TLDR of updates made on October 3rd:
The ArbOS 31 “Bianca” onchain vote on Tally has passed and executed, activating Arbitrum Stylus on Arbitrum One and Nova. To bolster the impact of this upgrade, this proposal presents the one-time "Stylus Sprint" program, aimed at encouraging the early development of Stylus smart contracts and tooling by awarding up to 5,000,000 ARB to teams who build with Stylus. Applications will be open for 8 weeks with a 2 week review period and program length of 1 year. The Sprint will include a mix of open applications where teams are encouraged to be creative in their ideas as well as invitational/RFQs with strategically targeted objectives. The requested funding is intended to cover development costs, including hiring talent, training teams, adopting new tools, infrastructure expenses, and audits at the discretion of the recipient. This campaign's primary objectives are to engage new and existing Arbitrum protocol teams with this novel technology, showcase use cases only feasible with Stylus, and create foundational Stylus building blocks for widespread use.
Interested teams must apply through a designated application process and grant recipients will be selected by an Evaluation Committee based on specific criteria detailed in this proposal. As the program progresses, participating teams will receive staged funding as they reach predefined and agreed-upon milestones, culminating in the deployment and long-term upkeep of their projects.
Today, the Stylus ecosystem is promising but very nascent. At launch, the developer experience will be in its early stages, offering an opportunity for pioneers to shape and refine Stylus as they build with it. Teams building with Stylus today are early adopters of the technology and are pushing the limits of what is possible on the EVM.
The "Stylus Sprint" is strategically designed to accelerate the adoption of Stylus and help drive visibility into Stylus’ transformative potential to the broader crypto community. Launched in conjunction with Bianca passing, this program aims to strengthen the momentum of the upgrade, drawing significant adoption and attention to the technological advancements it introduces.
Stylus represents a pivotal innovation for the entire Ethereum ecosystem, setting Arbitrum apart from other platforms by enabling the use of multiple programming languages for smart contracts. This not only enhances the efficiency and capabilities of Arbitrum applications but also broadens the accessibility of Arbitrum’s ecosystem to a more diverse group of developers. By supporting smart contracts written in languages such as Rust, C, and C++, Stylus expands the scope of possible applications, unlocking untapped use cases for end users and making Arbitrum a more versatile and attractive platform for developers. This capability represents a tangible competitive advantage for Arbitrum, and it is crucial that this differentiator is prominently showcased via its use in high-value developments.
The "Stylus Sprint" will provide financial incentives to encourage the development of high-quality projects. This support aims to attract top-tier developers from within the Arbitrum, EVM, and Rust communities, targeting teams new to Arbitrum that can only realize their ideas with Stylus, existing Arbitrum projects with complex computation for migration, and developers from other WASM ecosystems (e.g., Solana Rust Devs), fostering a diverse range of applications. By demonstrating the practical benefits and performance enhancements Stylus offers, the program seeks to establish a robust portfolio of Stylus-based contracts, helping solidify Arbitrum's position as a leader in the rollup race. The Sprint will also empower developers to create building blocks for a wide variety of projects building on Arbitrum such as reference contracts, Rust libraries, testing/development frameworks, and SDK contributions. Reference tooling and code are crucial to any development-based ecosystem’s staying power.
The Stylus Sprint aims to create a ripple effect of innovation and adoption, ultimately contributing to a more dynamic and capable Arbitrum ecosystem for developers, users, and token holders.
As mentioned, the Stylus Sprint program invites teams to submit applications either in the open-applications track or in response to lightweight Request for Proposals (RFPs, listed below) that target specific verticals, published by the Evaluation Committee. The below lists are non-exhaustive and serve as inspiration. Participants in the open track will have ample opportunity for innovation and creativity. All requests for both the open-application track and RFPs must be denominated in ARB.
For the open-application track, non-exhaustive categories may include:
For the RFP track, the committee is excited to hear proposals from teams working on developing:
The application approach described above for both open applications and RFPs ensures a structured yet flexible framework for harnessing the potential of Stylus technology. Not all funds will necessarily be deployed, and even if an RFP has quotes, there is no guarantee that any will be deemed satisfactory and chosen. The above categories are non-exhaustive and meant to be viewed as examples. If this proposal passes, the Evaluation Committee will cement an official list before applications open.
Teams are required to submit a detailed application outlining their plans for utilizing the funding. These applications will be thoroughly reviewed by the Evaluation Committee, which will also approve them. Upon approval, milestone payments will be systematically allocated to the teams based on their progress. If no satisfactory applications are received, as decided at the discretion of the Evaluation Committee, 0 ARB will be spent, and all unspent funds will be returned to DAO.
To effectively administer the program, it is essential to establish an Evaluation Committee composed of Stylus experts. Given the innovative nature and specific technical nuances of Stylus, we propose that the committee be primarily made up of members from Offchain Labs and OpenZeppelin, the two entities responsible for developing Stylus thus far. @SEEDGov and @JoJo bring extensive experience in DAO grant programs and will help round out the committee with additional perspective/backgrounds.
Evaluation Committee
The committee will work collaboratively to provide feedback and access applications. In the event of a equally split opinion, the Arbitrum Foundation will serve as the tie-breaking opinion.
Committee Advisors
The Committee Advisors’ main role will be facilitating discourse with the DAO, applicants, and general project management in order to reduce the burden on the Evaluation Committee where possible. Members of the Evaluation Committee and Committee Advisors will not be eligible to apply to the program in any capacity due to conflicts of interest.
Judges and Advisors will serve for approximately 14.5 months, with the Stylus Sprint expected to begin in November 2024 and conclude mid-January 2026. In the first 2 weeks, they will work together to refine the application and evaluation criteria as well as specifics around the RFPs to kickstart the process. The following 8 weeks will be used to review proposals as they come in. Subsequent 2 weeks will be taken to officially accept and reject projects. Both accepted and rejected applications will receive public rationale from the Evaluation Committee as to why the choice was made so that the DAO may have a view into the decisions and the teams can adjust accordingly in the future. In the next 12 months, contributors will greenlight milestone payments as projects achieve their goals and periodically give guidance to participants. Advisors will report back to the DAO through monthly updates over the lifespan of the program. These updates will be posted to a dedicated Stylus Sprint forum channel.
Applications for the program will be rigorously evaluated based on a set of clearly defined criteria. To ensure a thorough assessment, grantees are encouraged to provide detailed information about their plans and objectives for the grant. Each application should include:
Judges and advisors may also consider other relevant metrics tailored to the specifics of each application. These could include innovation potential, the experience of the team, market readiness, user engagement strategies, or any other factors deemed relevant.
The recommendations above are designed to ensure that the selected projects are coming to the committee with a high-quality plan and to ensure that the application ideas are not only viable, but also poised to make significant contributions to the Arbitrum ecosystem. By adhering to this application structure, the evaluation process aims to foster transparency, fairness, and alignment with the strategic objectives of the Arbitrum network. The judges and advisors will work together to create the application and evaluation criteria.
Questbook will be utilized for hosting the Stylus Sprint, accepting/rejecting applications, and giving public reasoning for the choice.
While we strongly believe each application will be unique and should therefore be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, a baseline framework and evaluation criteria are outlined below to give teams a feel for what to keep in mind when applying and building.
Overall, the Evaluation Committee will be on the lookout for, and prioritize evaluating applications, that:
Note that applications may be rejected for a variety of reasons as there are a limited number of resources to allocate to a near-infinite pool of great ideas/applicants that can emerge. Out of scope are projects that are already being funded by the ArbitrumDAO, Offchain Labs, or the Arbitrum Foundation, or are otherwise nearing completion by the time this program’s evaluation period ends. Examples of this include the development of the Stylus Rust SDK that is already being scoped out and developed by Offchain Labs.
The Stylus Sprint specific MSS multi-sig will be created and allocated 5M ARB for the Stylus Sprint Program, 300K ARB for payments to judges, and 30k ARB for payment to Questbook. Funds will be sent to an MSS-secured multisig.
Entropy Advisors will function in the “approver” role working with the MSS and the Arbitrum Foundation to process payments to winning applicants once KYC has been completed.
Teams will apply for their appropriate levels of funding. Suggested levels in ARB are 1M, 750K 500K, 250K, 100K, or 50K. If teams want a different amount of funding, they must specify why in their application. These funding levels have been set to streamline the review process. However, teams are encouraged to request specific amounts of funding best suited to their needs. Teams will have 1 year to deploy their project and meet their 2 post-deployment milestones. There is no maximum request amount, but requests over 500k that are deemed quality, have a likelihood of being sent to the DAO instead of included in the program depending on the total ARB requested in the program and quality of the applications. All requests for both the open-application track and RFPs must be denominated in ARB.
Unallocated funds will be returned to the DAO treasury after all applications have been reviewed and grant sizes have been determined. An additional dispersal to the DAO could occur if projects don’t manage to hit their goals within the 1-year timeline and if the budget has remaining ARB. There is absolutely no need to allocate all funds, and it will only be done if more than 5M in exemplary proposals are received during the 8-week application cycle.
Funding will be distributed based on achieving certain development milestones. The number of checkpoints, percentage of funds unlocked, and criteria for each will be proposed by the applicant. This is to grant additional flexibility as a one size fits all milestone structure is not the best approach given the wide-range of potential applicants and the volatile nature of ARB requests. While the milestone structure is flexible, the evaluation committee will prioritize applicants that backload payment distribution over those that request high percentages upfront.
The below milestone structure is recommended; however, it is not required:
All projects will be required to use milestones in order to ensure progress is being made before funds are fully allocated. For RFPs, custom milestone payments can be included in the quotes provided by service providers. Approved projects will submit requests as they reach milestones. The judges, with help from their advisors, will be responsible for ensuring validity and greenlighting payment to be sent as milestones are hit, in accordance with the Evaluation Criteria mentioned above.
The evaluation committee will have the autonomy and authority to expel projects from the program at any point in their life cycle and stop all future milestone payments.
The program will begin on the Monday following the onchain proposal’s passing. The first 2 weeks will be used to refine and post the RFPs, followed by open applications for 8 weeks, then a 2-week application review process. Feedback between the Evaluation Committee and applicants will be conducted on an ongoing/continuous basis till the end of the Review Period (Jan 20th). Applicants will receive feedback on a first come, first serve basis. Those that apply early will likely have an edge over late applicants who will have less opportunities for feedback. KYC with the Arbitrum Foundation will begin after the review period and first milestone payments may be allocated upon completion. The MSS chairs, Arbitrum Foundation, and Entropy Advisors will work closely to ensure a strict payment process.
5,330,000 ARB
TLDR of updates made on October 3rd:
The ArbOS 31 “Bianca” onchain vote on Tally has passed and executed, activating Arbitrum Stylus on Arbitrum One and Nova. To bolster the impact of this upgrade, this proposal presents the one-time "Stylus Sprint" program, aimed at encouraging the early development of Stylus smart contracts and tooling by awarding up to 5,000,000 ARB to teams who build with Stylus. Applications will be open for 8 weeks with a 2 week review period and program length of 1 year. The Sprint will include a mix of open applications where teams are encouraged to be creative in their ideas as well as invitational/RFQs with strategically targeted objectives. The requested funding is intended to cover development costs, including hiring talent, training teams, adopting new tools, infrastructure expenses, and audits at the discretion of the recipient. This campaign's primary objectives are to engage new and existing Arbitrum protocol teams with this novel technology, showcase use cases only feasible with Stylus, and create foundational Stylus building blocks for widespread use.
Interested teams must apply through a designated application process and grant recipients will be selected by an Evaluation Committee based on specific criteria detailed in this proposal. As the program progresses, participating teams will receive staged funding as they reach predefined and agreed-upon milestones, culminating in the deployment and long-term upkeep of their projects.
Today, the Stylus ecosystem is promising but very nascent. At launch, the developer experience will be in its early stages, offering an opportunity for pioneers to shape and refine Stylus as they build with it. Teams building with Stylus today are early adopters of the technology and are pushing the limits of what is possible on the EVM.
The "Stylus Sprint" is strategically designed to accelerate the adoption of Stylus and help drive visibility into Stylus’ transformative potential to the broader crypto community. Launched in conjunction with Bianca passing, this program aims to strengthen the momentum of the upgrade, drawing significant adoption and attention to the technological advancements it introduces.
Stylus represents a pivotal innovation for the entire Ethereum ecosystem, setting Arbitrum apart from other platforms by enabling the use of multiple programming languages for smart contracts. This not only enhances the efficiency and capabilities of Arbitrum applications but also broadens the accessibility of Arbitrum’s ecosystem to a more diverse group of developers. By supporting smart contracts written in languages such as Rust, C, and C++, Stylus expands the scope of possible applications, unlocking untapped use cases for end users and making Arbitrum a more versatile and attractive platform for developers. This capability represents a tangible competitive advantage for Arbitrum, and it is crucial that this differentiator is prominently showcased via its use in high-value developments.
The "Stylus Sprint" will provide financial incentives to encourage the development of high-quality projects. This support aims to attract top-tier developers from within the Arbitrum, EVM, and Rust communities, targeting teams new to Arbitrum that can only realize their ideas with Stylus, existing Arbitrum projects with complex computation for migration, and developers from other WASM ecosystems (e.g., Solana Rust Devs), fostering a diverse range of applications. By demonstrating the practical benefits and performance enhancements Stylus offers, the program seeks to establish a robust portfolio of Stylus-based contracts, helping solidify Arbitrum's position as a leader in the rollup race. The Sprint will also empower developers to create building blocks for a wide variety of projects building on Arbitrum such as reference contracts, Rust libraries, testing/development frameworks, and SDK contributions. Reference tooling and code are crucial to any development-based ecosystem’s staying power.
The Stylus Sprint aims to create a ripple effect of innovation and adoption, ultimately contributing to a more dynamic and capable Arbitrum ecosystem for developers, users, and token holders.
As mentioned, the Stylus Sprint program invites teams to submit applications either in the open-applications track or in response to lightweight Request for Proposals (RFPs, listed below) that target specific verticals, published by the Evaluation Committee. The below lists are non-exhaustive and serve as inspiration. Participants in the open track will have ample opportunity for innovation and creativity. All requests for both the open-application track and RFPs must be denominated in ARB.
