Timeline of Updates:
Oct 24 - MVP posted Oct 30 - Mission statement updated Nov 1 - Proposal put on hold while seeking final feedback. Dec 9 - Purpose statement updated. Dec 12 - Will proceed to Snapshot.
Following extensive conversations with stakeholders and active delegates, and feedback on our initial mission/vision/goals proposal, Entropy Advisors has decided to modify our approach for aligning the Arbitrum DAO on its end state goals and the more granular strategy through which these will be reached. This approach can be distilled into three separate phases:
Achieving wide-reaching agreement on why the Arbitrum DAO exists and what it is trying to accomplish. In other words, what is the Arbitrum DAO’s mission, vision, and purpose. The MVP is purposefully simple and unambiguous such that it is absolutely clear what the DAO is ultimately working towards, with additional complexity only introduced when strategic goals to reach the end state are created. Without an agreed upon north star, it is impossible to evaluate how one-off strategies and initiatives assist the DAO to reach its goals, simply because there is currently a wide set of different opinions on what the DAO is striving to achieve. Additionally, most—if not all—initiatives and strategies are evaluated in isolation without considering how they play into wider frameworks. While the MVP might feel too abstract, its purpose is to enable more complexity to be stacked on top of it through iterative efforts.
Once the DAO’s end state goals have been solidified, anyone will have the opportunity to propose a strategy matrix made up of 12- and 24-month focus areas for the DAO through an open process named Strategic Objective Setting (SOS). These areas should have well-established guidelines for tangible implementation and what they aim to accomplish, as well as only have one purpose—optimally moving the DAO towards its end state. This is the step that will allow the DAO to refocus its attention on the most critical deliverables and judge how one-off initiatives fit into its short- to medium-term priorities. Entropy Advisors is working on the SOS proposal in tandem with the MVP, and it will be posted as a subsequent separate proposal with the DAO choosing one matrix of strategies as the winner.
Combined with financial forecasting, the SOS will enable the DAO to budget itself for the next 12/24 months by earmarking capital to each strategic focus area ratified in step 2. Arguably, the most important aspect of this step is for the DAO to align on how profitable/loss-making it wants to be during the coming year(s). Lastly, with clearly defined strategic focus areas, it should also become simpler for the DAO to begin marketing its efforts since, e.g., a clear identity, as well as narratives, can be built around each of the DAO’s focus areas.
When it comes to this proposal, we’ve strived to distill numerous key stakeholders’ and delegates’ thoughts and ideas into a cohesive mission, vision, and purpose for the Arbitrum DAO, presented below. It’ll naturally be impossible to align all DAO participants on the DAO’s end state goals because of the ecosystem’s diversity. However, for this exercise to be successful, the passed Mission, Vision, and Purpose must have buy-in from a clear majority of the DAO and cannot be unilaterally pushed forward.
After looking into other ecosystems, we concluded that Lido currently has the best-suited mechanism to strategically define objectives in a decentralized and efficient manner, which is why we are striving to implement a program for Arbitrum that takes influence from Lido. We thank Lido DAO contributors who set a great example of how decentralized governance should go about this exercise.
The Arbitrum DAO’s Guiding Principles are as Follows:
The current lack of defined mission, vision, purpose, and strategic objectives today has created a notable, twofold inefficiency in the DAO:
With a lack of clear strategic focus areas, being an effective DAO operator becomes difficult. Redundant and conflicting work turn into a reality due to a lack of alignment and organizational structure.
Additionally, a clear vision is required for the DAO to pursue its own brand and marketing strategies. It is time to align on this vision. If Arbitrum DAO executes its mission successfully, what does Arbitrum’s place in the world look like? What are the ecosystem and its numerous contributors (the DAO and its programs, the Foundation, and development teams) working towards? What sets Arbitrum apart from competitors?
The goal of the MVP proposal is to align the DAO on the highest level of purpose, enabling the subsequent SOS to build on top of it and function as a framework through which delegates and key stakeholders can propose and choose a set of concrete short- and mid-term goals for Arbitrum DAO. This approach helps ease Entropy's concerns with our initial approach, where the proposal promised everything under the sun as it continually expanded with more (and sometimes conflicting) opinions into the mix. Additionally, we believe our original desire to set out on a 5-year plan left too much room for ambiguity without tangible steps to be taken.
Thus, the scope has been reduced. Even within the objectively high-level MVP proposal herein, there are still likely to be areas of contention, such as whether Arbitrum should align with Ethereum more closely, whether the DAO should put a greater emphasis on its flagship Arbitrum One product, and whether the delegates will actually feel empowered to use the MVP as a driving force for their actions.
The MVP will be the foundation for most actions taken by the Arbitrum DAO going forward, especially when it comes to short- to medium-term strategy setting and budgeting. It is a document that will help drive the DAO, protocol, token, and ecosystem into the foreseeable future and directly inform decisions surrounding new proposals and initiatives.
Driving Question: Why does Arbitrum DAO exist?
Answer: Arbitrum DAO’s purpose is to Defend and guide the Arbitrum Ecosystem.
Arbitrum is not just scaling tech, it scales L1s without concessions to censorship resistance, accessibility, decentralization, or security. A crucial component of the DAO’s existence is to defend these ideals. For its governed chains, Arbitrum DAO ensures that there is no single point of control, can eliminate rent-seeking intermediaries, and most importantly, users maintain control of their assets without trusting an entity. In order to defend Arbitrum into perpetuity, the DAO requires sustainable operations and funding mechanisms, which will be further expanded on in the Vision section below.
According to the blockchain trilemma, to scale and accommodate more throughput and users, L1s require trade-offs in terms of either security or decentralization. Making concessions to decentralization or security is not an option for Ethereum mainnet, leading to a chain that even with today’s limited number of onchain participants becomes prohibitively expensive for most users. Arbitrum DAO’s purpose, true to Vitalik’s rollup-centric roadmap, is to scale L1s while defending security and decentralization.
The second portion of Arbitrum DAO’s purpose is to guide the ecosystem. Guiding the Arbitrum ecosystem refers to every aspect of what Arbitrum offers, whether it be Arbitrum One, Orbit’s ecosystem of chains, or DAO-funded programs. At a high level, guiding encompasses two areas: growing and stewarding. Growing Arbitrum One is achieved by creating the best environment for builders, supporting their apps, bringing in more users and awareness to the value One provides, and ensuring alignment between builders and Arbitrum DAO. The same applies to Arbitrum’s Orbit chains. Sustainable growth is at the core of Arbitrum DAO’s purpose, and the DAO should view its role with respect to growth from a lens of continuing for 100s if not 1000s of years.
Stewarding the ecosystem relies on guiding the path forward for Arbitrum upgrades, new products, and funding decisions. In the world of Arbitrum, the DAO is in control, and that means making informed decisions that optimally move the ecosystem forward in an unceasing and durable way. The DAO is in charge of calling the shots for the future of Arbitrum.
Driving Question: What is Arbitrum DAO doing to achieve its purpose?
Answer: Arbitrum DAO’s mission is to Empower people with the freedom to build their best onchain world.
Arbitrum DAO’s mission is to empower people with the sovereignty to build what they want, code in their preferred language, execute without barriers, and create without needing permission—embracing true onchain freedom. However, building one's best onchain world does not just apply to developers, but equally to users, creators, and DAO contributors.
Arbitrum gives builders the freedom to develop on their own terms. “Your chain, Your rules.” This includes, among other things, allowing for self-governed rollups (not forcing ARB into the design) and supporting multiple languages. Arbitrum stands out in being the best and most robust scaling tech, but also in forward-thinking design decisions that enable it to be the primary home for builders by giving freedom and flexibility to its development community.
The most important aspect of enabling the best onchain world is achieved through Arbitrum continuing to build a full-featured tech stack that includes battle-tested permissionless proving, forced inclusion, custom gas tokens, multi-language support, interoperability, MEV solutions, and much more. True to its purpose, the best onchain world with Arbitrum has security at its core.
Empowering rollup and application developers to leverage the best-in-class technology stack without restrictions will establish network effects and, importantly, a unified narrative that ties together the rest of the ecosystem, creating an environment that attracts new builders across a wide set of verticals to Arbitrum. This in turn enables Arbitrum to be the primary destination for compelling blockspace, defined as a blockchain’s ability to attract users through the utility it provides. For a rollup to be compelling, it must have sought-after blockspace, which can only be achieved in one way: Attracting great apps. We don't just aim to create blockspace that maintains Ethereum's core values, we aim to create blockspace that people want to use. Attracting builders is one of the most crucial pieces to Arbitrum’s mission. While crypto has many amazing apps, compelling blockspace is the key that will enable crypto to break into magnitudes more users in the future. Today, Arbitrum One is the most compelling rollup in crypto and the DAO’s flagship product, and that is an achievement we must continue to support at all costs. That said we must not lose sight that on a long time horizon, the ecosystem will also expand through complimentary Orbit chains.
When it comes to end-users, creators, and DAO contributors, Arbitrum DAO’s mission to empower people with freedom can be quantified in two notable ways:
In order to reach the aforementioned goals, it is of the utmost importance that Arbitrum DAO runs sustainable operations with revenue. Without sustainability, it will be impossible for the DAO to continue supporting the building out of the best scaling tech, pushing forward an ecosystem attracting the best builders, and providing end users, creators, and DAO contributors with an empowering, collaborative, and personalized environment. A pivotal part of Arbitrum DAO’s mission is ensuring that all highly adopted Arbitrum-based rollups and apps create revenue for the DAO, maintaining alignment between the ecosystem and token.
Driving Question: What is the end state goal for Arbitrum that the DAO is striving to achieve?
Answer: Arbitrum is home to the universal shift onchain.
With the most full-featured tech stack and compelling (sought-after) blockspace in crypto on Arbitrum stack rollups, users and builders from all walks of life and verticals will have flocked into the Arbitrum ecosystem. New users’ first onboarding experience in crypto will be through an Arbitrum rollup, while the default choice for developers will be to deploy on an Arbitrum technology stack-enabled chain. In a world where financial transactions happen onchain, the majority will take place on Arbitrum blockspace.
Arbitrum DAO will function as a resilient flywheel. The best tech stack together with robust ecosystem support will increasingly attract builders and notable enterprises who create and enable applications that onboard more users into the ecosystem. Profits accruing to the DAO from users leveraging Arbitrum’s blockspace will bolster network security and also be reinvested in a sustainable and diversified manner. Sequencing and licensing fees will be reinforced by acquiring ownership interests that help expand the ecosystem (intangible) and enable value accrual (tangible). The DAO will function with some similarities to a conglomerate, leveraging investments to create an even more robust application and infrastructure layer, directly strengthening its core product, which again will produce increasing returns that can be used to strengthen network security through ARB and to support new growth.
It took multiple months of conversations with stakeholders to really get a sense of Arbitrum DAO’s future but Entropy Advisors is very happy with the potential for this new process. While much of this proposal is not directly actionable, we believe that it is the necessary first step in moving forward with Arbitrum DAO’s future strategic plans. We look forward to making final modifications to the MVP based on the DAO’s feedback. It is worth noting that it is not possible for the MVP to serve everyone's desires because it would end up with contradictions, but it’s important that it is a document that the DAO can get behind and feel empowered to use.
The subsequent SOS (Strategic Objective Setting) proposal will be the next step in this exercise, in which anyone will be able to create 12- and 24-month actionable strategic goals for the DAO. The SOS will be posted shortly after the MVP. If approved, it will include a 14-day notice period and 30-day submission window, in which any contributor can submit a strategy matrix of concrete strategic objectives aligned with the MVP. These workstreams could then be budgeted, creating a new paradigm for operational structure in the DAO.
A huge thank you to @castlecapital, @maxlomu, and all the other contributors who dedicated considerable time and effort to provide us with valuable feedback on this exercise.
Timeline of Updates:
Oct 24 - MVP posted Oct 30 - Mission statement updated Nov 1 - Proposal put on hold while seeking final feedback. Dec 9 - Purpose statement updated. Dec 12 - Will proceed to Snapshot.
Following extensive conversations with stakeholders and active delegates, and feedback on our initial mission/vision/goals proposal, Entropy Advisors has decided to modify our approach for aligning the Arbitrum DAO on its end state goals and the more granular strategy through which these will be reached. This approach can be distilled into three separate phases:
Achieving wide-reaching agreement on why the Arbitrum DAO exists and what it is trying to accomplish. In other words, what is the Arbitrum DAO’s mission, vision, and purpose. The MVP is purposefully simple and unambiguous such that it is absolutely clear what the DAO is ultimately working towards, with additional complexity only introduced when strategic goals to reach the end state are created. Without an agreed upon north star, it is impossible to evaluate how one-off strategies and initiatives assist the DAO to reach its goals, simply because there is currently a wide set of different opinions on what the DAO is striving to achieve. Additionally, most—if not all—initiatives and strategies are evaluated in isolation without considering how they play into wider frameworks. While the MVP might feel too abstract, its purpose is to enable more complexity to be stacked on top of it through iterative efforts.
Once the DAO’s end state goals have been solidified, anyone will have the opportunity to propose a strategy matrix made up of 12- and 24-month focus areas for the DAO through an open process named Strategic Objective Setting (SOS). These areas should have well-established guidelines for tangible implementation and what they aim to accomplish, as well as only have one purpose—optimally moving the DAO towards its end state. This is the step that will allow the DAO to refocus its attention on the most critical deliverables and judge how one-off initiatives fit into its short- to medium-term priorities. Entropy Advisors is working on the SOS proposal in tandem with the MVP, and it will be posted as a subsequent separate proposal with the DAO choosing one matrix of strategies as the winner.
Combined with financial forecasting, the SOS will enable the DAO to budget itself for the next 12/24 months by earmarking capital to each strategic focus area ratified in step 2. Arguably, the most important aspect of this step is for the DAO to align on how profitable/loss-making it wants to be during the coming year(s). Lastly, with clearly defined strategic focus areas, it should also become simpler for the DAO to begin marketing its efforts since, e.g., a clear identity, as well as narratives, can be built around each of the DAO’s focus areas.
When it comes to this proposal, we’ve strived to distill numerous key stakeholders’ and delegates’ thoughts and ideas into a cohesive mission, vision, and purpose for the Arbitrum DAO, presented below. It’ll naturally be impossible to align all DAO participants on the DAO’s end state goals because of the ecosystem’s diversity. However, for this exercise to be successful, the passed Mission, Vision, and Purpose must have buy-in from a clear majority of the DAO and cannot be unilaterally pushed forward.
After looking into other ecosystems, we concluded that Lido currently has the best-suited mechanism to strategically define objectives in a decentralized and efficient manner, which is why we are striving to implement a program for Arbitrum that takes influence from Lido. We thank Lido DAO contributors who set a great example of how decentralized governance should go about this exercise.
The Arbitrum DAO’s Guiding Principles are as Follows:
The current lack of defined mission, vision, purpose, and strategic objectives today has created a notable, twofold inefficiency in the DAO:
With a lack of clear strategic focus areas, being an effective DAO operator becomes difficult. Redundant and conflicting work turn into a reality due to a lack of alignment and organizational structure.
Additionally, a clear vision is required for the DAO to pursue its own brand and marketing strategies. It is time to align on this vision. If Arbitrum DAO executes its mission successfully, what does Arbitrum’s place in the world look like? What are the ecosystem and its numerous contributors (the DAO and its programs, the Foundation, and development teams) working towards? What sets Arbitrum apart from competitors?
The goal of the MVP proposal is to align the DAO on the highest level of purpose, enabling the subsequent SOS to build on top of it and function as a framework through which delegates and key stakeholders can propose and choose a set of concrete short- and mid-term goals for Arbitrum DAO. This approach helps ease Entropy's concerns with our initial approach, where the proposal promised everything under the sun as it continually expanded with more (and sometimes conflicting) opinions into the mix. Additionally, we believe our original desire to set out on a 5-year plan left too much room for ambiguity without tangible steps to be taken.
Thus, the scope has been reduced. Even within the objectively high-level MVP proposal herein, there are still likely to be areas of contention, such as whether Arbitrum should align with Ethereum more closely, whether the DAO should put a greater emphasis on its flagship Arbitrum One product, and whether the delegates will actually feel empowered to use the MVP as a driving force for their actions.
The MVP will be the foundation for most actions taken by the Arbitrum DAO going forward, especially when it comes to short- to medium-term strategy setting and budgeting. It is a document that will help drive the DAO, protocol, token, and ecosystem into the foreseeable future and directly inform decisions surrounding new proposals and initiatives.
Driving Question: Why does Arbitrum DAO exist?
Answer: Arbitrum DAO’s purpose is to Defend and guide the Arbitrum Ecosystem.
Arbitrum is not just scaling tech, it scales L1s without concessions to censorship resistance, accessibility, decentralization, or security. A crucial component of the DAO’s existence is to defend these ideals. For its governed chains, Arbitrum DAO ensures that there is no single point of control, can eliminate rent-seeking intermediaries, and most importantly, users maintain control of their assets without trusting an entity. In order to defend Arbitrum into perpetuity, the DAO requires sustainable operations and funding mechanisms, which will be further expanded on in the Vision section below.
According to the blockchain trilemma, to scale and accommodate more throughput and users, L1s require trade-offs in terms of either security or decentralization. Making concessions to decentralization or security is not an option for Ethereum mainnet, leading to a chain that even with today’s limited number of onchain participants becomes prohibitively expensive for most users. Arbitrum DAO’s purpose, true to Vitalik’s rollup-centric roadmap, is to scale L1s while defending security and decentralization.
The second portion of Arbitrum DAO’s purpose is to guide the ecosystem. Guiding the Arbitrum ecosystem refers to every aspect of what Arbitrum offers, whether it be Arbitrum One, Orbit’s ecosystem of chains, or DAO-funded programs. At a high level, guiding encompasses two areas: growing and stewarding. Growing Arbitrum One is achieved by creating the best environment for builders, supporting their apps, bringing in more users and awareness to the value One provides, and ensuring alignment between builders and Arbitrum DAO. The same applies to Arbitrum’s Orbit chains. Sustainable growth is at the core of Arbitrum DAO’s purpose, and the DAO should view its role with respect to growth from a lens of continuing for 100s if not 1000s of years.
Stewarding the ecosystem relies on guiding the path forward for Arbitrum upgrades, new products, and funding decisions. In the world of Arbitrum, the DAO is in control, and that means making informed decisions that optimally move the ecosystem forward in an unceasing and durable way. The DAO is in charge of calling the shots for the future of Arbitrum.
Driving Question: What is Arbitrum DAO doing to achieve its purpose?
Answer: Arbitrum DAO’s mission is to Empower people with the freedom to build their best onchain world.
Arbitrum DAO’s mission is to empower people with the sovereignty to build what they want, code in their preferred language, execute without barriers, and create without needing permission—embracing true onchain freedom. However, building one's best onchain world does not just apply to developers, but equally to users, creators, and DAO contributors.
Arbitrum gives builders the freedom to develop on their own terms. “Your chain, Your rules.” This includes, among other things, allowing for self-governed rollups (not forcing ARB into the design) and supporting multiple languages. Arbitrum stands out in being the best and most robust scaling tech, but also in forward-thinking design decisions that enable it to be the primary home for builders by giving freedom and flexibility to its development community.
The most important aspect of enabling the best onchain world is achieved through Arbitrum continuing to build a full-featured tech stack that includes battle-tested permissionless proving, forced inclusion, custom gas tokens, multi-language support, interoperability, MEV solutions, and much more. True to its purpose, the best onchain world with Arbitrum has security at its core.
Empowering rollup and application developers to leverage the best-in-class technology stack without restrictions will establish network effects and, importantly, a unified narrative that ties together the rest of the ecosystem, creating an environment that attracts new builders across a wide set of verticals to Arbitrum. This in turn enables Arbitrum to be the primary destination for compelling blockspace, defined as a blockchain’s ability to attract users through the utility it provides. For a rollup to be compelling, it must have sought-after blockspace, which can only be achieved in one way: Attracting great apps. We don't just aim to create blockspace that maintains Ethereum's core values, we aim to create blockspace that people want to use. Attracting builders is one of the most crucial pieces to Arbitrum’s mission. While crypto has many amazing apps, compelling blockspace is the key that will enable crypto to break into magnitudes more users in the future. Today, Arbitrum One is the most compelling rollup in crypto and the DAO’s flagship product, and that is an achievement we must continue to support at all costs. That said we must not lose sight that on a long time horizon, the ecosystem will also expand through complimentary Orbit chains.
When it comes to end-users, creators, and DAO contributors, Arbitrum DAO’s mission to empower people with freedom can be quantified in two notable ways:
In order to reach the aforementioned goals, it is of the utmost importance that Arbitrum DAO runs sustainable operations with revenue. Without sustainability, it will be impossible for the DAO to continue supporting the building out of the best scaling tech, pushing forward an ecosystem attracting the best builders, and providing end users, creators, and DAO contributors with an empowering, collaborative, and personalized environment. A pivotal part of Arbitrum DAO’s mission is ensuring that all highly adopted Arbitrum-based rollups and apps create revenue for the DAO, maintaining alignment between the ecosystem and token.
Driving Question: What is the end state goal for Arbitrum that the DAO is striving to achieve?
Answer: Arbitrum is home to the universal shift onchain.
With the most full-featured tech stack and compelling (sought-after) blockspace in crypto on Arbitrum stack rollups, users and builders from all walks of life and verticals will have flocked into the Arbitrum ecosystem. New users’ first onboarding experience in crypto will be through an Arbitrum rollup, while the default choice for developers will be to deploy on an Arbitrum technology stack-enabled chain. In a world where financial transactions happen onchain, the majority will take place on Arbitrum blockspace.
Arbitrum DAO will function as a resilient flywheel. The best tech stack together with robust ecosystem support will increasingly attract builders and notable enterprises who create and enable applications that onboard more users into the ecosystem. Profits accruing to the DAO from users leveraging Arbitrum’s blockspace will bolster network security and also be reinvested in a sustainable and diversified manner. Sequencing and licensing fees will be reinforced by acquiring ownership interests that help expand the ecosystem (intangible) and enable value accrual (tangible). The DAO will function with some similarities to a conglomerate, leveraging investments to create an even more robust application and infrastructure layer, directly strengthening its core product, which again will produce increasing returns that can be used to strengthen network security through ARB and to support new growth.
It took multiple months of conversations with stakeholders to really get a sense of Arbitrum DAO’s future but Entropy Advisors is very happy with the potential for this new process. While much of this proposal is not directly actionable, we believe that it is the necessary first step in moving forward with Arbitrum DAO’s future strategic plans. We look forward to making final modifications to the MVP based on the DAO’s feedback. It is worth noting that it is not possible for the MVP to serve everyone's desires because it would end up with contradictions, but it’s important that it is a document that the DAO can get behind and feel empowered to use.
The subsequent SOS (Strategic Objective Setting) proposal will be the next step in this exercise, in which anyone will be able to create 12- and 24-month actionable strategic goals for the DAO. The SOS will be posted shortly after the MVP. If approved, it will include a 14-day notice period and 30-day submission window, in which any contributor can submit a strategy matrix of concrete strategic objectives aligned with the MVP. These workstreams could then be budgeted, creating a new paradigm for operational structure in the DAO.
