past year. The DAs are doing an excelent job, one thing I would add and personally think would be great is if the DAO will assign :official" representatives to those events. Web3 sometimes has an alignment problem when it comes to events-some events benefit the organizers more than the funder body(and yield superficial results) and would be cool if Arb Dao would avoid those situations as much as possible.
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
Given the bit of disorder that came from multiple event-based proposals in the past couple of months, we welcome this proposal. Hack Humanity’s Bangkok proposal, for instance, came last minute and had to go through a formal governance process before having the capital in their pocket to pay for the venue, etc. Last-minute event planning should ideally have been addressed after the one-off EthCC proposal. This preset budget for 2025 will ideally help with organization and foresight.
@ZER8 we'd like to point you to this part of the proposal that explains how other events are decided and prioritized:
@ZER8 we'd like to point you to this part of the proposal that explains how other events are decided and prioritized:
It is ultimately up to the DAO to decide and vote on which events they want to prioritize over the course of 2025. A centralized body deciding event strategy is not part of this proposal and the quoted group is only responsible for procuring events service providers (if necessary) and interfacing with the Foundation & OCL event teams.
For example, as @Mehdi_eth highlighted, the removal of Token2049 Dubai means there are no events in Asia. There is now an opportunity for a contributor or service provider to bring forth an idea to the DAO for an event in Asia. While Entropy encourages delegates to hold the authors of such event proposals to a high standard, if its passes a Snapshot vote, then funds from the 2025 Events Budget can be allocated.
Also as a general reminder, an event that costs less than 50k should apply for funds through the Questbook domain. The funds allocated to the 2025 Events Budget should be reserved for large scale events.
This proposal provides a clear direction for Arbitrum's campaign budget and strategy for 2025, helping to manage campaign funds flexibly by adding dynamic budgets and transparent evaluation mechanisms, giving the community a clear view of how each budget is being spent and how effective it is. There was a comment submitted earlier, unfortunately it is missing.
Suggestions: 1、 Although the pre-set budget increases flexibility, it is recommended that the budget be evaluated on a quarterly or half-yearly basis, and dynamically adjusted according to the effect of the activity and changes in the market environment to ensure optimal results in resource allocation. 2. The proposal sets up a flexible budget, but how exactly does it ensure the supervision of the use of funds? Is there a specialized team or process to review the use and allocation of campaign funds? The relevant proposal needs to be refined here. 3. It is proposed to establish a data collection mechanism after each activity, including user participation, media exposure, feedback, etc., to form an activity report for the community's reference, so that the DAO can evaluate the effectiveness of the activity based on the data and optimize the future activity strategy. 4、It is recommended to have a long-term tracking and feedback mechanism for market coverage and brand promotion to ensure the continuity of the campaign effect and provide data support for future marketing.
We’re excited to see close to unanimous support for a 2025 Events Budget! We will be moving this proposal forward to Tally this week, with the vote beginning Thursday, October 31st.
We will also address a few of the additional questions that came up during the Snapshot period.
How was the $1.5m amount chosen?
We’re excited to see close to unanimous support for a 2025 Events Budget! We will be moving this proposal forward to Tally this week, with the vote beginning Thursday, October 31st.
We will also address a few of the additional questions that came up during the Snapshot period.
How was the $1.5m amount chosen?
There were differing opinions from delegates, with multiple individuals providing feedback that $1.5 was either too much or too little. An event’s cost can range widely depending on its scope, location, if it's in-person/virtual, and targeted size. A comprehensive events strategy, which this proposal is not attempting to create, would be required to establish a more firm budget. $1.5m was derived from the following rationale:
Again, we’d like to state that Entropy does not expect all $1.5m to be allocated, and since each event must be approved by a Snapshot vote, it is ultimately up to the DAO on how much it wishes to spend. If the $1.5m proves to be insufficient and the DAO deems the previously funded events as successful, additional funds can always be allocated.
Will the quoted group, the Arbitrum Foundation, or OCL have a say in the other events funded?
The 3 events specifically outlined in the proposal will lean heavily on OCL / the AF, but future proposals brought forth by service providers or contributors could have much less involvement from the aforementioned parties. We expect to lean on OCL / the AF to ensure there are no events that end up competing for mindshare as well as to align on general strategy/event goals, but unless the AF / OCL comes to the DAO requesting for additional funds from the DAO’s events budget herein, they will not have direct say in what does or does not get funded. They will be consulted by Entropy, Disruption Joe, and the ADPC to ensure alignment, but the DAO has the overarching decision making power. As stated in the proposal, any individual or events service provider can bring forward an event to the DAO and must have it approved by a Snapshot vote.
Instead, we suggest that anyone can put forth an idea for an event in the first half of 2025, but that it can pull from these pre-approved funds via a snapshot vote that must garner 3% of the votable token supply with a simple majority of votes in favor/abstain. From there, the ADPC, Entropy, and Disruption Joe can help procure service providers to put on the event, or the proposer themselves can serve as the project manager/event coordinator.
It is therefore ultimately up to the DAO to decide which events they want to prioritize over the course of 2025.
Bitcoin 2025: Las Vegas
We would like to be transparent in that compared to ETHDenver and EthCC, OCL has not yet provided confirmation Bitcoin 2025 will be included in their event’s strategy for next year. As stated in the proposal, the quoted group is committed to procuring a service provider and acting as the point of contact if necessary:
We would like to work with OCL on this event, similar to the ETHDenver event, but the ADPC, Disruption Joe, and Entropy can procure a service provider and act as the point of contact in case OCL does not have interest in partnering with the DAO on this event.
We will reiterate that it is our belief Bitcoin 2025 presents an opportunity for Arbitrum to grow its brand in an adjacent community, but if the quoted group determines that supporting/hosting an activation would be ineffective or wasteful, then the funds will be preserved for another future event opportunity.
KPIs, measurements of success, requirements for event proposers
As outlined in the proposal, individuals or services providers bringing forward an event idea are expected to include measurable KPIs and will be required to publish a retroactive impact report, which includes a breakdown of actual vs budgeted costs and important learnings for the DAO.
Events brought forward by either an individual or service provider, must create a post-event impact report (example from Govhack Brussels) that includes a breakdown of actual costs.
It is expected that the contributor requesting a specific event is tasked with defining the measurable KPIs.
Entropy encourages delegates to hold specific event proposals to a high standard when it comes to measuring a given event’s impact and the expected budget’s level of detail.
In terms of measuring the success of the three outlined events, data points such as number of registrations, actual attendance, conversion rate of registrations to attendance, social media metrics, and overall Arbitrum social sentiment will be taken into account. Since these events are still in an early planning stage, it is not possible to give exact targets for these KPIs, but the ADPC, Disruption Joe, and Entropy will communicate this information to the DAO when it becomes available.
Compensation
The quoted members of this group are not receiving any additional compensation for their work in procuring service providers for events or interfacing with the Foundation/OCL event teams.
Establishing an Events Budget for 2025 is now pending for a vote on Tally. Funds will be first moved into a Foundation-controlled address, where the 4m ARB will be converted into $1.5m of stablecoins and then sent to an MSS-controlled address, with any excess ARB being returned to the DAO.
Please note that the Foundation has elected to use this address for the 4M ARB transfer upon this proposal’s passing, which was previously used to custody the funds from Entropy Advisor’s proposal. @stonecoldpat or another Arbitrum Foundation team member can provide confirmation that this is an AF controlled multi-sig.
I voted in favour of this proposal on temp check. Advertising expenses are always important, especially when other teams and organizations are doing it. Sponsoring events is important for Arbitrum.
Before my on-chain vote:
I voted in favour of this proposal on temp check. Advertising expenses are always important, especially when other teams and organizations are doing it. Sponsoring events is important for Arbitrum.
Before my on-chain vote:
It's still not 100% perfectly clear to me why should this be done through the DAO instead of the Foundation, or Offchain Labs? Who was paying for this before the DAO existed?
It would be very helpful to have a deeper breakdown of expenses (although estimates per events were given, I saw). Will a report be published afterwards? How much time after each event? Deadlines?
I̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶u̶n̶c̶l̶e̶a̶r̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶e̶n̶s̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶ ̶b̶e̶h̶i̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶p̶o̶s̶a̶l̶ ̶(̶E̶n̶t̶r̶o̶p̶y̶ ̶A̶d̶v̶i̶s̶o̶r̶s̶,̶ ̶D̶i̶s̶r̶u̶p̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶J̶o̶e̶,̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶A̶D̶P̶C̶)̶.̶ ̶A̶r̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶g̶e̶t̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶u̶t̶ ̶f̶r̶o̶m̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶$̶1̶,̶5̶0̶0̶,̶0̶0̶0̶?̶ ̶@̶E̶n̶t̶r̶o̶p̶y̶ ̶d̶i̶d̶ ̶m̶e̶n̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶n̶'̶t̶,̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶m̶s̶ ̶u̶n̶u̶s̶u̶a̶l̶?̶
EDIT: Point discussed via TG, this is part -and included- of Entropy's OG proposal (link), and ADPC work events is also in their scope, so nothing additional is charged
The quoted members of this group are not receiving any additional compensation for their work in procuring service providers for events or interfacing with the Foundation/OCL event teams.
My apologies if any of this has been answered in detail, I read all replies and didn't find it. Supportive on this stage, attentive for feedback for the on-chain vote, which is active right now and a deadline in 14 days.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
We had the opportunity to provide feedback to @Entropy privately during one of our bi-weekly meetings, and we would like to take this opportunity to share it here on the forum.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
We had the opportunity to provide feedback to @Entropy privately during one of our bi-weekly meetings, and we would like to take this opportunity to share it here on the forum.
It would be good to evaluate the impact that these events will have on the ecosystem with a kind of process similar to the evaluation to give a grant. In Questbook, specifically in the Education, Community Growth and Events domain, we try to put a lot of emphasis on having good budget breakdowns, KPIs, and deliverables, as it is a very efficient way to guarantee that the budgeted prices have the best possible Quality/Price ratio. Additionally, we always try to include some activities such as a workshop or a hackathon with arbitrum as the main topic within these events.
We suggested changing the voting threshold in Snapshot to match that required for a non-constitutional on-chain vote (3% of the votable supply). This feedback was incorporated into the final version.
We emphasized that in programs like this one (as well as in the Questbook domain mentioned), it is extremely important to weigh regional diversity, as it allows Arbitrum DAO to gain visibility across the globe.
Additionally, we highlighted that the maximums in Questbook (currently $50k USD) should remain aligned over time with the minimums of this proposal.
It is also important to note, that events with an expected cost under $50,000 should be routed through the Questbook program. The purpose of this proposal is to establish an events strategy for larger initiatives that require substantial funds and active project managers.
DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
There are so many positives to establishing this event budget for 2025 from streamlining decision-making to creating opportunities for onboarding new projects into the ecosystem. Plus, we really like that OCL and the Foundation would play a major role in how they are structured.
Looking forward to an eventful 2025!
Given that the Arbitrum DAO offsite proposal was rejected and there is no DAO event planned in Asia (Dubai 2049), I would like to request that Asia be considered as a formal location in next year's budget. Although most delegates are based in Europe and Western countries, obtaining a visa can be challenging for those from Asia. I Think some delegates faced similar issues during GovHack in Brussels.
I think the Arbitrum DAO needs an event budget and it's great 2 see this initiative!
I do feel that it only scratches the surface of the issue though.
I’m voting FOR on this proposal.
I have no strong opinion about the amount; if at some point it's not enough and we measure and understand that it adds value, I’m sure the DAO could consider extending it.
On the other hand, I like the idea that DAO members can propose their own events and KPIs.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal.
We have been discussing this proposal with Entropy and other stakeholders for quite some time. We’re happy to see our previous feedback incorporated into the version currently on Snapshot, and we find the overall direction taken to be the right one.
We vote FOR the proposal.
We support the program to introduce the coordination help from the knowledgable members and the allocated budget with clear guidelines and procurement process as we value the importance of having DAO-led events for Arbitrum and opportunities for delegate gatherings.