For the open-application track, non-exhaustive categories may include:
For the RFP track, the committee is excited to hear proposals from teams working on developing:
The application approach described above for both open applications and RFPs ensures a structured yet flexible framework for harnessing the potential of Stylus technology. Not all funds will necessarily be deployed, and even if an RFP has quotes, there is no guarantee that any will be deemed satisfactory and chosen. The above categories are non-exhaustive and meant to be viewed as examples. If this proposal passes, the Evaluation Committee will cement an official list before applications open.
Teams are required to submit a detailed application outlining their plans for utilizing the funding. These applications will be thoroughly reviewed by the Evaluation Committee, which will also approve them. Upon approval, milestone payments will be systematically allocated to the teams based on their progress. If no satisfactory applications are received, as decided at the discretion of the Evaluation Committee, 0 ARB will be spent, and all unspent funds will be returned to DAO.
To effectively administer the program, it is essential to establish an Evaluation Committee composed of Stylus experts. Given the innovative nature and specific technical nuances of Stylus, we propose that the committee be primarily made up of members from Offchain Labs and OpenZeppelin, the two entities responsible for developing Stylus thus far. @SEEDGov and @JoJo bring extensive experience in DAO grant programs and will help round out the committee with additional perspective/backgrounds.
Evaluation Committee
The committee will work collaboratively to provide feedback and access applications. In the event of a equally split opinion, the Arbitrum Foundation will serve as the tie-breaking opinion.
Committee Advisors
The Committee Advisors’ main role will be facilitating discourse with the DAO, applicants, and general project management in order to reduce the burden on the Evaluation Committee where possible. Members of the Evaluation Committee and Committee Advisors will not be eligible to apply to the program in any capacity due to conflicts of interest.
Judges and Advisors will serve for approximately 14.5 months, with the Stylus Sprint expected to begin in November 2024 and conclude mid-January 2026. In the first 2 weeks, they will work together to refine the application and evaluation criteria as well as specifics around the RFPs to kickstart the process. The following 8 weeks will be used to review proposals as they come in. Subsequent 2 weeks will be taken to officially accept and reject projects. Both accepted and rejected applications will receive public rationale from the Evaluation Committee as to why the choice was made so that the DAO may have a view into the decisions and the teams can adjust accordingly in the future. In the next 12 months, contributors will greenlight milestone payments as projects achieve their goals and periodically give guidance to participants. Advisors will report back to the DAO through monthly updates over the lifespan of the program. These updates will be posted to a dedicated Stylus Sprint forum channel.
Applications for the program will be rigorously evaluated based on a set of clearly defined criteria. To ensure a thorough assessment, grantees are encouraged to provide detailed information about their plans and objectives for the grant. Each application should include:
Judges and advisors may also consider other relevant metrics tailored to the specifics of each application. These could include innovation potential, the experience of the team, market readiness, user engagement strategies, or any other factors deemed relevant.
The recommendations above are designed to ensure that the selected projects are coming to the committee with a high-quality plan and to ensure that the application ideas are not only viable, but also poised to make significant contributions to the Arbitrum ecosystem. By adhering to this application structure, the evaluation process aims to foster transparency, fairness, and alignment with the strategic objectives of the Arbitrum network. The judges and advisors will work together to create the application and evaluation criteria.
Questbook will be utilized for hosting the Stylus Sprint, accepting/rejecting applications, and giving public reasoning for the choice.
While we strongly believe each application will be unique and should therefore be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, a baseline framework and evaluation criteria are outlined below to give teams a feel for what to keep in mind when applying and building.
Overall, the Evaluation Committee will be on the lookout for, and prioritize evaluating applications, that:
Note that applications may be rejected for a variety of reasons as there are a limited number of resources to allocate to a near-infinite pool of great ideas/applicants that can emerge. Out of scope are projects that are already being funded by the ArbitrumDAO, Offchain Labs, or the Arbitrum Foundation, or are otherwise nearing completion by the time this program’s evaluation period ends. Examples of this include the development of the Stylus Rust SDK that is already being scoped out and developed by Offchain Labs.
The Stylus Sprint specific MSS multi-sig will be created and allocated 5M ARB for the Stylus Sprint Program, 300K ARB for payments to judges, and 30k ARB for payment to Questbook. Funds will be sent to an MSS-secured multisig.
Entropy Advisors will function in the “approver” role working with the MSS and the Arbitrum Foundation to process payments to winning applicants once KYC has been completed.
Teams will apply for their appropriate levels of funding. Suggested levels in ARB are 1M, 750K 500K, 250K, 100K, or 50K. If teams want a different amount of funding, they must specify why in their application. These funding levels have been set to streamline the review process. However, teams are encouraged to request specific amounts of funding best suited to their needs. Teams will have 1 year to deploy their project and meet their 2 post-deployment milestones. There is no maximum request amount, but requests over 500k that are deemed quality, have a likelihood of being sent to the DAO instead of included in the program depending on the total ARB requested in the program and quality of the applications. All requests for both the open-application track and RFPs must be denominated in ARB.
Unallocated funds will be returned to the DAO treasury after all applications have been reviewed and grant sizes have been determined. An additional dispersal to the DAO could occur if projects don’t manage to hit their goals within the 1-year timeline and if the budget has remaining ARB. There is absolutely no need to allocate all funds, and it will only be done if more than 5M in exemplary proposals are received during the 8-week application cycle.
Funding will be distributed based on achieving certain development milestones. The number of checkpoints, percentage of funds unlocked, and criteria for each will be proposed by the applicant. This is to grant additional flexibility as a one size fits all milestone structure is not the best approach given the wide-range of potential applicants and the volatile nature of ARB requests. While the milestone structure is flexible, the evaluation committee will prioritize applicants that backload payment distribution over those that request high percentages upfront.
The below milestone structure is recommended; however, it is not required:
All projects will be required to use milestones in order to ensure progress is being made before funds are fully allocated. For RFPs, custom milestone payments can be included in the quotes provided by service providers. Approved projects will submit requests as they reach milestones. The judges, with help from their advisors, will be responsible for ensuring validity and greenlighting payment to be sent as milestones are hit, in accordance with the Evaluation Criteria mentioned above.
The evaluation committee will have the autonomy and authority to expel projects from the program at any point in their life cycle and stop all future milestone payments.
The program will begin on the Monday following the onchain proposal’s passing. The first 2 weeks will be used to refine and post the RFPs, followed by open applications for 8 weeks, then a 2-week application review process. Feedback between the Evaluation Committee and applicants will be conducted on an ongoing/continuous basis till the end of the Review Period (Jan 20th). Applicants will receive feedback on a first come, first serve basis. Those that apply early will likely have an edge over late applicants who will have less opportunities for feedback. KYC with the Arbitrum Foundation will begin after the review period and first milestone payments may be allocated upon completion. The MSS chairs, Arbitrum Foundation, and Entropy Advisors will work closely to ensure a strict payment process.
5,330,000 ARB
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/75?u=winverse
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/74
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/73?u=tane
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-45: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-45
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/75?u=winverse
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/74
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/73?u=tane
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-45: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-45
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-45: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-45
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/69?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/68?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/67?u=maxlomu
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/33?u=griff
https://app.safe.global/apps/open?safe=arb1:0x5162728cc4D7D111400056925A1b3DF82308bEE0&appUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fsnapshot.org
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/66?u=mcfly
this will help make Stylus a more popular choice for developers. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/65?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/48?u=kuiclub
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/21?u=duokongcrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/23
Stylus is of crucial importance in Arbitrum Ecology. and the development should be promoted and enhanced.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/62?u=todayindefi
Abstain since if the proposal passes I will help the committee. But, if I weren't involved, I would have just supported the program as I did in snapshot.
same as snapshot rationle-https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/bobbay-delegate-communication-thread/20997/32
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/24?u=ezr3al
Stylus sprint? Incentives detox? Make it make sense. The DAO needs a coherent spending strategy.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/5
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/58?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/57?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/74?u=larva
This is a needed objective for the Arbitrum DAO
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/34
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-45: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-45
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/69?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/68?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/67?u=maxlomu
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/33?u=griff
https://app.safe.global/apps/open?safe=arb1:0x5162728cc4D7D111400056925A1b3DF82308bEE0&appUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fsnapshot.org
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/66?u=mcfly
this will help make Stylus a more popular choice for developers. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/65?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/48?u=kuiclub
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/21?u=duokongcrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/23
Stylus is of crucial importance in Arbitrum Ecology. and the development should be promoted and enhanced.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/62?u=todayindefi
Abstain since if the proposal passes I will help the committee. But, if I weren't involved, I would have just supported the program as I did in snapshot.
same as snapshot rationle-https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/bobbay-delegate-communication-thread/20997/32
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/24?u=ezr3al
Stylus sprint? Incentives detox? Make it make sense. The DAO needs a coherent spending strategy.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/5
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/58?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/57?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/74?u=larva
This is a needed objective for the Arbitrum DAO
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/34
The LevelK Delegation has cast its onchain vote FOR this proposal. Here is our reasoning: Arbitrum is a leader in L2 technology and Stylus is part of this advantage. We support this initiative because it promotes not only Stylus but Arbitrum as a place for builders. We also support that overall improvement and advancement of Stylus itself.
The LevelK Delegation has cast its onchain vote FOR this proposal. Here is our reasoning: Arbitrum is a leader in L2 technology and Stylus is part of this advantage. We support this initiative because it promotes not only Stylus but Arbitrum as a place for builders. We also support that overall improvement and advancement of Stylus itself.
Stylus is something that has never been seen in the web3 world before, and it deserves everyone's attention. Moreover, we should do our best to reduce the threshold of web3. This is not just for applications, but also for developers.
Stylus is something that has never been seen in the web3 world before, and it deserves everyone's attention. Moreover, we should do our best to reduce the threshold of web3. This is not just for applications, but also for developers.
I’m all for the Stylus Sprint program—this is a smart move for Arbitrum! One of the things that stands out to me is the focus on Rust, which has been gaining serious traction in the developer community. Rust is known for its performance and safety, and more devs are picking it up. Bringing Rust into the fold with Stylus makes Arbitrum more appealing to a broader group of developers.
Is a big step toward attracting top-tier developers who may not have considered Arbitrum before. The multi-language support through Stylus really sets Arbitrum apart, and it’s exciting to see how this could lead to innovative new projects.
I’m all for the Stylus Sprint program—this is a smart move for Arbitrum! One of the things that stands out to me is the focus on Rust, which has been gaining serious traction in the developer community. Rust is known for its performance and safety, and more devs are picking it up. Bringing Rust into the fold with Stylus makes Arbitrum more appealing to a broader group of developers.
Is a big step toward attracting top-tier developers who may not have considered Arbitrum before. The multi-language support through Stylus really sets Arbitrum apart, and it’s exciting to see how this could lead to innovative new projects.
Overall, this is a fantastic opportunity for Arbitrum to stay ahead in the competitive rollup space. By encouraging early development with Rust, the Stylus Sprint is sure to drive growth and adoption, bringing in fresh ideas and talent to the ecosystem. I’m excited to see where this goes!
I’m all for the Stylus Sprint program—this is a smart move for Arbitrum! One of the things that stands out to me is the focus on Rust, which has been gaining serious traction in the developer community. Rust is known for its performance and safety, and more devs are picking it up. Bringing Rust into the fold with Stylus makes Arbitrum more appealing to a broader group of developers.
Is a big step toward attracting top-tier developers who may not have considered Arbitrum before. The multi-language support through Stylus really sets Arbitrum apart, and it’s exciting to see how this could lead to innovative new projects.
I’m all for the Stylus Sprint program—this is a smart move for Arbitrum! One of the things that stands out to me is the focus on Rust, which has been gaining serious traction in the developer community. Rust is known for its performance and safety, and more devs are picking it up. Bringing Rust into the fold with Stylus makes Arbitrum more appealing to a broader group of developers.
Is a big step toward attracting top-tier developers who may not have considered Arbitrum before. The multi-language support through Stylus really sets Arbitrum apart, and it’s exciting to see how this could lead to innovative new projects.
Overall, this is a fantastic opportunity for Arbitrum to stay ahead in the competitive rollup space. By encouraging early development with Rust, the Stylus Sprint is sure to drive growth and adoption, bringing in fresh ideas and talent to the ecosystem. I’m excited to see where this goes!
I support this proposal as Stylus is at the frontier of its development, enabling smart contract creation using Rust and C++. This multi-language support will attract a broader range of developers, driving innovation and expanding Arbitrum’s ecosystem.
The Treasure ARC will be voting FOR this proposal. We believe that supporting builders fosters a culture of creativity and innovation, introducing fresh ideas to the Arbitrum ecosystem. By incentivizing the use of Stylus, we can ignite a surge of new concepts that have yet to be explored.
A diverse committee is essential for ensuring a fair and balanced selection process for funding recipients. Having members with both product focus and technical expertise will help in selecting high-quality builders capable of making a significant impact on Arbitrum.
The Treasure ARC will be voting FOR this proposal. We believe that supporting builders fosters a culture of creativity and innovation, introducing fresh ideas to the Arbitrum ecosystem. By incentivizing the use of Stylus, we can ignite a surge of new concepts that have yet to be explored.
A diverse committee is essential for ensuring a fair and balanced selection process for funding recipients. Having members with both product focus and technical expertise will help in selecting high-quality builders capable of making a significant impact on Arbitrum.
This proposal has the potential to equip builders with the resources they need, fuel their passion for developing on Arbitrum, and generate a positive cycle of value creation within the ecosystem.
Chiming in as an ecosystem developer that resources to support community Stylus development along with incentives to learn what it is have felt lacking. So this seems really well timed!
I support this proposal as Stylus is at the frontier of its development, enabling smart contract creation using Rust and C++. This multi-language support will attract a broader range of developers, driving innovation and expanding Arbitrum’s ecosystem.
The Treasure ARC will be voting FOR this proposal. We believe that supporting builders fosters a culture of creativity and innovation, introducing fresh ideas to the Arbitrum ecosystem. By incentivizing the use of Stylus, we can ignite a surge of new concepts that have yet to be explored.
A diverse committee is essential for ensuring a fair and balanced selection process for funding recipients. Having members with both product focus and technical expertise will help in selecting high-quality builders capable of making a significant impact on Arbitrum.
The Treasure ARC will be voting FOR this proposal. We believe that supporting builders fosters a culture of creativity and innovation, introducing fresh ideas to the Arbitrum ecosystem. By incentivizing the use of Stylus, we can ignite a surge of new concepts that have yet to be explored.
A diverse committee is essential for ensuring a fair and balanced selection process for funding recipients. Having members with both product focus and technical expertise will help in selecting high-quality builders capable of making a significant impact on Arbitrum.
