Note: This proposal is a revised version of our initial draft shared for discussion on November 30th. In reality, it represents the 3rd proposal after incorporating valuable feedback from community members and key delegates. Below are the links attached for previous proposals.
1st Proposal (June 2024): Proposal Link
2nd Proposal (November 2024, RFC): Proposal Link
We believe the feedback have played a crucial role in refining our approach and finding the key strategic way for establishing ArbitrumHub as a robust Platform.
Please note that some information on the platform may not always be entirely accurate or up-to-date, primarily due to resource constraints. From the past year, we have independently built, managed and maintained the platform using the resources at our disposal. Despite these limitations, we strive to provide the most accurate and updated information, deploying any additional resources to improve its quality.
We encourage you to view this platform as a proof of concept for what we aim to achieve. Imagine the possibilities we could unlock with dedicated support and resources from the DAO. The DAO support would enable us to significantly enhance this platform and fully realize its potential.
Based on feedback from the DAO, we are considering carrying ArbitrumHub as a pilot for the first year with a limited scope. The core focus will be on addressing content needs and refining the platform based on community feedback, DAO needs while utilizing minimal resources.
The Foundation is one of the bodies of the Arbitrum DAO, focused primarily on providing specific information aimed at builders. Their goal is to make the Arbitrum blockchain more efficient. The Foundation's target audience includes developers and builders, with an emphasis on onboarding them to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
In contrast, ArbitrumHub provides a comprehensive overview of all Arbitrum DAO initiatives, including governance and various ecosystem activities. Our target audience includes individuals involved in governance, Web3 service organizations, strategists, and community members from arbitrum and other DAOs, as well as anyone interested in understanding what Arbitrum has to offer.
Additionally, ArbitrumHub serves as a platform to showcase community initiatives on a single platform, ensuring better visibility and reach. For instance, the Community Hub serves as a space to highlight community-driven contributions—something that is currently lacking within the Arbitrum ecosystem. ArbitrumHub is fulfilling this need by providing a dedicated space for these initiatives and enhancing the accessibility to everyone.
While we acknowledge that the Foundation's website is effective in its purpose, we recognize that the Foundation has a distinct goal and target audience. The Foundation’s internal focus is on improving the Arbitrum blockchain for builders, while their external focus revolves around onboarding builders to the Arbitrum blockchain and presenting relevant information accordingly.
Note: The image above represents the bi-annual progress report, highlighting the scope and target audience of the Arbitrum Foundation. It illustrates how ArbitrumHub complements the Foundation's efforts rather than duplicating them. In fact, ArbitrumHub has previously been utilized by the Foundation to showcase various grant programs and accepted projects. ArbitrumHub aims to serve as a comprehensive, one-stop solution for all things arbitrum. The ArbitrumHub team is committed to collaborating with the Foundation and the leaders of various community initiatives to ensure its relevance across all verticals within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Source: Arbitrum Foundation Bi-Annual Progress Update H1 2024Please check out the Community Hub | Programs Section.
The ArbitrumHub project emerged from over a year of active involvement in the Arbitrum ecosystem, during which we identified a critical need for a unified platform for ArbitrumDAO. Through extensive community engagement, research, and participation in DAO meetings, it became evident that new members, centralized organizations, participants from other DAOs, and young enthusiasts lacked a single point of reference for all developments and initiatives within the ecosystem. To address this gap, we began laying the foundation of ArbitrumHub 1+ year ago. With dedicated research, collaboration with key stakeholders, and a project team committed to design, development, and iteration, ArbitrumHub has evolved into a comprehensive resource at arbitrumhub.io.
ArbitrumHub was created to address the critical need for a centralized resource hub within the ArbitrumDAO community. As the ecosystem expands, it becomes increasingly challenging to stay informed and connected. ArbitrumHub simplifies this process by offering a single, reliable source of essential information, structured in a way that is both accessible and comprehensive. ArbitrumHub aspires to become the community’s go-to destination for vital insights into ArbitrumDAO and its ongoing initiatives. By maintaining a unified platform, we ensure community members and external participants have access to updates, meeting details, and opportunities to engage with the ecosystem. This approach not only strengthens community involvement but also fosters a more informed and engaged Arbitrum ecosystem.
ArbitrumHub serves as the essential first point of contact for existing and new users in the Arbitrum ecosystem, consolidating scattered information and providing a continuously updated resource. Given the importance of this platform in fostering ecosystem cohesion and accessibility, we are seeking DAO approval to formalize ArbitrumHub’s role within the ArbitrumDAO structure.
Securing DAO support would allow us to designate ArbitrumHub as a DAO-backed platform, which we can publicly display in the About section on ArbitrumHub.io, reinforcing its credibility and trust within the ecosystem. Formal approval would also enable a closer working relationship with DAO program managers and delegates, establishing an ongoing feedback loop and creating a foundation for designing and implementing effective Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) with key stakeholders. This formalized connection ensures that ArbitrumHub remains aligned with the DAO’s strategic objectives, enhancing the platform’s long-term impact and value to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
ArbitrumHub is a centralized and open-source platform designed to streamline user access to essential resources, real-time updates, and community engagement within the Arbitrum ecosystem. It addresses the need for a unified, easily navigable platform for new and existing users. Key functionalities include:
Integrates the latest news and developments within the Arbitrum ecosystem, ensuring users have timely access to important updates.
Keeps the community informed about upcoming meetups, workshops, and events, promoting active participation and engagement.
Provides dedicated support for platform-related queries and aggregates essential resources, such as developer tools and grant information, in one location.
Leverages social media and newsletters to increase visibility and user engagement, keeping the community informed and involved.
Encourages active participation by offering educational resources, events, and opportunities for contribution, fostering ongoing community involvement.
Acts as a central directory for ambassador activities, allowing easy management and access to ambassador-related initiatives.
ArbitrumHub fills a crucial gap within the ArbitrumDAO by providing a centralized, up-to-date platform that simplifies onboarding and keeps users engaged. Initially, our team faced difficulties in accessing the necessary information to fully participate in the ecosystem, a challenge that many users encounter. ArbitrumHub eliminates these barriers, offering a seamless experience that will help attract and retain new members while fostering the continued growth of the ArbitrumDAO.
We have conducted extensive research to establish refined Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to ensure that ArbitrumHub operates at peak efficiency while fostering community engagement. Based on feedback received from our initial draft shared on November 30th, we have streamlined resources towards platform maintenance, and effectively reduced the overall budget. This approach not only enhances the platform’s operational efficiency but also ensures that community needs are continuously addressed and prioritized.