Overall I support this proposal, the last few event proposals were very difficult to coordinate though the DAO and having a committee dedicated to it would make more sense.
While I want to cut spending, marketing and coordinating at events is probably worth it.
Overall I support this proposal, the last few event proposals were very difficult to coordinate though the DAO and having a committee dedicated to it would make more sense.
While I want to cut spending, marketing and coordinating at events is probably worth it.
It is a smart move to keep Arbitrum visible at key industry events. And I actually like the idea of having presence at a BTC event. The oversight from Entropy, ADPC, and Disruption Joe is solid, and I appreciate that unused funds go back to the DAO.
I would prefer that the group hold ARB until it is spent, even if it was allocated 10M ARB, for exchange rate risk, that would be better than selling all the ARB now and then holding stables to see if it is spent.
But I do support this effort and wish it had happened earlier so that maybe we could have had GovHack in Devcon!
We're voting AGAINST the 2025 DAO events funding proposal.
We appreciate the effort put into crafting this proposal. DAO events have merit, but timing is key. Given the current token price concerns and substantial AF and OCL event investments, allocating an additional $1.5M now feels excessive. Let's revisit this idea after gauging the impact of our recent initiatives funded in h1 24. Overall, we think a measured approach to spending aligns better with our delegate responsibility in these market conditions.
We voted against this proposal in line with our strict stance against unnecessary spending within the DAO.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal.
It is important for Arbitrum to be present at key industry events. In the past, events like GovHack have played a vital role alongside those managed by the Foundation. However, we’ve observed that the 4-week confirmation time has caused last-minute rushes for proposals, which this well-planned budget should help avoid.
We trust ADPC, Disruption Joe, and Entropy to smoothly transition the responsibility of organizing these events to the OpCo once it is fully operational.
Before we move to Tally, we have one point that needs clarification. Regarding the service providers, will they need a Snapshot vote to get funds approved by the DAO, or will members be able to approve the funds directly? Understanding this process will help ensure third-party providers stay motivated to organize events for the DAO.
I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage. Events are one of the few paid channels available for reaching the core crypto audience. The Arbitrum DAO should have a strong presence at every major Ethereum event. I’ve run an events program at an $200M ARR software company, so I have a reasonably informed view on costs, and $1.5M is a reasonable annual budget for an organization of Arbitrum’s scale.
I voted FOR this proposal on Tally for the reasons outlined above.
We appreciate the questions @olimpio, please find some additional context below:
It’s still not 100% perfectly clear to me why should this be done through the DAO instead of the Foundation, or Offchain Labs? Who was paying for this before the DAO existed?
Before the DAO existed, Offchain Labs was responsible for organizing and paying for Arbitrum related events. While they still have an events team, the Arbitrum Foundation has been scaling their own dedicated events team to take over this function. According to their recent 2024 H1 report, ~$5.26m was spent on “Events, Marketing, and Communications”. From Entropy’s understanding, this figure includes both the cost to organize & executive events and several key full-time employees across all three of those functions, but our team does not have exact figures to share.
We’d also point contributors to slides 19-27 of the 2024 H1 report that highlight previous events. These include major side events like Arbitrum Day at EthCC and sponsorship of conferences like the ETHDenver BUIDLathon & the Game Developers Conference in San Francisco.
While the DAO does not currently have the capability to organize a large event like Arbiverse or Arbitrum Day, it was envisioned that it could collaborate with the Foundation and OCL events team by helping bolster their budget strategically at the three mentioned conferences.
For example, Arbitrum’s booth at ETHDenver last year was only a 10x20 in the back corner of the trade floor. Compared this to Base and Near, who had major floor displays. Rather than compete with the Foundation’s plans for ETHDenver, the DAO can help support by providing additional resources.
It is important to note that this monetary support is more a secondary objective for the proposal. Its main purpose is to set aside a budget for event ideas, such as GovHack, that may be brought forward to the DAO.
It would be very helpful to have a deeper breakdown of expenses (although estimates per events were given, I saw). Will a report be published afterwards? How much time after each event? Deadlines?
Event proposals brought forward by individuals or service providers will be required to publish a post-event report. For the events mentioned above, Entropy will provide updates on how funds were spent. These will be posted after the event, likely no more than a few weeks afterwards. Below is the language included in the proposal:
Updates related to funds spent, upcoming events and relevant details, a place to provide feedback or recommendations, or any other communications will be posted to the ADPC update thread on the Arbitrum Forum. Alternatively, Entropy can post these to our updates thread on the Arbitrum Forum.
The Foundation’s events team has communicated that they are still in the early stages of planning for ETHDenver. Once the scale of the sponsorship/adjacent events are confirmed, we will provide as best of a breakdown as possible and are committed to not releasing the funds until there is clarity for what they will be spent on. However, at this point in time we can’t speak to the exact breakdowns of each event because the events themselves have not been planned.
I agree with https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/60?u=danielm
A more decentralized approach to selecting events would ensure broader coverage, reduce the likelihood of missed opportunities, and better reflect the interests of the entire DAO community. Allowing the DAO to weigh in would create a more balanced approach, leveraging diverse perspectives and maximizing the potential impact of each event. This way, decisions align more closely with the community’s goals and strengthen the DAO’s outreach and influence.
That's why I understand the position of https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/59?u=danielm. We need to have a choice to vote for the locations, because not all people have the opportunity of visiting North America and Europe. Many people live in Asia and South America. This locations would help address these barriers, ensuring that the DAO’s events are accessible to a broader, more representative audience. This adjustment would ultimately strengthen community engagement and ensure that voices from all regions are effectively included in DAO activities.
I'm voting in favor on Tally for the same resons that I mentioned during the previous temp check phase. I'm also happy to see more clear details about the events. Here you can find my rationale: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/establishing-a-dao-events-budget-for-2025/26734/31
Voted FOR: Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025
Proposal link: Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/32
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
Voted FOR: Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025
Proposal link: Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/32
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
This proposal offers a structured, pre-approved events budget for 2025, addressing challenges that arose from last-minute event planning in 2024. By establishing a dedicated budget managed by Entropy, ADPC, and Disruption Joe, this initiative seeks to streamline event planning and enhance Arbitrum’s presence at critical industry events. The focus on both Delegate Gatherings and Ecosystem Growth Events ensures that DAO activities can be better organized, more impactful, and strategically aligned with the broader goals of the Arbitrum community.
One area of feedback involves ensuring diverse representation in event locations, especially given feedback on the absence of Asian events like Token2049 Dubai. The proposal wisely incorporates a flexible process, allowing contributors to bring forth new event ideas through Snapshot votes, which helps ensure regional representation. Additionally, for events under $50,000, the Questbook program will be utilized to avoid unnecessary governance overload on smaller initiatives.
A centralized body deciding event strategy is not part of this proposal and the quoted group is only responsible for procuring events service providers (if necessary) and interfacing with the Foundation & OCL event teams.
A centralized body deciding event strategy is not part of this proposal and the quoted group is only responsible for procuring events service providers (if necessary) and interfacing with the Foundation & OCL event teams.
Ogh, means I read it wrong, thanks for the clarifications.
There is now an opportunity for a contributor or service provider to bring forth an idea to the DAO for an event in Asia.
Will they be subjected to an RFP? :smiley:
That's great and I believe is how things have been working for the past year. The DAs are doing an excelent job, one thing I would add and personally think would be great is if the DAO will assign :official" representatives to those events. Web3 sometimes has an alignment problem when it comes to events-some events benefit the organizers more than the funder body(and yield superficial results) and would be cool if Arb Dao would avoid those situations as much as possible.
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
Given the bit of disorder that came from multiple event-based proposals in the past couple of months, we welcome this proposal. Hack Humanity’s Bangkok proposal, for instance, came last minute and had to go through a formal governance process before having the capital in their pocket to pay for the venue, etc. Last-minute event planning should ideally have been addressed after the one-off EthCC proposal. This preset budget for 2025 will ideally help with organization and foresight.
@ZER8 we'd like to point you to this part of the proposal that explains how other events are decided and prioritized:
@ZER8 we'd like to point you to this part of the proposal that explains how other events are decided and prioritized:
It is ultimately up to the DAO to decide and vote on which events they want to prioritize over the course of 2025. A centralized body deciding event strategy is not part of this proposal and the quoted group is only responsible for procuring events service providers (if necessary) and interfacing with the Foundation & OCL event teams.
For example, as @Mehdi_eth highlighted, the removal of Token2049 Dubai means there are no events in Asia. There is now an opportunity for a contributor or service provider to bring forth an idea to the DAO for an event in Asia. While Entropy encourages delegates to hold the authors of such event proposals to a high standard, if its passes a Snapshot vote, then funds from the 2025 Events Budget can be allocated.
Also as a general reminder, an event that costs less than 50k should apply for funds through the Questbook domain. The funds allocated to the 2025 Events Budget should be reserved for large scale events.
This proposal provides a clear direction for Arbitrum's campaign budget and strategy for 2025, helping to manage campaign funds flexibly by adding dynamic budgets and transparent evaluation mechanisms, giving the community a clear view of how each budget is being spent and how effective it is. There was a comment submitted earlier, unfortunately it is missing.
Suggestions: 1、 Although the pre-set budget increases flexibility, it is recommended that the budget be evaluated on a quarterly or half-yearly basis, and dynamically adjusted according to the effect of the activity and changes in the market environment to ensure optimal results in resource allocation. 2. The proposal sets up a flexible budget, but how exactly does it ensure the supervision of the use of funds? Is there a specialized team or process to review the use and allocation of campaign funds? The relevant proposal needs to be refined here. 3. It is proposed to establish a data collection mechanism after each activity, including user participation, media exposure, feedback, etc., to form an activity report for the community's reference, so that the DAO can evaluate the effectiveness of the activity based on the data and optimize the future activity strategy. 4、It is recommended to have a long-term tracking and feedback mechanism for market coverage and brand promotion to ensure the continuity of the campaign effect and provide data support for future marketing.
We’re excited to see close to unanimous support for a 2025 Events Budget! We will be moving this proposal forward to Tally this week, with the vote beginning Thursday, October 31st.
We will also address a few of the additional questions that came up during the Snapshot period.
How was the $1.5m amount chosen?
We’re excited to see close to unanimous support for a 2025 Events Budget! We will be moving this proposal forward to Tally this week, with the vote beginning Thursday, October 31st.
We will also address a few of the additional questions that came up during the Snapshot period.
How was the $1.5m amount chosen?
There were differing opinions from delegates, with multiple individuals providing feedback that $1.5 was either too much or too little. An event’s cost can range widely depending on its scope, location, if it's in-person/virtual, and targeted size. A comprehensive events strategy, which this proposal is not attempting to create, would be required to establish a more firm budget. $1.5m was derived from the following rationale:
Again, we’d like to state that Entropy does not expect all $1.5m to be allocated, and since each event must be approved by a Snapshot vote, it is ultimately up to the DAO on how much it wishes to spend. If the $1.5m proves to be insufficient and the DAO deems the previously funded events as successful, additional funds can always be allocated.
Will the quoted group, the Arbitrum Foundation, or OCL have a say in the other events funded?
The 3 events specifically outlined in the proposal will lean heavily on OCL / the AF, but future proposals brought forth by service providers or contributors could have much less involvement from the aforementioned parties. We expect to lean on OCL / the AF to ensure there are no events that end up competing for mindshare as well as to align on general strategy/event goals, but unless the AF / OCL comes to the DAO requesting for additional funds from the DAO’s events budget herein, they will not have direct say in what does or does not get funded. They will be consulted by Entropy, Disruption Joe, and the ADPC to ensure alignment, but the DAO has the overarching decision making power. As stated in the proposal, any individual or events service provider can bring forward an event to the DAO and must have it approved by a Snapshot vote.
Instead, we suggest that anyone can put forth an idea for an event in the first half of 2025, but that it can pull from these pre-approved funds via a snapshot vote that must garner 3% of the votable token supply with a simple majority of votes in favor/abstain. From there, the ADPC, Entropy, and Disruption Joe can help procure service providers to put on the event, or the proposer themselves can serve as the project manager/event coordinator.