This proposal has the potential to equip builders with the resources they need, fuel their passion for developing on Arbitrum, and generate a positive cycle of value creation within the ecosystem.
Chiming in as an ecosystem developer that resources to support community Stylus development along with incentives to learn what it is have felt lacking. So this seems really well timed!
Great intitiative! Just a few questions
Great intitiative! Just a few questions
Here are a few suggestions: Clarify Sprint Goals and KPIs:While a lot of focus on our intititves or grants has been on grantee impact and KPIs, it would be valuable to also define clear goals and KPIs for the Sprint itself ( from the way its run e.g., operational goals, decision-making processes, and the impact of those decisions). Having this clarity will help guide the sprint toward success.
Utilize Existing Tools:To avoid redundancy of funding another impact tool, consider leveraging tools that exists to measure impact like Open Source Observer, which has already been funded by the DAO. Open Source Observer https://www.opensource.observer/
Align Tracks with Direct DAO Impact: When planning the sprint tracks, it could be helpful to map out how each track directly supports the DAO’s objectives. To ensure that development efforts stay aligned with the broader vision and generate meaningful impact.
Engage the Community in Decision Criteria: Sharing the evaluation rubric with the community for feedback could be a great way to ensure alignment between the sprint goals and the criteria used to assess applicants.
Voting has ended!
===============
[Fund the Stylus Sprint](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4/proposal/2433609992754956121)
### Final Votes
| **Category** | **Result** | **Details** |
|----------------------|------------------|-----------------------------|
| **Quorum reached** | ✅ | 175.60M of 119.31M |
| **Majority Support** | ✅ | |
| **For** | | 154.92M (86.4%) |
| **Against** | | 3.78M (2.1%) |
| **Abstain** | | 20.68M (11.5%) |
* * *
I am a bot. Questions? Contact [email protected]
The results are in for the Fund the Stylus Sprint on-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1404
P.S. I am a human :crazy_face:
Onchain voting for this proposal is ending within 24 hours:
[Vote on Tally: Fund the Stylus Sprint](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4/proposal/2433609992754956121)
* * *
I am a bot. Questions? Contact [email protected]
Great intitiative! Just a few questions
Great intitiative! Just a few questions
Here are a few suggestions: Clarify Sprint Goals and KPIs:While a lot of focus on our intititves or grants has been on grantee impact and KPIs, it would be valuable to also define clear goals and KPIs for the Sprint itself ( from the way its run e.g., operational goals, decision-making processes, and the impact of those decisions). Having this clarity will help guide the sprint toward success.
Utilize Existing Tools:To avoid redundancy of funding another impact tool, consider leveraging tools that exists to measure impact like Open Source Observer, which has already been funded by the DAO. Open Source Observer https://www.opensource.observer/
Align Tracks with Direct DAO Impact: When planning the sprint tracks, it could be helpful to map out how each track directly supports the DAO’s objectives. To ensure that development efforts stay aligned with the broader vision and generate meaningful impact.
Engage the Community in Decision Criteria: Sharing the evaluation rubric with the community for feedback could be a great way to ensure alignment between the sprint goals and the criteria used to assess applicants.
Voting has ended!
===============
[Fund the Stylus Sprint](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4/proposal/2433609992754956121)
### Final Votes
| **Category** | **Result** | **Details** |
|----------------------|------------------|-----------------------------|
| **Quorum reached** | ✅ | 175.60M of 119.31M |
| **Majority Support** | ✅ | |
| **For** | | 154.92M (86.4%) |
| **Against** | | 3.78M (2.1%) |
| **Abstain** | | 20.68M (11.5%) |
* * *
I am a bot. Questions? Contact [email protected]
The results are in for the Fund the Stylus Sprint on-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1404
P.S. I am a human :crazy_face:
Onchain voting for this proposal is ending within 24 hours:
[Vote on Tally: Fund the Stylus Sprint](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4/proposal/2433609992754956121)
* * *
I am a bot. Questions? Contact [email protected]
I'm in favor of funding Stylus-oriented initiatives as they align with the broader goal of driving developer engagement on Arbitrum, which is critical for long-term ecosystem growth. The proposal outlines a clear milestone-based structure, which is excellent for maintaining accountability.
However, I echo concerns about ensuring strong transparency reports, as mentioned by other delegates, to guarantee that progress remains aligned with the DAO’s goals and expectations. Additionally, clearer metrics for long-term sustainability should be prioritized.
I'm in favor of funding Stylus-oriented initiatives as they align with the broader goal of driving developer engagement on Arbitrum, which is critical for long-term ecosystem growth. The proposal outlines a clear milestone-based structure, which is excellent for maintaining accountability.
However, I echo concerns about ensuring strong transparency reports, as mentioned by other delegates, to guarantee that progress remains aligned with the DAO’s goals and expectations. Additionally, clearer metrics for long-term sustainability should be prioritized.
The results are in for the Fund the Stylus Sprint off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1367
The results are in for the Fund the Stylus Sprint off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1367
Voting has started for this proposal! Vote on Tally: Fund the Stylus Sprint
I am a bot. Questions? Contact [email protected]
Voting has started for this proposal! Vote on Tally: Fund the Stylus Sprint
I am a bot. Questions? Contact [email protected]
I believe this initiative is heading in the right direction.
Based on the recent roadmap posts from Arbitrum, I can see that this initiative aligns well with the needs of the ARB ecosystem, which I greatly appreciate.
As we discussed some time ago, from my perspective, it is crucial—given our current stage—that the DAO remains aligned with requests from OffChain Labs and the Foundation.
I believe this initiative is heading in the right direction.
Based on the recent roadmap posts from Arbitrum, I can see that this initiative aligns well with the needs of the ARB ecosystem, which I greatly appreciate.
As we discussed some time ago, from my perspective, it is crucial—given our current stage—that the DAO remains aligned with requests from OffChain Labs and the Foundation.
The concept of allowing people to submit applications either through the open-applications track or in response to specific Requests for Proposals published by the Evaluation Committee seems well thought out.
I also agree with the proposed structure for fund disbursement, the return of unused funds, and the waiver of payments when applicable.
Finally, I share the view that Arbitrum offers one of the best on-chain performances, and it makes sense to solidify its position as a leader in the rollup race through initiatives like this.
As Questbook we are in favour of this proposal as it aligns with our vision of domain based allocation. We envision to see this hosted on Questbook as it will be easy to receive, track, and evaluate applications and also manage payments from one platform, something we have already been doing so for the DDA Program thus far. Would love feedback from other delegates and community members on the same,
Thank you for the suggestion here @Pepperoni_Jo3, we look to support as many DAO programs as possible for efficient and transparent management of grants.
One suggestion would be to utilize Questbook for the Open Application track, as it has been positively received across the DAO. This could streamline operational administration and ensure continuity with other domain-focused grants programs.
As Questbook we are in favour of this proposal as it aligns with our vision of domain based allocation. We envision to see this hosted on Questbook as it will be easy to receive, track, and evaluate applications and also manage payments from one platform, something we have already been doing so for the DDA Program thus far. Would love feedback from other delegates and community members on the same,
Thank you for the suggestion here @Pepperoni_Jo3, we look to support as many DAO programs as possible for efficient and transparent management of grants.
One suggestion would be to utilize Questbook for the Open Application track, as it has been positively received across the DAO. This could streamline operational administration and ensure continuity with other domain-focused grants programs.
We support this proposal and find it to be a compelling initiative that effectively accelerates the adoption and development of Stylus technology within the Arbitrum ecosystem. The timing (coinciding with the Bianca upgrade) is strategic and effectively capitalizes on the existing momentum and visibility.
The proposal shows a clear and understandable path towards attracting developers from other WASM ecosystems and Rust communities, which would undoubtedly strengthen Arbitrum's current standing in this landscape.
We support this proposal and find it to be a compelling initiative that effectively accelerates the adoption and development of Stylus technology within the Arbitrum ecosystem. The timing (coinciding with the Bianca upgrade) is strategic and effectively capitalizes on the existing momentum and visibility.
The proposal shows a clear and understandable path towards attracting developers from other WASM ecosystems and Rust communities, which would undoubtedly strengthen Arbitrum's current standing in this landscape.
It also provides a very structured approach to application, evaluation, and funding distribution, which is a positive. The clear criteria and milestone-based funding model provide a solid framework for project development and accountability. Moreover, the flexible funding levels accommodate projects of varying scopes and ambitions, which is crucial for effectively nurturing the ecosystem.
The proposal could benefit from a stronger emphasis on long-term sustainability. While the focus on initial development is crucial, providing more guidance on how projects can sustain themselves beyond the funding period would likely strengthen the long-term impact of the initiative.
Additionally, defining clearer success metrics for the overall program would help in assessing its effectiveness and value to the Arbitrum ecosystem. This could include specific targets for adoption, user engagement, or economic impact.
By addressing these areas, the proposal could meaningfully enhance its potential for driving substantial and lasting growth.
I believe this initiative is heading in the right direction.
Based on the recent roadmap posts from Arbitrum, I can see that this initiative aligns well with the needs of the ARB ecosystem, which I greatly appreciate.
As we discussed some time ago, from my perspective, it is crucial—given our current stage—that the DAO remains aligned with requests from OffChain Labs and the Foundation.
I believe this initiative is heading in the right direction.
Based on the recent roadmap posts from Arbitrum, I can see that this initiative aligns well with the needs of the ARB ecosystem, which I greatly appreciate.
As we discussed some time ago, from my perspective, it is crucial—given our current stage—that the DAO remains aligned with requests from OffChain Labs and the Foundation.
The concept of allowing people to submit applications either through the open-applications track or in response to specific Requests for Proposals published by the Evaluation Committee seems well thought out.
I also agree with the proposed structure for fund disbursement, the return of unused funds, and the waiver of payments when applicable.
Finally, I share the view that Arbitrum offers one of the best on-chain performances, and it makes sense to solidify its position as a leader in the rollup race through initiatives like this.
As Questbook we are in favour of this proposal as it aligns with our vision of domain based allocation. We envision to see this hosted on Questbook as it will be easy to receive, track, and evaluate applications and also manage payments from one platform, something we have already been doing so for the DDA Program thus far. Would love feedback from other delegates and community members on the same,
Thank you for the suggestion here @Pepperoni_Jo3, we look to support as many DAO programs as possible for efficient and transparent management of grants.
One suggestion would be to utilize Questbook for the Open Application track, as it has been positively received across the DAO. This could streamline operational administration and ensure continuity with other domain-focused grants programs.
As Questbook we are in favour of this proposal as it aligns with our vision of domain based allocation. We envision to see this hosted on Questbook as it will be easy to receive, track, and evaluate applications and also manage payments from one platform, something we have already been doing so for the DDA Program thus far. Would love feedback from other delegates and community members on the same,
Thank you for the suggestion here @Pepperoni_Jo3, we look to support as many DAO programs as possible for efficient and transparent management of grants.
One suggestion would be to utilize Questbook for the Open Application track, as it has been positively received across the DAO. This could streamline operational administration and ensure continuity with other domain-focused grants programs.
We support this proposal and find it to be a compelling initiative that effectively accelerates the adoption and development of Stylus technology within the Arbitrum ecosystem. The timing (coinciding with the Bianca upgrade) is strategic and effectively capitalizes on the existing momentum and visibility.
The proposal shows a clear and understandable path towards attracting developers from other WASM ecosystems and Rust communities, which would undoubtedly strengthen Arbitrum's current standing in this landscape.
We support this proposal and find it to be a compelling initiative that effectively accelerates the adoption and development of Stylus technology within the Arbitrum ecosystem. The timing (coinciding with the Bianca upgrade) is strategic and effectively capitalizes on the existing momentum and visibility.
The proposal shows a clear and understandable path towards attracting developers from other WASM ecosystems and Rust communities, which would undoubtedly strengthen Arbitrum's current standing in this landscape.
It also provides a very structured approach to application, evaluation, and funding distribution, which is a positive. The clear criteria and milestone-based funding model provide a solid framework for project development and accountability. Moreover, the flexible funding levels accommodate projects of varying scopes and ambitions, which is crucial for effectively nurturing the ecosystem.
The proposal could benefit from a stronger emphasis on long-term sustainability. While the focus on initial development is crucial, providing more guidance on how projects can sustain themselves beyond the funding period would likely strengthen the long-term impact of the initiative.
Additionally, defining clearer success metrics for the overall program would help in assessing its effectiveness and value to the Arbitrum ecosystem. This could include specific targets for adoption, user engagement, or economic impact.
By addressing these areas, the proposal could meaningfully enhance its potential for driving substantial and lasting growth.
For Tally: I voted in favour of this proposal. Same reasoning as for Snapshot, which I also voted positively.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/49?u=olimpio
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Tally vote.
Considering that we are part of the proposed Evaluation Committee and have economic interests involved, we believe it is ethically correct to abstain from this vote.
We voted against this proposal, as the deliverables are unclear and costs high. While further technical development in the ecosystem is important, it should be done with clear deliverables and goals.
Voted FOR.
Supporting this proposal aligns with the DAOs commitment to innovation and responsible resource management. It not only propels the technological advancement of the Arbitrum network but also encourages active participation from the developer community. This move is poised to yield significant benefits for the ecosystem, making it a worthwhile investment.
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.
The concept of a Stylus Sprint will be a good way to introduce more developers to Stylus and Arbitrum. While we support the direction, we want to raise three points that we believe are important for the proposal's success.
The Evaluation Committee should be in constant communication with both the DAO and the wider community. On the DAO side, we’d like to be regularly updated on the program's progress, both in terms of the quantity and quality of applicants and on challenges the program might be facing at different times. In terms of community, we want to ensure that potential builders are fully aware of the Stylus Sprint, how they can get involved, where to go, who to talk with, etc.
The Stylus Sprint is essentially a targeted grants program, and as with other grants programs, we want to see rigorous documentation of all the relevant information, from the assessment rubric, all the way to the grants distributed and the milestones each project has. The reason we want to see this documentation -apart from oversight- is because we want to catalogue learnings so we can apply them in other similar programs in the future.
This goes hand-in-hand with the ‘frequent communication’ point mentioned above. It’s important that the Stylus Sprint is marketed far and wide to attract as many quality applications as possible. We want to avoid a situation where there’s only a small push around the beginning of the program, only to be followed by months of quietness. To that end, coordination should be made across the DAO, AF, and OCL to leverage all available communication channels.