Our primary focus will be the maintenance and optimization of the platform, ensuring it serves the needs of the defined target audience. To achieve this, we will focus on the following initiatives:
Objective:
Ensure regular and timely content updates to keep the Arbitrum Hub informative, relevant, and aligned with community needs. Focus on maintaining consistency and delivering planned enhancements as outlined in the roadmap.
Deliverable:
Publish weekly content updates and provide a quarterly progress report summarizing updates and enhancements implemented.
Objective:
One of the key winning factors is to measure platform usage and utility through user activity trends and monthly survey reports, which will help assess satisfaction and identify areas for improvement..
Deliverable:
Submit quarterly user engagement reports, including metrics such as active users, session durations, and survey feedback analysis, with recommendations for enhancements.
These KPIs aim to ensure the platform's effective maintenance, continuous improvement, and community engagement while meeting the expectations of the DAO.
The SOPs ensure consistent platform updates, efficient enhancements, and data-driven improvements to maintain accuracy, relevance, and user engagement.
Deliverables: 4 Quarterly Check-ins from each DAO Initiative
To ensure the accuracy and relevance of information on program-specific pages through quarterly content reviews with designated program managers.
Summarize outcomes in the quarterly Platform Audit Report, detailing updates implemented or outstanding verification tasks.
Deliverables: As Required, Based on Research/Requests
To systematically manage and implement new sections and initiatives based on internal research findings or community requests.
Document each enhancement and include a summary in the Quarterly Platform Audit Report.
Deliverables: 4 Quarterly Platform Analytics Reports
To generate insights into platform user behavior and interactions, enabling data-driven iterations to enhance user experience and engagement.
Every design element on the platform has been meticulously crafted to serve both functional and strategic objectives. These thoughtful choices ensure a seamless user experience while advancing the platform’s overarching mission.
This design feature, though seemingly minor, is fundamental to fostering user engagement and promoting education. It addresses several critical objectives:
By integrating these source-of-information into the platform:
From a user experience standpoint, this approach exemplifies design excellence by harmonizing education, accessibility, and functionality. Emphasizing interaction transforms users into active contributors, creating a virtuous cycle of engagement and value creation. This ensures the platform remains a dynamic and inclusive ecosystem, poised to support the DAO’s long-term success.
For more insights and examples, please explore the platform.
Our approach for the upcoming year centers solely on platform maintenance and satisfying the defined target audiences, ensuring that all efforts are concentrated on these core objectives. By avoiding a fragmented approach and streamlining operations, we've significantly reduced the budget required to carry out the platform's operations. This strategic focus allows us to maximize efficiency and ensure that every resource is directly aligned with platform stability and user engagement.
This clear, purpose-driven approach to resource allocation and budget management allows us to deliver consistent and impactful results while maintaining a sustainable operational cost structure for the year.
| Role | Price (Hourly) | Daily Average Hours | Weekly Hours (5 working days) | Monthly Hours | Monthly Price | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research | $50 | 4 | 20 | 80 | $4,000 | Responsible for exploring the Arbitrum ecosystem, monitoring user engagement via Looker Studio Analytics, staying updated on developments within various DAO initiatives and the broader Arbitrum ecosystem, and creating detailed reports to be provided for copywriting. |
| Copywriting | $60 | 6 | 30 | 120 | $7,200 | Analyzing content, creating headlines, descriptions, and presenting well-formatted web content, social media posts content and newsletter's. |
| Design (part-time and minimal) | $60 | 2 | 10 | 40 | $2,400 | Designing web components, infographics, and custom elements, creating new pages or enhancing existing ones for DAO initiatives, and producing graphics for social media and blog posts. |
| Development (part-time and minimal) | $60 | 2 | 10 | 40 | $2,400 | Managing open-source code on GitHub, implementing new features as per needs, updating platform content, troubleshooting errors, and actively engaging with the community. |
| PM & Communication | $80 | 2 | 10 | 40 | $3,200 | Managing daily platform operations, communication with a focus on optimizing team efforts and ensuring smooth progress. |
At the time of the proposal, the requested amount will be fully converted to $ARB, with the budget and quarterly withdrawals specified in $ARB tokens.
Any additional costs, such as hosting or tools, will be covered by the ArbitrumHub's team during this pilot year. We are committed to the platform's growth and its relevance in the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We would like to highlight that we have been diligently working on and building this platform over the past year at our own discretion with early starter-grant support from pL labs back in jan-feb 2024. Given the effort and commitment invested for past months at our own discretion, we believe it is reasonable to seek retroactive compensation for the work completed thus far.
We respectfully request a minimum of $40k USD as retroactive funding for over 10+ months of dedicated work. This request is entirely optional and subject to the discretion of the DAO.
Should the DAO recognize and appreciate our contributions, we would be sincerely grateful. However, if the DAO decides otherwise, we fully understand and respect the decision, acknowledging the dynamics and priorities of the DAO landscape.
To foster continuous improvement and maintain alignment with community/DAO expectations, we have implemented a structured feedback mechanism integrated into our operational processes. This mechanism ensures that insights from users, stakeholders, and the broader community are systematically collected, evaluated, and acted upon.
Community Engagement & Open Collaboration
Quarterly Check-ins & Feedback Loops
Platform Analytics & User Behavior Insights
Enhancements Based on Requests
The success of ArbitrumHub is evaluated using clearly defined metrics that align with the platform’s objectives. These metrics are linked to the KPIs and operational SOPs, ensuring measurable outcomes and accountability.
Performance Indicators
These mechanisms ensure ArbitrumHub operates effectively, adapts to user needs, and fosters a transparent, collaborative environment.
Focus on Platform Maintenance and information accuracy:
Dedicated efforts on platform upkeep for the entire year, avoiding fragmentation.
Reduced Fragmentation: Prioritized a focused approach to consolidate resources and streamline efforts, ensuring a solid foundation for ArbitrumHub.
Revised Role Hours:
Streamlined hours per role, focusing on platform maintenance based on DAO feedback.
Revised Budget:
Optimized budget with clear justification for every expenditure.
Defined Target Audiences:
Focused efforts on meeting the needs of clearly identified target audiences.
This proposal reflects our dedication to creating a platform that prioritizes transparency, community engagement, and measurable success. By addressing past challenges and proactively improving key aspects, we are confident that this revised approach will meet the expectations of stakeholders and deliver meaningful value to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We look forward to the support of DAO & community in taking this forward.
We plan to submit the proposal on Snapshot on January 8th or 9th, after the DAO holidays, which end on January 6th. If the Snapshot vote is positive, we will proceed with the tally votes.
Thank you.
Note: This proposal is a revised version of our initial draft shared for discussion on November 30th. In reality, it represents the 3rd proposal after incorporating valuable feedback from community members and key delegates. Below are the links attached for previous proposals.