A huge thank you to @castlecapital, @maxlomu, and all the other contributors who dedicated considerable time and effort to provide us with valuable feedback on this exercise.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/74
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/72?u=pedrob
this new purpose statement feels much less ethereum-aligned than what it was previously, and since the current constitution of the Arbitrum DAO mentions explicitly that this DAO should be ethereum-aligned, I can’t vote for a purpose statement that erodes that enshrined value. The previous purpose of **Scale Ethereum without compromise** feels much more aligned to me than this new one to **defend and guide the Arbitrum ecosystem**. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/67?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/74
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/72?u=pedrob
this new purpose statement feels much less ethereum-aligned than what it was previously, and since the current constitution of the Arbitrum DAO mentions explicitly that this DAO should be ethereum-aligned, I can’t vote for a purpose statement that erodes that enshrined value. The previous purpose of **Scale Ethereum without compromise** feels much more aligned to me than this new one to **defend and guide the Arbitrum ecosystem**. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/67?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/69?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/54?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/66?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/65?u=blockworksresearch
I'm in support, it helps to clarify why we are here and give us better direction.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/64?u=seedgov
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/63?u=mcfly
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-67: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-67
ote For. This is a reasonable mission statement. This vote has no other outcome, and does not expend any funding or prioritize any specific goals.
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-67: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-67
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/61?u=tempetechie
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/60?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/59?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/22
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/58?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/55?u=0xalex
I am voting for this proposal because it establishes a clear and unified Mission, Vision, and Purpose for the Arbitrum DAO, ensuring alignment across the ecosystem's stakeholders.
An important discussion that'll have far reaching consequences into everyday decisions. Happy to see it!
This is a safe to try good attempt at driving the ecosystem forward. I think it will fail and not provide real results, but it is safe to try.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/52?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/51
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/49?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/48
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/47?u=gabriel
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/46?u=kuiclub
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/45?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/44?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/43?u=duokongcrypto
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/41?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/39?u=jojo
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/103?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/69?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/54?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/66?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/65?u=blockworksresearch
I'm in support, it helps to clarify why we are here and give us better direction.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/64?u=seedgov
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/63?u=mcfly
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-67: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-67
ote For. This is a reasonable mission statement. This vote has no other outcome, and does not expend any funding or prioritize any specific goals.
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-67: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-67
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/61?u=tempetechie
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/60?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/59?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/22
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/58?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/55?u=0xalex
I am voting for this proposal because it establishes a clear and unified Mission, Vision, and Purpose for the Arbitrum DAO, ensuring alignment across the ecosystem's stakeholders.
An important discussion that'll have far reaching consequences into everyday decisions. Happy to see it!
This is a safe to try good attempt at driving the ecosystem forward. I think it will fail and not provide real results, but it is safe to try.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/52?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/51
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/49?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/48
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/47?u=gabriel
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/46?u=kuiclub
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/45?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/44?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/43?u=duokongcrypto
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/41?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/39?u=jojo
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/103?u=larva
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.
Thank you for this proposal. While various efforts have aimed to define the DAO’s end goals, this proposal is a concrete step forward and offers an excellent foundation for formalizing these objectives.
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.
Thank you for this proposal. While various efforts have aimed to define the DAO’s end goals, this proposal is a concrete step forward and offers an excellent foundation for formalizing these objectives.
Lastly, with clearly defined strategic focus areas, it should also become simpler for the DAO to begin marketing its efforts since, e.g., a clear identity, as well as narratives, can be built around each of the DAO’s focus areas.
We support this approach, as a unified marketing plan requires an aligned understanding of the DAO’s identity and narrative.
Answer: Arbitrum DAO’s vision is to Accelerate the universal shift onchain.
As far as the Vision statement is considered, we agree that the vision should be ambitious and aspirational, something the DAO can strive towards. However, we find that the current vision statement feels somewhat vague and could benefit from further refinement to create a stronger, more impactful direction.
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.
Thank you for this proposal. While various efforts have aimed to define the DAO’s end goals, this proposal is a concrete step forward and offers an excellent foundation for formalizing these objectives.
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.
Thank you for this proposal. While various efforts have aimed to define the DAO’s end goals, this proposal is a concrete step forward and offers an excellent foundation for formalizing these objectives.
Lastly, with clearly defined strategic focus areas, it should also become simpler for the DAO to begin marketing its efforts since, e.g., a clear identity, as well as narratives, can be built around each of the DAO’s focus areas.
We support this approach, as a unified marketing plan requires an aligned understanding of the DAO’s identity and narrative.
Answer: Arbitrum DAO’s vision is to Accelerate the universal shift onchain.
As far as the Vision statement is considered, we agree that the vision should be ambitious and aspirational, something the DAO can strive towards. However, we find that the current vision statement feels somewhat vague and could benefit from further refinement to create a stronger, more impactful direction.
We find this proposal to be well-crafted and essential for establishing a clear directional framework for the ecosystem's future development. The initiative thoughtfully addresses the current lack of unified strategic direction while introducing a structured approach to goal-setting and decision-making.
The proposed three-phase implementation approach is compelling. By first establishing foundational principles (MVP) before moving into more specific strategic objectives (SOS) and eventual budgeting, the proposal creates a logical progression that should enable more coherent ecosystem development.
We find this proposal to be well-crafted and essential for establishing a clear directional framework for the ecosystem's future development. The initiative thoughtfully addresses the current lack of unified strategic direction while introducing a structured approach to goal-setting and decision-making.
The proposed three-phase implementation approach is compelling. By first establishing foundational principles (MVP) before moving into more specific strategic objectives (SOS) and eventual budgeting, the proposal creates a logical progression that should enable more coherent ecosystem development.
The proposed 6-month trial period before constitutional inclusion is efficient in ensuring appropriate caution, allowing for refinement based on practical application while maintaining long-term stability through eventual constitutional status.
Key areas that would strengthen the framework's implementation include establishing sustainable value accrual mechanisms and expanding revenue streams beyond sequencer fees. These aspects deserve deeper exploration and integration into the framework.
Once these elements are solidified and incorporated, the proposal would be better positioned to enhance operational focus and efficiency while maintaining necessary flexibility for future adaptation.
Thank you for your articulation of a common DAO problem.
"The real challenge in DAO decision-making isn’t the process itself—it's the perception of open discussion. Many see open discussion as inherently slow and divergent, but that's not the case. Open discussions can be structured in a way that drives efficient convergence, ensuring that everyone's voice is heard without dragging the decision-making process out.
Thank you for your articulation of a common DAO problem.
"The real challenge in DAO decision-making isn’t the process itself—it's the perception of open discussion. Many see open discussion as inherently slow and divergent, but that's not the case. Open discussions can be structured in a way that drives efficient convergence, ensuring that everyone's voice is heard without dragging the decision-making process out.
This doesn’t mean removing inclusivity or transparency—it means optimizing how we capture and prioritize input. Adding an unbiased ranking system for replies, for example, can allow us to reach a consensus quickly while preserving the open nature of the discussion.
I’ve been working on this problem since 2005, first with blank boarding and now with SimScore. This isn’t some uninformed approach—it’s backed by years of knowledge, testing, and real-world application. I’m confident that this method will work and solve many decision-making bottlenecks that DAOs face."
In shaping Arbitrum’s mission, vision and purpose, a relatable and compelling narrative is equally key to attracting future builders and users to applications built on Arbitrum. Rather than focusing on amplifying technical advantages, the MVP should present the narrative that Arbitrum is an empowering, collaborative, and inclusive ecosystem that speaks directly to new and existing builders, users, DAO contributors, delegates and core teams within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
;Hi, Drafting a Mission, Vision and Purpose is difficult. Based on the comments in the forum there are many different opinions. Also there are informal meetings in the background, making the drafting harder still.
Attached is a SimScore report.
;Hi, Drafting a Mission, Vision and Purpose is difficult. Based on the comments in the forum there are many different opinions. Also there are informal meetings in the background, making the drafting harder still.
Attached is a SimScore report.
SimScore uses methods that underpin data science technology: Centroid to determine clusters within the data. Similarity Score determine the similarity of each answer to the central theme...The score is 0-100%, higher scores being most similar. This established a priority list.
Here is the SimScore Analysis.
https://rndadocs.notion.site/Arbitrum-MVP-Priority-Report-50514c8d88434978a0dffb6f915aade8?pvs=4
Entropy can choose which ideas they will incorporate into the proposals Green) and comment on the changes they intend to make. They can also choose ideas they will not incorporate (Red)
This should make everything transparent.
I hope this method moves things along...as the Discourse open discussion along with informal meetings seems to be cumbersome.
We find this proposal to be well-crafted and essential for establishing a clear directional framework for the ecosystem's future development. The initiative thoughtfully addresses the current lack of unified strategic direction while introducing a structured approach to goal-setting and decision-making.
The proposed three-phase implementation approach is compelling. By first establishing foundational principles (MVP) before moving into more specific strategic objectives (SOS) and eventual budgeting, the proposal creates a logical progression that should enable more coherent ecosystem development.
We find this proposal to be well-crafted and essential for establishing a clear directional framework for the ecosystem's future development. The initiative thoughtfully addresses the current lack of unified strategic direction while introducing a structured approach to goal-setting and decision-making.
The proposed three-phase implementation approach is compelling. By first establishing foundational principles (MVP) before moving into more specific strategic objectives (SOS) and eventual budgeting, the proposal creates a logical progression that should enable more coherent ecosystem development.
The proposed 6-month trial period before constitutional inclusion is efficient in ensuring appropriate caution, allowing for refinement based on practical application while maintaining long-term stability through eventual constitutional status.
Key areas that would strengthen the framework's implementation include establishing sustainable value accrual mechanisms and expanding revenue streams beyond sequencer fees. These aspects deserve deeper exploration and integration into the framework.
Once these elements are solidified and incorporated, the proposal would be better positioned to enhance operational focus and efficiency while maintaining necessary flexibility for future adaptation.
Thank you for your articulation of a common DAO problem.
"The real challenge in DAO decision-making isn’t the process itself—it's the perception of open discussion. Many see open discussion as inherently slow and divergent, but that's not the case. Open discussions can be structured in a way that drives efficient convergence, ensuring that everyone's voice is heard without dragging the decision-making process out.
Thank you for your articulation of a common DAO problem.
"The real challenge in DAO decision-making isn’t the process itself—it's the perception of open discussion. Many see open discussion as inherently slow and divergent, but that's not the case. Open discussions can be structured in a way that drives efficient convergence, ensuring that everyone's voice is heard without dragging the decision-making process out.
This doesn’t mean removing inclusivity or transparency—it means optimizing how we capture and prioritize input. Adding an unbiased ranking system for replies, for example, can allow us to reach a consensus quickly while preserving the open nature of the discussion.
I’ve been working on this problem since 2005, first with blank boarding and now with SimScore. This isn’t some uninformed approach—it’s backed by years of knowledge, testing, and real-world application. I’m confident that this method will work and solve many decision-making bottlenecks that DAOs face."
In shaping Arbitrum’s mission, vision and purpose, a relatable and compelling narrative is equally key to attracting future builders and users to applications built on Arbitrum. Rather than focusing on amplifying technical advantages, the MVP should present the narrative that Arbitrum is an empowering, collaborative, and inclusive ecosystem that speaks directly to new and existing builders, users, DAO contributors, delegates and core teams within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
;Hi, Drafting a Mission, Vision and Purpose is difficult. Based on the comments in the forum there are many different opinions. Also there are informal meetings in the background, making the drafting harder still.
Attached is a SimScore report.
;Hi, Drafting a Mission, Vision and Purpose is difficult. Based on the comments in the forum there are many different opinions. Also there are informal meetings in the background, making the drafting harder still.
Attached is a SimScore report.
SimScore uses methods that underpin data science technology: Centroid to determine clusters within the data. Similarity Score determine the similarity of each answer to the central theme...The score is 0-100%, higher scores being most similar. This established a priority list.
Here is the SimScore Analysis.
https://rndadocs.notion.site/Arbitrum-MVP-Priority-Report-50514c8d88434978a0dffb6f915aade8?pvs=4
Entropy can choose which ideas they will incorporate into the proposals Green) and comment on the changes they intend to make. They can also choose ideas they will not incorporate (Red)
This should make everything transparent.
I hope this method moves things along...as the Discourse open discussion along with informal meetings seems to be cumbersome.
In shaping Arbitrum’s mission, vision and purpose, a relatable and compelling narrative is equally key to attracting future builders and users to applications built on Arbitrum. Rather than focusing on amplifying technical advantages, the MVP should present the narrative that Arbitrum is an empowering, collaborative, and inclusive ecosystem that speaks directly to new and existing builders, users, DAO contributors, delegates and core teams within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Based on SImScorr’s unbiased aggregation, the above statement is #1 priority, it should be the basis for improvements. The mvp needs to tell a story or narrative
The current proposal update by Entropy does not refer to this #1 statement by Clifton. For more clarity look at simscore report above.
Here is simscore analysis of MVP replies to date
Priority List and Relationship Graph. SimScore
SimScore grouping sheet.. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Bj4zClaiq9XfRH3ZGnmhujq0HkDuJ-Gb/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=114263162040721690799&rtpof=true&sd=true
Here is simscore analysis of MVP replies to date
Priority List and Relationship Graph. SimScore
SimScore grouping sheet.. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Bj4zClaiq9XfRH3ZGnmhujq0HkDuJ-Gb/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=114263162040721690799&rtpof=true&sd=true
These reports aggregate the communities thoughts in a manner that is repeatable and transparent. I recommend that the MVP question be asked annually by survey. Each Annual survey would be processed thru simscore tool being the basis of future MVP updates. Iterative and dynamic.
Part of the 8th highest priority response states: "Once we approve this MVP, how flexible will the DAO be in revisiting it if significant shifts in the market or ecosystem require a course correction?" [ 0xDonPepe]
This approach of an annual MVP [forever question >>>SimScore >>> Update MVP] will solve this concern.
Note: SimScore is a unit of RnDAO. The development of this project is an indirect result of the Arbitrum fellowship / EIR program. I thank Daniel, Drea and Artem for their help. And of course Arbitrum for funding the original fellowship program.
Appreciate the @Entropy team putting this together, and I'd like to share some personal thoughts, which are highly aligned with @maxlomu 's comment, and level of diligence and standards the DAO should approach the next Strategic Objective Settings (SOS) phase.
Appreciate the @Entropy team putting this together, and I'd like to share some personal thoughts, which are highly aligned with @maxlomu 's comment, and level of diligence and standards the DAO should approach the next Strategic Objective Settings (SOS) phase.
In shaping Arbitrum’s mission, vision and purpose, a relatable and compelling narrative is equally key to attracting future builders and users to applications built on Arbitrum. Rather than focusing on amplifying technical advantages, the MVP should present the narrative that Arbitrum is an empowering, collaborative, and inclusive ecosystem that speaks directly to new and existing builders, users, DAO contributors, delegates and core teams within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
More specifically, I agree with @maxlomu that it needs to be unique to Arbitrum and not something that any other rollup could adopt, so framing the MVP around concepts like freedom is something that I resonate with deeply as Arbitrum truly embodies the 'your chain, your rules' experience.
On the builder front, as much as using the best in class tech stack is important, enjoying network effects and having a tie-in to the wider narrative and ecosystem are, one could argue, equally important aspects that goes into the decision making process of which chain to launch on. Centering on 'freedom' is simple, yet resonating across both the technical and narrative fronts. Building with freedom, for freedom from traditional environments and control systems (might sound too cheesy) for example, is a strong, powerful draw for builders to come to Arbitrum .
On the user, delegate, and DAO contributor front, being a part of a wider, resonating collective movement generates a certain degree of loyalty, excitement and alignment that is difficult to quantify, yet is crux in driving long term, sustained engagement and contributions. Aligning with 'freedom' , using products which enable freedom and sovereignty, and progressing the collective governance of a technology which proliferate freedom can be powerful anchors for users, delegates, and DAO contributors alike.
This approach aligns with the concept of a “resilient flywheel for sustainable revenue” that @Entropy presented, where every participant in the ecosystem — builders, contributors, and end-users — reinforces growth and long-term sustainability.
On the SOS front, the DAO needs to be extremely deliberate about the process design for receiving submissions, requirement settings for submissions, and rubric for selection of candidates. For this to-be-defined MVP to translate into actionable results, these strategic objectives should be set or led by high-context, qualified individuals or teams who can provide detailed implementation plans.
These submissions should include specific milestones, timelines and reasonable budgets, creating measurable checkpoints that keep Arbitrum’s growth on track and responsive to evolving ecosystem needs.
The DAO should set an extremely high benchmark in evaluating submissions, and delegates should approach these with utmost diligence because these are overarching objectives that will heavily influence, if not outrightly direct the framing of DAO initiatives moving forward. Even though these aren't set in stone and are meant to be iterative, it is of utmost importance that the bar is set high.
All in all, I'm very happy that the DAO is having this discussion now - the past 19 months have 'sort-of' created a decentralized ecosystem identity through various experiments. It is now an apt time in my opinion for the DAO to organize itself and collectively align on an identity, narrative and overarching goals. By pairing a strong narrative via the MVP with clearly defined objectives and milestones progressed by the most competent teams and individuals, Arbitrum can cultivate a vibrant, unified ecosystem that attracts and retains builders, users and contributors alike. Very excited to see where this discussion takes us.
Thanks for this proposal.
Similar to how the Code of Conduct proposal has an outlined path to eventually become a constitutional proposal on Tally, should there be a similar path for the MVP proposal to become constitutional? In my understanding it is good practice for DAO's to have their Mission, Vision, and Values (already there), in their constitutions.
Regarding the agility and flexibility. I would suggest the use of a "forever question". The question could be "What significant shifts in the market or ecosystem are occurring that may require an MVP course correction? The question could be asked yearly or every 2 years. The ops group could maintain a schedule of "forever questions" maybe 3 or 4 of them a year. This revisiting leads to an iterative feedback loop...so the org ratchets forward...never going back.
In shaping Arbitrum’s mission, vision and purpose, a relatable and compelling narrative is equally key to attracting future builders and users to applications built on Arbitrum. Rather than focusing on amplifying technical advantages, the MVP should present the narrative that Arbitrum is an empowering, collaborative, and inclusive ecosystem that speaks directly to new and existing builders, users, DAO contributors, delegates and core teams within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Based on SImScorr’s unbiased aggregation, the above statement is #1 priority, it should be the basis for improvements. The mvp needs to tell a story or narrative
The current proposal update by Entropy does not refer to this #1 statement by Clifton. For more clarity look at simscore report above.
Here is simscore analysis of MVP replies to date
Priority List and Relationship Graph. SimScore
SimScore grouping sheet.. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Bj4zClaiq9XfRH3ZGnmhujq0HkDuJ-Gb/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=114263162040721690799&rtpof=true&sd=true
Here is simscore analysis of MVP replies to date
Priority List and Relationship Graph. SimScore
SimScore grouping sheet.. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Bj4zClaiq9XfRH3ZGnmhujq0HkDuJ-Gb/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=114263162040721690799&rtpof=true&sd=true
These reports aggregate the communities thoughts in a manner that is repeatable and transparent. I recommend that the MVP question be asked annually by survey. Each Annual survey would be processed thru simscore tool being the basis of future MVP updates. Iterative and dynamic.
Part of the 8th highest priority response states: "Once we approve this MVP, how flexible will the DAO be in revisiting it if significant shifts in the market or ecosystem require a course correction?" [ 0xDonPepe]
This approach of an annual MVP [forever question >>>SimScore >>> Update MVP] will solve this concern.
Note: SimScore is a unit of RnDAO. The development of this project is an indirect result of the Arbitrum fellowship / EIR program. I thank Daniel, Drea and Artem for their help. And of course Arbitrum for funding the original fellowship program.
Appreciate the @Entropy team putting this together, and I'd like to share some personal thoughts, which are highly aligned with @maxlomu 's comment, and level of diligence and standards the DAO should approach the next Strategic Objective Settings (SOS) phase.
Appreciate the @Entropy team putting this together, and I'd like to share some personal thoughts, which are highly aligned with @maxlomu 's comment, and level of diligence and standards the DAO should approach the next Strategic Objective Settings (SOS) phase.
In shaping Arbitrum’s mission, vision and purpose, a relatable and compelling narrative is equally key to attracting future builders and users to applications built on Arbitrum. Rather than focusing on amplifying technical advantages, the MVP should present the narrative that Arbitrum is an empowering, collaborative, and inclusive ecosystem that speaks directly to new and existing builders, users, DAO contributors, delegates and core teams within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
More specifically, I agree with @maxlomu that it needs to be unique to Arbitrum and not something that any other rollup could adopt, so framing the MVP around concepts like freedom is something that I resonate with deeply as Arbitrum truly embodies the 'your chain, your rules' experience.
On the builder front, as much as using the best in class tech stack is important, enjoying network effects and having a tie-in to the wider narrative and ecosystem are, one could argue, equally important aspects that goes into the decision making process of which chain to launch on. Centering on 'freedom' is simple, yet resonating across both the technical and narrative fronts. Building with freedom, for freedom from traditional environments and control systems (might sound too cheesy) for example, is a strong, powerful draw for builders to come to Arbitrum .
On the user, delegate, and DAO contributor front, being a part of a wider, resonating collective movement generates a certain degree of loyalty, excitement and alignment that is difficult to quantify, yet is crux in driving long term, sustained engagement and contributions. Aligning with 'freedom' , using products which enable freedom and sovereignty, and progressing the collective governance of a technology which proliferate freedom can be powerful anchors for users, delegates, and DAO contributors alike.
This approach aligns with the concept of a “resilient flywheel for sustainable revenue” that @Entropy presented, where every participant in the ecosystem — builders, contributors, and end-users — reinforces growth and long-term sustainability.
On the SOS front, the DAO needs to be extremely deliberate about the process design for receiving submissions, requirement settings for submissions, and rubric for selection of candidates. For this to-be-defined MVP to translate into actionable results, these strategic objectives should be set or led by high-context, qualified individuals or teams who can provide detailed implementation plans.
These submissions should include specific milestones, timelines and reasonable budgets, creating measurable checkpoints that keep Arbitrum’s growth on track and responsive to evolving ecosystem needs.
The DAO should set an extremely high benchmark in evaluating submissions, and delegates should approach these with utmost diligence because these are overarching objectives that will heavily influence, if not outrightly direct the framing of DAO initiatives moving forward. Even though these aren't set in stone and are meant to be iterative, it is of utmost importance that the bar is set high.
All in all, I'm very happy that the DAO is having this discussion now - the past 19 months have 'sort-of' created a decentralized ecosystem identity through various experiments. It is now an apt time in my opinion for the DAO to organize itself and collectively align on an identity, narrative and overarching goals. By pairing a strong narrative via the MVP with clearly defined objectives and milestones progressed by the most competent teams and individuals, Arbitrum can cultivate a vibrant, unified ecosystem that attracts and retains builders, users and contributors alike. Very excited to see where this discussion takes us.
Thanks for this proposal.
Similar to how the Code of Conduct proposal has an outlined path to eventually become a constitutional proposal on Tally, should there be a similar path for the MVP proposal to become constitutional? In my understanding it is good practice for DAO's to have their Mission, Vision, and Values (already there), in their constitutions.
Regarding the agility and flexibility. I would suggest the use of a "forever question". The question could be "What significant shifts in the market or ecosystem are occurring that may require an MVP course correction? The question could be asked yearly or every 2 years. The ops group could maintain a schedule of "forever questions" maybe 3 or 4 of them a year. This revisiting leads to an iterative feedback loop...so the org ratchets forward...never going back.
Thank you very much for the months of work dedicated to articulating the purpose, mission, and vision of the DAO. Defining these elements in a decentralized environment is an extremely complex task. I agree with the way it has been framed: users, developers, and technology. and I am eager to see the first draft of the SOS and how this MVP is implemented in practice.
For this reason, I will vote in favor during the temp-check.