It is therefore ultimately up to the DAO to decide which events they want to prioritize over the course of 2025.
Bitcoin 2025: Las Vegas
We would like to be transparent in that compared to ETHDenver and EthCC, OCL has not yet provided confirmation Bitcoin 2025 will be included in their event’s strategy for next year. As stated in the proposal, the quoted group is committed to procuring a service provider and acting as the point of contact if necessary:
We would like to work with OCL on this event, similar to the ETHDenver event, but the ADPC, Disruption Joe, and Entropy can procure a service provider and act as the point of contact in case OCL does not have interest in partnering with the DAO on this event.
We will reiterate that it is our belief Bitcoin 2025 presents an opportunity for Arbitrum to grow its brand in an adjacent community, but if the quoted group determines that supporting/hosting an activation would be ineffective or wasteful, then the funds will be preserved for another future event opportunity.
KPIs, measurements of success, requirements for event proposers
As outlined in the proposal, individuals or services providers bringing forward an event idea are expected to include measurable KPIs and will be required to publish a retroactive impact report, which includes a breakdown of actual vs budgeted costs and important learnings for the DAO.
Events brought forward by either an individual or service provider, must create a post-event impact report (example from Govhack Brussels) that includes a breakdown of actual costs.
It is expected that the contributor requesting a specific event is tasked with defining the measurable KPIs.
Entropy encourages delegates to hold specific event proposals to a high standard when it comes to measuring a given event’s impact and the expected budget’s level of detail.
In terms of measuring the success of the three outlined events, data points such as number of registrations, actual attendance, conversion rate of registrations to attendance, social media metrics, and overall Arbitrum social sentiment will be taken into account. Since these events are still in an early planning stage, it is not possible to give exact targets for these KPIs, but the ADPC, Disruption Joe, and Entropy will communicate this information to the DAO when it becomes available.
Compensation
The quoted members of this group are not receiving any additional compensation for their work in procuring service providers for events or interfacing with the Foundation/OCL event teams.
Establishing an Events Budget for 2025 is now pending for a vote on Tally. Funds will be first moved into a Foundation-controlled address, where the 4m ARB will be converted into $1.5m of stablecoins and then sent to an MSS-controlled address, with any excess ARB being returned to the DAO.
Please note that the Foundation has elected to use this address for the 4M ARB transfer upon this proposal’s passing, which was previously used to custody the funds from Entropy Advisor’s proposal. @stonecoldpat or another Arbitrum Foundation team member can provide confirmation that this is an AF controlled multi-sig.
I voted in favour of this proposal on temp check. Advertising expenses are always important, especially when other teams and organizations are doing it. Sponsoring events is important for Arbitrum.
Before my on-chain vote:
I voted in favour of this proposal on temp check. Advertising expenses are always important, especially when other teams and organizations are doing it. Sponsoring events is important for Arbitrum.
Before my on-chain vote:
It's still not 100% perfectly clear to me why should this be done through the DAO instead of the Foundation, or Offchain Labs? Who was paying for this before the DAO existed?
It would be very helpful to have a deeper breakdown of expenses (although estimates per events were given, I saw). Will a report be published afterwards? How much time after each event? Deadlines?
I̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶u̶n̶c̶l̶e̶a̶r̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶e̶n̶s̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶ ̶b̶e̶h̶i̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶p̶o̶s̶a̶l̶ ̶(̶E̶n̶t̶r̶o̶p̶y̶ ̶A̶d̶v̶i̶s̶o̶r̶s̶,̶ ̶D̶i̶s̶r̶u̶p̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶J̶o̶e̶,̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶A̶D̶P̶C̶)̶.̶ ̶A̶r̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶g̶e̶t̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶u̶t̶ ̶f̶r̶o̶m̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶$̶1̶,̶5̶0̶0̶,̶0̶0̶0̶?̶ ̶@̶E̶n̶t̶r̶o̶p̶y̶ ̶d̶i̶d̶ ̶m̶e̶n̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶n̶'̶t̶,̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶m̶s̶ ̶u̶n̶u̶s̶u̶a̶l̶?̶
EDIT: Point discussed via TG, this is part -and included- of Entropy's OG proposal (link), and ADPC work events is also in their scope, so nothing additional is charged
The quoted members of this group are not receiving any additional compensation for their work in procuring service providers for events or interfacing with the Foundation/OCL event teams.
My apologies if any of this has been answered in detail, I read all replies and didn't find it. Supportive on this stage, attentive for feedback for the on-chain vote, which is active right now and a deadline in 14 days.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
We had the opportunity to provide feedback to @Entropy privately during one of our bi-weekly meetings, and we would like to take this opportunity to share it here on the forum.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
We had the opportunity to provide feedback to @Entropy privately during one of our bi-weekly meetings, and we would like to take this opportunity to share it here on the forum.
It would be good to evaluate the impact that these events will have on the ecosystem with a kind of process similar to the evaluation to give a grant. In Questbook, specifically in the Education, Community Growth and Events domain, we try to put a lot of emphasis on having good budget breakdowns, KPIs, and deliverables, as it is a very efficient way to guarantee that the budgeted prices have the best possible Quality/Price ratio. Additionally, we always try to include some activities such as a workshop or a hackathon with arbitrum as the main topic within these events.
We suggested changing the voting threshold in Snapshot to match that required for a non-constitutional on-chain vote (3% of the votable supply). This feedback was incorporated into the final version.
We emphasized that in programs like this one (as well as in the Questbook domain mentioned), it is extremely important to weigh regional diversity, as it allows Arbitrum DAO to gain visibility across the globe.
Additionally, we highlighted that the maximums in Questbook (currently $50k USD) should remain aligned over time with the minimums of this proposal.
It is also important to note, that events with an expected cost under $50,000 should be routed through the Questbook program. The purpose of this proposal is to establish an events strategy for larger initiatives that require substantial funds and active project managers.
DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
There are so many positives to establishing this event budget for 2025 from streamlining decision-making to creating opportunities for onboarding new projects into the ecosystem. Plus, we really like that OCL and the Foundation would play a major role in how they are structured.
Looking forward to an eventful 2025!
Given that the Arbitrum DAO offsite proposal was rejected and there is no DAO event planned in Asia (Dubai 2049), I would like to request that Asia be considered as a formal location in next year's budget. Although most delegates are based in Europe and Western countries, obtaining a visa can be challenging for those from Asia. I Think some delegates faced similar issues during GovHack in Brussels.
I think the Arbitrum DAO needs an event budget and it's great 2 see this initiative!
I do feel that it only scratches the surface of the issue though.
I’m voting FOR on this proposal.
I have no strong opinion about the amount; if at some point it's not enough and we measure and understand that it adds value, I’m sure the DAO could consider extending it.
On the other hand, I like the idea that DAO members can propose their own events and KPIs.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal.
We have been discussing this proposal with Entropy and other stakeholders for quite some time. We’re happy to see our previous feedback incorporated into the version currently on Snapshot, and we find the overall direction taken to be the right one.
We vote FOR the proposal.
We support the program to introduce the coordination help from the knowledgable members and the allocated budget with clear guidelines and procurement process as we value the importance of having DAO-led events for Arbitrum and opportunities for delegate gatherings.
Overall I support this proposal, the last few event proposals were very difficult to coordinate though the DAO and having a committee dedicated to it would make more sense.
While I want to cut spending, marketing and coordinating at events is probably worth it.
Overall I support this proposal, the last few event proposals were very difficult to coordinate though the DAO and having a committee dedicated to it would make more sense.
While I want to cut spending, marketing and coordinating at events is probably worth it.
It is a smart move to keep Arbitrum visible at key industry events. And I actually like the idea of having presence at a BTC event. The oversight from Entropy, ADPC, and Disruption Joe is solid, and I appreciate that unused funds go back to the DAO.
I would prefer that the group hold ARB until it is spent, even if it was allocated 10M ARB, for exchange rate risk, that would be better than selling all the ARB now and then holding stables to see if it is spent.
But I do support this effort and wish it had happened earlier so that maybe we could have had GovHack in Devcon!
We're voting AGAINST the 2025 DAO events funding proposal.
We appreciate the effort put into crafting this proposal. DAO events have merit, but timing is key. Given the current token price concerns and substantial AF and OCL event investments, allocating an additional $1.5M now feels excessive. Let's revisit this idea after gauging the impact of our recent initiatives funded in h1 24. Overall, we think a measured approach to spending aligns better with our delegate responsibility in these market conditions.
We voted against this proposal in line with our strict stance against unnecessary spending within the DAO.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal.
It is important for Arbitrum to be present at key industry events. In the past, events like GovHack have played a vital role alongside those managed by the Foundation. However, we’ve observed that the 4-week confirmation time has caused last-minute rushes for proposals, which this well-planned budget should help avoid.
We trust ADPC, Disruption Joe, and Entropy to smoothly transition the responsibility of organizing these events to the OpCo once it is fully operational.
Before we move to Tally, we have one point that needs clarification. Regarding the service providers, will they need a Snapshot vote to get funds approved by the DAO, or will members be able to approve the funds directly? Understanding this process will help ensure third-party providers stay motivated to organize events for the DAO.
I think the Arbitrum DAO needs an event budget and it's great 2 see this initiative!
I do feel that it only scratches the surface of the issue though.
Also resonate with this and believe the DAO should be able to decide which events it wants to prioritize. It's a no brainer that the ones outlined in the proposal are clear YES-es, but how does the DAO decide on the others, which are prioritized and how? As I read the proposal I understand that these will be decided by centralized decision making which is efficient, but can sub-optimal from a coverage pov sometimes as it may be biased and based on the network of the entities involved(which is nothing wrong, it's in fact natural), but leaves opportunities on the table that could also be leveraged as well.
There are multiple event organizers that have reached out to me after my involvement in Arb Daos presence at Eth Bucharest-which was the first event afaik where the Arbitrum Dao was present and not the Foundation( that's how I met @paulofonseca @DisruptionJoe IRL and other delegates, contributors and Arbitrum whales).
Everyone kinda wants Arbitrum at their events, wants to be supported by Arbitrum, some even know about QB and have requested funding, but the main issue is there is no alignment between these types of events and Arbitrum in reality! Would be great if we could think about this, have some ideas in mind and am happy 2 discuss them and I bet others do as well.
There are multiple solutions that could be considered to allow the Arbitrum DAO to decide these things, one of them is QF, we can use QF to enable the DAO to decide how it wants 2 fund these events. Others that can to mind are Jokerace,
I’m voting FOR on this proposal.
I have no strong opinion about the amount; if at some point it's not enough and we measure and understand that it adds value, I’m sure the DAO could consider extending it.
On the other hand, I like the idea that DAO members can propose their own events and KPIs.
I think it’s good that both the Foundation and the DAO can support this effort; the mission of growing the Arbitrum ecosystem ultimately belongs to both parties.
I’m excited that these conversations are happening ahead of time, especially because we’re taking previous learnings and starting to work towards improvements. Well done!
It would have been better to present a more detailed analysis on the way funds will be spent, but I'm optimistic about these updates being as transparent as possible. Voted for.
Blockworks Research is voting FOR this proposal.
We've seen a surge in demand for events for the DAO to enhance delegate discussion and DAO participation. It's obvious that this is what the DAO desires, and we would like to see structured parties help bring this idea into fruition. Our concerns have been stated by other delegates and addressed by Entropy already as well.
Voting in favor, as I believe that delegate participation is crucial for maintaining their engagement. Additionally, having a presence at major events is essential. I would also like to see more detailed budget breakdowns and KPIs from both past and proposed events
I support this proposal and overall it is a great opportunity to drive expansion and growth of the DAO ecosystem. Rationale: It provides DAO with greater flexibility in event planning and the opportunity to execute efficiently, especially with a more rationalized event budget and governance process.
Recommendations: 1. Clearer KPI setting: It is recommended to set clearer and quantifiable KPIs before each event in order to measure the actual results. 2. Transparent communication mechanism: After the implementation of each activity, update the progress on a regular basis to maintain the transparency of the community. 3. Expand participation opportunities: Encourage more developers and contributors to participate through the RFP process to increase the diversity and impact of activities. There have been a lot of proposals on this before, and it would be nice to have an overall budget guide!