1st Proposal (June 2024): Proposal Link
2nd Proposal (November 2024, RFC): Proposal Link
We believe the feedback have played a crucial role in refining our approach and finding the key strategic way for establishing ArbitrumHub as a robust Platform.
Please note that some information on the platform may not always be entirely accurate or up-to-date, primarily due to resource constraints. From the past year, we have independently built, managed and maintained the platform using the resources at our disposal. Despite these limitations, we strive to provide the most accurate and updated information, deploying any additional resources to improve its quality.
We encourage you to view this platform as a proof of concept for what we aim to achieve. Imagine the possibilities we could unlock with dedicated support and resources from the DAO. The DAO support would enable us to significantly enhance this platform and fully realize its potential.
Based on feedback from the DAO, we are considering carrying ArbitrumHub as a pilot for the first year with a limited scope. The core focus will be on addressing content needs and refining the platform based on community feedback, DAO needs while utilizing minimal resources.
The Foundation is one of the bodies of the Arbitrum DAO, focused primarily on providing specific information aimed at builders. Their goal is to make the Arbitrum blockchain more efficient. The Foundation's target audience includes developers and builders, with an emphasis on onboarding them to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
In contrast, ArbitrumHub provides a comprehensive overview of all Arbitrum DAO initiatives, including governance and various ecosystem activities. Our target audience includes individuals involved in governance, Web3 service organizations, strategists, and community members from arbitrum and other DAOs, as well as anyone interested in understanding what Arbitrum has to offer.
Additionally, ArbitrumHub serves as a platform to showcase community initiatives on a single platform, ensuring better visibility and reach. For instance, the Community Hub serves as a space to highlight community-driven contributions—something that is currently lacking within the Arbitrum ecosystem. ArbitrumHub is fulfilling this need by providing a dedicated space for these initiatives and enhancing the accessibility to everyone.
While we acknowledge that the Foundation's website is effective in its purpose, we recognize that the Foundation has a distinct goal and target audience. The Foundation’s internal focus is on improving the Arbitrum blockchain for builders, while their external focus revolves around onboarding builders to the Arbitrum blockchain and presenting relevant information accordingly.
Note: The image above represents the bi-annual progress report, highlighting the scope and target audience of the Arbitrum Foundation. It illustrates how ArbitrumHub complements the Foundation's efforts rather than duplicating them. In fact, ArbitrumHub has previously been utilized by the Foundation to showcase various grant programs and accepted projects. ArbitrumHub aims to serve as a comprehensive, one-stop solution for all things arbitrum. The ArbitrumHub team is committed to collaborating with the Foundation and the leaders of various community initiatives to ensure its relevance across all verticals within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Source: Arbitrum Foundation Bi-Annual Progress Update H1 2024Please check out the Community Hub | Programs Section.
The ArbitrumHub project emerged from over a year of active involvement in the Arbitrum ecosystem, during which we identified a critical need for a unified platform for ArbitrumDAO. Through extensive community engagement, research, and participation in DAO meetings, it became evident that new members, centralized organizations, participants from other DAOs, and young enthusiasts lacked a single point of reference for all developments and initiatives within the ecosystem. To address this gap, we began laying the foundation of ArbitrumHub 1+ year ago. With dedicated research, collaboration with key stakeholders, and a project team committed to design, development, and iteration, ArbitrumHub has evolved into a comprehensive resource at arbitrumhub.io.
ArbitrumHub was created to address the critical need for a centralized resource hub within the ArbitrumDAO community. As the ecosystem expands, it becomes increasingly challenging to stay informed and connected. ArbitrumHub simplifies this process by offering a single, reliable source of essential information, structured in a way that is both accessible and comprehensive. ArbitrumHub aspires to become the community’s go-to destination for vital insights into ArbitrumDAO and its ongoing initiatives. By maintaining a unified platform, we ensure community members and external participants have access to updates, meeting details, and opportunities to engage with the ecosystem. This approach not only strengthens community involvement but also fosters a more informed and engaged Arbitrum ecosystem.
ArbitrumHub serves as the essential first point of contact for existing and new users in the Arbitrum ecosystem, consolidating scattered information and providing a continuously updated resource. Given the importance of this platform in fostering ecosystem cohesion and accessibility, we are seeking DAO approval to formalize ArbitrumHub’s role within the ArbitrumDAO structure.
Securing DAO support would allow us to designate ArbitrumHub as a DAO-backed platform, which we can publicly display in the About section on ArbitrumHub.io, reinforcing its credibility and trust within the ecosystem. Formal approval would also enable a closer working relationship with DAO program managers and delegates, establishing an ongoing feedback loop and creating a foundation for designing and implementing effective Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) with key stakeholders. This formalized connection ensures that ArbitrumHub remains aligned with the DAO’s strategic objectives, enhancing the platform’s long-term impact and value to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
ArbitrumHub is a centralized and open-source platform designed to streamline user access to essential resources, real-time updates, and community engagement within the Arbitrum ecosystem. It addresses the need for a unified, easily navigable platform for new and existing users. Key functionalities include:
Integrates the latest news and developments within the Arbitrum ecosystem, ensuring users have timely access to important updates.
Keeps the community informed about upcoming meetups, workshops, and events, promoting active participation and engagement.
Provides dedicated support for platform-related queries and aggregates essential resources, such as developer tools and grant information, in one location.
Leverages social media and newsletters to increase visibility and user engagement, keeping the community informed and involved.
Encourages active participation by offering educational resources, events, and opportunities for contribution, fostering ongoing community involvement.
Acts as a central directory for ambassador activities, allowing easy management and access to ambassador-related initiatives.
ArbitrumHub fills a crucial gap within the ArbitrumDAO by providing a centralized, up-to-date platform that simplifies onboarding and keeps users engaged. Initially, our team faced difficulties in accessing the necessary information to fully participate in the ecosystem, a challenge that many users encounter. ArbitrumHub eliminates these barriers, offering a seamless experience that will help attract and retain new members while fostering the continued growth of the ArbitrumDAO.
We have conducted extensive research to establish refined Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to ensure that ArbitrumHub operates at peak efficiency while fostering community engagement. Based on feedback received from our initial draft shared on November 30th, we have streamlined resources towards platform maintenance, and effectively reduced the overall budget. This approach not only enhances the platform’s operational efficiency but also ensures that community needs are continuously addressed and prioritized.
Our primary focus will be the maintenance and optimization of the platform, ensuring it serves the needs of the defined target audience. To achieve this, we will focus on the following initiatives:
Objective:
Ensure regular and timely content updates to keep the Arbitrum Hub informative, relevant, and aligned with community needs. Focus on maintaining consistency and delivering planned enhancements as outlined in the roadmap.
