Non-Constitutional
What this proposal does:
What this proposal does NOT do:
The "Infinite Launchpad" pathway aims to work with established entities to provide builders with seamless support at every stage (research and conceptualization through later-stage). We aim to empower our developer base and secure Arbitrum as a leading force in innovation and growth within the Ethereum ecosystem.
Born out of the Betting on Builders proposal from GovHack at ETHDenver 2024, we are presenting a collaborative accelerator program strategy, expected to run from Q3FY2024 through Q4FY2025. This strategy acts as a proof-of-concept for a pathway that any accelerator initiative can participate in. To begin, EVM Capital, RnDAO and Outlier Ventures are partnering on this proposal to launch the initiative, collect data, and establish best practices.
The purpose of this document is to detail our understanding of the current landscape, present a vision for advancement, propose a practical strategy, and provide specific outcomes and KPIs.
According to ThankARB, which gathered data from 15,000 respondents within the ecosystem:
“We have more developers than most chains, but we don’t currently know how to best mobilize them for the benefit of the ecosystem.”
We would like to try our hand at answering this question. Some opportunities for developer mobilization, which we intend to enhance with the “Infinite Launchpad” include the following:
To address these needs, we are asking the DAO to allot $10m in ARB from Q3FY2024 through Q4FY2025 for a program to enhance the Arbitrum developer and startup ecosystem.
This initiative is designed to aid our ecosystem of developers, startups, and enterprises by providing a clear incubation track that propels innovations that include but are not limited to governance, process automation/ AI, financial infrastructure, and on-chain reputation through the help of direct collaborations with 100+ commercial partners.
As teams go through the Programs, we can onboard them as Arbitrum customers, integrate them with the software stack, platforms or protocols, and support them as they become adopted in the ecosystem. If the product has significant traction, we can assess bringing them deeper into the Arbitrum ecosystem.
How this fits into Arbitrums strategic priorities:
Additional key value opportunities for Arbitrum:
Developer feedback: As the incubated projects build on Arbitrum, we can collect direct and honest feedback to be distributed to Offchain labs, Arbitrum Foundation, and other stakeholders to refine their roadmap and improve Arbitrum.
Builder representation and visibility: Showcasing teams composed of individuals representing their given region, background and culture - building with Arbitrum DAO.
Mutual reputation building: Participating teams can enhance their credibility by claiming involvement in an Arbitrum-funded accelerator program, while also promoting the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Collaborative research and knowledge sharing: Research findings will be shared as insight reports, highlighting market opportunities and supporting ongoing learning and improvement for all DAO working groups (M&A, Arbitrum Ventures Initiative, Foundation Grants program, Questbook programs, etc). This can be used as a public good to refine the ecosystem’s approach and de-risk capital allocation.
The "Betting on Builders" suite of programs work together to support projects at any stage of their journey, guiding them seamlessly from inception through Series A and beyond. Projects of any stage are welcome and will be integrated into the appropriate program.
This program focuses on attracting talent into the Arbitrum ecosystem to nurture the whole pipeline with founders, projects, and skilled contributors. Additionally, this program provides opportunities for builders and projects throughout the pipeline to showcase their work and make connections.
Including:
Team: RnDAO
Significant developer attention is focused on overcrowded problems (group-think) and unsustainable ventures. This program provides a solution through focused research to map the landscape of problems and identify opportunities (market gaps) for further exploration and validation in the CollabTech space. Additionally, providing valuable intel for the Arbitrum ecosystem to de-risk capital allocation.
This program includes:
Team: RnDAO
The EiR program supports early-stage builders in validating an opportunity fast and effectively, reducing risk and costs of entrepreneurship.
Capacity: 25 EiRs
This program includes:
Team: RnDAO
The Venture Builder phase occurs during proof of concept and alpha/beta testing. The focus is on turning the conceptual groundwork from the ideation phase into tangible outcomes: an MVP that can be market-tested.
Capacity: 10 projects.
This program includes:
Team: RnDAO
The Pod pre-accelerator program aims to proliferate Arbitrum’s development by creating acceleration pods globally. These pods will engage local developers and stakeholders to translate and regionalize Arbitrum’s toolkit. The first pod will expand Arbitrum's presence in Japan and the greater Asia region by partnering with AngelHack and Fracton Ventures.
We will achieve this goal through three program components:
Education:
Mentorship:
Capital Raising:
Team: EVM Capital In partnership with: AngelHack and Fracton
Outlier Ventures’ flagship 12-week accelerator program. Cohort participants (5-8 teams) are provided with support from Outlier Ventures’ in-house team of experts, partners, and mentors on their product roadmap, community building, entity structuring, token design, and more. The program also provides a grant stipend for each team to amplify their growth and success.
This program includes:
Team: Outlier Ventures
Orbital is a commercial accelerator designed to help Series A and later-stage companies align their product roadmaps with the needs of enterprise decision-makers. Building on the foundation established by our Pods program, which nurtures early-stage projects globally, Orbital will elevate these initiatives to 'orbit' and beyond. By leveraging our deep network of enterprise leaders and implementers, Orbital will guide companies in shaping their technology for successful enterprise adoption and integration, ensuring their innovations achieve widespread market impact.
We have consulted, worked with, and helped invest for enterprises such as:
LG, IBM, Goldman Sachs, Consensys, JP Morgan, Mastercard, Moonpay, Open AI, FedEx, Fujitsu, John Deere, Chipotle, Technicolor, SAP, AT&T, EY, Microsoft, Wells Fargo, Pepsico, Twitter, Adobe, Shopify, Nokia, Magic, Google, Sig Capital, and others.
This program includes:
Team: EVM Capital In partnership with: AngelHack
The core of our strategy is to align stakeholders—delegates, developers, and builders—to ensure the program resonates with Arbitrum’s vision. With this in mind, the timeline would proceed as follows:
Preparation
Operation
Post-Program
EVM and Outlier programs (Pods, Base Camp, and Orbital) are cohorts, while RnDAO programs (Modules, EiR, and Venture Builder) operate on a rolling application basis.
The Infinite Launch Pad aims to work with established entities to expand, support, and mobilize Arbitrum’s developer base and reinforce Arbitrum as a central influence of innovation and impact within the Ethereum ecosystem.
Additionally, we aim to onboard participants into the Arbitrum ecosystem and expand Arbitrum’s international influence.
Primary Expected Outcome:
Within the initial time-frame of our programs to establish Arbitrum as a premier platform for Web3 startups:
By investing in the mentorship of over 100 startups, we position ourselves for high-reward outcomes, such as the potential of facilitating one or more massive start-up successes. Our North Star is to situate ourselves for the potential of at least one startup to reach unicorn status while leveraging the Arbitrum software stack and protocols.
The projected total cost for implementing the Infinite Launchpad is $10 million USD. This budget will cover expenses from Q3FY2024 through Q4FY2025, enabling us to mobilize developers and support high-quality projects within the Arbitrum ecosystem. This support will facilitate their growth while also benefiting the Arbitrum ecosystem as a whole.
RnDAO
Outlier Ventures
EVM Capital
Summary
Total Ask: $10,470,000 USD
Numbers are shown in USD and will be converted to $ARB ahead of a Tally vote.
The requested grant funds will be distributed in quarterly or bi-annual funding tranches via a multisig account created by the assigned oversight committee. This is intended to allow funding flexibility and enable the DAO to adjust funding for individual programs or the entire suite based on performance. If desired outcomes are not met, or if a particular program exceeds expectations, funding can be modified accordingly.
This proposal was developed in consultation with the AVI team. Should such a vote pass, we will adopt any reasonable standards set by the DAO for KPIs, metrics, and ecosystem impact reporting, including financial, operational, and participant surveys on satisfaction with the experience and learning outcomes.
Furthermore, we want to emphasize our commitment to integrating our work into any larger legal framework or umbrella that the DAO decides upon.
We want to thank L2Beat (@krst and @Sinkas), @Pepperoni_Jo3, @coinflip, @dk3, Entropy (Matt Fiebeck and Sam Martin), @Djinn, @DisruptionJoe, @senad.eth, @AlexLumley, and @KlausBrave for their time, energy, and feedback during the development of this initiative.
We also thank all others who have engaged with us through the process of discussing our individual programs.
Non-Constitutional
What this proposal does:
What this proposal does NOT do:
The "Infinite Launchpad" pathway aims to work with established entities to provide builders with seamless support at every stage (research and conceptualization through later-stage). We aim to empower our developer base and secure Arbitrum as a leading force in innovation and growth within the Ethereum ecosystem.
Born out of the Betting on Builders proposal from GovHack at ETHDenver 2024, we are presenting a collaborative accelerator program strategy, expected to run from Q3FY2024 through Q4FY2025. This strategy acts as a proof-of-concept for a pathway that any accelerator initiative can participate in. To begin, EVM Capital, RnDAO and Outlier Ventures are partnering on this proposal to launch the initiative, collect data, and establish best practices.
The purpose of this document is to detail our understanding of the current landscape, present a vision for advancement, propose a practical strategy, and provide specific outcomes and KPIs.
According to ThankARB, which gathered data from 15,000 respondents within the ecosystem:
“We have more developers than most chains, but we don’t currently know how to best mobilize them for the benefit of the ecosystem.”
We would like to try our hand at answering this question. Some opportunities for developer mobilization, which we intend to enhance with the “Infinite Launchpad” include the following:
To address these needs, we are asking the DAO to allot $10m in ARB from Q3FY2024 through Q4FY2025 for a program to enhance the Arbitrum developer and startup ecosystem.
This initiative is designed to aid our ecosystem of developers, startups, and enterprises by providing a clear incubation track that propels innovations that include but are not limited to governance, process automation/ AI, financial infrastructure, and on-chain reputation through the help of direct collaborations with 100+ commercial partners.
As teams go through the Programs, we can onboard them as Arbitrum customers, integrate them with the software stack, platforms or protocols, and support them as they become adopted in the ecosystem. If the product has significant traction, we can assess bringing them deeper into the Arbitrum ecosystem.
How this fits into Arbitrums strategic priorities:
Additional key value opportunities for Arbitrum:
Developer feedback: As the incubated projects build on Arbitrum, we can collect direct and honest feedback to be distributed to Offchain labs, Arbitrum Foundation, and other stakeholders to refine their roadmap and improve Arbitrum.
Builder representation and visibility: Showcasing teams composed of individuals representing their given region, background and culture - building with Arbitrum DAO.
Mutual reputation building: Participating teams can enhance their credibility by claiming involvement in an Arbitrum-funded accelerator program, while also promoting the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Collaborative research and knowledge sharing: Research findings will be shared as insight reports, highlighting market opportunities and supporting ongoing learning and improvement for all DAO working groups (M&A, Arbitrum Ventures Initiative, Foundation Grants program, Questbook programs, etc). This can be used as a public good to refine the ecosystem’s approach and de-risk capital allocation.
The "Betting on Builders" suite of programs work together to support projects at any stage of their journey, guiding them seamlessly from inception through Series A and beyond. Projects of any stage are welcome and will be integrated into the appropriate program.
This program focuses on attracting talent into the Arbitrum ecosystem to nurture the whole pipeline with founders, projects, and skilled contributors. Additionally, this program provides opportunities for builders and projects throughout the pipeline to showcase their work and make connections.
Including:
Team: RnDAO
Significant developer attention is focused on overcrowded problems (group-think) and unsustainable ventures. This program provides a solution through focused research to map the landscape of problems and identify opportunities (market gaps) for further exploration and validation in the CollabTech space. Additionally, providing valuable intel for the Arbitrum ecosystem to de-risk capital allocation.
This program includes:
Team: RnDAO
The EiR program supports early-stage builders in validating an opportunity fast and effectively, reducing risk and costs of entrepreneurship.
Capacity: 25 EiRs
This program includes:
Team: RnDAO
The Venture Builder phase occurs during proof of concept and alpha/beta testing. The focus is on turning the conceptual groundwork from the ideation phase into tangible outcomes: an MVP that can be market-tested.
Capacity: 10 projects.
This program includes:
Team: RnDAO
The Pod pre-accelerator program aims to proliferate Arbitrum’s development by creating acceleration pods globally. These pods will engage local developers and stakeholders to translate and regionalize Arbitrum’s toolkit. The first pod will expand Arbitrum's presence in Japan and the greater Asia region by partnering with AngelHack and Fracton Ventures.
We will achieve this goal through three program components:
Education:
Mentorship:
Capital Raising:
Team: EVM Capital In partnership with: AngelHack and Fracton
Outlier Ventures’ flagship 12-week accelerator program. Cohort participants (5-8 teams) are provided with support from Outlier Ventures’ in-house team of experts, partners, and mentors on their product roadmap, community building, entity structuring, token design, and more. The program also provides a grant stipend for each team to amplify their growth and success.
This program includes:
Team: Outlier Ventures
Orbital is a commercial accelerator designed to help Series A and later-stage companies align their product roadmaps with the needs of enterprise decision-makers. Building on the foundation established by our Pods program, which nurtures early-stage projects globally, Orbital will elevate these initiatives to 'orbit' and beyond. By leveraging our deep network of enterprise leaders and implementers, Orbital will guide companies in shaping their technology for successful enterprise adoption and integration, ensuring their innovations achieve widespread market impact.
We have consulted, worked with, and helped invest for enterprises such as:
LG, IBM, Goldman Sachs, Consensys, JP Morgan, Mastercard, Moonpay, Open AI, FedEx, Fujitsu, John Deere, Chipotle, Technicolor, SAP, AT&T, EY, Microsoft, Wells Fargo, Pepsico, Twitter, Adobe, Shopify, Nokia, Magic, Google, Sig Capital, and others.
This program includes:
Team: EVM Capital In partnership with: AngelHack
The core of our strategy is to align stakeholders—delegates, developers, and builders—to ensure the program resonates with Arbitrum’s vision. With this in mind, the timeline would proceed as follows:
Preparation
Operation
Post-Program
EVM and Outlier programs (Pods, Base Camp, and Orbital) are cohorts, while RnDAO programs (Modules, EiR, and Venture Builder) operate on a rolling application basis.
The Infinite Launch Pad aims to work with established entities to expand, support, and mobilize Arbitrum’s developer base and reinforce Arbitrum as a central influence of innovation and impact within the Ethereum ecosystem.
Additionally, we aim to onboard participants into the Arbitrum ecosystem and expand Arbitrum’s international influence.
Primary Expected Outcome:
Within the initial time-frame of our programs to establish Arbitrum as a premier platform for Web3 startups:
By investing in the mentorship of over 100 startups, we position ourselves for high-reward outcomes, such as the potential of facilitating one or more massive start-up successes. Our North Star is to situate ourselves for the potential of at least one startup to reach unicorn status while leveraging the Arbitrum software stack and protocols.
The projected total cost for implementing the Infinite Launchpad is $10 million USD. This budget will cover expenses from Q3FY2024 through Q4FY2025, enabling us to mobilize developers and support high-quality projects within the Arbitrum ecosystem. This support will facilitate their growth while also benefiting the Arbitrum ecosystem as a whole.
RnDAO
Outlier Ventures
EVM Capital
Summary
Total Ask: $10,470,000 USD
Numbers are shown in USD and will be converted to $ARB ahead of a Tally vote.
