The AVI Pilot Proposal is now live on Tally: here
This proposal is the result of the work of the Arbirtrum Ventures Initiative Working Group, more details about which can be found here. In the spirit of building in public, we are releasing this draft of the proposal for comments, while it is still being worked on.
Please feel free to engage on this or the relevant other Forum threads, or directly in the Google Doc draft: Collaboration Copy of Proposal [Non-Constitutional]: Establishment of Arbitrum Venture Initiative (AVI)
Update Notes:
The budget breakdown and more detailed timeline are under development. The 1.8m figure, came based on an analogous project executed by our team members previously. We are still collecting input in order to refine it for the current context and confirm the final amount.
Due to a number of developments related mostly to the GCP proposal, it is likely that a lot of the work that was scoped within this proposal based on what was know in early March will be executed on the back of the GCP's budget and by the Arbitrum Foundations legal teams. Thus we expect that the 1.8 M figure quoted here would be reduced by at least half.
The context around AVI in turms of relation to other initiatives being set up is still volatile and it appears best to wait until things around GCP to settle more, before too much time is invested in detailed planning. Our team is aiming to have an updated proposal, based on what is know at the time, for GovHack in Brussels.
Our team would like to thank the many delegates and other community stakeholders who offered feedback. This ultimately culminated in the release of the AVI Pilot Proposal available here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247
Pilot Snapshot - Passed on 12 June 2024 with: For [No IRL Event] - 133M ARB (86.94%) Against - 10M ARB (6.62%) For [Full scope] - 8M ARB (5.27%) Abstain - 1.8M ARB (1.17%)
Abstract Our vision for The Arbitrum Venture Initiative (AVI) is to support growth within Arbitrum’s ecosystem through large scale strategic investments. Currently, we're proposing the formation of a group to conduct research into such opportunities as well as the set-up of the legal, strategic, governance, and operational structures to support large scale investments.
Expanding beyond the traditional grant-based model, AVI aims to adopt a multifaceted investment strategy that encompasses not just grant funding but a broader spectrum of financial instruments. This approach includes allocating capital towards venture capital funds, engaging in debt facilities, TVL provision, or revenue-sharing agreements.
Additionally, AVI seeks to set up in such a way that we can provide a "fund in a box" mechanism for investment managers where appropriate, so that the legal, governance, and operational costs and time required to set up for venture capital firms and other managers and programmes can be streamlined and the whole fund deployment of Arbitrum be the leading example in Web3 and beyond.
For the avoidance of doubt - we are proposing to implement AVI in two stages, where:
Forming the group to conduct the research of such opportunities as well as the set-up of the legal, strategic, governance, and operational structures to support large scale investments. This what the successful vote of this proposal would cover and specifically the allocation of the funds described in the Overall Cost section only.
The investment fund is structured and allocated and the mandate awarded to a management team. It is the intention and commitment of the group described above to fill that role, however that would be the function of separate approval and approving this proposal would not create a commitment to that end.
AVI will not only enhance RoI, but also catalyze scalable and strategic investment across the ecosystem, unlocking innovation and growth for Arbitrum to lead the L2 market.
Motivation The rapid development of L2s in the Ethereum ecosystem is creating strong competition and a race for retaining and acquiring network activity. To grow effectively and to retain its number one spot in L2s, Arbitrum needs to engage capital to support its ecosystem and based on the competition, the capital required is in the billions. In the best interest of the ecosystem, capital deployment needs to happen at scale to retain and attract the best builders. At the same time, Arbitrum also needs to consider the sustainability of its treasury in the long-term.
In the best interest of the Arbitrum ecosystem, we should explore different approaches to diversification of the available capital to be deployed, which provide direct RoI and drive co-investment activity from a wide variety of other ecosystem players. Specifically, this initiative is looking to:
(a) research the process and the legal and governance frameworks to deploy capital in excess of $1B in ARB equivalent while enabling the supported vehicles to attract an additional $1B to $3B from various Limited Partners (LPs) over a period of 5 years.
(b) develop an ecosystem investment thesis, deployment strategy, and set up the operational infrastructure required to execute the initiative.
(c) examine the potential value multiplier effects from co-investment and portfolio growth and link them to strategic outcomes valued by Arbitrum.
The current grants-only based funding model limits our ability to engage in the large-scale, strategic business development and investments necessary for ecosystem development and long-term growth.
Currently, these limitations are manifested in a variety of ways:
By incorporating elements such as equity/quasi-equity investments or revenue-sharing mechanisms (agreements), the Arbitrum DAO can complement grant programs with specialized accelerators, venture builders, VCs, and other instruments, and thus:
From a strategic point of view besides creating direct RoI from the ecosystem of funded protocols and thus diversifying Arbitrum’s revenue streams, AVI will also look at all relevant metrics supporting the adoption and growth of the platform.
Our team has decades of entrepreneurial and venture experience across a very broad range of industries, where, among other things, we have been building on blockchain for the last 10 years. We have generated billions in exits, hundreds of millions in investments in startups, and further hundreds of millions in investments in venture capital funds. We can furthermore pull from deep talent pools in the 30+ countries in which we have operated.
We are very excited to share our vision about the overall Web3 space and apply it towards the success of the Arbitrum ecosystem, and to execute on it in the shortest timeline possible.
The work required to set up AVI, especially to go beyond creating it as a fund, but rather a powerful ecosystem platform is very significant. That includes and goes beyond legal, regulatory, strategic, financial management and governance infrastructure, design of community interfaces and stakeholder management mechanism, developing the ecosystem investment thesis together with the community and potential investment managers, creating the smart contract and technology infrastructure, and more.
Rationale Arbitrum stands as a market leader amongst L2s, but faces significant competition from at least 45 L2s (according to L2Beat data). As such, Arbitrum’s ability to leverage its large treasury effectively is a critical factor in its ability to survive, thrive, and stay continuously relevant.
Deploying capital as investments, in parallel with infrastructure and business development activities, provides a range of powerful mechanisms for ecosystem growth, revenue generation, and diversification. AVI can leverage these instruments and lessons learned, translate them to a Web3 context, and enable Arbitrum to reap the benefits. While the objective is for those instruments to be organized as profitable venture capital, AVI will focus on longer term, fundamental metrics that will ultimately lead to increased sequencer fees, diversification of revenue streams, improved network effects within clusters of complimentary protocols, increase in TVL, new ventures and protocols adopting the arbitrum stack, and developers building in the ecosystem, among other strategic objectives.
Focusing on longer term opportunities and the success of the wider Arbitrum ecosystem is what differentiates AVI from other funds that have a primary objective to drive financial returns.
Critically, AVI proposes a diversified and large scale investment approach: instead of putting all our eggs in one basket or vertical, and instead of creating a single VC, we aim to create a governance structure and fund allocation process that can select multiple funding programs that are run commercially.
Selecting and working with a wider range of VC and ecosystem development partners and related programs can bring additional expertise, industry connections, and market insights. In turn, this enables to more effectively source and select meaningful activities and investments, and significantly accelerate the growth of projects within the Arbitrum ecosystem. The rigorous due diligence procedures of these partners and programs ensures that projects with the highest potential for innovation and market impact receive support. This careful selection process aligns perfectly with the ethos of transparency and meritocracy, ensuring that the Arbitrum ecosystem is a fertile ground for projects that create value and long-term viability. The mentorship, investee support, and professional management accompanying investment programs can be particularly beneficial in the fast-evolving blockchain sector. The long-term investment horizon of selected programs (3-10 years) is in line with the forward-looking vision of Arbitrum’s development, where investments in funds and programs with proven track record and their activities are strategically placed in projects that contribute to the enduring growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
The rationale for AVI aligns with the Arbitrum community’s mission to create a scalable, efficient, and innovative blockchain ecosystem. The shift towards a more flexible and diversified investment model is driven by the understanding that the needs of the ecosystem are multifaceted and dynamic.
Thus the capacity to rapidly deploy and provision new investment teams on emerging frontier topics is paramount. In the short term, these are going to be focused on areas that already have significant traction in the ecosystem and can generate quick wins for the existing ecosystem participants. Arbitrum’s ecosystem is particularly strong in DeFi and SocialFi, and we see those as key to generating stable usage by introducing fresh activity as well as capturing economic activity on-chain. Furthermore, we are going to explore newer trends like gaming, cross-chain tooling (bridges, deployment across different VMs, etc) as well as emerging categories that we see potential for support of long term initiatives onboarding critical real world data on-chain like DeSci. Our goal is to enable the ecosystem to pave the way to real economy adoption and participation by connecting initiatives, and eventually large enterprises across big industries as they make progress with their digital transformations. Examples include the climate economy, healthcare, traditional financial services, state governance, and many more.
To enable cross-pollination of web2 and web3 expertise and capabilities, we can engage both existing Web3 specialized fund managers as well as supporting Web2 players expanding into Web3 to enhance their capabilities and mandates. Success can be achieved by creating containers and mechanisms (off-chain and on-chain) to reduce the time, friction, and cost for anyone who wants to manage funds, has a demonstrated track record, and ability to bring coinvestment, to do so. It will also provide support and education services to such contributors.
Key Terms
Specifications
Platforms and Technologies: The AVI will utilize existing Arbitrum infrastructure and new legal Initiatives to facilitate investments and activities. The focus will be on selecting investment opportunities and activities that align with Arbitrum's strategic interests.
Related Work: Other blockchain ecosystems have implemented similar Initiatives, adjusting funding models to support strategic growth and sustainability. These include, but are not limited to: Optimism, Celo, EOS, Polygon, Solana, Polkadot, Avalanche, Near.
Governance of the initiative:
Governance of the fund after approval:
Anticipated Structure
Steps to Implement
Initial Project Setup: The 3 reviewers will be invited as a result of the deliberations in the working group and their names will be featured in the proposal once up for a vote. So will be the additional multisig signers.
Legal and Executive Setup: Development of legal structures and executive teams.
Community and Stakeholder Engagement: Establishing communication channels for feedback and collaboration. Community engagement and consultation mechanisms to ensure that investment and business development decisions align with broader interests of the ecosystem, fostering inclusivity and alignment of goals.
Market Consultation with GPs: in order to support the structuring of the initiative and developing an investment strategy the AVI team will conduct an open market consultation with a interested fund managers and ecosystem programs to understand their strategies and how they can be best supported.
Investment Strategy Development: Identifying and assessing potential investment opportunities and partners, identifying and funding VC funds with a proven track record and alignment with Arbitrum's strategic interests.This requires intensive scouting and research followed by thorough due diligence to assess the investment funds’ performance, investment thesis, portfolio composition, and alignment with Arbitrum’s goals and values.
Operational Initiative Implementation: Setting up departments and policies for investment analysis, deal sourcing, and management. Deal negotiations involving structuring investment agreements, negotiating terms, and ensuring alignment of interests between Arbitrum and all investment partners. Procedures enabling efficient and transparent investment operations while maximizing value creation and mitigating risks.
Governance and Oversight Structure: Implementing a governance Initiative for transparency and accountability. Establish clear roles and responsibilities, decision-making processes, and reporting mechanisms to oversee investment activities. Governance structures (investment committees, advisory boards) and oversight bodies including internal or external stakeholders to represent different and diverse perspectives and interests. Transparency measures - regular reporting on investment performance, risk management procedures, and compliance with ethical and regulatory standards, to enhance trust and confidence among stakeholders.
Core Team:
Lino
Konstantina
Paul
Ana
Anish
Joseph [Immutable Lawyer]
Bart
Project oversight committee:
The additional multisig signers might be removed pending a solution provided via the potentially upcoming multisig service ( https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrum-multi-sig-support-service-mss/23737 )
Additional multi-sig signers:
The budget breakdown and operational timeline are still under development, pending on a number of dependencies related to other DAO and Arbitrum Foundation initiatives. More clarity is being provided in the google doc and will be updated in this text on regular intervals.
Timeline
The AVI Workgroup is envisioned as being able to operate for up to 18 months, however it intends to reach consensus and transition to an operational fund structure in the shortest time viable. That can be as little as 3-6 months after commencement. That timeline would furthermore be aligned with the overall budgeting considerations of the DAO as provided by other relevant groups.
Start Date (1-3 weeks after proposal approval)
Milestone 0 (projected 1-2 months)
Completion => 150k ARB + anticipated approved costs for prioritized activities released for work towards milestone 2 (e.g. legal incorporation costs)
Milestone 1 (projected 2-3 months):
Milestone: 2-n:
Completion Date:
Overall Cost
Budget: ARB 1.8 million for strategy and thesis development, setup and legal infrastructure.
The budget is anchored on the basis of the ultimate total cost of setting up a similar structure in Luxemburg from Konstantina’s experience. It is designed so it can sustain the operational costs around the initiative for at least 1 year (up to 18 months). Our team believes that we can achieve the results for lower costs and with much more aggressive timelines. We will aim to find the shortest path to fielding a sustainable organization and either return the funds to the DAO or roll them up in the newly setup structure organization after the appropriate approvals.
Compensation for Arbitrum oversight:
Operational Costs: Detailed breakdown of expected operational costs, timeline and milestone will be produced on the basis of completing the work in the first milestone. This will include the following line items:
Discussions so far and considerations
The team has already been working and gathering feedback on this initiative for over two months. An (incomplete) summary of the conversations can be found by reviewing the Miro board and recordings detailed here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/announcing-the-arbitrum-ventures-initiative-working-group/23012
AVI enables attracting more capital to the market, thus de-risking and reducing the amounts Arbitrum needs to fund itself.
Many initiatives approaching Arbitrum for investment also have access to other capital, but integrating these opportunities isn't straightforward. Without a friendly environment, we risk losing this capital even if we fund the Arbitrum-specific side of the projects.
We also risk backing multiple smaller structures without ensuring appropriate oversight or efficacy metrics.
Without a coordinated approach, attracting top specialized teams and aligning them with Arbitrum’s goals will be challenging, potentially slowing ecosystem growth and innovation.
For those that do come on board, past experiences show that a lack of coordination can lead to suboptimal outcomes, resolved later at much higher costs and lost opportunities.
Key outputs of the AVI approach include:
How much should be budgeted for supporting builders in the ecosystem is a higher-order consideration and not within this group's remit to determine.
What’s important is having a budget and strategy before making too many disjointed allocations. Certain strategies have minimal requirements and market prerequisites to make sense. It’s dangerous to commit too much money for early-stage support without ensuring follow-on capital is available or vice versa if the pipeline of projects isn’t present.
Setting up the AVI structure does not necessarily entail allocating large amounts of money in that category on a very short timeline. The point is to develop long-term foresight with allocated amounts, then decide as a DAO when and how much to deploy. The AVI team can then respond with strategies that make sense given these constraints.
The timeline before significant allocations is cited as 3 to 18 months.
The AVI Pilot Proposal is now live on Tally: here
This proposal is the result of the work of the Arbirtrum Ventures Initiative Working Group, more details about which can be found here. In the spirit of building in public, we are releasing this draft of the proposal for comments, while it is still being worked on.
Please feel free to engage on this or the relevant other Forum threads, or directly in the Google Doc draft: Collaboration Copy of Proposal [Non-Constitutional]: Establishment of Arbitrum Venture Initiative (AVI)
Update Notes:
The budget breakdown and more detailed timeline are under development. The 1.8m figure, came based on an analogous project executed by our team members previously. We are still collecting input in order to refine it for the current context and confirm the final amount.
Due to a number of developments related mostly to the GCP proposal, it is likely that a lot of the work that was scoped within this proposal based on what was know in early March will be executed on the back of the GCP's budget and by the Arbitrum Foundations legal teams. Thus we expect that the 1.8 M figure quoted here would be reduced by at least half.