Deliverable:
Publish weekly content updates and provide a quarterly progress report summarizing updates and enhancements implemented.
Objective:
One of the key winning factors is to measure platform usage and utility through user activity trends and monthly survey reports, which will help assess satisfaction and identify areas for improvement..
Deliverable:
Submit quarterly user engagement reports, including metrics such as active users, session durations, and survey feedback analysis, with recommendations for enhancements.
These KPIs aim to ensure the platform's effective maintenance, continuous improvement, and community engagement while meeting the expectations of the DAO.
The SOPs ensure consistent platform updates, efficient enhancements, and data-driven improvements to maintain accuracy, relevance, and user engagement.
Deliverables: 4 Quarterly Check-ins from each DAO Initiative
To ensure the accuracy and relevance of information on program-specific pages through quarterly content reviews with designated program managers.
Summarize outcomes in the quarterly Platform Audit Report, detailing updates implemented or outstanding verification tasks.
Deliverables: As Required, Based on Research/Requests
To systematically manage and implement new sections and initiatives based on internal research findings or community requests.
Document each enhancement and include a summary in the Quarterly Platform Audit Report.
Deliverables: 4 Quarterly Platform Analytics Reports
To generate insights into platform user behavior and interactions, enabling data-driven iterations to enhance user experience and engagement.
Every design element on the platform has been meticulously crafted to serve both functional and strategic objectives. These thoughtful choices ensure a seamless user experience while advancing the platform’s overarching mission.
This design feature, though seemingly minor, is fundamental to fostering user engagement and promoting education. It addresses several critical objectives:
By integrating these source-of-information into the platform:
From a user experience standpoint, this approach exemplifies design excellence by harmonizing education, accessibility, and functionality. Emphasizing interaction transforms users into active contributors, creating a virtuous cycle of engagement and value creation. This ensures the platform remains a dynamic and inclusive ecosystem, poised to support the DAO’s long-term success.
For more insights and examples, please explore the platform.
Our approach for the upcoming year centers solely on platform maintenance and satisfying the defined target audiences, ensuring that all efforts are concentrated on these core objectives. By avoiding a fragmented approach and streamlining operations, we've significantly reduced the budget required to carry out the platform's operations. This strategic focus allows us to maximize efficiency and ensure that every resource is directly aligned with platform stability and user engagement.
This clear, purpose-driven approach to resource allocation and budget management allows us to deliver consistent and impactful results while maintaining a sustainable operational cost structure for the year.
| Role | Price (Hourly) | Daily Average Hours | Weekly Hours (5 working days) | Monthly Hours | Monthly Price | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research | $50 | 4 | 20 | 80 | $4,000 | Responsible for exploring the Arbitrum ecosystem, monitoring user engagement via Looker Studio Analytics, staying updated on developments within various DAO initiatives and the broader Arbitrum ecosystem, and creating detailed reports to be provided for copywriting. |
| Copywriting | $60 | 6 | 30 | 120 | $7,200 | Analyzing content, creating headlines, descriptions, and presenting well-formatted web content, social media posts content and newsletter's. |
| Design (part-time and minimal) | $60 | 2 | 10 | 40 | $2,400 | Designing web components, infographics, and custom elements, creating new pages or enhancing existing ones for DAO initiatives, and producing graphics for social media and blog posts. |
| Development (part-time and minimal) | $60 | 2 | 10 | 40 | $2,400 | Managing open-source code on GitHub, implementing new features as per needs, updating platform content, troubleshooting errors, and actively engaging with the community. |
| PM & Communication | $80 | 2 | 10 | 40 | $3,200 | Managing daily platform operations, communication with a focus on optimizing team efforts and ensuring smooth progress. |
At the time of the proposal, the requested amount will be fully converted to $ARB, with the budget and quarterly withdrawals specified in $ARB tokens.
Any additional costs, such as hosting or tools, will be covered by the ArbitrumHub's team during this pilot year. We are committed to the platform's growth and its relevance in the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We would like to highlight that we have been diligently working on and building this platform over the past year at our own discretion with early starter-grant support from pL labs back in jan-feb 2024. Given the effort and commitment invested for past months at our own discretion, we believe it is reasonable to seek retroactive compensation for the work completed thus far.
We respectfully request a minimum of $40k USD as retroactive funding for over 10+ months of dedicated work. This request is entirely optional and subject to the discretion of the DAO.
Should the DAO recognize and appreciate our contributions, we would be sincerely grateful. However, if the DAO decides otherwise, we fully understand and respect the decision, acknowledging the dynamics and priorities of the DAO landscape.
To foster continuous improvement and maintain alignment with community/DAO expectations, we have implemented a structured feedback mechanism integrated into our operational processes. This mechanism ensures that insights from users, stakeholders, and the broader community are systematically collected, evaluated, and acted upon.
Community Engagement & Open Collaboration
Quarterly Check-ins & Feedback Loops
Platform Analytics & User Behavior Insights
Enhancements Based on Requests
The success of ArbitrumHub is evaluated using clearly defined metrics that align with the platform’s objectives. These metrics are linked to the KPIs and operational SOPs, ensuring measurable outcomes and accountability.
Performance Indicators
These mechanisms ensure ArbitrumHub operates effectively, adapts to user needs, and fosters a transparent, collaborative environment.
Focus on Platform Maintenance and information accuracy:
Dedicated efforts on platform upkeep for the entire year, avoiding fragmentation.
Reduced Fragmentation: Prioritized a focused approach to consolidate resources and streamline efforts, ensuring a solid foundation for ArbitrumHub.
Revised Role Hours:
Streamlined hours per role, focusing on platform maintenance based on DAO feedback.
Revised Budget:
Optimized budget with clear justification for every expenditure.
Defined Target Audiences:
Focused efforts on meeting the needs of clearly identified target audiences.
This proposal reflects our dedication to creating a platform that prioritizes transparency, community engagement, and measurable success. By addressing past challenges and proactively improving key aspects, we are confident that this revised approach will meet the expectations of stakeholders and deliver meaningful value to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We look forward to the support of DAO & community in taking this forward.
We plan to submit the proposal on Snapshot on January 8th or 9th, after the DAO holidays, which end on January 6th. If the Snapshot vote is positive, we will proceed with the tally votes.
Thank you.
Based on the revised proposal, the improvements made, and the DAO’s feedback being addressed, I would vote in favor of this proposal. The changes, including a narrower scope, improved KPIs, streamlined budget, and focus on platform maintenance, demonstrate a well-thought-out and community-driven approach. The pilot phase with minimal resource allocation also makes it a low-risk yet high-impact initiative.
