Thank you @ZER8 for the proposal. I agree on the need for Arbitrum DAO to step up its game with marketing and communications, especially considering the great work being done on this front by competing L2s.

Generally, I am supportive of the proposal, but I want to share a few suggestions and questions:

• How do we ensure neutrality of the account? I agree Arbitrum DAO should have a stronger social media presence. That said, "Arbitrum DAO" is a very broad term that includes a variety of different stakeholders, each with their own interests. It would be interesting to understand how you plan on maintaining a neutral approach, while promoting DAO activities and initiatives. I think this could be particularly challenging in proposals, that are partisan by nature.
• Social media focus. Given the short timeline and starting point (Arbitrum DAO's X account has around 500 followers), I have concerns on the initiative focusing on 3 different social media platforms. I would suggest focusing on X for this initial period and consider extending it to additional platforms (Lens and Farcaster) in the future, with a follow up proposal.

Thank you @ZER8 for the proposal. I agree on the need for Arbitrum DAO to step up its game with marketing and communications, especially considering the great work being done on this front by competing L2s.

Generally, I am supportive of the proposal, but I want to share a few suggestions and questions:

• How do we ensure neutrality of the account? I agree Arbitrum DAO should have a stronger social media presence. That said, "Arbitrum DAO" is a very broad term that includes a variety of different stakeholders, each with their own interests. It would be interesting to understand how you plan on maintaining a neutral approach, while promoting DAO activities and initiatives. I think this could be particularly challenging in proposals, that are partisan by nature.
• Social media focus. Given the short timeline and starting point (Arbitrum DAO's X account has around 500 followers), I have concerns on the initiative focusing on 3 different social media platforms. I would suggest focusing on X for this initial period and consider extending it to additional platforms (Lens and Farcaster) in the future, with a follow up proposal.

The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, and consensus of various committee members.

• Evaluation:

The proposal seems to have the right intentions, but does not offer a fully convincing strategy to drive results effectively. It outlines ambitiously large objectives. Within the described 3-month trial period, it would need to be incredibly focused to drive results. We are concerned that the required focus to do that is missing, however.

• Success Metrics and Accountability:

Establishing success metrics is difficult for a broad proposal like this. We noted an attempt to quantify growth KPIs with an example in the comments, but these seem unlikely to be achieved (the involved X Page currently has only 490 followers). Moreover, we feel that growing a new X account for the Arbitrum DAO is a worse approach than facilitating better coordination between all the existing Arbitrum channels. This should be more of a focus.

• Budget Justification:

The requested Budget feels somewhat excessive. 70K ARB for 3 months in total, with the project lead receiving 10,000 ARB per month for 10 hours of work per week, doesn’t seem prudent. We appreciate that the Fellowship members have worked pro bono so far, but don’t believe that justifies this level of expenditure.

• Long-Term Integration of Contributors:

This is a key point of concern. The emphasis seems to be on creating their own content and growing their own new Arbitrum DAO page on X. A more effective strategy, we believe, would be to connect with the other big social media managers on Arbitrum, and coordinate with those existing marketing teams to amplify reach and synchronize messaging. Really coordinate marketing efforts rather than further fragmenting them.

One suggestion from the earlier discussion we’d like to highlight, lastly, regarding other potential added value the Fellowship could offer:

• Creating educational templates or best practice guides for community engagement
• Sharing these with all those existing social media managers as well as upcoming Arbitrum projects.

The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, and consensus of various committee members.

• Evaluation:

The proposal seems to have the right intentions, but does not offer a fully convincing strategy to drive results effectively. It outlines ambitiously large objectives. Within the described 3-month trial period, it would need to be incredibly focused to drive results. We are concerned that the required focus to do that is missing, however.

• Success Metrics and Accountability:

Establishing success metrics is difficult for a broad proposal like this. We noted an attempt to quantify growth KPIs with an example in the comments, but these seem unlikely to be achieved (the involved X Page currently has only 490 followers). Moreover, we feel that growing a new X account for the Arbitrum DAO is a worse approach than facilitating better coordination between all the existing Arbitrum channels. This should be more of a focus.

• Budget Justification:

The requested Budget feels somewhat excessive. 70K ARB for 3 months in total, with the project lead receiving 10,000 ARB per month for 10 hours of work per week, doesn’t seem prudent. We appreciate that the Fellowship members have worked pro bono so far, but don’t believe that justifies this level of expenditure.

• Long-Term Integration of Contributors:

This is a key point of concern. The emphasis seems to be on creating their own content and growing their own new Arbitrum DAO page on X. A more effective strategy, we believe, would be to connect with the other big social media managers on Arbitrum, and coordinate with those existing marketing teams to amplify reach and synchronize messaging. Really coordinate marketing efforts rather than further fragmenting them.