The context around AVI in turms of relation to other initiatives being set up is still volatile and it appears best to wait until things around GCP to settle more, before too much time is invested in detailed planning. Our team is aiming to have an updated proposal, based on what is know at the time, for GovHack in Brussels.
Our team would like to thank the many delegates and other community stakeholders who offered feedback. This ultimately culminated in the release of the AVI Pilot Proposal available here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247
Pilot Snapshot - Passed on 12 June 2024 with: For [No IRL Event] - 133M ARB (86.94%) Against - 10M ARB (6.62%) For [Full scope] - 8M ARB (5.27%) Abstain - 1.8M ARB (1.17%)
Abstract Our vision for The Arbitrum Venture Initiative (AVI) is to support growth within Arbitrum’s ecosystem through large scale strategic investments. Currently, we're proposing the formation of a group to conduct research into such opportunities as well as the set-up of the legal, strategic, governance, and operational structures to support large scale investments.
Expanding beyond the traditional grant-based model, AVI aims to adopt a multifaceted investment strategy that encompasses not just grant funding but a broader spectrum of financial instruments. This approach includes allocating capital towards venture capital funds, engaging in debt facilities, TVL provision, or revenue-sharing agreements.
Additionally, AVI seeks to set up in such a way that we can provide a "fund in a box" mechanism for investment managers where appropriate, so that the legal, governance, and operational costs and time required to set up for venture capital firms and other managers and programmes can be streamlined and the whole fund deployment of Arbitrum be the leading example in Web3 and beyond.
For the avoidance of doubt - we are proposing to implement AVI in two stages, where:
Forming the group to conduct the research of such opportunities as well as the set-up of the legal, strategic, governance, and operational structures to support large scale investments. This what the successful vote of this proposal would cover and specifically the allocation of the funds described in the Overall Cost section only.
The investment fund is structured and allocated and the mandate awarded to a management team. It is the intention and commitment of the group described above to fill that role, however that would be the function of separate approval and approving this proposal would not create a commitment to that end.
AVI will not only enhance RoI, but also catalyze scalable and strategic investment across the ecosystem, unlocking innovation and growth for Arbitrum to lead the L2 market.
Motivation The rapid development of L2s in the Ethereum ecosystem is creating strong competition and a race for retaining and acquiring network activity. To grow effectively and to retain its number one spot in L2s, Arbitrum needs to engage capital to support its ecosystem and based on the competition, the capital required is in the billions. In the best interest of the ecosystem, capital deployment needs to happen at scale to retain and attract the best builders. At the same time, Arbitrum also needs to consider the sustainability of its treasury in the long-term.
In the best interest of the Arbitrum ecosystem, we should explore different approaches to diversification of the available capital to be deployed, which provide direct RoI and drive co-investment activity from a wide variety of other ecosystem players. Specifically, this initiative is looking to:
(a) research the process and the legal and governance frameworks to deploy capital in excess of $1B in ARB equivalent while enabling the supported vehicles to attract an additional $1B to $3B from various Limited Partners (LPs) over a period of 5 years.
(b) develop an ecosystem investment thesis, deployment strategy, and set up the operational infrastructure required to execute the initiative.
(c) examine the potential value multiplier effects from co-investment and portfolio growth and link them to strategic outcomes valued by Arbitrum.
The current grants-only based funding model limits our ability to engage in the large-scale, strategic business development and investments necessary for ecosystem development and long-term growth.
Currently, these limitations are manifested in a variety of ways:
By incorporating elements such as equity/quasi-equity investments or revenue-sharing mechanisms (agreements), the Arbitrum DAO can complement grant programs with specialized accelerators, venture builders, VCs, and other instruments, and thus:
From a strategic point of view besides creating direct RoI from the ecosystem of funded protocols and thus diversifying Arbitrum’s revenue streams, AVI will also look at all relevant metrics supporting the adoption and growth of the platform.
Our team has decades of entrepreneurial and venture experience across a very broad range of industries, where, among other things, we have been building on blockchain for the last 10 years. We have generated billions in exits, hundreds of millions in investments in startups, and further hundreds of millions in investments in venture capital funds. We can furthermore pull from deep talent pools in the 30+ countries in which we have operated.
We are very excited to share our vision about the overall Web3 space and apply it towards the success of the Arbitrum ecosystem, and to execute on it in the shortest timeline possible.
The work required to set up AVI, especially to go beyond creating it as a fund, but rather a powerful ecosystem platform is very significant. That includes and goes beyond legal, regulatory, strategic, financial management and governance infrastructure, design of community interfaces and stakeholder management mechanism, developing the ecosystem investment thesis together with the community and potential investment managers, creating the smart contract and technology infrastructure, and more.
Rationale Arbitrum stands as a market leader amongst L2s, but faces significant competition from at least 45 L2s (according to L2Beat data). As such, Arbitrum’s ability to leverage its large treasury effectively is a critical factor in its ability to survive, thrive, and stay continuously relevant.
Deploying capital as investments, in parallel with infrastructure and business development activities, provides a range of powerful mechanisms for ecosystem growth, revenue generation, and diversification. AVI can leverage these instruments and lessons learned, translate them to a Web3 context, and enable Arbitrum to reap the benefits. While the objective is for those instruments to be organized as profitable venture capital, AVI will focus on longer term, fundamental metrics that will ultimately lead to increased sequencer fees, diversification of revenue streams, improved network effects within clusters of complimentary protocols, increase in TVL, new ventures and protocols adopting the arbitrum stack, and developers building in the ecosystem, among other strategic objectives.
Focusing on longer term opportunities and the success of the wider Arbitrum ecosystem is what differentiates AVI from other funds that have a primary objective to drive financial returns.
Critically, AVI proposes a diversified and large scale investment approach: instead of putting all our eggs in one basket or vertical, and instead of creating a single VC, we aim to create a governance structure and fund allocation process that can select multiple funding programs that are run commercially.
Selecting and working with a wider range of VC and ecosystem development partners and related programs can bring additional expertise, industry connections, and market insights. In turn, this enables to more effectively source and select meaningful activities and investments, and significantly accelerate the growth of projects within the Arbitrum ecosystem. The rigorous due diligence procedures of these partners and programs ensures that projects with the highest potential for innovation and market impact receive support. This careful selection process aligns perfectly with the ethos of transparency and meritocracy, ensuring that the Arbitrum ecosystem is a fertile ground for projects that create value and long-term viability. The mentorship, investee support, and professional management accompanying investment programs can be particularly beneficial in the fast-evolving blockchain sector. The long-term investment horizon of selected programs (3-10 years) is in line with the forward-looking vision of Arbitrum’s development, where investments in funds and programs with proven track record and their activities are strategically placed in projects that contribute to the enduring growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
The rationale for AVI aligns with the Arbitrum community’s mission to create a scalable, efficient, and innovative blockchain ecosystem. The shift towards a more flexible and diversified investment model is driven by the understanding that the needs of the ecosystem are multifaceted and dynamic.
Thus the capacity to rapidly deploy and provision new investment teams on emerging frontier topics is paramount. In the short term, these are going to be focused on areas that already have significant traction in the ecosystem and can generate quick wins for the existing ecosystem participants. Arbitrum’s ecosystem is particularly strong in DeFi and SocialFi, and we see those as key to generating stable usage by introducing fresh activity as well as capturing economic activity on-chain. Furthermore, we are going to explore newer trends like gaming, cross-chain tooling (bridges, deployment across different VMs, etc) as well as emerging categories that we see potential for support of long term initiatives onboarding critical real world data on-chain like DeSci. Our goal is to enable the ecosystem to pave the way to real economy adoption and participation by connecting initiatives, and eventually large enterprises across big industries as they make progress with their digital transformations. Examples include the climate economy, healthcare, traditional financial services, state governance, and many more.
To enable cross-pollination of web2 and web3 expertise and capabilities, we can engage both existing Web3 specialized fund managers as well as supporting Web2 players expanding into Web3 to enhance their capabilities and mandates. Success can be achieved by creating containers and mechanisms (off-chain and on-chain) to reduce the time, friction, and cost for anyone who wants to manage funds, has a demonstrated track record, and ability to bring coinvestment, to do so. It will also provide support and education services to such contributors.
Key Terms
Specifications
Platforms and Technologies: The AVI will utilize existing Arbitrum infrastructure and new legal Initiatives to facilitate investments and activities. The focus will be on selecting investment opportunities and activities that align with Arbitrum's strategic interests.
Related Work: Other blockchain ecosystems have implemented similar Initiatives, adjusting funding models to support strategic growth and sustainability. These include, but are not limited to: Optimism, Celo, EOS, Polygon, Solana, Polkadot, Avalanche, Near.
Governance of the initiative:
Governance of the fund after approval:
Anticipated Structure
Steps to Implement
Initial Project Setup: The 3 reviewers will be invited as a result of the deliberations in the working group and their names will be featured in the proposal once up for a vote. So will be the additional multisig signers.
Legal and Executive Setup: Development of legal structures and executive teams.
Community and Stakeholder Engagement: Establishing communication channels for feedback and collaboration. Community engagement and consultation mechanisms to ensure that investment and business development decisions align with broader interests of the ecosystem, fostering inclusivity and alignment of goals.
Market Consultation with GPs: in order to support the structuring of the initiative and developing an investment strategy the AVI team will conduct an open market consultation with a interested fund managers and ecosystem programs to understand their strategies and how they can be best supported.
Investment Strategy Development: Identifying and assessing potential investment opportunities and partners, identifying and funding VC funds with a proven track record and alignment with Arbitrum's strategic interests.This requires intensive scouting and research followed by thorough due diligence to assess the investment funds’ performance, investment thesis, portfolio composition, and alignment with Arbitrum’s goals and values.
Operational Initiative Implementation: Setting up departments and policies for investment analysis, deal sourcing, and management. Deal negotiations involving structuring investment agreements, negotiating terms, and ensuring alignment of interests between Arbitrum and all investment partners. Procedures enabling efficient and transparent investment operations while maximizing value creation and mitigating risks.
Governance and Oversight Structure: Implementing a governance Initiative for transparency and accountability. Establish clear roles and responsibilities, decision-making processes, and reporting mechanisms to oversee investment activities. Governance structures (investment committees, advisory boards) and oversight bodies including internal or external stakeholders to represent different and diverse perspectives and interests. Transparency measures - regular reporting on investment performance, risk management procedures, and compliance with ethical and regulatory standards, to enhance trust and confidence among stakeholders.
Core Team:
Lino
Konstantina
Paul
Ana
Anish
Joseph [Immutable Lawyer]
Bart
Project oversight committee:
The additional multisig signers might be removed pending a solution provided via the potentially upcoming multisig service ( https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-arbitrum-multi-sig-support-service-mss/23737 )
Additional multi-sig signers:
The budget breakdown and operational timeline are still under development, pending on a number of dependencies related to other DAO and Arbitrum Foundation initiatives. More clarity is being provided in the google doc and will be updated in this text on regular intervals.
Timeline
The AVI Workgroup is envisioned as being able to operate for up to 18 months, however it intends to reach consensus and transition to an operational fund structure in the shortest time viable. That can be as little as 3-6 months after commencement. That timeline would furthermore be aligned with the overall budgeting considerations of the DAO as provided by other relevant groups.
Start Date (1-3 weeks after proposal approval)
Milestone 0 (projected 1-2 months)
Completion => 150k ARB + anticipated approved costs for prioritized activities released for work towards milestone 2 (e.g. legal incorporation costs)
Milestone 1 (projected 2-3 months):
Milestone: 2-n:
Completion Date:
Overall Cost
Budget: ARB 1.8 million for strategy and thesis development, setup and legal infrastructure.
The budget is anchored on the basis of the ultimate total cost of setting up a similar structure in Luxemburg from Konstantina’s experience. It is designed so it can sustain the operational costs around the initiative for at least 1 year (up to 18 months). Our team believes that we can achieve the results for lower costs and with much more aggressive timelines. We will aim to find the shortest path to fielding a sustainable organization and either return the funds to the DAO or roll them up in the newly setup structure organization after the appropriate approvals.
Compensation for Arbitrum oversight:
Operational Costs: Detailed breakdown of expected operational costs, timeline and milestone will be produced on the basis of completing the work in the first milestone. This will include the following line items:
Discussions so far and considerations
The team has already been working and gathering feedback on this initiative for over two months. An (incomplete) summary of the conversations can be found by reviewing the Miro board and recordings detailed here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/announcing-the-arbitrum-ventures-initiative-working-group/23012
AVI enables attracting more capital to the market, thus de-risking and reducing the amounts Arbitrum needs to fund itself.
Many initiatives approaching Arbitrum for investment also have access to other capital, but integrating these opportunities isn't straightforward. Without a friendly environment, we risk losing this capital even if we fund the Arbitrum-specific side of the projects.
We also risk backing multiple smaller structures without ensuring appropriate oversight or efficacy metrics.
Without a coordinated approach, attracting top specialized teams and aligning them with Arbitrum’s goals will be challenging, potentially slowing ecosystem growth and innovation.
For those that do come on board, past experiences show that a lack of coordination can lead to suboptimal outcomes, resolved later at much higher costs and lost opportunities.
Key outputs of the AVI approach include:
How much should be budgeted for supporting builders in the ecosystem is a higher-order consideration and not within this group's remit to determine.
What’s important is having a budget and strategy before making too many disjointed allocations. Certain strategies have minimal requirements and market prerequisites to make sense. It’s dangerous to commit too much money for early-stage support without ensuring follow-on capital is available or vice versa if the pipeline of projects isn’t present.
Setting up the AVI structure does not necessarily entail allocating large amounts of money in that category on a very short timeline. The point is to develop long-term foresight with allocated amounts, then decide as a DAO when and how much to deploy. The AVI team can then respond with strategies that make sense given these constraints.
The timeline before significant allocations is cited as 3 to 18 months.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/68
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
Read my comments here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-non-constitutional-establishment-of-arbitrum-ventures-initiative-avi/23222/3?u=ermia
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/68
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
Read my comments here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-non-constitutional-establishment-of-arbitrum-ventures-initiative-avi/23222/3?u=ermia
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-14: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-14
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/67?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/65?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/12?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/41
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/64?u=0x_ultra
Innovation and experimentation are crucial. The Arbitrum DAO must embody these principles, and this proposal appears to be a step in that direction.
we are happy to support this initiative
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/61?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/60?u=ocandocrypto
FOR: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/21266/43?u=alexlumley
We’re not necessarily opposed to a ventures program. But we do not encourage providers to come to Arbitrum, state that XYZ is needed, then request funds to then research why XYZ would be a good idea. The thesis should be mostly formed why ventures would be beneficial. Asking for funding to conduct research to better understand the issue the proposer brought to the DAO indicates to us that this could be a solution in search of a problem, rather than beginning from identification of a pain point and solving it with a ventures program.
This is a valuable experiment that will equip the DAO with more data to build the most robust investment vehicles.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/55?u=bruce
This is great for the development of Arbitrum DAO!
A pilot program is likely to bring new perspectives and changes. I support it.I hope transparency can be implemented and executed effectively.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/41?u=bob-rossi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/40
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/39?u=tane
we prefer to fund this initiative but without the IRL event. Metrics aren't scalable there
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/38?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/37?u=michigan_blockchain
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/33?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/34?u=ocandocrypto
In support of the pilot program to test the efficacy of the program
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/32?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/30?u=jameskbh
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/26?u=maxlomu
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/17?u=larva
DAO representatives and stakeholders provide enough information to try and need them to make the right steps.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/14?u=0x_ultra
We’re not necessarily opposed to a ventures program. But we do not encourage providers to come to Arbitrum, state that XYZ is needed, then r
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/12?u=jojo
A well-thought-out initiative that addresses crucial pain points in venture development and investment frameworks,
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/11?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/21266/43?u=savvydao
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-14: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-14
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/67?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/65?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/12?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/41
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/64?u=0x_ultra
Innovation and experimentation are crucial. The Arbitrum DAO must embody these principles, and this proposal appears to be a step in that direction.
we are happy to support this initiative
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/61?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/60?u=ocandocrypto
FOR: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/21266/43?u=alexlumley
We’re not necessarily opposed to a ventures program. But we do not encourage providers to come to Arbitrum, state that XYZ is needed, then request funds to then research why XYZ would be a good idea. The thesis should be mostly formed why ventures would be beneficial. Asking for funding to conduct research to better understand the issue the proposer brought to the DAO indicates to us that this could be a solution in search of a problem, rather than beginning from identification of a pain point and solving it with a ventures program.