Based on the revised proposal, the improvements made, and the DAO’s feedback being addressed, I would vote in favor of this proposal. The changes, including a narrower scope, improved KPIs, streamlined budget, and focus on platform maintenance, demonstrate a well-thought-out and community-driven approach. The pilot phase with minimal resource allocation also makes it a low-risk yet high-impact initiative.
Not a delegate, and I do not hold anywhere near a meaningful amount of voting power. I will also refrain from commenting on the budget or utility of the project. I think that sort of decision requires a lot of context on the marketing strategy of ArbitrumDAO, context which I don't have.
That being said, I checked your repository and I was impressed with the quality of it. Everything is well structured and documented. There are good examples on how to create new content, I even created a PR to test the deployment pipeline here - https://github.com/HoomanDigital/ArbitrumDAO_Hub/pull/10. The PR was picked up by vercel and a preview deployment was made. I was not able to visit the preview deployment though, I think visiting preview deployments is allowed only for the Vercel team members. I recommend opening that to anyone who makes a PR, but keeping an eye out for spammers.
Not a delegate, and I do not hold anywhere near a meaningful amount of voting power. I will also refrain from commenting on the budget or utility of the project. I think that sort of decision requires a lot of context on the marketing strategy of ArbitrumDAO, context which I don't have.
That being said, I checked your repository and I was impressed with the quality of it. Everything is well structured and documented. There are good examples on how to create new content, I even created a PR to test the deployment pipeline here - https://github.com/HoomanDigital/ArbitrumDAO_Hub/pull/10. The PR was picked up by vercel and a preview deployment was made. I was not able to visit the preview deployment though, I think visiting preview deployments is allowed only for the Vercel team members. I recommend opening that to anyone who makes a PR, but keeping an eye out for spammers.
The tech stack you're using is also a very good choice. AstroJS and markdown files for content is a good fit for this kind of static content. Everything is generated at compile time, there's no backend to pull data from, which means it will always be fast and use a tiny amount of resources. Deploying on Vercel, and it being a static AstroJS website, makes it cache on Vercel's CDN which means it will be snappy for every user, no matter the location they are visiting from. Honestly, nothing much to add here, maybe try to upgrade some of your dependencies to newer versions, but there's nothing critical about that.
Overall, I was able to run and make changes to the project very easily. Maybe the markdown content and folder structure is not super intuitive for non technical people, but this could be maintained by any junior dev in the future.
Considering this wants to be the "face" of Arbitrum, and that comes with some responsibility for the DAO, I think it's important to answer some questions though
Who owns the arbitrumhub.io domain? Who is paying for it? How can we make sure that it always gets renewed, does not expire, and gets snatched by some phishing scammers a few years from now?
How can we guarantee the continuity of the GitHub repo and Vercel project? How can the DAO have control over that, if necessary?
Who will review PRs, from a security standpoint, and make sure malicious code does not get in?
Formal approval would also enable a closer working relationship with DAO program managers and delegates, establishing an ongoing feedback loop and creating a foundation for designing and implementing effective Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) with key stakeholders.
Formal approval would also enable a closer working relationship with DAO program managers and delegates, establishing an ongoing feedback loop and creating a foundation for designing and implementing effective Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) with key stakeholders.
This is a great proposal and initiative. I have a question regarding this though: Does this mean there could be an opportunity for DAO members to contribute within the hub? For example, through recruiting developers to maintain the website, or writers to create content and document changes to products and software? Or does this not apply in this context?
Not a delegate, and I do not hold anywhere near a meaningful amount of voting power. I will also refrain from commenting on the budget or utility of the project. I think that sort of decision requires a lot of context on the marketing strategy of ArbitrumDAO, context which I don't have.
That being said, I checked your repository and I was impressed with the quality of it. Everything is well structured and documented. There are good examples on how to create new content, I even created a PR to test the deployment pipeline here - https://github.com/HoomanDigital/ArbitrumDAO_Hub/pull/10. The PR was picked up by vercel and a preview deployment was made. I was not able to visit the preview deployment though, I think visiting preview deployments is allowed only for the Vercel team members. I recommend opening that to anyone who makes a PR, but keeping an eye out for spammers.
Not a delegate, and I do not hold anywhere near a meaningful amount of voting power. I will also refrain from commenting on the budget or utility of the project. I think that sort of decision requires a lot of context on the marketing strategy of ArbitrumDAO, context which I don't have.
That being said, I checked your repository and I was impressed with the quality of it. Everything is well structured and documented. There are good examples on how to create new content, I even created a PR to test the deployment pipeline here - https://github.com/HoomanDigital/ArbitrumDAO_Hub/pull/10. The PR was picked up by vercel and a preview deployment was made. I was not able to visit the preview deployment though, I think visiting preview deployments is allowed only for the Vercel team members. I recommend opening that to anyone who makes a PR, but keeping an eye out for spammers.
The tech stack you're using is also a very good choice. AstroJS and markdown files for content is a good fit for this kind of static content. Everything is generated at compile time, there's no backend to pull data from, which means it will always be fast and use a tiny amount of resources. Deploying on Vercel, and it being a static AstroJS website, makes it cache on Vercel's CDN which means it will be snappy for every user, no matter the location they are visiting from. Honestly, nothing much to add here, maybe try to upgrade some of your dependencies to newer versions, but there's nothing critical about that.
Overall, I was able to run and make changes to the project very easily. Maybe the markdown content and folder structure is not super intuitive for non technical people, but this could be maintained by any junior dev in the future.
Considering this wants to be the "face" of Arbitrum, and that comes with some responsibility for the DAO, I think it's important to answer some questions though
Who owns the arbitrumhub.io domain? Who is paying for it? How can we make sure that it always gets renewed, does not expire, and gets snatched by some phishing scammers a few years from now?
How can we guarantee the continuity of the GitHub repo and Vercel project? How can the DAO have control over that, if necessary?
Who will review PRs, from a security standpoint, and make sure malicious code does not get in?
Formal approval would also enable a closer working relationship with DAO program managers and delegates, establishing an ongoing feedback loop and creating a foundation for designing and implementing effective Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) with key stakeholders.
Formal approval would also enable a closer working relationship with DAO program managers and delegates, establishing an ongoing feedback loop and creating a foundation for designing and implementing effective Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) with key stakeholders.
This is a great proposal and initiative. I have a question regarding this though: Does this mean there could be an opportunity for DAO members to contribute within the hub? For example, through recruiting developers to maintain the website, or writers to create content and document changes to products and software? Or does this not apply in this context?
Thank you everyone for all the feedback.
Unfortunately, despite giving it our all, we weren’t able to secure even minimal support for this initiative.