One suggestion from the earlier discussion we’d like to highlight, lastly, regarding other potential added value the Fellowship could offer:

• Creating educational templates or best practice guides for community engagement
• Sharing these with all those existing social media managers as well as upcoming Arbitrum projects.

This is a good idea. Perhaps it is not worth focusing on a specific channel, given the comment about the presence of a number of Arbitrum accounts with a large number of subscribers. Perhaps it is worth developing some kind of incentive system for channels that will somehow promote voting, report on DAO events and their discussions. Depending on the number of views, retweets, channels would be given small rewards. Thus, Arbitrum would have a large pool of accounts that would have incentives to inform their subscribers at low cost.

To do this, it is necessary to think over a budget that will be small, but sufficient for the accounts to be interested, and describe this in a specific proposal.

I think we're mis communicating. I'm suggesting that the current proposal feels too generalist. I'd rather have Arbitrum Gaming Marketing, and Arbitrum DeFi Marketing, etc. So even if the audience size is smaller, the content is focused and relevant.

gm @ZER8, we’ve gone through the submitted proposal and would outline our thoughts on it below.

We agree in principle that Arbitrum needs a better and more active growth and marketing approach, however believe the proposal in itself needs more consideration to become more cohesive for Arbitrum as a whole, and not the DAO alone.

-Who is the expected audience for the social media channel? If they’re delegates and others curious of what the DAO is doing, how does it add value to the overall Arbitrum ecosystem and the DAO specifically? -Why does the DAO need a social media strategy? -What is the end goal and benefit for the DAO?

We agree with the points raised by @AbdullahUmar on the fragmentation of attention across different Arbitrum social accounts and the other points raised https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/mission-activate-the-arbitrum-community-and-market-arbitrum-dao-arbitrum-fellowships-proposal/27475/9?u=castlecapital

We also agree with @pedro that better coordination is needed with AF

We believe that creating an ecosystem growth and marketing plan requires more thorough consideration and involvement from all actors involved, including Arbitrum Foundation and OffChain labs. This strategy should include and leverage ArbitrumDAO activities for the broader ecosystem's benefit.

Whether this involves the support of a DAO “social media” manager together to the current account handler or the creation of a specific working group, it should be framed as a long-term framework to operate within, and non an ad-hoc project.

For this reason, we have our concerns with regard to the self-appointment of members, and agree with @Gabriel, on the insufficient information provided. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/mission-activate-the-arbitrum-community-and-market-arbitrum-dao-arbitrum-fellowships-proposal/27475/28?u=castlecapital

Furthermore, as a very verbal participant in the ecosystem and growth and marketing specialist, we’d love to participate in the matter, and propose to open up this proposal to a broader approach which could ultimately lead to a long-term strategy bringing back Arbitrum to the previous heights in an increasingly competitive landscape.

As it stands, we will not be voting in favor of this proposal as we feel there are too many gaps in its overall strategy, consideration of other channels Arbitrum already has, and vague information about the proposed team's experience.

I understand your pov perfectly and I feel the same, all initiatives should be independently marketed accordingly.

All the major programs you outlined above need promotion, but it feels like something outside of the scope of this proposal which seeks to create and test a more organic dao marketing function targeted at dao initiatives, projects, etc. Marketing those major initiatives doesn not fill the "gap" we currently have in Arbitrum which is... New projects, proposals, can t gain traction, visibility as well as certain dao initiatives.

We can support the programs tho.

This is a good idea. Perhaps it is not worth focusing on a specific channel, given the comment about the presence of a number of Arbitrum accounts with a large number of subscribers. Perhaps it is worth developing some kind of incentive system for channels that will somehow promote voting, report on DAO events and their discussions. Depending on the number of views, retweets, channels would be given small rewards. Thus, Arbitrum would have a large pool of accounts that would have incentives to inform their subscribers at low cost.

To do this, it is necessary to think over a budget that will be small, but sufficient for the accounts to be interested, and describe this in a specific proposal.

I think we're mis communicating. I'm suggesting that the current proposal feels too generalist. I'd rather have Arbitrum Gaming Marketing, and Arbitrum DeFi Marketing, etc. So even if the audience size is smaller, the content is focused and relevant.

gm @ZER8, we’ve gone through the submitted proposal and would outline our thoughts on it below.

We agree in principle that Arbitrum needs a better and more active growth and marketing approach, however believe the proposal in itself needs more consideration to become more cohesive for Arbitrum as a whole, and not the DAO alone.

-Who is the expected audience for the social media channel? If they’re delegates and others curious of what the DAO is doing, how does it add value to the overall Arbitrum ecosystem and the DAO specifically? -Why does the DAO need a social media strategy? -What is the end goal and benefit for the DAO?