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
We maintain the support made on Snapshot as below and acknowledge two concerns are appropriately addressed after the Snapshot. We believe Stylus is the key innovation that the Arbitrum ecosystem should push forward and are looking forward to the success of this program.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/28?u=tane
Vote: FOR
Type: Tally
Proposal link: Fund the Stylus Sprint
Commenting on Proposal Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/42
Previous Snapshot Commenting Rationale and comments: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/52?u=alexlumley
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
We're voting FOR the Stylus Sprint. It's a smart move to lure in fresh talent. The milestone-based funding will keep teams on their toes, and having Offchain Labs and OpenZeppelin experts on the evaluation committee is a major plus.
DAOplomats is voting FOR this proposal on Tally.
The Stylus sprint is a good initiative and we are happy to support its funding just as we did during the temp check.
Voted For: Onboarding builders is key to growing the Stylus and overall Arbitrum ecosystem. I think the program is designed well. Also, I believe that the fund (5M ARB) is enough to make a significant impact. I look forward to seeing the results of this program after some time. I would emphasize that the success of this pilot project will be defined by the quality of the projects/builders we onboard, so I wish good luck to all people involved in the projects. I believe they are a very strong team on the project.
For Tally: I voted in favour of this proposal. Same reasoning as for Snapshot, which I also voted positively.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/49?u=olimpio
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Tally vote.
Considering that we are part of the proposed Evaluation Committee and have economic interests involved, we believe it is ethically correct to abstain from this vote.
We voted against this proposal, as the deliverables are unclear and costs high. While further technical development in the ecosystem is important, it should be done with clear deliverables and goals.
Voted FOR.
Supporting this proposal aligns with the DAOs commitment to innovation and responsible resource management. It not only propels the technological advancement of the Arbitrum network but also encourages active participation from the developer community. This move is poised to yield significant benefits for the ecosystem, making it a worthwhile investment.
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.
The concept of a Stylus Sprint will be a good way to introduce more developers to Stylus and Arbitrum. While we support the direction, we want to raise three points that we believe are important for the proposal's success.
The Evaluation Committee should be in constant communication with both the DAO and the wider community. On the DAO side, we’d like to be regularly updated on the program's progress, both in terms of the quantity and quality of applicants and on challenges the program might be facing at different times. In terms of community, we want to ensure that potential builders are fully aware of the Stylus Sprint, how they can get involved, where to go, who to talk with, etc.
The Stylus Sprint is essentially a targeted grants program, and as with other grants programs, we want to see rigorous documentation of all the relevant information, from the assessment rubric, all the way to the grants distributed and the milestones each project has. The reason we want to see this documentation -apart from oversight- is because we want to catalogue learnings so we can apply them in other similar programs in the future.
This goes hand-in-hand with the ‘frequent communication’ point mentioned above. It’s important that the Stylus Sprint is marketed far and wide to attract as many quality applications as possible. We want to avoid a situation where there’s only a small push around the beginning of the program, only to be followed by months of quietness. To that end, coordination should be made across the DAO, AF, and OCL to leverage all available communication channels.
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
We maintain the support made on Snapshot as below and acknowledge two concerns are appropriately addressed after the Snapshot. We believe Stylus is the key innovation that the Arbitrum ecosystem should push forward and are looking forward to the success of this program.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/28?u=tane
Vote: FOR
Type: Tally
Proposal link: Fund the Stylus Sprint
Commenting on Proposal Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/42
Previous Snapshot Commenting Rationale and comments: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/52?u=alexlumley
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
We're voting FOR the Stylus Sprint. It's a smart move to lure in fresh talent. The milestone-based funding will keep teams on their toes, and having Offchain Labs and OpenZeppelin experts on the evaluation committee is a major plus.
DAOplomats is voting FOR this proposal on Tally.
The Stylus sprint is a good initiative and we are happy to support its funding just as we did during the temp check.
Voted For: Onboarding builders is key to growing the Stylus and overall Arbitrum ecosystem. I think the program is designed well. Also, I believe that the fund (5M ARB) is enough to make a significant impact. I look forward to seeing the results of this program after some time. I would emphasize that the success of this pilot project will be defined by the quality of the projects/builders we onboard, so I wish good luck to all people involved in the projects. I believe they are a very strong team on the project.
Vote: FOR
Type: Tally
Proposal link: Fund the Stylus Sprint
Commenting on Proposal Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/42
Previous Snapshot Commenting Rationale and comments: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/52?u=alexlumley
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
The “Stylus Sprint” program is an innovative step towards promoting the adoption of Arbitrum’s Stylus technology by incentivizing developers to create foundational tooling and applications. The program’s milestone-based funding model is well thought out, as it minimizes the risk of misallocated funds and encourages ongoing engagement and accountability from participating teams. I appreciate the transparency and expertise introduced through the Evaluation Committee, which includes members from Offchain Labs, OpenZeppelin, and experienced DAO participants like SEEDGov and JoJo. This adds significant credibility and assures that grants will be allocated based on impact potential and technical value.
However, as noted by several contributors, enhancing the program’s metrics for success and developing a more robust marketing strategy will be critical. Regular communication updates, both to the DAO and the broader community, will ensure that we are informed about progress and any challenges. Additionally, continuous marketing efforts across Arbitrum’s channels are essential for drawing a diverse and skilled pool of applicants.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal.
We believe this is a necessary step for Stylus adoption, as stated in our Snapshot rationale. The idea of an Evaluation Committee made up of Stylus experts is a strong approach, and tying funds to milestones will help ensure they are used effectively.
Rest our overall thoughts remain the same as expressed in our rationale during the Snapshot voting.
We’re voting FOR this proposal as we believe it’s a necessary step for Stylus adoption.
The idea of having an Evaluation Committee made up of Stylus experts is a good approach. We also agree with giving out funds based on milestones, as this will help prevent misuse.
To make this sprint really successful, we suggest running a strong marketing campaign to attract as many developers as possible. It would be great to showcase the Stylus Sprint at ArbiVerse during Art Museum Token2049 - this could help get more people to apply.
Overall, we think this program can really speed up the adoption of Stylus by creating a set of high-quality projects that show what it can do.
Hi, voted in support of the program. Positioning Arbitrum as the Place to Build requires tools and early adopters of Stylus, which will expand our addressable market for builders.
A marketing push is currently being coordinated with members of Arbitrum’s marketing community. This is a major focus of the program and will not be ignored. We appreciate so many astutely pointing out its importance, we agree.
Hi, voted in support of the program. Positioning Arbitrum as the Place to Build requires tools and early adopters of Stylus, which will expand our addressable market for builders.
A marketing push is currently being coordinated with members of Arbitrum’s marketing community. This is a major focus of the program and will not be ignored. We appreciate so many astutely pointing out its importance, we agree.
I'm surprised in the final proposal there were no internal KPIs for the program to determine if it was successful.
@Entropy - will you be the team accountable for this?
We're Voting FOR the proposal
We're Voting FOR the proposal
Feedback and nice to haves:
voting FOR the Stylus Sprint. Targeted investment that will boost adoption of Stylus and encourage protocols to be early adopters that showcase what Stylus can enable is a huge unlock.
I would also encourage the Stylus Sprint Committee to share their findings of gaming protocols leveraging Stylus and drawing it to the attention of GCP to assist in their evaluation for investment and grants. Protocols leveraging and committing to the Arbitrum tech stack and definitely more committed to building and staying in Arbitrum
I voted FOR on Tally. The reasoning remains the same.
Excited to be part of this and to contribute if it passes! And for this reason:
Since I was contacted to be part of the program and help the committee, I decided to abstain from the Tally voting compared to the “for” I gave in snapshot. Still think that obviously this is a great proposal for which I would have voted in favour otherwise.
voting For the current onchain proposal because this will help make Stylus a more popular choice for developers.
I voted FOR this proposal on Tally for the reasons outlined here.
I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage. Stylus is one of Arbitrum’s key competitive advantages, and I think it’s appropriate for the DAO to play a direct role in driving adoption. I agree with the focus on developer tooling and infra as the key to fully unlocking the potential of Stylus, and think 5M ARB is a reasonable place to start in terms of program sizing.
I voted FOR this proposal on Tally for the reasons outlined here.
I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage. Stylus is one of Arbitrum’s key competitive advantages, and I think it’s appropriate for the DAO to play a direct role in driving adoption. I agree with the focus on developer tooling and infra as the key to fully unlocking the potential of Stylus, and think 5M ARB is a reasonable place to start in terms of program sizing.
I am voting FOR this proposal on Tally.
As I stated when expressing my vote during the temp-check stage, I strongly support this proposal and the allocation of DAO funds to incentivize the development of Stylus smart contracts.
I am voting FOR this proposal on Tally.
As I stated when expressing my vote during the temp-check stage, I strongly support this proposal and the allocation of DAO funds to incentivize the development of Stylus smart contracts.
Additional Evaluation Committee Member: @SEEDGov and @JoJo have agreed to join the evaluation committee. They bring extensive experience in DAO grant programs and will help round out the committee with additional perspectives/backgrounds. The evaluation committee will therefore be made of 7 members, with several individuals contributing to help manage bandwidth concerns.
I’m also in favor of including members with experience in Grant Programs, and I personally know @SEEDGov and @JoJo —both are more than qualified to serve on the committee, and I believe they will perform their duties excellently.
However, I'm not entirely convinced of the need for the committee to consist of seven members. If everyone is going to vote on everything, they'll have different perspectives, which could cause delays in coordination. Additionally, I don't see a well-justified reason for having such a large committee. Is my understanding that there is no certainty about the expected number of applications.
An additional member of the evaluation committee will be added to the program. Specifically, we will be looking to add a member with existing experience in the DAO’s grants programs.
One of the technical positions could have been removed and replaced with someone experienced in grant programs if that was the intention.
The evaluation committee will therefore be made of 7 members, with several individuals contributing to help manage bandwidth concerns.
On the other hand, if there is a concern regarding the bandwidth of the committee members, it is not sufficiently justified in the proposal to expand the committee without much discussion on the matter (at least publicly). How many applications are you expecting? What tasks and weekly hours will be required of the committee members?
Marketing Plan: Properly marketing the Stylus Sprint is also of utmost importance. Existing Arbitrum marketing teams have already agreed to help promote the program in the following manner:
Create a blog.arbitrum.io post
Link posts on arbitrum.io/stylus
Place advert on banners across Arbiscan and other Arbitrum URLs
Amplify on official Arbitrum socials accounts + create specific assets
This is fantastic, thank you for including it!
Many thanks for leading and driving this proposal, which I believe is highly relevant for the future of Arbitrum. The questioned modifications are not enough reason for me to vote against it, so my support remains as it was during the temp-check stage.
However, I would like to reiterate my previous comments on the following matter:
One of the most difficult things to manage is oversight of the development process. I recommend having very clear rules regarding deadlines, milestone completion, potential reports (as others have suggested), and the consequences of failing to meet them. The LTIPP and B.STIP programs were too lenient with non-compliance, as there were no clear control roles or consequences.
Given that you decided to be flexible with the structure of the milestones, which I believe makes sense, I reiterate my recommendation that, in light of flexible structures tailored to the applicants, there should be severe consequences for non-compliance.
Missed this vote unfortunately, but would have Voted FOR :(
The operational costs are very low and the encouragement for teams to start testing / using Stylus is a great opportunity.
Missed this vote unfortunately, but would have Voted FOR :(
The operational costs are very low and the encouragement for teams to start testing / using Stylus is a great opportunity.
Suggestion: we should work with marketing resources from the foundation / OCL to really capture the accomplishments of this initiative so that it is a splash vs a small drop of attention - the tech needs more eyes on it :)
Vote: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> Fund the Stylus Sprint
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/20
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
We voted For this proposal since it allows Arbitrum to double-down on factors that enable the L2 to differentiate itself from its peers. The flexibility provisioned by Stylus allows for builders from different ecosystems to consider developing on Arbitrum, taking advantage of the existing network effects surrounding liquidity and applications. The Entropy team has addressed concerns around tracking and KPIs, which is in our eyes the number one concern with these grant programs. Long-term continuation and awareness of the program are the following concerns. It’s good to see that marketing is not overlooked. The beauty of Stylus is that outreach to developers not just in the blockchain space but also in other areas can yield strong traction for Arbitrum. We’d like to see a concerted effort around attaining and thereafter retaining talent that’s drawn from this program. The scope for who is targeted during outreach can be wider than other grant programs as well. As for a RPGF initiative for sustaining talent, this can be addressed in a follow up proposal—but the team should begin outlining this structure over the next couple of months. Ecosystems like Solana have increased their liquidity, base-level tech, and ecosystem vibrancy over the past year. Builders truly need an incentive and a roadmap to continue building in a particular ecosystem. If Arbitrum isn’t able to provide that kind of support, the builders will simply journey to where the incentives are compelling.
Voted in favour to this proposal. Funding this initiative also ensures that developers/teams have the resources needed to deliver, benefiting both the technical community, users and ecosystem in the long run
Voting for. I reiterate the remarks that I previously made on the forum. This proposal will certainly attract new developers in the ecosystem, which is a key element for the DAO.
I'm reaffirming my vote from the temp-check and voting FOR on Tally. As I mentioned earlier, this program has the right incentives to enhance the launch and adoption of Stylus. I also appreciate the recent additions to the proposal, including the use of MSS as a multisig and the inclusion of SEEDGov and Jojo as committee members, which will bring diverse perspectives to the table.
Thank you for everyone's patience as our team made updates to the Stylus Sprint. We are excited to be moving this forward to Tally on Monday, October 7th so that the vote begins Thursday, October 10th. Below is a summary of changes made to the proposal based on delegate feedback:
The proposal has now passed with over 97% in favor of moving forward with the Stylus Sprint! Thank you all for the well-thought-out feedback and support for the proposal. We will be pushing the timeline back 1-2 weeks before moving to Tally to address some very valid feedback around necessary, albeit minor, changes to the proposal. Changes that will likely be made include:
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 are 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 are voting FOR the proposal.
Stylus is already a huge differentiator between Arbitrum and other L2s and will potentially enable thousands of developers to build on/for Arbitrum without having to know solidity. Creating and funding a Stylus Sprint is a great opportunity to build on the momentum of Stylus’ launch and offer support to builders looking to come to Arbitrum.
Having said that, some points should be discussed before the proposal is submitted for an on-chain vote.