We approached the DAO three times, applied to Questbook multiple times, but nothing worked out and got rejected everywhere. Maybe we were wrong—maybe the DAO is already well-managed and our efforts weren’t aligned.
Thank you everyone for all the feedback.
Unfortunately, despite giving it our all, we weren’t able to secure even minimal support for this initiative.
We approached the DAO three times, applied to Questbook multiple times, but nothing worked out and got rejected everywhere. Maybe we were wrong—maybe the DAO is already well-managed and our efforts weren’t aligned.
There’s a lot of talk about onboarding, but no one really knows how it’s supposed to happen or what exclusive channels exist to truly support it.
ArbitrumHub had the potential to become a powerhouse if it had the right backing. But the reality is that we weren't able to secure even a minimal support/backing from the DAO or questbook grants or whatever, and we have to accept it.
Thank you again to all the delegates who took the time to share their thoughts and feedback.
Arbitrumhub
Thank you everyone for all the feedback.
Unfortunately, despite giving it our all, we weren’t able to secure even minimal support for this initiative.
We approached the DAO three times, applied to Questbook multiple times, but nothing worked out and got rejected everywhere. Maybe we were wrong—maybe the DAO is already well-managed and our efforts weren’t aligned.
Thank you everyone for all the feedback.
Unfortunately, despite giving it our all, we weren’t able to secure even minimal support for this initiative.
We approached the DAO three times, applied to Questbook multiple times, but nothing worked out and got rejected everywhere. Maybe we were wrong—maybe the DAO is already well-managed and our efforts weren’t aligned.
There’s a lot of talk about onboarding, but no one really knows how it’s supposed to happen or what exclusive channels exist to truly support it.
ArbitrumHub had the potential to become a powerhouse if it had the right backing. But the reality is that we weren't able to secure even a minimal support/backing from the DAO or questbook grants or whatever, and we have to accept it.
Thank you again to all the delegates who took the time to share their thoughts and feedback.
Arbitrumhub
Thank you, @andreiv, for such deeply researched feedback. This is undoubtedly one of the most insightful pieces of feedback we've received so far, aside from the budget discussions! 😉
Regarding the domain ownership, the arbitrumhub.io domain is owned by our team under a legal entity registered in our name. The domain is currently registered until 2026, and we will ensure it is renewed well in advance to avoid any lapses.
Thank you, @andreiv, for such deeply researched feedback. This is undoubtedly one of the most insightful pieces of feedback we've received so far, aside from the budget discussions! 😉
Regarding the domain ownership, the arbitrumhub.io domain is owned by our team under a legal entity registered in our name. The domain is currently registered until 2026, and we will ensure it is renewed well in advance to avoid any lapses.
The project has been made open-source to decentralize operations in the future, while we remain the primary team leading the initiative. This approach will allow us to establish a solid foundation and validate use cases during the pilot year before transitioning to a more decentralized structure where we can have a budget for community and possibly a work-group.
We, as a team, diligently review all pull requests (PRs). Every PR is made 100% public, allowing anyone to track why a specific PR was merged or closed. Security is a top priority for us, and we implement robust measures to ensure the safety and integrity of the codebase.
The repository is fully open and accessible to the community, ensuring transparency and accountability in all development activities.
Thanks again for your valuable feedback!
Thank you, @chamadao, for the alert.
We would like to take this opportunity to highlight our past work. In Jan-2024, we received a small starter grant from pL Labs to lay the foundation of the platform. We successfully delivered on that initial goal and completed the foundational development. After this, we have been working independently without any support from any entity or node within the DAO.
Thank you, @chamadao, for the alert.
We would like to take this opportunity to highlight our past work. In Jan-2024, we received a small starter grant from pL Labs to lay the foundation of the platform. We successfully delivered on that initial goal and completed the foundational development. After this, we have been working independently without any support from any entity or node within the DAO.
Following this, we have continuously collaborated with multiple stakeholders to address gaps, introduce new features, and build relevant sections of the platform. Notably, all sections under Programs, Global Search, Grants, and several other key areas were developed independently without any additional financial support or funding.
This effort included conducting thorough research, creating original content (including blog posts and pages), designing visuals and infographics, and implementing everything through coding. The details of these contributions can be verified directly through our GitHub repository.
Additionally, we recently implemented tools to ensure the platform's long-term utility, including:
In the past, we also played an active role in highlighting and briefing on various DAO grant programs, which were officially linked in the foundation’s documentation.
We have invested significant effort into building a robust foundation for this platform, despite limited support. We remain committed to taking any actions necessary to strengthen this initiative further as highlighted in our proposal.
For those still uncertain about the scope of this work, we recommend consulting experienced developers, designers, or agencies to understand the level of effort and knowledge required to create something like this. The process involves:
Every addition to the platform follows this structured workflow as of now:
Research & Ideation → Content Creation → Design & Infographics → Coding → Stakeholder Communication & Verification
Thank you.
Thank you, but we never proposed US or Europe-specific rates or whatever. We are referring to global industry standard rates and have proposed accordingly.
That said, we appreciate your feedback and opinion.
Thanks for your feedback and we would like to highlight an important issue here about your statement on geography here.
In a digital, remote-first environment, geography is irrelevant when it comes to the value and quality of work delivered. Comparing rates or standards based on location disregards the global nature of modern collaboration and the expertise we bring to the table.
Thanks for your feedback and we would like to highlight an important issue here about your statement on geography here.
In a digital, remote-first environment, geography is irrelevant when it comes to the value and quality of work delivered. Comparing rates or standards based on location disregards the global nature of modern collaboration and the expertise we bring to the table.
Our rates are competitive, aligned with industry standards, and reflect the complexity, precision, and value of the work we consistently deliver. We do not and will never work for “cheap rates,” nor do we compromise on quality to meet unrealistic or biased expectations.
Price reflects quality and the complexity of challenges solved. If our budget is deemed high, we expect specifics:
Without this clarity, the assumption that rates should be lower based on geography is invalid. It’s not about where we come from; it’s about the unmatched value and expertise we provide. We stand firm: we don’t work for cheap, and our quality speaks for itself.
Thank you Arbitrumhub
Thank you all for the feedback! Our proposal is now live at: snapshot. A special thanks to @maxlomu for assisting in putting this on-chain.
As a final note, we want to emphasize that we’ve already slashed our budget multiple times—beyond what we were comfortable with—because we genuinely want to contribute to the DAO. We’ve termed this first year as a pilot year for good reason. While concerns about the budget being "too high" maybe valid, we haven’t received specific feedback on what exactly is deemed excessive. Is it the hourly rate? The roles? Or is it the scope of work that doesn’t align with the DAO’s expectations?