Thank you very much for the months of work dedicated to articulating the purpose, mission, and vision of the DAO. Defining these elements in a decentralized environment is an extremely complex task. I agree with the way it has been framed: users, developers, and technology. and I am eager to see the first draft of the SOS and how this MVP is implemented in practice.
For this reason, I will vote in favor during the temp-check.
My only comment:
None of the three explicitly mentions decentralization in its title. I believe it is the core value that should guide, to some extent, every proposal within the DAO. And it is the very reason for the DAO’s existence at all. After all, DAOs exist to govern systems that aim to be decentralized. In fact, it is often the lens through which proposals are evaluated and the reason why some are rejected.
I understand that the Purpose (Meaning) describes Arbitrum in its content as follows:
Arbitrum is not just scaling tech, it scales L1s without concessions to censorship resistance, accessibility, decentralization, or security.
However, I would like decentralization to be explicitly stated in the title, as I consider it to be the non-negotiable aspect. A potential revision could be: “Defend and guide the Arbitrum decentralized ecosystem.”
Again, thank you!
I would like decentralization to be explicitly stated in the title
I mean, guess where this screenshot is from...
getting Arbitrum-specific assets or Arbitrum-specific onramps rather than relying on competitors (like Coinbase)
gm, voted FOR. Excited about how this proposal has progressed and looking forward to the next steps.
While many comments raise valid points about nuances that may not be explicitly reflected in the formal statements, these elements are addressed in the sub-sections. These details will likely form part of the manifesto accompanying the SOS.
gm, voted FOR. Excited about how this proposal has progressed and looking forward to the next steps.
While many comments raise valid points about nuances that may not be explicitly reflected in the formal statements, these elements are addressed in the sub-sections. These details will likely form part of the manifesto accompanying the SOS.
Part of a mission statement is the acknowledgement of competition, and gaining a competitive mindset. It may be time for Arbitrum to clearly articulate its competitive stance, as this perspective could influence how funding initiatives are prioritized in the future.
For example, I am not sure I agree with this.
Rather than focusing on direct competition, our mission should adopt a "blue ocean" mindset. The value created onchain in the coming years is expected to grow by one or two orders of magnitude. Every rollup contributes to bringing more people onchain.
Yes, we are competing with other ecosystems, but a strong mission should focus on expanding the pie rather than fostering baseline conflict. Our vision highlights how we lead in creating opportunities for everyone onchain, driving growth for the entire space.
:rocket:
I also bought the 804.439,61 ARB of voting power available in lobbyfi.xyz to vote Against in this offchain proposal https://arbiscan.io/tx/0x87a591e231bc1dff9a24b6be65a2e72f82932709b3dee4f8ead6d4d9579a4a71
voting Against the current offchain proposal because this new purpose statement feels much less ethereum-aligned than what it was previously, and since the current constitution of the Arbitrum DAO mentions explicitly that this DAO should be ethereum-aligned, I can’t vote for a purpose statement that erodes that enshrined value. The previous purpose of Scale Ethereum without compromise feels much more aligned to me than this new one to defend and guide the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We support the initiative to unify the Mission, Vision, and Purpose of the Arbitrum DAO. This foundational step will enable the DAO to craft and execute appropriate strategies, aligned with a to-be-determined Strategic Objective Setting, ensuring that stakeholders work cohesively toward shared goals. Drawing inspiration from successful implementations like Lido's MVP and GOOSE initiatives, this proposal has the potential to align contributors and DAO participants effectively.
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We support the initiative to unify the Mission, Vision, and Purpose of the Arbitrum DAO. This foundational step will enable the DAO to craft and execute appropriate strategies, aligned with a to-be-determined Strategic Objective Setting, ensuring that stakeholders work cohesively toward shared goals. Drawing inspiration from successful implementations like Lido's MVP and GOOSE initiatives, this proposal has the potential to align contributors and DAO participants effectively.
We appreciate the Purpose statement for its clarity in defining why the DAO exists—it is well-articulated and resonates strongly. While the Mission provides a direction for what the DAO should do in the mid-term, its reference to "the best onchain world" could benefit from more specificity. Similarly, the Vision is thought-provoking but somewhat ambiguous, as the term "the universal shift" might need further clarification. Additionally, the emphasis on "onchain" in both the Mission and Vision could unintentionally exclude projects that bridge "offchain" and "onchain" ecosystems.
However, we recognize that clear focus is crucial for defining the DAO's trajectory. If these statements are widely agreed upon by the DAO participants, settling on them and executing aligned strategies is a meaningful and necessary step forward.
SOS and MVP
Once the DAO’s end state goals have been solidified, anyone will have the opportunity to propose a strategy matrix made up of 12- and 24-month focus areas for the DAO through an open process named Strategic Objective Setting (SOS).
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Quoting our previous statement:
DAOplomats voted FOR on Snapshot.
It is imperative we have these sorts of discussions and we are happy Entropy kickstarted this. We were also supportive of this proposal during the temp check because nothing is set in stone yet as we do have some leeway before a final conclusion is made.
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.
To begin with, we’d like to acknowledge the difficulty of drafting an MVP that is broad enough to encapsulate the views of all the different stakeholders that comprise the DAO while remaining focused enough to serve its purpose.
We appreciate Entropy leading the charge on this and ensuring that they incorporate as much of the feedback they have received as possible in different iterations. We believe that having a north star that the whole DAO is working toward will help us be more targeted in our initiatives.
The outlined Mission, Vision, and Purpose, combined with the SOS approach, might be the right balance the DAO needs to firmly move forward with finding our north star while decentralizing the process to a reasonable extent. While it is a bit vague and open-ended to our liking, it might be a good first step to aligning our initiatives and having a better vision for what we should be funding.
However, we would like to point out that we treat this document as a first version that should be revised and adapted after some time. It might be a good idea to set aside some time in 6 and 12 months to validate how it works and whether or not it is really helpful in decision-making.
Thank you very much for the months of work dedicated to articulating the purpose, mission, and vision of the DAO. Defining these elements in a decentralized environment is an extremely complex task. I agree with the way it has been framed: users, developers, and technology. and I am eager to see the first draft of the SOS and how this MVP is implemented in practice.
For this reason, I will vote in favor during the temp-check.
Thank you very much for the months of work dedicated to articulating the purpose, mission, and vision of the DAO. Defining these elements in a decentralized environment is an extremely complex task. I agree with the way it has been framed: users, developers, and technology. and I am eager to see the first draft of the SOS and how this MVP is implemented in practice.
For this reason, I will vote in favor during the temp-check.
My only comment:
None of the three explicitly mentions decentralization in its title. I believe it is the core value that should guide, to some extent, every proposal within the DAO. And it is the very reason for the DAO’s existence at all. After all, DAOs exist to govern systems that aim to be decentralized. In fact, it is often the lens through which proposals are evaluated and the reason why some are rejected.
I understand that the Purpose (Meaning) describes Arbitrum in its content as follows:
Arbitrum is not just scaling tech, it scales L1s without concessions to censorship resistance, accessibility, decentralization, or security.
However, I would like decentralization to be explicitly stated in the title, as I consider it to be the non-negotiable aspect. A potential revision could be: “Defend and guide the Arbitrum decentralized ecosystem.”
Again, thank you!
I would like decentralization to be explicitly stated in the title
I mean, guess where this screenshot is from...
getting Arbitrum-specific assets or Arbitrum-specific onramps rather than relying on competitors (like Coinbase)
gm, voted FOR. Excited about how this proposal has progressed and looking forward to the next steps.
While many comments raise valid points about nuances that may not be explicitly reflected in the formal statements, these elements are addressed in the sub-sections. These details will likely form part of the manifesto accompanying the SOS.
gm, voted FOR. Excited about how this proposal has progressed and looking forward to the next steps.
While many comments raise valid points about nuances that may not be explicitly reflected in the formal statements, these elements are addressed in the sub-sections. These details will likely form part of the manifesto accompanying the SOS.
Part of a mission statement is the acknowledgement of competition, and gaining a competitive mindset. It may be time for Arbitrum to clearly articulate its competitive stance, as this perspective could influence how funding initiatives are prioritized in the future.
For example, I am not sure I agree with this.
Rather than focusing on direct competition, our mission should adopt a "blue ocean" mindset. The value created onchain in the coming years is expected to grow by one or two orders of magnitude. Every rollup contributes to bringing more people onchain.
Yes, we are competing with other ecosystems, but a strong mission should focus on expanding the pie rather than fostering baseline conflict. Our vision highlights how we lead in creating opportunities for everyone onchain, driving growth for the entire space.
:rocket:
I also bought the 804.439,61 ARB of voting power available in lobbyfi.xyz to vote Against in this offchain proposal https://arbiscan.io/tx/0x87a591e231bc1dff9a24b6be65a2e72f82932709b3dee4f8ead6d4d9579a4a71
voting Against the current offchain proposal because this new purpose statement feels much less ethereum-aligned than what it was previously, and since the current constitution of the Arbitrum DAO mentions explicitly that this DAO should be ethereum-aligned, I can’t vote for a purpose statement that erodes that enshrined value. The previous purpose of Scale Ethereum without compromise feels much more aligned to me than this new one to defend and guide the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We support the initiative to unify the Mission, Vision, and Purpose of the Arbitrum DAO. This foundational step will enable the DAO to craft and execute appropriate strategies, aligned with a to-be-determined Strategic Objective Setting, ensuring that stakeholders work cohesively toward shared goals. Drawing inspiration from successful implementations like Lido's MVP and GOOSE initiatives, this proposal has the potential to align contributors and DAO participants effectively.
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We support the initiative to unify the Mission, Vision, and Purpose of the Arbitrum DAO. This foundational step will enable the DAO to craft and execute appropriate strategies, aligned with a to-be-determined Strategic Objective Setting, ensuring that stakeholders work cohesively toward shared goals. Drawing inspiration from successful implementations like Lido's MVP and GOOSE initiatives, this proposal has the potential to align contributors and DAO participants effectively.
We appreciate the Purpose statement for its clarity in defining why the DAO exists—it is well-articulated and resonates strongly. While the Mission provides a direction for what the DAO should do in the mid-term, its reference to "the best onchain world" could benefit from more specificity. Similarly, the Vision is thought-provoking but somewhat ambiguous, as the term "the universal shift" might need further clarification. Additionally, the emphasis on "onchain" in both the Mission and Vision could unintentionally exclude projects that bridge "offchain" and "onchain" ecosystems.
However, we recognize that clear focus is crucial for defining the DAO's trajectory. If these statements are widely agreed upon by the DAO participants, settling on them and executing aligned strategies is a meaningful and necessary step forward.
SOS and MVP
Once the DAO’s end state goals have been solidified, anyone will have the opportunity to propose a strategy matrix made up of 12- and 24-month focus areas for the DAO through an open process named Strategic Objective Setting (SOS).
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Quoting our previous statement:
DAOplomats voted FOR on Snapshot.
It is imperative we have these sorts of discussions and we are happy Entropy kickstarted this. We were also supportive of this proposal during the temp check because nothing is set in stone yet as we do have some leeway before a final conclusion is made.
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.
To begin with, we’d like to acknowledge the difficulty of drafting an MVP that is broad enough to encapsulate the views of all the different stakeholders that comprise the DAO while remaining focused enough to serve its purpose.
We appreciate Entropy leading the charge on this and ensuring that they incorporate as much of the feedback they have received as possible in different iterations. We believe that having a north star that the whole DAO is working toward will help us be more targeted in our initiatives.
The outlined Mission, Vision, and Purpose, combined with the SOS approach, might be the right balance the DAO needs to firmly move forward with finding our north star while decentralizing the process to a reasonable extent. While it is a bit vague and open-ended to our liking, it might be a good first step to aligning our initiatives and having a better vision for what we should be funding.
However, we would like to point out that we treat this document as a first version that should be revised and adapted after some time. It might be a good idea to set aside some time in 6 and 12 months to validate how it works and whether or not it is really helpful in decision-making.
SOS and MVP
Once the DAO’s end state goals have been solidified, anyone will have the opportunity to propose a strategy matrix made up of 12- and 24-month focus areas for the DAO through an open process named Strategic Objective Setting (SOS).
Viewing this alongside the OpCo proposal, this appears to be part of a broader template for streamlining proposals that feed into the OpCo entity under strict timelines. This makes sense and seems like the natural maturation of the DAO. That said, some initiatives are short-term sprints with urgent timelines. How does the SOS framework plan to handle these?
This may be an edge case given the existing grant groups and events budget which likely address most immediate decision-making and spending. However, in case I’m wrong, how can we ensure agility/flexibility from this system? This is likely a conversation for the SOS, once that proposal is posted.
Competition
The technology focus of Arbitrum is exactly what’s needed here. Arbitrum’s product is its network, applications, and tech-suite that’s powered by decentralization and scalability. Furthering itself in this domain will naturally allow it to win against competitors. Earlier in this discussion, others noted that the proposal could benefit from stronger language on Arbitrum’s unique identity. Building on that point, I think the proposal needs to address the competitive landscape more directly.
The MVP does touch on Arbitrum becoming the default option for applications and developers, though it's possible that a more direct focus on competition would help frame Arbitrum’s unique value proposition. The L2 ecosystem is dominated by a few players, and there are other DAOs with the resources to compete even if they lack mindshare. It’s important for the DAO to recognize that, and articulate where Arbitrum will lead and how it will continue to compete. As many delegates have stated already, they’re concerned about the DAO’s ability to be agile and flexible in times of need. This competitive language may be what the proposal needs to signal that the DAO will still retain the ability to be flexible in response to a competitive market.
The rollup ecosystem is not just a vague collection of networks sharing the market; rather, these rollups are actively competing with one another. I agree with @L2Beat’s points that there are overlooked areas the DAO should start exploring. For example, with this Arbitrum-specific view, it might be time to start looking into getting Arbitrum-specific assets or Arbitrum-specific onramps rather than relying on competitors (like Coinbase) who will likely be preferential to their own rollups moving forward. Part of a mission statement is the acknowledgement of competition, and gaining a competitive mindset. It may be time for Arbitrum to clearly articulate its competitive stance, as this perspective could influence how funding initiatives are prioritized in the future. Acknowledging competition means that the DAO would become less frivolous with spending and actually award true winners in select vectors to win in its own market as a rollup.
Token
Finally, I think that there is a missing component to many of the recent conversations on Arbitrum: the ARB token. The token plays an integral role in the governance of the network, and so it stands to reason that there should be some additional mention of it within the mission statement. While it can be argued that defending Arbitrum means defending the ARB token, this connection isn’t obvious. This isn’t to suggest the token should dominate the DAO’s focus, but it deserves a clear mention in the mission statement.
TLDR; Overall, I think the proposal could benefit from stronger competitive language and a clearer mention of the ARB token, but we're in support.
Concluding thoughts: Blockworks Advisory will be voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Quoting our previous statement:
We’d like to begin by expressing our full agreement on the need to continue laying the foundation for Arbitrum’s growth. Today, we can say the DAO is advancing, but often without a clear direction or strategic goals, and frequently without certainty as to whether the initiatives under discussion are indeed necessary for the project’s progress.
Establishing an MVP is a crucial step for the DAO’s decision-making process moving forward. The MVP will also serve as the foundational cornerstone for the OpCo if approved.
As @JoJo rightly pointed out, both the MVP and the SOS will support the DAO in its resource allocation role by identifying which proposals are best aligned and positioned to achieve ecosystem-level objectives.
Also we appreciate the emphasis placed on the user throughout this process. Products designed to provide an optimal UX have consistently shown greater ease in facilitating onboarding, as observed in the case of Solana. Focusing on Builders and Users as our primary objectives appears to be the right approach.
Finally, it would be worthwhile for the DAO to begin discussions around the SOS proposal after the holiday season. At SEEDGov, we have previously shared our perspective:
From our perspective, the verticals mentioned by @krst in his comment provide a good starting point for debating the structure of a proposal that would likely establish the DAO’s objectives for the next 12–24 months. We’d like to add a few thoughts:
It’s been mentioned that the DAO needs to work on generating additional revenue streams to support long-term sustainability and provide value to the token. There’s also an RFC under discussion: [Non-Constitutional] Treasury Management v1.2. However, we want to emphasize that the DAO needs to standardize how it utilizes and manages its treasury.
Currently, each initiative handles its own treasury management in isolation: for ARDC v2, an AERA Vault is proposed; for other initiatives, funds are transferred to the AF for conversion to stables; some initiatives are paid in ARB via MSS; and others have sold ARB directly on the market. Similarly, even the use of stream applications lacks a standard framework, with no set guidelines to determine whether Sablier, Hedgey, Superfluid, or Llamapay should be used.
While we understand that different initiatives may occasionally require distinct procedures, we believe a well-designed, flexible framework could cover most cases in the future, especially if the OpCo proceeds successfully.
There have also been many discussions and proposals related to treasury diversification (including the above-mentioned proposal), but three fundamental questions remain unresolved:
What should the asset mix in the treasury be?
How much immediate liquidity does the DAO need?
How much immediate liquidity does the DAO want? (Enough to cover budgetary obligations for a few years? Some extra for potential changes to our plans? Do we need a contingency fund?)
To clarify, when referring to “immediate liquidity,” we mean stablecoins or highly liquid assets with minimal selling effort (we’re excluding ARB, as its liquidity depth limits short-term sell capacity).
As a final note, it’s important to mention that these last two points largely depend on the DAO’s ability to establish an annual budget—another aspect currently unresolved.
For the DAO to be more resilient to capture, genuinely decentralized in decision-making, and benefit from higher-quality proposals, it must focus on onboarding new stakeholders. This means that while growth programs aimed at expanding to new markets (i.e., new builders and users) are important, equal emphasis should be placed on encouraging DAO participation to grow and diversify alongside the ecosystem. As a community, we should be equipped to face new challenges that arise as a result of growth.
In this regard, both the Staking and DIP proposals are key to aligning the Arbitrum ecosystem with its DAO.
Considering the rapid evolution of the crypto ecosystem, even if the SOS program were created solely for the next 12 months, priorities could shift at any moment.
For example:
Even if this tweet is a mere rumor, imagine for a moment what would happen if ETH Mainnet no longer required rollups for scaling…the MVP outlined in this RFC would already be obsolete. The Arbitrum ecosystem does not rely exclusively on endogenous factors, so the DAO must be capable of quickly pivoting to a contingency plan if necessary until priorities can be redefined.
I really liked this proposal, and the SOS idea roadmap/proposal which is incoming. Having a structure like this will enable top-down approaches, I think similar to what Optimism has with intents, which I think has resulted really good and with positive results. Having directional goals will better result in organization and hopefully positive impact overall.
The phased implementation through MVP -> SOS -> budgeting makes sense, as it gives the DAO a clear framework to evaluate initiatives beyond just looking at effort metrics. The 6-month trial period before any constitutional changes also provides a good balance for adjusting the MVP framework if needed. Voted FOR.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot voting.
We think it’s very important for everyone in the DAO to have a clear mission, vision, and purpose. This helps us all work together better and support the DAO’s growth.
This proposal is a step toward ensuring that the DAO's strategies are clear and focused. It sets a direction that will guide all our future work and support efforts to increase the value of the ARB token.
We’re looking forward to seeing the SOS proposal and are excited about how it will help us stay on the right track. It will enable the DAO and its stakeholders to align more closely with the defined goals, fostering effective contribution and better decision-making aligned with our long-term objectives.
I vote FOR the proposal. Every organization needs clear vision and mission statements which serve as guiding stars for everything that we do in the DAO. And we also need to take actions that follow mission, vision, and purpose statements, so I'm looking forward to the upcoming SOS proposal!
Voted For: Initiative to work on a more defined strategy for Arbitrum DAO is well needed. I like how the proposal is not rushing to find a solution directly but working in steps (one by one). Launching an MVP first before moving to SOS (Strategic Objective Setting) is a great way. Some feedback was that the direction and the process are a bit vague, but I think at this point, this is needed. Let’s first try to see the big picture before we decide to focus on specifics.
I do have an open question about the budget that Lampros Labs DAO seeks here. It's mentioned that this will be addressed in the SOS proposal, but it would be great to understand the scope of the budget here and what will be included.
I'm voting in favor of this proposal. It's encouraging to see such extensive community engagement and how diverse perspectives have been translated into well defined goals. Throughout the discussions, I've observed the challenges in considering everyone's ideas and integrating them into guiding principles, but I'm genuinely pleased with the outcome. The final version aligns well with my viewpoint, and I'm looking forward to seeing how this will manifest in the following and more concrete steps.
Establishing the DAO's north star was crucial for aligning everyone's efforts and ideas towards a common direction. I believe that following approval, our key challenge will be disseminating this information to ensure that all members can align themselves with our shared goal. I'm confident that if we communicate this effectively, we'll see positive impacts both in the short and long term. This work definitely sets the stage for more focused and cohesive efforts within the DAO.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, we're voting FOR in this proposal. Below is our rationale:
I voted FOR. Every organization needs the clarity of what is trying to achieve, so there is alignment between the several contributors. And this proposal gives us the north star that can be revisited when there are any doubts.
Thank you for this. After reviewing the proposal, on behalf of Axis Advisory, we are voting ‘For’ on the Snapshot proposal.
We see this proposal as an important step for getting Arbitrum’s strategy on track with a clear mission, value and purpose that can serve as a north star for future efforts and bring more value to the ARB token. In particular, the phased approach outlined in this proposal is particularly valuable given that it helps turn abstract goals into actionable strategic objective setting. This kind of structure makes it easier to nail down short-term and medium-term priorities, helping Arbitrum reclaim mindshare and remain competitive in the L2 space. We are confident that this proposal can help attract more developers and users giving them a clearer sense of direction.
We're voting FOR the MVP proposal.
The framework sets a solid foundation while remaining flexible through its initial 6-month period. The focus on "freedom to build" creates clear alignment for builders, users and contributors. The phased SOS implementation ensures we can adapt strategies based on market shifts and ecosystem needs.
We're voting FOR the MVP proposal.
The framework sets a solid foundation while remaining flexible through its initial 6-month period. The focus on "freedom to build" creates clear alignment for builders, users and contributors. The phased SOS implementation ensures we can adapt strategies based on market shifts and ecosystem needs.
We appreciate how the revised mission addresses uniqueness concerns by emphasizing Arbitrum's core value of freedom, while keeping high-level objectives broad enough to evolve with the market.
Confirming @paulofonseca has acquired our voting power.
We voted Against the proposal with 804.439,61 ARB since the voting power has been trustlessly acquired on lobbyfi.xyz.
Following on from our previous response, we will be voting FOR this proposal at Snapshot.
We are voting for this proposal because it establishes a clear and unified Mission, Vision, and Purpose for the Arbitrum DAO, ensuring alignment across the ecosystem's stakeholders. By creating a solid foundation for decision-making and strategic focus, this proposal will empower sustainable growth, attract builders, and advance Arbitrum as the leading home for the onchain future. With this clarity, we can move forward cohesively, optimizing resources and driving towards Arbitrum’s ultimate goal of universal onchain adoption.
Voted FOR this proposal
Mission statements are a good idea to focus the DAO
Some feedback: This proposal could be cut in 1/3 and still say the same thing. please cut down proposal length - use AI if necessary - as otherwise its a cost to everyone else's time.
We’re happy to support this proposal because it gives ArbitrumDAO a clear direction by defining its mission, vision, and purpose. Having a shared “north star” is key to keeping the community aligned and ensuring all projects and decisions contribute to Arbitrum’s future success. The step-by-step plan—from setting a vision to creating actionable goals and budgets—provides a solid foundation to make the DAO more focused and effective. To enhance the proposal, we’d suggest adding clear ways to measure success, like tracking how many projects align with the vision and how many builders and users join the ecosystem. Rewarding participation in the SOS phase and starting with smaller pilot projects could help test ideas and build momentum. Supporting builders with better resources and adding visuals to explain the process could also make everything easier to follow. We’re excited to see how this proposal will help ArbitrumDAO grow and thrive!