Voted For: Events are one of the most important channels for addressing our community. They also bring new users, projects, and developers to join Arbitrum. As leaders in the Ethereum ecosystem, we should have a very strong presence at as many events as possible. I understand that these things take time and require a lot of funds, but I think it's worth it. Having a strategy and budget like this is a huge step in the right direction. It’s much better than the rest of our industry, where things are often decided ad hoc. Great proposal, and I support it.
We’re supporting this proposal because having a dedicated event budget will allow the DAO to move faster and make the most of event opportunities without getting held up by the usual approval process. Events are crucial for building community. Many great initiatives have come from delegates who attended these events, leading to valuable collaborations.
Voted for the proposal on snapshot
Rationale
Voted for the proposal on snapshot
Rationale
Some cost cutting and clearer cost breakdown/estimation would be appreciated in the tally proposal.
I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage. Events are one of the few paid channels available for reaching the core crypto audience. The Arbitrum DAO should have a strong presence at every major Ethereum event. I've run an events program at an $200M ARR software company, so I have a reasonably informed view on costs, and $1.5M is a reasonable annual budget for an organization of Arbitrum's scale.
Voting "For", while I don't attend these events I do realize the importance of them. And like we've done with other parts of the DAO I think it's valuable to have some type of planned strategy regarding DAO events that aren't just voting on projects as they organically come up. I think this should help us plan future events better.
Editing for Space: For my Tally vote, I will be maintaining my rationale as noted above. While I won't be attending events, I hope everyone who does gets the most they can out of them!
I will vote in favor during the temp check stage, as I believe it makes sense to have a pre-approved budget for 2025 events.
Some feedback and things I would like to see in the proposal before Tally:
I will vote in favor during the temp check stage, as I believe it makes sense to have a pre-approved budget for 2025 events.
Some feedback and things I would like to see in the proposal before Tally:
Thank you very much for everything!
voting Against the current offchain proposal because I think the $1.5M USD annual budget is too short, the event strategy was not decided in a bottoms-up way by the DAO, and because the Arbitrum Foundation already has their own events budget that they spend at their own discretion which is roughly 10 times this amount so they should not have a say in this committee as to which events should be funded.
I'm voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot. Building a consistent presence at major crypto conferences has huge potential to boost Arbitrum's visibility in the industry. Plus, I really like the idea of allowing any DAO member to propose events.
With the primary proposal + changes I want to show my overall support.
As a Dao, our goal is to, generically, evolve and get better. While this concept is abstract, from a pragmatic pov it means filling the gaps we have and remove friction.
With the primary proposal + changes I want to show my overall support.
As a Dao, our goal is to, generically, evolve and get better. While this concept is abstract, from a pragmatic pov it means filling the gaps we have and remove friction.
One of the biggest friction we have is what is in between good proposals from good contributors vs the final outcome; often times than not this is about having not only a budget, but a budget by a certain date. With the previous even we saw that you need to move with weeks and sometimes months in advance, and the event budget will likely remove this friction (same as the treasury initiative to have a certain amount of stables, in our pocjets, will allow to remove friction from programs that requires a usd denominated budget; OT here, I know, but to me it has the same overarching goal of removing friction).
The proposal for budget is good as it sets a clear direction for Arbitrum DAO's 2025 event, which will help accelerate community collaboration. Although most DAO members won't be able to participate in the in-person events, these gatherings can effectively enhance the influence of the DAO community. While the $1.5M budget is necessary, further clarification on the allocation details will be needed in the future to ensure every dollar is used transparently and effectively.
I voted against, as I think the amount is pretty high for those events and I would rather like to see one event being planned and learn from it before trying do organize so many.
It’s necessary to establish an event budget in advance for 2025 since the DAO has just approved a proposal for offline events. However, the question is, did we participate in these events mentioned for 2024, and what were the expenses and outcomes? I didn’t see clear data in the proposal. Without this information, how was the $1.5 million budget for this proposal determined? I’m puzzled by this figure, and this is a key issue we often encounter when it comes to budget-related proposals—we don’t know whether the amount is too much or too little. Therefore, I believe the proposer should provide supplementary data on the 2024 activities for the delegates' reference.
After further consideration and taking into account the outcome/discussion from the ArbitrumDAO Off-site Snapshot, the quoted group has decided to remove the planned delegate offsite at Token2049 Dubai. This will leave more funds available for ecosystem growth events. Delegate offsites can still be proposed by individuals or event service providers and pull funds from the established budget.
The proposal has been updated to reflect this change and is also now live on Snapshot for a temperature check.
Hey Paulo! Thank you for the comment, but it seems you misunderstood the proposal. We’d like to specifically clarify a few of the points you made:
Hey Paulo! Thank you for the comment, but it seems you misunderstood the proposal. We’d like to specifically clarify a few of the points you made:
OCL events team choosing the specific industry events should have been revealed in the original proposal. This is not the way for a DAO to choose its own event strategy.
The purpose of this proposal is not to establish a comprehensive DAO events strategy, but rather set aside a budget for events. The OCL events team was not responsible for choosing the specific industry events. This decision was made by the quoted group - Entropy, ADPC, and Disruption Joe - after a conversation with the OCL events team to better understand their 2025 plans.
This proposal is not a DAO events budget for 2025. It is the budget for OCL and AF to spend on events that they organize, and a way for that budget to come from the DAO instead of their own balance sheet.
In terms of this being a proposal to bolster funds for the AF/OCL, we do not see it this way. Rather these funds can be seen as a way to bolster Arbitrum’s presence at top events. As L2beat pointed out above, OCL and the AF are the two entities that have the best understanding for how the Arbitrum vision/brand should be represented. While a bottom ups approach works quite well for smaller events such as community meetups, producing a large scale event requires significant planning, coordination, boots on the ground for day of production, and a deep understanding of Arbitrum’s current needs. This is a full-time, top-down role (ie. an events coordinator) that the DAO does not currently have the ability to procure/employee. However, as written in the proposal, we expect the DAO to be better equipped to take a more proactive role on events once OpCo has been established.
After this proposal passes, it will be even more difficult for an independent service provider (like Hack Humanity for example) to propose an event or series of events to Arbitrum DAO, because the budget will be capped for the year, and because OCL and the AF will have a say on whether those events should get funded, instead of the Arbitrum DAO.
OCL and the AF will have absolutely no say in whether an event brought forward by an independent service provider should get funded. By setting aside an events budget, it actually shortens the timeline required for an events provider to come to the DAO with an idea, as they do not need to go through the lengthy Tally process. For example, this was a massive issue for Hack Humanity, which forced their team to front funds to organize GovHack in Brussels without knowing for sure they would be reimbursed. Overall, this proposal would make it easier for service providers to propose large events outside of the current Questbook rails ($50k maximum).
Hope this makes sense and removes any confusion!
I'm voting for. I fully support the idea of having an already-established budget for DAO events. Running these events generally brings benefits and good outcomes for the DAO in terms of community engagement, knowledge sharing, visibility and innovation. I'm sure that establishing a budget for 2025 will allow us to be more responsive to event opportunities, and making it easier to take part in them, without being slowed down by the approval process that sometimes takes too long. This will certainly bring more flexibility.
We are in support of this proposal overall. Bby establishing a dedicated budget we can streamline DAO participation in key events, crucial for keeping up visibility, collaboration, and helps grow the community.
Involving the Arbitrum Foundation and Offchain in the planning and execution process, is good to align with the broader ecosystem's goals and the inclusion of the measurable KPIs also adds transparency and accountability. We like the touch of allowing any DAO member to propose events that fit within this budget
We are in support of this proposal overall. Bby establishing a dedicated budget we can streamline DAO participation in key events, crucial for keeping up visibility, collaboration, and helps grow the community.
Involving the Arbitrum Foundation and Offchain in the planning and execution process, is good to align with the broader ecosystem's goals and the inclusion of the measurable KPIs also adds transparency and accountability. We like the touch of allowing any DAO member to propose events that fit within this budget
Some overall questions:
I think the Arbitrum DAO needs an event budget and it's great 2 see this initiative!
I do feel that it only scratches the surface of the issue though.
Also resonate with this and believe the DAO should be able to decide which events it wants to prioritize. It's a no brainer that the ones outlined in the proposal are clear YES-es, but how does the DAO decide on the others, which are prioritized and how? As I read the proposal I understand that these will be decided by centralized decision making which is efficient, but can sub-optimal from a coverage pov sometimes as it may be biased and based on the network of the entities involved(which is nothing wrong, it's in fact natural), but leaves opportunities on the table that could also be leveraged as well.
There are multiple event organizers that have reached out to me after my involvement in Arb Daos presence at Eth Bucharest-which was the first event afaik where the Arbitrum Dao was present and not the Foundation( that's how I met @paulofonseca @DisruptionJoe IRL and other delegates, contributors and Arbitrum whales).
Everyone kinda wants Arbitrum at their events, wants to be supported by Arbitrum, some even know about QB and have requested funding, but the main issue is there is no alignment between these types of events and Arbitrum in reality! Would be great if we could think about this, have some ideas in mind and am happy 2 discuss them and I bet others do as well.
There are multiple solutions that could be considered to allow the Arbitrum DAO to decide these things, one of them is QF, we can use QF to enable the DAO to decide how it wants 2 fund these events. Others that can to mind are Jokerace,
I’m voting FOR on this proposal.
I have no strong opinion about the amount; if at some point it's not enough and we measure and understand that it adds value, I’m sure the DAO could consider extending it.
On the other hand, I like the idea that DAO members can propose their own events and KPIs.
I think it’s good that both the Foundation and the DAO can support this effort; the mission of growing the Arbitrum ecosystem ultimately belongs to both parties.
I’m excited that these conversations are happening ahead of time, especially because we’re taking previous learnings and starting to work towards improvements. Well done!
It would have been better to present a more detailed analysis on the way funds will be spent, but I'm optimistic about these updates being as transparent as possible. Voted for.
Blockworks Research is voting FOR this proposal.
We've seen a surge in demand for events for the DAO to enhance delegate discussion and DAO participation. It's obvious that this is what the DAO desires, and we would like to see structured parties help bring this idea into fruition. Our concerns have been stated by other delegates and addressed by Entropy already as well.
Voting in favor, as I believe that delegate participation is crucial for maintaining their engagement. Additionally, having a presence at major events is essential. I would also like to see more detailed budget breakdowns and KPIs from both past and proposed events
I support this proposal and overall it is a great opportunity to drive expansion and growth of the DAO ecosystem. Rationale: It provides DAO with greater flexibility in event planning and the opportunity to execute efficiently, especially with a more rationalized event budget and governance process.
Recommendations: 1. Clearer KPI setting: It is recommended to set clearer and quantifiable KPIs before each event in order to measure the actual results. 2. Transparent communication mechanism: After the implementation of each activity, update the progress on a regular basis to maintain the transparency of the community. 3. Expand participation opportunities: Encourage more developers and contributors to participate through the RFP process to increase the diversity and impact of activities. There have been a lot of proposals on this before, and it would be nice to have an overall budget guide!
Voted For: Events are one of the most important channels for addressing our community. They also bring new users, projects, and developers to join Arbitrum. As leaders in the Ethereum ecosystem, we should have a very strong presence at as many events as possible. I understand that these things take time and require a lot of funds, but I think it's worth it. Having a strategy and budget like this is a huge step in the right direction. It’s much better than the rest of our industry, where things are often decided ad hoc. Great proposal, and I support it.
We’re supporting this proposal because having a dedicated event budget will allow the DAO to move faster and make the most of event opportunities without getting held up by the usual approval process. Events are crucial for building community. Many great initiatives have come from delegates who attended these events, leading to valuable collaborations.
Voted for the proposal on snapshot
Rationale
Voted for the proposal on snapshot
Rationale
Some cost cutting and clearer cost breakdown/estimation would be appreciated in the tally proposal.