The requested grant funds will be distributed in quarterly or bi-annual funding tranches via a multisig account created by the assigned oversight committee. This is intended to allow funding flexibility and enable the DAO to adjust funding for individual programs or the entire suite based on performance. If desired outcomes are not met, or if a particular program exceeds expectations, funding can be modified accordingly.
This proposal was developed in consultation with the AVI team. Should such a vote pass, we will adopt any reasonable standards set by the DAO for KPIs, metrics, and ecosystem impact reporting, including financial, operational, and participant surveys on satisfaction with the experience and learning outcomes.
Furthermore, we want to emphasize our commitment to integrating our work into any larger legal framework or umbrella that the DAO decides upon.
We want to thank L2Beat (@krst and @Sinkas), @Pepperoni_Jo3, @coinflip, @dk3, Entropy (Matt Fiebeck and Sam Martin), @Djinn, @DisruptionJoe, @senad.eth, @AlexLumley, and @KlausBrave for their time, energy, and feedback during the development of this initiative.
We also thank all others who have engaged with us through the process of discussing our individual programs.
FOR: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/21266/51?u=savvydao
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665/41
FOR: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/21266/51?u=savvydao
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665/41
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665/40?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665/39?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665/38?u=ocandocrypto
For the idea, but want to see cost reduction https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665/36
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665/35?u=frisson
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665/34?u=jameskbh
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665/33?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665/31?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665/18?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665/16?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665/40?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665/39?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665/38?u=ocandocrypto
For the idea, but want to see cost reduction https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665/36
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665/35?u=frisson
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665/34?u=jameskbh
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665/33?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665/31?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665/18?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665/16?u=bruce
To the Arbitrum DAO Community,
We hope this message finds you well. We wanted to provide an update on the status of the "Betting on Builders: Infinite Launchpad” Proposal.
First and foremost, we want to express our sincere gratitude for all the thoughtful feedback and engagement we've received from the community. Your insights have been invaluable in helping us refine our thinking and approach.
To the Arbitrum DAO Community,
We hope this message finds you well. We wanted to provide an update on the status of the "Betting on Builders: Infinite Launchpad” Proposal.
First and foremost, we want to express our sincere gratitude for all the thoughtful feedback and engagement we've received from the community. Your insights have been invaluable in helping us refine our thinking and approach.
After careful consideration and extensive discussions within our group, we've decided to put our proposal on hold for the time being. This decision wasn't made lightly, but we believe it's the best course of action given the current environment and the feedback we've received.
Key points we'd like to share:
We've thoroughly reviewed all the feedback and recognize there are some structural challenges within the Arbitrum ecosystem that need to mature before our proposal can be fully realized.
Rather than rush to revise the proposal, we believe it's prudent to allow time for these ecosystem structures to evolve. This patience will ultimately lead to a stronger, more impactful program.
We remain committed to the core ideas behind our proposal, and believe in its potential to significantly benefit the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We anticipate that over the foreseeable future, many of the current blockers will be addressed as the DAO and its processes continue to mature.
We're not abandoning this initiative, but rather pausing to ensure we can come back with a proposal that's fully aligned with the DAO's capabilities and needs.
Moving forward, we plan to:
Thank you again for your engagement and support. We're excited about the future of Arbitrum, and we look forward to contributing to its growth and success in meaningful ways.
We welcome any thoughts or questions you might have about this decision. Please feel free to reach out or comment below.
Best, EVM Capital RnDAO Outlier Ventures
@Bob-Rossi @ocandocrypto @tane @0x_ultra @krst @AbdullahUmar @WinVerse
To the Arbitrum DAO Community,
We hope this message finds you well. We wanted to provide an update on the status of the "Betting on Builders: Infinite Launchpad” Proposal.
First and foremost, we want to express our sincere gratitude for all the thoughtful feedback and engagement we've received from the community. Your insights have been invaluable in helping us refine our thinking and approach.
To the Arbitrum DAO Community,
We hope this message finds you well. We wanted to provide an update on the status of the "Betting on Builders: Infinite Launchpad” Proposal.
First and foremost, we want to express our sincere gratitude for all the thoughtful feedback and engagement we've received from the community. Your insights have been invaluable in helping us refine our thinking and approach.
After careful consideration and extensive discussions within our group, we've decided to put our proposal on hold for the time being. This decision wasn't made lightly, but we believe it's the best course of action given the current environment and the feedback we've received.
Key points we'd like to share:
We've thoroughly reviewed all the feedback and recognize there are some structural challenges within the Arbitrum ecosystem that need to mature before our proposal can be fully realized.
Rather than rush to revise the proposal, we believe it's prudent to allow time for these ecosystem structures to evolve. This patience will ultimately lead to a stronger, more impactful program.
We remain committed to the core ideas behind our proposal, and believe in its potential to significantly benefit the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We anticipate that over the foreseeable future, many of the current blockers will be addressed as the DAO and its processes continue to mature.
We're not abandoning this initiative, but rather pausing to ensure we can come back with a proposal that's fully aligned with the DAO's capabilities and needs.
Moving forward, we plan to:
Thank you again for your engagement and support. We're excited about the future of Arbitrum, and we look forward to contributing to its growth and success in meaningful ways.
We welcome any thoughts or questions you might have about this decision. Please feel free to reach out or comment below.
Best, EVM Capital RnDAO Outlier Ventures
@Bob-Rossi @ocandocrypto @tane @0x_ultra @krst @AbdullahUmar @WinVerse
Thanks @Larva for the feedback!
$10 million is a significant amount, and there is a risk of misallocation or inefficiency.
Thanks @Larva for the feedback!
$10 million is a significant amount, and there is a risk of misallocation or inefficiency.
While $10 million is a substantial amount, it is essential to note that these funds are distributed among three independent operators, which helps diversify risk. We also acknowledge the need for proper risk management and have proposed an Oversight Committee to provide high-context and high-bandwidth oversight. This committee will have the authority to approve, stop, or modify payments based on the execution of the programs.
We recognize that the proposal may not have detailed this mechanism extensively. Do you believe this oversight measure is sufficient, or do you have suggestions for how we could improve it?
Could you please clarify what you mean by this? Our intention is not to overshadow smaller contributors, but to establish a strong foundation with our initial partners. The three programs we are proposing will serve as a first cycle, and we welcome other innovative contributors to join subsequently. We aim to lead the way as a starting point but are open to including diverse participants in the future.
Is there a specific aspect of our approach you think could be improved to better support smaller contributors?
We share your concern about sustainability. All three operators (Outlier Ventures, EVM Capital, and RnDAO) are committed to continuing our engagement with Arbitrum beyond the proposed Q4 2025 term. We plan to propose another cycle based on the results from the first 6-9 months to prevent discontinuity, provided we demonstrate healthy progress to the DAO.
However, we are open to suggestions on how we can better address long-term sustainability in our proposal. Is there a specific approach or plan you have in mind that could enhance our sustainability strategy?
Tagging in here! Thanks for relaying on my behalf @danielo, and thanks for all of the feedback and great questions so far @GFXlabs.
@GFXlabs - we posted a general FAQ, but I also want to make sure I'm responding to your request fully. Please let me know if your concerns aren't addressed after reading through. Of course, I'm available for a call if that's easier - I want to make sure we have clear communication and that I'm understanding your concerns correctly. Feel free to grab some time here.
I spoke with Chris Cajoleas from Outlier Ventures, and in the interest of wanting to answer as soon as possible, I’m posting his response below on their behalf:
Question for the Outlier Ventures portion of this proposal:
I spoke with Chris Cajoleas from Outlier Ventures, and in the interest of wanting to answer as soon as possible, I’m posting his response below on their behalf:
Question for the Outlier Ventures portion of this proposal:
What is up with this cost structure? It shouldn't cost $1.4m to give out $1.6m in grants. Can you break down what some of the larger costs are? How can we get those down to a more manageable level?
Thanks for your questions, @GFXlabs! I’ve done my best to address your questions below and have also included a link to a general partner deck that better communicates the value of our base camp and what the program fully entails.
The cost structure of each program is separated into two buckets - program operation costs and team stipends.
Outlier Ventures is requesting a total of $1.4mm USD in ARB for operations and overhead for both programs. This breaks down to $700,000 USD per program. Each program lasts roughly 6 months and includes a personnel team of 20+ OV employees. The OV team includes a dedicated program manager and program associate, a project recruiting and investment team, software engineering personnel, token engineering team, in-house legal advisory, go-to-market advisory, and a full marketing staff to promote and inform the public of the program along the way. The team also includes investor relations personnel who activate OV’s VC network and ensure participating teams are visible when they fundraise.
In addition to the above, we also incur expenses associated with the following areas:
In summation, the $700k fee per program helps us accomplish all of the above. We do not profit from this fee and it only covers a portion of the money we spend to operate a program.
Outlier Ventures is requesting a total of $1.6mm USD in ARB for supporting the selected teams in both programs. This breaks down to $800,000 USD per program and $100,000 USD per team.
This funding will be allocated directly to each chosen team as a $100k stipend, enabling them to fully dedicate their time, attention, and effort to the entire twelve-week program.
In exchange for the $100k stipend per team, ArbitrumDAO will have the opportunity to receive a portion of OV’s token and equity allocation, equal to approximately 1-1.5% of the total supply from each team. Exact equity and token provision could vary based on negotiations between OV and each team, and the DAO’s ability to hold equity/tokens is dependent upon pending legal structures and the outcome of the AVI initiative.
All in all, I think it’s important to note that the program consists of much more than just giving out grants. The DAO will be walking away from each base camp program with potential upside in the chosen accelerated teams, access to a pipeline of hundreds of teams and builders interested in the Arbitrum ecosystem, marketing exposure for the ecosystem as a whole, and exclusive program reports with actionable data sets and key insights.
Thanks @Larva for the feedback!
$10 million is a significant amount, and there is a risk of misallocation or inefficiency.
Thanks @Larva for the feedback!
$10 million is a significant amount, and there is a risk of misallocation or inefficiency.
While $10 million is a substantial amount, it is essential to note that these funds are distributed among three independent operators, which helps diversify risk. We also acknowledge the need for proper risk management and have proposed an Oversight Committee to provide high-context and high-bandwidth oversight. This committee will have the authority to approve, stop, or modify payments based on the execution of the programs.
We recognize that the proposal may not have detailed this mechanism extensively. Do you believe this oversight measure is sufficient, or do you have suggestions for how we could improve it?
Could you please clarify what you mean by this? Our intention is not to overshadow smaller contributors, but to establish a strong foundation with our initial partners. The three programs we are proposing will serve as a first cycle, and we welcome other innovative contributors to join subsequently. We aim to lead the way as a starting point but are open to including diverse participants in the future.
Is there a specific aspect of our approach you think could be improved to better support smaller contributors?
We share your concern about sustainability. All three operators (Outlier Ventures, EVM Capital, and RnDAO) are committed to continuing our engagement with Arbitrum beyond the proposed Q4 2025 term. We plan to propose another cycle based on the results from the first 6-9 months to prevent discontinuity, provided we demonstrate healthy progress to the DAO.
However, we are open to suggestions on how we can better address long-term sustainability in our proposal. Is there a specific approach or plan you have in mind that could enhance our sustainability strategy?
Tagging in here! Thanks for relaying on my behalf @danielo, and thanks for all of the feedback and great questions so far @GFXlabs.
@GFXlabs - we posted a general FAQ, but I also want to make sure I'm responding to your request fully. Please let me know if your concerns aren't addressed after reading through. Of course, I'm available for a call if that's easier - I want to make sure we have clear communication and that I'm understanding your concerns correctly. Feel free to grab some time here.
I spoke with Chris Cajoleas from Outlier Ventures, and in the interest of wanting to answer as soon as possible, I’m posting his response below on their behalf:
Question for the Outlier Ventures portion of this proposal:
I spoke with Chris Cajoleas from Outlier Ventures, and in the interest of wanting to answer as soon as possible, I’m posting his response below on their behalf:
Question for the Outlier Ventures portion of this proposal:
What is up with this cost structure? It shouldn't cost $1.4m to give out $1.6m in grants. Can you break down what some of the larger costs are? How can we get those down to a more manageable level?
Thanks for your questions, @GFXlabs! I’ve done my best to address your questions below and have also included a link to a general partner deck that better communicates the value of our base camp and what the program fully entails.
The cost structure of each program is separated into two buckets - program operation costs and team stipends.
Outlier Ventures is requesting a total of $1.4mm USD in ARB for operations and overhead for both programs. This breaks down to $700,000 USD per program. Each program lasts roughly 6 months and includes a personnel team of 20+ OV employees. The OV team includes a dedicated program manager and program associate, a project recruiting and investment team, software engineering personnel, token engineering team, in-house legal advisory, go-to-market advisory, and a full marketing staff to promote and inform the public of the program along the way. The team also includes investor relations personnel who activate OV’s VC network and ensure participating teams are visible when they fundraise.
In addition to the above, we also incur expenses associated with the following areas:
In summation, the $700k fee per program helps us accomplish all of the above. We do not profit from this fee and it only covers a portion of the money we spend to operate a program.
Outlier Ventures is requesting a total of $1.6mm USD in ARB for supporting the selected teams in both programs. This breaks down to $800,000 USD per program and $100,000 USD per team.
This funding will be allocated directly to each chosen team as a $100k stipend, enabling them to fully dedicate their time, attention, and effort to the entire twelve-week program.
In exchange for the $100k stipend per team, ArbitrumDAO will have the opportunity to receive a portion of OV’s token and equity allocation, equal to approximately 1-1.5% of the total supply from each team. Exact equity and token provision could vary based on negotiations between OV and each team, and the DAO’s ability to hold equity/tokens is dependent upon pending legal structures and the outcome of the AVI initiative.
All in all, I think it’s important to note that the program consists of much more than just giving out grants. The DAO will be walking away from each base camp program with potential upside in the chosen accelerated teams, access to a pipeline of hundreds of teams and builders interested in the Arbitrum ecosystem, marketing exposure for the ecosystem as a whole, and exclusive program reports with actionable data sets and key insights.
Thank you @jengajojo for your questions and feedback. Below is our response on each line item that addresses each question and statement:
Thank you @jengajojo for your questions and feedback. Below is our response on each line item that addresses each question and statement:
We see significant strategic value coming from developing Arbitrum as a resource for builders not only from a technical and developer community perspective but also from a fundraising and founder support perspective.
Additionally, Outlier Ventures has the longest proven track record out of our working group with 300+ investments and a 12x avg ROI per investment of which Arbitrum will have exposure to. These are the kinds of metrics we aim to achieve.
We’ve also attempted to cover some specific metrics we’ll aim to hit here:
We are also very aligned with enabling financial returns to Arbitrum following the decisions around GCP and AVI, so we can plug into the proper legal structures once that matures. Specifically, having a conversation around how grants given to teams could be convertible into equity, allowing the DAO to own a stake in these ventures. This way we can move fast to sustain Arbitrum’s leadership in the industry, while also developing a robust setup for long-term sustainability.
Yes, we have taken note of past accelerator programs that are chain/network specific, and we believe it's an important time for teams to focus on growth to maintain a competitive edge in the ecosystem. As long as there are clear milestones and funding shut-off valves, the more programs that are funded and tested, the more we will find what is most effective (refine what needs improvement), and collaborate to set the Arbitrum ecosystem apart.
Furthermore, the Infinite Launchpad proposal is geared to having an advantage over other ecosystems’ approaches, which is the ability to seed new projects from scratch, thanks to being a complete pipeline starting with community attraction and research.