This is a valuable experiment that will equip the DAO with more data to build the most robust investment vehicles.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/55?u=bruce
This is great for the development of Arbitrum DAO!
A pilot program is likely to bring new perspectives and changes. I support it.I hope transparency can be implemented and executed effectively.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/41?u=bob-rossi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/40
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/39?u=tane
we prefer to fund this initiative but without the IRL event. Metrics aren't scalable there
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/38?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/37?u=michigan_blockchain
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/33?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/34?u=ocandocrypto
In support of the pilot program to test the efficacy of the program
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/32?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/30?u=jameskbh
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/26?u=maxlomu
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/17?u=larva
DAO representatives and stakeholders provide enough information to try and need them to make the right steps.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/14?u=0x_ultra
We’re not necessarily opposed to a ventures program. But we do not encourage providers to come to Arbitrum, state that XYZ is needed, then r
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/12?u=jojo
A well-thought-out initiative that addresses crucial pain points in venture development and investment frameworks,
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/11?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/21266/43?u=savvydao
The following comment represent the views of @SavvyDAO as I’m part of their team as Governance Analyst:
Savvy DAO voted for this proposal in the Snapshot phase and did the same on Tally because it will strengthen the ecosystem by promoting well-informed investments and fostering a thriving community of builders and investors.
The following comment represent the views of @SavvyDAO as I’m part of their team as Governance Analyst:
Savvy DAO voted for this proposal in the Snapshot phase and did the same on Tally because it will strengthen the ecosystem by promoting well-informed investments and fostering a thriving community of builders and investors.
We are looking forward to see the first reports of this pilot, having detailed metrics for success and periodic progress reports will be beneficial to track the value and impact of this initiative in the Arbitrum ecosystem.
As DSPYT, we're voting FOR on this proposal. The AVI's initiative to establish an Ecosystem Fund within the Arbitrum DAO is a crucial step towards enhancing sustainability and fostering innovation in the ecosystem.
The structured approach outlined, including market consultations and the development of an Investment Thesis, promises to provide actionable insights and strategic recommendations vital for effective fund deployment.
As DSPYT, we're voting FOR on this proposal. The AVI's initiative to establish an Ecosystem Fund within the Arbitrum DAO is a crucial step towards enhancing sustainability and fostering innovation in the ecosystem.
The structured approach outlined, including market consultations and the development of an Investment Thesis, promises to provide actionable insights and strategic recommendations vital for effective fund deployment.
We appreciate AVI's emphasis on transparency and community engagement. The proposed governance framework, with elected roles and community sessions, aligns well with our values of inclusivity and accountability in decentralized ecosystems.
Dspyt team believes this pilot phase is pivotal in laying a robust foundation for future growth and development. It sets a precedent for DAO-led investment strategies in Web3 that align with our mission of fostering informed and collaborative governance practices within blockchain communities.
The following comment represent the views of @SavvyDAO as I’m part of their team as Governance Analyst:
Savvy DAO voted for this proposal in the Snapshot phase and did the same on Tally because it will strengthen the ecosystem by promoting well-informed investments and fostering a thriving community of builders and investors.
The following comment represent the views of @SavvyDAO as I’m part of their team as Governance Analyst:
Savvy DAO voted for this proposal in the Snapshot phase and did the same on Tally because it will strengthen the ecosystem by promoting well-informed investments and fostering a thriving community of builders and investors.
We are looking forward to see the first reports of this pilot, having detailed metrics for success and periodic progress reports will be beneficial to track the value and impact of this initiative in the Arbitrum ecosystem.
As DSPYT, we're voting FOR on this proposal. The AVI's initiative to establish an Ecosystem Fund within the Arbitrum DAO is a crucial step towards enhancing sustainability and fostering innovation in the ecosystem.
The structured approach outlined, including market consultations and the development of an Investment Thesis, promises to provide actionable insights and strategic recommendations vital for effective fund deployment.
As DSPYT, we're voting FOR on this proposal. The AVI's initiative to establish an Ecosystem Fund within the Arbitrum DAO is a crucial step towards enhancing sustainability and fostering innovation in the ecosystem.
The structured approach outlined, including market consultations and the development of an Investment Thesis, promises to provide actionable insights and strategic recommendations vital for effective fund deployment.
We appreciate AVI's emphasis on transparency and community engagement. The proposed governance framework, with elected roles and community sessions, aligns well with our values of inclusivity and accountability in decentralized ecosystems.
Dspyt team believes this pilot phase is pivotal in laying a robust foundation for future growth and development. It sets a precedent for DAO-led investment strategies in Web3 that align with our mission of fostering informed and collaborative governance practices within blockchain communities.
Mux Protocol Voted for the version without an IRL event.
Thanks for the team that put efforts in the proposal.
Mux Protocol Voted for the version without an IRL event.
Thanks for the team that put efforts in the proposal.
We can see the differentiation with other on-going programs like M&A and GCP. DAO does need an investment arm to boost the the Arbitrum economy. However, we suggest that before moving to the Tally, the team could elaborate more on 1. budget break down 2. more detailed deliverables that can define the next phase of the AVI.
Mux Protocol Voted for the version without an IRL event.
Thanks for the team that put efforts in the proposal.
Mux Protocol Voted for the version without an IRL event.
Thanks for the team that put efforts in the proposal.
We can see the differentiation with other on-going programs like M&A and GCP. DAO does need an investment arm to boost the the Arbitrum economy. However, we suggest that before moving to the Tally, the team could elaborate more on 1. budget break down 2. more detailed deliverables that can define the next phase of the AVI.
Hello Arbinauts!
The results are in for the https://dhive.io/proposal/699 proposal.
See how the community voted and view the detailed analytics on ⬡ Dhive.Io.
Hello Arbinauts!
The results are in for the https://dhive.io/proposal/699 proposal.
See how the community voted and view the detailed analytics on ⬡ Dhive.Io.
Lino, I heard you on the call today.
I have no doubts about the proposal, and I feel it is heading in the right direction.
Lino, I heard you on the call today.
I have no doubts about the proposal, and I feel it is heading in the right direction.
As a founder based in Latin America and traveling to Spain at least three times a year, I just want to say that I am available to offer my insights on our company, the VC industry in Latam, review significant projects, or even help with initial conversations with Spanish-speaking founders.
At WakeUp, we work with many startups that are developing their first versions of their products, and it could be interesting to provide our opinion.
Both my co-founder and I will be in Brussels, so we would love to stay close.
If you need to reach me, here is my Telegram: @Gonzacolo
Question ... debt-based financing (as AVI aspires to be full-spectrum provider) ... the boring TradFi usually wants something solid in the form of collateral (xref Centrifuge wrt RWA).
Question ... debt-based financing (as AVI aspires to be full-spectrum provider) ... the boring TradFi usually wants something solid in the form of collateral (xref Centrifuge wrt RWA).
what would be the equiv of digital assets worthy to be borrowed against? Sure you could hypothecate against the entire chain but if it fails, its like posting a debt note to a sinking ship ... not much use when already underwater. I'm not saying it can't be done but as someone who've watched the liquidation of a DAO, there's precious little recoverable assets when things go south.
The other missing financial instrument is insurance (though open question against what ... regulatory smackdown?).
Lino, I heard you on the call today.
I have no doubts about the proposal, and I feel it is heading in the right direction.
Lino, I heard you on the call today.
I have no doubts about the proposal, and I feel it is heading in the right direction.
As a founder based in Latin America and traveling to Spain at least three times a year, I just want to say that I am available to offer my insights on our company, the VC industry in Latam, review significant projects, or even help with initial conversations with Spanish-speaking founders.
At WakeUp, we work with many startups that are developing their first versions of their products, and it could be interesting to provide our opinion.
Both my co-founder and I will be in Brussels, so we would love to stay close.
If you need to reach me, here is my Telegram: @Gonzacolo
Question ... debt-based financing (as AVI aspires to be full-spectrum provider) ... the boring TradFi usually wants something solid in the form of collateral (xref Centrifuge wrt RWA).
Question ... debt-based financing (as AVI aspires to be full-spectrum provider) ... the boring TradFi usually wants something solid in the form of collateral (xref Centrifuge wrt RWA).
what would be the equiv of digital assets worthy to be borrowed against? Sure you could hypothecate against the entire chain but if it fails, its like posting a debt note to a sinking ship ... not much use when already underwater. I'm not saying it can't be done but as someone who've watched the liquidation of a DAO, there's precious little recoverable assets when things go south.
The other missing financial instrument is insurance (though open question against what ... regulatory smackdown?).
@Immutablelawyer, your help and support with the project up to now has been very much appreciated by the whole AVI team.
It was great to collaborate and I grew to appreciate your passion and very knowledgeable and pragmatic approach. Too bad we never had the opportunity to collaborate on the more complex substance of the project.
@Immutablelawyer, your help and support with the project up to now has been very much appreciated by the whole AVI team.
It was great to collaborate and I grew to appreciate your passion and very knowledgeable and pragmatic approach. Too bad we never had the opportunity to collaborate on the more complex substance of the project.
Thank you for the kind words and looking forward to our continued interactions in the Arbitrum community and beyond.
For anyone interested in getting the latest on AVI, please follow the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative Hub thread and feel free to join our upcoming monthly office hours on the 11th at 3pm UTC. Find the details in the Governance Calendar.
DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal during the onchain vote.
The final proposal removed IRL events which we were against during temp check so we were happy to maintain our decision, voting in favor of the proposal.
Changed my stance in Tally, and voted "for" for this initiative. I think Lino and his team were able, between snapshot and tally, to address some of the concerns above; the program consolidated and the live presentation in Bruxelles was quite convincing. Curious to see the end result of this first pilot program, not only for the deliverable per se, but also to better understand how the team wants to work on this topic.
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.
Following our decision during the temp-check, we are voting FOR this proposal. We have already been working with the proposers to make sure this Pilot Phase concludes with a tangible framework for Arbitrum DAO for how to handle investment (if the DAO decides to follow this path in the future, decision on that is a separate issue).
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
We maintain the decision on Snapshot and continue to express the support for the program. We are looking forward to the outcome generated by the team and contributors!
Reaffirming my FOR vote on Tally.
This program has high potential given the low cost to POC and drive valuable data towards building a sustainable AVI program.
I voted FOR this proposal on Tally. I changed my mind after the Snapshot phase, in which I voted AGAINST for the reasons below. I changed my mind because I spent time with the team in Brussels and they helped me understand the complexity of setting up this program and why it is important to invest in this pilot phase. I also have come to really like the model of DAO spending that is focused on ROI for the DAO. With that said, one concern I have with venture specifically is that it will take too long to evaluate if the team is effective, leading to a situation where the money is invested before changes can be made. Looking forward to following the progress of the pilot! https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/45?u=frisson
We're voting FOR this proposal. We backed it at snapshot and still do. The team listened and cut the IRL workshop - smart move. This pilot is a solid first step for Arbitrum's ecosystem investments. It's timely and practical, giving delegates the tools we need without overdoing it. The community engagement piece is key - it'll keep things transparent and accountable. Overall, it's a balanced approach that should set us up well for what's ahead.
I voted for this proposal (changing it from the Snapshot).
I support this exploratory pilot phase to probe how a Venture Initiative would fit within Arbitrum DAO, and I look forward to the discussions and findings coming from this.
Blockworks Research will be voting FOR this proposal on Tally.
Following extensive discussions with @lino, we have decided to support this proposal. Initially, we were concerned about the milestones, particularly the market analysis being conducted independently of the DAO. However, these concerns have now been clarified. We support the pilot phase of this initiative but emphasize that the DAO needs to find long-term solutions moving forward. As this is a period of experimentation for the DAO, we should remain cautious and avoid committing fully to one approach just yet.
Voting in favor for the same reasons as those for the Snapshot vote (https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/14). I also appreciate the efforts to differentiate from other comparable programs.
@Immutablelawyer, your help and support with the project up to now has been very much appreciated by the whole AVI team.
It was great to collaborate and I grew to appreciate your passion and very knowledgeable and pragmatic approach. Too bad we never had the opportunity to collaborate on the more complex substance of the project.
@Immutablelawyer, your help and support with the project up to now has been very much appreciated by the whole AVI team.
It was great to collaborate and I grew to appreciate your passion and very knowledgeable and pragmatic approach. Too bad we never had the opportunity to collaborate on the more complex substance of the project.
Thank you for the kind words and looking forward to our continued interactions in the Arbitrum community and beyond.
For anyone interested in getting the latest on AVI, please follow the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative Hub thread and feel free to join our upcoming monthly office hours on the 11th at 3pm UTC. Find the details in the Governance Calendar.
DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal during the onchain vote.
The final proposal removed IRL events which we were against during temp check so we were happy to maintain our decision, voting in favor of the proposal.
Changed my stance in Tally, and voted "for" for this initiative. I think Lino and his team were able, between snapshot and tally, to address some of the concerns above; the program consolidated and the live presentation in Bruxelles was quite convincing. Curious to see the end result of this first pilot program, not only for the deliverable per se, but also to better understand how the team wants to work on this topic.
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.
Following our decision during the temp-check, we are voting FOR this proposal. We have already been working with the proposers to make sure this Pilot Phase concludes with a tangible framework for Arbitrum DAO for how to handle investment (if the DAO decides to follow this path in the future, decision on that is a separate issue).
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
We maintain the decision on Snapshot and continue to express the support for the program. We are looking forward to the outcome generated by the team and contributors!
Reaffirming my FOR vote on Tally.
This program has high potential given the low cost to POC and drive valuable data towards building a sustainable AVI program.
I voted FOR this proposal on Tally. I changed my mind after the Snapshot phase, in which I voted AGAINST for the reasons below. I changed my mind because I spent time with the team in Brussels and they helped me understand the complexity of setting up this program and why it is important to invest in this pilot phase. I also have come to really like the model of DAO spending that is focused on ROI for the DAO. With that said, one concern I have with venture specifically is that it will take too long to evaluate if the team is effective, leading to a situation where the money is invested before changes can be made. Looking forward to following the progress of the pilot! https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/45?u=frisson
We're voting FOR this proposal. We backed it at snapshot and still do. The team listened and cut the IRL workshop - smart move. This pilot is a solid first step for Arbitrum's ecosystem investments. It's timely and practical, giving delegates the tools we need without overdoing it. The community engagement piece is key - it'll keep things transparent and accountable. Overall, it's a balanced approach that should set us up well for what's ahead.
I voted for this proposal (changing it from the Snapshot).
I support this exploratory pilot phase to probe how a Venture Initiative would fit within Arbitrum DAO, and I look forward to the discussions and findings coming from this.
Blockworks Research will be voting FOR this proposal on Tally.
Following extensive discussions with @lino, we have decided to support this proposal. Initially, we were concerned about the milestones, particularly the market analysis being conducted independently of the DAO. However, these concerns have now been clarified. We support the pilot phase of this initiative but emphasize that the DAO needs to find long-term solutions moving forward. As this is a period of experimentation for the DAO, we should remain cautious and avoid committing fully to one approach just yet.