Thank you, @andreiv, for such deeply researched feedback. This is undoubtedly one of the most insightful pieces of feedback we've received so far, aside from the budget discussions! 😉
Regarding the domain ownership, the arbitrumhub.io domain is owned by our team under a legal entity registered in our name. The domain is currently registered until 2026, and we will ensure it is renewed well in advance to avoid any lapses.
Thank you, @andreiv, for such deeply researched feedback. This is undoubtedly one of the most insightful pieces of feedback we've received so far, aside from the budget discussions! 😉
Regarding the domain ownership, the arbitrumhub.io domain is owned by our team under a legal entity registered in our name. The domain is currently registered until 2026, and we will ensure it is renewed well in advance to avoid any lapses.
The project has been made open-source to decentralize operations in the future, while we remain the primary team leading the initiative. This approach will allow us to establish a solid foundation and validate use cases during the pilot year before transitioning to a more decentralized structure where we can have a budget for community and possibly a work-group.
We, as a team, diligently review all pull requests (PRs). Every PR is made 100% public, allowing anyone to track why a specific PR was merged or closed. Security is a top priority for us, and we implement robust measures to ensure the safety and integrity of the codebase.
The repository is fully open and accessible to the community, ensuring transparency and accountability in all development activities.
Thanks again for your valuable feedback!
Thank you, @chamadao, for the alert.
We would like to take this opportunity to highlight our past work. In Jan-2024, we received a small starter grant from pL Labs to lay the foundation of the platform. We successfully delivered on that initial goal and completed the foundational development. After this, we have been working independently without any support from any entity or node within the DAO.
Thank you, @chamadao, for the alert.
We would like to take this opportunity to highlight our past work. In Jan-2024, we received a small starter grant from pL Labs to lay the foundation of the platform. We successfully delivered on that initial goal and completed the foundational development. After this, we have been working independently without any support from any entity or node within the DAO.
Following this, we have continuously collaborated with multiple stakeholders to address gaps, introduce new features, and build relevant sections of the platform. Notably, all sections under Programs, Global Search, Grants, and several other key areas were developed independently without any additional financial support or funding.
This effort included conducting thorough research, creating original content (including blog posts and pages), designing visuals and infographics, and implementing everything through coding. The details of these contributions can be verified directly through our GitHub repository.
Additionally, we recently implemented tools to ensure the platform's long-term utility, including:
In the past, we also played an active role in highlighting and briefing on various DAO grant programs, which were officially linked in the foundation’s documentation.
We have invested significant effort into building a robust foundation for this platform, despite limited support. We remain committed to taking any actions necessary to strengthen this initiative further as highlighted in our proposal.
For those still uncertain about the scope of this work, we recommend consulting experienced developers, designers, or agencies to understand the level of effort and knowledge required to create something like this. The process involves:
Every addition to the platform follows this structured workflow as of now:
Research & Ideation → Content Creation → Design & Infographics → Coding → Stakeholder Communication & Verification
Thank you.
Thank you, but we never proposed US or Europe-specific rates or whatever. We are referring to global industry standard rates and have proposed accordingly.
That said, we appreciate your feedback and opinion.
Thanks for your feedback and we would like to highlight an important issue here about your statement on geography here.
In a digital, remote-first environment, geography is irrelevant when it comes to the value and quality of work delivered. Comparing rates or standards based on location disregards the global nature of modern collaboration and the expertise we bring to the table.
Thanks for your feedback and we would like to highlight an important issue here about your statement on geography here.
In a digital, remote-first environment, geography is irrelevant when it comes to the value and quality of work delivered. Comparing rates or standards based on location disregards the global nature of modern collaboration and the expertise we bring to the table.
Our rates are competitive, aligned with industry standards, and reflect the complexity, precision, and value of the work we consistently deliver. We do not and will never work for “cheap rates,” nor do we compromise on quality to meet unrealistic or biased expectations.
Price reflects quality and the complexity of challenges solved. If our budget is deemed high, we expect specifics:
Without this clarity, the assumption that rates should be lower based on geography is invalid. It’s not about where we come from; it’s about the unmatched value and expertise we provide. We stand firm: we don’t work for cheap, and our quality speaks for itself.
Thank you Arbitrumhub
Thank you all for the feedback! Our proposal is now live at: snapshot. A special thanks to @maxlomu for assisting in putting this on-chain.
As a final note, we want to emphasize that we’ve already slashed our budget multiple times—beyond what we were comfortable with—because we genuinely want to contribute to the DAO. We’ve termed this first year as a pilot year for good reason. While concerns about the budget being "too high" maybe valid, we haven’t received specific feedback on what exactly is deemed excessive. Is it the hourly rate? The roles? Or is it the scope of work that doesn’t align with the DAO’s expectations?
Thank you all for the feedback! Our proposal is now live at: snapshot. A special thanks to @maxlomu for assisting in putting this on-chain.
As a final note, we want to emphasize that we’ve already slashed our budget multiple times—beyond what we were comfortable with—because we genuinely want to contribute to the DAO. We’ve termed this first year as a pilot year for good reason. While concerns about the budget being "too high" maybe valid, we haven’t received specific feedback on what exactly is deemed excessive. Is it the hourly rate? The roles? Or is it the scope of work that doesn’t align with the DAO’s expectations?
For context, we’ve proposed daily hours as low as 2 hours per day (5 days a week) for some roles, yet it still seems too much for the DAO. As a team, we’re not just maintaining the site—we’re managing everything independently and delivering a comprehensive package. This involves a range of specialized tasks, including:
This work requires significant expertise, attention to detail, and a deep understanding of the DAO’s goals.
We’re not here to debate the budget further, as we firmly believe it is highly reasonable and transparently broken down. However, we remain fully open to constructive feedback on how to enhance this initiative and ensure it aligns with other efforts, such as SOS, OpCo, or any other relevant initiatives.
We’ve prioritized collaboration and integration over isolation in this proposal, ensuring that we deliver meaningful value without misusing the DAO's resources. Our efforts are fully transparent and can be reviewed at arbitrumhub.io.
Our intentions are rooted in good faith—we aim to build something truly beneficial for the DAO and its community. With that, we place the fate of this proposal in the hands of the delegates and the broader community.
Thank you Arbitrumhub
Hi @Jonezee,
Thank you for your feedback.
We would like to highlight that so far, we have been working voluntarily at our own discretion. Building and maintaining this platform without any direct support from the DAO is a commendable effort in itself. At this point, it’s unclear what level of perfection the DAO expects, especially without investing adequate resources.
Hi @Jonezee,
Thank you for your feedback.