We agree with the points raised by @AbdullahUmar on the fragmentation of attention across different Arbitrum social accounts and the other points raised https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/mission-activate-the-arbitrum-community-and-market-arbitrum-dao-arbitrum-fellowships-proposal/27475/9?u=castlecapital

We also agree with @pedro that better coordination is needed with AF

We believe that creating an ecosystem growth and marketing plan requires more thorough consideration and involvement from all actors involved, including Arbitrum Foundation and OffChain labs. This strategy should include and leverage ArbitrumDAO activities for the broader ecosystem's benefit.

Whether this involves the support of a DAO “social media” manager together to the current account handler or the creation of a specific working group, it should be framed as a long-term framework to operate within, and non an ad-hoc project.

For this reason, we have our concerns with regard to the self-appointment of members, and agree with @Gabriel, on the insufficient information provided. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/mission-activate-the-arbitrum-community-and-market-arbitrum-dao-arbitrum-fellowships-proposal/27475/28?u=castlecapital

Furthermore, as a very verbal participant in the ecosystem and growth and marketing specialist, we’d love to participate in the matter, and propose to open up this proposal to a broader approach which could ultimately lead to a long-term strategy bringing back Arbitrum to the previous heights in an increasingly competitive landscape.

As it stands, we will not be voting in favor of this proposal as we feel there are too many gaps in its overall strategy, consideration of other channels Arbitrum already has, and vague information about the proposed team's experience.

I understand your pov perfectly and I feel the same, all initiatives should be independently marketed accordingly.

All the major programs you outlined above need promotion, but it feels like something outside of the scope of this proposal which seeks to create and test a more organic dao marketing function targeted at dao initiatives, projects, etc. Marketing those major initiatives doesn not fill the "gap" we currently have in Arbitrum which is... New projects, proposals, can t gain traction, visibility as well as certain dao initiatives.

We can support the programs tho.

Hi,

at the Aave DAO we do have a similiar approach but not quite the same. Instead of having a central account we do align on posts for "marketing" purposes and tag all relevant parties to reach as many people as possible. So every member of the DAO can propose a thread or something else they would like to post and boost engagement with other DAO member and their follower base.

Having a dedicated account may help to make it easer to post, but would need to grow a lot first to reach a lot people.

Also some other questions I have.

• What mechanisms ensure that the community members most aligned with Arbitrum's values get access to post?
• How will the team ensure content quality and consistency with decentralized contributors?
• How will the success of this initiative be measured? Will metrics like follower growth, engagement rates, or conversion rates on X suffice?
• If certain milestones are not met, what corrective actions are planned?
• With the proposed emphasis on memes and daily updates, how will the team balance community-driven content with maintaining a professional brand image?
• Could a decentralized approach risk inconsistencies in the messaging or tone of communications? Like will there be a guide of communication for example?
• What safeguards will be in place to prevent misuse or misinformation when posting becomes permissionless?
• Are there alternatives to permissionless posting that could be explored?

Thank you

Appreciate the constructive critisism tbh, I think this is not at all about brand dilution, if Arbitrum DAO is a DAO then it would have multiple DAO ran accounts, what we propose here via this proposal is a way of enabling the DAO to market itself one way of the other.

The reason we have participated in the Fellowship program and have presented this proposal is because we(and other people as well) believe there is an opportunity at least for the following years to promote Arbitrum DAo natively by enabling DAO contributors, entities, etc to run an account or promote the hundreds of small projects, grant recepients, etc that would benefit from a little more exposure withing the ecosystem. In that regard we wish to be a sort of signaling function that constantly searches for projects that need more promotion.

Love it, this is a great suggestion, agree it needs to be balanced. I think we could create a system in which we have a weekly/monthly agenda. People can submit content and it will be ranked and prioritized according to the agendas priorities.

Thank you for the clarification! It helps us better understand your vision.

We appreciate the pro-bono work you've already done in supporting projects through hosting spaces on X.

We support the proposal and look forward to seeing this initiative move forward, as well as contributing to the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem together.

thanks for sharing your concerns, we do not in any way have that goal in mind and it would be impossible for us to do so because we will create mini campaigns with certain themes from the start which involve creating educational content taylored for each of them, including visually.

I personally love this, if I understood it right the Clusters would be similar to swarms(an idea I know you're not new to and I also love).

I would say that atm, we're kinda a social media cluster-swarm doing pro bono stuff for the DAO.

This is exactly what we're trying to avoid, by trying to lay the grounds of a "permissionless" social media outlet that represents the DAOs voice, the whole goal of the social media group is to support the DAO, projects, builders, etc in a more decentralized way. The vision I have at least is to enable the DAO to have a "bounty" like system in which it can fund, support, promote initiatives to anyone -regardless of influence, scope, etc

And ofc, this is all conceptual and experimental so we're kinda radically open to any feedback or ideas along the way as well :pray:

We're not at that stage yet, the first phase in the proposal(which I agree is not clearly laid out in it) is to promote projects, builders, delegates, etc which are underpromoted

Great suggestion, this would be really helpful for a lot of people!