Voting in favor for the same reasons as those for the Snapshot vote (https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-pilot-phase-arbitrum-venture-initiative/24247/14). I also appreciate the efforts to differentiate from other comparable programs.
Notice of Withdrawal from the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative
Dear all,
I am writing to formally inform the ArbitrumDAO that we have decided to withdraw from our involvement in the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative. This decision has been made after careful consideration and deliberation by our team.
Notice of Withdrawal from the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative
Dear all,
I am writing to formally inform the ArbitrumDAO that we have decided to withdraw from our involvement in the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative. This decision has been made after careful consideration and deliberation by our team.
Our withdrawal is primarily due to a disagreement with the current direction of the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative.
Please be assured that we have communicated all pertinent details and concerns that led to this decision to the Arbitrum Foundation. Our intention is to ensure that this transition is as smooth as possible, and we remain committed to supporting the broader goals of the Arbitrum ecosystem in other capacities where our visions are more closely aligned.
We appreciate the opportunity to have been a part of this initiative and wish the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative continued success in its future endeavors.
Kind regards, Joseph (Immutablelawyer)
I voted “FOR”. This proposal is a well-structured approach to developing a comprehensive investment strategy for the Arbitrum ecosystem. The two-month pilot sprint is designed to gather critical insights and data through market consultations, workshops, and an IRL event, culminating in the creation of an Arbitrum Ecosystem Investment Thesis. This thesis will identify key sectors for investment, analyze market trends, and provide strategic recommendations, ensuring informed and effective fund deployment. The experienced AVI team and their detailed operational plan demonstrate a clear roadmap for success, emphasizing stakeholder engagement and iterative learning. This pilot phase is essential for minimizing risks, refining strategies, and fostering robust community involvement, setting a solid foundation for future phases of the AVI.
DAOplomats voted For [No IRL Event].
We are pleased with the rationale behind this proposal and excited to see the results of this pilot phase as it would bring clarity to some initiatives already in motion and future venture initiatives.
DAOplomats voted For [No IRL Event].
We are pleased with the rationale behind this proposal and excited to see the results of this pilot phase as it would bring clarity to some initiatives already in motion and future venture initiatives.
However, we were against the IRL event as we were not confident in the exact value it would yield. If it were integrated with the ETH CC, it would have been an easy yes for us.
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
Our team is generally in favor of the recent expansions that the DAO has made into more traditional styles of investment and ecosystem development. While most DAO’s are still relegated to grant programs, profit-driven initiatives like this are a good exploitative path for the DAO to take. We do, however, voice a degree of caution to the DAO with approving too many programs too quickly without enough inspection of the efficacy of these initiatives. Yes, it takes time for multi-month programs to materialize, but it’s important to deliberately approach utilization of the treasury. The recent investment into gaming is the most salient case of this.
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
Our team is generally in favor of the recent expansions that the DAO has made into more traditional styles of investment and ecosystem development. While most DAO’s are still relegated to grant programs, profit-driven initiatives like this are a good exploitative path for the DAO to take. We do, however, voice a degree of caution to the DAO with approving too many programs too quickly without enough inspection of the efficacy of these initiatives. Yes, it takes time for multi-month programs to materialize, but it’s important to deliberately approach utilization of the treasury. The recent investment into gaming is the most salient case of this.
The Areta team has already been pushing forward with their research on the M&A front as well, which as many have mentioned, could involve some overlap in responsibilities. Since this proposal seems to be passing the Snapshot, we’d like to highlight that Areta has also done a great job of aggregating community feedback over the past couple of months, all done prior to their official proposal asking for funding from the DAO. This care for the opinions and perspectives of the DAO is vital for pushing forward a novel initiative such as this one–we would like the AVI to adopt a similar communication standard.
The reason why we are abstaining on this proposal is largely because our team wants to see what the M&A group’s research yields over the next couple of weeks/months. Since there is a degree of overlap in terms of scope, a finalized deliverable from the M&A team’s research will help us understand how the AVI should function. This seems like a more complementary approach between the various initiatives.
Hi everyone! Thank you for all the engagement and really sorry I couldn't meet many of you in person in Brussels.
Ended up spending almost 3 weeks in a hospital and still being treated at home after a nasty food poisoning. Should be back in form next week and looking forward to kick-off the AVI pilot with the team if we remain receiving your gracious support.
Hi everyone! Thank you for all the engagement and really sorry I couldn't meet many of you in person in Brussels.
Ended up spending almost 3 weeks in a hospital and still being treated at home after a nasty food poisoning. Should be back in form next week and looking forward to kick-off the AVI pilot with the team if we remain receiving your gracious support.
We actually started doing doing some work on the project in the interest of time, based on the validation from the community so far.
Please attend the first of a series of open events engaging the community on key topics relevant for the work ahead. Namely the session on evergreen funds led by Paul from our team: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/avi-open-event-1-evergreen-funds-for-ecosystem-development/25631
The Tally vote is live now, please vote early to support us staying on top of timelines: here
This AVI progran sounds promising. I support the idea of diversifying our investment strategy beyond just grants is smart. We could attract some serious talent and projects with this setup, but ONLY if it's executed well.
There are some things that need to be addressed:
This AVI progran sounds promising. I support the idea of diversifying our investment strategy beyond just grants is smart. We could attract some serious talent and projects with this setup, but ONLY if it's executed well.
There are some things that need to be addressed:
Don't get me wrong, I'm leaning towards voting yes. The potential upside is huge. But as I cast my vote, I want to see these issues addressed. We can't just throw money at a good idea - we need to make sure it's rock-solid. Thank you all for making this promising initiative!
Voted in favor on Tally too for the reasons expressed above.
Voted against, I think all the comments before my summarize it quite well.
I voted FOR this proposal again on Tally.
The complexity of executing this project is high, but the team’s determination in explaining it to delegates during Brussels, along with their openness to validating, understanding, and reviewing how to make this a viable way to deliver results and ROI for the DAO while supporting the broader ecosystem, makes it 100% valid as a pilot program. Additionally, the team’s maturity and experience were key factors that influenced my decision.
I voted for this proposal (without the event) and am excited to see what it will bring to the DAO. We are very long on spending possibilities and short on general frameworks to guide decisions about that spending. This proposal has the potential to start to address this gap and also requires a limited commitment from the DAO for this pilot stage.
I take others’ points about overlap with other programs, but I see AVI as complementary to the M&A initiative given that one focuses on non-controlling investments and the other on M&A. It’s also encouraging that the two proposing teams have been in contact and I hope that leads to a more integrated approach.
I voted for this proposal as I'm really excited about the idea of the DAO being able to use this as a new tool, especially for bigger projects and investment. I share the concern of other delegates around what the role of this pilot phase is, but as it isn't too expensive to the DAO I'm happy to support it. I'd advise to get this running ASAP though as deals like the Kwenta incentive one could have certainly been part of this program. Attracting these bigger projects through incentive schemes that are more beneficial to the DAO makes a lot of sense right now!
I voted Against this proposal at the temp check stage because I think the scope of the research project is too vague and broad. It doesn't seem like the team made significant progress on defining the Arbitrum Ventures opportunity in the months leading up to this pilot initiative proposal. I don't want to set a precedent that anyone can come to the DAO for 100k in funding to research an opportunity. I would like to see a proposal that has more specificity at this stage.
First of all, we absolutely support this program. We are sure it will be productive to create a market consultancy department for Arbitrum and to prepare an investment thesis for this purpose. Regarding the issue of whether an IRL event should be organized or not, we support such activities and find them fruitful. We believe the budget is appropriate for this kind of activity. Therefore, our vote is in favor of full scope support.
The AVI team extends our sincere gratitude for all the great engagement, feedback, and suggestions!
This proposal has passed on Snapshot with a quorum of approximately 153 million votes, of which 92.21% were in support.
We are currently reviewing all the input, conducting individual follow-ups to better understand some of the suggestions, and refining our approach accordingly.
The AVI team extends our sincere gratitude for all the great engagement, feedback, and suggestions!
This proposal has passed on Snapshot with a quorum of approximately 153 million votes, of which 92.21% were in support.
We are currently reviewing all the input, conducting individual follow-ups to better understand some of the suggestions, and refining our approach accordingly.
Please stay tuned for updates next week as we progress towards a Tally vote. In the meantime, we remain available and welcome anyone to reach out for any relevant discussions.
I am FOR this proposal. I appreciate the amount of time and effort put into getting to this point and feel that the budget and goals are reasonable and aligned.
We voted in favour of the Pilot Phase. However, we want to signal concerns about the initial large amount required for the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative. This is a slippery slope; while we are supporting the limited-scope of the AVI Pilot Phase, we will be mindful of supporting further proposals.
The below response portrays the views of the @AranaDigital governance team, represented by @farfel.eth.
We will be voting FOR [No IRL Event] this proposal on Snapshot. We appreciate @lino and the other contributors for delivering this proposal and for the constant communication with the community throughout this process. Through many grants and incentive programs, the DAO has continued to explore and experiment with various mechanisms of capital allocation. We support the continued development of new frameworks that innovate on Arbitrum's investment initiatives, and we are keen to work with the AVI during this pilot program to analyze the opportunity and engage the community to advance the Arbitrum ecosystem. We initially had concerns regarding the timing of such a program, similar to points raised by @swmartin and @PGov, but we found the responses and overall initiative to warrant the support of this pilot program. We also agree with @Griff and @BlockworksResearch that the IRL even seemed to be unnecessary with the prominence of numerous other IRL events that the ArbitrumDAO is funding. We look forward to continued discussions on this program and the DAO framework for such an initiative.
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. vb
We’re voting FOR the proposal, but deciding to opt out of the IRL event.
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. vb
We’re voting FOR the proposal, but deciding to opt out of the IRL event.
While the bigger picture of establishing a venture arm for the DAO seems ambitious and challenging, the proposed pilot could provide the necessary foundation to make an informed decision, if not to use it as a stepping stone to further develop the initiative.
We are a bit skeptical of the IRL ‘thesis development’ event and its actual impact on thesis development in the scope of the pilot. However, we want to understand how the rest of the deliverables outlined in the proposal will help inform an actionable investment strategy that can be funded by the DAO’s treasury.
With that said, we’re keen to support the pilot proposal as an experiment that can perhaps lead to a bigger, more structured initiative over a longer time horizon that can potentially greatly benefit the DAO.
We vote FOR [NO IRL Event].
We appreciate the AVI team’s effort and approach to address feedback from the delegates. While we still believe potential overlap would be found through the course and as DAO, we need to evaluate if this initiative should be prioritized and funded in a big scale after the pilot phase, the budget ask is reasonable enough for a capable and passionate team to start the pilot phase to explore the opportunities.
The AVI pilot proposal outlines a thoughtful approach to developing an investment strategy for the DAO. We strongly support this iterative process to manage risk while still driving progress.
However, we believe the IRL workshop component, while potentially valuable, is not essential at this stage and adds significant expense. We also feel tighter coordination with other DAO investment-related initiatives is necessary to ensure no overlaps.
The AVI pilot proposal outlines a thoughtful approach to developing an investment strategy for the DAO. We strongly support this iterative process to manage risk while still driving progress.
However, we believe the IRL workshop component, while potentially valuable, is not essential at this stage and adds significant expense. We also feel tighter coordination with other DAO investment-related initiatives is necessary to ensure no overlaps.
Therefore, on behalf of the ARB token holders who delegated their voting power to us, we vote FOR [No IRL Event].
Notice of Withdrawal from the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative
Dear all,
I am writing to formally inform the ArbitrumDAO that we have decided to withdraw from our involvement in the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative. This decision has been made after careful consideration and deliberation by our team.
Notice of Withdrawal from the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative
Dear all,
I am writing to formally inform the ArbitrumDAO that we have decided to withdraw from our involvement in the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative. This decision has been made after careful consideration and deliberation by our team.
Our withdrawal is primarily due to a disagreement with the current direction of the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative.
Please be assured that we have communicated all pertinent details and concerns that led to this decision to the Arbitrum Foundation. Our intention is to ensure that this transition is as smooth as possible, and we remain committed to supporting the broader goals of the Arbitrum ecosystem in other capacities where our visions are more closely aligned.
We appreciate the opportunity to have been a part of this initiative and wish the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative continued success in its future endeavors.
Kind regards, Joseph (Immutablelawyer)
I voted “FOR”. This proposal is a well-structured approach to developing a comprehensive investment strategy for the Arbitrum ecosystem. The two-month pilot sprint is designed to gather critical insights and data through market consultations, workshops, and an IRL event, culminating in the creation of an Arbitrum Ecosystem Investment Thesis. This thesis will identify key sectors for investment, analyze market trends, and provide strategic recommendations, ensuring informed and effective fund deployment. The experienced AVI team and their detailed operational plan demonstrate a clear roadmap for success, emphasizing stakeholder engagement and iterative learning. This pilot phase is essential for minimizing risks, refining strategies, and fostering robust community involvement, setting a solid foundation for future phases of the AVI.
DAOplomats voted For [No IRL Event].
We are pleased with the rationale behind this proposal and excited to see the results of this pilot phase as it would bring clarity to some initiatives already in motion and future venture initiatives.
DAOplomats voted For [No IRL Event].
We are pleased with the rationale behind this proposal and excited to see the results of this pilot phase as it would bring clarity to some initiatives already in motion and future venture initiatives.
However, we were against the IRL event as we were not confident in the exact value it would yield. If it were integrated with the ETH CC, it would have been an easy yes for us.
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
Our team is generally in favor of the recent expansions that the DAO has made into more traditional styles of investment and ecosystem development. While most DAO’s are still relegated to grant programs, profit-driven initiatives like this are a good exploitative path for the DAO to take. We do, however, voice a degree of caution to the DAO with approving too many programs too quickly without enough inspection of the efficacy of these initiatives. Yes, it takes time for multi-month programs to materialize, but it’s important to deliberately approach utilization of the treasury. The recent investment into gaming is the most salient case of this.
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
Our team is generally in favor of the recent expansions that the DAO has made into more traditional styles of investment and ecosystem development. While most DAO’s are still relegated to grant programs, profit-driven initiatives like this are a good exploitative path for the DAO to take. We do, however, voice a degree of caution to the DAO with approving too many programs too quickly without enough inspection of the efficacy of these initiatives. Yes, it takes time for multi-month programs to materialize, but it’s important to deliberately approach utilization of the treasury. The recent investment into gaming is the most salient case of this.
The Areta team has already been pushing forward with their research on the M&A front as well, which as many have mentioned, could involve some overlap in responsibilities. Since this proposal seems to be passing the Snapshot, we’d like to highlight that Areta has also done a great job of aggregating community feedback over the past couple of months, all done prior to their official proposal asking for funding from the DAO. This care for the opinions and perspectives of the DAO is vital for pushing forward a novel initiative such as this one–we would like the AVI to adopt a similar communication standard.
The reason why we are abstaining on this proposal is largely because our team wants to see what the M&A group’s research yields over the next couple of weeks/months. Since there is a degree of overlap in terms of scope, a finalized deliverable from the M&A team’s research will help us understand how the AVI should function. This seems like a more complementary approach between the various initiatives.
Hi everyone! Thank you for all the engagement and really sorry I couldn't meet many of you in person in Brussels.
Ended up spending almost 3 weeks in a hospital and still being treated at home after a nasty food poisoning. Should be back in form next week and looking forward to kick-off the AVI pilot with the team if we remain receiving your gracious support.
Hi everyone! Thank you for all the engagement and really sorry I couldn't meet many of you in person in Brussels.
Ended up spending almost 3 weeks in a hospital and still being treated at home after a nasty food poisoning. Should be back in form next week and looking forward to kick-off the AVI pilot with the team if we remain receiving your gracious support.