For example, we need clarifications on the current committee setup and compensation. While we are not against committee members getting paid and not waiving their compensation, we’re curious why they are getting paid for 15 months (60 weeks) when the work outlined is spread over 12 weeks. What are the expectations from a time commitment and resources perspective for the remaining 48 weeks that justify a 5,000 ARB monthly compensation for the entire sprint duration?
Additionally, since 2 of the committee members are from OpenZeppelin, does that mean that OpenZeppelin will be excluded from participating in the sprint? If so, is it good for the program to have one of the most competent teams excluded?
Last but not least, we’re not convinced about the decision to award the grantees using ARB instead of stables, especially when the grants are to be made in milestones that might span up to a year and the grant is probably supposed to cover development costs. We are aware of the challenges that come with converting ARB to stables, and we understand that having awards in ARB is meant to create alignment but it’s worth discussing it more before the onchain vote since:
Overall, we’re supportive of the direction, but we want to address the aforementioned points before voting in favor of the proposal onchain.
I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage. Stylus is one of Arbitrum's key competitive advantages, and I think it's appropriate for the DAO to play a direct role in driving adoption. I agree with the focus on developer tooling and infra as the key to fully unlocking the potential of Stylus, and think 5M ARB is a reasonable place to start in terms of program sizing.
I’m in favor, but I do have a few questions:
Details on the evaluation criteria:
Funds distribution and milestone setup:
Transparency of the application process:
Flexibility in budget and funds usage:
Ongoing support and oversight:
Vote: FOR
Type: Tally
Proposal link: Fund the Stylus Sprint
Commenting on Proposal Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/42
Previous Snapshot Commenting Rationale and comments: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-the-stylus-sprint/26437/52?u=alexlumley
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
The “Stylus Sprint” program is an innovative step towards promoting the adoption of Arbitrum’s Stylus technology by incentivizing developers to create foundational tooling and applications. The program’s milestone-based funding model is well thought out, as it minimizes the risk of misallocated funds and encourages ongoing engagement and accountability from participating teams. I appreciate the transparency and expertise introduced through the Evaluation Committee, which includes members from Offchain Labs, OpenZeppelin, and experienced DAO participants like SEEDGov and JoJo. This adds significant credibility and assures that grants will be allocated based on impact potential and technical value.
However, as noted by several contributors, enhancing the program’s metrics for success and developing a more robust marketing strategy will be critical. Regular communication updates, both to the DAO and the broader community, will ensure that we are informed about progress and any challenges. Additionally, continuous marketing efforts across Arbitrum’s channels are essential for drawing a diverse and skilled pool of applicants.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal.
We believe this is a necessary step for Stylus adoption, as stated in our Snapshot rationale. The idea of an Evaluation Committee made up of Stylus experts is a strong approach, and tying funds to milestones will help ensure they are used effectively.
Rest our overall thoughts remain the same as expressed in our rationale during the Snapshot voting.
We’re voting FOR this proposal as we believe it’s a necessary step for Stylus adoption.
The idea of having an Evaluation Committee made up of Stylus experts is a good approach. We also agree with giving out funds based on milestones, as this will help prevent misuse.
To make this sprint really successful, we suggest running a strong marketing campaign to attract as many developers as possible. It would be great to showcase the Stylus Sprint at ArbiVerse during Art Museum Token2049 - this could help get more people to apply.
Overall, we think this program can really speed up the adoption of Stylus by creating a set of high-quality projects that show what it can do.
Hi, voted in support of the program. Positioning Arbitrum as the Place to Build requires tools and early adopters of Stylus, which will expand our addressable market for builders.
A marketing push is currently being coordinated with members of Arbitrum’s marketing community. This is a major focus of the program and will not be ignored. We appreciate so many astutely pointing out its importance, we agree.
Hi, voted in support of the program. Positioning Arbitrum as the Place to Build requires tools and early adopters of Stylus, which will expand our addressable market for builders.
A marketing push is currently being coordinated with members of Arbitrum’s marketing community. This is a major focus of the program and will not be ignored. We appreciate so many astutely pointing out its importance, we agree.
I'm surprised in the final proposal there were no internal KPIs for the program to determine if it was successful.
@Entropy - will you be the team accountable for this?
We're Voting FOR the proposal
We're Voting FOR the proposal
Feedback and nice to haves:
voting FOR the Stylus Sprint. Targeted investment that will boost adoption of Stylus and encourage protocols to be early adopters that showcase what Stylus can enable is a huge unlock.
I would also encourage the Stylus Sprint Committee to share their findings of gaming protocols leveraging Stylus and drawing it to the attention of GCP to assist in their evaluation for investment and grants. Protocols leveraging and committing to the Arbitrum tech stack and definitely more committed to building and staying in Arbitrum
I voted FOR on Tally. The reasoning remains the same.
Excited to be part of this and to contribute if it passes! And for this reason:
Since I was contacted to be part of the program and help the committee, I decided to abstain from the Tally voting compared to the “for” I gave in snapshot. Still think that obviously this is a great proposal for which I would have voted in favour otherwise.
voting For the current onchain proposal because this will help make Stylus a more popular choice for developers.
I voted FOR this proposal on Tally for the reasons outlined here.
I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage. Stylus is one of Arbitrum’s key competitive advantages, and I think it’s appropriate for the DAO to play a direct role in driving adoption. I agree with the focus on developer tooling and infra as the key to fully unlocking the potential of Stylus, and think 5M ARB is a reasonable place to start in terms of program sizing.
I voted FOR this proposal on Tally for the reasons outlined here.
I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage. Stylus is one of Arbitrum’s key competitive advantages, and I think it’s appropriate for the DAO to play a direct role in driving adoption. I agree with the focus on developer tooling and infra as the key to fully unlocking the potential of Stylus, and think 5M ARB is a reasonable place to start in terms of program sizing.
I am voting FOR this proposal on Tally.
As I stated when expressing my vote during the temp-check stage, I strongly support this proposal and the allocation of DAO funds to incentivize the development of Stylus smart contracts.
I am voting FOR this proposal on Tally.
As I stated when expressing my vote during the temp-check stage, I strongly support this proposal and the allocation of DAO funds to incentivize the development of Stylus smart contracts.
Additional Evaluation Committee Member: @SEEDGov and @JoJo have agreed to join the evaluation committee. They bring extensive experience in DAO grant programs and will help round out the committee with additional perspectives/backgrounds. The evaluation committee will therefore be made of 7 members, with several individuals contributing to help manage bandwidth concerns.
I’m also in favor of including members with experience in Grant Programs, and I personally know @SEEDGov and @JoJo —both are more than qualified to serve on the committee, and I believe they will perform their duties excellently.
However, I'm not entirely convinced of the need for the committee to consist of seven members. If everyone is going to vote on everything, they'll have different perspectives, which could cause delays in coordination. Additionally, I don't see a well-justified reason for having such a large committee. Is my understanding that there is no certainty about the expected number of applications.
An additional member of the evaluation committee will be added to the program. Specifically, we will be looking to add a member with existing experience in the DAO’s grants programs.
One of the technical positions could have been removed and replaced with someone experienced in grant programs if that was the intention.
The evaluation committee will therefore be made of 7 members, with several individuals contributing to help manage bandwidth concerns.
On the other hand, if there is a concern regarding the bandwidth of the committee members, it is not sufficiently justified in the proposal to expand the committee without much discussion on the matter (at least publicly). How many applications are you expecting? What tasks and weekly hours will be required of the committee members?
Marketing Plan: Properly marketing the Stylus Sprint is also of utmost importance. Existing Arbitrum marketing teams have already agreed to help promote the program in the following manner:
Create a blog.arbitrum.io post
Link posts on arbitrum.io/stylus
Place advert on banners across Arbiscan and other Arbitrum URLs
Amplify on official Arbitrum socials accounts + create specific assets
This is fantastic, thank you for including it!
Many thanks for leading and driving this proposal, which I believe is highly relevant for the future of Arbitrum. The questioned modifications are not enough reason for me to vote against it, so my support remains as it was during the temp-check stage.
However, I would like to reiterate my previous comments on the following matter:
One of the most difficult things to manage is oversight of the development process. I recommend having very clear rules regarding deadlines, milestone completion, potential reports (as others have suggested), and the consequences of failing to meet them. The LTIPP and B.STIP programs were too lenient with non-compliance, as there were no clear control roles or consequences.
Given that you decided to be flexible with the structure of the milestones, which I believe makes sense, I reiterate my recommendation that, in light of flexible structures tailored to the applicants, there should be severe consequences for non-compliance.
Missed this vote unfortunately, but would have Voted FOR :(
The operational costs are very low and the encouragement for teams to start testing / using Stylus is a great opportunity.
Missed this vote unfortunately, but would have Voted FOR :(
The operational costs are very low and the encouragement for teams to start testing / using Stylus is a great opportunity.
Suggestion: we should work with marketing resources from the foundation / OCL to really capture the accomplishments of this initiative so that it is a splash vs a small drop of attention - the tech needs more eyes on it :)
Vote: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> Fund the Stylus Sprint
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/20
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
We voted For this proposal since it allows Arbitrum to double-down on factors that enable the L2 to differentiate itself from its peers. The flexibility provisioned by Stylus allows for builders from different ecosystems to consider developing on Arbitrum, taking advantage of the existing network effects surrounding liquidity and applications. The Entropy team has addressed concerns around tracking and KPIs, which is in our eyes the number one concern with these grant programs. Long-term continuation and awareness of the program are the following concerns. It’s good to see that marketing is not overlooked. The beauty of Stylus is that outreach to developers not just in the blockchain space but also in other areas can yield strong traction for Arbitrum. We’d like to see a concerted effort around attaining and thereafter retaining talent that’s drawn from this program. The scope for who is targeted during outreach can be wider than other grant programs as well. As for a RPGF initiative for sustaining talent, this can be addressed in a follow up proposal—but the team should begin outlining this structure over the next couple of months. Ecosystems like Solana have increased their liquidity, base-level tech, and ecosystem vibrancy over the past year. Builders truly need an incentive and a roadmap to continue building in a particular ecosystem. If Arbitrum isn’t able to provide that kind of support, the builders will simply journey to where the incentives are compelling.
Voted in favour to this proposal. Funding this initiative also ensures that developers/teams have the resources needed to deliver, benefiting both the technical community, users and ecosystem in the long run
Voting for. I reiterate the remarks that I previously made on the forum. This proposal will certainly attract new developers in the ecosystem, which is a key element for the DAO.
I'm reaffirming my vote from the temp-check and voting FOR on Tally. As I mentioned earlier, this program has the right incentives to enhance the launch and adoption of Stylus. I also appreciate the recent additions to the proposal, including the use of MSS as a multisig and the inclusion of SEEDGov and Jojo as committee members, which will bring diverse perspectives to the table.
Thank you for everyone's patience as our team made updates to the Stylus Sprint. We are excited to be moving this forward to Tally on Monday, October 7th so that the vote begins Thursday, October 10th. Below is a summary of changes made to the proposal based on delegate feedback:
The proposal has now passed with over 97% in favor of moving forward with the Stylus Sprint! Thank you all for the well-thought-out feedback and support for the proposal. We will be pushing the timeline back 1-2 weeks before moving to Tally to address some very valid feedback around necessary, albeit minor, changes to the proposal. Changes that will likely be made include:
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 are 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 are voting FOR the proposal.
Stylus is already a huge differentiator between Arbitrum and other L2s and will potentially enable thousands of developers to build on/for Arbitrum without having to know solidity. Creating and funding a Stylus Sprint is a great opportunity to build on the momentum of Stylus’ launch and offer support to builders looking to come to Arbitrum.
Having said that, some points should be discussed before the proposal is submitted for an on-chain vote.
For example, we need clarifications on the current committee setup and compensation. While we are not against committee members getting paid and not waiving their compensation, we’re curious why they are getting paid for 15 months (60 weeks) when the work outlined is spread over 12 weeks. What are the expectations from a time commitment and resources perspective for the remaining 48 weeks that justify a 5,000 ARB monthly compensation for the entire sprint duration?
Additionally, since 2 of the committee members are from OpenZeppelin, does that mean that OpenZeppelin will be excluded from participating in the sprint? If so, is it good for the program to have one of the most competent teams excluded?
Last but not least, we’re not convinced about the decision to award the grantees using ARB instead of stables, especially when the grants are to be made in milestones that might span up to a year and the grant is probably supposed to cover development costs. We are aware of the challenges that come with converting ARB to stables, and we understand that having awards in ARB is meant to create alignment but it’s worth discussing it more before the onchain vote since:
Overall, we’re supportive of the direction, but we want to address the aforementioned points before voting in favor of the proposal onchain.
I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage. Stylus is one of Arbitrum's key competitive advantages, and I think it's appropriate for the DAO to play a direct role in driving adoption. I agree with the focus on developer tooling and infra as the key to fully unlocking the potential of Stylus, and think 5M ARB is a reasonable place to start in terms of program sizing.
I’m in favor, but I do have a few questions:
Details on the evaluation criteria:
Funds distribution and milestone setup:
Transparency of the application process:
Flexibility in budget and funds usage:
Ongoing support and oversight:
Vote: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> Fund the Stylus Sprint
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/20
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
While the Stylus Sprint funding proposal is an exciting initiative for driving developer adoption, a few important considerations could enhance the program. First, the timeline between approval and the start of the sprint is tight, and a budget for marketing would help attract high-quality developers before the application window opens. Additionally, clearer guidelines around milestone completion, oversight, and potential consequences for non-compliance would improve transparency and accountability. Lastly, the use of a new multisig needs clarification, as the existing DAO multisig could be leveraged for better cohesion and trust.
Thank you for everyone's patience as our team made updates to the Stylus Sprint. We are excited to be moving this forward to Tally on Monday, October 7th so that the vote begins Thursday, October 10th. Below is a summary of changes made to the proposal based on delegate feedback:
Additional rationale for other points of feedback and concerns raised by delegates:
The proposal has now passed with over 97% in favor of moving forward with the Stylus Sprint! Thank you all for the well-thought-out feedback and support for the proposal. We will be pushing the timeline back 1-2 weeks before moving to Tally to address some very valid feedback around necessary, albeit minor, changes to the proposal. Changes that will likely be made include:
Additional considerations:
The Fund the Stylus Sprint proposal has been posted to Tally; voting will begin this Thursday. Thank you to the delegates who provided feedback between the temperature check and onchain voting phase.