Are there any strategies are in place to differentiate & prioritize unique high impact innovations?
RnDAO’s programs start with research to identify and validate new market opportunities. EVM Capital will prioritize initiatives across four key "future of work" categories: governance, on-chain reputation, AI/process automation, and financial infrastructure. Meanwhile, Outlier Ventures will tailor their program specifically for Arbitrum. They will collaborate with the DAO to design and drive the thesis and designate the focus of the program.
As such, we’ve built-in mechanisms across all programs to ensure high-impact and differentiation.
The current proposal is a one-time ask. However, our aim is to sustain the initiative in the future, contingent upon continuous evaluation from the Oversight Committee. After completion, we will submit a Milestone 2 proposal where we will present the success metrics of each program, our learnings, and ways the pathway will improve for the next funding round.
General feedback:
Smaller projects are welcome to apply for future iterations of the program. We will never attempt to block the efforts of other entities or create comparisons between our programs and theirs. However, we would suggest smaller projects first utilize the resources of the DAO (e.g. firestarters) to establish a proof of success. That way all programs within this larger proposal have a verified track record.
Existing developers and projects within the Arbitrum ecosystem are strongly encouraged to apply, we’ll ensure the current Arbitrum community is made well aware of the opportunities and can easily find the right program for them to apply, taking them to the next phase of growth. Ultimately, acceptance into the different programs will be meritocratic, ensuring the best results for Arbitrum.
Thank you @jengajojo for your questions and feedback. Below is our response on each line item that addresses each question and statement:
Thank you @jengajojo for your questions and feedback. Below is our response on each line item that addresses each question and statement:
We see significant strategic value coming from developing Arbitrum as a resource for builders not only from a technical and developer community perspective but also from a fundraising and founder support perspective.
Additionally, Outlier Ventures has the longest proven track record out of our working group with 300+ investments and a 12x avg ROI per investment of which Arbitrum will have exposure to. These are the kinds of metrics we aim to achieve.
We’ve also attempted to cover some specific metrics we’ll aim to hit here:
We are also very aligned with enabling financial returns to Arbitrum following the decisions around GCP and AVI, so we can plug into the proper legal structures once that matures. Specifically, having a conversation around how grants given to teams could be convertible into equity, allowing the DAO to own a stake in these ventures. This way we can move fast to sustain Arbitrum’s leadership in the industry, while also developing a robust setup for long-term sustainability.
Yes, we have taken note of past accelerator programs that are chain/network specific, and we believe it's an important time for teams to focus on growth to maintain a competitive edge in the ecosystem. As long as there are clear milestones and funding shut-off valves, the more programs that are funded and tested, the more we will find what is most effective (refine what needs improvement), and collaborate to set the Arbitrum ecosystem apart.
Furthermore, the Infinite Launchpad proposal is geared to having an advantage over other ecosystems’ approaches, which is the ability to seed new projects from scratch, thanks to being a complete pipeline starting with community attraction and research.
Are there any strategies are in place to differentiate & prioritize unique high impact innovations?
RnDAO’s programs start with research to identify and validate new market opportunities. EVM Capital will prioritize initiatives across four key "future of work" categories: governance, on-chain reputation, AI/process automation, and financial infrastructure. Meanwhile, Outlier Ventures will tailor their program specifically for Arbitrum. They will collaborate with the DAO to design and drive the thesis and designate the focus of the program.
As such, we’ve built-in mechanisms across all programs to ensure high-impact and differentiation.
The current proposal is a one-time ask. However, our aim is to sustain the initiative in the future, contingent upon continuous evaluation from the Oversight Committee. After completion, we will submit a Milestone 2 proposal where we will present the success metrics of each program, our learnings, and ways the pathway will improve for the next funding round.
General feedback:
Smaller projects are welcome to apply for future iterations of the program. We will never attempt to block the efforts of other entities or create comparisons between our programs and theirs. However, we would suggest smaller projects first utilize the resources of the DAO (e.g. firestarters) to establish a proof of success. That way all programs within this larger proposal have a verified track record.
Existing developers and projects within the Arbitrum ecosystem are strongly encouraged to apply, we’ll ensure the current Arbitrum community is made well aware of the opportunities and can easily find the right program for them to apply, taking them to the next phase of growth. Ultimately, acceptance into the different programs will be meritocratic, ensuring the best results for Arbitrum.
This is definitely going in the right direction. I really like that this proposal is a clear blend of resources, multiple teams, and various entities collaborating and leading the initiative.
Since the DAO doesn't have a centralized team to manage such efforts and relies on community-led initiatives, this is a significant step that can add a lot of value to the DAO.
I can't wait to see it in action.
This is definitely going in the right direction. I really like that this proposal is a clear blend of resources, multiple teams, and various entities collaborating and leading the initiative.
Since the DAO doesn't have a centralized team to manage such efforts and relies on community-led initiatives, this is a significant step that can add a lot of value to the DAO.
I can't wait to see it in action.
Thanks
This is definitely going in the right direction. I really like that this proposal is a clear blend of resources, multiple teams, and various entities collaborating and leading the initiative.
Since the DAO doesn't have a centralized team to manage such efforts and relies on community-led initiatives, this is a significant step that can add a lot of value to the DAO.
I can't wait to see it in action.
This is definitely going in the right direction. I really like that this proposal is a clear blend of resources, multiple teams, and various entities collaborating and leading the initiative.
Since the DAO doesn't have a centralized team to manage such efforts and relies on community-led initiatives, this is a significant step that can add a lot of value to the DAO.
I can't wait to see it in action.
Thanks
Savvy DAO Feedback on proposal @SEEDGov Note that we have been in constant communication with the Betting on Builders team since GovHack EthDenver and were even there the first night they discussed it! We were also thanked in the proposal. =)
Savvy DAO supported this proposal for its strategic vision to mobilize Arbitrum's developer base and strengthen ecosystem partnerships.
Savvy DAO Feedback on proposal @SEEDGov Note that we have been in constant communication with the Betting on Builders team since GovHack EthDenver and were even there the first night they discussed it! We were also thanked in the proposal. =)
Savvy DAO supported this proposal for its strategic vision to mobilize Arbitrum's developer base and strengthen ecosystem partnerships.
We support this proposal and expect to see an improved version that works with AVI. Future iterations should focus on optimizing financial returns, improving operational efficiency, and maximizing benefits for Arbitrum DAO through clearer deliverables and strategic alignment with legal frameworks.
See voting rationale: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/21266/51?u=savvydao
DAOplomats voted Against this proposal.
Generally, we are in favor of funding this initiative. However, there were some contradictions here and there.
DAOplomats voted Against this proposal.
Generally, we are in favor of funding this initiative. However, there were some contradictions here and there.
Under the FAQ section, answering the question on the program length, you made us understand the intricacies associated with dealing with startups and how smaller programs run the risk of being statistically insignificant. However, in your response to jenga, you plan on hitting 30+ startups by EOY ‘24 (six months). We believe this could potentially have been a good timeframe for experimentation and this would have in turn reduced the operational overhead significantly.
That said, we strongly resonate with the intentions behind this proposal and believe that if measures are taken to significantly cut down on timeframe and op cost, this should fly.
I'd like to add something on a personal note. I've been thinking a lot lately about the various venture-related initiatives we're discussing in the DAO right now, as well as the discussions we're having about budget management. I feel that right now we as a DAO lack the capacity to handle these initiatives from an operational point of view.
Because of that, there is a lot of burden placed on the proposer to not only have a worthy initiative, but also to figure out how to execute that initiative within the DAO so that the DAO maintains control and practical oversight of those initiatives. The proposer is acting in a way as both a seller and a buyer, trying to address both points of view. This makes the proposal process very cumbersome and costly for the proposer and the end result is commonly not optimal for the DAO.
@danielM @jengajojo @GFXlabs @JoJo @BlockworksResearch @cp0x @jameskbh @NathanVDH @PGov @0x_Buidler
First, we want to express our sincere gratitude for the thoughtful feedback on our "Betting on Builders: Infinite Launchpad” proposal. We deeply appreciate the time and effort you've invested in reviewing our post.
After reading through the comments, we have recognized several key areas where we can improve our proposal to better align with the DAO's expectations and needs. If we have missed or misrepresented any, please let us know!
First, we want to express our sincere gratitude for the thoughtful feedback on our "Betting on Builders: Infinite Launchpad” proposal. We deeply appreciate the time and effort you've invested in reviewing our post.
After reading through the comments, we have recognized several key areas where we can improve our proposal to better align with the DAO's expectations and needs. If we have missed or misrepresented any, please let us know!
Budget and Operational Costs: We are exploring ways to reduce operational costs, as well as better showcase the portion allocated to overhead vs supporting builders. In addition, we’re also exploring discussions towards a smaller pilot program.
Financial Returns for Arbitrum DAO: We are investigating structures to enable Arbitrum to capture and manage upside from investments made through this initiative, ensuring the DAO benefits directly from successful outcomes.
Program Structure and Accountability: We will provide more clarity on accountability and oversight by providing an evidence-based, detailed framework for overall governance and responsibility.
Metrics and Impact Measurement: We are developing more specific, measurable metrics for evaluating the success of the program and demonstrating its value to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Timeline and Milestones: We will revise our timeline to include clearer milestones and decision points, allowing for adjustments based on initial results.
Differentiation from Existing Initiatives: We will provide more information about how this proposal complements (rather than overlaps) existing programs like AVI and other grant initiatives.
Bundling of proposals and synergies: merging EVM Capital, Outlier Ventures, and RnDAO programs into one proposal made it hard to assess our proposal, while we also received feedback that more could be done to ensure synergies between the programs.
Our next steps will be to rework the proposal and present a revised version addressing these key points. We remain committed to the core goal of supporting and expanding Arbitrum's developer and startup ecosystems. Furthermore, we believe this initiative has the potential to significantly benefit Arbitrum, and we're eager to refine it based on your feedback. We appreciate any additional thoughts or suggestions as we work on these revisions. Thank you again for your engagement and support in making this initiative the best it can be for Arbitrum.
Thanks @danielo for being responsive to the feedback and outlining the next steps.
I would like to emphasize your points 6 and 7, which were key for my voting.
It still feels like many of these initiatives are quite disjointed from each other while centered on a common objective for Arbitrum: attracting new builders and launch great, innovative products.
Thanks @danielo for being responsive to the feedback and outlining the next steps.
I would like to emphasize your points 6 and 7, which were key for my voting.
It still feels like many of these initiatives are quite disjointed from each other while centered on a common objective for Arbitrum: attracting new builders and launch great, innovative products.
Would be very useful if you could outline how each program is focused on a specific phase/target/process and how you guys can increase their impact.
Voting "against".
This is a really interesting initiative that could definitely benefit the DAO. It aligns with Arbitrum’s values, it offers support to developers, provides diversity in terms of programs and promotes the ecosystem as a whole. However, I share a lot of the doubts raised by other delegates above. The size of the grant and operational costs seem very high for something so experimental and that partially overlaps with other initiatives. Some of the points that the program wants to address are definitely areas that need to be tackled, but broken down and at a smaller scale. Joining forces and merging few initiatives together was likely a mistake. I am also not fully convinced of the timeline, which spans over a long period and doesn’t explain the plans after Q4 2025. Overall I think that the project has a good potential but some adjustments still have to be done in order to improve it. Thanks @aminiman and @danielo for proposing this initiative, keep it up!
We vote AGAINST the proposal on Snapshot.
We appreciate all the materials, FAQ and comments to address feedback from delegates, especially shout out to @aminiman and @danielo.
We vote AGAINST the proposal on Snapshot.
We appreciate all the materials, FAQ and comments to address feedback from delegates, especially shout out to @aminiman and @danielo.
We simply believe it crams all the conceptual ideas into one proposal with a high operational cost without track record or clear and foreseeable deliberables to be proven to the stakeholders in Arbitrum, while understanding the reasoning behind all of them into one. We also believe what to aim to achieve is valid and broken-down initiatives can be considered worth a try. We'd look forward to continuous bets from the team.
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
We abstained from this proposal. We are in support of this type of idea. A supplement to grant programs is important especially if the DAO wishes to begin focusing more on ROI. That’s what the AVI proposal also aims to facilitate. However, the overhead cost of this proposal is too large for our liking. This aspect makes up a disproportionately large percentage of the total ask. For the sake of using capital more efficiently, we believe that the group should aim to be as lean as possible, or simply start out with a smaller scope. A pilot program would help show that DAO that progress is being made, and it would further clarify the specific costs needed to run this program at a larger scale. As we have mentioned in the AVI proposal, a step-by-step approach tends to fare better with delegates. Continually showing the DAO progress with empirical data is helpful in justifying the expenditure of millions of ARB.
Savvy DAO Feedback on proposal @SEEDGov Note that we have been in constant communication with the Betting on Builders team since GovHack EthDenver and were even there the first night they discussed it! We were also thanked in the proposal. =)
Savvy DAO supported this proposal for its strategic vision to mobilize Arbitrum's developer base and strengthen ecosystem partnerships.
Savvy DAO Feedback on proposal @SEEDGov Note that we have been in constant communication with the Betting on Builders team since GovHack EthDenver and were even there the first night they discussed it! We were also thanked in the proposal. =)
Savvy DAO supported this proposal for its strategic vision to mobilize Arbitrum's developer base and strengthen ecosystem partnerships.
We support this proposal and expect to see an improved version that works with AVI. Future iterations should focus on optimizing financial returns, improving operational efficiency, and maximizing benefits for Arbitrum DAO through clearer deliverables and strategic alignment with legal frameworks.
See voting rationale: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/21266/51?u=savvydao
DAOplomats voted Against this proposal.
Generally, we are in favor of funding this initiative. However, there were some contradictions here and there.
DAOplomats voted Against this proposal.
Generally, we are in favor of funding this initiative. However, there were some contradictions here and there.
Under the FAQ section, answering the question on the program length, you made us understand the intricacies associated with dealing with startups and how smaller programs run the risk of being statistically insignificant. However, in your response to jenga, you plan on hitting 30+ startups by EOY ‘24 (six months). We believe this could potentially have been a good timeframe for experimentation and this would have in turn reduced the operational overhead significantly.
That said, we strongly resonate with the intentions behind this proposal and believe that if measures are taken to significantly cut down on timeframe and op cost, this should fly.
I'd like to add something on a personal note. I've been thinking a lot lately about the various venture-related initiatives we're discussing in the DAO right now, as well as the discussions we're having about budget management. I feel that right now we as a DAO lack the capacity to handle these initiatives from an operational point of view.
Because of that, there is a lot of burden placed on the proposer to not only have a worthy initiative, but also to figure out how to execute that initiative within the DAO so that the DAO maintains control and practical oversight of those initiatives. The proposer is acting in a way as both a seller and a buyer, trying to address both points of view. This makes the proposal process very cumbersome and costly for the proposer and the end result is commonly not optimal for the DAO.
@danielM @jengajojo @GFXlabs @JoJo @BlockworksResearch @cp0x @jameskbh @NathanVDH @PGov @0x_Buidler
First, we want to express our sincere gratitude for the thoughtful feedback on our "Betting on Builders: Infinite Launchpad” proposal. We deeply appreciate the time and effort you've invested in reviewing our post.