Hello! thanks for the post.

I’m glad you raised this point and that marketing is being discussed again. I have discussed with the Foundation the need to coordinate marketing between the AF and the DAO. I believe the importance of coordinating a better marketing approach is crucial to maximize the reach of everything generated in the DAO (proposals, initiatives, programs, etc.).

I have a few questions:

Does this mean the proposal will be submitted to Questbook, or are you seeking funding approved directly by the DAO?

It would also be helpful if you could share some metrics achieved so far from the account on X.: DAO_Arbitrum.

I would also like to know if you have spoken with anyone from the Arbitrum Foundation (AF), as there has been an account, @arbitrumdao_gov, for a few months now, which has more followers than the account you manage. I’m concerned that having multiple Arbitrum accounts representing the DAO could create confusion among people interested in participating. From my perspective, the DAO and the AF should coordinate marketing efforts rather than fragmenting them. When I participated in the LTIPP, we coordinated some efforts with the AF and saw a significant impact; I believe we should replicate that again, with a clear strategy in place.

I agree with what @AbdullahUmar mentioned

I’m concerned about the design of the KPIs, as threads can be easily copied and pasted from other content generators, which makes the proposed cost seem high.

Lastly, I believe marketing efforts should be approached jointly with the AF. It’s essential to have clear objectives and a mission for the DAO so that these efforts are aligned and not merely isolated actions. We should also set consistent budgets and establish a long-term plan that goes beyond just a few posts and spaces on X.

Thanks again for the proposal and for initiating an important discussion.

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

Thank you for sharing this comprehensive marketing proposal. We believe it presents several important initiatives for growing the Arbitrum ecosystem.

We appreciate how this proposal addresses a crucial gap in the ecosystem. Beyond the development and onboarding of new protocols, a marketing strategy is essential for reaching new users.

While the proposal mentions measuring engagement strategies, we would like to see more specific details about the target KPIs and success metrics that this team will track.

The multi-platform approach is promising, particularly the inclusion of Web3-native platforms. This will definitely help in reaching new users and expanding our community presence.

We are excited to see how this develops, particularly in finding ways to enable DAO members to participate in it.

While the proposal mentions enabling marketing request submissions, we would appreciate more details about the submission process/platform you would have planned and the criteria for request approval.

We strongly support the focus on helping smaller and newer projects gain recognition within the community. We would like to suggest including educational templates or best practice guides for community engagement. This would help projects market themselves more effectively and provide clear direction for getting started.

Hi,

at the Aave DAO we do have a similiar approach but not quite the same. Instead of having a central account we do align on posts for "marketing" purposes and tag all relevant parties to reach as many people as possible. So every member of the DAO can propose a thread or something else they would like to post and boost engagement with other DAO member and their follower base.

Having a dedicated account may help to make it easer to post, but would need to grow a lot first to reach a lot people.

Also some other questions I have.

• What mechanisms ensure that the community members most aligned with Arbitrum's values get access to post?
• How will the team ensure content quality and consistency with decentralized contributors?
• How will the success of this initiative be measured? Will metrics like follower growth, engagement rates, or conversion rates on X suffice?
• If certain milestones are not met, what corrective actions are planned?
• With the proposed emphasis on memes and daily updates, how will the team balance community-driven content with maintaining a professional brand image?
• Could a decentralized approach risk inconsistencies in the messaging or tone of communications? Like will there be a guide of communication for example?
• What safeguards will be in place to prevent misuse or misinformation when posting becomes permissionless?
• Are there alternatives to permissionless posting that could be explored?

Thank you

Appreciate the constructive critisism tbh, I think this is not at all about brand dilution, if Arbitrum DAO is a DAO then it would have multiple DAO ran accounts, what we propose here via this proposal is a way of enabling the DAO to market itself one way of the other.

The reason we have participated in the Fellowship program and have presented this proposal is because we(and other people as well) believe there is an opportunity at least for the following years to promote Arbitrum DAo natively by enabling DAO contributors, entities, etc to run an account or promote the hundreds of small projects, grant recepients, etc that would benefit from a little more exposure withing the ecosystem. In that regard we wish to be a sort of signaling function that constantly searches for projects that need more promotion.

Love it, this is a great suggestion, agree it needs to be balanced. I think we could create a system in which we have a weekly/monthly agenda. People can submit content and it will be ranked and prioritized according to the agendas priorities.

Thank you for the clarification! It helps us better understand your vision.

We appreciate the pro-bono work you've already done in supporting projects through hosting spaces on X.

We support the proposal and look forward to seeing this initiative move forward, as well as contributing to the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem together.