I’m voting YES on this proposal because I feel it’s a solid foundation for Arbitrum’s strategic direction. It is clearly focusing on core values like decentralization and freedom, which will eventually lead to innovation. Having a clear narrative will help the DAO better align its efforts and attract more developers, users, and contributors. This proposal should set the groundwork for future growth and the flexibility needed for Arbitrum to stay ahead in this ever-changing crypto world.
It will be very interesting to see how this initiative evolves, especially with the feedback from delegates and the community. As I mentioned in my last comment, having regular reviews will be key to measuring how we’re doing and keeping this initiative relevant. Budget transparency and financial sustainability will help to build trust and achieve real progress. This proposal is a step forward towards making the DAO more institutionalized.
Hey @Entropy, thanks for your reply. Apologize if my comment in 2nd paragraph seemed directed at you—it wasn’t meant that way. I was simply sharing my vision and goals as a delegate in DAO, with a strong belief in a decentralized future.
Really appreciate all the work you've done so far!
On behalf of the UADP, some feedback that we think may be helpful:
Clarify Terminology: The term "uncompromising" appears multiple times in the proposal, which is a bit subjective. Given the inherent trade-offs in balancing security, decentralization, and scalability absolute "uncompromising" may be unrealistic. Maybe setting attainable expectations can prevent potential disillusionment here in the future.
Engage the Community: Actively involving the community in defining the MVP can lead to a more inclusive and representative framework over time as we gradually increase the scope/ tenure here. Soliciting diverse perspectives ensures that the guiding principles resonate with a broader audience, fostering greater buy-in and collaboration.
Ensure Practical Applicability: It could be crucial to outline how the MVP translates into actionable strategies. Providing clear examples or guidelines on implementing these principles can bridge the gap between abstract ideals and practical execution, enhancing the DAO's operational efficiency.
SOS and MVP
Once the DAO’s end state goals have been solidified, anyone will have the opportunity to propose a strategy matrix made up of 12- and 24-month focus areas for the DAO through an open process named Strategic Objective Setting (SOS).
Viewing this alongside the OpCo proposal, this appears to be part of a broader template for streamlining proposals that feed into the OpCo entity under strict timelines. This makes sense and seems like the natural maturation of the DAO. That said, some initiatives are short-term sprints with urgent timelines. How does the SOS framework plan to handle these?
This may be an edge case given the existing grant groups and events budget which likely address most immediate decision-making and spending. However, in case I’m wrong, how can we ensure agility/flexibility from this system? This is likely a conversation for the SOS, once that proposal is posted.
Competition
The technology focus of Arbitrum is exactly what’s needed here. Arbitrum’s product is its network, applications, and tech-suite that’s powered by decentralization and scalability. Furthering itself in this domain will naturally allow it to win against competitors. Earlier in this discussion, others noted that the proposal could benefit from stronger language on Arbitrum’s unique identity. Building on that point, I think the proposal needs to address the competitive landscape more directly.
The MVP does touch on Arbitrum becoming the default option for applications and developers, though it's possible that a more direct focus on competition would help frame Arbitrum’s unique value proposition. The L2 ecosystem is dominated by a few players, and there are other DAOs with the resources to compete even if they lack mindshare. It’s important for the DAO to recognize that, and articulate where Arbitrum will lead and how it will continue to compete. As many delegates have stated already, they’re concerned about the DAO’s ability to be agile and flexible in times of need. This competitive language may be what the proposal needs to signal that the DAO will still retain the ability to be flexible in response to a competitive market.
The rollup ecosystem is not just a vague collection of networks sharing the market; rather, these rollups are actively competing with one another. I agree with @L2Beat’s points that there are overlooked areas the DAO should start exploring. For example, with this Arbitrum-specific view, it might be time to start looking into getting Arbitrum-specific assets or Arbitrum-specific onramps rather than relying on competitors (like Coinbase) who will likely be preferential to their own rollups moving forward. Part of a mission statement is the acknowledgement of competition, and gaining a competitive mindset. It may be time for Arbitrum to clearly articulate its competitive stance, as this perspective could influence how funding initiatives are prioritized in the future. Acknowledging competition means that the DAO would become less frivolous with spending and actually award true winners in select vectors to win in its own market as a rollup.
Token
Finally, I think that there is a missing component to many of the recent conversations on Arbitrum: the ARB token. The token plays an integral role in the governance of the network, and so it stands to reason that there should be some additional mention of it within the mission statement. While it can be argued that defending Arbitrum means defending the ARB token, this connection isn’t obvious. This isn’t to suggest the token should dominate the DAO’s focus, but it deserves a clear mention in the mission statement.
TLDR; Overall, I think the proposal could benefit from stronger competitive language and a clearer mention of the ARB token, but we're in support.
Concluding thoughts: Blockworks Advisory will be voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Quoting our previous statement:
We’d like to begin by expressing our full agreement on the need to continue laying the foundation for Arbitrum’s growth. Today, we can say the DAO is advancing, but often without a clear direction or strategic goals, and frequently without certainty as to whether the initiatives under discussion are indeed necessary for the project’s progress.
Establishing an MVP is a crucial step for the DAO’s decision-making process moving forward. The MVP will also serve as the foundational cornerstone for the OpCo if approved.
As @JoJo rightly pointed out, both the MVP and the SOS will support the DAO in its resource allocation role by identifying which proposals are best aligned and positioned to achieve ecosystem-level objectives.
Also we appreciate the emphasis placed on the user throughout this process. Products designed to provide an optimal UX have consistently shown greater ease in facilitating onboarding, as observed in the case of Solana. Focusing on Builders and Users as our primary objectives appears to be the right approach.
Finally, it would be worthwhile for the DAO to begin discussions around the SOS proposal after the holiday season. At SEEDGov, we have previously shared our perspective:
From our perspective, the verticals mentioned by @krst in his comment provide a good starting point for debating the structure of a proposal that would likely establish the DAO’s objectives for the next 12–24 months. We’d like to add a few thoughts:
It’s been mentioned that the DAO needs to work on generating additional revenue streams to support long-term sustainability and provide value to the token. There’s also an RFC under discussion: [Non-Constitutional] Treasury Management v1.2. However, we want to emphasize that the DAO needs to standardize how it utilizes and manages its treasury.
Currently, each initiative handles its own treasury management in isolation: for ARDC v2, an AERA Vault is proposed; for other initiatives, funds are transferred to the AF for conversion to stables; some initiatives are paid in ARB via MSS; and others have sold ARB directly on the market. Similarly, even the use of stream applications lacks a standard framework, with no set guidelines to determine whether Sablier, Hedgey, Superfluid, or Llamapay should be used.
While we understand that different initiatives may occasionally require distinct procedures, we believe a well-designed, flexible framework could cover most cases in the future, especially if the OpCo proceeds successfully.
There have also been many discussions and proposals related to treasury diversification (including the above-mentioned proposal), but three fundamental questions remain unresolved:
What should the asset mix in the treasury be?
How much immediate liquidity does the DAO need?
How much immediate liquidity does the DAO want? (Enough to cover budgetary obligations for a few years? Some extra for potential changes to our plans? Do we need a contingency fund?)
To clarify, when referring to “immediate liquidity,” we mean stablecoins or highly liquid assets with minimal selling effort (we’re excluding ARB, as its liquidity depth limits short-term sell capacity).
As a final note, it’s important to mention that these last two points largely depend on the DAO’s ability to establish an annual budget—another aspect currently unresolved.
For the DAO to be more resilient to capture, genuinely decentralized in decision-making, and benefit from higher-quality proposals, it must focus on onboarding new stakeholders. This means that while growth programs aimed at expanding to new markets (i.e., new builders and users) are important, equal emphasis should be placed on encouraging DAO participation to grow and diversify alongside the ecosystem. As a community, we should be equipped to face new challenges that arise as a result of growth.
In this regard, both the Staking and DIP proposals are key to aligning the Arbitrum ecosystem with its DAO.
Considering the rapid evolution of the crypto ecosystem, even if the SOS program were created solely for the next 12 months, priorities could shift at any moment.
For example:
Even if this tweet is a mere rumor, imagine for a moment what would happen if ETH Mainnet no longer required rollups for scaling…the MVP outlined in this RFC would already be obsolete. The Arbitrum ecosystem does not rely exclusively on endogenous factors, so the DAO must be capable of quickly pivoting to a contingency plan if necessary until priorities can be redefined.
I really liked this proposal, and the SOS idea roadmap/proposal which is incoming. Having a structure like this will enable top-down approaches, I think similar to what Optimism has with intents, which I think has resulted really good and with positive results. Having directional goals will better result in organization and hopefully positive impact overall.
The phased implementation through MVP -> SOS -> budgeting makes sense, as it gives the DAO a clear framework to evaluate initiatives beyond just looking at effort metrics. The 6-month trial period before any constitutional changes also provides a good balance for adjusting the MVP framework if needed. Voted FOR.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot voting.
We think it’s very important for everyone in the DAO to have a clear mission, vision, and purpose. This helps us all work together better and support the DAO’s growth.
This proposal is a step toward ensuring that the DAO's strategies are clear and focused. It sets a direction that will guide all our future work and support efforts to increase the value of the ARB token.
We’re looking forward to seeing the SOS proposal and are excited about how it will help us stay on the right track. It will enable the DAO and its stakeholders to align more closely with the defined goals, fostering effective contribution and better decision-making aligned with our long-term objectives.
I vote FOR the proposal. Every organization needs clear vision and mission statements which serve as guiding stars for everything that we do in the DAO. And we also need to take actions that follow mission, vision, and purpose statements, so I'm looking forward to the upcoming SOS proposal!
Voted For: Initiative to work on a more defined strategy for Arbitrum DAO is well needed. I like how the proposal is not rushing to find a solution directly but working in steps (one by one). Launching an MVP first before moving to SOS (Strategic Objective Setting) is a great way. Some feedback was that the direction and the process are a bit vague, but I think at this point, this is needed. Let’s first try to see the big picture before we decide to focus on specifics.
I do have an open question about the budget that Lampros Labs DAO seeks here. It's mentioned that this will be addressed in the SOS proposal, but it would be great to understand the scope of the budget here and what will be included.
I'm voting in favor of this proposal. It's encouraging to see such extensive community engagement and how diverse perspectives have been translated into well defined goals. Throughout the discussions, I've observed the challenges in considering everyone's ideas and integrating them into guiding principles, but I'm genuinely pleased with the outcome. The final version aligns well with my viewpoint, and I'm looking forward to seeing how this will manifest in the following and more concrete steps.
Establishing the DAO's north star was crucial for aligning everyone's efforts and ideas towards a common direction. I believe that following approval, our key challenge will be disseminating this information to ensure that all members can align themselves with our shared goal. I'm confident that if we communicate this effectively, we'll see positive impacts both in the short and long term. This work definitely sets the stage for more focused and cohesive efforts within the DAO.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, we're voting FOR in this proposal. Below is our rationale:
I voted FOR. Every organization needs the clarity of what is trying to achieve, so there is alignment between the several contributors. And this proposal gives us the north star that can be revisited when there are any doubts.
Thank you for this. After reviewing the proposal, on behalf of Axis Advisory, we are voting ‘For’ on the Snapshot proposal.
We see this proposal as an important step for getting Arbitrum’s strategy on track with a clear mission, value and purpose that can serve as a north star for future efforts and bring more value to the ARB token. In particular, the phased approach outlined in this proposal is particularly valuable given that it helps turn abstract goals into actionable strategic objective setting. This kind of structure makes it easier to nail down short-term and medium-term priorities, helping Arbitrum reclaim mindshare and remain competitive in the L2 space. We are confident that this proposal can help attract more developers and users giving them a clearer sense of direction.
We're voting FOR the MVP proposal.
The framework sets a solid foundation while remaining flexible through its initial 6-month period. The focus on "freedom to build" creates clear alignment for builders, users and contributors. The phased SOS implementation ensures we can adapt strategies based on market shifts and ecosystem needs.
We're voting FOR the MVP proposal.
The framework sets a solid foundation while remaining flexible through its initial 6-month period. The focus on "freedom to build" creates clear alignment for builders, users and contributors. The phased SOS implementation ensures we can adapt strategies based on market shifts and ecosystem needs.
We appreciate how the revised mission addresses uniqueness concerns by emphasizing Arbitrum's core value of freedom, while keeping high-level objectives broad enough to evolve with the market.
Confirming @paulofonseca has acquired our voting power.
We voted Against the proposal with 804.439,61 ARB since the voting power has been trustlessly acquired on lobbyfi.xyz.
Following on from our previous response, we will be voting FOR this proposal at Snapshot.
We are voting for this proposal because it establishes a clear and unified Mission, Vision, and Purpose for the Arbitrum DAO, ensuring alignment across the ecosystem's stakeholders. By creating a solid foundation for decision-making and strategic focus, this proposal will empower sustainable growth, attract builders, and advance Arbitrum as the leading home for the onchain future. With this clarity, we can move forward cohesively, optimizing resources and driving towards Arbitrum’s ultimate goal of universal onchain adoption.
Voted FOR this proposal
Mission statements are a good idea to focus the DAO
Some feedback: This proposal could be cut in 1/3 and still say the same thing. please cut down proposal length - use AI if necessary - as otherwise its a cost to everyone else's time.
We’re happy to support this proposal because it gives ArbitrumDAO a clear direction by defining its mission, vision, and purpose. Having a shared “north star” is key to keeping the community aligned and ensuring all projects and decisions contribute to Arbitrum’s future success. The step-by-step plan—from setting a vision to creating actionable goals and budgets—provides a solid foundation to make the DAO more focused and effective. To enhance the proposal, we’d suggest adding clear ways to measure success, like tracking how many projects align with the vision and how many builders and users join the ecosystem. Rewarding participation in the SOS phase and starting with smaller pilot projects could help test ideas and build momentum. Supporting builders with better resources and adding visuals to explain the process could also make everything easier to follow. We’re excited to see how this proposal will help ArbitrumDAO grow and thrive!
I’m voting YES on this proposal because I feel it’s a solid foundation for Arbitrum’s strategic direction. It is clearly focusing on core values like decentralization and freedom, which will eventually lead to innovation. Having a clear narrative will help the DAO better align its efforts and attract more developers, users, and contributors. This proposal should set the groundwork for future growth and the flexibility needed for Arbitrum to stay ahead in this ever-changing crypto world.
It will be very interesting to see how this initiative evolves, especially with the feedback from delegates and the community. As I mentioned in my last comment, having regular reviews will be key to measuring how we’re doing and keeping this initiative relevant. Budget transparency and financial sustainability will help to build trust and achieve real progress. This proposal is a step forward towards making the DAO more institutionalized.
Hey @Entropy, thanks for your reply. Apologize if my comment in 2nd paragraph seemed directed at you—it wasn’t meant that way. I was simply sharing my vision and goals as a delegate in DAO, with a strong belief in a decentralized future.
Really appreciate all the work you've done so far!
On behalf of the UADP, some feedback that we think may be helpful:
Clarify Terminology: The term "uncompromising" appears multiple times in the proposal, which is a bit subjective. Given the inherent trade-offs in balancing security, decentralization, and scalability absolute "uncompromising" may be unrealistic. Maybe setting attainable expectations can prevent potential disillusionment here in the future.
Engage the Community: Actively involving the community in defining the MVP can lead to a more inclusive and representative framework over time as we gradually increase the scope/ tenure here. Soliciting diverse perspectives ensures that the guiding principles resonate with a broader audience, fostering greater buy-in and collaboration.
Ensure Practical Applicability: It could be crucial to outline how the MVP translates into actionable strategies. Providing clear examples or guidelines on implementing these principles can bridge the gap between abstract ideals and practical execution, enhancing the DAO's operational efficiency.
We believe that the M, V, and P are all solid foundations for marketing, but also that marketing campaigns will be built on top of the text herein. For example, from a market perspective, the MVP can be used as a foundation for creating simple taglines while also fitting with the current ones, such as “Arbitrum is Home” or “Arbitrum is Freedom.”
We believe that the M, V, and P are all solid foundations for marketing, but also that marketing campaigns will be built on top of the text herein. For example, from a market perspective, the MVP can be used as a foundation for creating simple taglines while also fitting with the current ones, such as “Arbitrum is Home” or “Arbitrum is Freedom.”
Thank you for the detailed response. After reviewing the proposal, I’ve decided to vote "For" on Snapshot. I believe the proposal is thoughtfully constructed, and I strongly agree that ARB needs a unified MVP to continue growing in the right direction.
Additionally, I want to highlight that I resonate deeply with @SEEDGov's point about the importance of a flexible program. Given how rapidly technology is evolving, it’s crucial that we maintain adaptability to ensure ARB remains at the forefront of innovation.
After scrutinizing 🧐 the proposal and all the replies, I'm voting yes in Snapshot, voting FOR
Here are my thoughts and additional suggestions: 1, This MVP proposal provides a very clear direction and framework for the future development of Arbitrum DAO, which helps all participants to collaborate under a common goal.
After scrutinizing 🧐 the proposal and all the replies, I'm voting yes in Snapshot, voting FOR
Here are my thoughts and additional suggestions: 1, This MVP proposal provides a very clear direction and framework for the future development of Arbitrum DAO, which helps all participants to collaborate under a common goal.
Suggestion: The Arbitrum DAO's development towards more efficient, long-term development needs to ensure that the implementation is on the ground, especially in terms of the balance between broad community participation and short-term goals, such as how to implement the MVP: The proposal clarifies the goals, but the subsequent implementation and execution is key. For example, are there clear incentives for DAO members and individual project teams to ensure that these goals are effectively advanced? 2. Although the proposal focuses on long-term goals, will the DAO overlook any short-term issues during the process? For example, does the current development of Arbitrum One need more resources to support it in order to consolidate its market position? Short-term vs. long-term needs to be balanced. 3. I think any eco-system should be built around a core theme: attracting people - retaining people - motivating people.
The MVP should be shared widely to raise awareness among all delegates, participants, and the Arbitrum community. Once the off-chain and on-chain votes are done and the proposal is executed, I think the DAO should post updates so everyone in the Arbitrum community can follow and support long-term growth.
As always, I believe in a decentralized future, which is a key part of the proposal's mission. To achieve this, we need to avoid the trend of decision-making being concentrated in the hands of a few professional consultants. This discourages individual participation, as their opinions and votes have less impact. We must align incentives to encourage active participation in governance from the broader crypto community. And, I believe that community must be at the core of every DAO. Without giving the community a say in protocol governance, we’re no better than the Web2 companies we aim to replace—companies that view their “community” merely as users to extract value from.
The MVP should be shared widely to raise awareness among all delegates, participants, and the Arbitrum community. Once the off-chain and on-chain votes are done and the proposal is executed, I think the DAO should post updates so everyone in the Arbitrum community can follow and support long-term growth.
As always, I believe in a decentralized future, which is a key part of the proposal's mission. To achieve this, we need to avoid the trend of decision-making being concentrated in the hands of a few professional consultants. This discourages individual participation, as their opinions and votes have less impact. We must align incentives to encourage active participation in governance from the broader crypto community. And, I believe that community must be at the core of every DAO. Without giving the community a say in protocol governance, we’re no better than the Web2 companies we aim to replace—companies that view their “community” merely as users to extract value from.
I also want to see the initiatives that align token holders with the protocol, such as revenue sharing or other methods to bring value to the token. Token holders are frustrated with exploitative tokenomics that only benefit early insiders who acquired tokens at much lower prices, leaving no upside for new investors. Without incentives to buy and hold tokens, the attractiveness and health of DAOs decline.
I voted yes on snapshot, and I hope my thoughts add value to the DAO :)
So great to see the final version of the MVP proposal and will vote in favor to facilitate its passage. Indeed, the development of a DAO requires a clear plan, objectives, and a vision for the future. Such a proposal is also beneficial in uniting the collective force of all users, promoting rapid iteration of the DAO in the current market environment. The aspects I like most in the proposal are as follows: Clear Direction and Goals: By clearly defining Arbitrum DAO’ s MVP, the DAO is given a clear direction. This helps avoid situations where each organization and participant works in isolation without consensus, thus reducing inefficiency and resource waste. Strategic Framework: The MVP provides the foundation for subsequent SOS, ensuring that the DAO's strategic objectives align with its long-term vision. This structured approach ensures that all strategic proposals are evaluated and implemented around a single core. Promoting Transparency and Participation: Through the open SOS, all the users are able to participate and propose their own strategic goals. This not only increases DAO engagement but also ensures that the goal-setting process is more representative and widely supported. Improving Execution Efficiency: The core purpose of the MVP is to provide a consensus framework that allows various strategic initiatives to better align with the overall framework and be evaluated for their contribution to the DAO's objectives. This helps avoid isolated strategies and actions, instead linking each initiative to the DAO' s core goals and vision, thereby improving execution effectiveness. Supporting Sustainable Development: By combining strategic objectives with financial planning, the DAO can better allocate resources to ensure the sustainability and long-term development of the projects. This ensures that the DAO can continue to advance technology, the ecosystem, and the community while maintaining its financial stability.
After carefully reviewing the proposal and considering feedback from multiple delegates, I have decided to cast a FOR vote on the Snapshot proposal. Below are my reasons and key areas of focus:
Reasons for Voting
After carefully reviewing the proposal and considering feedback from multiple delegates, I have decided to cast a FOR vote on the Snapshot proposal. Below are my reasons and key areas of focus:
Reasons for Voting
The MVP proposal provides a clear strategic framework for Arbitrum DAO, which is essential for its long-term development. It is worth supporting. However, the future challenge lies in implementing this framework effectively, requiring close collaboration between execution teams and delegates.
Key Focus Areas
The MVP proposal is an important first step for Arbitrum DAO, but its success depends on effective implementation and community collaboration. Decentralized governance and improvements to tokenomics must be included in the future agenda to ensure the DAO’s long-term health and success.
Hey @Ignas thanks for the comment and definitely agree on distribution around the MVP. We will work with existing marketing partners on making sure this happens if and when ratified.
We want to clarify something as we're not sure if we understood correctly that your comment "decision-making being concentrated in the hands of a few professional consultants" refers to us. Since July, we’ve worked hard to gather feedback from delegates and key stakeholders. Our role has been to synthesize and present this input, but the substance of the proposal has been driven by the DAO, and we feel this response may unintentionally misrepresent the efforts and intentions behind this work.
Hey @Ignas thanks for the comment and definitely agree on distribution around the MVP. We will work with existing marketing partners on making sure this happens if and when ratified.
We want to clarify something as we're not sure if we understood correctly that your comment "decision-making being concentrated in the hands of a few professional consultants" refers to us. Since July, we’ve worked hard to gather feedback from delegates and key stakeholders. Our role has been to synthesize and present this input, but the substance of the proposal has been driven by the DAO, and we feel this response may unintentionally misrepresent the efforts and intentions behind this work.
Regarding the 3rd paragraph, we are excited to hopefully have you as an active participant in the conversation around strategic objectives as part of the SOS, which will be open to all to propose what they believe the key objectives over the next 1-2 years are. That said, in our opinion, it is early to be implementing this idea before having more cemented, clear, and larger revenue streams.
I have voted FOR this proposal, which establishes a clear Mission, Vision, and Purpose for the Arbitrum DAO. Defining these foundational elements is a standard practice for major entities—whether companies, institutions, or NGOs—and it’s encouraging to see the Arbitrum DAO taking steps to clarify its values and strategic direction.