After reading through the comments, we have recognized several key areas where we can improve our proposal to better align with the DAO's expectations and needs. If we have missed or misrepresented any, please let us know!
First, we want to express our sincere gratitude for the thoughtful feedback on our "Betting on Builders: Infinite Launchpad” proposal. We deeply appreciate the time and effort you've invested in reviewing our post.
After reading through the comments, we have recognized several key areas where we can improve our proposal to better align with the DAO's expectations and needs. If we have missed or misrepresented any, please let us know!
Budget and Operational Costs: We are exploring ways to reduce operational costs, as well as better showcase the portion allocated to overhead vs supporting builders. In addition, we’re also exploring discussions towards a smaller pilot program.
Financial Returns for Arbitrum DAO: We are investigating structures to enable Arbitrum to capture and manage upside from investments made through this initiative, ensuring the DAO benefits directly from successful outcomes.
Program Structure and Accountability: We will provide more clarity on accountability and oversight by providing an evidence-based, detailed framework for overall governance and responsibility.
Metrics and Impact Measurement: We are developing more specific, measurable metrics for evaluating the success of the program and demonstrating its value to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Timeline and Milestones: We will revise our timeline to include clearer milestones and decision points, allowing for adjustments based on initial results.
Differentiation from Existing Initiatives: We will provide more information about how this proposal complements (rather than overlaps) existing programs like AVI and other grant initiatives.
Bundling of proposals and synergies: merging EVM Capital, Outlier Ventures, and RnDAO programs into one proposal made it hard to assess our proposal, while we also received feedback that more could be done to ensure synergies between the programs.
Our next steps will be to rework the proposal and present a revised version addressing these key points. We remain committed to the core goal of supporting and expanding Arbitrum's developer and startup ecosystems. Furthermore, we believe this initiative has the potential to significantly benefit Arbitrum, and we're eager to refine it based on your feedback. We appreciate any additional thoughts or suggestions as we work on these revisions. Thank you again for your engagement and support in making this initiative the best it can be for Arbitrum.
Thanks @danielo for being responsive to the feedback and outlining the next steps.
I would like to emphasize your points 6 and 7, which were key for my voting.
It still feels like many of these initiatives are quite disjointed from each other while centered on a common objective for Arbitrum: attracting new builders and launch great, innovative products.
Thanks @danielo for being responsive to the feedback and outlining the next steps.
I would like to emphasize your points 6 and 7, which were key for my voting.
It still feels like many of these initiatives are quite disjointed from each other while centered on a common objective for Arbitrum: attracting new builders and launch great, innovative products.
Would be very useful if you could outline how each program is focused on a specific phase/target/process and how you guys can increase their impact.
Voting "against".
This is a really interesting initiative that could definitely benefit the DAO. It aligns with Arbitrum’s values, it offers support to developers, provides diversity in terms of programs and promotes the ecosystem as a whole. However, I share a lot of the doubts raised by other delegates above. The size of the grant and operational costs seem very high for something so experimental and that partially overlaps with other initiatives. Some of the points that the program wants to address are definitely areas that need to be tackled, but broken down and at a smaller scale. Joining forces and merging few initiatives together was likely a mistake. I am also not fully convinced of the timeline, which spans over a long period and doesn’t explain the plans after Q4 2025. Overall I think that the project has a good potential but some adjustments still have to be done in order to improve it. Thanks @aminiman and @danielo for proposing this initiative, keep it up!
We vote AGAINST the proposal on Snapshot.
We appreciate all the materials, FAQ and comments to address feedback from delegates, especially shout out to @aminiman and @danielo.
We vote AGAINST the proposal on Snapshot.
We appreciate all the materials, FAQ and comments to address feedback from delegates, especially shout out to @aminiman and @danielo.
We simply believe it crams all the conceptual ideas into one proposal with a high operational cost without track record or clear and foreseeable deliberables to be proven to the stakeholders in Arbitrum, while understanding the reasoning behind all of them into one. We also believe what to aim to achieve is valid and broken-down initiatives can be considered worth a try. We'd look forward to continuous bets from the team.
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
We abstained from this proposal. We are in support of this type of idea. A supplement to grant programs is important especially if the DAO wishes to begin focusing more on ROI. That’s what the AVI proposal also aims to facilitate. However, the overhead cost of this proposal is too large for our liking. This aspect makes up a disproportionately large percentage of the total ask. For the sake of using capital more efficiently, we believe that the group should aim to be as lean as possible, or simply start out with a smaller scope. A pilot program would help show that DAO that progress is being made, and it would further clarify the specific costs needed to run this program at a larger scale. As we have mentioned in the AVI proposal, a step-by-step approach tends to fare better with delegates. Continually showing the DAO progress with empirical data is helpful in justifying the expenditure of millions of ARB.
I'd like to add something on a personal note. I've been thinking a lot lately about the various venture-related initiatives we're discussing in the DAO right now, as well as the discussions we're having about budget management. I feel that right now we as a DAO lack the capacity to handle these initiatives from an operational point of view.
Because of that, there is a lot of burden placed on the proposer to not only have a worthy initiative, but also to figure out how to execute that initiative within the DAO so that the DAO maintains control and practical oversight of those initiatives. The proposer is acting in a way as both a seller and a buyer, trying to address both points of view. This makes the proposal process very cumbersome and costly for the proposer and the end result is commonly not optimal for the DAO.
Perhaps we should revisit the OpCo proposal initiated by @dk3 some time ago, as I think it could help alleviate many of the problems we have now.
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
We abstained from this proposal. We are in support of this type of idea. A supplement to grant programs is important especially if the DAO wishes to begin focusing more on ROI. That’s what the AVI proposal also aims to facilitate. However, the overhead cost of this proposal is too large for our liking. This aspect makes up a disproportionately large percentage of the total ask. For the sake of using capital more efficiently, we believe that the group should aim to be as lean as possible, or simply start out with a smaller scope. A pilot program would help show that DAO that progress is being made, and it would further clarify the specific costs needed to run this program at a larger scale. As we have mentioned in the AVI proposal, a step-by-step approach tends to fare better with delegates. Continually showing the DAO progress with empirical data is helpful in justifying the expenditure of millions of ARB.
If this proposal can be broken down into more distinct steps and milestones–and perhaps even reduce the number of entities involved as that should decrease the opex–then we’d be willing to revisit it. Again, the idea is good, but the roadmap needs further clarity. A piecemeal approach with continual display of deliverables will give us further confidence in this group's ability to execute.
I voted against this proposal:
While I agree that we have become the L2 with the highest number of builders and need to find better ways to mobilize them, I believe there are already sufficient initiatives with the necessary budget to achieve this goal. Additionally, I think we are at a point where we need to optimize for revenue, considering our long-term sustainability. This proposal does not provide a clear strategy for the DAO to benefit from the returns on venture investments.
I voted against the proposal.
I am getting familiar over time to what @danielo is doing with RnDao.
I voted against the proposal.
I am getting familiar over time to what @danielo is doing with RnDao.
What I like about him is that he is taking a path I would never take, with an approach I would never had. And at this point I am old enough to understand that even if I don't agree with something or with a specific mission doesn't mean there is no value behind, or that it can't be pursued in ways outside my personal framework. What is he after, and how, is something I support. And I am also trying to give him a bit of a hand in this sense, starting with the questbook grant for collabberry.
But the current proposal imho just doesn't properly work. I echo the opinions of, generally, too much overhead costs. This solves either through cost cutting, or increase the amount of capital requested to distributed, and I am not sure what is the right way here. I am also a bit conflicted on the merge of the initiatives of RnDao, EVM capital and Outlier Venture, that in my understanding initially were separated. I understand how joining forces could be seen as a winning strategy, also how a joint force can be "easier" to manage for the dao in term of voting, but I am not sold on this, sorry. We have different teams, different personalities, and different scopes.
I also want to highlight that my vote, is not a vote against the matter per se; i am willing to support the proposal the moment in which is reworked (because, I think it can be reworked), and be addressed for the following
@danielo keep working on this, I think you are onto something valuable.
@Bruce @Larva @Englandzz_Curia @karpatkey @AranaDigital @WintermuteGovernance @limes @Griff @Curia @Frisson
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting AGAINST the proposal, although we would like to stress out that we appreciate the work and effort that has gone into this and we hope that something good will come out of it eventually.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting AGAINST the proposal, although we would like to stress out that we appreciate the work and effort that has gone into this and we hope that something good will come out of it eventually.
One of our concerns is that as things are structured, there’s too much dilution of responsibility. There are three entities involved, each being responsible for its own program. However, there is a lack of clarity as to who will be overseeing, and will be accountable for, the outcome of the proposal as a whole.
Right now we do not see a benefit of combining the separate entities and their programs into one proposal. While the different programs are indeed complementary and have coherency, there is no formal reason that binds them together, apart from the proposal itself.
This proposal is evidently a venture initiative aimed at building a startup ecosystem. Currently, Arbitrum DAO appears to be the primary source of funding, but the potential upside will, in fact, go to investors following this program and not the DAO. We believe a more equitable approach should be adopted. Instead of providing grants, we should consider making investments, or we should require investors who will be benefiting from investing in these projects to contribute to the funding of this program. This is an area that still needs to be explored and discussed.
We are also concerned about the many variables in this proposal, to which we are expected to commit for an entire year, despite the highly experimental nature of the project. The current structure of the project does not provide for contingencies if the initial milestones do not have the expected impact. If the first phases do not meet our expectations, do we continue with the subsequent phases even if it makes little sense to do so? How will we even gauge that impact in the first place?
Lastly, we echo the sentiments of other delegates who have pointed out that the overall operational costs of this project appear to be very high.
That being said, we do see value in this proposal and acknowledge the considerable amount of work that has been invested into it. We appreciate the authors for their efforts, and we look forward to seeing them continue to refine and improve their proposal based on the feedback they have received so far.
We appreciate the initiative and see great potential in supporting developers and startups within the Arbitrum ecosystem. However, we have concerns about the high budget request of $10 million. We suggest the following improvements:
We appreciate the initiative and see great potential in supporting developers and startups within the Arbitrum ecosystem. However, we have concerns about the high budget request of $10 million. We suggest the following improvements:
Given these concerns, we will vote against until further clarifications and adjustments are made.
I love the general idea of this proposal, but I don't think we should throw $10M at a launchpad without upside for Arbitrum DAO. So I will be voting against.
I think it could make sense if the ask was smaller and there was a plan to modify it when the AVI and other investment structures become clear.
I love the general idea of this proposal, but I don't think we should throw $10M at a launchpad without upside for Arbitrum DAO. So I will be voting against.
I think it could make sense if the ask was smaller and there was a plan to modify it when the AVI and other investment structures become clear.
I am working on starting a launch pad now (q/acc via Giveth), and the profit opportunities for Giveth are insane. They will be WAY BIGGER for Arbitrum. It is worth waiting for the legal set up so that the DAO can get some early allocations in the projects that get incubated in this program. IMO
I am a little on the fence with this one.
First, I will echo what other delegates have pointed out - overhead is a very large % of the cost and there isn't (yet, as I'm understanding) a way for Arbitrum to recoup those costs from the project to help alleviate that concern. Contrary to the sticker shock --- I do fully believe that the teams have put in effort to cut costs where possible, and this is sort of the nature of paying for this type of experience within the crypto field. I will point out that the DAO at large (presumably, I can't speak for anyone but myself and my assumptions) would be more open to this if there was any way to cut down costs.
I am a little on the fence with this one.
First, I will echo what other delegates have pointed out - overhead is a very large % of the cost and there isn't (yet, as I'm understanding) a way for Arbitrum to recoup those costs from the project to help alleviate that concern. Contrary to the sticker shock --- I do fully believe that the teams have put in effort to cut costs where possible, and this is sort of the nature of paying for this type of experience within the crypto field. I will point out that the DAO at large (presumably, I can't speak for anyone but myself and my assumptions) would be more open to this if there was any way to cut down costs.
Everything else about the project I see reason to support, it is unfortunate the legal state of Arbitrum does not allow for an easy way to get an ROI on this. I hear the point that this type of thing might be months / a year+ away so it's better to at least get thing started, and I would agree. However given the cost I think this is taking on a lot of risk for things we are hoping will one day materialize.
That said, I do disagree with others that we should just wait until that is settled. The L2 competition is an equally fast and fierce one. I'd like to see this type of network be setup now, as I fear we may start to get behind other networks if we wait too long. The GCP comes to mind, where a lot of money has been thrown at playing catchup in the gaming space.
Where this gets tough is I would like to see some form of this proposal go forward, but I agree with others the cost is just too high. With that in mind I will vote "For" on tally to indicate support for the project itself, however that comes with a very clear statement that if the cost remains the same (or reductions in cost are inadequate) for the Tally vote I will be voting against at that time.
Thanks for bringing this proposal up, as it sparked a lot of construtive discussions. However, I vote against it in the current format. I believe you guys received a lot of positive feedback that will help structure it in a way that is more palatable for the current sentiment.
I voted AGAINST this proposal at the temp check stage because the overhead (non direct investment) costs are excessively high and because (from what I can tell) there is not a concrete plan in place for the DAO to capture upside/returns from the venture investments made.
Blockworks Research will be voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.
Thank you to all the parties who have worked on this initiative. While this proposal includes several aspects that would likely have a positive impact on the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem, we believe that the timing isn’t ideal, the deliverables and how they feed into each other could be explained with more clarity, and there is a risk of overlap with current as well as to be proposed investment initiatives.
Blockworks Research will be voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.
Thank you to all the parties who have worked on this initiative. While this proposal includes several aspects that would likely have a positive impact on the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem, we believe that the timing isn’t ideal, the deliverables and how they feed into each other could be explained with more clarity, and there is a risk of overlap with current as well as to be proposed investment initiatives.
Healthy competition between investment/accelerator programs is naturally beneficial to a certain degree. However, as the DAO is still in its infancy as a capital allocator and the budget is an open question, we believe there is a need to be particularly meticulous with how funds are allocated into investment programs. It makes sense to wait until an adequate overarching operational structure is put in place to better understand where there might be overlap and how Arbitrum will be able to receive financial returns from investments. Lastly, the total cost of this program seems too high to us, and more specifically, the large OpEx as a % of the funding request makes us believe that the cost structure requires reworking.
We want to first thank @aminiman and @danielo for their effort in bringing forward this proposal and communicating to address the questions from fellow delegates.
We have been in favor of continued experimentation and investment in the Arbitrum ecosystem and community through creative frameworks. This proposal is another example of an innovative idea on how the Arbitrum DAO can impact developers and those looking to expand the Arbitrum ecosystem. With that said, the DAO has also continued to struggle to appropriately allocate funds with regard to operating costs and reasonable requests such as the recent Catalyzing Gaming proposal where $25M was set for operating costs. This spending is unsustainable, and we must first execute and evaluate current funding initiatives to understand what costs are necessary and the best frameworks for continued incentivization of growth on Arbitrum.
This proposal uses a lot of big words and long writing to say "Give us $10m so that we can invest it.
Unclear how this helps Arbitrum as the deliverables (comprehensive support, developer mobilization, developer feedback, etc) are so loose and unmeasurable. Additionally, the teams lack experience of running these programs that are worth $10m.
Hey Wintermute
I think there are two very important misunderstandings here.
we found there to be a lot of double-dipping in team salaries across most of the modules leading to higher than necessary costs.