I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage. Events are one of the few paid channels available for reaching the core crypto audience. The Arbitrum DAO should have a strong presence at every major Ethereum event. I've run an events program at an $200M ARR software company, so I have a reasonably informed view on costs, and $1.5M is a reasonable annual budget for an organization of Arbitrum's scale.
Voting "For", while I don't attend these events I do realize the importance of them. And like we've done with other parts of the DAO I think it's valuable to have some type of planned strategy regarding DAO events that aren't just voting on projects as they organically come up. I think this should help us plan future events better.
Editing for Space: For my Tally vote, I will be maintaining my rationale as noted above. While I won't be attending events, I hope everyone who does gets the most they can out of them!
I will vote in favor during the temp check stage, as I believe it makes sense to have a pre-approved budget for 2025 events.
Some feedback and things I would like to see in the proposal before Tally:
I will vote in favor during the temp check stage, as I believe it makes sense to have a pre-approved budget for 2025 events.
Some feedback and things I would like to see in the proposal before Tally:
Thank you very much for everything!
voting Against the current offchain proposal because I think the $1.5M USD annual budget is too short, the event strategy was not decided in a bottoms-up way by the DAO, and because the Arbitrum Foundation already has their own events budget that they spend at their own discretion which is roughly 10 times this amount so they should not have a say in this committee as to which events should be funded.
I'm voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot. Building a consistent presence at major crypto conferences has huge potential to boost Arbitrum's visibility in the industry. Plus, I really like the idea of allowing any DAO member to propose events.
With the primary proposal + changes I want to show my overall support.
As a Dao, our goal is to, generically, evolve and get better. While this concept is abstract, from a pragmatic pov it means filling the gaps we have and remove friction.
With the primary proposal + changes I want to show my overall support.
As a Dao, our goal is to, generically, evolve and get better. While this concept is abstract, from a pragmatic pov it means filling the gaps we have and remove friction.
One of the biggest friction we have is what is in between good proposals from good contributors vs the final outcome; often times than not this is about having not only a budget, but a budget by a certain date. With the previous even we saw that you need to move with weeks and sometimes months in advance, and the event budget will likely remove this friction (same as the treasury initiative to have a certain amount of stables, in our pocjets, will allow to remove friction from programs that requires a usd denominated budget; OT here, I know, but to me it has the same overarching goal of removing friction).
The proposal for budget is good as it sets a clear direction for Arbitrum DAO's 2025 event, which will help accelerate community collaboration. Although most DAO members won't be able to participate in the in-person events, these gatherings can effectively enhance the influence of the DAO community. While the $1.5M budget is necessary, further clarification on the allocation details will be needed in the future to ensure every dollar is used transparently and effectively.
I voted against, as I think the amount is pretty high for those events and I would rather like to see one event being planned and learn from it before trying do organize so many.
It’s necessary to establish an event budget in advance for 2025 since the DAO has just approved a proposal for offline events. However, the question is, did we participate in these events mentioned for 2024, and what were the expenses and outcomes? I didn’t see clear data in the proposal. Without this information, how was the $1.5 million budget for this proposal determined? I’m puzzled by this figure, and this is a key issue we often encounter when it comes to budget-related proposals—we don’t know whether the amount is too much or too little. Therefore, I believe the proposer should provide supplementary data on the 2024 activities for the delegates' reference.
After further consideration and taking into account the outcome/discussion from the ArbitrumDAO Off-site Snapshot, the quoted group has decided to remove the planned delegate offsite at Token2049 Dubai. This will leave more funds available for ecosystem growth events. Delegate offsites can still be proposed by individuals or event service providers and pull funds from the established budget.
The proposal has been updated to reflect this change and is also now live on Snapshot for a temperature check.
Hey Paulo! Thank you for the comment, but it seems you misunderstood the proposal. We’d like to specifically clarify a few of the points you made:
Hey Paulo! Thank you for the comment, but it seems you misunderstood the proposal. We’d like to specifically clarify a few of the points you made:
OCL events team choosing the specific industry events should have been revealed in the original proposal. This is not the way for a DAO to choose its own event strategy.
The purpose of this proposal is not to establish a comprehensive DAO events strategy, but rather set aside a budget for events. The OCL events team was not responsible for choosing the specific industry events. This decision was made by the quoted group - Entropy, ADPC, and Disruption Joe - after a conversation with the OCL events team to better understand their 2025 plans.
This proposal is not a DAO events budget for 2025. It is the budget for OCL and AF to spend on events that they organize, and a way for that budget to come from the DAO instead of their own balance sheet.
In terms of this being a proposal to bolster funds for the AF/OCL, we do not see it this way. Rather these funds can be seen as a way to bolster Arbitrum’s presence at top events. As L2beat pointed out above, OCL and the AF are the two entities that have the best understanding for how the Arbitrum vision/brand should be represented. While a bottom ups approach works quite well for smaller events such as community meetups, producing a large scale event requires significant planning, coordination, boots on the ground for day of production, and a deep understanding of Arbitrum’s current needs. This is a full-time, top-down role (ie. an events coordinator) that the DAO does not currently have the ability to procure/employee. However, as written in the proposal, we expect the DAO to be better equipped to take a more proactive role on events once OpCo has been established.
After this proposal passes, it will be even more difficult for an independent service provider (like Hack Humanity for example) to propose an event or series of events to Arbitrum DAO, because the budget will be capped for the year, and because OCL and the AF will have a say on whether those events should get funded, instead of the Arbitrum DAO.
OCL and the AF will have absolutely no say in whether an event brought forward by an independent service provider should get funded. By setting aside an events budget, it actually shortens the timeline required for an events provider to come to the DAO with an idea, as they do not need to go through the lengthy Tally process. For example, this was a massive issue for Hack Humanity, which forced their team to front funds to organize GovHack in Brussels without knowing for sure they would be reimbursed. Overall, this proposal would make it easier for service providers to propose large events outside of the current Questbook rails ($50k maximum).
Hope this makes sense and removes any confusion!
I'm voting for. I fully support the idea of having an already-established budget for DAO events. Running these events generally brings benefits and good outcomes for the DAO in terms of community engagement, knowledge sharing, visibility and innovation. I'm sure that establishing a budget for 2025 will allow us to be more responsive to event opportunities, and making it easier to take part in them, without being slowed down by the approval process that sometimes takes too long. This will certainly bring more flexibility.
We are in support of this proposal overall. Bby establishing a dedicated budget we can streamline DAO participation in key events, crucial for keeping up visibility, collaboration, and helps grow the community.
Involving the Arbitrum Foundation and Offchain in the planning and execution process, is good to align with the broader ecosystem's goals and the inclusion of the measurable KPIs also adds transparency and accountability. We like the touch of allowing any DAO member to propose events that fit within this budget
We are in support of this proposal overall. Bby establishing a dedicated budget we can streamline DAO participation in key events, crucial for keeping up visibility, collaboration, and helps grow the community.
Involving the Arbitrum Foundation and Offchain in the planning and execution process, is good to align with the broader ecosystem's goals and the inclusion of the measurable KPIs also adds transparency and accountability. We like the touch of allowing any DAO member to propose events that fit within this budget
Some overall questions:
Gauntlet is in favor of formalizing the DAO's events strategy. It's inefficient to have Arbitrum delegates review one-off sponsorships, and it would be best served by a committee and even better served with a pre-determined budget.
Some methodology around the specific events chosen would also be beneficial, or a decision matrix would help explain how these decisions were made. A balance of audience quality, alignment in programming, sponsorship cost, and localized cost of event production should be factors. For example, is outbound BD a priority over supporting and retaining existing Arbitrum builders? If not, Bitcoin 2025 may make less sense than another Ethereum-aligned event.
Gauntlet is in favor of formalizing the DAO's events strategy. It's inefficient to have Arbitrum delegates review one-off sponsorships, and it would be best served by a committee and even better served with a pre-determined budget.
Some methodology around the specific events chosen would also be beneficial, or a decision matrix would help explain how these decisions were made. A balance of audience quality, alignment in programming, sponsorship cost, and localized cost of event production should be factors. For example, is outbound BD a priority over supporting and retaining existing Arbitrum builders? If not, Bitcoin 2025 may make less sense than another Ethereum-aligned event.
Similar to other programs, we'd expect KPIs regarding events strategy so we can measure both event SPs and sponsorships. A measurement for generated leads, attendees, measurable outcomes or partnerships, etc., would be helpful for the DAO. Even something as simple as qualitative feedback from the business-focused partners to the Arbitrum DAO (OCL/AF) will be hugely helpful for the DAO in measuring the ROI of events funding, especially if these KPIs can be normalized per dollar spent on an activation.
But if this is done in one transaction, the token value will not be healthy. How do you plan to do this?
Thank you to those that provided additional feedback and comments, responses to each can be found below. We plan to move this proposal to Snapshot on Thursday, October 10th.
Thank you to those that provided additional feedback and comments, responses to each can be found below. We plan to move this proposal to Snapshot on Thursday, October 10th.
Who will be responsible for verifying the correct use of funds when a) the event is handled by the quoted group, b) it is handled by a service provider?
Together the ADPC, Disruption Joe, and Entropy Advisors will be responsible for ensuring funds outlined for events involving the Foundation or OCL are used properly.
Regarding point b, this is a good call-out that the proposal doesn’t include specifics about oversight for events brought forward by an individual or service provider. We have updated the proposal with the following language:
ETH Denver initiative will be spearheaded by OCL? Will the funds for this coming from the budget of this proposal?
There are plans for representation from both the Arbitrum Foundation and OCL teams at ETHDenver. The purpose of this proposal is to set aside funds for an events budget, part of which will be dedicated to bolstering the events managed by either party as they already have teams in place to execute most effectively. Compared to the DAO, these teams have a much better understanding of the Arbitrum brand, internal metrics, and dedicated employees creating event strategy. We believe it is more effective for the DAO, Foundation, and OCL to collaborate on events rather than compete, which is inline with feedback received from @krst above.
However, it is important to highlight that these funds will not entirely supplement the Foundation or OCL’s event budgets. Rather our priority is for Arbitrum events to have a bigger impact at high-profile industry conferences.
Saying this cause i think it could be easy for the contributor to set KPI that might be either non useful/relevant, or not easy to be understood by the general DAO, because maybe not a lot of people are expert in this matter.
TLDR: if someone proposes a budget for an event, and specific KPI, would be quite useful to have sense check of other experienced delegates/entities in this field about the proposed number making sense. Not sure how this could be even formalized in the proposal, or if it even needs to be formalized.
You raise a very good point, but with event proposers still going to the DAO with requests, their costs and KPIs can be scrutinized by all delegates. Below is language from the proposal outlining this process:
The DAO will be tasked with deeming a specific events proposal worthwhile via Snapshot, and we encourage delegates to hold these authors to a high standard when it comes to measuring a given event’s impact and how it pushes Arbitrum’s mission forward.
Entropy does have team members with experience hosting events and there are quite a few other delegates with similar experience. We believe the DAO can rely on these individuals rather than standardizing a process in this proposal that may or may not apply to every event type/idea that arises.
Your proposal simply states that the funds will be converted into $1.5 million.
The ARB will be converted by the Foundation through its normal processes and at their discretion. Once the ARB has been converted into $1.5m of stablecoins, the remaining ARB will be returned to the DAO and the stablecoins sent to an MSS-controlled multi-sig. The flow of funds section has also been slightly updated to clarify this process.
Some methodology around the specific events chosen would also be beneficial, or a decision matrix would help explain how these decisions were made. A balance of audience quality, alignment in programming, sponsorship cost, and localized cost of event production should be factors. For example, is outbound BD a priority over supporting and retaining existing Arbitrum builders? If not, Bitcoin 2025 may make less sense than another Ethereum-aligned event.
The specific events mentioned in the proposal were chosen based on conversations with OCL’s event team.
EthDenver and EthCC are two of the largest Ethereum-aligned events and ones that Arbitrum should obviously have a strong presence at to retain existing builders.