We thank @Entropy for kickstarting this process, as we believe it is a fundamental starting point to align our long term vision and work all together to reach clear goals for Arbitrum.
We’ve already expressed our views on this matter in our initial vision of Arbitrum: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-dao-s-vision-mission-and-goals/26537/5?u=castlecapital
We thank @Entropy for kickstarting this process, as we believe it is a fundamental starting point to align our long term vision and work all together to reach clear goals for Arbitrum.
We’ve already expressed our views on this matter in our initial vision of Arbitrum: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-dao-s-vision-mission-and-goals/26537/5?u=castlecapital
Furthermore, we’ve also participated closely with Entropy and contributed to this proposal.
While we acknowledge that MVPs may result in broad results, we believe this is due to their nature. Creating more specific direction would probably encounter stronger friction from ecosystem actors, as it would be practically impossible to come to a specific definition that suits everyone.
For this reason, we look forward to more specific SOS, which can then refine the MVP according to Arbitrum's specific areas or sectors.
@krst provided excellent examples of some of them. We believe SOS allows domain experts to better link with the MVP and improve the effectiveness of proposals.
Among those, we believe that Arbitrum needs to renew its focus on ecosystem growth, as it is losing mindshare as more and more alternative chains launch. The creation of an ecosystem-specific SOS would act strategically as an “ecosystem lead” for Arbitrum, both for native and non-native protocols, to stimulate ecosystem partnerships and act as a point of contact within the ecosystem.
This is but a small example of how MVPs could translate into SOS and thus become more specific and targeted.
Thanks for this.
Voting For on the proposal.
We have here the natural continuation of the discussion on mission, vision and goals that started a few months ago after EthCC, with a proper formalization and plan here.
Thanks for this.
Voting For on the proposal.
We have here the natural continuation of the discussion on mission, vision and goals that started a few months ago after EthCC, with a proper formalization and plan here.
We had the chance to discuss some of these topics, live, in Bangkok, and was a pretty awesome discussion, oriented toward what we all collectively think Arbitrum should be from a high level view point up to the connection with strategic key ideas that can be then translated in actual program andi initiatives.
This is not an easy discussion. We are likely all here (in crypto, not necessarily in Arbitrum) because we "believe in something": financial sovereign, unlockin equal opportuninties, efficiency of capital flow, just name one, there are thousands of reasons. But asking someone "what is Arbitrum for you" and then "ok, now that I have your definition, what is your plan to make that vision that you have happen" would more likely than not not being followed by a proper answer.
What I like here is that we went for an abstract question, with a process to try and translate it into operational plan. When the vision is approved, we will be able to define in a second phase, the sos, strategic goals. From the strategic goals, in a third phase, we will be able to go more concrete by establishing buckets of capital and budget spending to reailze these goals.
The byproduct is that, if we do phase 1 and 2 right, we should be in a position that for every initiave, old or new, we will be able to evaluate if it fits the vision and the underneath strategic goals. This should definitely give us more clarity, and help for example in the definition of stuff like incentive programs for which everybody and their grandma has an opinion, but not necessarily understand the consequences and the effect from a higher point of view.
this is… a very big difference.
I highly value the effort that Entropy has made to lay the groundwork and provide a new approach to aligning the DAO's goals. The MVP will undoubtedly set the precedent and shape the behavior of anyone building on Arbitrum. Once approved, I believe that a strong marketing campaign will make the MVP resonate with current and future users, making it an attractive destination for developers. I support this proposal and will vote in favor on Snapshot.
The purpose has been altered to "defend and guide the Arbitrum ecosystem" from "Scale Ethereum without compromise" as well as the accompanying text. Much of the same rhetoric is still included as defending arbitrum is akin to scaling without compromise. A key change is the purpose is now largely focused on sustainable growth of the ecosystem and DAO.
This proposal will proceed to Snapshot this Thursday, Dec 12th. Entropy Advisors plans to take the MVP to a constitutional vote, adding it as language to the constitution, after a 6-month trial period. During the initial 6 months, changes can be made to the MVP.
Flexibility should be a core value of Arbitrum’s MVP. In the crypto ecosystem, everything is fast-paced, and if we want not just to keep up but to lead, we need adaptability at the foundation. I agree with what @SEEDGov and @0x_ultra said; that ability to adjust is key for the DAO to be able to respond to market changes or tech advancements. Whether it’s new approaches or shifts in strategy, we have to be ready to move as the context demands.
A flexible strategy framework and regular review cycles is necessary to assess what’s working, what isn’t, and where we could adjust focus to seize opportunities. If we combine flexibility with solid monitoring and evaluation, the KPIs and milestones we set can act as a constant feedback loop. This way, we can use that data not only to stay accountable but to decide when and where to take the next steps.
I just cast my vote on Snapshot as 'FOR'. As I mentioned in my previous reply, aligning on a clear Mission, Vision, and Purpose (MVP) is essential for the DAO's long-term strategy and success. Hoping this MVP will serve as our guiding north star, ensuring that everyone in the DAO understands the direction we're aiming to.
Hi everyone, I’m just jumping into the conversation now, but I wanted to share some thoughts. I really resonate with this proposal and fully agree that finding a clear "north star" for the DAO is crucial for guiding us in the right direction.
The main objective here should be to set this DAO apart from others, attracting more users, developers, and investors. But how can we achieve that? I think the key to finding our north star is to look back at our roots. I’ve been on Arbitrum since day one, and I’ve seen how things have evolved—and, in many ways, how we’ve lost some of the advantages that made Arbitrum unique.
Hello @Entropy and the rest of the Arbitrum DAO community,
We’d like to begin by expressing our full agreement on the need to continue laying the foundation for Arbitrum’s growth. Today, we can say the DAO is advancing, but often without a clear direction or strategic goals, and frequently without certainty as to whether the initiatives under discussion are indeed necessary for the project’s progress.
This proposal is a solid foundation for Arbitrum's strategic direction and establishes a clear path for the ecosystem. As several have pointed out, aligning around a central narrative is very important, particularly one that reflects Arbitrum’s unique values and resonates with developers, users, and contributors.
This proposal outlines an ambitious yet essential plan for aligning Arbitrum DAO’s purpose, mission, and vision (MVP) to create clarity and focus for its future. I fully support the approach of breaking it into phases—starting with defining clear end goals and then moving into actionable strategies and budgeting.
Key strengths are the emphasis on alignment across stakeholders and the inspiration taken from proven frameworks like Lido's. However, execution will be critical. It’s vital that the DAO actively engages with these principles, ensures participation in the SOS process, and uses the MVP as a guide for all future initiatives. Without this follow-through, there’s a risk of the plan becoming just another document. We have to make sure its visible and followed through out every proposal.
This is an excellent project, carrying more weight and value than may appear at first glance. Speaking from a background in communications, I find this proposal particularly intriguing as it aims to unify the DAO’s mission and vision, which are foundational elements for any organization, especially one as decentralized as a DAO.
One key challenge in a project so dependent on community consensus and shared objectives is the risk of delayed processes. With a diverse group like Arbitrum’s DAO, achieving a solid consensus on a unified mission and vision can be time-consuming, as differing priorities and perspectives often require extended discussions. This can slow decision-making, especially if objectives need repeated adjustments based on ongoing feedback.
This is an excellent project, carrying more weight and value than may appear at first glance. Speaking from a background in communications, I find this proposal particularly intriguing as it aims to unify the DAO’s mission and vision, which are foundational elements for any organization, especially one as decentralized as a DAO.
One key challenge in a project so dependent on community consensus and shared objectives is the risk of delayed processes. With a diverse group like Arbitrum’s DAO, achieving a solid consensus on a unified mission and vision can be time-consuming, as differing priorities and perspectives often require extended discussions. This can slow decision-making, especially if objectives need repeated adjustments based on ongoing feedback.
Additionally, the democratic nature of the DAO’s decision-making structure—where each phase, such as approving the MVP or setting short- to mid-term goals (SOS), involves community voting—could add layers of complexity and time requirements. While this is valuable for inclusivity, it may also mean waiting for quorums or adapting proposals in response to member feedback, potentially causing delays.
Another consideration is the risk of governance paralysis if significant disagreements arise. In cases of strong division within the DAO, reaching effective decisions can become challenging, potentially impeding the organization’s forward momentum.
This could help consolidate the process without compromising community input. Additionally, maintaining flexibility in the MVP and SOS is important, though with limits on the frequency of changes to ensure stability and avoid excessive recalibration. we’re fully behind this proposal as it provides Arbitrum DAO with a clear, unified direction that we believe will strengthen both its impact and comunity identity.
Following changes made to this proposal on October 30, several delegates contacted us and provided further feedback. Upon additional conversations, it's clear that more discourse and potential iteration are needed before moving to Snapshot. Consequently, we will be pushing voting for 1 to 2 weeks.
We believe that the M, V, and P are all solid foundations for marketing, but also that marketing campaigns will be built on top of the text herein. For example, from a market perspective, the MVP can be used as a foundation for creating simple taglines while also fitting with the current ones, such as “Arbitrum is Home” or “Arbitrum is Freedom.”
We believe that the M, V, and P are all solid foundations for marketing, but also that marketing campaigns will be built on top of the text herein. For example, from a market perspective, the MVP can be used as a foundation for creating simple taglines while also fitting with the current ones, such as “Arbitrum is Home” or “Arbitrum is Freedom.”
Thank you for the detailed response. After reviewing the proposal, I’ve decided to vote "For" on Snapshot. I believe the proposal is thoughtfully constructed, and I strongly agree that ARB needs a unified MVP to continue growing in the right direction.
Additionally, I want to highlight that I resonate deeply with @SEEDGov's point about the importance of a flexible program. Given how rapidly technology is evolving, it’s crucial that we maintain adaptability to ensure ARB remains at the forefront of innovation.
After scrutinizing 🧐 the proposal and all the replies, I'm voting yes in Snapshot, voting FOR
Here are my thoughts and additional suggestions: 1, This MVP proposal provides a very clear direction and framework for the future development of Arbitrum DAO, which helps all participants to collaborate under a common goal.
After scrutinizing 🧐 the proposal and all the replies, I'm voting yes in Snapshot, voting FOR
Here are my thoughts and additional suggestions: 1, This MVP proposal provides a very clear direction and framework for the future development of Arbitrum DAO, which helps all participants to collaborate under a common goal.
Suggestion: The Arbitrum DAO's development towards more efficient, long-term development needs to ensure that the implementation is on the ground, especially in terms of the balance between broad community participation and short-term goals, such as how to implement the MVP: The proposal clarifies the goals, but the subsequent implementation and execution is key. For example, are there clear incentives for DAO members and individual project teams to ensure that these goals are effectively advanced? 2. Although the proposal focuses on long-term goals, will the DAO overlook any short-term issues during the process? For example, does the current development of Arbitrum One need more resources to support it in order to consolidate its market position? Short-term vs. long-term needs to be balanced. 3. I think any eco-system should be built around a core theme: attracting people - retaining people - motivating people.
The MVP should be shared widely to raise awareness among all delegates, participants, and the Arbitrum community. Once the off-chain and on-chain votes are done and the proposal is executed, I think the DAO should post updates so everyone in the Arbitrum community can follow and support long-term growth.
As always, I believe in a decentralized future, which is a key part of the proposal's mission. To achieve this, we need to avoid the trend of decision-making being concentrated in the hands of a few professional consultants. This discourages individual participation, as their opinions and votes have less impact. We must align incentives to encourage active participation in governance from the broader crypto community. And, I believe that community must be at the core of every DAO. Without giving the community a say in protocol governance, we’re no better than the Web2 companies we aim to replace—companies that view their “community” merely as users to extract value from.
The MVP should be shared widely to raise awareness among all delegates, participants, and the Arbitrum community. Once the off-chain and on-chain votes are done and the proposal is executed, I think the DAO should post updates so everyone in the Arbitrum community can follow and support long-term growth.
As always, I believe in a decentralized future, which is a key part of the proposal's mission. To achieve this, we need to avoid the trend of decision-making being concentrated in the hands of a few professional consultants. This discourages individual participation, as their opinions and votes have less impact. We must align incentives to encourage active participation in governance from the broader crypto community. And, I believe that community must be at the core of every DAO. Without giving the community a say in protocol governance, we’re no better than the Web2 companies we aim to replace—companies that view their “community” merely as users to extract value from.
I also want to see the initiatives that align token holders with the protocol, such as revenue sharing or other methods to bring value to the token. Token holders are frustrated with exploitative tokenomics that only benefit early insiders who acquired tokens at much lower prices, leaving no upside for new investors. Without incentives to buy and hold tokens, the attractiveness and health of DAOs decline.
I voted yes on snapshot, and I hope my thoughts add value to the DAO :)
So great to see the final version of the MVP proposal and will vote in favor to facilitate its passage. Indeed, the development of a DAO requires a clear plan, objectives, and a vision for the future. Such a proposal is also beneficial in uniting the collective force of all users, promoting rapid iteration of the DAO in the current market environment. The aspects I like most in the proposal are as follows: Clear Direction and Goals: By clearly defining Arbitrum DAO’ s MVP, the DAO is given a clear direction. This helps avoid situations where each organization and participant works in isolation without consensus, thus reducing inefficiency and resource waste. Strategic Framework: The MVP provides the foundation for subsequent SOS, ensuring that the DAO's strategic objectives align with its long-term vision. This structured approach ensures that all strategic proposals are evaluated and implemented around a single core. Promoting Transparency and Participation: Through the open SOS, all the users are able to participate and propose their own strategic goals. This not only increases DAO engagement but also ensures that the goal-setting process is more representative and widely supported. Improving Execution Efficiency: The core purpose of the MVP is to provide a consensus framework that allows various strategic initiatives to better align with the overall framework and be evaluated for their contribution to the DAO's objectives. This helps avoid isolated strategies and actions, instead linking each initiative to the DAO' s core goals and vision, thereby improving execution effectiveness. Supporting Sustainable Development: By combining strategic objectives with financial planning, the DAO can better allocate resources to ensure the sustainability and long-term development of the projects. This ensures that the DAO can continue to advance technology, the ecosystem, and the community while maintaining its financial stability.
After carefully reviewing the proposal and considering feedback from multiple delegates, I have decided to cast a FOR vote on the Snapshot proposal. Below are my reasons and key areas of focus:
Reasons for Voting
After carefully reviewing the proposal and considering feedback from multiple delegates, I have decided to cast a FOR vote on the Snapshot proposal. Below are my reasons and key areas of focus:
Reasons for Voting
The MVP proposal provides a clear strategic framework for Arbitrum DAO, which is essential for its long-term development. It is worth supporting. However, the future challenge lies in implementing this framework effectively, requiring close collaboration between execution teams and delegates.
Key Focus Areas
The MVP proposal is an important first step for Arbitrum DAO, but its success depends on effective implementation and community collaboration. Decentralized governance and improvements to tokenomics must be included in the future agenda to ensure the DAO’s long-term health and success.
Hey @Ignas thanks for the comment and definitely agree on distribution around the MVP. We will work with existing marketing partners on making sure this happens if and when ratified.
We want to clarify something as we're not sure if we understood correctly that your comment "decision-making being concentrated in the hands of a few professional consultants" refers to us. Since July, we’ve worked hard to gather feedback from delegates and key stakeholders. Our role has been to synthesize and present this input, but the substance of the proposal has been driven by the DAO, and we feel this response may unintentionally misrepresent the efforts and intentions behind this work.
Hey @Ignas thanks for the comment and definitely agree on distribution around the MVP. We will work with existing marketing partners on making sure this happens if and when ratified.
We want to clarify something as we're not sure if we understood correctly that your comment "decision-making being concentrated in the hands of a few professional consultants" refers to us. Since July, we’ve worked hard to gather feedback from delegates and key stakeholders. Our role has been to synthesize and present this input, but the substance of the proposal has been driven by the DAO, and we feel this response may unintentionally misrepresent the efforts and intentions behind this work.
Regarding the 3rd paragraph, we are excited to hopefully have you as an active participant in the conversation around strategic objectives as part of the SOS, which will be open to all to propose what they believe the key objectives over the next 1-2 years are. That said, in our opinion, it is early to be implementing this idea before having more cemented, clear, and larger revenue streams.
I have voted FOR this proposal, which establishes a clear Mission, Vision, and Purpose for the Arbitrum DAO. Defining these foundational elements is a standard practice for major entities—whether companies, institutions, or NGOs—and it’s encouraging to see the Arbitrum DAO taking steps to clarify its values and strategic direction.
We thank @Entropy for kickstarting this process, as we believe it is a fundamental starting point to align our long term vision and work all together to reach clear goals for Arbitrum.
We’ve already expressed our views on this matter in our initial vision of Arbitrum: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-dao-s-vision-mission-and-goals/26537/5?u=castlecapital
We thank @Entropy for kickstarting this process, as we believe it is a fundamental starting point to align our long term vision and work all together to reach clear goals for Arbitrum.
We’ve already expressed our views on this matter in our initial vision of Arbitrum: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-dao-s-vision-mission-and-goals/26537/5?u=castlecapital
Furthermore, we’ve also participated closely with Entropy and contributed to this proposal.
While we acknowledge that MVPs may result in broad results, we believe this is due to their nature. Creating more specific direction would probably encounter stronger friction from ecosystem actors, as it would be practically impossible to come to a specific definition that suits everyone.
For this reason, we look forward to more specific SOS, which can then refine the MVP according to Arbitrum's specific areas or sectors.
@krst provided excellent examples of some of them. We believe SOS allows domain experts to better link with the MVP and improve the effectiveness of proposals.
Among those, we believe that Arbitrum needs to renew its focus on ecosystem growth, as it is losing mindshare as more and more alternative chains launch. The creation of an ecosystem-specific SOS would act strategically as an “ecosystem lead” for Arbitrum, both for native and non-native protocols, to stimulate ecosystem partnerships and act as a point of contact within the ecosystem.
This is but a small example of how MVPs could translate into SOS and thus become more specific and targeted.
Thanks for this.
Voting For on the proposal.
We have here the natural continuation of the discussion on mission, vision and goals that started a few months ago after EthCC, with a proper formalization and plan here.
Thanks for this.
Voting For on the proposal.
We have here the natural continuation of the discussion on mission, vision and goals that started a few months ago after EthCC, with a proper formalization and plan here.
We had the chance to discuss some of these topics, live, in Bangkok, and was a pretty awesome discussion, oriented toward what we all collectively think Arbitrum should be from a high level view point up to the connection with strategic key ideas that can be then translated in actual program andi initiatives.
This is not an easy discussion. We are likely all here (in crypto, not necessarily in Arbitrum) because we "believe in something": financial sovereign, unlockin equal opportuninties, efficiency of capital flow, just name one, there are thousands of reasons. But asking someone "what is Arbitrum for you" and then "ok, now that I have your definition, what is your plan to make that vision that you have happen" would more likely than not not being followed by a proper answer.
What I like here is that we went for an abstract question, with a process to try and translate it into operational plan. When the vision is approved, we will be able to define in a second phase, the sos, strategic goals. From the strategic goals, in a third phase, we will be able to go more concrete by establishing buckets of capital and budget spending to reailze these goals.
The byproduct is that, if we do phase 1 and 2 right, we should be in a position that for every initiave, old or new, we will be able to evaluate if it fits the vision and the underneath strategic goals. This should definitely give us more clarity, and help for example in the definition of stuff like incentive programs for which everybody and their grandma has an opinion, but not necessarily understand the consequences and the effect from a higher point of view.
this is… a very big difference.
I highly value the effort that Entropy has made to lay the groundwork and provide a new approach to aligning the DAO's goals. The MVP will undoubtedly set the precedent and shape the behavior of anyone building on Arbitrum. Once approved, I believe that a strong marketing campaign will make the MVP resonate with current and future users, making it an attractive destination for developers. I support this proposal and will vote in favor on Snapshot.
The purpose has been altered to "defend and guide the Arbitrum ecosystem" from "Scale Ethereum without compromise" as well as the accompanying text. Much of the same rhetoric is still included as defending arbitrum is akin to scaling without compromise. A key change is the purpose is now largely focused on sustainable growth of the ecosystem and DAO.
This proposal will proceed to Snapshot this Thursday, Dec 12th. Entropy Advisors plans to take the MVP to a constitutional vote, adding it as language to the constitution, after a 6-month trial period. During the initial 6 months, changes can be made to the MVP.
Flexibility should be a core value of Arbitrum’s MVP. In the crypto ecosystem, everything is fast-paced, and if we want not just to keep up but to lead, we need adaptability at the foundation. I agree with what @SEEDGov and @0x_ultra said; that ability to adjust is key for the DAO to be able to respond to market changes or tech advancements. Whether it’s new approaches or shifts in strategy, we have to be ready to move as the context demands.
A flexible strategy framework and regular review cycles is necessary to assess what’s working, what isn’t, and where we could adjust focus to seize opportunities. If we combine flexibility with solid monitoring and evaluation, the KPIs and milestones we set can act as a constant feedback loop. This way, we can use that data not only to stay accountable but to decide when and where to take the next steps.
I just cast my vote on Snapshot as 'FOR'. As I mentioned in my previous reply, aligning on a clear Mission, Vision, and Purpose (MVP) is essential for the DAO's long-term strategy and success. Hoping this MVP will serve as our guiding north star, ensuring that everyone in the DAO understands the direction we're aiming to.
Hi everyone, I’m just jumping into the conversation now, but I wanted to share some thoughts. I really resonate with this proposal and fully agree that finding a clear "north star" for the DAO is crucial for guiding us in the right direction.
The main objective here should be to set this DAO apart from others, attracting more users, developers, and investors. But how can we achieve that? I think the key to finding our north star is to look back at our roots. I’ve been on Arbitrum since day one, and I’ve seen how things have evolved—and, in many ways, how we’ve lost some of the advantages that made Arbitrum unique.
Hello @Entropy and the rest of the Arbitrum DAO community,
We’d like to begin by expressing our full agreement on the need to continue laying the foundation for Arbitrum’s growth. Today, we can say the DAO is advancing, but often without a clear direction or strategic goals, and frequently without certainty as to whether the initiatives under discussion are indeed necessary for the project’s progress.
This proposal is a solid foundation for Arbitrum's strategic direction and establishes a clear path for the ecosystem. As several have pointed out, aligning around a central narrative is very important, particularly one that reflects Arbitrum’s unique values and resonates with developers, users, and contributors.
This proposal outlines an ambitious yet essential plan for aligning Arbitrum DAO’s purpose, mission, and vision (MVP) to create clarity and focus for its future. I fully support the approach of breaking it into phases—starting with defining clear end goals and then moving into actionable strategies and budgeting.
Key strengths are the emphasis on alignment across stakeholders and the inspiration taken from proven frameworks like Lido's. However, execution will be critical. It’s vital that the DAO actively engages with these principles, ensures participation in the SOS process, and uses the MVP as a guide for all future initiatives. Without this follow-through, there’s a risk of the plan becoming just another document. We have to make sure its visible and followed through out every proposal.
This is an excellent project, carrying more weight and value than may appear at first glance. Speaking from a background in communications, I find this proposal particularly intriguing as it aims to unify the DAO’s mission and vision, which are foundational elements for any organization, especially one as decentralized as a DAO.
One key challenge in a project so dependent on community consensus and shared objectives is the risk of delayed processes. With a diverse group like Arbitrum’s DAO, achieving a solid consensus on a unified mission and vision can be time-consuming, as differing priorities and perspectives often require extended discussions. This can slow decision-making, especially if objectives need repeated adjustments based on ongoing feedback.