Thanks for your feedback @AranaDigital . A few comments to clarify, I'd love to know your thoughts after.
We appreciate the suggestion to create an Oversight Committee to ensure risk management, but the creation of another committee guarantees additional costs unless this is already included in the ‘Admin’ costs.
Thanks for the proposal.
We appreciate all the effort, thought, and time that has gone into this. In saying this, we find it hard to justify the requested spend on behalf of the DAO.
Thanks for the proposal.
We appreciate all the effort, thought, and time that has gone into this. In saying this, we find it hard to justify the requested spend on behalf of the DAO.
We spent some time speaking with Daniel from RnDAO (who was extremely helpful and open) on their previous proposal which seems like it has now merged into this. But unfortunately, we struggled to agree on their outlined costs, the vision of CollabTech, and structure of the program. We understand there is a large market for CollabTech outside of Web3, but it is not clear to us that such demand exists currently as indicated by the lack of market, products, and results from the pilot phase. We would be more comfortable voting in favour, if the research and market analysis was funded with a small budget that delivered a clear scope of verticals where the rest of the resources were focused on (i.e., community building activities, vc investments, EiR RFPs). Their market and research model which is responsible for the delivery of market opportunities that direct their EiR programs also ran for the full length of the program which did not make sense to us as it should happen at the very beginning of the program or worst case, right before their last incubation cohort. Lastly, we found there to be a lot of double-dipping in team salaries across most of the modules leading to higher than necessary costs.
For the remaining parts of the proposal, we echo much of the same concerns others have mentioned - high costs and the potential for overlap in resources which leads to overspending. When thinking about the longevity of the program, firstly, this is a very expensive pilot, and secondly, most of the costs & benefits are heavily concentrated on the short-term (discounting successful incubations). So how do we ensure there is a longer-lasting benefit in line with ThankARB post-Infinite Launchpad? One suggestion is to have a portal that collates a lot of the information that is provided to EiRs, incubation projects, supporting material etc. This allows the DAO to assess the quality of information, provides a clear deliverable, and allows future builders to leverage material from this program.
I would against the proposal because:
$10 million is a significant amount, and there is a risk of misallocation or inefficiency.
Heavy reliance on established partners might overshadow smaller, innovative contributors.
Lack of detailed sustainability plans post-Q4 2025 could pose risks to ongoing support and development.
Thanks for the detailed explanation sir! I would dive into it and get back to you ASAP!
Hey, thanks for the feedback.
Hey Bruce, thanks for the detailed feedback!
Hi, @aminiman , thanks for the proposal. Could you please explain why this initiative is presented as a bundled package instead of having each organization submit individual proposals?
I'd like to add something on a personal note. I've been thinking a lot lately about the various venture-related initiatives we're discussing in the DAO right now, as well as the discussions we're having about budget management. I feel that right now we as a DAO lack the capacity to handle these initiatives from an operational point of view.
Because of that, there is a lot of burden placed on the proposer to not only have a worthy initiative, but also to figure out how to execute that initiative within the DAO so that the DAO maintains control and practical oversight of those initiatives. The proposer is acting in a way as both a seller and a buyer, trying to address both points of view. This makes the proposal process very cumbersome and costly for the proposer and the end result is commonly not optimal for the DAO.
Perhaps we should revisit the OpCo proposal initiated by @dk3 some time ago, as I think it could help alleviate many of the problems we have now.
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
We abstained from this proposal. We are in support of this type of idea. A supplement to grant programs is important especially if the DAO wishes to begin focusing more on ROI. That’s what the AVI proposal also aims to facilitate. However, the overhead cost of this proposal is too large for our liking. This aspect makes up a disproportionately large percentage of the total ask. For the sake of using capital more efficiently, we believe that the group should aim to be as lean as possible, or simply start out with a smaller scope. A pilot program would help show that DAO that progress is being made, and it would further clarify the specific costs needed to run this program at a larger scale. As we have mentioned in the AVI proposal, a step-by-step approach tends to fare better with delegates. Continually showing the DAO progress with empirical data is helpful in justifying the expenditure of millions of ARB.
If this proposal can be broken down into more distinct steps and milestones–and perhaps even reduce the number of entities involved as that should decrease the opex–then we’d be willing to revisit it. Again, the idea is good, but the roadmap needs further clarity. A piecemeal approach with continual display of deliverables will give us further confidence in this group's ability to execute.
I voted against this proposal:
While I agree that we have become the L2 with the highest number of builders and need to find better ways to mobilize them, I believe there are already sufficient initiatives with the necessary budget to achieve this goal. Additionally, I think we are at a point where we need to optimize for revenue, considering our long-term sustainability. This proposal does not provide a clear strategy for the DAO to benefit from the returns on venture investments.
I voted against the proposal.
I am getting familiar over time to what @danielo is doing with RnDao.
I voted against the proposal.
I am getting familiar over time to what @danielo is doing with RnDao.
What I like about him is that he is taking a path I would never take, with an approach I would never had. And at this point I am old enough to understand that even if I don't agree with something or with a specific mission doesn't mean there is no value behind, or that it can't be pursued in ways outside my personal framework. What is he after, and how, is something I support. And I am also trying to give him a bit of a hand in this sense, starting with the questbook grant for collabberry.
But the current proposal imho just doesn't properly work. I echo the opinions of, generally, too much overhead costs. This solves either through cost cutting, or increase the amount of capital requested to distributed, and I am not sure what is the right way here. I am also a bit conflicted on the merge of the initiatives of RnDao, EVM capital and Outlier Venture, that in my understanding initially were separated. I understand how joining forces could be seen as a winning strategy, also how a joint force can be "easier" to manage for the dao in term of voting, but I am not sold on this, sorry. We have different teams, different personalities, and different scopes.
I also want to highlight that my vote, is not a vote against the matter per se; i am willing to support the proposal the moment in which is reworked (because, I think it can be reworked), and be addressed for the following
@danielo keep working on this, I think you are onto something valuable.
@Bruce @Larva @Englandzz_Curia @karpatkey @AranaDigital @WintermuteGovernance @limes @Griff @Curia @Frisson
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting AGAINST the proposal, although we would like to stress out that we appreciate the work and effort that has gone into this and we hope that something good will come out of it eventually.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting AGAINST the proposal, although we would like to stress out that we appreciate the work and effort that has gone into this and we hope that something good will come out of it eventually.
One of our concerns is that as things are structured, there’s too much dilution of responsibility. There are three entities involved, each being responsible for its own program. However, there is a lack of clarity as to who will be overseeing, and will be accountable for, the outcome of the proposal as a whole.
Right now we do not see a benefit of combining the separate entities and their programs into one proposal. While the different programs are indeed complementary and have coherency, there is no formal reason that binds them together, apart from the proposal itself.
This proposal is evidently a venture initiative aimed at building a startup ecosystem. Currently, Arbitrum DAO appears to be the primary source of funding, but the potential upside will, in fact, go to investors following this program and not the DAO. We believe a more equitable approach should be adopted. Instead of providing grants, we should consider making investments, or we should require investors who will be benefiting from investing in these projects to contribute to the funding of this program. This is an area that still needs to be explored and discussed.
We are also concerned about the many variables in this proposal, to which we are expected to commit for an entire year, despite the highly experimental nature of the project. The current structure of the project does not provide for contingencies if the initial milestones do not have the expected impact. If the first phases do not meet our expectations, do we continue with the subsequent phases even if it makes little sense to do so? How will we even gauge that impact in the first place?
Lastly, we echo the sentiments of other delegates who have pointed out that the overall operational costs of this project appear to be very high.
That being said, we do see value in this proposal and acknowledge the considerable amount of work that has been invested into it. We appreciate the authors for their efforts, and we look forward to seeing them continue to refine and improve their proposal based on the feedback they have received so far.
We appreciate the initiative and see great potential in supporting developers and startups within the Arbitrum ecosystem. However, we have concerns about the high budget request of $10 million. We suggest the following improvements:
We appreciate the initiative and see great potential in supporting developers and startups within the Arbitrum ecosystem. However, we have concerns about the high budget request of $10 million. We suggest the following improvements:
Given these concerns, we will vote against until further clarifications and adjustments are made.
I love the general idea of this proposal, but I don't think we should throw $10M at a launchpad without upside for Arbitrum DAO. So I will be voting against.
I think it could make sense if the ask was smaller and there was a plan to modify it when the AVI and other investment structures become clear.
I love the general idea of this proposal, but I don't think we should throw $10M at a launchpad without upside for Arbitrum DAO. So I will be voting against.
I think it could make sense if the ask was smaller and there was a plan to modify it when the AVI and other investment structures become clear.
I am working on starting a launch pad now (q/acc via Giveth), and the profit opportunities for Giveth are insane. They will be WAY BIGGER for Arbitrum. It is worth waiting for the legal set up so that the DAO can get some early allocations in the projects that get incubated in this program. IMO
I am a little on the fence with this one.
First, I will echo what other delegates have pointed out - overhead is a very large % of the cost and there isn't (yet, as I'm understanding) a way for Arbitrum to recoup those costs from the project to help alleviate that concern. Contrary to the sticker shock --- I do fully believe that the teams have put in effort to cut costs where possible, and this is sort of the nature of paying for this type of experience within the crypto field. I will point out that the DAO at large (presumably, I can't speak for anyone but myself and my assumptions) would be more open to this if there was any way to cut down costs.
I am a little on the fence with this one.
First, I will echo what other delegates have pointed out - overhead is a very large % of the cost and there isn't (yet, as I'm understanding) a way for Arbitrum to recoup those costs from the project to help alleviate that concern. Contrary to the sticker shock --- I do fully believe that the teams have put in effort to cut costs where possible, and this is sort of the nature of paying for this type of experience within the crypto field. I will point out that the DAO at large (presumably, I can't speak for anyone but myself and my assumptions) would be more open to this if there was any way to cut down costs.
Everything else about the project I see reason to support, it is unfortunate the legal state of Arbitrum does not allow for an easy way to get an ROI on this. I hear the point that this type of thing might be months / a year+ away so it's better to at least get thing started, and I would agree. However given the cost I think this is taking on a lot of risk for things we are hoping will one day materialize.
That said, I do disagree with others that we should just wait until that is settled. The L2 competition is an equally fast and fierce one. I'd like to see this type of network be setup now, as I fear we may start to get behind other networks if we wait too long. The GCP comes to mind, where a lot of money has been thrown at playing catchup in the gaming space.
Where this gets tough is I would like to see some form of this proposal go forward, but I agree with others the cost is just too high. With that in mind I will vote "For" on tally to indicate support for the project itself, however that comes with a very clear statement that if the cost remains the same (or reductions in cost are inadequate) for the Tally vote I will be voting against at that time.
Thanks for bringing this proposal up, as it sparked a lot of construtive discussions. However, I vote against it in the current format. I believe you guys received a lot of positive feedback that will help structure it in a way that is more palatable for the current sentiment.
I voted AGAINST this proposal at the temp check stage because the overhead (non direct investment) costs are excessively high and because (from what I can tell) there is not a concrete plan in place for the DAO to capture upside/returns from the venture investments made.
Blockworks Research will be voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.
Thank you to all the parties who have worked on this initiative. While this proposal includes several aspects that would likely have a positive impact on the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem, we believe that the timing isn’t ideal, the deliverables and how they feed into each other could be explained with more clarity, and there is a risk of overlap with current as well as to be proposed investment initiatives.
Blockworks Research will be voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.
Thank you to all the parties who have worked on this initiative. While this proposal includes several aspects that would likely have a positive impact on the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem, we believe that the timing isn’t ideal, the deliverables and how they feed into each other could be explained with more clarity, and there is a risk of overlap with current as well as to be proposed investment initiatives.
Healthy competition between investment/accelerator programs is naturally beneficial to a certain degree. However, as the DAO is still in its infancy as a capital allocator and the budget is an open question, we believe there is a need to be particularly meticulous with how funds are allocated into investment programs. It makes sense to wait until an adequate overarching operational structure is put in place to better understand where there might be overlap and how Arbitrum will be able to receive financial returns from investments. Lastly, the total cost of this program seems too high to us, and more specifically, the large OpEx as a % of the funding request makes us believe that the cost structure requires reworking.
We want to first thank @aminiman and @danielo for their effort in bringing forward this proposal and communicating to address the questions from fellow delegates.
We have been in favor of continued experimentation and investment in the Arbitrum ecosystem and community through creative frameworks. This proposal is another example of an innovative idea on how the Arbitrum DAO can impact developers and those looking to expand the Arbitrum ecosystem. With that said, the DAO has also continued to struggle to appropriately allocate funds with regard to operating costs and reasonable requests such as the recent Catalyzing Gaming proposal where $25M was set for operating costs. This spending is unsustainable, and we must first execute and evaluate current funding initiatives to understand what costs are necessary and the best frameworks for continued incentivization of growth on Arbitrum.
This proposal uses a lot of big words and long writing to say "Give us $10m so that we can invest it.
Unclear how this helps Arbitrum as the deliverables (comprehensive support, developer mobilization, developer feedback, etc) are so loose and unmeasurable. Additionally, the teams lack experience of running these programs that are worth $10m.
Hey Wintermute
I think there are two very important misunderstandings here.
we found there to be a lot of double-dipping in team salaries across most of the modules leading to higher than necessary costs.
Thanks for your feedback @AranaDigital . A few comments to clarify, I'd love to know your thoughts after.
We appreciate the suggestion to create an Oversight Committee to ensure risk management, but the creation of another committee guarantees additional costs unless this is already included in the ‘Admin’ costs.
Thanks for the proposal.
We appreciate all the effort, thought, and time that has gone into this. In saying this, we find it hard to justify the requested spend on behalf of the DAO.
Thanks for the proposal.
We appreciate all the effort, thought, and time that has gone into this. In saying this, we find it hard to justify the requested spend on behalf of the DAO.
We spent some time speaking with Daniel from RnDAO (who was extremely helpful and open) on their previous proposal which seems like it has now merged into this. But unfortunately, we struggled to agree on their outlined costs, the vision of CollabTech, and structure of the program. We understand there is a large market for CollabTech outside of Web3, but it is not clear to us that such demand exists currently as indicated by the lack of market, products, and results from the pilot phase. We would be more comfortable voting in favour, if the research and market analysis was funded with a small budget that delivered a clear scope of verticals where the rest of the resources were focused on (i.e., community building activities, vc investments, EiR RFPs). Their market and research model which is responsible for the delivery of market opportunities that direct their EiR programs also ran for the full length of the program which did not make sense to us as it should happen at the very beginning of the program or worst case, right before their last incubation cohort. Lastly, we found there to be a lot of double-dipping in team salaries across most of the modules leading to higher than necessary costs.
For the remaining parts of the proposal, we echo much of the same concerns others have mentioned - high costs and the potential for overlap in resources which leads to overspending. When thinking about the longevity of the program, firstly, this is a very expensive pilot, and secondly, most of the costs & benefits are heavily concentrated on the short-term (discounting successful incubations). So how do we ensure there is a longer-lasting benefit in line with ThankARB post-Infinite Launchpad? One suggestion is to have a portal that collates a lot of the information that is provided to EiRs, incubation projects, supporting material etc. This allows the DAO to assess the quality of information, provides a clear deliverable, and allows future builders to leverage material from this program.