We actually started doing doing some work on the project in the interest of time, based on the validation from the community so far.
Please attend the first of a series of open events engaging the community on key topics relevant for the work ahead. Namely the session on evergreen funds led by Paul from our team: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/avi-open-event-1-evergreen-funds-for-ecosystem-development/25631
The Tally vote is live now, please vote early to support us staying on top of timelines: here
This AVI progran sounds promising. I support the idea of diversifying our investment strategy beyond just grants is smart. We could attract some serious talent and projects with this setup, but ONLY if it's executed well.
There are some things that need to be addressed:
This AVI progran sounds promising. I support the idea of diversifying our investment strategy beyond just grants is smart. We could attract some serious talent and projects with this setup, but ONLY if it's executed well.
There are some things that need to be addressed:
Don't get me wrong, I'm leaning towards voting yes. The potential upside is huge. But as I cast my vote, I want to see these issues addressed. We can't just throw money at a good idea - we need to make sure it's rock-solid. Thank you all for making this promising initiative!
Voted in favor on Tally too for the reasons expressed above.
Voted against, I think all the comments before my summarize it quite well.
I voted FOR this proposal again on Tally.
The complexity of executing this project is high, but the team’s determination in explaining it to delegates during Brussels, along with their openness to validating, understanding, and reviewing how to make this a viable way to deliver results and ROI for the DAO while supporting the broader ecosystem, makes it 100% valid as a pilot program. Additionally, the team’s maturity and experience were key factors that influenced my decision.
I voted for this proposal (without the event) and am excited to see what it will bring to the DAO. We are very long on spending possibilities and short on general frameworks to guide decisions about that spending. This proposal has the potential to start to address this gap and also requires a limited commitment from the DAO for this pilot stage.
I take others’ points about overlap with other programs, but I see AVI as complementary to the M&A initiative given that one focuses on non-controlling investments and the other on M&A. It’s also encouraging that the two proposing teams have been in contact and I hope that leads to a more integrated approach.
I voted for this proposal as I'm really excited about the idea of the DAO being able to use this as a new tool, especially for bigger projects and investment. I share the concern of other delegates around what the role of this pilot phase is, but as it isn't too expensive to the DAO I'm happy to support it. I'd advise to get this running ASAP though as deals like the Kwenta incentive one could have certainly been part of this program. Attracting these bigger projects through incentive schemes that are more beneficial to the DAO makes a lot of sense right now!
I voted Against this proposal at the temp check stage because I think the scope of the research project is too vague and broad. It doesn't seem like the team made significant progress on defining the Arbitrum Ventures opportunity in the months leading up to this pilot initiative proposal. I don't want to set a precedent that anyone can come to the DAO for 100k in funding to research an opportunity. I would like to see a proposal that has more specificity at this stage.
First of all, we absolutely support this program. We are sure it will be productive to create a market consultancy department for Arbitrum and to prepare an investment thesis for this purpose. Regarding the issue of whether an IRL event should be organized or not, we support such activities and find them fruitful. We believe the budget is appropriate for this kind of activity. Therefore, our vote is in favor of full scope support.
The AVI team extends our sincere gratitude for all the great engagement, feedback, and suggestions!
This proposal has passed on Snapshot with a quorum of approximately 153 million votes, of which 92.21% were in support.
We are currently reviewing all the input, conducting individual follow-ups to better understand some of the suggestions, and refining our approach accordingly.
The AVI team extends our sincere gratitude for all the great engagement, feedback, and suggestions!
This proposal has passed on Snapshot with a quorum of approximately 153 million votes, of which 92.21% were in support.
We are currently reviewing all the input, conducting individual follow-ups to better understand some of the suggestions, and refining our approach accordingly.
Please stay tuned for updates next week as we progress towards a Tally vote. In the meantime, we remain available and welcome anyone to reach out for any relevant discussions.
I am FOR this proposal. I appreciate the amount of time and effort put into getting to this point and feel that the budget and goals are reasonable and aligned.
We voted in favour of the Pilot Phase. However, we want to signal concerns about the initial large amount required for the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative. This is a slippery slope; while we are supporting the limited-scope of the AVI Pilot Phase, we will be mindful of supporting further proposals.
The below response portrays the views of the @AranaDigital governance team, represented by @farfel.eth.
We will be voting FOR [No IRL Event] this proposal on Snapshot. We appreciate @lino and the other contributors for delivering this proposal and for the constant communication with the community throughout this process. Through many grants and incentive programs, the DAO has continued to explore and experiment with various mechanisms of capital allocation. We support the continued development of new frameworks that innovate on Arbitrum's investment initiatives, and we are keen to work with the AVI during this pilot program to analyze the opportunity and engage the community to advance the Arbitrum ecosystem. We initially had concerns regarding the timing of such a program, similar to points raised by @swmartin and @PGov, but we found the responses and overall initiative to warrant the support of this pilot program. We also agree with @Griff and @BlockworksResearch that the IRL even seemed to be unnecessary with the prominence of numerous other IRL events that the ArbitrumDAO is funding. We look forward to continued discussions on this program and the DAO framework for such an initiative.
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. vb
We’re voting FOR the proposal, but deciding to opt out of the IRL event.
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. vb
We’re voting FOR the proposal, but deciding to opt out of the IRL event.
While the bigger picture of establishing a venture arm for the DAO seems ambitious and challenging, the proposed pilot could provide the necessary foundation to make an informed decision, if not to use it as a stepping stone to further develop the initiative.
We are a bit skeptical of the IRL ‘thesis development’ event and its actual impact on thesis development in the scope of the pilot. However, we want to understand how the rest of the deliverables outlined in the proposal will help inform an actionable investment strategy that can be funded by the DAO’s treasury.
With that said, we’re keen to support the pilot proposal as an experiment that can perhaps lead to a bigger, more structured initiative over a longer time horizon that can potentially greatly benefit the DAO.
We vote FOR [NO IRL Event].
We appreciate the AVI team’s effort and approach to address feedback from the delegates. While we still believe potential overlap would be found through the course and as DAO, we need to evaluate if this initiative should be prioritized and funded in a big scale after the pilot phase, the budget ask is reasonable enough for a capable and passionate team to start the pilot phase to explore the opportunities.
The AVI pilot proposal outlines a thoughtful approach to developing an investment strategy for the DAO. We strongly support this iterative process to manage risk while still driving progress.
However, we believe the IRL workshop component, while potentially valuable, is not essential at this stage and adds significant expense. We also feel tighter coordination with other DAO investment-related initiatives is necessary to ensure no overlaps.
The AVI pilot proposal outlines a thoughtful approach to developing an investment strategy for the DAO. We strongly support this iterative process to manage risk while still driving progress.
However, we believe the IRL workshop component, while potentially valuable, is not essential at this stage and adds significant expense. We also feel tighter coordination with other DAO investment-related initiatives is necessary to ensure no overlaps.
Therefore, on behalf of the ARB token holders who delegated their voting power to us, we vote FOR [No IRL Event].
@BlockworksResearch, thank you for supporting the initiate and engaging in the preliminary discussion!
However, based on the key deliverables, it seems to us as though the planned output here is mostly concentrated on analyzing market opportunities in isolation. We think it would be highly beneficial for the community to already at this stage see further research into how the AVI would play into Arbitrum’s other current investment-related projects, what the possible overarching structure would look like, if any of the structures need to/can be consolidated, how the DAO should approach LPing into funds with different mandates focusing on various parts of the investment lifecycle, and if any of the discovered market opportunities warrant changes to the current initiatives.
@BlockworksResearch, thank you for supporting the initiate and engaging in the preliminary discussion!
However, based on the key deliverables, it seems to us as though the planned output here is mostly concentrated on analyzing market opportunities in isolation. We think it would be highly beneficial for the community to already at this stage see further research into how the AVI would play into Arbitrum’s other current investment-related projects, what the possible overarching structure would look like, if any of the structures need to/can be consolidated, how the DAO should approach LPing into funds with different mandates focusing on various parts of the investment lifecycle, and if any of the discovered market opportunities warrant changes to the current initiatives.
Figuring out how we can fund the best of all the proposed initiatives and integrate them with an informed underlying strategy and oversight, as well as including other players from the market, which might not have organically come about, is exactly what we are planning to do.
We appreciate that in the communications thus far, especially for those who didn't participate in the working group sessions, could have been a lot better. We are working on it and will post updates in the coming days.
Michigan Blockchain is voting FOR [No IRL Event]. We see the fundamental difference from other comparable programs (GCP, M&A) and think that the AVI contributes to the long term growth of the Arbitrum DAO. There is a new set of incentives that are vastly different from those of the GCP where now we’re looking to preserve the DAO treasury through larger deployments of capital in investments.
Blockworks Research will be voting FOR [No IRL Event] this proposal on Snapshot.
Firstly, thank you @lino et al for authoring this proposal and the related work performed.
Blockworks Research will be voting FOR [No IRL Event] this proposal on Snapshot.
Firstly, thank you @lino et al for authoring this proposal and the related work performed.
As it has become clear that the DAO wants to venture further into becoming a capital allocator, we see any initiatives striving to develop operational structures and overarching investment theses further as highly beneficial. However, based on the key deliverables, it seems to us as though the planned output here is mostly concentrated on analyzing market opportunities in isolation. We think it would be highly beneficial for the community to already at this stage see further research into how the AVI would play into Arbitrum’s other current investment-related projects, what the possible overarching structure would look like, if any of the structures need to/can be consolidated, how the DAO should approach LPing into funds with different mandates focusing on various parts of the investment lifecycle, and if any of the discovered market opportunities warrant changes to the current initiatives.
We also decided to vote against holding an IRL event as we think similar results can be achieved through the already confirmed and possibly upcoming Arbitrum-related events.
@Griff, thank you for the support! We have carefully considered this work to ensure it does not overlap with any approved initiatives.
More importantly, we share the view that, especially with smaller bets, it’s crucial to allow autonomous groups to experiment in different ways, compete, and enable us to double down and generalize on whatever shows results. These results should be measured in a mature and fit-for-purpose manner, which is part of the scope we are proposing as part of AVI.
I have voted "For [No IRL Event]" on this proposal. As a general concept, I think this is a pretty low cost, low risk proposal that aims to enhance the DAO and how it functions. The team seems to be built with people of quality backgrounds relevant to the task, and the proposal has already taken into consideration a lot of delegate feedback which makes me feel confident they will use this pilot opportunity well.
Overlap concerns seem to be the largest thing brought up by other delegates. I can see why, as we have funded a lot of similar projects, however I don't think in this case it's that big of a deal. For starters, given this is a pilot program the ask is small and as such the risk is small. I also think Lino has put in a lot of discussions & explanation on this issue that makes sense and ease some of the concerns. But perhaps most importantly, the overlap is on something that isn't even really 'solved' (i.e., I think if this was a study into say a Multi Sig Service it would make less sense since that's already being worked out). So I don't think it hurts to continue to explore these types of ventures.
I have voted "For [No IRL Event]" on this proposal. As a general concept, I think this is a pretty low cost, low risk proposal that aims to enhance the DAO and how it functions. The team seems to be built with people of quality backgrounds relevant to the task, and the proposal has already taken into consideration a lot of delegate feedback which makes me feel confident they will use this pilot opportunity well.
Overlap concerns seem to be the largest thing brought up by other delegates. I can see why, as we have funded a lot of similar projects, however I don't think in this case it's that big of a deal. For starters, given this is a pilot program the ask is small and as such the risk is small. I also think Lino has put in a lot of discussions & explanation on this issue that makes sense and ease some of the concerns. But perhaps most importantly, the overlap is on something that isn't even really 'solved' (i.e., I think if this was a study into say a Multi Sig Service it would make less sense since that's already being worked out). So I don't think it hurts to continue to explore these types of ventures.
As for the IRL event, I see the value in it in general but do not think it makes sense to do it at this stage of the project. However, would support funding IRL events as the AVI moves forward if the findings are that they are useful. A suggestion would be to see if there are ways to integrate into already existing crypto events to possibly save costs, versus the overhead of hosting your own projects.
Edit: I have not had any material change in opinion on this since Snapshot. In order to save forum space, I have edited this post to confirm I will be voting "For" this on Tally for the reasons stated above.
Hi all,
By way of a disclaimer prior to entering into the merits of the proposal (in short), I am a proposed member of this pilot program.
A lot of delegates/contributors are inquiring as to whether this might be overlapping with other initiatives within the DAO or rather, that such an initiative is actually overlapping with other initiatives such as the Gaming Catalyst Program.
Hi all,
By way of a disclaimer prior to entering into the merits of the proposal (in short), I am a proposed member of this pilot program.
A lot of delegates/contributors are inquiring as to whether this might be overlapping with other initiatives within the DAO or rather, that such an initiative is actually overlapping with other initiatives such as the Gaming Catalyst Program.
The answer here is a simple [no] for the reason I shall delve into below.
At the current moment in time, we are seeing an upramp in venture-oriented initiatives that involve deploying capital (GCP, Elixir Capital's Proposal, M&A etc.). These proposals, albeit being substantively of good quality and (potentially) providing a good ROI for the ArbitrumDAO are piece-meal in nature.
The AVI would have ideally come before these initiatves were put into play, however, this was not possible due to certain time constraints and also with the GCP being deemed higher priority by various delegates.
The AVI's value-add lies in its proposition of providing the DAO with a tangible, data-driven and market-based prospective investment thesis that could then be utilised to prop proposals on therefrom. As of now, proposals are drafted in a piece-meal fashion (as stated above) without aligning to any form of thesis, strategy or venture-oriented due diligence approach re. the aforementioned thesis and strategy.
There is quite a bit of appetite to embark on a venture-arm for the Arbitrum DAO as can be seen by the GCP and other initiatives. However, if we are to do so, we need to have a market-standard approach to these initiatives so as to be able to compete with other Venture Capital firms - developing a thesis in line with the AVI proposal is a pivotal part of this process. The thesis is beneficial so as to ensure that venture decisions/proposals are sensical in nature and are not made at a point in time (either re. the market dynamics or re. the particular vertical's growth pattern) where it wouldn't provide the desired value-add.
Thanks for reading my boring brief!
gm, I voted For [No IRL Event].
I also share the concerns of other delegates that there is a lot of overlapping with other initiatives, however I am in favor of doing additional research in this pilot phase, and as the other programs materialize and get structured, understand which ones make more sense for our goals.
gm, I voted For [No IRL Event].
I also share the concerns of other delegates that there is a lot of overlapping with other initiatives, however I am in favor of doing additional research in this pilot phase, and as the other programs materialize and get structured, understand which ones make more sense for our goals.
I don't think an additional physical event would make sense considering ETHCC is coming - so excluding this option for my vote.
This proposal leverages extensive community feedback and expert input to create a robust strategy for the Arbitrum Venture Initiative (AVI). It addresses key pain points in venture development, providing a pilot phase to refine investment strategies, engage stakeholders, and ensure thorough analysis. The proposed pilot ensures a well-informed, efficient launch, maximizing strategic value and long-term impact for the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Thank you for coming up with the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative proposal. We appreciate the effort and vision behind this proposal. However, we are considering voting against it at this time because it seems to be overlapping with some ongoing initiatives such as the M&A pilot group and the upcoming GCP. Additionally, there are already IRL events like GovHack at ETH CC (Brussels) that ArbitrumDAO is funding. Given these existing commitments, we believe further discussion is needed to avoid redundancy and ensure efficient use of resources. We suggest waiting to see the results and challenges from these initiatives to improve and develop a better methodology for this initiative.
Thanks for the proposal and prompt reply to all of us here.