This is an excellent project, carrying more weight and value than may appear at first glance. Speaking from a background in communications, I find this proposal particularly intriguing as it aims to unify the DAO’s mission and vision, which are foundational elements for any organization, especially one as decentralized as a DAO.
One key challenge in a project so dependent on community consensus and shared objectives is the risk of delayed processes. With a diverse group like Arbitrum’s DAO, achieving a solid consensus on a unified mission and vision can be time-consuming, as differing priorities and perspectives often require extended discussions. This can slow decision-making, especially if objectives need repeated adjustments based on ongoing feedback.
Additionally, the democratic nature of the DAO’s decision-making structure—where each phase, such as approving the MVP or setting short- to mid-term goals (SOS), involves community voting—could add layers of complexity and time requirements. While this is valuable for inclusivity, it may also mean waiting for quorums or adapting proposals in response to member feedback, potentially causing delays.
Another consideration is the risk of governance paralysis if significant disagreements arise. In cases of strong division within the DAO, reaching effective decisions can become challenging, potentially impeding the organization’s forward momentum.
This could help consolidate the process without compromising community input. Additionally, maintaining flexibility in the MVP and SOS is important, though with limits on the frequency of changes to ensure stability and avoid excessive recalibration. we’re fully behind this proposal as it provides Arbitrum DAO with a clear, unified direction that we believe will strengthen both its impact and comunity identity.
Following changes made to this proposal on October 30, several delegates contacted us and provided further feedback. Upon additional conversations, it's clear that more discourse and potential iteration are needed before moving to Snapshot. Consequently, we will be pushing voting for 1 to 2 weeks.
Hi everyone, I’m just jumping into the conversation now, but I wanted to share some thoughts. I really resonate with this proposal and fully agree that finding a clear "north star" for the DAO is crucial for guiding us in the right direction.
The main objective here should be to set this DAO apart from others, attracting more users, developers, and investors. But how can we achieve that? I think the key to finding our north star is to look back at our roots. I’ve been on Arbitrum since day one, and I’ve seen how things have evolved—and, in many ways, how we’ve lost some of the advantages that made Arbitrum unique.
When Arbitrum first emerged, it offered a rare opportunity: a low-cost, high-speed alternative to mainnet Ethereum where EVM developers could experiment quickly and without paying exorbitant fees for contract deployments. This fostered a culture of rapid experimentation, making Arbitrum the go-to chain for innovation. Many of the successful projects that are still thriving on Arbitrum today were born during this period. But as other low-fee chains began to emerge, promising similar opportunities, we started to lose that unique advantage and culture of experimentation. Arbitrum, once the hub of innovation, became just another option in a crowded space.
The point I want to make is that at the end of the day, users follow opportunities—real opportunities to innovate and make money—not just vague branding or marketing. Focusing too much on marketing may not be the answer, because word-of-mouth and reputation naturally build around solid opportunities and successful projects. While slow, steady growth might not grab headlines, fostering a space where true innovation and experimentation can thrive will ultimately set us apart in the long term.
So, how can Arbitrum stand out in today’s competitive landscape? Should ARB artificially boost incentives to attract users, like through programs like STIP? Or should it focus on positioning itself as the premier chain for innovation—offering programs that reward groundbreaking projects? I believe it’s about creating opportunities for creators to experiment and succeed (or fail) without the fear of financial ruin. One idea could be to introduce retroactive funding for innovative projects, even if they don't immediately gain traction. This would not only shape the user experience but also introduce new dynamics into the competitive landscape.
Given that we haven’t seen much true innovation in DeFi lately, Arbitrum could take the lead by reigniting that spirit of experimentation. We need to encourage more creators to push boundaries and incentivize them to experiment openly.
In short, I think Arbitrum needs to get back to what made it different from other L2s and lean into that original spirit of innovation. The DAO should play a role in helping steer the chain in this direction, creating a space where new projects and ideas can flourish. If ARB wants to stand out today, it’s all about returning to those roots. Let’s make Arbitrum great again!
Hello @Entropy and the rest of the Arbitrum DAO community,
We’d like to begin by expressing our full agreement on the need to continue laying the foundation for Arbitrum’s growth. Today, we can say the DAO is advancing, but often without a clear direction or strategic goals, and frequently without certainty as to whether the initiatives under discussion are indeed necessary for the project’s progress.
The Arbitrum DAO’s Guiding Principles are as Follows:
We’re comfortable with this new version of the MVP and don’t have much to add here, though we’d like to discuss how we believe these objectives should be achieved.
While the discussion around Mission, Vision, and Purpose is valuable, defining these alone is insufficient if the DAO continues to operate as it currently does—without organization. In this regard, we align with the points made by @krst in this post and @Entropy in the OpCo thread. Currently, the DAO functions as a series of silos, where each proposal is handled in isolation, generating no synergies between them, and with no one fulfilling an oversight role to evaluate the outcomes of the DAO-funded initiatives.
Organizing implies several considerations, among others:
These are just a few examples of the outstanding items that remain unresolved by the DAO as an organization per se (with the exception of the code of conduct, which was facilitated by Entropy but approved by the DAO). This shows that DAOs do not inherently resolve or replace the operational needs of an organization; they only change the way decisions are made. Therefore, if we want to realize the MVP and specific goals included in the SOS, it’s essential for DAO members to agree on how to approach each operational requirement.
From our perspective, the verticals mentioned by @krst in his comment provide a good starting point for debating the structure of a proposal that would likely establish the DAO’s objectives for the next 12–24 months. We’d like to add a few thoughts:
It’s been mentioned that the DAO needs to work on generating additional revenue streams to support long-term sustainability and provide value to the token. There’s also an RFC under discussion: [Non-Constitutional] Treasury Management v1.2. However, we want to emphasize that the DAO needs to standardize how it utilizes and manages its treasury.
Currently, each initiative handles its own treasury management in isolation: for ARDC v2, an AERA Vault is proposed; for other initiatives, funds are transferred to the AF for conversion to stables; some initiatives are paid in ARB via MSS; and others have sold ARB directly on the market. Similarly, even the use of stream applications lacks a standard framework, with no set guidelines to determine whether Sablier, Hedgey, Superfluid, or Llamapay should be used.
While we understand that different initiatives may occasionally require distinct procedures, we believe a well-designed, flexible framework could cover most cases in the future, especially if the OpCo proceeds successfully.
There have also been many discussions and proposals related to treasury diversification (including the above-mentioned proposal), but three fundamental questions remain unresolved:
To clarify, when referring to “immediate liquidity,” we mean stablecoins or highly liquid assets with minimal selling effort (we’re excluding ARB, as its liquidity depth limits short-term sell capacity).
As a final note, it’s important to mention that these last two points largely depend on the DAO’s ability to establish an annual budget—another aspect currently unresolved.
For the DAO to be more resilient to capture, genuinely decentralized in decision-making, and benefit from higher-quality proposals, it must focus on onboarding new stakeholders. This means that while growth programs aimed at expanding to new markets (i.e., new builders and users) are important, equal emphasis should be placed on encouraging DAO participation to grow and diversify alongside the ecosystem. As a community, we should be equipped to face new challenges that arise as a result of growth.
In this regard, both the Staking and DIP proposals are key to aligning the Arbitrum ecosystem with its DAO.
Considering the rapid evolution of the crypto ecosystem, even if the SOS program were created solely for the next 12 months, priorities could shift at any moment.
For example:
Even if this tweet is a mere rumor, imagine for a moment what would happen if ETH Mainnet no longer required rollups for scaling...the MVP outlined in this RFC would already be obsolete. The Arbitrum ecosystem does not rely exclusively on endogenous factors, so the DAO must be capable of quickly pivoting to a contingency plan if necessary until priorities can be redefined.
This proposal is a solid foundation for Arbitrum's strategic direction and establishes a clear path for the ecosystem. As several have pointed out, aligning around a central narrative is very important, particularly one that reflects Arbitrum’s unique values and resonates with developers, users, and contributors.
I completely agree with this framing as it could make Arbitrum especially attractive emphasizing a vision of autonomy and innovation within a truly decentralized structure.
From a monitoring and evaluation standpoint, it is essential to establish tangible, clear KPIs and conduct regular assessments to ensure that our progress aligns with these objectives. We should have quantifiable indicators around network growth, developer adoption, and community engagement . These indicators could feed directly into ongoing evaluations to help us measure impact and enable adaptability in an always changing environment.
I have experience creating indicators and milestones for strategic, long-term projects, so I'm up to help in any way I can.
Establishing a process for periodic review and potential revision of the MVP could be a good idea.
Holding regular review sessions to refine or even update the MVP would allow us to stay relevant as the DAO and ecosystem mature, not to mention, this is an essential part of any planning process.
I also agree on what has been commented about establishing transparent, detailed budgets with regular audits. This holds true for every proposal imo. Budget clarity, alongside indicators of financial sustainability, would help the ecosystem gain trust between its members and ensure resources are allocated toward meaningful progress and value-creation.
This proposal outlines an ambitious yet essential plan for aligning Arbitrum DAO’s purpose, mission, and vision (MVP) to create clarity and focus for its future. I fully support the approach of breaking it into phases—starting with defining clear end goals and then moving into actionable strategies and budgeting.
Key strengths are the emphasis on alignment across stakeholders and the inspiration taken from proven frameworks like Lido's. However, execution will be critical. It’s vital that the DAO actively engages with these principles, ensures participation in the SOS process, and uses the MVP as a guide for all future initiatives. Without this follow-through, there’s a risk of the plan becoming just another document. We have to make sure its visible and followed through out every proposal.
Let’s make sure this effort gets the buy-in it deserves and turns into a strong foundation for Arbitrum’s growth.
I am going to vote YES.
PS: I fully agree with @Ignas that after execution it has to be present everywhere and that we as a DAO have to find ways to make Arbitrum better but also not forget the token, because its one one the crucial parts of Arbitrum and the DAO.
I'll be voting "For" once this goes to Snapshot. I think if I was asked this on day 1 of Arbitrum delegation I probably would not have seen much value. However, over the last year+ it's been become clearer to me the value of this. Even thought I think most delegates are subconsciously making decisions with these ideas in mind, having the formal blueprint should be helpful. There isn't really a downside here, so I see no reason not to move forward with this.
I'm not really the type of person whose good at mission statement type things, so I'll sort of leave feedback to "I think it sounds good!". But some general thoughts:
I'll be voting "For" once this goes to Snapshot. I think if I was asked this on day 1 of Arbitrum delegation I probably would not have seen much value. However, over the last year+ it's been become clearer to me the value of this. Even thought I think most delegates are subconsciously making decisions with these ideas in mind, having the formal blueprint should be helpful. There isn't really a downside here, so I see no reason not to move forward with this.
I'm not really the type of person whose good at mission statement type things, so I'll sort of leave feedback to "I think it sounds good!". But some general thoughts:
Changes Made on Oct 30: This proposal will move to Snapshot tomorrow.
New Mission:
-Empower people with the freedom to build their best onchain world.
-Much of the text surrounding the Mission has also been altered to fit the new mission.
New Vision:
-Arbitrum is home to the universal shift onchain.
New Timeline:
Changes Made on Oct 30: This proposal will move to Snapshot tomorrow.
New Mission:
-Empower people with the freedom to build their best onchain world.
-Much of the text surrounding the Mission has also been altered to fit the new mission.
New Vision:
-Arbitrum is home to the universal shift onchain.
New Timeline:
-Added “Entropy Advisors plans to take the MVP to a constitutional vote, adding it as language to the constitution, after a 6-month trial period. During the initial 6 months, changes can be made to the MVP via a proposal+Snapshot vote, but after being included in the constitution, would require a constitutional onchain amendment. It is our belief that the current MVP is broad enough to handle substantial changes in the crypto market.”
The most common feedback received surrounds the MVP not being specific enough to Arbitrum. We hear you and have adjusted accordingly. The new Mission is, as provided by @MaxLomu… To empower people with the freedom to build their best onchain world.
We believe the new mission statement encompasses Arbitrum's largest differentiating factor: Freedom. It is worth noting that it is ok for multiple comparable projects to identify similarly, particularly when it comes to purpose. It’s also worth noting that this MVP is specific to the DAO. We hope the changes to the mission and the subsequent explaining paragraphs help showcase the factors that truly make Arbitrum special in a more clear light.
I’d like to see more clarity on how future strategies and adjustments will remain agile. Once we approve this MVP, how flexible will the DAO be in revisiting it if significant shifts in the market or ecosystem require a course correction? Too much rigidity might box us in.
What will be the process for adjusting or reevaluating ADA’s long-term goals if there are major shifts in the market or technology?
Similar to how the Code of Conduct proposal has an outlined path to eventually become a constitutional proposal on Tally, should there be a similar path for the MVP proposal to become constitutional?
The second piece of feedback received multiple times was asking if the MVP is adaptable and if it has a process to be included in the constitution. We have added language in the timeline section to make clear that for the first 6 months, the MVP will be easily adaptable, but that once it is hopefully included in the constitution, will have a pretty significant barrier to change. It’s important that the MVP be written in a way that can guide us through a changing market environment, and we believe that this can be achieved.
the vision should be ambitious and aspirational, something the DAO can strive towards
I like the principle; I don’t this reflects a proper vision statement though, which should instead paint a picture of where we aspire to be in 5/10/20 years.
Another comment received multiple times surrounded the vision of not being ambitious enough / properly visualizing Arbitrum’s place in an ideal future. We thank you for this feedback and believe that our simple adding of the word “home” should solve these concerns and has made the vision statement far stronger.
Thank you for this comment. We believe that Arbitrum’s aim to scale without compromise is the main driver for all design decisions and choices by the DAO and its development teams. It’s the reason that efforts are focused on decentralized, battle-tested fraud proofs and sequencing instead of shifting the focus to monolithic scaling of One. There are many UX benefits that could come with compromise. For example, beefing up the sequencer to max throughput with no vision of ever decentralizing it or shifting the priority from BOLD to supporting synchronous composability between more languages. From our perspective, not compromising on the core trust assumptions of Ethereum is part of our culture and identity. It’s our main purpose although it will take a lot of work to get there, it is what the Arbitrum DAO aims to do at its core.
Will the MVP be used as a benchmark to evaluate future projects, or will it be more focused on the SOS mentioned in the proposal?
The MVP is objectively high level because the DAO’s north star and its supporting pillars must be simple. As such, the MVP may not substantially impact the DAO’s decision-making processes, at least when it comes to “day-to-day operations”. Instead, complexity will be built on top of the MVP through the SOS (interim objectives to reach the DAO’s end goals), with the resulting strategies guiding the DAO with respect to focus areas and performance. That said, we believe even the MVP can be used as a resource for evaluating proposals, but we are confident that the SOS will enable this to a magnitude higher degree.
Implementation details of MVP and SOS: What are the specific implementation steps and timelines after MVP is finalized? How to ensure that each step can be implemented?
budget transparency: in terms of budget setting, will there be a public breakdown of what the funds will be used for to ensure community understanding of where the funds are going?
We appreciate all these recommendations and will take them into account as an influence for future work done by Entropy Advisors. We will be posting the SOS in the coming weeks, which will tie together the MVP with the DAO’s interim objectives. Once the DAO has come to a consensus regarding its interim objectives, each individual objective can be budgeted, which would again be done in an open setting. When it comes to finalizing the MVP, once it has passed Snapshot, a 6-month trial period will be initiated. Changes can be made to the MVP via a proposal+Snapshot vote during the trial period. Once the trial period is coming to an end, the MVP (with modifications, if any) will be put to a constitutional vote, and if passed, language will be added to the constitution.
We believe that the M, V, and P are all solid foundations for marketing, but also that marketing campaigns will be built on top of the text herein. For example, from a market perspective, the MVP can be used as a foundation for creating simple taglines while also fitting with the current ones, such as “Arbitrum is Home” or “Arbitrum is Freedom.”
As a newcomer to Arbitrum, I was a bit excited to read through the entire article, and the mission, vision, and purpose of Arbitrum to achieve its core goal of “uncompromisingly scaling Ether” was very clear. As a newcomer and a coin holder, I prefer to look at my perspective from the perspective of actual implementation. 1, to ensure that the proposal will not allow some ecological members (such as core developers, specific projects) to obtain unequal benefits, but to promote the broader ecological equity. DAO is free, flexible, in the future how to ensure that arb can win in the long term in so many layer2, whether to leave enough room for adjustment in the uncertain future market environment. I think this is something we need to focus on and discuss. 2, I think on behalf of the long-term interests of token holders Judge whether this proposal can bring long-term ecological value growth for Arbitrum, such as more developers, users, and the expansion of ARB's practical application scenarios. Personally, I am more interested in the empowerment and value-added of tokens with ARB. 3. The proposal provides a clear strategic framework for DAOs, which is helpful for making long-term decisions and promoting the development of the ecosystem in a more efficient and organized direction, e.g. selecting short-term and medium-term goals through the SOS proposal process. However, at the same time, it is necessary to pay attention to whether the MVP is too abstract, which may lead to disputes during the implementation, resulting in a decrease in the efficiency of decision-making, and insufficient leveling is a common problem of many web2 companies. 4, hope to improve more specific landing plan: require the subsequent adoption of the SOS proposal, clear and specific indicators (such as user growth, the number of eco-developers, transaction cost targets, etc.), optimize the efficiency of the process: to shorten the proposal implementation cycle, to avoid the time-consuming too long.
Here are some of my loose thoughts on ArbitrumDAOs Mission, Vision and Goals. Before I begin, I’d like to start with a disclaimer that these are my personal thoughts and not L2BEATs. Even though of course I’ve spent a fair amount of time discussing these topics with @Sinkas and other team members they don’t necessarily have to share my views.
Here are some of my loose thoughts on ArbitrumDAOs Mission, Vision and Goals. Before I begin, I’d like to start with a disclaimer that these are my personal thoughts and not L2BEATs. Even though of course I’ve spent a fair amount of time discussing these topics with @Sinkas and other team members they don’t necessarily have to share my views.
Most of the things I’m describing here apply to all general-purpose chains (especially L2s), not exclusively to Arbitrum. Most chains have similar goals and should, in my opinion, focus on similar priorities, adjusting specific strategies to the particular strengths of a given chain.
Before we begin, it’s important to address the issue of the DAOs ability to set goals and strategic directions. There have been many initiatives so far that tried to distill one common direction by gathering feedback from a broad range of delegates and other stakeholders (OCL, AF, builders, etc.). All of them eventually struggled with coming to conclusions - ending up either with a set of goals that did not have enough support or with goals so broad and open-ended that literally any initiative could be argued as fulfilling those goals.
I believe this is not necessarily the fault of those trying to distill those goals from the DAO; rather, the issue is in the DAO itself. What if the DAO is so decentralized and made up of so many individuals and entities with so many different, sometimes competing, goals that there is no one overarching set of priorities that suits everybody?
Worse still, what if the people asked to give their views on these objectives have yet to think it all through well enough to have an informed opinion? And what if when they are asked for input, they hallucinate like LLMs, giving answers that sound good and seem reasonable but aren't backed up by substantial data and/or experience in a given field? I, for one, admit to being guilty of doing this, always in good faith, but still providing "strong opinions, loosely held." I fear that this is more common than not.
Therefore, while I value all opinions in the DAO, I do not weight them equally. I give more credit to the people who are fully committed to Arbitrum (OCL, Arbitrum Foundation) and those with enough skin in the game (biggest protocols, big investors/token holders, big partners). I don’t mean that these parties are necessarily more correct than the others or that they can’t have ulterior motives or even change their alignment (like TreasureDAO). But they are simply the ones who have spent the most time thinking about the success of Arbitrum in the long term, and they have the most resources to implement their vision of the future, so it is harder and riskier to go against that vision, even if in my opinion it could be suboptimal.
To be clear, I'm not saying I'm one of those whose opinions should be taken more seriously. On the contrary, even though I represent the largest delegate at the time of writing, I would only push for a particular direction or approach if it had the support of people more directly involved in the ecosystem than myself. As a delegate I'm here to help and support them, not to tell them what to do.
First, to set the stage, let’s start with some assumptions that drive my thinking here.
I strongly believe that in the near-ish future, most financial activity will take place on some sort of crypto rails (actually, the scope is much broader than just financial activity, but let’s simplify for now). Long story short - this belief stems from the fact that the adoption of a mix of public/private blockchain crypto rails will allow companies to significantly reduce the cost of both development and future maintenance as well as offload the risk. I think this belief is quite broadly shared across the industry, justifying the high valuation of infrastructure projects, Arbitrum included.
With this in mind, Arbitrum's goal in general, and ArbitrumDAO in particular, should be to work towards putting Arbitrum in a position that, in the future, where most financial activity is happening on some crypto rails, Arbitrum can capture as big a share of this activity as possible - in terms of daily activity, total value locked, and the variety of use cases covered.
However, it is essential to note that the current crypto market is tiny compared to this projected future. This means that for Arbitrum (or any other chain) to be successful in the long term and secure a significant piece of this future pie, it needs to grow many times over in every aspect - number of builders, number of projects, number of users, number of service providers and (especially for Arbitrum) also in terms of token market cap. Most of this growth needs to come from outside the current crypto industry, and I believe that one of the most crucial factors for the chain's success will be its ability to grow outside the existing market.
One aspect of this growth requires a separate take - token market cap. Arbitrum’s ecosystem is controlled almost entirely by the ARB token, either directly via onchain votes or indirectly by controlling entities like Arbitrum Foundation or GCP Foundation and driving elections for internal bodies, especially the Security Council. Therefore, the ecosystem growth is, to some extent, limited by the growth of the token market cap. The reason for that is that if the value of the ecosystem (including, but not limited to, the value locked in the bridge) significantly outweighs the value of the token, it incentivizes governance attacks - both direct, like stealing the funds from the bridge, but also indirect, like securing enough voting power to either cripple decision making or tilt it to one’s advantage (e.g., Compound’s Humpy proposal).
So right now, in my opinion:
Arbitrum’s goal should be to secure as large a slice of the future financial activity pie as possible through growing adoption of its ecosystem, while keeping the token price at a level that provides sufficient security for the growing system.
First of all, in Arbitrum it can only be done by the DAO. The way things are set up right now, there’s no other entity (including Offchain Labs and Arbitrum Foundation) that has enough power and control to make it happen. So, the way I see it, the DAO has to figure it out (sooner rather than later, as time is ticking), or Arbitrum will either fail or, at least, won’t be nearly as successful as it could be).
Now let’s see what tools ArbitrumDAO has to achieve that goal:
However, ArbitrumDAO has lacked the ability to set specific strategic goals and focus on efficient management to coordinate all those resources to achieve those goals. Due to the DAO's decentralized nature, we ended up with a stream of isolated initiatives that did not support any broader goal or purpose. Furthermore, due to historical, practical, and legal reasons, the Arbitrum Foundation was set up as an isolated entity supporting the DAO and Arbitrum Ecosystem but not interfering with the DAO, executing its own agenda.
All of this is not necessarily bad; the independent and decentralized nature of the DAO spurred innovation and resulted in programs and initiatives that would not be possible otherwise, and therefore it’s crucial to preserve these properties. However, in my opinion, to increase efficiency and alignment across initiatives, we need to add a layer of coordination and oversight with strategic objectives. Simply put, we need to add some centralization to the mix (with decentralized oversight by the DAO) with decision-making power and responsibility for the ecosystem’s performance.
We need to be able to run more focused and dedicated programs as a DAO. Leverage external partners where possible through grants and funded initiatives, but with clearly defined goals and objectives for those partners to meet. Facilitate the creation of dedicated third party teams and initiatives, hiring people directly and building intrinsic organisational value where needed or where it makes more sense. This doesn't mean that independent initiatives are not possible or welcome; it just means that we shouldn't rely entirely on independent initiatives to make progress. The long-discussed OpCo proposal is a step in the right direction.