A delegate offsite at Token2049 was chosen primarily for its timing between EthDenver and EthCC. Dubai also serves a central point geographically for a majority of Arbitrum delegates who reside across the globe. Token2049 presented an appealing opportunity to host a dedicated delegate offsite alongside a conference that would not have an over-exhausting amount of side events and conflicts.
A few factors led to the inclusion of Bitcoin 2025. First, while the DAO is still not fully aligned on its own mission, vision, and key objectives, Orbit chain adoption and growth has been a consistently stated priority. Additionally, with there being several Bitcoin L2s utilizing the Orbit stack in the pipeline and the DAO voting to expand the Arbitrum Expansion Program to any chain, bringing the Arbitrum brand to Bitcoin 2025 felt like a strong BD opportunity. Bitcoin also serves as the primary asset that onboards new people into crypto, and positioning Arbitrum closer to Bitcoin scaling represents a compelling case to onboarding legitimately new users into our ecosystem/tech stack.
There was a lot of talk on the forum about how to convert ARB into stablecoins. Your proposal simply states that the funds will be converted into $1.5 million. But if this is done in one transaction, the token value will clearly not be healthy. How do you plan to do this?
As for the essence of the proposal - this is a very good approach, to combine and plan in advance all the events for the next year.
Nice proposal.
Setting aside funds for events helps Arbitrum stay active in the most important crypto spaces, which keeps the community growing and engaged. I also believe, that involving the AF and OCL helps unify the community and prevents conflicting events. It really brings people together and keeps everyone on the same page, which makes the Arbitrum community way stronger. @Entropy I appreciate you keeping us updated on any changes.
It is expected that the contributor requesting a specific event is tasked with defining the measurable KPIs.
It is expected that the contributor requesting a specific event is tasked with defining the measurable KPIs.
This to me is a bit tricky and should be accompanied by other stuff. When we had the first, voted, govhack in ethcc, one thing i was struggling was understanding the budget, if it was in line or not.
By just talking with other delegates, with experience on medium/large events, I was able to get a sense check of budget being in the right range.
Saying this cause i think it could be easy for the contributor to set KPI that might be either non useful/relevant, or not easy to be understood by the general DAO, because maybe not a lot of people are expert in this matter.
TLDR: if someone proposes a budget for an event, and specific KPI, would be quite useful to have sense check of other experienced delegates/entities in this field about the proposed number making sense. Not sure how this could be even formalized in the proposal, or if it even needs to be formalized.
We support this because it provides a comprehensive strategy for Arbitrum DAO’s participation in key industry events. The combo of AF and OCL should hopefully signal events that align with the broader ecosystem goals,
The incorporation of measurable KPIs for each event ensures accountability and we are in favor of as well. We think the more interesting thing will be how and what determines the people that are sent to events like this.
We support this because it provides a comprehensive strategy for Arbitrum DAO’s participation in key industry events. The combo of AF and OCL should hopefully signal events that align with the broader ecosystem goals,
The incorporation of measurable KPIs for each event ensures accountability and we are in favor of as well. We think the more interesting thing will be how and what determines the people that are sent to events like this.
The budget / numbers tossed around also seems reasonable to us
I voted FOR in the Snapshot vote. It makes sense to have a north star when planning for events, and this proposal sets it. An important fact here is that there is room for service providers to engage and add value, making it more cost-effective. Interested to see if that will be the case.
The specific events mentioned in the proposal were chosen based on conversations with OCL’s event team.
The specific events mentioned in the proposal were chosen based on conversations with OCL’s event team.
OCL events team choosing the specific industry events should have been revealed in the original proposal. This is not the way for a DAO to choose its own event strategy. I bet the Arbitrum DAO would have chosen different events if it was asked properly.
and therefore I feel like this proposal is yet another move for OCL and AF to get more money from the DAO, for things that they already got money to do previously... especially with the recent 250M ARB proposal looking to pass
This proposal is not a DAO events budget for 2025. It is the budget for OCL and AF to spend on events that they organize, and a way for that budget to come from the DAO instead of their own balance sheet.
After this proposal passes, it will be even more difficult for an independent service provider (like Hack Humanity for example) to propose an event or series of events to Arbitrum DAO, because the budget will be capped for the year, and because OCL and the AF will have a say on whether those events should get funded, instead of the Arbitrum DAO. Of course anybody can still go outside this budget and propose a specific event to the Arbitrum DAO, but that will be looked down upon because it will automatically be seen as not being in sync with what OCL and AF thinks should be funded events for Arbitrum DAO.
So... maybe you should rename this proposal to "OCL and AF request for funds for 2025 events, with oversight by Disruption Joe and Entropy Advisors"
So in its current shape, I will be voting against this proposal.
I would vote for if there was an actual plan to figure out what should be the event strategy for Arbitrum DAO, that was bottoms up and created by the broader community, not by OCL and AF. And I even think @DisruptionJoe is the right person to lead that sense-making and discovery process of figuring out what events should the Arbitrum DAO participate in, sponsor, and fund, in a given year.
Streamlining our Events planning and budgetary considerations is valuable, and we at Castle support initiatives that provide greater efficiency in the planning, allocation, and utilization of funds.
We recognize the importance of working on a general framework to avoid redundancies by establishing a budget for DAO events. At the same time, we believe the DAO members should have a voice in assessing which events should get funded.
Streamlining our Events planning and budgetary considerations is valuable, and we at Castle support initiatives that provide greater efficiency in the planning, allocation, and utilization of funds.
We recognize the importance of working on a general framework to avoid redundancies by establishing a budget for DAO events. At the same time, we believe the DAO members should have a voice in assessing which events should get funded.
We agree that the earlier event proposals submitted to the DAO should also be included in the budget allocated to this proposal; it makes sense to do so with the one-delegate gathering and the three ecosystem growth events outlined in the proposal.
At the same time, we recognize the importance of building local communities through local meetups, which could be more cost-effective.
In addition to the details outlined, we would also like to see reports on the performance of each organized event at a later date to review the effectiveness of this method of operation.
well… then in the extreme, this kinda begs the question:
should Arbitrum events be organized by the Arbitrum Foundation/OCL or should they be organized somehow by the Arbitrum DAO?
well… then in the extreme, this kinda begs the question:
should Arbitrum events be organized by the Arbitrum Foundation/OCL or should they be organized somehow by the Arbitrum DAO?
to my understanding the Arbitrum Foundation already organizes their events and has a budget for that, like they reported in their latest transparency report where they say they spent $5,262,845 USD in "Events, Marketing and Communications" from January 1st, 2024, to June 30th, 2024.
over that same period the Arbitrum DAO has voted to fund the organization of some events, and has spent maybe 10% of that Arbitrum's Foundation amount I guess...
so are you guys arguing that the Arbitrum Foundation should also be in control of the amount of funds that the Arbitrum DAO spends on events?
is that what you mean when you say that
We believe that the Foundation, OCL major protocols, and Orbit chains should somehow be involved in the events, both in creation and attendance.
The proposal is interesting, especially with the recent surge of event-related proposals. We have a few questions:
There's nothing inherently wrong with this proposal; Arbitrum should have a presence at every major crypto event. However, before voting, I believe we need a more detailed breakdown of how the funds will be allocated.
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.
After reviewing the proposal and discussing with Entropy and other delegates, we wanted to publicly share our feedback as well. We are overall supportive of creating a strategy for events, and below are some of our suggestions on how to improve the proposal in a way that would make us comfortable voting for it.
I, too, reading all these proposals, came to the idea that it is worth making our own conference, but it needs to be organized with a large involvement of sponsors-projects on Arbitrum.
Nice proposal for a relevant topic. A few questions:
Nice proposal for a relevant topic. A few questions:
In short: While believing in the integrity of all involved, how do we ensure transparency on how the funds will be spent (previously, as the budget, and after the execution itself)
proactively setting aside funds for events is definitely a good idea.
Major Events The major events listed also mostly make sense, although we would suggest allocating less to BTC Vegas as Bitcoin in general is less "aligned" with ethereum, any expenditure there should probably be considered experimental.
proactively setting aside funds for events is definitely a good idea.
Major Events The major events listed also mostly make sense, although we would suggest allocating less to BTC Vegas as Bitcoin in general is less "aligned" with ethereum, any expenditure there should probably be considered experimental.
Delegate Events These seem like a good idea but given how decentralized arbitrum is maybe its better to just have a side event for delegates at major crypto conferences, rather than organize a separate event purely for delegates.
in addition to this, perhaps the delegate event budget coudl be used to allow for delegates to propose regional events, rather than trying to centrally organize events for a large group of delegates all over the world.
Oversight and Event management Looking through entropy's post history you guys seem like you guys are experienced governance participators and have experience coordinating events for Arbitrum.
We think this is a good proposal, although details around oversight could be fleshed out more, and the delegate events part of the proposal should probably be rethought out or revised.
also, isn't it time to do an ArbitrumCon? like our own week long Arbitrum conference? Solana does it, NEAR does it, Ethereum obviously does it in multiple ways, Base kinda does it as well... maybe the event strategy we should be thinking about is to consider doing a major crypto event that is all about Arbitrum. not smaller Arbitrum events that piggyback on other industry events.
Hello everyone - we wanted to highlight the recent changes that were made to this proposal following community feedback.
interesting proposal... and interesting timing to post it as well... =)
first I think there is a clear advantage to have a set calendar of events Arbitrum will be represented at, so that attendees can plan ahead. I also think this event strategy, with this calendar, needs to be coordinated with the Foundation, so that the events the Foundation has been doing, and will probably continue to do (will they?), complement and don't overlap these ones in this initiative. the latest foundation transparency report has quite a big chunk of money for events in the first half of 2024, and with this proposal that amount should go down, I hope. that's good!
Gauntlet is in favor of formalizing the DAO's events strategy. It's inefficient to have Arbitrum delegates review one-off sponsorships, and it would be best served by a committee and even better served with a pre-determined budget.
Some methodology around the specific events chosen would also be beneficial, or a decision matrix would help explain how these decisions were made. A balance of audience quality, alignment in programming, sponsorship cost, and localized cost of event production should be factors. For example, is outbound BD a priority over supporting and retaining existing Arbitrum builders? If not, Bitcoin 2025 may make less sense than another Ethereum-aligned event.
Gauntlet is in favor of formalizing the DAO's events strategy. It's inefficient to have Arbitrum delegates review one-off sponsorships, and it would be best served by a committee and even better served with a pre-determined budget.
Some methodology around the specific events chosen would also be beneficial, or a decision matrix would help explain how these decisions were made. A balance of audience quality, alignment in programming, sponsorship cost, and localized cost of event production should be factors. For example, is outbound BD a priority over supporting and retaining existing Arbitrum builders? If not, Bitcoin 2025 may make less sense than another Ethereum-aligned event.
Similar to other programs, we'd expect KPIs regarding events strategy so we can measure both event SPs and sponsorships. A measurement for generated leads, attendees, measurable outcomes or partnerships, etc., would be helpful for the DAO. Even something as simple as qualitative feedback from the business-focused partners to the Arbitrum DAO (OCL/AF) will be hugely helpful for the DAO in measuring the ROI of events funding, especially if these KPIs can be normalized per dollar spent on an activation.
But if this is done in one transaction, the token value will not be healthy. How do you plan to do this?
Thank you to those that provided additional feedback and comments, responses to each can be found below. We plan to move this proposal to Snapshot on Thursday, October 10th.
Thank you to those that provided additional feedback and comments, responses to each can be found below. We plan to move this proposal to Snapshot on Thursday, October 10th.
Who will be responsible for verifying the correct use of funds when a) the event is handled by the quoted group, b) it is handled by a service provider?
Together the ADPC, Disruption Joe, and Entropy Advisors will be responsible for ensuring funds outlined for events involving the Foundation or OCL are used properly.
Regarding point b, this is a good call-out that the proposal doesn’t include specifics about oversight for events brought forward by an individual or service provider. We have updated the proposal with the following language:
ETH Denver initiative will be spearheaded by OCL? Will the funds for this coming from the budget of this proposal?