I would against the proposal because:
$10 million is a significant amount, and there is a risk of misallocation or inefficiency.
Heavy reliance on established partners might overshadow smaller, innovative contributors.
Lack of detailed sustainability plans post-Q4 2025 could pose risks to ongoing support and development.
Thanks for the detailed explanation sir! I would dive into it and get back to you ASAP!
Hey, thanks for the feedback.
Hey Bruce, thanks for the detailed feedback!
Hi, @aminiman , thanks for the proposal. Could you please explain why this initiative is presented as a bundled package instead of having each organization submit individual proposals?
We want to first thank @aminiman and @danielo for their effort in bringing forward this proposal and communicating to address the questions from fellow delegates.
We have been in favor of continued experimentation and investment in the Arbitrum ecosystem and community through creative frameworks. This proposal is another example of an innovative idea on how the Arbitrum DAO can impact developers and those looking to expand the Arbitrum ecosystem. With that said, the DAO has also continued to struggle to appropriately allocate funds with regard to operating costs and reasonable requests such as the recent Catalyzing Gaming proposal where $25M was set for operating costs. This spending is unsustainable, and we must first execute and evaluate current funding initiatives to understand what costs are necessary and the best frameworks for continued incentivization of growth on Arbitrum.
This proposal has a lot of the right ideas, aligning with attracting new builders and ensuring current developer retention, but we agree with previous concerns that the current costs do not present a compelling opportunity for the DAO. Some specific issues with the proposal:
We also acknowledge the need for proper risk management and have proposed an Oversight Committee to provide high-context and high-bandwidth oversight. This committee will have the authority to approve, stop, or modify payments based on the execution of the programs.
We look forward to continuing to work with the incredible group of partners that delivered this proposal and continuing the conversation, but we do not feel compelled to support it in its current form.
Hey Wintermute
I think there are two very important misunderstandings here.
we found there to be a lot of double-dipping in team salaries across most of the modules leading to higher than necessary costs.
RnDAO is operated by a small team, as such we wear multiple hats. That's not the same as double deeping, simply our time is divided across multiple activities.
For example, I'm scheduled to
Or take Drea who's dividing her time between coaching the EiRs (EiR support 55%) and overseeing Market & Research (45%). She led research for Google Suite, Asana, and Aragon before joining us, and could get a salary of $200k+ but we're charging her at $90k year. Our costs are significantly lower than average because the model we're putting forward is an improvement upon traditional entrepreneurship programs and that's what drives us, using this opportunity to reinvent how ecosystem development and entrepreneurship are done. Financially any member of our team could get more at a regular job.
We understand there is a large market for CollabTech outside of Web3, but it is not clear to us that such demand exists currently as indicated by the lack of market, products, and results from the pilot phase.
We would be more comfortable voting in favour, if the research and market analysis was funded with a small budget that delivered a clear scope of verticals where the rest of the resources were focused on
Could I ask you to clarify where you see this risk of overlap? is it about oversight (Betting on Builders oversight committee vs AVI) or something else?
So how do we ensure there is a longer-lasting benefit in line with ThankARB post-Infinite Launchpad? One suggestion is to have a portal that collates a lot of the information that is provided to EiRs, incubation projects, supporting material etc. This allows the DAO to assess the quality of information, provides a clear deliverable, and allows future builders to leverage material from this program.
Thank you again for your engagement with our proposal. I hope we can continue the conversation and find a path forward.
Thanks for your feedback @AranaDigital . A few comments to clarify, I'd love to know your thoughts after.
We appreciate the suggestion to create an Oversight Committee to ensure risk management, but the creation of another committee guarantees additional costs unless this is already included in the ‘Admin’ costs.
An oversight committee does create some costs (about $150k/year in our case as the programs are self-sufficient and the committee is just for oversight not for executive capacity). This is not a very significant cost for the DAO (a fund would easily spend 2%+ on management fees which for Arbitrum is $60mn year). That being said, I do agree oversight costs should be managed and reduced whenever possible! Our current thinking based on the feedback so far is that a temporary oversight committee can be setup and as soon as a more robust structure is in place (e.g. AVI) then the temporary committee is replaced. That would ensure that the DAO is not paralysed and at the same time costs are not duplicated. Would this setup (pre-empted transition) address your concern?
The design of AVI is one where it would be the vehicle that oversees multiple programs such as the ones we're proposing. AVI is designed to deploy capital into the programs we put forward (equally AVI without programs to oversee is pointless). In that sense, these initiatives shouldn't be viewed as competitive but rather as different pieces of the same puzzle of building the greatest innovation ecosystem in Web3 and beyond.
I'd like to understand why you believe Arbiturm shouldn't act as an incubator. My thoughts: I see a risk with incentive programs and not offering a path for builders to repeat what happened in Canada with supermarket chains. The Canadian gov wanted to fight international competitors so they gave incentives to the already mature supermarkets, which grew a lot as a result. But soon very few players ended up controlling the market, stifled competition and raised prices, later forcing the Canadian government to give incentives to foreign supermarkets to enter their market and stabilise competition. Incentives can be counterproductive, and even when they're not, their impact is often short-lived (especially in Web3) as they attract not organic users but airdrop hunters and speculators who quickly move on to the next shiny thing when we stop paying them. This is not to say that incentive programs are always bad, but they're best viewed as part of a mix. To give the best chances to Arbitrum, it's best to not focus only on gaming, nor focus only on mature projects, but support a variety of projects across a few verticals (business clusters). As long as said support is executed well, these activities will give high ROI to Arbitrum, providing more funds to incubate more stuff (or give more incentives). I'd argue that at this stage, Arbiturm shouldn't discount incubation, one of the most established mechanisms for innovation.
I understand the Gaming Catalyst proposal's large budget was a very significant ask (200mn) but then that's over 3 years (potentially not used completely). And that's still only 0.6% of the treasury. We're currently working on projecting the ROI, as Arbiturm has already generated over 16k ETH in sequencer fees (over 3k ETH in the last 5 months so over $10mn). This significant revenue makes us bullish on the value of Arbitrum investing to sustain and expand its leadership amongst L2s, especially at a time when competition is rapidly increasing. And we see incubation as a powerful mechanism to invest (not as an expense but as an investment) into growing sequencer revenue and making Arbiturm the best place for builders.
I'd appreciate a chance to hear how the above is landing with you and any remaining concerns (or some further understanding on the ones you shared), so we may find a way to work with Arbitrum and grow this ecosystem together. Thanks in advance
Hey, thanks for the feedback.
The community building module includes:
please note these are not only admin costs. Compared to a regular grant program, the proposed programs include a significant dose of support (mentorship, workshops, training, etc.) which is critical for early-stage projects. I imagine these concerns are mostly related to OV and EVM Capital as we (RnDAO) already provided a detailed breakdown in our proposaland you mentioned support. So I'll ask EVM and OV to provide further details (or please correct me if I'm wrong and you'd like to see more from our side).
Hey Bruce, thanks for the detailed feedback!
Thank you for bringing forward this proposal.
Considering the growing competition in the Layer2 landscape, the proposition of this proposal is interesting. The strategy of directing resources towards attracting more builders has proven successful for a number of protocols (L2s and otherwise).
Thank you for bringing forward this proposal.
Considering the growing competition in the Layer2 landscape, the proposition of this proposal is interesting. The strategy of directing resources towards attracting more builders has proven successful for a number of protocols (L2s and otherwise).
However, we agree with the concerns other community members raised about the operation's set-up costs. This goes beyond Outlier Ventures and it’s a strong concern across the various initiatives. Of the $10.47M overall initiative investment, approx. $3.95M are needed to cover operating costs. In other words, approx. 37% of the funding would be used for running the operation. While we understand the initial overhead, this seems too high a barrier for a first experiment.
We value this proposal covering builders retention along with builders acquisition. And, it seems complementary to the AVI Pilot recently approved.
For the initiative to move forward, would it be possible to propose a leaner version that relies on lower initial set-up costs?
Its broad approach could dilute focus and resources, leading to inefficient capital allocation. The lack of immediate funding for all programs and reliance on strict oversight might slow progress. Additionally, the ambitious scope risks overextending Arbitrum’s strategic priorities and could complicate execution.
A good initiative, but there are controversial issues regarding the budget:
A good initiative, but there are controversial issues regarding the budget:
I propose to lower the costs for servicing the initiative to vote in Tally.
Thank you for your effort @aminiman, here is some thoughts form me.
I believe the proposal has several strong points:
Thank you for your effort @aminiman, here is some thoughts form me.
I believe the proposal has several strong points:
However, I feel there are areas for improvement:
While I believe the "Infinite Launchpad" proposal has many promising elements and aligns well with strategic goals, the high cost, potential resource overlap, and need for more specific impact metrics make me cautious at this stage. I support the concept and see its potential, but I recommend further detailed planning and clear differentiation of program phases. Therefore, at this point, I choose to abstain, awaiting further refinements and assurances on these issues.
The engladzz
Could you please explain why this initiative is presented as a bundled package instead of having each organization submit individual proposals?
@jengajojo @GFXlabs @NathanVDH @PGov @jameskbh thank you for your detailed questions and engagement. We have already provided some answers but given some repeating themes we have tried to consolidate them into an FAQ. Could I ask you to check your concerns against the relevant answers and let us know if you're still unconvinced? We very much appreciate all the constructive criticism and ultimately are trying to find a logical, viable path to work with Arbitrum. So understanding whether you remain unconvinced and why is most appreciated!
@jengajojo @GFXlabs @NathanVDH @PGov @jameskbh thank you for your detailed questions and engagement. We have already provided some answers but given some repeating themes we have tried to consolidate them into an FAQ. Could I ask you to check your concerns against the relevant answers and let us know if you're still unconvinced? We very much appreciate all the constructive criticism and ultimately are trying to find a logical, viable path to work with Arbitrum. So understanding whether you remain unconvinced and why is most appreciated!
Overall framing: this proposal is about making Arbitrum the best chain for builders. We're also building a pipeline of projects for Arbitrum to have long-term financial sustainability thanks to diversified revenue streams and commercially sustainable ventures.
Compared to the M&A or AVI Proposal where very significant conceptual development is needed and that’s primarily what’s being done in the Pilot phases, each of the programs in the Infinite Launchpad has already advanced very significant conceptual development and has been piloted or even run at full scale before. Outlier has run multiple accelerators, EVM Capital worked with Consensys, and RnDAO has been operating for over two years and already run a pilot in Arbitrum (funded by PluralityLabs).
It’s also important to understand that
Anyhow, we still resonate with the importance of managing risk (especially operational risk) and we understand that $10 million is a significant ask. Here’s how we plan to address this concern:
Oversight Committee: we have included a committee that reports to the DAO and can stop or modify the funding for the programs.
Funding tranches system: not all the funding is committed at once, instead we’ll divide the budget in tranches, and the release of each subsequent one is conditional upon a review of the KPIs.
Embedding builder experience: we’ll systematise the collection of feedback from participants and include this in both our reports to the Oversight Committee as well as take it into account to continuously refine the programs.
Continuous refinement and improvement: the proposed timeline also allows us to refine and improve. Despite the team’s significant experience in this domain, we might not get everything right the first time but we’ve created a setup where we can quickly learn and refine.
Our ultimate goal is to enhance the overall builder experience on Arbitrum by providing a structured pathway from idea to market. The Infinite Launchpad is designed to:
Support All Stages: Whether a builder is just starting with an idea or looking to scale a Series A startup, our programs provide tailored support at every stage. This ensures that developers do not feel lost or unsupported at any point in their journey.
Holistic Support: By combining technical support, market research, community building, and funding opportunities, we offer a holistic approach that addresses both the technical and business challenges builders face.
Community Integration: We aim to build a strong community of developers, mentors, and industry experts within Arbitrum. This network will provide ongoing support and collaboration opportunities, encouraging Arbitrum to be the go-to ecosystem for Web3 innovation.
From an innovation management perspective, The Infinite Launchpad has been designed with a “best practice” in mind which is a stage-gated innovation program, where projects can progress if they’re showing the required traction/validation, thus doing effective risk management of the innovation process and capital deployment. The setup also ensures that we avoid self-confirmation bias in keeping on funding teams we’ve grown endeared to. Furthermore, the staged approach also allows programs to join at different points of maturity, thus enabling us to support both new and existing projects in a meritocratic way. Builders can also access the other resources of the DAO outside of the programs, so the experience can be tailored to the needs of each project.
We could consider the need to apply to the programs as an overhead for the projects, but it’s also discipline-inducing in the same way that talking to investors forces projects to do a deep analysis of their viability and receive feedback - not always comfortably but certainly value-adding to build viable projects.
We understand that having different programs can be confusing for builders and that’s why we have added a marketing coordination budget. This budget will be used to ensure proper communication of the program offerings (Infinity Launchpad Programs and others in the DAO) and guide builders on how to best assess their needs, routing them to the appropriate program for them. Most of this work will happen after the proposal is confirmed but one concrete idea we’ve already started prototyping in this regard is an AI-powered triage and monitoring tool that can assess a project’s maturity and recommend which resources (programs, education hubs, etc) are appropriate for them, and also allow us to have a database of projects and deals that we can track.
The Infinite Launchpad is designed to complement, not replace, the existing grant programs. Concretely, here’s how we plan to integrate and enhance the current developer experience:
Facilitated Transition: We’re coordinating and developing data infrastructure so that developers can easily move between the existing grant programs and our accelerator phases. For example, projects that receive initial funding through Arbitrum grants can enter our programs at the MVP stage to receive more specialized support and mentorship.
Additional Support: Our programs would provide extensive resources and mentorship that go beyond what traditional grants offer. This includes market research, user testing, and direct access to industry experts, which can significantly increase the chances of project success.
Continuous Alignment: We will work closely with the existing grant program administrators to ensure alignment of goals and smooth handoffs between programs. This will include regular communication and feedback loops to ensure that we are meeting the needs of developers and the broader Arbitrum ecosystem.
We believe that building a whole ecosystem requires a variety of projects and hence a variety of support methods and approaches. As long as we’re ensuring that each program is well designed and executed and we’re coordinating to enhance the builder experience, having multiple options makes Arbitrum more attractive for builders and accelerates the growth of the ecosystem at a time when L2 competition is very high.
We believe the ARDC and the Market & Research module are complementary:
We agree with the suggestion to use the multisig-signing service. Following the design advanced in the RnDAO proposal, we suggest a 5 seat Oversight Committee (that could then be consolidated inside the AVI strcuture) that acts as advisors, reviewing performance of the programs. The Multisig Signing Service executes on transactions leveraging the advis of the Oversight Committee.
The programs are designed in a way that they could generate financial returns for Arbitrum. However, Arbitrum doesn’t currently count with the legal and governance structure to receive said returns and it could even be illegal. We’ve been actively supporting AVI as an initiative that can advance the necessary mechanisms to receive and govern an equities portfolio and are all working to advance in this direction. However, setting this up properly takes time (we’re calculating 12 months). It’s dangerous for Arbitrum to just wait to have AVI setup, as such we’re proposing this two pronged approach following the recommendations of a few senior delegates, where we can get the programs up and running and in parallel develop the mechanism for medium and long term financial returns. This way we’re 1) creating network effects for Arbitrum (developer growth, refining the builder experience, populating the Arbitrum ecosystem with projects to collaborate and build on top of) to ensure we sustain its relevance and 2) build solid foundations for long term financial sustainability.