As I mentioned above, increasing token value is crucial for the security of the growing ecosystem. While I understand and fully recognize that this is a very sensitive and delicate matter, we need a long-term direction and at least some commitment to ensuring that the growing value of the ecosystem is properly reflected in the value of the token. We should start committing to creating mechanisms, processes, and structures that make it possible. I believe that the initiative around ARB staking is a step in the right direction.
The common expectation across the L2 space is that the sequencer revenue will decline with time. Moreover, it is already clear that there are many other ways through which ecosystems could be profiting besides the sequencer revenue. The DAO is already actively exploring some initiatives (STEP, GCP, AVI Pilot, M&A, GMC&TMC, etc.). I believe there are many more possibilities we haven’t even thought about yet. We can look for inspiration in business models built around Free Software projects that usually explored revenue streams in avenues such as services, consulting, certification, support & maintenance, business licensing, and others.
As mentioned above, I find it crucial for Arbitrum’s success to be able to grow outside of the current crypto market. That means expanding into new verticals (which, to some extent, was the goal behind GCP and STEP) and getting more adoption for existing projects. Arbitrum is known for its DeFi protocols; we have a strong RWA base, a strong gaming foundation, and many great projects that we should collaborate with to help them gain new users. I believe this to be one of the top priorities for the following year.
But it should not be limited just to what we have right now. We should actively identify areas where we are lacking (an example of that could be a dedicated wallet or smart account solution) and try to address them with targeted initiatives, grants, or investments.
We can only grow if we encourage builders to build new solutions on Arbitrum One and expand with their own chains with Orbit stack. This won’t happen by itself, and it won’t happen just by having the best tech or by just throwing grants left and right either. It will only happen if we commit to making building on Arbitrum as easy and straightforward as possible. We need to actively work with existing and new builders to identify their pain points and address them in a way that makes builders feel cared for.
This means, for example, easy access to infrastructure, easy access to service providers that know the technology and can support with integrating it, access to service providers that can commit to long-term support and maintenance of the stack, and, most importantly, access to the community of users willing to test out new products.
The Subsidy Fund for Security Services and past grant programs were steps in the right direction.
While I mentioned several times that growth beyond the current crypto market is crucial for long-term success, it will only be possible if we double down and support existing protocols, projects, and partners, strengthening Arbitrum’s position achieved in the past. This support can come in many forms, but it should be clear that the success of Arbitrum is directly correlated with the success of projects building on top of it. I believe that the incentive programs that we’ve been running in the past were steps in the right direction, but they must be improved to fulfill their purpose in the future better.
Many wonderful people have given me feedback on the draft version of this post, I won't name you all as I take sole responsibility for what I put here, but I want you to know that I am very grateful for all your comments, suggestions and criticism.
Thank you for drafting the Mission, Vision, and Purpose. I agree with most of the concepts expressed, but I believe we should adopt more of a marketing approach. By this, I mean we should create wording that is simple, easy to understand, and appealing to anyone who takes a quick glance at ARB. We shouldn’t limit ourselves to having an overly "philosophical" Mission, Vision, and Purpose.
Thanks to Entropy for elaborate and Castlecap for review this exercise on https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-dao-s-vision-mission-and-goals/26537/5.
I’m in favor of the proposal. I believe the phased approach sets a clear path for Arbitrum DAO (ADA) to develop shared, flexible strategic goals that can keep up with market trends and tech demands.
Thanks to Entropy for elaborate and Castlecap for review this exercise on https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-dao-s-vision-mission-and-goals/26537/5.
I’m in favor of the proposal. I believe the phased approach sets a clear path for Arbitrum DAO (ADA) to develop shared, flexible strategic goals that can keep up with market trends and tech demands.
Also, the focus on financial sustainability is key for ADA to remain competitive and aligned with the ecosystem’s long-term needs. You also mention the potential to build a strong and coherent identity for ADA, which is crucial for attracting new developers and strengthening the community. This level of clarity and purpose offers a competitive edge over other rollup projects, solidifying Arbitrum as a leader in scalability and decentralization within the blockchain space.
I only have one question: What will be the process for adjusting or reevaluating ADA’s long-term goals if there are major shifts in the market or technology?
Thanks for pushing this important topic!
I want to echo some previous comments that signalized the need of the Mission, Vision and Purpose to be more related to Arbitrum itself. I would like to suggest a couple of calls to discuss the topic and also to bring more visibility to the topic.
Overall, amazing work !
Excited to see this detailed proposal on unifying Arbitrum's MVP and it's evident that considerable thought and effort have gone into aligning the DAO's strategic direction.
Some thoughts that came to mind when reading:
Excited to see this detailed proposal on unifying Arbitrum's MVP and it's evident that considerable thought and effort have gone into aligning the DAO's strategic direction.
Some thoughts that came to mind when reading:
Overall, this is a good direction and I support moving forward with this MVP proposal. This proposal clarifies Arbitrum's Mission, Vision, and Purpose (MVP) and helps unify the direction of the DAO, whose goal is to “scale Ether without compromise”, i.e., increase efficiency while ensuring decentralization and security. This approach will give the DAO a clearer North Star for subsequent strategy and budgeting. Meanwhile, in order to make the proposal go smoothly It is recommended to concentrate advantageous resources to focus on the main chain Arbitrum One: while promoting expansion, ensure the reasonable distribution of resources, and first concentrate advantages to consolidate the main chain. Suggestion 2: Set up KPIs: It is recommended to set up Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for each strategic goal, so as to facilitate the evaluation of progress and to ensure that the goals are not only clear but also quantifiable. Recommendation 3: Introduce third-party audits: Regular audits of the use of funds and the achievement of strategic objectives should be conducted to enhance transparency and community trust. Recommendation 4: Community Training: Consider setting up some community education on Arbitrum technology, mission, and strategy to enhance community members' understanding of the program so that they can better participate in governance decisions.
Questions: 1. Implementation details of MVP and SOS: What are the specific implementation steps and timelines after MVP is finalized? How to ensure that each step can be implemented? 2. budget transparency: in terms of budget setting, will there be a public breakdown of what the funds will be used for to ensure community understanding of where the funds are going?
Thanks for the info.
We appreciate the work you are doing, and we also like the proposal, we agree that this unification will help align the DAO with its objectives.
We share the same question regarding the MVP's flexibility, but additionally, we would like to know what scope this will encompass.
We appreciate the work you are doing, and we also like the proposal, we agree that this unification will help align the DAO with its objectives.
We share the same question regarding the MVP's flexibility, but additionally, we would like to know what scope this will encompass.
Will the MVP be used as a benchmark to evaluate future projects, or will it be more focused on the SOS mentioned in the proposal?
Thank you for this proposal. Aligning Arbitrum's mission, vision, and purpose (MVP) is indeed crucial, and this is a highly forward-thinking and comprehensive approach.
The term 'uncompromising' is used several times, but achieving complete 'uncompromising' may be an unrealistic ideal. The blockchain trilemma (security, decentralization, scalability) is an unavoidable reality—everyone aims to balance all three, but in practice, trade-offs are often necessary due to technical and practical limitations. Therefore, I am concerned that using 'uncompromising' as a guiding principle might set an expectation that can't be met.
gm - Thanks a lot Entropy for putting together this document. I agree that having three clear elements—Purpose, Mission, and Vision—will help the DAO define goals and actions for the next months and years.
After my private feedback, I'd like to publicly share some ideas as I feel strongly about them. I am confident they will be taken as constructive feedback rather than criticism.
gm - Thanks a lot Entropy for putting together this document. I agree that having three clear elements—Purpose, Mission, and Vision—will help the DAO define goals and actions for the next months and years.
After my private feedback, I'd like to publicly share some ideas as I feel strongly about them. I am confident they will be taken as constructive feedback rather than criticism.
I believe the MVP should be:
Unique to Arbitrum: In the proposed form, the MVP could be applied to any rollup stack—echoing @cp0x here. This was acceptable when the rollup technology was nascent and Arbitrum were pioneering it. It is now being commoditized, or at least looked at together with other components— our message must be different to survive and thrive.
Highlighting the key value proposition of Arbitrum: How can our unique values, approach to tech, and the way we see the on-chain world be transferred into the MVP?
Compelling and exciting for builders and users: The MVP should be able to answer the question: Why should I build on Arbitrum versus any other stack?
To be noted, I fully agree with all concepts expressed; I'm suggesting we tweak the way we express them, seeing technology as a means to a purpose (we are much more than a tech stack), and yet aligning with what I believe the Arbitrum core teams have expressed as values and technological roadmap.
“Bring...rollups to the masses.”
I believe this is too technology-focused.
If you look at other companies’ mission statements:
There is no mention of the tech stack or algorithms. Technology should be a tool, not the goal. Our mission statement should focus on the impact and purpose, being timeless and resonating with a wider audience. What do we actually build for?
I believe the answer is Freedom, which has been already smartly used by other Arbitrum teams:
Suggested mission statement:
We empower people with the freedom to build their best onchain world.
Accelerate the universal shift onchain
I like the principle; I don’t this reflects a proper vision statement though, which should instead paint a picture of where we aspire to be in 5/10/20 years.
Suggested revision;
(We envision) Ethereum as the center of the onchain Universe, accessible to everyone through the best scaling technology and the most innovation-centric ecosystem
The message i'd like to convey:
Welcoming any feedback - I hope these elements can be incorporated - at least in part- in the final MVP.
I think this three-step strategy (clarifying goals → setting strategic objectives → setting a budget) is solid. After all, the lack of clear direction and specific goals has left many DAO members and organizations scratching their heads, easily leading to wasted resources and duplication of effort. This proposal will now unify everyone's pace and help DAOs better focus on what's most important and push the ecology to really get off the ground.
My proposal is: 1. launch the SOS proposal as soon as possible, and clarify the strategic priorities within 12/24 months, so that everyone knows what to do and how to do it. 2. Strengthen communication and transparency: It is recommended that regular progress reports be released to ensure that the community follows each stage and to reduce information asymmetry.
First off, I appreciate the effort put into this proposal by Entropy Advisors and the time spent gathering input from various stakeholders. Aligning on a clear Mission, Vision, and Purpose (MVP) is crucial for the DAO’s long-term strategy and success, so it’s good to see this kind of initiative.
Overall, I'm in favor of simplifying our north star and ensuring that the entire DAO understands where we’re headed, I only have one question regarding the mid/long term dynamics of the MVP. While I agree with starting simple and building on top, I’d like to see more clarity on how future strategies and adjustments will remain agile. Once we approve this MVP, how flexible will the DAO be in revisiting it if significant shifts in the market or ecosystem require a course correction? Too much rigidity might box us in.
I am incredibly happy that DAO will have a goal. I have also asked myself many times what the goal of each specific proposal is and what it will give to the Arbitrum community.
You say at the beginning that these are general formulations for now, but I have questions about all three MVP:
I am incredibly happy that DAO will have a goal. I have also asked myself many times what the goal of each specific proposal is and what it will give to the Arbitrum community.
You say at the beginning that these are general formulations for now, but I have questions about all three MVP:
Purpose. If we approach it formally, this is the goal of any rollup. I have no complaints about the goal itself - it is important, but within the framework of a bunch of other rollups, I would like to see a clearer goal for Arbitrum. Otherwise, it looks like let's help other Rollups (not related to Arbitrum), because this is in line with the goal.
Mission. An excellent explanation, with which I fully agree. But there is a lack of mention of the Embracing Chain Abstraction Package: Proposal walk-through, Q&A proposal. This proposal most closely matches this mission.
Vision. Also a necessary and correct vision, but not tied to Arbitrum in any way. Any promotion of other rollups or even non-Ethereum chains would be in line with the vision. Let's add Arbitrum to that vision.
Other than that, this is a great proposal and I'm glad it came out, better late than never.
Hi everyone, I’m just jumping into the conversation now, but I wanted to share some thoughts. I really resonate with this proposal and fully agree that finding a clear "north star" for the DAO is crucial for guiding us in the right direction.
The main objective here should be to set this DAO apart from others, attracting more users, developers, and investors. But how can we achieve that? I think the key to finding our north star is to look back at our roots. I’ve been on Arbitrum since day one, and I’ve seen how things have evolved—and, in many ways, how we’ve lost some of the advantages that made Arbitrum unique.
When Arbitrum first emerged, it offered a rare opportunity: a low-cost, high-speed alternative to mainnet Ethereum where EVM developers could experiment quickly and without paying exorbitant fees for contract deployments. This fostered a culture of rapid experimentation, making Arbitrum the go-to chain for innovation. Many of the successful projects that are still thriving on Arbitrum today were born during this period. But as other low-fee chains began to emerge, promising similar opportunities, we started to lose that unique advantage and culture of experimentation. Arbitrum, once the hub of innovation, became just another option in a crowded space.
The point I want to make is that at the end of the day, users follow opportunities—real opportunities to innovate and make money—not just vague branding or marketing. Focusing too much on marketing may not be the answer, because word-of-mouth and reputation naturally build around solid opportunities and successful projects. While slow, steady growth might not grab headlines, fostering a space where true innovation and experimentation can thrive will ultimately set us apart in the long term.
So, how can Arbitrum stand out in today’s competitive landscape? Should ARB artificially boost incentives to attract users, like through programs like STIP? Or should it focus on positioning itself as the premier chain for innovation—offering programs that reward groundbreaking projects? I believe it’s about creating opportunities for creators to experiment and succeed (or fail) without the fear of financial ruin. One idea could be to introduce retroactive funding for innovative projects, even if they don't immediately gain traction. This would not only shape the user experience but also introduce new dynamics into the competitive landscape.
Given that we haven’t seen much true innovation in DeFi lately, Arbitrum could take the lead by reigniting that spirit of experimentation. We need to encourage more creators to push boundaries and incentivize them to experiment openly.
In short, I think Arbitrum needs to get back to what made it different from other L2s and lean into that original spirit of innovation. The DAO should play a role in helping steer the chain in this direction, creating a space where new projects and ideas can flourish. If ARB wants to stand out today, it’s all about returning to those roots. Let’s make Arbitrum great again!
Hello @Entropy and the rest of the Arbitrum DAO community,
We’d like to begin by expressing our full agreement on the need to continue laying the foundation for Arbitrum’s growth. Today, we can say the DAO is advancing, but often without a clear direction or strategic goals, and frequently without certainty as to whether the initiatives under discussion are indeed necessary for the project’s progress.
The Arbitrum DAO’s Guiding Principles are as Follows:
We’re comfortable with this new version of the MVP and don’t have much to add here, though we’d like to discuss how we believe these objectives should be achieved.
While the discussion around Mission, Vision, and Purpose is valuable, defining these alone is insufficient if the DAO continues to operate as it currently does—without organization. In this regard, we align with the points made by @krst in this post and @Entropy in the OpCo thread. Currently, the DAO functions as a series of silos, where each proposal is handled in isolation, generating no synergies between them, and with no one fulfilling an oversight role to evaluate the outcomes of the DAO-funded initiatives.
Organizing implies several considerations, among others:
These are just a few examples of the outstanding items that remain unresolved by the DAO as an organization per se (with the exception of the code of conduct, which was facilitated by Entropy but approved by the DAO). This shows that DAOs do not inherently resolve or replace the operational needs of an organization; they only change the way decisions are made. Therefore, if we want to realize the MVP and specific goals included in the SOS, it’s essential for DAO members to agree on how to approach each operational requirement.
From our perspective, the verticals mentioned by @krst in his comment provide a good starting point for debating the structure of a proposal that would likely establish the DAO’s objectives for the next 12–24 months. We’d like to add a few thoughts:
It’s been mentioned that the DAO needs to work on generating additional revenue streams to support long-term sustainability and provide value to the token. There’s also an RFC under discussion: [Non-Constitutional] Treasury Management v1.2. However, we want to emphasize that the DAO needs to standardize how it utilizes and manages its treasury.
Currently, each initiative handles its own treasury management in isolation: for ARDC v2, an AERA Vault is proposed; for other initiatives, funds are transferred to the AF for conversion to stables; some initiatives are paid in ARB via MSS; and others have sold ARB directly on the market. Similarly, even the use of stream applications lacks a standard framework, with no set guidelines to determine whether Sablier, Hedgey, Superfluid, or Llamapay should be used.
While we understand that different initiatives may occasionally require distinct procedures, we believe a well-designed, flexible framework could cover most cases in the future, especially if the OpCo proceeds successfully.
There have also been many discussions and proposals related to treasury diversification (including the above-mentioned proposal), but three fundamental questions remain unresolved:
To clarify, when referring to “immediate liquidity,” we mean stablecoins or highly liquid assets with minimal selling effort (we’re excluding ARB, as its liquidity depth limits short-term sell capacity).
As a final note, it’s important to mention that these last two points largely depend on the DAO’s ability to establish an annual budget—another aspect currently unresolved.
For the DAO to be more resilient to capture, genuinely decentralized in decision-making, and benefit from higher-quality proposals, it must focus on onboarding new stakeholders. This means that while growth programs aimed at expanding to new markets (i.e., new builders and users) are important, equal emphasis should be placed on encouraging DAO participation to grow and diversify alongside the ecosystem. As a community, we should be equipped to face new challenges that arise as a result of growth.
In this regard, both the Staking and DIP proposals are key to aligning the Arbitrum ecosystem with its DAO.
Considering the rapid evolution of the crypto ecosystem, even if the SOS program were created solely for the next 12 months, priorities could shift at any moment.
For example:
Even if this tweet is a mere rumor, imagine for a moment what would happen if ETH Mainnet no longer required rollups for scaling...the MVP outlined in this RFC would already be obsolete. The Arbitrum ecosystem does not rely exclusively on endogenous factors, so the DAO must be capable of quickly pivoting to a contingency plan if necessary until priorities can be redefined.
This proposal is a solid foundation for Arbitrum's strategic direction and establishes a clear path for the ecosystem. As several have pointed out, aligning around a central narrative is very important, particularly one that reflects Arbitrum’s unique values and resonates with developers, users, and contributors.
I completely agree with this framing as it could make Arbitrum especially attractive emphasizing a vision of autonomy and innovation within a truly decentralized structure.
From a monitoring and evaluation standpoint, it is essential to establish tangible, clear KPIs and conduct regular assessments to ensure that our progress aligns with these objectives. We should have quantifiable indicators around network growth, developer adoption, and community engagement . These indicators could feed directly into ongoing evaluations to help us measure impact and enable adaptability in an always changing environment.
I have experience creating indicators and milestones for strategic, long-term projects, so I'm up to help in any way I can.
Establishing a process for periodic review and potential revision of the MVP could be a good idea.
Holding regular review sessions to refine or even update the MVP would allow us to stay relevant as the DAO and ecosystem mature, not to mention, this is an essential part of any planning process.
I also agree on what has been commented about establishing transparent, detailed budgets with regular audits. This holds true for every proposal imo. Budget clarity, alongside indicators of financial sustainability, would help the ecosystem gain trust between its members and ensure resources are allocated toward meaningful progress and value-creation.
This proposal outlines an ambitious yet essential plan for aligning Arbitrum DAO’s purpose, mission, and vision (MVP) to create clarity and focus for its future. I fully support the approach of breaking it into phases—starting with defining clear end goals and then moving into actionable strategies and budgeting.
Key strengths are the emphasis on alignment across stakeholders and the inspiration taken from proven frameworks like Lido's. However, execution will be critical. It’s vital that the DAO actively engages with these principles, ensures participation in the SOS process, and uses the MVP as a guide for all future initiatives. Without this follow-through, there’s a risk of the plan becoming just another document. We have to make sure its visible and followed through out every proposal.
Let’s make sure this effort gets the buy-in it deserves and turns into a strong foundation for Arbitrum’s growth.
I am going to vote YES.
PS: I fully agree with @Ignas that after execution it has to be present everywhere and that we as a DAO have to find ways to make Arbitrum better but also not forget the token, because its one one the crucial parts of Arbitrum and the DAO.
I'll be voting "For" once this goes to Snapshot. I think if I was asked this on day 1 of Arbitrum delegation I probably would not have seen much value. However, over the last year+ it's been become clearer to me the value of this. Even thought I think most delegates are subconsciously making decisions with these ideas in mind, having the formal blueprint should be helpful. There isn't really a downside here, so I see no reason not to move forward with this.
I'm not really the type of person whose good at mission statement type things, so I'll sort of leave feedback to "I think it sounds good!". But some general thoughts:
I'll be voting "For" once this goes to Snapshot. I think if I was asked this on day 1 of Arbitrum delegation I probably would not have seen much value. However, over the last year+ it's been become clearer to me the value of this. Even thought I think most delegates are subconsciously making decisions with these ideas in mind, having the formal blueprint should be helpful. There isn't really a downside here, so I see no reason not to move forward with this.
I'm not really the type of person whose good at mission statement type things, so I'll sort of leave feedback to "I think it sounds good!". But some general thoughts:
Changes Made on Oct 30: This proposal will move to Snapshot tomorrow.
New Mission:
-Empower people with the freedom to build their best onchain world.
-Much of the text surrounding the Mission has also been altered to fit the new mission.
New Vision:
-Arbitrum is home to the universal shift onchain.
New Timeline:
Changes Made on Oct 30: This proposal will move to Snapshot tomorrow.
New Mission:
-Empower people with the freedom to build their best onchain world.
-Much of the text surrounding the Mission has also been altered to fit the new mission.
New Vision:
-Arbitrum is home to the universal shift onchain.
New Timeline:
-Added “Entropy Advisors plans to take the MVP to a constitutional vote, adding it as language to the constitution, after a 6-month trial period. During the initial 6 months, changes can be made to the MVP via a proposal+Snapshot vote, but after being included in the constitution, would require a constitutional onchain amendment. It is our belief that the current MVP is broad enough to handle substantial changes in the crypto market.”
The most common feedback received surrounds the MVP not being specific enough to Arbitrum. We hear you and have adjusted accordingly. The new Mission is, as provided by @MaxLomu… To empower people with the freedom to build their best onchain world.
We believe the new mission statement encompasses Arbitrum's largest differentiating factor: Freedom. It is worth noting that it is ok for multiple comparable projects to identify similarly, particularly when it comes to purpose. It’s also worth noting that this MVP is specific to the DAO. We hope the changes to the mission and the subsequent explaining paragraphs help showcase the factors that truly make Arbitrum special in a more clear light.
I’d like to see more clarity on how future strategies and adjustments will remain agile. Once we approve this MVP, how flexible will the DAO be in revisiting it if significant shifts in the market or ecosystem require a course correction? Too much rigidity might box us in.
What will be the process for adjusting or reevaluating ADA’s long-term goals if there are major shifts in the market or technology?
Similar to how the Code of Conduct proposal has an outlined path to eventually become a constitutional proposal on Tally, should there be a similar path for the MVP proposal to become constitutional?
The second piece of feedback received multiple times was asking if the MVP is adaptable and if it has a process to be included in the constitution. We have added language in the timeline section to make clear that for the first 6 months, the MVP will be easily adaptable, but that once it is hopefully included in the constitution, will have a pretty significant barrier to change. It’s important that the MVP be written in a way that can guide us through a changing market environment, and we believe that this can be achieved.
the vision should be ambitious and aspirational, something the DAO can strive towards
I like the principle; I don’t this reflects a proper vision statement though, which should instead paint a picture of where we aspire to be in 5/10/20 years.