There are plans for representation from both the Arbitrum Foundation and OCL teams at ETHDenver. The purpose of this proposal is to set aside funds for an events budget, part of which will be dedicated to bolstering the events managed by either party as they already have teams in place to execute most effectively. Compared to the DAO, these teams have a much better understanding of the Arbitrum brand, internal metrics, and dedicated employees creating event strategy. We believe it is more effective for the DAO, Foundation, and OCL to collaborate on events rather than compete, which is inline with feedback received from @krst above.
However, it is important to highlight that these funds will not entirely supplement the Foundation or OCL’s event budgets. Rather our priority is for Arbitrum events to have a bigger impact at high-profile industry conferences.
Saying this cause i think it could be easy for the contributor to set KPI that might be either non useful/relevant, or not easy to be understood by the general DAO, because maybe not a lot of people are expert in this matter.
TLDR: if someone proposes a budget for an event, and specific KPI, would be quite useful to have sense check of other experienced delegates/entities in this field about the proposed number making sense. Not sure how this could be even formalized in the proposal, or if it even needs to be formalized.
You raise a very good point, but with event proposers still going to the DAO with requests, their costs and KPIs can be scrutinized by all delegates. Below is language from the proposal outlining this process:
The DAO will be tasked with deeming a specific events proposal worthwhile via Snapshot, and we encourage delegates to hold these authors to a high standard when it comes to measuring a given event’s impact and how it pushes Arbitrum’s mission forward.
Entropy does have team members with experience hosting events and there are quite a few other delegates with similar experience. We believe the DAO can rely on these individuals rather than standardizing a process in this proposal that may or may not apply to every event type/idea that arises.
Your proposal simply states that the funds will be converted into $1.5 million.
The ARB will be converted by the Foundation through its normal processes and at their discretion. Once the ARB has been converted into $1.5m of stablecoins, the remaining ARB will be returned to the DAO and the stablecoins sent to an MSS-controlled multi-sig. The flow of funds section has also been slightly updated to clarify this process.
Some methodology around the specific events chosen would also be beneficial, or a decision matrix would help explain how these decisions were made. A balance of audience quality, alignment in programming, sponsorship cost, and localized cost of event production should be factors. For example, is outbound BD a priority over supporting and retaining existing Arbitrum builders? If not, Bitcoin 2025 may make less sense than another Ethereum-aligned event.
The specific events mentioned in the proposal were chosen based on conversations with OCL’s event team.
EthDenver and EthCC are two of the largest Ethereum-aligned events and ones that Arbitrum should obviously have a strong presence at to retain existing builders.
A delegate offsite at Token2049 was chosen primarily for its timing between EthDenver and EthCC. Dubai also serves a central point geographically for a majority of Arbitrum delegates who reside across the globe. Token2049 presented an appealing opportunity to host a dedicated delegate offsite alongside a conference that would not have an over-exhausting amount of side events and conflicts.
A few factors led to the inclusion of Bitcoin 2025. First, while the DAO is still not fully aligned on its own mission, vision, and key objectives, Orbit chain adoption and growth has been a consistently stated priority. Additionally, with there being several Bitcoin L2s utilizing the Orbit stack in the pipeline and the DAO voting to expand the Arbitrum Expansion Program to any chain, bringing the Arbitrum brand to Bitcoin 2025 felt like a strong BD opportunity. Bitcoin also serves as the primary asset that onboards new people into crypto, and positioning Arbitrum closer to Bitcoin scaling represents a compelling case to onboarding legitimately new users into our ecosystem/tech stack.
There was a lot of talk on the forum about how to convert ARB into stablecoins. Your proposal simply states that the funds will be converted into $1.5 million. But if this is done in one transaction, the token value will clearly not be healthy. How do you plan to do this?
As for the essence of the proposal - this is a very good approach, to combine and plan in advance all the events for the next year.
Nice proposal.
Setting aside funds for events helps Arbitrum stay active in the most important crypto spaces, which keeps the community growing and engaged. I also believe, that involving the AF and OCL helps unify the community and prevents conflicting events. It really brings people together and keeps everyone on the same page, which makes the Arbitrum community way stronger. @Entropy I appreciate you keeping us updated on any changes.
It is expected that the contributor requesting a specific event is tasked with defining the measurable KPIs.
It is expected that the contributor requesting a specific event is tasked with defining the measurable KPIs.
This to me is a bit tricky and should be accompanied by other stuff. When we had the first, voted, govhack in ethcc, one thing i was struggling was understanding the budget, if it was in line or not.
By just talking with other delegates, with experience on medium/large events, I was able to get a sense check of budget being in the right range.
Saying this cause i think it could be easy for the contributor to set KPI that might be either non useful/relevant, or not easy to be understood by the general DAO, because maybe not a lot of people are expert in this matter.
TLDR: if someone proposes a budget for an event, and specific KPI, would be quite useful to have sense check of other experienced delegates/entities in this field about the proposed number making sense. Not sure how this could be even formalized in the proposal, or if it even needs to be formalized.
We support this because it provides a comprehensive strategy for Arbitrum DAO’s participation in key industry events. The combo of AF and OCL should hopefully signal events that align with the broader ecosystem goals,
The incorporation of measurable KPIs for each event ensures accountability and we are in favor of as well. We think the more interesting thing will be how and what determines the people that are sent to events like this.
We support this because it provides a comprehensive strategy for Arbitrum DAO’s participation in key industry events. The combo of AF and OCL should hopefully signal events that align with the broader ecosystem goals,
The incorporation of measurable KPIs for each event ensures accountability and we are in favor of as well. We think the more interesting thing will be how and what determines the people that are sent to events like this.
The budget / numbers tossed around also seems reasonable to us
I voted FOR in the Snapshot vote. It makes sense to have a north star when planning for events, and this proposal sets it. An important fact here is that there is room for service providers to engage and add value, making it more cost-effective. Interested to see if that will be the case.
The specific events mentioned in the proposal were chosen based on conversations with OCL’s event team.
The specific events mentioned in the proposal were chosen based on conversations with OCL’s event team.
OCL events team choosing the specific industry events should have been revealed in the original proposal. This is not the way for a DAO to choose its own event strategy. I bet the Arbitrum DAO would have chosen different events if it was asked properly.
and therefore I feel like this proposal is yet another move for OCL and AF to get more money from the DAO, for things that they already got money to do previously... especially with the recent 250M ARB proposal looking to pass
This proposal is not a DAO events budget for 2025. It is the budget for OCL and AF to spend on events that they organize, and a way for that budget to come from the DAO instead of their own balance sheet.
After this proposal passes, it will be even more difficult for an independent service provider (like Hack Humanity for example) to propose an event or series of events to Arbitrum DAO, because the budget will be capped for the year, and because OCL and the AF will have a say on whether those events should get funded, instead of the Arbitrum DAO. Of course anybody can still go outside this budget and propose a specific event to the Arbitrum DAO, but that will be looked down upon because it will automatically be seen as not being in sync with what OCL and AF thinks should be funded events for Arbitrum DAO.
So... maybe you should rename this proposal to "OCL and AF request for funds for 2025 events, with oversight by Disruption Joe and Entropy Advisors"
So in its current shape, I will be voting against this proposal.
I would vote for if there was an actual plan to figure out what should be the event strategy for Arbitrum DAO, that was bottoms up and created by the broader community, not by OCL and AF. And I even think @DisruptionJoe is the right person to lead that sense-making and discovery process of figuring out what events should the Arbitrum DAO participate in, sponsor, and fund, in a given year.
Streamlining our Events planning and budgetary considerations is valuable, and we at Castle support initiatives that provide greater efficiency in the planning, allocation, and utilization of funds.
We recognize the importance of working on a general framework to avoid redundancies by establishing a budget for DAO events. At the same time, we believe the DAO members should have a voice in assessing which events should get funded.
Streamlining our Events planning and budgetary considerations is valuable, and we at Castle support initiatives that provide greater efficiency in the planning, allocation, and utilization of funds.
We recognize the importance of working on a general framework to avoid redundancies by establishing a budget for DAO events. At the same time, we believe the DAO members should have a voice in assessing which events should get funded.
We agree that the earlier event proposals submitted to the DAO should also be included in the budget allocated to this proposal; it makes sense to do so with the one-delegate gathering and the three ecosystem growth events outlined in the proposal.
At the same time, we recognize the importance of building local communities through local meetups, which could be more cost-effective.
In addition to the details outlined, we would also like to see reports on the performance of each organized event at a later date to review the effectiveness of this method of operation.
well… then in the extreme, this kinda begs the question:
should Arbitrum events be organized by the Arbitrum Foundation/OCL or should they be organized somehow by the Arbitrum DAO?
well… then in the extreme, this kinda begs the question:
should Arbitrum events be organized by the Arbitrum Foundation/OCL or should they be organized somehow by the Arbitrum DAO?
to my understanding the Arbitrum Foundation already organizes their events and has a budget for that, like they reported in their latest transparency report where they say they spent $5,262,845 USD in "Events, Marketing and Communications" from January 1st, 2024, to June 30th, 2024.
over that same period the Arbitrum DAO has voted to fund the organization of some events, and has spent maybe 10% of that Arbitrum's Foundation amount I guess...
so are you guys arguing that the Arbitrum Foundation should also be in control of the amount of funds that the Arbitrum DAO spends on events?
is that what you mean when you say that
We believe that the Foundation, OCL major protocols, and Orbit chains should somehow be involved in the events, both in creation and attendance.
The proposal is interesting, especially with the recent surge of event-related proposals. We have a few questions:
There's nothing inherently wrong with this proposal; Arbitrum should have a presence at every major crypto event. However, before voting, I believe we need a more detailed breakdown of how the funds will be allocated.
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.
After reviewing the proposal and discussing with Entropy and other delegates, we wanted to publicly share our feedback as well. We are overall supportive of creating a strategy for events, and below are some of our suggestions on how to improve the proposal in a way that would make us comfortable voting for it.
I, too, reading all these proposals, came to the idea that it is worth making our own conference, but it needs to be organized with a large involvement of sponsors-projects on Arbitrum.
Nice proposal for a relevant topic. A few questions:
Nice proposal for a relevant topic. A few questions:
In short: While believing in the integrity of all involved, how do we ensure transparency on how the funds will be spent (previously, as the budget, and after the execution itself)
proactively setting aside funds for events is definitely a good idea.
Major Events The major events listed also mostly make sense, although we would suggest allocating less to BTC Vegas as Bitcoin in general is less "aligned" with ethereum, any expenditure there should probably be considered experimental.
proactively setting aside funds for events is definitely a good idea.
Major Events The major events listed also mostly make sense, although we would suggest allocating less to BTC Vegas as Bitcoin in general is less "aligned" with ethereum, any expenditure there should probably be considered experimental.
Delegate Events These seem like a good idea but given how decentralized arbitrum is maybe its better to just have a side event for delegates at major crypto conferences, rather than organize a separate event purely for delegates.
in addition to this, perhaps the delegate event budget coudl be used to allow for delegates to propose regional events, rather than trying to centrally organize events for a large group of delegates all over the world.
Oversight and Event management Looking through entropy's post history you guys seem like you guys are experienced governance participators and have experience coordinating events for Arbitrum.
We think this is a good proposal, although details around oversight could be fleshed out more, and the delegate events part of the proposal should probably be rethought out or revised.
also, isn't it time to do an ArbitrumCon? like our own week long Arbitrum conference? Solana does it, NEAR does it, Ethereum obviously does it in multiple ways, Base kinda does it as well... maybe the event strategy we should be thinking about is to consider doing a major crypto event that is all about Arbitrum. not smaller Arbitrum events that piggyback on other industry events.
Hello everyone - we wanted to highlight the recent changes that were made to this proposal following community feedback.
interesting proposal... and interesting timing to post it as well... =)
first I think there is a clear advantage to have a set calendar of events Arbitrum will be represented at, so that attendees can plan ahead. I also think this event strategy, with this calendar, needs to be coordinated with the Foundation, so that the events the Foundation has been doing, and will probably continue to do (will they?), complement and don't overlap these ones in this initiative. the latest foundation transparency report has quite a big chunk of money for events in the first half of 2024, and with this proposal that amount should go down, I hope. that's good!