In my opinion, it would significantly enhance the proposal if it were reshaped or rewritten to address the raised issues. This feedback should be clearly stated in the text, making it evident how it differs from other proposals.
I voted against it.
Thanks for the proposal and prompt reply to all of us here.
In my opinion, it would significantly enhance the proposal if it were reshaped or rewritten to address the raised issues. This feedback should be clearly stated in the text, making it evident how it differs from other proposals.
I voted against it.
While I understand that this work has been ongoing for several months and that we must explore the possibilities mentioned here, as delegates, we need to view the whole set of proposals that are in place right now (accepted and on vote) and ensure that they make sense in this broader context.
@maxlomu, thank you for the consideration and comment here. We appreciate the support!
All,
We have scheduled office hours in the governance calendar for Monday at 2pm UTC to address the following concerns, among others, for anyone who might want to attend on short notice. I will also be available for short 1:1 calls before the vote ends and in the next few days.
@maxlomu, thank you for the consideration and comment here. We appreciate the support!
All,
We have scheduled office hours in the governance calendar for Monday at 2pm UTC to address the following concerns, among others, for anyone who might want to attend on short notice. I will also be available for short 1:1 calls before the vote ends and in the next few days.
We’ve been collaborating with all the other groups for which AVI is meant as a framework solution. Regarding M&A, we had a call with @Bernard to discuss the potential overlap during the pilot phases. So far, it seems there isn’t much overlap, and from an AVI perspective, we can build on the deliverables around key Arbitrum focus areas. We plan to collaborate in Brussels before the market consultation is meant to starts and aim to ensure efficient and collaborative coordination.
General feedback:
General feedback:
@jengajojo, I think these are great question on the Infinite Launchpad thread. I'm up to speed on some of the discussion there and am sure @aminiman will give great responses.
Still thought to connect the dots with what we've been discussing in the AVI topic. Part of the the point of the market consultation in this pilot proposal is to be able to provide all the program managers with the same well researched and up to date information of what already exists as opportunities in the Aribitrum ecosystem and come up with guidance on what would be important strategically for the DAO.
Additionally there is already a discussion around aligning all impact metrics so the various programs can have benchmarkable with each other results. We've also been including in that thinking the accelerators that will come from the ThankArb RFP programs as well.
I wish I did a better job at visualising a lot of this originally. Thank you for engaging and actually I've been trying reach you guys. Part of the AVI scope is related to enabling specific to Arbitrum talent and project pipelines via supporting university incubators. We've already looked into some institutional partnerships with tier one schools in the UK and it's something we want to work on during GovHack. Would you be up for a call with me on that topic (DMd here)?
I’m voting FOR the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative (AVI) proposal, but without the IRL event.
Focusing our resources on the core activities rather than costly IRL events ensures better allocation and impact. By avoiding the operational complexities of organizing IRL events, we can keep our focus on delivering tangible benefits and ROI to the DAO. The primary goal of this initiative is to support projects building on Arbitrum, and a streamlined approach will help achieve this more effectively.
I am supportive of this venture. Personally I don't see overlappoing as a bad thing, I would much rather see us experiment in a few ways to invest in the projects in our ecosystems than get stuck in one way of doing things.... Competition is good, and so is moving towards investments with return rather than just grants and incentive programs.
Oh and I don't see the big win in the IRL event, it just seems extra and not worth it, maybe if it was at ETHCC it would make more sense, but I also think remote coordinating will work just fine.
We believe something like this could be very useful, but frankly, it is just not the right time for something like this. With prior support for M&A pilot group being passed and also the significant gaming fund likely to pass, we think the DAO should let these bets sit and come to fruition for a little bit of time before moving with these venture and fund projects.
I'd like you to consider a couple more points in your future report:
really appreciate the clarification here
This vote was quite conflicted for us. We believe something like this could be very useful, but frankly, it is just not the right time for something like this. With prior support for M&A pilot group being passed and also the significant gaming fund likely to pass, we think the DAO should let these bets sit and come to fruition for a little bit of time before moving with these venture and fund projects.
Overall, the concerns associated with this project and certain other specific things have been discussed. We'd like to talk about a possible framework the DAO should adopt for these venture funds as to not crowd and spend too much of the treasury at once?
I have concerns around allocating too much of the treasury towards venture type initiatives with the GCP set to pass… and with other initiatives under this category, in addition to the AVI, continuing to march forward. Additionally, I find little value in the IRL workshop given ETH CC in Brussels is just around the corner and I believe that the logistics to organize such an event will prove much more difficult in practice.
I have concerns around allocating too much of the treasury towards venture type initiatives with the GCP set to pass... and with other initiatives under this category, in addition to the AVI, continuing to march forward. Additionally, I find little value in the IRL workshop given ETH CC in Brussels is just around the corner and I believe that the logistics to organize such an event will prove much more difficult in practice.
With that being said, Lino, Ana, and the rest of the AVI team have put a tremendous amount of time and effort into this initiative, and I think $54k is a reasonable ask to put together a highly detailed plan IF we believe this has a chance at passing post pilot phase. Otherwise, we are wasting the AVI team's time/resources as well as the DAO's contributors.
@BlockworksResearch, thank you for supporting the initiate and engaging in the preliminary discussion!
However, based on the key deliverables, it seems to us as though the planned output here is mostly concentrated on analyzing market opportunities in isolation. We think it would be highly beneficial for the community to already at this stage see further research into how the AVI would play into Arbitrum’s other current investment-related projects, what the possible overarching structure would look like, if any of the structures need to/can be consolidated, how the DAO should approach LPing into funds with different mandates focusing on various parts of the investment lifecycle, and if any of the discovered market opportunities warrant changes to the current initiatives.
@BlockworksResearch, thank you for supporting the initiate and engaging in the preliminary discussion!
However, based on the key deliverables, it seems to us as though the planned output here is mostly concentrated on analyzing market opportunities in isolation. We think it would be highly beneficial for the community to already at this stage see further research into how the AVI would play into Arbitrum’s other current investment-related projects, what the possible overarching structure would look like, if any of the structures need to/can be consolidated, how the DAO should approach LPing into funds with different mandates focusing on various parts of the investment lifecycle, and if any of the discovered market opportunities warrant changes to the current initiatives.
Figuring out how we can fund the best of all the proposed initiatives and integrate them with an informed underlying strategy and oversight, as well as including other players from the market, which might not have organically come about, is exactly what we are planning to do.
We appreciate that in the communications thus far, especially for those who didn't participate in the working group sessions, could have been a lot better. We are working on it and will post updates in the coming days.
Michigan Blockchain is voting FOR [No IRL Event]. We see the fundamental difference from other comparable programs (GCP, M&A) and think that the AVI contributes to the long term growth of the Arbitrum DAO. There is a new set of incentives that are vastly different from those of the GCP where now we’re looking to preserve the DAO treasury through larger deployments of capital in investments.
Blockworks Research will be voting FOR [No IRL Event] this proposal on Snapshot.
Firstly, thank you @lino et al for authoring this proposal and the related work performed.
Blockworks Research will be voting FOR [No IRL Event] this proposal on Snapshot.
Firstly, thank you @lino et al for authoring this proposal and the related work performed.
As it has become clear that the DAO wants to venture further into becoming a capital allocator, we see any initiatives striving to develop operational structures and overarching investment theses further as highly beneficial. However, based on the key deliverables, it seems to us as though the planned output here is mostly concentrated on analyzing market opportunities in isolation. We think it would be highly beneficial for the community to already at this stage see further research into how the AVI would play into Arbitrum’s other current investment-related projects, what the possible overarching structure would look like, if any of the structures need to/can be consolidated, how the DAO should approach LPing into funds with different mandates focusing on various parts of the investment lifecycle, and if any of the discovered market opportunities warrant changes to the current initiatives.
We also decided to vote against holding an IRL event as we think similar results can be achieved through the already confirmed and possibly upcoming Arbitrum-related events.
@Griff, thank you for the support! We have carefully considered this work to ensure it does not overlap with any approved initiatives.
More importantly, we share the view that, especially with smaller bets, it’s crucial to allow autonomous groups to experiment in different ways, compete, and enable us to double down and generalize on whatever shows results. These results should be measured in a mature and fit-for-purpose manner, which is part of the scope we are proposing as part of AVI.
I have voted "For [No IRL Event]" on this proposal. As a general concept, I think this is a pretty low cost, low risk proposal that aims to enhance the DAO and how it functions. The team seems to be built with people of quality backgrounds relevant to the task, and the proposal has already taken into consideration a lot of delegate feedback which makes me feel confident they will use this pilot opportunity well.
Overlap concerns seem to be the largest thing brought up by other delegates. I can see why, as we have funded a lot of similar projects, however I don't think in this case it's that big of a deal. For starters, given this is a pilot program the ask is small and as such the risk is small. I also think Lino has put in a lot of discussions & explanation on this issue that makes sense and ease some of the concerns. But perhaps most importantly, the overlap is on something that isn't even really 'solved' (i.e., I think if this was a study into say a Multi Sig Service it would make less sense since that's already being worked out). So I don't think it hurts to continue to explore these types of ventures.
I have voted "For [No IRL Event]" on this proposal. As a general concept, I think this is a pretty low cost, low risk proposal that aims to enhance the DAO and how it functions. The team seems to be built with people of quality backgrounds relevant to the task, and the proposal has already taken into consideration a lot of delegate feedback which makes me feel confident they will use this pilot opportunity well.
Overlap concerns seem to be the largest thing brought up by other delegates. I can see why, as we have funded a lot of similar projects, however I don't think in this case it's that big of a deal. For starters, given this is a pilot program the ask is small and as such the risk is small. I also think Lino has put in a lot of discussions & explanation on this issue that makes sense and ease some of the concerns. But perhaps most importantly, the overlap is on something that isn't even really 'solved' (i.e., I think if this was a study into say a Multi Sig Service it would make less sense since that's already being worked out). So I don't think it hurts to continue to explore these types of ventures.
As for the IRL event, I see the value in it in general but do not think it makes sense to do it at this stage of the project. However, would support funding IRL events as the AVI moves forward if the findings are that they are useful. A suggestion would be to see if there are ways to integrate into already existing crypto events to possibly save costs, versus the overhead of hosting your own projects.
Edit: I have not had any material change in opinion on this since Snapshot. In order to save forum space, I have edited this post to confirm I will be voting "For" this on Tally for the reasons stated above.
Hi all,
By way of a disclaimer prior to entering into the merits of the proposal (in short), I am a proposed member of this pilot program.
A lot of delegates/contributors are inquiring as to whether this might be overlapping with other initiatives within the DAO or rather, that such an initiative is actually overlapping with other initiatives such as the Gaming Catalyst Program.
Hi all,
By way of a disclaimer prior to entering into the merits of the proposal (in short), I am a proposed member of this pilot program.
A lot of delegates/contributors are inquiring as to whether this might be overlapping with other initiatives within the DAO or rather, that such an initiative is actually overlapping with other initiatives such as the Gaming Catalyst Program.
The answer here is a simple [no] for the reason I shall delve into below.
At the current moment in time, we are seeing an upramp in venture-oriented initiatives that involve deploying capital (GCP, Elixir Capital's Proposal, M&A etc.). These proposals, albeit being substantively of good quality and (potentially) providing a good ROI for the ArbitrumDAO are piece-meal in nature.
The AVI would have ideally come before these initiatves were put into play, however, this was not possible due to certain time constraints and also with the GCP being deemed higher priority by various delegates.
The AVI's value-add lies in its proposition of providing the DAO with a tangible, data-driven and market-based prospective investment thesis that could then be utilised to prop proposals on therefrom. As of now, proposals are drafted in a piece-meal fashion (as stated above) without aligning to any form of thesis, strategy or venture-oriented due diligence approach re. the aforementioned thesis and strategy.
There is quite a bit of appetite to embark on a venture-arm for the Arbitrum DAO as can be seen by the GCP and other initiatives. However, if we are to do so, we need to have a market-standard approach to these initiatives so as to be able to compete with other Venture Capital firms - developing a thesis in line with the AVI proposal is a pivotal part of this process. The thesis is beneficial so as to ensure that venture decisions/proposals are sensical in nature and are not made at a point in time (either re. the market dynamics or re. the particular vertical's growth pattern) where it wouldn't provide the desired value-add.
Thanks for reading my boring brief!
gm, I voted For [No IRL Event].
I also share the concerns of other delegates that there is a lot of overlapping with other initiatives, however I am in favor of doing additional research in this pilot phase, and as the other programs materialize and get structured, understand which ones make more sense for our goals.
gm, I voted For [No IRL Event].
I also share the concerns of other delegates that there is a lot of overlapping with other initiatives, however I am in favor of doing additional research in this pilot phase, and as the other programs materialize and get structured, understand which ones make more sense for our goals.
I don't think an additional physical event would make sense considering ETHCC is coming - so excluding this option for my vote.
This proposal leverages extensive community feedback and expert input to create a robust strategy for the Arbitrum Venture Initiative (AVI). It addresses key pain points in venture development, providing a pilot phase to refine investment strategies, engage stakeholders, and ensure thorough analysis. The proposed pilot ensures a well-informed, efficient launch, maximizing strategic value and long-term impact for the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Thank you for coming up with the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative proposal. We appreciate the effort and vision behind this proposal. However, we are considering voting against it at this time because it seems to be overlapping with some ongoing initiatives such as the M&A pilot group and the upcoming GCP. Additionally, there are already IRL events like GovHack at ETH CC (Brussels) that ArbitrumDAO is funding. Given these existing commitments, we believe further discussion is needed to avoid redundancy and ensure efficient use of resources. We suggest waiting to see the results and challenges from these initiatives to improve and develop a better methodology for this initiative.
Thanks for the proposal and prompt reply to all of us here.
In my opinion, it would significantly enhance the proposal if it were reshaped or rewritten to address the raised issues. This feedback should be clearly stated in the text, making it evident how it differs from other proposals.
I voted against it.
Thanks for the proposal and prompt reply to all of us here.
In my opinion, it would significantly enhance the proposal if it were reshaped or rewritten to address the raised issues. This feedback should be clearly stated in the text, making it evident how it differs from other proposals.
I voted against it.
While I understand that this work has been ongoing for several months and that we must explore the possibilities mentioned here, as delegates, we need to view the whole set of proposals that are in place right now (accepted and on vote) and ensure that they make sense in this broader context.
@maxlomu, thank you for the consideration and comment here. We appreciate the support!
All,
We have scheduled office hours in the governance calendar for Monday at 2pm UTC to address the following concerns, among others, for anyone who might want to attend on short notice. I will also be available for short 1:1 calls before the vote ends and in the next few days.
@maxlomu, thank you for the consideration and comment here. We appreciate the support!
All,
We have scheduled office hours in the governance calendar for Monday at 2pm UTC to address the following concerns, among others, for anyone who might want to attend on short notice. I will also be available for short 1:1 calls before the vote ends and in the next few days.
We’ve been collaborating with all the other groups for which AVI is meant as a framework solution. Regarding M&A, we had a call with @Bernard to discuss the potential overlap during the pilot phases. So far, it seems there isn’t much overlap, and from an AVI perspective, we can build on the deliverables around key Arbitrum focus areas. We plan to collaborate in Brussels before the market consultation is meant to starts and aim to ensure efficient and collaborative coordination.
General feedback:
General feedback:
@jengajojo, I think these are great question on the Infinite Launchpad thread. I'm up to speed on some of the discussion there and am sure @aminiman will give great responses.
Still thought to connect the dots with what we've been discussing in the AVI topic. Part of the the point of the market consultation in this pilot proposal is to be able to provide all the program managers with the same well researched and up to date information of what already exists as opportunities in the Aribitrum ecosystem and come up with guidance on what would be important strategically for the DAO.