Another comment received multiple times surrounded the vision of not being ambitious enough / properly visualizing Arbitrum’s place in an ideal future. We thank you for this feedback and believe that our simple adding of the word “home” should solve these concerns and has made the vision statement far stronger.
Thank you for this comment. We believe that Arbitrum’s aim to scale without compromise is the main driver for all design decisions and choices by the DAO and its development teams. It’s the reason that efforts are focused on decentralized, battle-tested fraud proofs and sequencing instead of shifting the focus to monolithic scaling of One. There are many UX benefits that could come with compromise. For example, beefing up the sequencer to max throughput with no vision of ever decentralizing it or shifting the priority from BOLD to supporting synchronous composability between more languages. From our perspective, not compromising on the core trust assumptions of Ethereum is part of our culture and identity. It’s our main purpose although it will take a lot of work to get there, it is what the Arbitrum DAO aims to do at its core.
Will the MVP be used as a benchmark to evaluate future projects, or will it be more focused on the SOS mentioned in the proposal?
The MVP is objectively high level because the DAO’s north star and its supporting pillars must be simple. As such, the MVP may not substantially impact the DAO’s decision-making processes, at least when it comes to “day-to-day operations”. Instead, complexity will be built on top of the MVP through the SOS (interim objectives to reach the DAO’s end goals), with the resulting strategies guiding the DAO with respect to focus areas and performance. That said, we believe even the MVP can be used as a resource for evaluating proposals, but we are confident that the SOS will enable this to a magnitude higher degree.
Implementation details of MVP and SOS: What are the specific implementation steps and timelines after MVP is finalized? How to ensure that each step can be implemented?
budget transparency: in terms of budget setting, will there be a public breakdown of what the funds will be used for to ensure community understanding of where the funds are going?
We appreciate all these recommendations and will take them into account as an influence for future work done by Entropy Advisors. We will be posting the SOS in the coming weeks, which will tie together the MVP with the DAO’s interim objectives. Once the DAO has come to a consensus regarding its interim objectives, each individual objective can be budgeted, which would again be done in an open setting. When it comes to finalizing the MVP, once it has passed Snapshot, a 6-month trial period will be initiated. Changes can be made to the MVP via a proposal+Snapshot vote during the trial period. Once the trial period is coming to an end, the MVP (with modifications, if any) will be put to a constitutional vote, and if passed, language will be added to the constitution.
We believe that the M, V, and P are all solid foundations for marketing, but also that marketing campaigns will be built on top of the text herein. For example, from a market perspective, the MVP can be used as a foundation for creating simple taglines while also fitting with the current ones, such as “Arbitrum is Home” or “Arbitrum is Freedom.”
As a newcomer to Arbitrum, I was a bit excited to read through the entire article, and the mission, vision, and purpose of Arbitrum to achieve its core goal of “uncompromisingly scaling Ether” was very clear. As a newcomer and a coin holder, I prefer to look at my perspective from the perspective of actual implementation. 1, to ensure that the proposal will not allow some ecological members (such as core developers, specific projects) to obtain unequal benefits, but to promote the broader ecological equity. DAO is free, flexible, in the future how to ensure that arb can win in the long term in so many layer2, whether to leave enough room for adjustment in the uncertain future market environment. I think this is something we need to focus on and discuss. 2, I think on behalf of the long-term interests of token holders Judge whether this proposal can bring long-term ecological value growth for Arbitrum, such as more developers, users, and the expansion of ARB's practical application scenarios. Personally, I am more interested in the empowerment and value-added of tokens with ARB. 3. The proposal provides a clear strategic framework for DAOs, which is helpful for making long-term decisions and promoting the development of the ecosystem in a more efficient and organized direction, e.g. selecting short-term and medium-term goals through the SOS proposal process. However, at the same time, it is necessary to pay attention to whether the MVP is too abstract, which may lead to disputes during the implementation, resulting in a decrease in the efficiency of decision-making, and insufficient leveling is a common problem of many web2 companies. 4, hope to improve more specific landing plan: require the subsequent adoption of the SOS proposal, clear and specific indicators (such as user growth, the number of eco-developers, transaction cost targets, etc.), optimize the efficiency of the process: to shorten the proposal implementation cycle, to avoid the time-consuming too long.
Here are some of my loose thoughts on ArbitrumDAOs Mission, Vision and Goals. Before I begin, I’d like to start with a disclaimer that these are my personal thoughts and not L2BEATs. Even though of course I’ve spent a fair amount of time discussing these topics with @Sinkas and other team members they don’t necessarily have to share my views.
Here are some of my loose thoughts on ArbitrumDAOs Mission, Vision and Goals. Before I begin, I’d like to start with a disclaimer that these are my personal thoughts and not L2BEATs. Even though of course I’ve spent a fair amount of time discussing these topics with @Sinkas and other team members they don’t necessarily have to share my views.
Most of the things I’m describing here apply to all general-purpose chains (especially L2s), not exclusively to Arbitrum. Most chains have similar goals and should, in my opinion, focus on similar priorities, adjusting specific strategies to the particular strengths of a given chain.
Before we begin, it’s important to address the issue of the DAOs ability to set goals and strategic directions. There have been many initiatives so far that tried to distill one common direction by gathering feedback from a broad range of delegates and other stakeholders (OCL, AF, builders, etc.). All of them eventually struggled with coming to conclusions - ending up either with a set of goals that did not have enough support or with goals so broad and open-ended that literally any initiative could be argued as fulfilling those goals.
I believe this is not necessarily the fault of those trying to distill those goals from the DAO; rather, the issue is in the DAO itself. What if the DAO is so decentralized and made up of so many individuals and entities with so many different, sometimes competing, goals that there is no one overarching set of priorities that suits everybody?
Worse still, what if the people asked to give their views on these objectives have yet to think it all through well enough to have an informed opinion? And what if when they are asked for input, they hallucinate like LLMs, giving answers that sound good and seem reasonable but aren't backed up by substantial data and/or experience in a given field? I, for one, admit to being guilty of doing this, always in good faith, but still providing "strong opinions, loosely held." I fear that this is more common than not.
Therefore, while I value all opinions in the DAO, I do not weight them equally. I give more credit to the people who are fully committed to Arbitrum (OCL, Arbitrum Foundation) and those with enough skin in the game (biggest protocols, big investors/token holders, big partners). I don’t mean that these parties are necessarily more correct than the others or that they can’t have ulterior motives or even change their alignment (like TreasureDAO). But they are simply the ones who have spent the most time thinking about the success of Arbitrum in the long term, and they have the most resources to implement their vision of the future, so it is harder and riskier to go against that vision, even if in my opinion it could be suboptimal.
To be clear, I'm not saying I'm one of those whose opinions should be taken more seriously. On the contrary, even though I represent the largest delegate at the time of writing, I would only push for a particular direction or approach if it had the support of people more directly involved in the ecosystem than myself. As a delegate I'm here to help and support them, not to tell them what to do.
First, to set the stage, let’s start with some assumptions that drive my thinking here.
I strongly believe that in the near-ish future, most financial activity will take place on some sort of crypto rails (actually, the scope is much broader than just financial activity, but let’s simplify for now). Long story short - this belief stems from the fact that the adoption of a mix of public/private blockchain crypto rails will allow companies to significantly reduce the cost of both development and future maintenance as well as offload the risk. I think this belief is quite broadly shared across the industry, justifying the high valuation of infrastructure projects, Arbitrum included.
With this in mind, Arbitrum's goal in general, and ArbitrumDAO in particular, should be to work towards putting Arbitrum in a position that, in the future, where most financial activity is happening on some crypto rails, Arbitrum can capture as big a share of this activity as possible - in terms of daily activity, total value locked, and the variety of use cases covered.
However, it is essential to note that the current crypto market is tiny compared to this projected future. This means that for Arbitrum (or any other chain) to be successful in the long term and secure a significant piece of this future pie, it needs to grow many times over in every aspect - number of builders, number of projects, number of users, number of service providers and (especially for Arbitrum) also in terms of token market cap. Most of this growth needs to come from outside the current crypto industry, and I believe that one of the most crucial factors for the chain's success will be its ability to grow outside the existing market.
One aspect of this growth requires a separate take - token market cap. Arbitrum’s ecosystem is controlled almost entirely by the ARB token, either directly via onchain votes or indirectly by controlling entities like Arbitrum Foundation or GCP Foundation and driving elections for internal bodies, especially the Security Council. Therefore, the ecosystem growth is, to some extent, limited by the growth of the token market cap. The reason for that is that if the value of the ecosystem (including, but not limited to, the value locked in the bridge) significantly outweighs the value of the token, it incentivizes governance attacks - both direct, like stealing the funds from the bridge, but also indirect, like securing enough voting power to either cripple decision making or tilt it to one’s advantage (e.g., Compound’s Humpy proposal).
So right now, in my opinion:
Arbitrum’s goal should be to secure as large a slice of the future financial activity pie as possible through growing adoption of its ecosystem, while keeping the token price at a level that provides sufficient security for the growing system.
First of all, in Arbitrum it can only be done by the DAO. The way things are set up right now, there’s no other entity (including Offchain Labs and Arbitrum Foundation) that has enough power and control to make it happen. So, the way I see it, the DAO has to figure it out (sooner rather than later, as time is ticking), or Arbitrum will either fail or, at least, won’t be nearly as successful as it could be).
Now let’s see what tools ArbitrumDAO has to achieve that goal:
However, ArbitrumDAO has lacked the ability to set specific strategic goals and focus on efficient management to coordinate all those resources to achieve those goals. Due to the DAO's decentralized nature, we ended up with a stream of isolated initiatives that did not support any broader goal or purpose. Furthermore, due to historical, practical, and legal reasons, the Arbitrum Foundation was set up as an isolated entity supporting the DAO and Arbitrum Ecosystem but not interfering with the DAO, executing its own agenda.
All of this is not necessarily bad; the independent and decentralized nature of the DAO spurred innovation and resulted in programs and initiatives that would not be possible otherwise, and therefore it’s crucial to preserve these properties. However, in my opinion, to increase efficiency and alignment across initiatives, we need to add a layer of coordination and oversight with strategic objectives. Simply put, we need to add some centralization to the mix (with decentralized oversight by the DAO) with decision-making power and responsibility for the ecosystem’s performance.
We need to be able to run more focused and dedicated programs as a DAO. Leverage external partners where possible through grants and funded initiatives, but with clearly defined goals and objectives for those partners to meet. Facilitate the creation of dedicated third party teams and initiatives, hiring people directly and building intrinsic organisational value where needed or where it makes more sense. This doesn't mean that independent initiatives are not possible or welcome; it just means that we shouldn't rely entirely on independent initiatives to make progress. The long-discussed OpCo proposal is a step in the right direction.
As I mentioned above, increasing token value is crucial for the security of the growing ecosystem. While I understand and fully recognize that this is a very sensitive and delicate matter, we need a long-term direction and at least some commitment to ensuring that the growing value of the ecosystem is properly reflected in the value of the token. We should start committing to creating mechanisms, processes, and structures that make it possible. I believe that the initiative around ARB staking is a step in the right direction.
The common expectation across the L2 space is that the sequencer revenue will decline with time. Moreover, it is already clear that there are many other ways through which ecosystems could be profiting besides the sequencer revenue. The DAO is already actively exploring some initiatives (STEP, GCP, AVI Pilot, M&A, GMC&TMC, etc.). I believe there are many more possibilities we haven’t even thought about yet. We can look for inspiration in business models built around Free Software projects that usually explored revenue streams in avenues such as services, consulting, certification, support & maintenance, business licensing, and others.
As mentioned above, I find it crucial for Arbitrum’s success to be able to grow outside of the current crypto market. That means expanding into new verticals (which, to some extent, was the goal behind GCP and STEP) and getting more adoption for existing projects. Arbitrum is known for its DeFi protocols; we have a strong RWA base, a strong gaming foundation, and many great projects that we should collaborate with to help them gain new users. I believe this to be one of the top priorities for the following year.
But it should not be limited just to what we have right now. We should actively identify areas where we are lacking (an example of that could be a dedicated wallet or smart account solution) and try to address them with targeted initiatives, grants, or investments.
We can only grow if we encourage builders to build new solutions on Arbitrum One and expand with their own chains with Orbit stack. This won’t happen by itself, and it won’t happen just by having the best tech or by just throwing grants left and right either. It will only happen if we commit to making building on Arbitrum as easy and straightforward as possible. We need to actively work with existing and new builders to identify their pain points and address them in a way that makes builders feel cared for.
This means, for example, easy access to infrastructure, easy access to service providers that know the technology and can support with integrating it, access to service providers that can commit to long-term support and maintenance of the stack, and, most importantly, access to the community of users willing to test out new products.
The Subsidy Fund for Security Services and past grant programs were steps in the right direction.
While I mentioned several times that growth beyond the current crypto market is crucial for long-term success, it will only be possible if we double down and support existing protocols, projects, and partners, strengthening Arbitrum’s position achieved in the past. This support can come in many forms, but it should be clear that the success of Arbitrum is directly correlated with the success of projects building on top of it. I believe that the incentive programs that we’ve been running in the past were steps in the right direction, but they must be improved to fulfill their purpose in the future better.
Many wonderful people have given me feedback on the draft version of this post, I won't name you all as I take sole responsibility for what I put here, but I want you to know that I am very grateful for all your comments, suggestions and criticism.
Thank you for drafting the Mission, Vision, and Purpose. I agree with most of the concepts expressed, but I believe we should adopt more of a marketing approach. By this, I mean we should create wording that is simple, easy to understand, and appealing to anyone who takes a quick glance at ARB. We shouldn’t limit ourselves to having an overly "philosophical" Mission, Vision, and Purpose.
Thanks to Entropy for elaborate and Castlecap for review this exercise on https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-dao-s-vision-mission-and-goals/26537/5.
I’m in favor of the proposal. I believe the phased approach sets a clear path for Arbitrum DAO (ADA) to develop shared, flexible strategic goals that can keep up with market trends and tech demands.
Thanks to Entropy for elaborate and Castlecap for review this exercise on https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-dao-s-vision-mission-and-goals/26537/5.
I’m in favor of the proposal. I believe the phased approach sets a clear path for Arbitrum DAO (ADA) to develop shared, flexible strategic goals that can keep up with market trends and tech demands.
Also, the focus on financial sustainability is key for ADA to remain competitive and aligned with the ecosystem’s long-term needs. You also mention the potential to build a strong and coherent identity for ADA, which is crucial for attracting new developers and strengthening the community. This level of clarity and purpose offers a competitive edge over other rollup projects, solidifying Arbitrum as a leader in scalability and decentralization within the blockchain space.
I only have one question: What will be the process for adjusting or reevaluating ADA’s long-term goals if there are major shifts in the market or technology?
Thanks for pushing this important topic!
I want to echo some previous comments that signalized the need of the Mission, Vision and Purpose to be more related to Arbitrum itself. I would like to suggest a couple of calls to discuss the topic and also to bring more visibility to the topic.
Overall, amazing work !
Excited to see this detailed proposal on unifying Arbitrum's MVP and it's evident that considerable thought and effort have gone into aligning the DAO's strategic direction.
Some thoughts that came to mind when reading:
Excited to see this detailed proposal on unifying Arbitrum's MVP and it's evident that considerable thought and effort have gone into aligning the DAO's strategic direction.
Some thoughts that came to mind when reading:
Overall, this is a good direction and I support moving forward with this MVP proposal. This proposal clarifies Arbitrum's Mission, Vision, and Purpose (MVP) and helps unify the direction of the DAO, whose goal is to “scale Ether without compromise”, i.e., increase efficiency while ensuring decentralization and security. This approach will give the DAO a clearer North Star for subsequent strategy and budgeting. Meanwhile, in order to make the proposal go smoothly It is recommended to concentrate advantageous resources to focus on the main chain Arbitrum One: while promoting expansion, ensure the reasonable distribution of resources, and first concentrate advantages to consolidate the main chain. Suggestion 2: Set up KPIs: It is recommended to set up Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for each strategic goal, so as to facilitate the evaluation of progress and to ensure that the goals are not only clear but also quantifiable. Recommendation 3: Introduce third-party audits: Regular audits of the use of funds and the achievement of strategic objectives should be conducted to enhance transparency and community trust. Recommendation 4: Community Training: Consider setting up some community education on Arbitrum technology, mission, and strategy to enhance community members' understanding of the program so that they can better participate in governance decisions.
Questions: 1. Implementation details of MVP and SOS: What are the specific implementation steps and timelines after MVP is finalized? How to ensure that each step can be implemented? 2. budget transparency: in terms of budget setting, will there be a public breakdown of what the funds will be used for to ensure community understanding of where the funds are going?
Thanks for the info.
We appreciate the work you are doing, and we also like the proposal, we agree that this unification will help align the DAO with its objectives.
We share the same question regarding the MVP's flexibility, but additionally, we would like to know what scope this will encompass.
We appreciate the work you are doing, and we also like the proposal, we agree that this unification will help align the DAO with its objectives.
We share the same question regarding the MVP's flexibility, but additionally, we would like to know what scope this will encompass.
Will the MVP be used as a benchmark to evaluate future projects, or will it be more focused on the SOS mentioned in the proposal?
Thank you for this proposal. Aligning Arbitrum's mission, vision, and purpose (MVP) is indeed crucial, and this is a highly forward-thinking and comprehensive approach.
The term 'uncompromising' is used several times, but achieving complete 'uncompromising' may be an unrealistic ideal. The blockchain trilemma (security, decentralization, scalability) is an unavoidable reality—everyone aims to balance all three, but in practice, trade-offs are often necessary due to technical and practical limitations. Therefore, I am concerned that using 'uncompromising' as a guiding principle might set an expectation that can't be met.
gm - Thanks a lot Entropy for putting together this document. I agree that having three clear elements—Purpose, Mission, and Vision—will help the DAO define goals and actions for the next months and years.
After my private feedback, I'd like to publicly share some ideas as I feel strongly about them. I am confident they will be taken as constructive feedback rather than criticism.
gm - Thanks a lot Entropy for putting together this document. I agree that having three clear elements—Purpose, Mission, and Vision—will help the DAO define goals and actions for the next months and years.
After my private feedback, I'd like to publicly share some ideas as I feel strongly about them. I am confident they will be taken as constructive feedback rather than criticism.
I believe the MVP should be:
Unique to Arbitrum: In the proposed form, the MVP could be applied to any rollup stack—echoing @cp0x here. This was acceptable when the rollup technology was nascent and Arbitrum were pioneering it. It is now being commoditized, or at least looked at together with other components— our message must be different to survive and thrive.
Highlighting the key value proposition of Arbitrum: How can our unique values, approach to tech, and the way we see the on-chain world be transferred into the MVP?
Compelling and exciting for builders and users: The MVP should be able to answer the question: Why should I build on Arbitrum versus any other stack?
To be noted, I fully agree with all concepts expressed; I'm suggesting we tweak the way we express them, seeing technology as a means to a purpose (we are much more than a tech stack), and yet aligning with what I believe the Arbitrum core teams have expressed as values and technological roadmap.
“Bring...rollups to the masses.”
I believe this is too technology-focused.
If you look at other companies’ mission statements:
There is no mention of the tech stack or algorithms. Technology should be a tool, not the goal. Our mission statement should focus on the impact and purpose, being timeless and resonating with a wider audience. What do we actually build for?
I believe the answer is Freedom, which has been already smartly used by other Arbitrum teams:
Suggested mission statement:
We empower people with the freedom to build their best onchain world.
Accelerate the universal shift onchain
I like the principle; I don’t this reflects a proper vision statement though, which should instead paint a picture of where we aspire to be in 5/10/20 years.
Suggested revision;
(We envision) Ethereum as the center of the onchain Universe, accessible to everyone through the best scaling technology and the most innovation-centric ecosystem
The message i'd like to convey:
Welcoming any feedback - I hope these elements can be incorporated - at least in part- in the final MVP.
I think this three-step strategy (clarifying goals → setting strategic objectives → setting a budget) is solid. After all, the lack of clear direction and specific goals has left many DAO members and organizations scratching their heads, easily leading to wasted resources and duplication of effort. This proposal will now unify everyone's pace and help DAOs better focus on what's most important and push the ecology to really get off the ground.
My proposal is: 1. launch the SOS proposal as soon as possible, and clarify the strategic priorities within 12/24 months, so that everyone knows what to do and how to do it. 2. Strengthen communication and transparency: It is recommended that regular progress reports be released to ensure that the community follows each stage and to reduce information asymmetry.
First off, I appreciate the effort put into this proposal by Entropy Advisors and the time spent gathering input from various stakeholders. Aligning on a clear Mission, Vision, and Purpose (MVP) is crucial for the DAO’s long-term strategy and success, so it’s good to see this kind of initiative.
Overall, I'm in favor of simplifying our north star and ensuring that the entire DAO understands where we’re headed, I only have one question regarding the mid/long term dynamics of the MVP. While I agree with starting simple and building on top, I’d like to see more clarity on how future strategies and adjustments will remain agile. Once we approve this MVP, how flexible will the DAO be in revisiting it if significant shifts in the market or ecosystem require a course correction? Too much rigidity might box us in.
I am incredibly happy that DAO will have a goal. I have also asked myself many times what the goal of each specific proposal is and what it will give to the Arbitrum community.
You say at the beginning that these are general formulations for now, but I have questions about all three MVP:
I am incredibly happy that DAO will have a goal. I have also asked myself many times what the goal of each specific proposal is and what it will give to the Arbitrum community.
You say at the beginning that these are general formulations for now, but I have questions about all three MVP:
Purpose. If we approach it formally, this is the goal of any rollup. I have no complaints about the goal itself - it is important, but within the framework of a bunch of other rollups, I would like to see a clearer goal for Arbitrum. Otherwise, it looks like let's help other Rollups (not related to Arbitrum), because this is in line with the goal.
Mission. An excellent explanation, with which I fully agree. But there is a lack of mention of the Embracing Chain Abstraction Package: Proposal walk-through, Q&A proposal. This proposal most closely matches this mission.
Vision. Also a necessary and correct vision, but not tied to Arbitrum in any way. Any promotion of other rollups or even non-Ethereum chains would be in line with the vision. Let's add Arbitrum to that vision.
Other than that, this is a great proposal and I'm glad it came out, better late than never.
First off, I appreciate the effort put into this proposal by Entropy Advisors and the time spent gathering input from various stakeholders. Aligning on a clear Mission, Vision, and Purpose (MVP) is crucial for the DAO’s long-term strategy and success, so it’s good to see this kind of initiative.
Overall, I'm in favor of simplifying our north star and ensuring that the entire DAO understands where we’re headed, I only have one question regarding the mid/long term dynamics of the MVP. While I agree with starting simple and building on top, I’d like to see more clarity on how future strategies and adjustments will remain agile. Once we approve this MVP, how flexible will the DAO be in revisiting it if significant shifts in the market or ecosystem require a course correction? Too much rigidity might box us in.
Thanks again, I’m looking forward to seeing the final version after community input.
First off, I appreciate the effort put into this proposal by Entropy Advisors and the time spent gathering input from various stakeholders. Aligning on a clear Mission, Vision, and Purpose (MVP) is crucial for the DAO’s long-term strategy and success, so it’s good to see this kind of initiative.
Overall, I'm in favor of simplifying our north star and ensuring that the entire DAO understands where we’re headed, I only have one question regarding the mid/long term dynamics of the MVP. While I agree with starting simple and building on top, I’d like to see more clarity on how future strategies and adjustments will remain agile. Once we approve this MVP, how flexible will the DAO be in revisiting it if significant shifts in the market or ecosystem require a course correction? Too much rigidity might box us in.
Thanks again, I’m looking forward to seeing the final version after community input.