If the proposal passes, 5,330,000 ARB will be transferred to a MSS controlled multi-sig, which can be verified in the MSS communication thread:
The Fund the Stylus Sprint proposal has been posted to Tally; voting will begin this Thursday. Thank you to the delegates who provided feedback between the temperature check and onchain voting phase.
If the proposal passes, 5,330,000 ARB will be transferred to a MSS controlled multi-sig, which can be verified in the MSS communication thread:
The multisig will be funded if the Stylus Sprint passes onchain vote.
Regarding the comment about vulnerabilities, the OZ critical bug is in the SDK not Stylus itself. Teams are already shipping with Stylus today without hindrance. Additionally, the SDK is expected to be completed (and shipped) within the next few weeks (before the Sprint would start).
Regarding the comment about vulnerabilities, the OZ critical bug is in the SDK not Stylus itself. Teams are already shipping with Stylus today without hindrance. Additionally, the SDK is expected to be completed (and shipped) within the next few weeks (before the Sprint would start).
About the vulnerabilities found in the report; the Evaluation Committee should take them into account as well as developers: Read about them here: https://blog.openzeppelin.com/stylus-rust-sdk-audit
Just to be extra careful!
To note also: Stylus Security Education: Workshops, Community, and Audit Contest https://arbitrum.questbook.app/dashboard/?grantId=662f30eb1c1eb9145098a15e&chainId=10&proposalId=66ce2f9b2047c84bb8d1abb8&isRenderingProposalBody=true
We are a big fan of this project and it seems there are many comments showing support. To be not redundant on these, some points of consideration for the future that we like and want to talk about could be:
I truly appreciate the approval of Stylus and the beginning of something so important for the Arbitrum ecosystem. However, I’m not sure I fully align with the idea of creating siloed initiatives that focus solely on providing incentives and funding without a clear output beyond bringing projects to Stylus.
On one hand, I believe it lacks a structure that could foster cohesion in various areas—such as acceleration, mentorship, and a long-term vision for the ecosystem.
I truly appreciate the approval of Stylus and the beginning of something so important for the Arbitrum ecosystem. However, I’m not sure I fully align with the idea of creating siloed initiatives that focus solely on providing incentives and funding without a clear output beyond bringing projects to Stylus.
On one hand, I believe it lacks a structure that could foster cohesion in various areas—such as acceleration, mentorship, and a long-term vision for the ecosystem.
On the other hand, I share the concerns of my colleagues regarding the use of another multisig when we already have a DAO process in place, with trusted individuals previously selected to manage this.
I would like to see more detailed progress on this proposal. Stylus adoption is essential. However, I believe grant programs should be more comprehensive and go beyond simply distributing funds, hoping for the best outcomes.
Voting "For"
Proposal is well thought out and should bring value to the DAO at a reasonable cost. Look forward to what comes of all this.
Multisig Setup
Voting "For"
Proposal is well thought out and should bring value to the DAO at a reasonable cost. Look forward to what comes of all this.
Multisig Setup
The Stylus Sprint multi-sig will be created and allocated 5M ARB for the Stylus Sprint Program and 150K ARB for payments to judges. Funds will be sent to an MSS-secured multisig. The funds in the multisig belong to the DAO and the signers act as grant managers on behalf of the DAO in coordination with the Arbitrum Foundation. Funds held in the multisig are explicitly banned from usage in DAO governance, including delegation.
Agree with @pedrob here, what's the rational for creating a multisig when the DAO multisig exists? Or is this a misunderstanding of the process?
Edit: Voting "For", my opinion is unchanged since the Snapshot vote. Just editing this comment to save space in the forms for the Tally vote. Clarification on the MSS has been appreciated
We're voting FOR the Stylus Sprint funding proposal.
This program smartly leverages Arbitrum's first-mover advantage with Stylus, potentially drawing top protocols from WASM ecosystems like Solana. The RFP track targeting specific tooling needs shows foresight. Engaging OpenZeppelin for evaluation adds credibility. The milestone-based funding and open-source requirements mitigate risks while maximizing community benefit.
DAOplomats is voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
Creating this structure that invites individuals/teams to build and grow Stylus is very much welcome. Also, these well-thought-out application tracks would do a good job of streamlining what to expect at the end of the Sprint. This way, it would be easier to assess the success of this initiative.
Suggestion:
DAOplomats is voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
Creating this structure that invites individuals/teams to build and grow Stylus is very much welcome. Also, these well-thought-out application tracks would do a good job of streamlining what to expect at the end of the Sprint. This way, it would be easier to assess the success of this initiative.
Suggestion:
All requests for both the open-application track and RFPs must be denominated in ARB.
Milestone-based funds disbursement can happen in ARB but we suggest leaving the floor open for requests to be made in USD. Requesting funds in the volatile ARB could hamper a team's spending as a dip in ARB could severely affect development costs leading to insufficient utilization of funding received.
Voting For: I feel that the proposal size is quite big (5M+ ARB) for the structure the Entropy team set up. Many other initiatives with significantly less funding have a better structure, in my opinion. However, due to the novelty of Stylus and my full trust in the Entropy team, I support this proposal. I look forward to the analytics and results after the proposal ends. For the next iteration of the program, I would like to see a more detailed structure.
I voted for this proposal. Stylus is a big development for Arbitrum, and we need to provide enough funds to promote and support this initiative.
Blockworks Research will vote FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
Stylus is a big upgrade and it entrenches Arbitrum ahead of the rest in flexibility with the tech stack. We would like to emphasize that we want accessible transparent reporting from the Stylus advisors for the DAO. Finally, we would like to make one additional point in that we would like a better outlined applicant pipeline that takes into account possible failures at each stage, i.e., applicants dropping out, requiring more time in some manner if KPI based, etc
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
SEEDGov views the proposed initiative as generally well-structured, and we welcome the integration of Questbook, alongside the commendably low operational costs.
I really like this initiative, this is why I’m supporting it on Snapshot. I’m sure that this will attract new developers in the ecosystem, which is much needed.
I just finished reading the audit report of Stylus from Zeppelin. There are still critical vulnerabilities in the code that have not been fixed.
Therefore, I propose to postpone the implementation of this proposal (despite the votes) until the critical vulnerabilities of the audit are completely eliminated. Otherwise, we may end up forcing projects to implement their code on untrusted software, which will jeopardize the future of Stylus.
I'm voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot. Just a few comments:
1. I believe the proposed timeline between the approval of the proposal on Tally and the start of the sprint is quite tight. Stylus is designed precisely to attract developers from other ecosystems. I suggest allocating a budget for a small marketing campaign, at least one month before the proposals window opens. This way, you can create awareness of the incentive program, and it will also give teams more time to prepare high-quality proposals, which is what you’re looking for.
Castle’s voting in favour of this proposal as we believe that a well constructed incentives program is required to onboard developers and projects.
We’re particularly pleased to see the inclusion of tooling and education materials as we can’t expect to onboard new developers if they don’t have enough necessary tools, docs or reference material to get started building in a new paradigm.
Castle’s voting in favour of this proposal as we believe that a well constructed incentives program is required to onboard developers and projects.
We’re particularly pleased to see the inclusion of tooling and education materials as we can’t expect to onboard new developers if they don’t have enough necessary tools, docs or reference material to get started building in a new paradigm.
We believe this sprint can help kickstart development, however there is a clear need for a longer term incentives program. As others in the thread have highlighted, we’d also be in favour of exploring RPGF to support this longer term, beyond this sprint.
Stylus is very important to the Arbitrum ecosystem, and it is necessary to motivate developers. I like the proposal very much and it has considered all aspects in detail, the only question is, with so many Grant projects currently underway in the Arbitrum Ecosystem, is it necessary to create a separate incentive program for Stylus?
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We believe Stylus is an ambitious, yet reasonable innovation that Offchain Labs has developed to make Arbitrum even more attractive to Rust and C++ developers and it's important to generate momentum of its use within the developer community to have attractive applications and toolings on the Arbitrum ecosystem, thus the program like this is timely, crucial and much needed.
I like this proposal to support developers for Stylus. These are comparable amounts for similar grants from Optimism.
In addition to this proposal, I think it is worth considering making a retrospective program to encourage projects that implement their projects on Stylus. Why is this important: grants that projects will receive under the current proposal are quite difficult to obtain, there are a lot of applications, reports and milestones. If a project does not receive this grant, it will rather implement its project on Solidity, so as not to study the new advantages of Stylus. If we make a retrospective program, then projects will try to program taking into account the new Stylus. It will be possible to encourage projects that did not have time to enter this grant, or which did not have the opportunity for some parameters from the conditions, but which brought important and useful (clear criteria are needed here) projects to Arbitrum through Stylus.
100% support. Stylus is opening Arbitrum to thousands of potential new developer which are really needed. I think the last few months we haven't really seen innovation in terms of new protocols. Stylus could change this, but there is the need for funding. But I want to urge that funds are given to dedicated teams not just spread towards anyone who is asking.
The FranklinDAO / Penn Blockchain team will be voting FOR this proposal. With the Stylus upgrade proposal having passed, we're excited to see teams to write custom code to utilize the WasmVM and also migrate and deploy codebases onto Arbitrum. In particular, we are excited in the potential of Rust contracts and applications from chains such as Solana deploy onto Arbitrum, with the support of this Stylus Sprint funding program. We also understand the importance of RFP track is important as well as it'll fund tooling for developers to more easily utilize Stylus. We would like to see a targeted marketing push toward developers and teams that might be interested. We also have slight concerns around the 1 year timeline for projects to deploy their projects - 1 year is a long time horizon and we definitely want to have tooling and projects utilize Stylus as early as possible, but also understand the overhead to create such tooling and migrations.
We second the idea brought forth by @BlockworksResearch - we believe the DAO would benefit from setting up RPGF grants for the tooling category for more sustainable growth beyond this program.
Vote: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> Fund the Stylus Sprint
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/20
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
While the Stylus Sprint funding proposal is an exciting initiative for driving developer adoption, a few important considerations could enhance the program. First, the timeline between approval and the start of the sprint is tight, and a budget for marketing would help attract high-quality developers before the application window opens. Additionally, clearer guidelines around milestone completion, oversight, and potential consequences for non-compliance would improve transparency and accountability. Lastly, the use of a new multisig needs clarification, as the existing DAO multisig could be leveraged for better cohesion and trust.
Thank you for everyone's patience as our team made updates to the Stylus Sprint. We are excited to be moving this forward to Tally on Monday, October 7th so that the vote begins Thursday, October 10th. Below is a summary of changes made to the proposal based on delegate feedback:
Additional rationale for other points of feedback and concerns raised by delegates:
The proposal has now passed with over 97% in favor of moving forward with the Stylus Sprint! Thank you all for the well-thought-out feedback and support for the proposal. We will be pushing the timeline back 1-2 weeks before moving to Tally to address some very valid feedback around necessary, albeit minor, changes to the proposal. Changes that will likely be made include:
Additional considerations:
The Fund the Stylus Sprint proposal has been posted to Tally; voting will begin this Thursday. Thank you to the delegates who provided feedback between the temperature check and onchain voting phase.
If the proposal passes, 5,330,000 ARB will be transferred to a MSS controlled multi-sig, which can be verified in the MSS communication thread:
The Fund the Stylus Sprint proposal has been posted to Tally; voting will begin this Thursday. Thank you to the delegates who provided feedback between the temperature check and onchain voting phase.
If the proposal passes, 5,330,000 ARB will be transferred to a MSS controlled multi-sig, which can be verified in the MSS communication thread:
The multisig will be funded if the Stylus Sprint passes onchain vote.
Regarding the comment about vulnerabilities, the OZ critical bug is in the SDK not Stylus itself. Teams are already shipping with Stylus today without hindrance. Additionally, the SDK is expected to be completed (and shipped) within the next few weeks (before the Sprint would start).
Regarding the comment about vulnerabilities, the OZ critical bug is in the SDK not Stylus itself. Teams are already shipping with Stylus today without hindrance. Additionally, the SDK is expected to be completed (and shipped) within the next few weeks (before the Sprint would start).
About the vulnerabilities found in the report; the Evaluation Committee should take them into account as well as developers: Read about them here: https://blog.openzeppelin.com/stylus-rust-sdk-audit
Just to be extra careful!
To note also: Stylus Security Education: Workshops, Community, and Audit Contest https://arbitrum.questbook.app/dashboard/?grantId=662f30eb1c1eb9145098a15e&chainId=10&proposalId=66ce2f9b2047c84bb8d1abb8&isRenderingProposalBody=true
We are a big fan of this project and it seems there are many comments showing support. To be not redundant on these, some points of consideration for the future that we like and want to talk about could be:
I truly appreciate the approval of Stylus and the beginning of something so important for the Arbitrum ecosystem. However, I’m not sure I fully align with the idea of creating siloed initiatives that focus solely on providing incentives and funding without a clear output beyond bringing projects to Stylus.
On one hand, I believe it lacks a structure that could foster cohesion in various areas—such as acceleration, mentorship, and a long-term vision for the ecosystem.
I truly appreciate the approval of Stylus and the beginning of something so important for the Arbitrum ecosystem. However, I’m not sure I fully align with the idea of creating siloed initiatives that focus solely on providing incentives and funding without a clear output beyond bringing projects to Stylus.
On one hand, I believe it lacks a structure that could foster cohesion in various areas—such as acceleration, mentorship, and a long-term vision for the ecosystem.
On the other hand, I share the concerns of my colleagues regarding the use of another multisig when we already have a DAO process in place, with trusted individuals previously selected to manage this.
I would like to see more detailed progress on this proposal. Stylus adoption is essential. However, I believe grant programs should be more comprehensive and go beyond simply distributing funds, hoping for the best outcomes.
Voting "For"
Proposal is well thought out and should bring value to the DAO at a reasonable cost. Look forward to what comes of all this.
Multisig Setup
Voting "For"
Proposal is well thought out and should bring value to the DAO at a reasonable cost. Look forward to what comes of all this.
Multisig Setup
The Stylus Sprint multi-sig will be created and allocated 5M ARB for the Stylus Sprint Program and 150K ARB for payments to judges. Funds will be sent to an MSS-secured multisig. The funds in the multisig belong to the DAO and the signers act as grant managers on behalf of the DAO in coordination with the Arbitrum Foundation. Funds held in the multisig are explicitly banned from usage in DAO governance, including delegation.
Agree with @pedrob here, what's the rational for creating a multisig when the DAO multisig exists? Or is this a misunderstanding of the process?