Additionally there is already a discussion around aligning all impact metrics so the various programs can have benchmarkable with each other results. We've also been including in that thinking the accelerators that will come from the ThankArb RFP programs as well.
I wish I did a better job at visualising a lot of this originally. Thank you for engaging and actually I've been trying reach you guys. Part of the AVI scope is related to enabling specific to Arbitrum talent and project pipelines via supporting university incubators. We've already looked into some institutional partnerships with tier one schools in the UK and it's something we want to work on during GovHack. Would you be up for a call with me on that topic (DMd here)?
I’m voting FOR the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative (AVI) proposal, but without the IRL event.
Focusing our resources on the core activities rather than costly IRL events ensures better allocation and impact. By avoiding the operational complexities of organizing IRL events, we can keep our focus on delivering tangible benefits and ROI to the DAO. The primary goal of this initiative is to support projects building on Arbitrum, and a streamlined approach will help achieve this more effectively.
I am supportive of this venture. Personally I don't see overlappoing as a bad thing, I would much rather see us experiment in a few ways to invest in the projects in our ecosystems than get stuck in one way of doing things.... Competition is good, and so is moving towards investments with return rather than just grants and incentive programs.
Oh and I don't see the big win in the IRL event, it just seems extra and not worth it, maybe if it was at ETHCC it would make more sense, but I also think remote coordinating will work just fine.
We believe something like this could be very useful, but frankly, it is just not the right time for something like this. With prior support for M&A pilot group being passed and also the significant gaming fund likely to pass, we think the DAO should let these bets sit and come to fruition for a little bit of time before moving with these venture and fund projects.
I'd like you to consider a couple more points in your future report:
really appreciate the clarification here
This vote was quite conflicted for us. We believe something like this could be very useful, but frankly, it is just not the right time for something like this. With prior support for M&A pilot group being passed and also the significant gaming fund likely to pass, we think the DAO should let these bets sit and come to fruition for a little bit of time before moving with these venture and fund projects.
Overall, the concerns associated with this project and certain other specific things have been discussed. We'd like to talk about a possible framework the DAO should adopt for these venture funds as to not crowd and spend too much of the treasury at once?
I have concerns around allocating too much of the treasury towards venture type initiatives with the GCP set to pass… and with other initiatives under this category, in addition to the AVI, continuing to march forward. Additionally, I find little value in the IRL workshop given ETH CC in Brussels is just around the corner and I believe that the logistics to organize such an event will prove much more difficult in practice.
I have concerns around allocating too much of the treasury towards venture type initiatives with the GCP set to pass... and with other initiatives under this category, in addition to the AVI, continuing to march forward. Additionally, I find little value in the IRL workshop given ETH CC in Brussels is just around the corner and I believe that the logistics to organize such an event will prove much more difficult in practice.
With that being said, Lino, Ana, and the rest of the AVI team have put a tremendous amount of time and effort into this initiative, and I think $54k is a reasonable ask to put together a highly detailed plan IF we believe this has a chance at passing post pilot phase. Otherwise, we are wasting the AVI team's time/resources as well as the DAO's contributors.
I am supportive of this venture. Personally I don't see overlappoing as a bad thing, I would much rather see us experiment in a few ways to invest in the projects in our ecosystems than get stuck in one way of doing things.... Competition is good, and so is moving towards investments with return rather than just grants and incentive programs.
Oh and I don't see the big win in the IRL event, it just seems extra and not worth it, maybe if it was at ETHCC it would make more sense, but I also think remote coordinating will work just fine.
So I voted For [No IRL Event]
We believe something like this could be very useful, but frankly, it is just not the right time for something like this. With prior support for M&A pilot group being passed and also the significant gaming fund likely to pass, we think the DAO should let these bets sit and come to fruition for a little bit of time before moving with these venture and fund projects.
@PGov , thank you for the comment. I think we've done a really poor job at communicating this clearly enough, but the motivation behind AVI is:
a) venture investment is something that should start replacing purely grant based above a certain scale to preserve the sustainability of the treasury among other things. And we've stated that at time of writing it looks like high volume investment in the ecosystem is on order based on macro conditions. The timeline anticipated is up to 12-18 months to structure that, at the scale suggested and integrate any other commitments that might have happened along the way. This would in fact allow plenty of time for learnings from other initiatives like GCP that is already 9 months ahead to materialise.
b) more importantly as things like the GCP are starting to happen we need to avoid a piecemeal approach where a number of these initiatives happen without an integrated strategy, thesis, theory of change, logic model and efficacy metrics, that connects to the lifecycle of the DAO and it's core business.
hence supporting AVI is directly aligned with alleviating the concern you've raised.
Would you be for joining a call on that topic or a twitter space, which we can open to others too to tackles these issues?
I have concerns around allocating too much of the treasury towards venture type initiatives with the GCP set to pass… and with other initiatives under this category, in addition to the AVI, continuing to march forward. Additionally, I find little value in the IRL workshop given ETH CC in Brussels is just around the corner and I believe that the logistics to organize such an event will prove much more difficult in practice.
@swmartin, thank you for commenting, and for all the support and engagement up to now. By way of comments:
I have concerns around allocating too much of the treasury towards venture type initiatives with the GCP set to pass... and with other initiatives under this category, in addition to the AVI, continuing to march forward. Additionally, I find little value in the IRL workshop given ETH CC in Brussels is just around the corner and I believe that the logistics to organize such an event will prove much more difficult in practice.
With that being said, Lino, Ana, and the rest of the AVI team have put a tremendous amount of time and effort into this initiative, and I think $54k is a reasonable ask to put together a highly detailed plan IF we believe this has a chance at passing post pilot phase. Otherwise, we are wasting the AVI team's time/resources as well as the DAO's contributors.
The vote is live on snapshot here.
Voted FOR. This proposal is good for the Arbitrum ecosystem to enhance its venture development.
0x_ultra thank you for the support. And also @JoJo, @tane I appreciate the concerns and our team is committed to address them not only before Tally, but also ongoingly during the execution of the project.
It's true that we are following some of the same steps as the M&A team. And especially we think how they've engaged the DAO has been exemplary and we've been adopting this and other good practices observed. But the nature of the larger scale projects and their outcomes are quite different. We're committed to building on what M&A or any other groups has already developed to avoid waste.
0x_ultra thank you for the support. And also @JoJo, @tane I appreciate the concerns and our team is committed to address them not only before Tally, but also ongoingly during the execution of the project.
It's true that we are following some of the same steps as the M&A team. And especially we think how they've engaged the DAO has been exemplary and we've been adopting this and other good practices observed. But the nature of the larger scale projects and their outcomes are quite different. We're committed to building on what M&A or any other groups has already developed to avoid waste.
I've read the original M&A proposal repeatably and engaged @Bernard, to get more insights. Once I speak with him, I will update the FAQ section here with more details, as well as commit to whatever steps aligns the work being planned better.
Additionally, the AVI pilot timeline has built-in flexibility around when the core work gets done to create optimal staging and integration. All relevant collaboration activities are also provisioned for and we have anticipated having Areta invited to whatever we organise and have planned to participate in any format they make available too.
And as there was uncertainty around exactly these activities during delegate conversations we introduced a voting option to support with reduced scope and thus cost. This became not too clear during the Snapshot vote due to unforeseen character limitation, but this what the [No IRL Event] option was meant to indicate.
Our teams have prior relationships and we've been familiar with their work leading to this proposal. As was made clear during the governance call yesterday, while coming to the forum now, it is not a new/young initiative, but rather the product of thoughtful work with a lot of embeded complexity.
How it is to be to be supported to some extend covered in the full AVI proposal and the reasons it's not detailed more is partially due to uncertainty from a legal pov. Our operational assumption has been the setup of Arbitrum exclusive evergreen fund of funds that invests in initiatives like the Elixir's proposal. And builds the core capacity to create efficacy metrics and reporting that can continuously be aligned to Arbitrum strategic priorities beyond financial RoI.
I agree with initiating the pilot phase so we can evaluate the extent to which this project can progress and be beneficial for Arbitrum in the long term. By starting with a pilot, we can identify potential challenges and opportunities, allowing us to make informed decisions about the future direction of the initiative.
I'm voting 'For' because this pilot strategically aligns investments with ecosystem needs and sets a solid foundation for future growth.
Savvy DAO has voted FOR the Pilot Phase: Arbitrum Ventures Initiative
See delegate thread for reasoning. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/21266/43?u=savvydao
Adding our Feedback for the proposal here. I'll note that we have been in constant communication with AVI and were even thanked in the proposal by @lino . =)
Feedback:
Savvy DAO has voted FOR the Pilot Phase: Arbitrum Ventures Initiative
See delegate thread for reasoning. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/21266/43?u=savvydao
Adding our Feedback for the proposal here. I'll note that we have been in constant communication with AVI and were even thanked in the proposal by @lino . =)
Feedback:
We’re all in for the AVI proposal. It’s a smart move, focusing on enhancing DAO functionality with a low-risk, low-cost approach and integrating extensive delegate feedback.
While we get the hesitation around the IRL event’s costs, we see its potential for valuable engagement and insights. The team’s solid, and this pilot phase looks set to bring big benefits to projects on Arbitrum. We’re eager to see how this project rolls out—especially how it draws in high-value users with retention incentives.
Voted "For"... The pilot aims to refine investment strategies, identify key sectors, and align stakeholders, laying a solid foundation for effective and impactful venture development within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Hi @lino, in the interest of transparency I will share here the main points that we discussed on our call about this proposal.
Although I do see the value in a Venture Initiative for Arbitrum, I am concerned that there is significant overlap with existing large scale initiatives such as the Gaming Catalyst Proposal (GCP) which is working with the Foundation to create an entity structure for the DAO.
Hi @lino, in the interest of transparency I will share here the main points that we discussed on our call about this proposal.
Although I do see the value in a Venture Initiative for Arbitrum, I am concerned that there is significant overlap with existing large scale initiatives such as the Gaming Catalyst Proposal (GCP) which is working with the Foundation to create an entity structure for the DAO.
As the GCP proposal states:
The GCP working group and Arbitrum Foundation are actively exploring entity setup to ensure DAO transparency while following the rigorous compliance guidelines that surround any entity focused on investments.
This effort also involves DAO members from the M&A, Ops Co, VCDAO, and other initiatives.
Furthermore, I am not sure that it's the right approach to fund interviews and research (as you write, the budget is for a core team to conduct 2 months of interviews/research for 50k and then another 45k for thesis development). I would expect that for the level of caliber of the core team that you present (multiple times founders, multi exits, etc.), you would already come to the DAO with a thesis.
Lastly, as we discussed on our call, the core team that you propose to bring is new to Arbitrum DAO, therefore there is probably still reputation building to be done before a funding ask is made.
@jengajojo, thank you for reading through and offering feedback!
however I’d like to see some data collected by organising virtual events to see if its a cost effective way of deploying the events strategy.
@jengajojo, thank you for reading through and offering feedback!
however I’d like to see some data collected by organising virtual events to see if its a cost effective way of deploying the events strategy.
Given your experience with the Arbitrum community and similar events and workshops, how would you describe the risks that we should really understand?
And in terms of data, what would be a good metric in your book?
On top of investment themes which are widely known, it maybe worth looking at a few non consenus themes which have high potential but haven’t been able to latch onto a narrative yet.
Yes! Our team is almost more excited about going into new fields and emerging categories or even creating them. However that is likely to require more patient capital. At the same time a core objective is ongoing financial sustainability. And that definitely entails defending the areas, in which Arbitrum is already strong in or focusing on the current hot trends.
Different people and approaches would be needed for the different categories and the point is to create a broader functioning group of contributors and getting the pieces to fit together.
Hi @RikaGoldberg, thank you for taking the time to speak the day before and for writing up your thoughts here!
Comments below:
Hi @RikaGoldberg, thank you for taking the time to speak the day before and for writing up your thoughts here!
Comments below:
Yes that was indeed potentially the case at the time all these initiatives started. We've since had numerous conversations with delegates and the foundation. It was a legitimate concern, which we also shared, and it has now been largely resolved. As a result of the GCP passing successfully the foundation would likely have to incorporate a legal structure that can also support initiatives like AVI, the M&A proposal, etc. Hence, from our perspective our proposal is complimentary.
Depending on how this pans out the implication would be that the overall budget in the original AVI proposal might drop by over 50% as a result of piggibacking on the progress made by GCP.
We were encouraged by delegates to focus on the components of the work that would be value generating regardless of how the GCP and legal structures pan out. And this pilot proposal is the result of that. The scope of it has no overlap with other inititaves to our knowleage.
Furthermore, I am not sure that it’s the right approach to fund interviews and research (as you write, the budget is for a core team to conduct 2 months of interviews/research for 50k and then another 45k for thesis development). I would expect that for the level of caliber of the core team that you present (multiple times founders, multi exits, etc.), you would already come to the DAO with a thesis.
A key distinction to stress is the difference between:
We are focusing on the latter, and the DAO not funding it creates the wrong incentives.
Furthermore, especially in a DAO, we believe this should be done through open and inclusive participatory design, which is what we are trying to enable.
Lastly, as we discussed on our call, the core team that you propose to bring is new to Arbitrum DAO, therefore there is probably still reputation building to be done before a funding ask is made.
While the team's general experience, including in the Web3 space, is easily referenceable, I acknowledge that some members may be unfamiliar to many in the Arbitrum community. We are keen to address this.
I appreciate the focus on risk management. In proposing this pilot phase, we believe it represents a balanced approach to create the necessary capacity on a timeline relevant to market demand. We welcome any appropriate oversight. If delegates indicate otherwise, we will adhere and course correct.
I'm voting "For". This is a well put together proposal and the budget is not too high. I have the same concerns raised by the other comments above on the fact that there are already quite a few similar initiatives (specifically m&a) and there is no rush to keep opening new ones before we see the results, but given the relatively low cost it is still worth exploring this pilot phase. I do hope to see the proposal be refined before going on tally and the above delegate's comments be addressed.
Thanks @lino and the team for working on the initiative for a while and putting together the proposal.
While the budget seems reasonable for the pilot phase of a potentially huge initiative, we echo @RikaGoldberg and @JoJo 's concerns that there are many similarities to other initiatives that reserve quite a huge amount of funding from the DAO. We feel the DAO is very much in rush to do all the things without proper coordinations. Would we be able to wait for, say the M&A pilot program to find any relevant issues to be addressed in AVI and start working on them in the future?
I am voting ABSTAIN on this proposal.
I really like the idea. We should pursue the venture investment thesis for our DAO. We are in a phase of our industry mature enough in which this is doable.
Just, I think this pilot phase as it is doesn’t make too much sense.
I am voting ABSTAIN on this proposal.
I really like the idea. We should pursue the venture investment thesis for our DAO. We are in a phase of our industry mature enough in which this is doable.
Just, I think this pilot phase as it is doesn’t make too much sense.
If I read both the current AVI proposal that has been published in snapshot just a couple of days ago, compared to the tally m&a proposal already approved, this is what we can read.
This clearly shows for the AVI initiative not only very similar deliverable of the M&A, but also a very similar semantic, without the specificity (not reported here but available in tally) of the specific, different field: ventur capitalism. Amost a 1:1 overlap, up to the point in which in the AVI initiative there is also the willingness to have an IRL event much as in the m&a initiative that will participate to GovHack at EthCC. The above is especially true when i read about new initiatives such as Elixir which adds a lot of detail to the venture considerations, despite being a younger one. And speaking about Elixir, another thing to consider, which could be secondary but worth some reflection, is how AVI proposes to “funding and oversee” eventually initiatives like this one and others in venture capitalism, without really providing any meaningful detail.