We’re committed to aligning with the best practices coming out of AVI and the Gamin Catalyst proposal (e.g. grants could convert to equity or tokens) and have the Oversight Committee as a mechanism to guarantee continuous alignment with the DAO best interests.
PluralityLabs (now acquired by Thank ARB) funded the now-completed pilot of the RnDAO program. Thank ARB is not directly involved in the current proposal but we look forward to working and coordinating with them to grow the Arbiturm ecosystem if this proposal is approved.
To understand the costs, it’s key to differentiate venture building and acceleration programs from VC and grants. While grants and VCs allocate capital and offer very limited support, accelerators do a mix of capital and support (they allocate some capital but also offer mentorship, workshops, trainings, etc.) and venture builders go even further towards support, paying staff to work in the ventures alongside the founders. As such, the cost structure of the programs we propose will include a significantly higher management fee. The fee is not lining the pockets of the program managers but instead it’s used to coordinate and deliver comprehensive support to the projects, increasing their chances of success.
Comparison of Startup Studios (a.k.a. venture builders i.e. high support/capital ratio):
Big Startup Studios Research 2023
When we benchmark the costs of our programs with other accelerators and venture builders, they’re not higher. Bear in mind that the OV program has been run across multiple ecosystems and the cost is the same. Also for the EVM Capital programs which ran in Consensys previously. In fact, we’re often paying contributors at below market rate and as such they only benefit significantly if the programs are both 1) successful in building valuable ventures 2) are renewed. This setup ensures incentive alignment between the project founders, program staff, and Arbitrum.
Importantly, we shouldn’t assess these programs in terms of their cost only, as they’re not expenses but investments. So the question is more whether we can generate enough value and for example the OV program (for which we have the most data available given their 10 year history) generally sees an average 4-7x lift in program participants' valuation over the 12-week program, thus showing very significant value for money in creating a thriving ecosystem in Arbitrum. There’s massive competition across L2s and there’s also massive potential (running the world’s economy on-chain), so we can ask, can Arbiturm afford to not invest heavily? That being said, we do understand the need to manage risk and ensure the programs are well executed. Each of us has gathered strong teams with decades of experience in innovation management and venture and we have an oversight committee that can stop the flow of funds if this is not the case. Our incentives are designed to align with ensuring this outcome, leading to growing sequencer fees and sustaining the relevance of Arbitrum, and the investment is 0.0002 (0.2%) of the treasury (20 times smaller than the GCP), leading us to suggest that this is a rather viable investment for Arbitrum, with well managed risks, and high potential benefits.
If any of you would be open to have a call with us, I'd very much appreciate a chance to better understand your concerns and explore potential solutions. Thank you again My calendar in case
Posting on behalf of Outlier Ventures while they get their forum credentials approved
Thanks GFXlabs! I appreciate all of the open dialogue and feedback. It’s important for us to have clear communication and ensure aligned expectations.
Posting on behalf of Outlier Ventures while they get their forum credentials approved
Thanks GFXlabs! I appreciate all of the open dialogue and feedback. It’s important for us to have clear communication and ensure aligned expectations.
The funding would be focused on identifying the best early stage / seed stage startups. We want to be early enough to have a real impact in guiding teams to a successful outcome on behalf of the ecosystem. Terms would be set with teams at a pre-accelerator valuation and we generally see an average 4-7x lift in valuation over the twelve week program - much higher than the mentioned 87%. We’ve developed a strong process for finding the right teams and our track record proves that. Please refer to the deck shared in the earlier response that highlights some hard data around our investment figures.
While this specific collaboration is experimental, Outlier's program is not. We've invested in over 300+ startups, have run over 37 accelerator cohorts, and have a 93% founder satisfaction rate. We’ve spent nearly a decade learning how to run the best accelerator program for partners and founders - this expertise is part of what the DAO would be paying for.
Thank you for the quick reply!
Thank you for the quick reply!
This sounds like it's got very high fixed costs, but this proposal is for experimental-level funding. It doesn't make sense in our mind to have a net outlay of $3m only to invest $1.6m. It would require ~87% return just to break even.
We want to echo some of the prior points and questions. Overall we think this program is interesting and has its merits, however, there should be no reason that the costs are this high when running such a program.
Additionally, we are wondering if Thank ARB helped out financially in funding the creation of this program and how/what they were able to provide and do?
We want to echo some of the prior points and questions. Overall we think this program is interesting and has its merits, however, there should be no reason that the costs are this high when running such a program.
Additionally, we are wondering if Thank ARB helped out financially in funding the creation of this program and how/what they were able to provide and do?
The $10m ask is quite massive and we think that it is not appropriate right now.
Thanks for your proposal!
Looks like we, as ArbitrumDAO, are going for the trifecta (VC, M&A, and Incubator/Accelerator), which is fine, IMO.
I have some questions regarding the structure & returns:
Thanks for your proposal!
Looks like we, as ArbitrumDAO, are going for the trifecta (VC, M&A, and Incubator/Accelerator), which is fine, IMO.
I have some questions regarding the structure & returns:
We are also very aligned with enabling financial returns to Arbitrum following the decisions around GCP and AVI, so we can plug into the proper legal structures once that matures. Specifically, having a conversation around how grants given to teams could be convertible into equity, allowing the DAO to own a stake in these ventures. This way we can move fast to sustain Arbitrum’s leadership in the industry, while also developing a robust setup for long-term sustainability.
If I understood correctly, you mention that you are aligned to generate financial returns to Arbitrum, but this is not given in the current proposal. Is that correct?
The purpose of this document is to detail our understanding of the current landscape, present a vision for advancement, propose a practical strategy, and provide specific outcomes and KPIs.
You present this as a PoC. The duration of the program is the end of 2025, and the cost is above 10 million. Is it possible to have a PoC with a shorter duration and a lower cost? Both other investment proposals are starting with a Pilot phase. Is this not possible in this case?
While there is a mention of a Committee evaluation, and the suggestion of quarterly or other type of disbursement, it would be interesting to start with a smaller scale.
I would suggest updating this section, to leverage the MSS.
I would suggest updating this section, to leverage the MSS.
Significant developer attention is focused on overcrowded problems (group-think) and unsustainable ventures. This program provides a solution through focused research to map the landscape of problems and identify opportunities (market gaps) for further exploration and validation in the CollabTech space. Additionally, providing valuable intel for the Arbitrum ecosystem to de-risk capital allocation.
This program includes:
Team: RnDAO
Is it possible to leverage the ARDC structure to execute this? Tagging @Sinkas for visibility
Thanks for your time!
I like the idea, but how does this coexist with the current grant programs? I don't think making every new developer on Arbitrum have to jump from grant program to accelerator to other grant program makes for a good onboarding experience. The $10M figure is also a massive ask to the DAO. I'd like to see a significantly cheaper pilot phase and a clearer idea on how this embeds in the current developer experience offering of Arbitrum.
The "Infinite Launchpad" proposal presents a well-structured and comprehensive plan to mobilize and support developers within the Arbitrum ecosystem. It addresses key strategic priorities, offers diverse and tailored program offerings, and sets clear, ambitious outcomes and KPIs. The transparent budget and performance-based funding approach enhance credibility. Including risk management, detailed metrics, a continuous feedback mechanism, and a sustainability plan would further strengthen the proposal. Overall, it is a promising initiative with strong potential to drive innovation and growth within the Ethereum ecosystem. Great job, @aminiman !
Thank you for this interesting initaitve @aminiman
We want to first thank @aminiman and @danielo for their effort in bringing forward this proposal and communicating to address the questions from fellow delegates.
We have been in favor of continued experimentation and investment in the Arbitrum ecosystem and community through creative frameworks. This proposal is another example of an innovative idea on how the Arbitrum DAO can impact developers and those looking to expand the Arbitrum ecosystem. With that said, the DAO has also continued to struggle to appropriately allocate funds with regard to operating costs and reasonable requests such as the recent Catalyzing Gaming proposal where $25M was set for operating costs. This spending is unsustainable, and we must first execute and evaluate current funding initiatives to understand what costs are necessary and the best frameworks for continued incentivization of growth on Arbitrum.
This proposal has a lot of the right ideas, aligning with attracting new builders and ensuring current developer retention, but we agree with previous concerns that the current costs do not present a compelling opportunity for the DAO. Some specific issues with the proposal:
We also acknowledge the need for proper risk management and have proposed an Oversight Committee to provide high-context and high-bandwidth oversight. This committee will have the authority to approve, stop, or modify payments based on the execution of the programs.
We look forward to continuing to work with the incredible group of partners that delivered this proposal and continuing the conversation, but we do not feel compelled to support it in its current form.
Hey Wintermute
I think there are two very important misunderstandings here.
we found there to be a lot of double-dipping in team salaries across most of the modules leading to higher than necessary costs.
RnDAO is operated by a small team, as such we wear multiple hats. That's not the same as double deeping, simply our time is divided across multiple activities.
For example, I'm scheduled to
Or take Drea who's dividing her time between coaching the EiRs (EiR support 55%) and overseeing Market & Research (45%). She led research for Google Suite, Asana, and Aragon before joining us, and could get a salary of $200k+ but we're charging her at $90k year. Our costs are significantly lower than average because the model we're putting forward is an improvement upon traditional entrepreneurship programs and that's what drives us, using this opportunity to reinvent how ecosystem development and entrepreneurship are done. Financially any member of our team could get more at a regular job.
We understand there is a large market for CollabTech outside of Web3, but it is not clear to us that such demand exists currently as indicated by the lack of market, products, and results from the pilot phase.
We would be more comfortable voting in favour, if the research and market analysis was funded with a small budget that delivered a clear scope of verticals where the rest of the resources were focused on
Could I ask you to clarify where you see this risk of overlap? is it about oversight (Betting on Builders oversight committee vs AVI) or something else?
So how do we ensure there is a longer-lasting benefit in line with ThankARB post-Infinite Launchpad? One suggestion is to have a portal that collates a lot of the information that is provided to EiRs, incubation projects, supporting material etc. This allows the DAO to assess the quality of information, provides a clear deliverable, and allows future builders to leverage material from this program.
Thank you again for your engagement with our proposal. I hope we can continue the conversation and find a path forward.
Thanks for your feedback @AranaDigital . A few comments to clarify, I'd love to know your thoughts after.
We appreciate the suggestion to create an Oversight Committee to ensure risk management, but the creation of another committee guarantees additional costs unless this is already included in the ‘Admin’ costs.
An oversight committee does create some costs (about $150k/year in our case as the programs are self-sufficient and the committee is just for oversight not for executive capacity). This is not a very significant cost for the DAO (a fund would easily spend 2%+ on management fees which for Arbitrum is $60mn year). That being said, I do agree oversight costs should be managed and reduced whenever possible! Our current thinking based on the feedback so far is that a temporary oversight committee can be setup and as soon as a more robust structure is in place (e.g. AVI) then the temporary committee is replaced. That would ensure that the DAO is not paralysed and at the same time costs are not duplicated. Would this setup (pre-empted transition) address your concern?
The design of AVI is one where it would be the vehicle that oversees multiple programs such as the ones we're proposing. AVI is designed to deploy capital into the programs we put forward (equally AVI without programs to oversee is pointless). In that sense, these initiatives shouldn't be viewed as competitive but rather as different pieces of the same puzzle of building the greatest innovation ecosystem in Web3 and beyond.
I'd like to understand why you believe Arbiturm shouldn't act as an incubator. My thoughts: I see a risk with incentive programs and not offering a path for builders to repeat what happened in Canada with supermarket chains. The Canadian gov wanted to fight international competitors so they gave incentives to the already mature supermarkets, which grew a lot as a result. But soon very few players ended up controlling the market, stifled competition and raised prices, later forcing the Canadian government to give incentives to foreign supermarkets to enter their market and stabilise competition. Incentives can be counterproductive, and even when they're not, their impact is often short-lived (especially in Web3) as they attract not organic users but airdrop hunters and speculators who quickly move on to the next shiny thing when we stop paying them. This is not to say that incentive programs are always bad, but they're best viewed as part of a mix. To give the best chances to Arbitrum, it's best to not focus only on gaming, nor focus only on mature projects, but support a variety of projects across a few verticals (business clusters). As long as said support is executed well, these activities will give high ROI to Arbitrum, providing more funds to incubate more stuff (or give more incentives). I'd argue that at this stage, Arbiturm shouldn't discount incubation, one of the most established mechanisms for innovation.
I understand the Gaming Catalyst proposal's large budget was a very significant ask (200mn) but then that's over 3 years (potentially not used completely). And that's still only 0.6% of the treasury. We're currently working on projecting the ROI, as Arbiturm has already generated over 16k ETH in sequencer fees (over 3k ETH in the last 5 months so over $10mn). This significant revenue makes us bullish on the value of Arbitrum investing to sustain and expand its leadership amongst L2s, especially at a time when competition is rapidly increasing. And we see incubation as a powerful mechanism to invest (not as an expense but as an investment) into growing sequencer revenue and making Arbiturm the best place for builders.
I'd appreciate a chance to hear how the above is landing with you and any remaining concerns (or some further understanding on the ones you shared), so we may find a way to work with Arbitrum and grow this ecosystem together. Thanks in advance
Hey, thanks for the feedback.
The community building module includes:
please note these are not only admin costs. Compared to a regular grant program, the proposed programs include a significant dose of support (mentorship, workshops, training, etc.) which is critical for early-stage projects. I imagine these concerns are mostly related to OV and EVM Capital as we (RnDAO) already provided a detailed breakdown in our proposaland you mentioned support. So I'll ask EVM and OV to provide further details (or please correct me if I'm wrong and you'd like to see more from our side).
Hey Bruce, thanks for the detailed feedback!
Thank you for bringing forward this proposal.
Considering the growing competition in the Layer2 landscape, the proposition of this proposal is interesting. The strategy of directing resources towards attracting more builders has proven successful for a number of protocols (L2s and otherwise).
Thank you for bringing forward this proposal.
Considering the growing competition in the Layer2 landscape, the proposition of this proposal is interesting. The strategy of directing resources towards attracting more builders has proven successful for a number of protocols (L2s and otherwise).
However, we agree with the concerns other community members raised about the operation's set-up costs. This goes beyond Outlier Ventures and it’s a strong concern across the various initiatives. Of the $10.47M overall initiative investment, approx. $3.95M are needed to cover operating costs. In other words, approx. 37% of the funding would be used for running the operation. While we understand the initial overhead, this seems too high a barrier for a first experiment.
We value this proposal covering builders retention along with builders acquisition. And, it seems complementary to the AVI Pilot recently approved.
For the initiative to move forward, would it be possible to propose a leaner version that relies on lower initial set-up costs?
Its broad approach could dilute focus and resources, leading to inefficient capital allocation. The lack of immediate funding for all programs and reliance on strict oversight might slow progress. Additionally, the ambitious scope risks overextending Arbitrum’s strategic priorities and could complicate execution.
A good initiative, but there are controversial issues regarding the budget:
A good initiative, but there are controversial issues regarding the budget:
I propose to lower the costs for servicing the initiative to vote in Tally.
Thank you for your effort @aminiman, here is some thoughts form me.
I believe the proposal has several strong points:
Thank you for your effort @aminiman, here is some thoughts form me.