Edit: Voting "For", my opinion is unchanged since the Snapshot vote. Just editing this comment to save space in the forms for the Tally vote. Clarification on the MSS has been appreciated
We're voting FOR the Stylus Sprint funding proposal.
This program smartly leverages Arbitrum's first-mover advantage with Stylus, potentially drawing top protocols from WASM ecosystems like Solana. The RFP track targeting specific tooling needs shows foresight. Engaging OpenZeppelin for evaluation adds credibility. The milestone-based funding and open-source requirements mitigate risks while maximizing community benefit.
DAOplomats is voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
Creating this structure that invites individuals/teams to build and grow Stylus is very much welcome. Also, these well-thought-out application tracks would do a good job of streamlining what to expect at the end of the Sprint. This way, it would be easier to assess the success of this initiative.
Suggestion:
DAOplomats is voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
Creating this structure that invites individuals/teams to build and grow Stylus is very much welcome. Also, these well-thought-out application tracks would do a good job of streamlining what to expect at the end of the Sprint. This way, it would be easier to assess the success of this initiative.
Suggestion:
All requests for both the open-application track and RFPs must be denominated in ARB.
Milestone-based funds disbursement can happen in ARB but we suggest leaving the floor open for requests to be made in USD. Requesting funds in the volatile ARB could hamper a team's spending as a dip in ARB could severely affect development costs leading to insufficient utilization of funding received.
Voting For: I feel that the proposal size is quite big (5M+ ARB) for the structure the Entropy team set up. Many other initiatives with significantly less funding have a better structure, in my opinion. However, due to the novelty of Stylus and my full trust in the Entropy team, I support this proposal. I look forward to the analytics and results after the proposal ends. For the next iteration of the program, I would like to see a more detailed structure.
I voted for this proposal. Stylus is a big development for Arbitrum, and we need to provide enough funds to promote and support this initiative.
Blockworks Research will vote FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
Stylus is a big upgrade and it entrenches Arbitrum ahead of the rest in flexibility with the tech stack. We would like to emphasize that we want accessible transparent reporting from the Stylus advisors for the DAO. Finally, we would like to make one additional point in that we would like a better outlined applicant pipeline that takes into account possible failures at each stage, i.e., applicants dropping out, requiring more time in some manner if KPI based, etc
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
SEEDGov views the proposed initiative as generally well-structured, and we welcome the integration of Questbook, alongside the commendably low operational costs.
I really like this initiative, this is why I’m supporting it on Snapshot. I’m sure that this will attract new developers in the ecosystem, which is much needed.
I just finished reading the audit report of Stylus from Zeppelin. There are still critical vulnerabilities in the code that have not been fixed.
Therefore, I propose to postpone the implementation of this proposal (despite the votes) until the critical vulnerabilities of the audit are completely eliminated. Otherwise, we may end up forcing projects to implement their code on untrusted software, which will jeopardize the future of Stylus.
I'm voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot. Just a few comments:
1. I believe the proposed timeline between the approval of the proposal on Tally and the start of the sprint is quite tight. Stylus is designed precisely to attract developers from other ecosystems. I suggest allocating a budget for a small marketing campaign, at least one month before the proposals window opens. This way, you can create awareness of the incentive program, and it will also give teams more time to prepare high-quality proposals, which is what you’re looking for.
Castle’s voting in favour of this proposal as we believe that a well constructed incentives program is required to onboard developers and projects.
We’re particularly pleased to see the inclusion of tooling and education materials as we can’t expect to onboard new developers if they don’t have enough necessary tools, docs or reference material to get started building in a new paradigm.
Castle’s voting in favour of this proposal as we believe that a well constructed incentives program is required to onboard developers and projects.
We’re particularly pleased to see the inclusion of tooling and education materials as we can’t expect to onboard new developers if they don’t have enough necessary tools, docs or reference material to get started building in a new paradigm.
We believe this sprint can help kickstart development, however there is a clear need for a longer term incentives program. As others in the thread have highlighted, we’d also be in favour of exploring RPGF to support this longer term, beyond this sprint.
Stylus is very important to the Arbitrum ecosystem, and it is necessary to motivate developers. I like the proposal very much and it has considered all aspects in detail, the only question is, with so many Grant projects currently underway in the Arbitrum Ecosystem, is it necessary to create a separate incentive program for Stylus?
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We believe Stylus is an ambitious, yet reasonable innovation that Offchain Labs has developed to make Arbitrum even more attractive to Rust and C++ developers and it's important to generate momentum of its use within the developer community to have attractive applications and toolings on the Arbitrum ecosystem, thus the program like this is timely, crucial and much needed.
I like this proposal to support developers for Stylus. These are comparable amounts for similar grants from Optimism.
In addition to this proposal, I think it is worth considering making a retrospective program to encourage projects that implement their projects on Stylus. Why is this important: grants that projects will receive under the current proposal are quite difficult to obtain, there are a lot of applications, reports and milestones. If a project does not receive this grant, it will rather implement its project on Solidity, so as not to study the new advantages of Stylus. If we make a retrospective program, then projects will try to program taking into account the new Stylus. It will be possible to encourage projects that did not have time to enter this grant, or which did not have the opportunity for some parameters from the conditions, but which brought important and useful (clear criteria are needed here) projects to Arbitrum through Stylus.
100% support. Stylus is opening Arbitrum to thousands of potential new developer which are really needed. I think the last few months we haven't really seen innovation in terms of new protocols. Stylus could change this, but there is the need for funding. But I want to urge that funds are given to dedicated teams not just spread towards anyone who is asking.
The FranklinDAO / Penn Blockchain team will be voting FOR this proposal. With the Stylus upgrade proposal having passed, we're excited to see teams to write custom code to utilize the WasmVM and also migrate and deploy codebases onto Arbitrum. In particular, we are excited in the potential of Rust contracts and applications from chains such as Solana deploy onto Arbitrum, with the support of this Stylus Sprint funding program. We also understand the importance of RFP track is important as well as it'll fund tooling for developers to more easily utilize Stylus. We would like to see a targeted marketing push toward developers and teams that might be interested. We also have slight concerns around the 1 year timeline for projects to deploy their projects - 1 year is a long time horizon and we definitely want to have tooling and projects utilize Stylus as early as possible, but also understand the overhead to create such tooling and migrations.
We second the idea brought forth by @BlockworksResearch - we believe the DAO would benefit from setting up RPGF grants for the tooling category for more sustainable growth beyond this program.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
SEEDGov views the proposed initiative as generally well-structured, and we welcome the integration of Questbook, alongside the commendably low operational costs.
However, we believe that the suggested maximum ARB allocation for individual applicants is excessive. Allowing a single applicant to receive up to 20% of the total budget (1M out of 5M ARB) seems unfeasible. We recommend capping the maximum allocation at 10% of the overall budget.
Furthermore, as mentioned by @BlockworksResearch, we would like to underscore the importance of the reporting outlined in the proposal. We hope that established communication channels, such as the 'Arbitrum Reporting Governance Call,' will be utilized to enhance the dissemination of these reports.
I'm voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot. Just a few comments:
1. I believe the proposed timeline between the approval of the proposal on Tally and the start of the sprint is quite tight. Stylus is designed precisely to attract developers from other ecosystems. I suggest allocating a budget for a small marketing campaign, at least one month before the proposals window opens. This way, you can create awareness of the incentive program, and it will also give teams more time to prepare high-quality proposals, which is what you’re looking for.
2. One of the most difficult things to manage is oversight of the development process. I recommend having very clear rules regarding deadlines, milestone completion, potential reports (as others have suggested), and the consequences of failing to meet them. The LTIPP and B.STIP programs were too lenient with non-compliance, as there were no clear control roles or consequences.
3. Like with other proposals, I don't understand why a new multisig is being created instead of using the DAOs MSS.
Congratulations and thank you for the initiative. The initial phase, when you start receiving applications, will be chaotic, turbulent, and exhausting. But the effort will be worth it.
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We believe Stylus is an ambitious, yet reasonable innovation that Offchain Labs has developed to make Arbitrum even more attractive to Rust and C++ developers and it's important to generate momentum of its use within the developer community to have attractive applications and toolings on the Arbitrum ecosystem, thus the program like this is timely, crucial and much needed.
We also agree that having an Evaluation Committee is selected by the program manager from the beginning with Stylus experts, but it would be better to have consideration to include contributors who are familiar with the grants as it's basically another grants program focusing on a particular type of applications on the ecosystem. Entropy can play a role in that perspective, but as other delegates pointed out, possibly a few grants/incentive-providing experts like JoJo can be involved.
We also believe that conducting proper marketing campaigns about the program is the key. There doesn't seem to be an explicit budget allocation to that point, but we would want the program manager to consider it to be included before its onchain ratification.
Need to incentivise developers and value them I think it's really necessary so that it will attract, motivate and retain more good partners, Stylus is very important to the Arbitrum ecosystem and also the review committee is 5 members, I'm curious to know how they will do a good job related to this and how to leverage their motivation, is the fee a one time payment? With this in mind, I personally suggest that the committee produce reports on their work at regular intervals of say 3 months.
this proposal makes sense. Voting in favour: pushing stylus, from adoption and marketing standpoint, can only increase the strength of technical positions of Arbitrum as a chain, which hopefully will also reflect on the economics down the road. Stylus is a strategic advantage we have.
Now, a few points worth discussing. Not sure if this would be outside the idea of a "sprint", but maybe is worth discussing @Entropy. The amount of the program is non trivial, and the minimum amount suggested, 50k is non trivial either. For a budget of $750k in new protocols and ideas i received 84 proposals in 4 months. While here is more scoped, the combination of only an 8 weeks application + a relative high budget might create a rush of application which, while indication of success, might not be the best organic answer you might be looking for. Suggestion could be a cohort type of approach like the one we had in the UAGP program, potentially here alternative a 4 weeks application + feedback with a 4 weeks evaluation, and repeat for 3 seasons, covering the first 6 months of the program. And this would also mean putting at budget a little bit more than what was posted due to operations extending for further 4 months. Due to also how the committee is structure and the length of the program, I suggest you to either select in the committee a program manager or add one when you go to tally. There will be plenty of decisions or complex situations along the way such as
this proposal makes sense. Voting in favour: pushing stylus, from adoption and marketing standpoint, can only increase the strength of technical positions of Arbitrum as a chain, which hopefully will also reflect on the economics down the road. Stylus is a strategic advantage we have.
Now, a few points worth discussing. Not sure if this would be outside the idea of a "sprint", but maybe is worth discussing @Entropy. The amount of the program is non trivial, and the minimum amount suggested, 50k is non trivial either. For a budget of $750k in new protocols and ideas i received 84 proposals in 4 months. While here is more scoped, the combination of only an 8 weeks application + a relative high budget might create a rush of application which, while indication of success, might not be the best organic answer you might be looking for. Suggestion could be a cohort type of approach like the one we had in the UAGP program, potentially here alternative a 4 weeks application + feedback with a 4 weeks evaluation, and repeat for 3 seasons, covering the first 6 months of the program. And this would also mean putting at budget a little bit more than what was posted due to operations extending for further 4 months. Due to also how the committee is structure and the length of the program, I suggest you to either select in the committee a program manager or add one when you go to tally. There will be plenty of decisions or complex situations along the way such as
On the milestones:
This makes a lot of sense theoretically but might just not be practically doable based on previous experience. You should try to integrate this in the template/framework for protocols, but you should also be flexible to other type of structures, because is extremely likely that other needs will arise.
As a final note, i am TOTALLY in favour in a non election type of the committee. In general, while a dao should be open for roles, there are several situation in which the knowledge to be part of a committee is just too vertical that elections are just detrimental. This program, and the ADPC, are clear examples.
Hope this helps, and sorry for not providing this feedback earlier before the snapshot.
We support this proposal because it’s the right time to push this initiative, maintain momentum, and increase stylus developer adoption. Arbitrum can attract more developers and foster innovation. Additionally, we also agree that using RPGF would be a great approach to further support this initiative.
Changes Made on Sep 5:
Thank you for this suggestion @Pepperoni_Jo3 and we hope this solves your concern around accessible feedback @BlockworksResearch.
Changes Made on Sep 5:
Thank you for this suggestion @Pepperoni_Jo3 and we hope this solves your concern around accessible feedback @BlockworksResearch.
We will move forward to Snapshot today with shielded voting.
@Entropy this proposal looks great. Most happy to help as @AlexLumley is suggesting if there’s a suitable role.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and @Nyx, based on our combined research, analysis and ideation.
We’re voting FOR this proposal as we believe it's a necessary step for Stylus adoption.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and @Nyx, based on our combined research, analysis and ideation.
We’re voting FOR this proposal as we believe it's a necessary step for Stylus adoption.
The idea of having an Evaluation Committee made up of Stylus experts is a good approach. We also agree with giving out funds based on milestones, as this will help prevent misuse.
To make this sprint really successful, we suggest running a strong marketing campaign to attract as many developers as possible. It would be great to showcase the Stylus Sprint at ArbiVerse during Art Museum Token2049 - this could help get more people to apply.
Overall, we think this program can really speed up the adoption of Stylus by creating a set of high-quality projects that show what it can do.
Fund the Stylus Sprint is now live on Snapshot with standard voting options: FOR, AGAINST, ABSTAIN.
The vote will be shielded as per @Pepperoni_Jo3's request that Entropy’s next 3 non-election Snapshot votes be shielded. As a reminder, delegates are not restricted from posting their rationale or choice to the forums while the vote is live. We encourage discussion and look forward to hearing thoughts from delegates on the Stylus Sprint.
This is an amazing initiative. I like the focus to bootstrap projects using Stylus, and I don't have any comments to do on this phase.
I'm in favor of this well-conceived and carefully designed program, addressing an area where we've lacked momentum so far.
The proposed budget and financial terms appear reasonable, and I particularly appreciate the low management fees of approximately 3%, which is significantly lower than the 14.9% average for other DAO grant programs. One suggestion would be to utilize Questbook for the Open Application track, as it has been positively received across the DAO. This could streamline operational administration and ensure continuity with other domain-focused grants programs.
I'll be voting in favor of this proposal on Snapshot because I believe this program has the right incentives to accelerate Stylus adoption.
Big shoutout to the Evaluation Committee members who are waiving their payments: Derek, Chris, Srinjoy, Matt, and the Entropy Advisors crew—thank you for your dedication and commitment to Stylus and the Arbitrum community. You're setting a great example. We appreciate you!
Really like this proposal and super stoked for the Stylus development.