Don’t get me wrong: i am ok in AVI going for a pilot phase, I am ok with it doing also an IRL event, much as m&a. The fact that the structure is a copy carbon can likely mean that the pilot phase for this type of initiatives should be structured this way.
But to me it just seems strange that the outcome is exactly framed in the same way as the m&a activity without the same specificity for its specific field - being in the venture capitalist industry -. If I also look at the cost being double, $99k, compared to the $52k of m&a, it raises even more doubts for me.
I don’t know if the proposal will go through or not. My hope is that, if it goes through, the above will be addressed before tally at least.
Let me reiterate again: I think this is a good idea for our dao, and i think there are differences compared to m&a and, partially, with gcp. I just think we need to better tailor the initiative.
Finally, just to be crystal clear and shred any doubt: i have actively participated to the m&a working group, but i am not currently part of areta which is leading that initiative. So I am relative neutral to this, and giving opinion mostly from the standpoint of an arbitrum builder looking at the future of arbitrum. Yes, let’s do venture, but let’s do it in the right way.
@Gonzacolo, this sounds great! Looking forward to meet you in Brussels and most definitely, with @ana.vc we'll will followup with the registration form for the consultation interviews. :raised_hands:
Thanks for the proposal @lino I agree with the fact that this pilot phase is necessary to test the feasibility and refine the strategy for AVI before full-scale deployment. It's also nice to see the flexibility in the location and format of events, however I'd like to see some data collected by organising virtual events to see if its a cost effective way of deploying the events strategy. On top of investment themes which are widely known, it maybe worth looking at a few non consenus themes which have high potential but haven't been able to latch onto a narrative yet.
I am supportive of this venture. Personally I don't see overlappoing as a bad thing, I would much rather see us experiment in a few ways to invest in the projects in our ecosystems than get stuck in one way of doing things.... Competition is good, and so is moving towards investments with return rather than just grants and incentive programs.
Oh and I don't see the big win in the IRL event, it just seems extra and not worth it, maybe if it was at ETHCC it would make more sense, but I also think remote coordinating will work just fine.
So I voted For [No IRL Event]
We believe something like this could be very useful, but frankly, it is just not the right time for something like this. With prior support for M&A pilot group being passed and also the significant gaming fund likely to pass, we think the DAO should let these bets sit and come to fruition for a little bit of time before moving with these venture and fund projects.
@PGov , thank you for the comment. I think we've done a really poor job at communicating this clearly enough, but the motivation behind AVI is:
a) venture investment is something that should start replacing purely grant based above a certain scale to preserve the sustainability of the treasury among other things. And we've stated that at time of writing it looks like high volume investment in the ecosystem is on order based on macro conditions. The timeline anticipated is up to 12-18 months to structure that, at the scale suggested and integrate any other commitments that might have happened along the way. This would in fact allow plenty of time for learnings from other initiatives like GCP that is already 9 months ahead to materialise.
b) more importantly as things like the GCP are starting to happen we need to avoid a piecemeal approach where a number of these initiatives happen without an integrated strategy, thesis, theory of change, logic model and efficacy metrics, that connects to the lifecycle of the DAO and it's core business.
hence supporting AVI is directly aligned with alleviating the concern you've raised.
Would you be for joining a call on that topic or a twitter space, which we can open to others too to tackles these issues?
I have concerns around allocating too much of the treasury towards venture type initiatives with the GCP set to pass… and with other initiatives under this category, in addition to the AVI, continuing to march forward. Additionally, I find little value in the IRL workshop given ETH CC in Brussels is just around the corner and I believe that the logistics to organize such an event will prove much more difficult in practice.
@swmartin, thank you for commenting, and for all the support and engagement up to now. By way of comments:
I have concerns around allocating too much of the treasury towards venture type initiatives with the GCP set to pass... and with other initiatives under this category, in addition to the AVI, continuing to march forward. Additionally, I find little value in the IRL workshop given ETH CC in Brussels is just around the corner and I believe that the logistics to organize such an event will prove much more difficult in practice.
With that being said, Lino, Ana, and the rest of the AVI team have put a tremendous amount of time and effort into this initiative, and I think $54k is a reasonable ask to put together a highly detailed plan IF we believe this has a chance at passing post pilot phase. Otherwise, we are wasting the AVI team's time/resources as well as the DAO's contributors.
The vote is live on snapshot here.
Voted FOR. This proposal is good for the Arbitrum ecosystem to enhance its venture development.
0x_ultra thank you for the support. And also @JoJo, @tane I appreciate the concerns and our team is committed to address them not only before Tally, but also ongoingly during the execution of the project.
It's true that we are following some of the same steps as the M&A team. And especially we think how they've engaged the DAO has been exemplary and we've been adopting this and other good practices observed. But the nature of the larger scale projects and their outcomes are quite different. We're committed to building on what M&A or any other groups has already developed to avoid waste.
0x_ultra thank you for the support. And also @JoJo, @tane I appreciate the concerns and our team is committed to address them not only before Tally, but also ongoingly during the execution of the project.
It's true that we are following some of the same steps as the M&A team. And especially we think how they've engaged the DAO has been exemplary and we've been adopting this and other good practices observed. But the nature of the larger scale projects and their outcomes are quite different. We're committed to building on what M&A or any other groups has already developed to avoid waste.
I've read the original M&A proposal repeatably and engaged @Bernard, to get more insights. Once I speak with him, I will update the FAQ section here with more details, as well as commit to whatever steps aligns the work being planned better.
Additionally, the AVI pilot timeline has built-in flexibility around when the core work gets done to create optimal staging and integration. All relevant collaboration activities are also provisioned for and we have anticipated having Areta invited to whatever we organise and have planned to participate in any format they make available too.
And as there was uncertainty around exactly these activities during delegate conversations we introduced a voting option to support with reduced scope and thus cost. This became not too clear during the Snapshot vote due to unforeseen character limitation, but this what the [No IRL Event] option was meant to indicate.
Our teams have prior relationships and we've been familiar with their work leading to this proposal. As was made clear during the governance call yesterday, while coming to the forum now, it is not a new/young initiative, but rather the product of thoughtful work with a lot of embeded complexity.
How it is to be to be supported to some extend covered in the full AVI proposal and the reasons it's not detailed more is partially due to uncertainty from a legal pov. Our operational assumption has been the setup of Arbitrum exclusive evergreen fund of funds that invests in initiatives like the Elixir's proposal. And builds the core capacity to create efficacy metrics and reporting that can continuously be aligned to Arbitrum strategic priorities beyond financial RoI.
I agree with initiating the pilot phase so we can evaluate the extent to which this project can progress and be beneficial for Arbitrum in the long term. By starting with a pilot, we can identify potential challenges and opportunities, allowing us to make informed decisions about the future direction of the initiative.
I'm voting 'For' because this pilot strategically aligns investments with ecosystem needs and sets a solid foundation for future growth.
Savvy DAO has voted FOR the Pilot Phase: Arbitrum Ventures Initiative
See delegate thread for reasoning. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/21266/43?u=savvydao
Adding our Feedback for the proposal here. I'll note that we have been in constant communication with AVI and were even thanked in the proposal by @lino . =)
Feedback:
Savvy DAO has voted FOR the Pilot Phase: Arbitrum Ventures Initiative
See delegate thread for reasoning. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/21266/43?u=savvydao
Adding our Feedback for the proposal here. I'll note that we have been in constant communication with AVI and were even thanked in the proposal by @lino . =)
Feedback:
We’re all in for the AVI proposal. It’s a smart move, focusing on enhancing DAO functionality with a low-risk, low-cost approach and integrating extensive delegate feedback.
While we get the hesitation around the IRL event’s costs, we see its potential for valuable engagement and insights. The team’s solid, and this pilot phase looks set to bring big benefits to projects on Arbitrum. We’re eager to see how this project rolls out—especially how it draws in high-value users with retention incentives.
Voted "For"... The pilot aims to refine investment strategies, identify key sectors, and align stakeholders, laying a solid foundation for effective and impactful venture development within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Hi @lino, in the interest of transparency I will share here the main points that we discussed on our call about this proposal.
Although I do see the value in a Venture Initiative for Arbitrum, I am concerned that there is significant overlap with existing large scale initiatives such as the Gaming Catalyst Proposal (GCP) which is working with the Foundation to create an entity structure for the DAO.
Hi @lino, in the interest of transparency I will share here the main points that we discussed on our call about this proposal.
Although I do see the value in a Venture Initiative for Arbitrum, I am concerned that there is significant overlap with existing large scale initiatives such as the Gaming Catalyst Proposal (GCP) which is working with the Foundation to create an entity structure for the DAO.
As the GCP proposal states:
The GCP working group and Arbitrum Foundation are actively exploring entity setup to ensure DAO transparency while following the rigorous compliance guidelines that surround any entity focused on investments.
This effort also involves DAO members from the M&A, Ops Co, VCDAO, and other initiatives.
Furthermore, I am not sure that it's the right approach to fund interviews and research (as you write, the budget is for a core team to conduct 2 months of interviews/research for 50k and then another 45k for thesis development). I would expect that for the level of caliber of the core team that you present (multiple times founders, multi exits, etc.), you would already come to the DAO with a thesis.
Lastly, as we discussed on our call, the core team that you propose to bring is new to Arbitrum DAO, therefore there is probably still reputation building to be done before a funding ask is made.
@jengajojo, thank you for reading through and offering feedback!
however I’d like to see some data collected by organising virtual events to see if its a cost effective way of deploying the events strategy.
@jengajojo, thank you for reading through and offering feedback!
however I’d like to see some data collected by organising virtual events to see if its a cost effective way of deploying the events strategy.
Given your experience with the Arbitrum community and similar events and workshops, how would you describe the risks that we should really understand?
And in terms of data, what would be a good metric in your book?
On top of investment themes which are widely known, it maybe worth looking at a few non consenus themes which have high potential but haven’t been able to latch onto a narrative yet.
Yes! Our team is almost more excited about going into new fields and emerging categories or even creating them. However that is likely to require more patient capital. At the same time a core objective is ongoing financial sustainability. And that definitely entails defending the areas, in which Arbitrum is already strong in or focusing on the current hot trends.
Different people and approaches would be needed for the different categories and the point is to create a broader functioning group of contributors and getting the pieces to fit together.
Hi @RikaGoldberg, thank you for taking the time to speak the day before and for writing up your thoughts here!
Comments below:
Hi @RikaGoldberg, thank you for taking the time to speak the day before and for writing up your thoughts here!
Comments below:
Yes that was indeed potentially the case at the time all these initiatives started. We've since had numerous conversations with delegates and the foundation. It was a legitimate concern, which we also shared, and it has now been largely resolved. As a result of the GCP passing successfully the foundation would likely have to incorporate a legal structure that can also support initiatives like AVI, the M&A proposal, etc. Hence, from our perspective our proposal is complimentary.
Depending on how this pans out the implication would be that the overall budget in the original AVI proposal might drop by over 50% as a result of piggibacking on the progress made by GCP.
We were encouraged by delegates to focus on the components of the work that would be value generating regardless of how the GCP and legal structures pan out. And this pilot proposal is the result of that. The scope of it has no overlap with other inititaves to our knowleage.
Furthermore, I am not sure that it’s the right approach to fund interviews and research (as you write, the budget is for a core team to conduct 2 months of interviews/research for 50k and then another 45k for thesis development). I would expect that for the level of caliber of the core team that you present (multiple times founders, multi exits, etc.), you would already come to the DAO with a thesis.
A key distinction to stress is the difference between:
We are focusing on the latter, and the DAO not funding it creates the wrong incentives.
Furthermore, especially in a DAO, we believe this should be done through open and inclusive participatory design, which is what we are trying to enable.
Lastly, as we discussed on our call, the core team that you propose to bring is new to Arbitrum DAO, therefore there is probably still reputation building to be done before a funding ask is made.
While the team's general experience, including in the Web3 space, is easily referenceable, I acknowledge that some members may be unfamiliar to many in the Arbitrum community. We are keen to address this.
I appreciate the focus on risk management. In proposing this pilot phase, we believe it represents a balanced approach to create the necessary capacity on a timeline relevant to market demand. We welcome any appropriate oversight. If delegates indicate otherwise, we will adhere and course correct.
I'm voting "For". This is a well put together proposal and the budget is not too high. I have the same concerns raised by the other comments above on the fact that there are already quite a few similar initiatives (specifically m&a) and there is no rush to keep opening new ones before we see the results, but given the relatively low cost it is still worth exploring this pilot phase. I do hope to see the proposal be refined before going on tally and the above delegate's comments be addressed.
Thanks @lino and the team for working on the initiative for a while and putting together the proposal.
While the budget seems reasonable for the pilot phase of a potentially huge initiative, we echo @RikaGoldberg and @JoJo 's concerns that there are many similarities to other initiatives that reserve quite a huge amount of funding from the DAO. We feel the DAO is very much in rush to do all the things without proper coordinations. Would we be able to wait for, say the M&A pilot program to find any relevant issues to be addressed in AVI and start working on them in the future?
I am voting ABSTAIN on this proposal.
I really like the idea. We should pursue the venture investment thesis for our DAO. We are in a phase of our industry mature enough in which this is doable.
Just, I think this pilot phase as it is doesn’t make too much sense.
I am voting ABSTAIN on this proposal.
I really like the idea. We should pursue the venture investment thesis for our DAO. We are in a phase of our industry mature enough in which this is doable.
Just, I think this pilot phase as it is doesn’t make too much sense.
If I read both the current AVI proposal that has been published in snapshot just a couple of days ago, compared to the tally m&a proposal already approved, this is what we can read.
This clearly shows for the AVI initiative not only very similar deliverable of the M&A, but also a very similar semantic, without the specificity (not reported here but available in tally) of the specific, different field: ventur capitalism. Amost a 1:1 overlap, up to the point in which in the AVI initiative there is also the willingness to have an IRL event much as in the m&a initiative that will participate to GovHack at EthCC. The above is especially true when i read about new initiatives such as Elixir which adds a lot of detail to the venture considerations, despite being a younger one. And speaking about Elixir, another thing to consider, which could be secondary but worth some reflection, is how AVI proposes to “funding and oversee” eventually initiatives like this one and others in venture capitalism, without really providing any meaningful detail.
Don’t get me wrong: i am ok in AVI going for a pilot phase, I am ok with it doing also an IRL event, much as m&a. The fact that the structure is a copy carbon can likely mean that the pilot phase for this type of initiatives should be structured this way.
But to me it just seems strange that the outcome is exactly framed in the same way as the m&a activity without the same specificity for its specific field - being in the venture capitalist industry -. If I also look at the cost being double, $99k, compared to the $52k of m&a, it raises even more doubts for me.
I don’t know if the proposal will go through or not. My hope is that, if it goes through, the above will be addressed before tally at least.
Let me reiterate again: I think this is a good idea for our dao, and i think there are differences compared to m&a and, partially, with gcp. I just think we need to better tailor the initiative.
Finally, just to be crystal clear and shred any doubt: i have actively participated to the m&a working group, but i am not currently part of areta which is leading that initiative. So I am relative neutral to this, and giving opinion mostly from the standpoint of an arbitrum builder looking at the future of arbitrum. Yes, let’s do venture, but let’s do it in the right way.
@Gonzacolo, this sounds great! Looking forward to meet you in Brussels and most definitely, with @ana.vc we'll will followup with the registration form for the consultation interviews. :raised_hands:
Thanks for the proposal @lino I agree with the fact that this pilot phase is necessary to test the feasibility and refine the strategy for AVI before full-scale deployment. It's also nice to see the flexibility in the location and format of events, however I'd like to see some data collected by organising virtual events to see if its a cost effective way of deploying the events strategy. On top of investment themes which are widely known, it maybe worth looking at a few non consenus themes which have high potential but haven't been able to latch onto a narrative yet.