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.
After reviewing the proposal and discussing with Entropy and other delegates, we wanted to publicly share our feedback as well. We are overall supportive of creating a strategy for events, and below are some of our suggestions on how to improve the proposal in a way that would make us comfortable voting for it.
First and foremost, we’re supportive of having funds earmarked for events ahead of time. This will not only help expedite the execution of relevant proposals but also help define the budget for 2025 events, help us plan around it, and not blindly decide on a case-by-case basis.
We’d like Entropy to spearhead the effort to create a strategy for events, but we believe that the people involved should be from a) the Foundation, b) OffChain Labs, and c) the major protocols in Arbitrum.
We should set better KPIs for the events we organize so we can leverage them to the fullest of their value. For example, GovHack in Brussels, although a well-executed event, couldn’t capture 100% of its value potential. Arbitrum Foundation’s events (e.g. Shake Shack Takeover in ETHDenver and Arbitrum Day in EthCC) were based on their understanding of what’s needed and their vision of how to accomplish it. The Foundation and OCL are better positioned to understand ecosystem needs and more aligned with Arbitrum than the next person. The same applies to the major protocols and Orbit chains.
We believe that the Foundation, OCL major protocols, and Orbit chains should somehow be involved in the events, both in creation and attendance.
In general, when thinking about events and an events strategy, we should be thinking of how we can best utilize the Arbitrum Foundation and OCL to set the stage for DAO-sponsored events by creating a vision of what the events should be like. Instead of the DAO doing events next to events that the Foundation or OCL organized, we should be hosting an event alongside them - not ‘against’ each other.
Additionally, we believe that even though crypto-focused events are significant, we should be looking to attend events from adjacent industries (e.g., FinTech), like the FinTech Festival in Singapore. By doing this, we might be able to attract new potential users that aren’t already into web3. In those events, we envision an Arbitrum area where Arbitrum protocols could have their booth to present their protocols to visitors. Protocols should pay some amount to acquire their booth (to ensure commitment and business relevance of the initiative), with DAO subsidizing the total cost.
Hello everyone - we wanted to highlight the recent changes that were made to this proposal following community feedback.
This change was made to ensure everyone is aware that the AF/OCL will be involved throughout this process to better align the DAO’s various contributors on a unified goal and overall events strategy.
The 3 members of this group will lean on OCL and the Arbitrum Foundation to ensure that any events organized by the DAO are aligned with the broader ecosystem of contributors, work towards a unified message/brand, and are synergistic with events led by the Foundation and OCL.
We updated the Snapshot voting criteria to better account for changes to the votable token supply rather than setting an arbitrary quorum. The language has been changed throughout the proposal to support this change.
passes a Snapshot vote that garners at least 3% of the votable token supply with a simple majority For/Abstain
This language was removed, as the ADPC looks poised to recieve funding after a succesful Snapshot vote. If the ongoing Tally vote contradicts this, we will again adjust the language of this proposal accordingly.
Note that if the ADPC is not re-elected , this proposal may be updated to include pay for the ADPC. We will clearly articulate that change if it is required prior to moving on to a Snapshot vote.
The following language was added to support @krst and @Sinkas suggestion of attempting to get protocols building on Arbitrum aligned with the overall events strategy. While this proposal is primarily aiming to earmark an events budget for the next year in order to enable the DAO to move more nimbly while also getting better pricing, we are excited about this idea.
It may also be possible for protocols within the Arbitrum ecosystem to partake in events that are put together with funds from this budget. For example, if a community member has an idea for the DAO to have representation at RustConf with an emphasis on showcasing some of the products built with Stylus, Entropy, Disruption Joe, and the ADPC could reach out to protocols building on Stylus to attend the event and showcase their products. Protocols could be expected to “bolster” the events budget. E.g., the DAO spends $100K while 2 Stylus projects put up $10K each to sit at the same booth. This increases the total budget by $20K at no additional cost to the DAO, and these two protocols could showcase their products in a shared booth with Arbitrum branding. This is just one example of how this could look, with the exact structures managed on a case-by-case basis.
The following language was added to the proposal to address some of the concerns around measurable KPIs.
It is expected that the contributor requesting a specific event is tasked with defining the measurable KPIs. The DAO will be tasked with deeming a specific events proposal worthwhile via Snapshot, and we encourage delegates to hold these authors to a high standard when it comes to measuring a given event’s impact and how it pushes Arbitrum’s mission forward.
Other minor changes were made to this proposal, but none of which were structural changes. A majority of the small changes were made to reassure community members that the AF and OCL will be involved throughout this process to ensure there are no “competing events” within the Arbitrum community at the same place.
interesting proposal... and interesting timing to post it as well... =)
first I think there is a clear advantage to have a set calendar of events Arbitrum will be represented at, so that attendees can plan ahead. I also think this event strategy, with this calendar, needs to be coordinated with the Foundation, so that the events the Foundation has been doing, and will probably continue to do (will they?), complement and don't overlap these ones in this initiative. the latest foundation transparency report has quite a big chunk of money for events in the first half of 2024, and with this proposal that amount should go down, I hope. that's good!
Also, if we're so concerned about bringing the costs down, we should consider that some of these events can be funded from other sources, such as sponsorships. but that can bring some conflicts of interest into play. such as if a service provider, or even a competitor would sponsor an Arbitrum event =)
I also think there should be a smaller fund, like a $100k fund in total, from this budget, that would be allocated, according to some methodology, to local smaller Arbitrum meetups. as in, if someone wants to organize a local Arbitrum meetup, they can get $1k / $2k for doing so or something.
And I'm not sure if this total amount, $1.5M, is enough to pull of the same quality of events that there have been in 2024. Just the 2 GovHacks were roughly 1/3 of that budget and I don't think they are particularly expensive or wasteful of funds for the event quality they provided. The macro strategy for Arbitrum, should be to scale the events, as in, if overall, the DAO and the Foundation, have spent $1M in events in 2024, then in 2025, we should aim for at least double that. So $1.5M seems short to me.
so my main question is: why $1.5M in total? how did you arrive to that number?
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.
After reviewing the proposal and discussing with Entropy and other delegates, we wanted to publicly share our feedback as well. We are overall supportive of creating a strategy for events, and below are some of our suggestions on how to improve the proposal in a way that would make us comfortable voting for it.
First and foremost, we’re supportive of having funds earmarked for events ahead of time. This will not only help expedite the execution of relevant proposals but also help define the budget for 2025 events, help us plan around it, and not blindly decide on a case-by-case basis.
We’d like Entropy to spearhead the effort to create a strategy for events, but we believe that the people involved should be from a) the Foundation, b) OffChain Labs, and c) the major protocols in Arbitrum.
We should set better KPIs for the events we organize so we can leverage them to the fullest of their value. For example, GovHack in Brussels, although a well-executed event, couldn’t capture 100% of its value potential. Arbitrum Foundation’s events (e.g. Shake Shack Takeover in ETHDenver and Arbitrum Day in EthCC) were based on their understanding of what’s needed and their vision of how to accomplish it. The Foundation and OCL are better positioned to understand ecosystem needs and more aligned with Arbitrum than the next person. The same applies to the major protocols and Orbit chains.
We believe that the Foundation, OCL major protocols, and Orbit chains should somehow be involved in the events, both in creation and attendance.
In general, when thinking about events and an events strategy, we should be thinking of how we can best utilize the Arbitrum Foundation and OCL to set the stage for DAO-sponsored events by creating a vision of what the events should be like. Instead of the DAO doing events next to events that the Foundation or OCL organized, we should be hosting an event alongside them - not ‘against’ each other.
Additionally, we believe that even though crypto-focused events are significant, we should be looking to attend events from adjacent industries (e.g., FinTech), like the FinTech Festival in Singapore. By doing this, we might be able to attract new potential users that aren’t already into web3. In those events, we envision an Arbitrum area where Arbitrum protocols could have their booth to present their protocols to visitors. Protocols should pay some amount to acquire their booth (to ensure commitment and business relevance of the initiative), with DAO subsidizing the total cost.
Hello everyone - we wanted to highlight the recent changes that were made to this proposal following community feedback.
This change was made to ensure everyone is aware that the AF/OCL will be involved throughout this process to better align the DAO’s various contributors on a unified goal and overall events strategy.
The 3 members of this group will lean on OCL and the Arbitrum Foundation to ensure that any events organized by the DAO are aligned with the broader ecosystem of contributors, work towards a unified message/brand, and are synergistic with events led by the Foundation and OCL.
We updated the Snapshot voting criteria to better account for changes to the votable token supply rather than setting an arbitrary quorum. The language has been changed throughout the proposal to support this change.
passes a Snapshot vote that garners at least 3% of the votable token supply with a simple majority For/Abstain
This language was removed, as the ADPC looks poised to recieve funding after a succesful Snapshot vote. If the ongoing Tally vote contradicts this, we will again adjust the language of this proposal accordingly.
Note that if the ADPC is not re-elected , this proposal may be updated to include pay for the ADPC. We will clearly articulate that change if it is required prior to moving on to a Snapshot vote.
The following language was added to support @krst and @Sinkas suggestion of attempting to get protocols building on Arbitrum aligned with the overall events strategy. While this proposal is primarily aiming to earmark an events budget for the next year in order to enable the DAO to move more nimbly while also getting better pricing, we are excited about this idea.
It may also be possible for protocols within the Arbitrum ecosystem to partake in events that are put together with funds from this budget. For example, if a community member has an idea for the DAO to have representation at RustConf with an emphasis on showcasing some of the products built with Stylus, Entropy, Disruption Joe, and the ADPC could reach out to protocols building on Stylus to attend the event and showcase their products. Protocols could be expected to “bolster” the events budget. E.g., the DAO spends $100K while 2 Stylus projects put up $10K each to sit at the same booth. This increases the total budget by $20K at no additional cost to the DAO, and these two protocols could showcase their products in a shared booth with Arbitrum branding. This is just one example of how this could look, with the exact structures managed on a case-by-case basis.
The following language was added to the proposal to address some of the concerns around measurable KPIs.
It is expected that the contributor requesting a specific event is tasked with defining the measurable KPIs. The DAO will be tasked with deeming a specific events proposal worthwhile via Snapshot, and we encourage delegates to hold these authors to a high standard when it comes to measuring a given event’s impact and how it pushes Arbitrum’s mission forward.
Other minor changes were made to this proposal, but none of which were structural changes. A majority of the small changes were made to reassure community members that the AF and OCL will be involved throughout this process to ensure there are no “competing events” within the Arbitrum community at the same place.
interesting proposal... and interesting timing to post it as well... =)
first I think there is a clear advantage to have a set calendar of events Arbitrum will be represented at, so that attendees can plan ahead. I also think this event strategy, with this calendar, needs to be coordinated with the Foundation, so that the events the Foundation has been doing, and will probably continue to do (will they?), complement and don't overlap these ones in this initiative. the latest foundation transparency report has quite a big chunk of money for events in the first half of 2024, and with this proposal that amount should go down, I hope. that's good!
Also, if we're so concerned about bringing the costs down, we should consider that some of these events can be funded from other sources, such as sponsorships. but that can bring some conflicts of interest into play. such as if a service provider, or even a competitor would sponsor an Arbitrum event =)
I also think there should be a smaller fund, like a $100k fund in total, from this budget, that would be allocated, according to some methodology, to local smaller Arbitrum meetups. as in, if someone wants to organize a local Arbitrum meetup, they can get $1k / $2k for doing so or something.
And I'm not sure if this total amount, $1.5M, is enough to pull of the same quality of events that there have been in 2024. Just the 2 GovHacks were roughly 1/3 of that budget and I don't think they are particularly expensive or wasteful of funds for the event quality they provided. The macro strategy for Arbitrum, should be to scale the events, as in, if overall, the DAO and the Foundation, have spent $1M in events in 2024, then in 2025, we should aim for at least double that. So $1.5M seems short to me.
so my main question is: why $1.5M in total? how did you arrive to that number?