I believe the proposal has several strong points:
However, I feel there are areas for improvement:
While I believe the "Infinite Launchpad" proposal has many promising elements and aligns well with strategic goals, the high cost, potential resource overlap, and need for more specific impact metrics make me cautious at this stage. I support the concept and see its potential, but I recommend further detailed planning and clear differentiation of program phases. Therefore, at this point, I choose to abstain, awaiting further refinements and assurances on these issues.
The engladzz
Could you please explain why this initiative is presented as a bundled package instead of having each organization submit individual proposals?
@jengajojo @GFXlabs @NathanVDH @PGov @jameskbh thank you for your detailed questions and engagement. We have already provided some answers but given some repeating themes we have tried to consolidate them into an FAQ. Could I ask you to check your concerns against the relevant answers and let us know if you're still unconvinced? We very much appreciate all the constructive criticism and ultimately are trying to find a logical, viable path to work with Arbitrum. So understanding whether you remain unconvinced and why is most appreciated!
@jengajojo @GFXlabs @NathanVDH @PGov @jameskbh thank you for your detailed questions and engagement. We have already provided some answers but given some repeating themes we have tried to consolidate them into an FAQ. Could I ask you to check your concerns against the relevant answers and let us know if you're still unconvinced? We very much appreciate all the constructive criticism and ultimately are trying to find a logical, viable path to work with Arbitrum. So understanding whether you remain unconvinced and why is most appreciated!
Overall framing: this proposal is about making Arbitrum the best chain for builders. We're also building a pipeline of projects for Arbitrum to have long-term financial sustainability thanks to diversified revenue streams and commercially sustainable ventures.
Compared to the M&A or AVI Proposal where very significant conceptual development is needed and that’s primarily what’s being done in the Pilot phases, each of the programs in the Infinite Launchpad has already advanced very significant conceptual development and has been piloted or even run at full scale before. Outlier has run multiple accelerators, EVM Capital worked with Consensys, and RnDAO has been operating for over two years and already run a pilot in Arbitrum (funded by PluralityLabs).
It’s also important to understand that
Anyhow, we still resonate with the importance of managing risk (especially operational risk) and we understand that $10 million is a significant ask. Here’s how we plan to address this concern:
Oversight Committee: we have included a committee that reports to the DAO and can stop or modify the funding for the programs.
Funding tranches system: not all the funding is committed at once, instead we’ll divide the budget in tranches, and the release of each subsequent one is conditional upon a review of the KPIs.
Embedding builder experience: we’ll systematise the collection of feedback from participants and include this in both our reports to the Oversight Committee as well as take it into account to continuously refine the programs.
Continuous refinement and improvement: the proposed timeline also allows us to refine and improve. Despite the team’s significant experience in this domain, we might not get everything right the first time but we’ve created a setup where we can quickly learn and refine.
Our ultimate goal is to enhance the overall builder experience on Arbitrum by providing a structured pathway from idea to market. The Infinite Launchpad is designed to:
Support All Stages: Whether a builder is just starting with an idea or looking to scale a Series A startup, our programs provide tailored support at every stage. This ensures that developers do not feel lost or unsupported at any point in their journey.
Holistic Support: By combining technical support, market research, community building, and funding opportunities, we offer a holistic approach that addresses both the technical and business challenges builders face.
Community Integration: We aim to build a strong community of developers, mentors, and industry experts within Arbitrum. This network will provide ongoing support and collaboration opportunities, encouraging Arbitrum to be the go-to ecosystem for Web3 innovation.
From an innovation management perspective, The Infinite Launchpad has been designed with a “best practice” in mind which is a stage-gated innovation program, where projects can progress if they’re showing the required traction/validation, thus doing effective risk management of the innovation process and capital deployment. The setup also ensures that we avoid self-confirmation bias in keeping on funding teams we’ve grown endeared to. Furthermore, the staged approach also allows programs to join at different points of maturity, thus enabling us to support both new and existing projects in a meritocratic way. Builders can also access the other resources of the DAO outside of the programs, so the experience can be tailored to the needs of each project.
We could consider the need to apply to the programs as an overhead for the projects, but it’s also discipline-inducing in the same way that talking to investors forces projects to do a deep analysis of their viability and receive feedback - not always comfortably but certainly value-adding to build viable projects.
We understand that having different programs can be confusing for builders and that’s why we have added a marketing coordination budget. This budget will be used to ensure proper communication of the program offerings (Infinity Launchpad Programs and others in the DAO) and guide builders on how to best assess their needs, routing them to the appropriate program for them. Most of this work will happen after the proposal is confirmed but one concrete idea we’ve already started prototyping in this regard is an AI-powered triage and monitoring tool that can assess a project’s maturity and recommend which resources (programs, education hubs, etc) are appropriate for them, and also allow us to have a database of projects and deals that we can track.
The Infinite Launchpad is designed to complement, not replace, the existing grant programs. Concretely, here’s how we plan to integrate and enhance the current developer experience:
Facilitated Transition: We’re coordinating and developing data infrastructure so that developers can easily move between the existing grant programs and our accelerator phases. For example, projects that receive initial funding through Arbitrum grants can enter our programs at the MVP stage to receive more specialized support and mentorship.
Additional Support: Our programs would provide extensive resources and mentorship that go beyond what traditional grants offer. This includes market research, user testing, and direct access to industry experts, which can significantly increase the chances of project success.
Continuous Alignment: We will work closely with the existing grant program administrators to ensure alignment of goals and smooth handoffs between programs. This will include regular communication and feedback loops to ensure that we are meeting the needs of developers and the broader Arbitrum ecosystem.
We believe that building a whole ecosystem requires a variety of projects and hence a variety of support methods and approaches. As long as we’re ensuring that each program is well designed and executed and we’re coordinating to enhance the builder experience, having multiple options makes Arbitrum more attractive for builders and accelerates the growth of the ecosystem at a time when L2 competition is very high.
We believe the ARDC and the Market & Research module are complementary:
We agree with the suggestion to use the multisig-signing service. Following the design advanced in the RnDAO proposal, we suggest a 5 seat Oversight Committee (that could then be consolidated inside the AVI strcuture) that acts as advisors, reviewing performance of the programs. The Multisig Signing Service executes on transactions leveraging the advis of the Oversight Committee.
The programs are designed in a way that they could generate financial returns for Arbitrum. However, Arbitrum doesn’t currently count with the legal and governance structure to receive said returns and it could even be illegal. We’ve been actively supporting AVI as an initiative that can advance the necessary mechanisms to receive and govern an equities portfolio and are all working to advance in this direction. However, setting this up properly takes time (we’re calculating 12 months). It’s dangerous for Arbitrum to just wait to have AVI setup, as such we’re proposing this two pronged approach following the recommendations of a few senior delegates, where we can get the programs up and running and in parallel develop the mechanism for medium and long term financial returns. This way we’re 1) creating network effects for Arbitrum (developer growth, refining the builder experience, populating the Arbitrum ecosystem with projects to collaborate and build on top of) to ensure we sustain its relevance and 2) build solid foundations for long term financial sustainability.
We’re committed to aligning with the best practices coming out of AVI and the Gamin Catalyst proposal (e.g. grants could convert to equity or tokens) and have the Oversight Committee as a mechanism to guarantee continuous alignment with the DAO best interests.
PluralityLabs (now acquired by Thank ARB) funded the now-completed pilot of the RnDAO program. Thank ARB is not directly involved in the current proposal but we look forward to working and coordinating with them to grow the Arbiturm ecosystem if this proposal is approved.
To understand the costs, it’s key to differentiate venture building and acceleration programs from VC and grants. While grants and VCs allocate capital and offer very limited support, accelerators do a mix of capital and support (they allocate some capital but also offer mentorship, workshops, trainings, etc.) and venture builders go even further towards support, paying staff to work in the ventures alongside the founders. As such, the cost structure of the programs we propose will include a significantly higher management fee. The fee is not lining the pockets of the program managers but instead it’s used to coordinate and deliver comprehensive support to the projects, increasing their chances of success.
Comparison of Startup Studios (a.k.a. venture builders i.e. high support/capital ratio):
Big Startup Studios Research 2023
When we benchmark the costs of our programs with other accelerators and venture builders, they’re not higher. Bear in mind that the OV program has been run across multiple ecosystems and the cost is the same. Also for the EVM Capital programs which ran in Consensys previously. In fact, we’re often paying contributors at below market rate and as such they only benefit significantly if the programs are both 1) successful in building valuable ventures 2) are renewed. This setup ensures incentive alignment between the project founders, program staff, and Arbitrum.
Importantly, we shouldn’t assess these programs in terms of their cost only, as they’re not expenses but investments. So the question is more whether we can generate enough value and for example the OV program (for which we have the most data available given their 10 year history) generally sees an average 4-7x lift in program participants' valuation over the 12-week program, thus showing very significant value for money in creating a thriving ecosystem in Arbitrum. There’s massive competition across L2s and there’s also massive potential (running the world’s economy on-chain), so we can ask, can Arbiturm afford to not invest heavily? That being said, we do understand the need to manage risk and ensure the programs are well executed. Each of us has gathered strong teams with decades of experience in innovation management and venture and we have an oversight committee that can stop the flow of funds if this is not the case. Our incentives are designed to align with ensuring this outcome, leading to growing sequencer fees and sustaining the relevance of Arbitrum, and the investment is 0.0002 (0.2%) of the treasury (20 times smaller than the GCP), leading us to suggest that this is a rather viable investment for Arbitrum, with well managed risks, and high potential benefits.
If any of you would be open to have a call with us, I'd very much appreciate a chance to better understand your concerns and explore potential solutions. Thank you again My calendar in case
Posting on behalf of Outlier Ventures while they get their forum credentials approved
Thanks GFXlabs! I appreciate all of the open dialogue and feedback. It’s important for us to have clear communication and ensure aligned expectations.
Posting on behalf of Outlier Ventures while they get their forum credentials approved
Thanks GFXlabs! I appreciate all of the open dialogue and feedback. It’s important for us to have clear communication and ensure aligned expectations.
The funding would be focused on identifying the best early stage / seed stage startups. We want to be early enough to have a real impact in guiding teams to a successful outcome on behalf of the ecosystem. Terms would be set with teams at a pre-accelerator valuation and we generally see an average 4-7x lift in valuation over the twelve week program - much higher than the mentioned 87%. We’ve developed a strong process for finding the right teams and our track record proves that. Please refer to the deck shared in the earlier response that highlights some hard data around our investment figures.
While this specific collaboration is experimental, Outlier's program is not. We've invested in over 300+ startups, have run over 37 accelerator cohorts, and have a 93% founder satisfaction rate. We’ve spent nearly a decade learning how to run the best accelerator program for partners and founders - this expertise is part of what the DAO would be paying for.
Thank you for the quick reply!
Thank you for the quick reply!
This sounds like it's got very high fixed costs, but this proposal is for experimental-level funding. It doesn't make sense in our mind to have a net outlay of $3m only to invest $1.6m. It would require ~87% return just to break even.
We want to echo some of the prior points and questions. Overall we think this program is interesting and has its merits, however, there should be no reason that the costs are this high when running such a program.
Additionally, we are wondering if Thank ARB helped out financially in funding the creation of this program and how/what they were able to provide and do?
We want to echo some of the prior points and questions. Overall we think this program is interesting and has its merits, however, there should be no reason that the costs are this high when running such a program.
Additionally, we are wondering if Thank ARB helped out financially in funding the creation of this program and how/what they were able to provide and do?
The $10m ask is quite massive and we think that it is not appropriate right now.
Thanks for your proposal!
Looks like we, as ArbitrumDAO, are going for the trifecta (VC, M&A, and Incubator/Accelerator), which is fine, IMO.
I have some questions regarding the structure & returns:
Thanks for your proposal!
Looks like we, as ArbitrumDAO, are going for the trifecta (VC, M&A, and Incubator/Accelerator), which is fine, IMO.
I have some questions regarding the structure & returns:
We are also very aligned with enabling financial returns to Arbitrum following the decisions around GCP and AVI, so we can plug into the proper legal structures once that matures. Specifically, having a conversation around how grants given to teams could be convertible into equity, allowing the DAO to own a stake in these ventures. This way we can move fast to sustain Arbitrum’s leadership in the industry, while also developing a robust setup for long-term sustainability.
If I understood correctly, you mention that you are aligned to generate financial returns to Arbitrum, but this is not given in the current proposal. Is that correct?
The purpose of this document is to detail our understanding of the current landscape, present a vision for advancement, propose a practical strategy, and provide specific outcomes and KPIs.
You present this as a PoC. The duration of the program is the end of 2025, and the cost is above 10 million. Is it possible to have a PoC with a shorter duration and a lower cost? Both other investment proposals are starting with a Pilot phase. Is this not possible in this case?
While there is a mention of a Committee evaluation, and the suggestion of quarterly or other type of disbursement, it would be interesting to start with a smaller scale.
I would suggest updating this section, to leverage the MSS.
I would suggest updating this section, to leverage the MSS.
Significant developer attention is focused on overcrowded problems (group-think) and unsustainable ventures. This program provides a solution through focused research to map the landscape of problems and identify opportunities (market gaps) for further exploration and validation in the CollabTech space. Additionally, providing valuable intel for the Arbitrum ecosystem to de-risk capital allocation.
This program includes:
Team: RnDAO
Is it possible to leverage the ARDC structure to execute this? Tagging @Sinkas for visibility
Thanks for your time!
I like the idea, but how does this coexist with the current grant programs? I don't think making every new developer on Arbitrum have to jump from grant program to accelerator to other grant program makes for a good onboarding experience. The $10M figure is also a massive ask to the DAO. I'd like to see a significantly cheaper pilot phase and a clearer idea on how this embeds in the current developer experience offering of Arbitrum.
The "Infinite Launchpad" proposal presents a well-structured and comprehensive plan to mobilize and support developers within the Arbitrum ecosystem. It addresses key strategic priorities, offers diverse and tailored program offerings, and sets clear, ambitious outcomes and KPIs. The transparent budget and performance-based funding approach enhance credibility. Including risk management, detailed metrics, a continuous feedback mechanism, and a sustainability plan would further strengthen the proposal. Overall, it is a promising initiative with strong potential to drive innovation and growth within the Ethereum ecosystem. Great job, @aminiman !
Thank you for this interesting initaitve @aminiman
Question for the Outlier Ventures portion of this proposal:
What is up with this cost structure? It shouldn't cost $1.4m to give out $1.6m in grants. Can you break down what some of the larger costs are? How can we get those down to a more manageable level?
Thank you for this interesting initaitve @aminiman
General feedback:
While established partners provide stability, a balanced approach that includes support for lesser-known but promising entities would be beneficial in preventing over-centralization & encouraging diverse contributions
Some strategies to integrate & support existing developers, would go a long way to ensure that this initiative complements rather than competes with the current ecosystem
Question for the Outlier Ventures portion of this proposal:
What is up with this cost structure? It shouldn't cost $1.4m to give out $1.6m in grants. Can you break down what some of the larger costs are? How can we get those down to a more manageable level?
Thank you for this interesting initaitve @aminiman
General feedback:
While established partners provide stability, a balanced approach that includes support for lesser-known but promising entities would be beneficial in preventing over-centralization & encouraging diverse contributions
Some strategies to integrate & support existing developers, would go a long way to ensure that this initiative complements rather than competes with the current ecosystem