(He says as he wears his "Move. With Stylus." sweatshirt. :smile:
If you are looking for additional nominees for the evaluation committee you could consider:
Really like this proposal and super stoked for the Stylus development.
(He says as he wears his "Move. With Stylus." sweatshirt. :smile:
If you are looking for additional nominees for the evaluation committee you could consider:
Thank you for the early feedback @Pepperoni_Jo3 @BlockworksResearch @jengajojo @feems @Deelabs.
The proposal was expected to be put on Snapshot today, but we will be pushing the timeline back one week to further circulate the proposal, negotiate with a platform for hosting the program, and make some minor tweaks to the evaluation committee structure.
We find this proposal promising, but there’s a bit left desired. Recent builder funding has largely been non-transparent, and while we want builders to have as little friction as possible, we do think that it would be helpful for the DAO to have some report cadence from these projects. While it’s mentioned in the proposal that there will be reporting, we would like to ensure that the transparency reports are publicly accessible and within reach of DAO participants. Most transparency reporting in Arbitrum DAO is accessible, but not within reach of core contributors.
Furthermore, for the Stylus tooling track, it might be best to implement RPGF style funding there. Tech deprecates quickly, and as such there needs to be a continued incentive for committed tooling improvement. It would be great to fund some developer tools for Stylus, but there would need to be some sort of incentive for keeping them continuously in development/modified in the long-run which could be best served by RPGF style grants. Moreover, RPGF backed tooling would help streamline the product pipeline for these projects. Developers often create tools tailored to their specific applications, though these tools could have broader utility as part of a general toolkit.
The "Stylus Sprint" program is a strategic initiative that accelerates the adoption of Stylus, enhancing Arbitrum’s ecosystem by incentivizing high-quality smart contract development. By offering financial support to pioneering teams, this proposal not only attracts top-tier talent but also positions Arbitrum as a leader in innovation, fostering long-term growth and competitiveness in the Web3 space.
This proposal is an important initiative to fast-track Arbitrum's innovation & adoption. By incentivizing cutting-edge development, it will strengthen the ecosystem, attract top-tier talent & position Arbitrum as a leader in the Ethereum space thus driving long-term growth. Hence we are in favor of this moving ahead.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
SEEDGov views the proposed initiative as generally well-structured, and we welcome the integration of Questbook, alongside the commendably low operational costs.
However, we believe that the suggested maximum ARB allocation for individual applicants is excessive. Allowing a single applicant to receive up to 20% of the total budget (1M out of 5M ARB) seems unfeasible. We recommend capping the maximum allocation at 10% of the overall budget.
Furthermore, as mentioned by @BlockworksResearch, we would like to underscore the importance of the reporting outlined in the proposal. We hope that established communication channels, such as the 'Arbitrum Reporting Governance Call,' will be utilized to enhance the dissemination of these reports.
I'm voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot. Just a few comments:
1. I believe the proposed timeline between the approval of the proposal on Tally and the start of the sprint is quite tight. Stylus is designed precisely to attract developers from other ecosystems. I suggest allocating a budget for a small marketing campaign, at least one month before the proposals window opens. This way, you can create awareness of the incentive program, and it will also give teams more time to prepare high-quality proposals, which is what you’re looking for.
2. One of the most difficult things to manage is oversight of the development process. I recommend having very clear rules regarding deadlines, milestone completion, potential reports (as others have suggested), and the consequences of failing to meet them. The LTIPP and B.STIP programs were too lenient with non-compliance, as there were no clear control roles or consequences.
3. Like with other proposals, I don't understand why a new multisig is being created instead of using the DAOs MSS.
Congratulations and thank you for the initiative. The initial phase, when you start receiving applications, will be chaotic, turbulent, and exhausting. But the effort will be worth it.
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We believe Stylus is an ambitious, yet reasonable innovation that Offchain Labs has developed to make Arbitrum even more attractive to Rust and C++ developers and it's important to generate momentum of its use within the developer community to have attractive applications and toolings on the Arbitrum ecosystem, thus the program like this is timely, crucial and much needed.
We also agree that having an Evaluation Committee is selected by the program manager from the beginning with Stylus experts, but it would be better to have consideration to include contributors who are familiar with the grants as it's basically another grants program focusing on a particular type of applications on the ecosystem. Entropy can play a role in that perspective, but as other delegates pointed out, possibly a few grants/incentive-providing experts like JoJo can be involved.
We also believe that conducting proper marketing campaigns about the program is the key. There doesn't seem to be an explicit budget allocation to that point, but we would want the program manager to consider it to be included before its onchain ratification.
Need to incentivise developers and value them I think it's really necessary so that it will attract, motivate and retain more good partners, Stylus is very important to the Arbitrum ecosystem and also the review committee is 5 members, I'm curious to know how they will do a good job related to this and how to leverage their motivation, is the fee a one time payment? With this in mind, I personally suggest that the committee produce reports on their work at regular intervals of say 3 months.
this proposal makes sense. Voting in favour: pushing stylus, from adoption and marketing standpoint, can only increase the strength of technical positions of Arbitrum as a chain, which hopefully will also reflect on the economics down the road. Stylus is a strategic advantage we have.
Now, a few points worth discussing. Not sure if this would be outside the idea of a "sprint", but maybe is worth discussing @Entropy. The amount of the program is non trivial, and the minimum amount suggested, 50k is non trivial either. For a budget of $750k in new protocols and ideas i received 84 proposals in 4 months. While here is more scoped, the combination of only an 8 weeks application + a relative high budget might create a rush of application which, while indication of success, might not be the best organic answer you might be looking for. Suggestion could be a cohort type of approach like the one we had in the UAGP program, potentially here alternative a 4 weeks application + feedback with a 4 weeks evaluation, and repeat for 3 seasons, covering the first 6 months of the program. And this would also mean putting at budget a little bit more than what was posted due to operations extending for further 4 months. Due to also how the committee is structure and the length of the program, I suggest you to either select in the committee a program manager or add one when you go to tally. There will be plenty of decisions or complex situations along the way such as
this proposal makes sense. Voting in favour: pushing stylus, from adoption and marketing standpoint, can only increase the strength of technical positions of Arbitrum as a chain, which hopefully will also reflect on the economics down the road. Stylus is a strategic advantage we have.
Now, a few points worth discussing. Not sure if this would be outside the idea of a "sprint", but maybe is worth discussing @Entropy. The amount of the program is non trivial, and the minimum amount suggested, 50k is non trivial either. For a budget of $750k in new protocols and ideas i received 84 proposals in 4 months. While here is more scoped, the combination of only an 8 weeks application + a relative high budget might create a rush of application which, while indication of success, might not be the best organic answer you might be looking for. Suggestion could be a cohort type of approach like the one we had in the UAGP program, potentially here alternative a 4 weeks application + feedback with a 4 weeks evaluation, and repeat for 3 seasons, covering the first 6 months of the program. And this would also mean putting at budget a little bit more than what was posted due to operations extending for further 4 months. Due to also how the committee is structure and the length of the program, I suggest you to either select in the committee a program manager or add one when you go to tally. There will be plenty of decisions or complex situations along the way such as
On the milestones:
This makes a lot of sense theoretically but might just not be practically doable based on previous experience. You should try to integrate this in the template/framework for protocols, but you should also be flexible to other type of structures, because is extremely likely that other needs will arise.
As a final note, i am TOTALLY in favour in a non election type of the committee. In general, while a dao should be open for roles, there are several situation in which the knowledge to be part of a committee is just too vertical that elections are just detrimental. This program, and the ADPC, are clear examples.
Hope this helps, and sorry for not providing this feedback earlier before the snapshot.
We support this proposal because it’s the right time to push this initiative, maintain momentum, and increase stylus developer adoption. Arbitrum can attract more developers and foster innovation. Additionally, we also agree that using RPGF would be a great approach to further support this initiative.
Changes Made on Sep 5:
Thank you for this suggestion @Pepperoni_Jo3 and we hope this solves your concern around accessible feedback @BlockworksResearch.
Changes Made on Sep 5:
Thank you for this suggestion @Pepperoni_Jo3 and we hope this solves your concern around accessible feedback @BlockworksResearch.
We will move forward to Snapshot today with shielded voting.
@Entropy this proposal looks great. Most happy to help as @AlexLumley is suggesting if there’s a suitable role.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and @Nyx, based on our combined research, analysis and ideation.
We’re voting FOR this proposal as we believe it's a necessary step for Stylus adoption.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and @Nyx, based on our combined research, analysis and ideation.
We’re voting FOR this proposal as we believe it's a necessary step for Stylus adoption.
The idea of having an Evaluation Committee made up of Stylus experts is a good approach. We also agree with giving out funds based on milestones, as this will help prevent misuse.
To make this sprint really successful, we suggest running a strong marketing campaign to attract as many developers as possible. It would be great to showcase the Stylus Sprint at ArbiVerse during Art Museum Token2049 - this could help get more people to apply.
Overall, we think this program can really speed up the adoption of Stylus by creating a set of high-quality projects that show what it can do.
Fund the Stylus Sprint is now live on Snapshot with standard voting options: FOR, AGAINST, ABSTAIN.
The vote will be shielded as per @Pepperoni_Jo3's request that Entropy’s next 3 non-election Snapshot votes be shielded. As a reminder, delegates are not restricted from posting their rationale or choice to the forums while the vote is live. We encourage discussion and look forward to hearing thoughts from delegates on the Stylus Sprint.
This is an amazing initiative. I like the focus to bootstrap projects using Stylus, and I don't have any comments to do on this phase.
I'm in favor of this well-conceived and carefully designed program, addressing an area where we've lacked momentum so far.
The proposed budget and financial terms appear reasonable, and I particularly appreciate the low management fees of approximately 3%, which is significantly lower than the 14.9% average for other DAO grant programs. One suggestion would be to utilize Questbook for the Open Application track, as it has been positively received across the DAO. This could streamline operational administration and ensure continuity with other domain-focused grants programs.
I'll be voting in favor of this proposal on Snapshot because I believe this program has the right incentives to accelerate Stylus adoption.
Big shoutout to the Evaluation Committee members who are waiving their payments: Derek, Chris, Srinjoy, Matt, and the Entropy Advisors crew—thank you for your dedication and commitment to Stylus and the Arbitrum community. You're setting a great example. We appreciate you!
Really like this proposal and super stoked for the Stylus development.
(He says as he wears his "Move. With Stylus." sweatshirt. :smile:
If you are looking for additional nominees for the evaluation committee you could consider:
Really like this proposal and super stoked for the Stylus development.
(He says as he wears his "Move. With Stylus." sweatshirt. :smile:
If you are looking for additional nominees for the evaluation committee you could consider:
Thank you for the early feedback @Pepperoni_Jo3 @BlockworksResearch @jengajojo @feems @Deelabs.
The proposal was expected to be put on Snapshot today, but we will be pushing the timeline back one week to further circulate the proposal, negotiate with a platform for hosting the program, and make some minor tweaks to the evaluation committee structure.
We find this proposal promising, but there’s a bit left desired. Recent builder funding has largely been non-transparent, and while we want builders to have as little friction as possible, we do think that it would be helpful for the DAO to have some report cadence from these projects. While it’s mentioned in the proposal that there will be reporting, we would like to ensure that the transparency reports are publicly accessible and within reach of DAO participants. Most transparency reporting in Arbitrum DAO is accessible, but not within reach of core contributors.
Furthermore, for the Stylus tooling track, it might be best to implement RPGF style funding there. Tech deprecates quickly, and as such there needs to be a continued incentive for committed tooling improvement. It would be great to fund some developer tools for Stylus, but there would need to be some sort of incentive for keeping them continuously in development/modified in the long-run which could be best served by RPGF style grants. Moreover, RPGF backed tooling would help streamline the product pipeline for these projects. Developers often create tools tailored to their specific applications, though these tools could have broader utility as part of a general toolkit.
The "Stylus Sprint" program is a strategic initiative that accelerates the adoption of Stylus, enhancing Arbitrum’s ecosystem by incentivizing high-quality smart contract development. By offering financial support to pioneering teams, this proposal not only attracts top-tier talent but also positions Arbitrum as a leader in innovation, fostering long-term growth and competitiveness in the Web3 space.
This proposal is an important initiative to fast-track Arbitrum's innovation & adoption. By incentivizing cutting-edge development, it will strengthen the ecosystem, attract top-tier talent & position Arbitrum as a leader in the Ethereum space thus driving long-term growth. Hence we are in favor of this moving ahead.
We find this proposal promising, but there’s a bit left desired. Recent builder funding has largely been non-transparent, and while we want builders to have as little friction as possible, we do think that it would be helpful for the DAO to have some report cadence from these projects. While it’s mentioned in the proposal that there will be reporting, we would like to ensure that the transparency reports are publicly accessible and within reach of DAO participants. Most transparency reporting in Arbitrum DAO is accessible, but not within reach of core contributors.
Furthermore, for the Stylus tooling track, it might be best to implement RPGF style funding there. Tech deprecates quickly, and as such there needs to be a continued incentive for committed tooling improvement. It would be great to fund some developer tools for Stylus, but there would need to be some sort of incentive for keeping them continuously in development/modified in the long-run which could be best served by RPGF style grants. Moreover, RPGF backed tooling would help streamline the product pipeline for these projects. Developers often create tools tailored to their specific applications, though these tools could have broader utility as part of a general toolkit.
Finally, we would just like to ask the question if there are any projects currently in the pipeline for the invitational/is that information public?
We find this proposal promising, but there’s a bit left desired. Recent builder funding has largely been non-transparent, and while we want builders to have as little friction as possible, we do think that it would be helpful for the DAO to have some report cadence from these projects. While it’s mentioned in the proposal that there will be reporting, we would like to ensure that the transparency reports are publicly accessible and within reach of DAO participants. Most transparency reporting in Arbitrum DAO is accessible, but not within reach of core contributors.
Furthermore, for the Stylus tooling track, it might be best to implement RPGF style funding there. Tech deprecates quickly, and as such there needs to be a continued incentive for committed tooling improvement. It would be great to fund some developer tools for Stylus, but there would need to be some sort of incentive for keeping them continuously in development/modified in the long-run which could be best served by RPGF style grants. Moreover, RPGF backed tooling would help streamline the product pipeline for these projects. Developers often create tools tailored to their specific applications, though these tools could have broader utility as part of a general toolkit.
Finally, we would just like to ask the question if there are any projects currently in the pipeline for the invitational/is that information public?