We would like to highlight that so far, we have been working voluntarily at our own discretion. Building and maintaining this platform without any direct support from the DAO is a commendable effort in itself. At this point, it’s unclear what level of perfection the DAO expects, especially without investing adequate resources.
Our capabilities are evident in the work we’ve done, such as on ArbitrumHub.io. As skilled professionals, we have invested our expertise to create and maintain this exclusive platform.
We’ve also emphasized treating this as a proof of concept:
"We encourage you to view this platform as a proof of concept for what we aim to achieve. Imagine the possibilities we could unlock with dedicated support and resources from the DAO. DAO support would enable us to significantly enhance this platform and fully realize its potential."
If the DAO expects 100% perfection, it’s essential to acknowledge that achieving such standards requires resources, time, commitment, and financial backing. For context, we just received a small starter grant from pL Labs back in January-February 2024, and no additional support has been provided since then.
Achieving such perfection requires resources, time, finances, and commitment. We have clearly outlined that these will be our focus if the proposal is approved. If the DAO expects this level of perfection at this stage without providing any resources, it is difficult for us to comprehend or respond to such expectations from a DAO of this scale.
While the team clearly has good intentions and has successfully created a hub to showcase the DAO, it currently falls short of fulfilling its intended purpose. Its success depends on consistently updated information and ways of driving traffic to it, which it unfortunately seems to lack at the moment.
We hope this clarifies our position and underscores the need for proper support to take this initiative to the next level.
Best regards, Arbitrumhub
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee and is based on the collective research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
The concept of a central Arbitrum hub, alongside the Foundation website to address information fragmentation, is promising. The design of the arbitrumhub.io website is clean. However, much of the content is outdated, and several important sections—such as collaboration, initiatives, events, jobs, and incentives—remain entirely empty. This is unfortunate.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee and is based on the collective research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
The concept of a central Arbitrum hub, alongside the Foundation website to address information fragmentation, is promising. The design of the arbitrumhub.io website is clean. However, much of the content is outdated, and several important sections—such as collaboration, initiatives, events, jobs, and incentives—remain entirely empty. This is unfortunate.
The website has accumulated 12,700 views and 5,600 sessions since its launch; these numbers are decent but do not represent high-impact engagement. Additionally, the presence on socials is minimal; the X page has a small following and has not posted any content since August.
Given that the project previously received an education grant, we expected the site to be more up-to-date. That way, the initiative could demonstrate a clear and effective reach and impact before seeking a long-term contract from the DAO.
While the team clearly has good intentions and has successfully created a hub to showcase the DAO, it currently falls short of fulfilling its intended purpose. Its success depends on consistently updated information and ways of driving traffic to it, which it unfortunately seems to lack at the moment.
Will this initiative ultimately provide enough value and achieve the desired impact? It has the potential to do so; however, the proposed team size and budget, particularly on the communications side seem excessive.
In light of these concerns, we are inclined to vote against this proposal. Furthermore, we believe that such initiatives should be part of a strategic vision by the Arbitrum DAO to develop its own website and social media infrastructure.
Thank You @duokongcrypto @JoJo @karpatkey @kuiclub @Euphoria @cp0x @GensDAO @Jonezee @404DAO @gauntlet for participating into the healthy discussion and providing valuable feedback. We also thank all the community members for maintaining their professionalism, going through the proposal, then asking relevant questions from that.
We 100% agree with the mentioned problem:
The main problem i have is that we have the trend, in the dao, to build all sort of infrastructures (website, bot, dapp etc) that are detached one from another. Even more, we are doing this with no strategic view on top.
Thank you to all for being present during the call today and we appreciate you for asking relevant questions in the call.
We have a DAO call scheduled; however, there is an issue with allowing participants to join as the access is currently with @AlexLumley. We will reschedule the call in coordination with @AlexLumley and ensure proper admin access is granted for smoother participation.
Thank you for your understanding.
Thank you all for the feedback! Our proposal is now live at: snapshot. A special thanks to @maxlomu for assisting in putting this on-chain.
As a final note, we want to emphasize that we’ve already slashed our budget multiple times—beyond what we were comfortable with—because we genuinely want to contribute to the DAO. We’ve termed this first year as a pilot year for good reason. While concerns about the budget being "too high" maybe valid, we haven’t received specific feedback on what exactly is deemed excessive. Is it the hourly rate? The roles? Or is it the scope of work that doesn’t align with the DAO’s expectations?
For context, we’ve proposed daily hours as low as 2 hours per day (5 days a week) for some roles, yet it still seems too much for the DAO. As a team, we’re not just maintaining the site—we’re managing everything independently and delivering a comprehensive package. This involves a range of specialized tasks, including:
This work requires significant expertise, attention to detail, and a deep understanding of the DAO’s goals.
We’re not here to debate the budget further, as we firmly believe it is highly reasonable and transparently broken down. However, we remain fully open to constructive feedback on how to enhance this initiative and ensure it aligns with other efforts, such as SOS, OpCo, or any other relevant initiatives.
We’ve prioritized collaboration and integration over isolation in this proposal, ensuring that we deliver meaningful value without misusing the DAO's resources. Our efforts are fully transparent and can be reviewed at arbitrumhub.io.
Our intentions are rooted in good faith—we aim to build something truly beneficial for the DAO and its community. With that, we place the fate of this proposal in the hands of the delegates and the broader community.
Thank you Arbitrumhub
Hi @Jonezee,
Thank you for your feedback.
We would like to highlight that so far, we have been working voluntarily at our own discretion. Building and maintaining this platform without any direct support from the DAO is a commendable effort in itself. At this point, it’s unclear what level of perfection the DAO expects, especially without investing adequate resources.
Hi @Jonezee,
Thank you for your feedback.
We would like to highlight that so far, we have been working voluntarily at our own discretion. Building and maintaining this platform without any direct support from the DAO is a commendable effort in itself. At this point, it’s unclear what level of perfection the DAO expects, especially without investing adequate resources.
Our capabilities are evident in the work we’ve done, such as on ArbitrumHub.io. As skilled professionals, we have invested our expertise to create and maintain this exclusive platform.
We’ve also emphasized treating this as a proof of concept:
"We encourage you to view this platform as a proof of concept for what we aim to achieve. Imagine the possibilities we could unlock with dedicated support and resources from the DAO. DAO support would enable us to significantly enhance this platform and fully realize its potential."
If the DAO expects 100% perfection, it’s essential to acknowledge that achieving such standards requires resources, time, commitment, and financial backing. For context, we just received a small starter grant from pL Labs back in January-February 2024, and no additional support has been provided since then.
Achieving such perfection requires resources, time, finances, and commitment. We have clearly outlined that these will be our focus if the proposal is approved. If the DAO expects this level of perfection at this stage without providing any resources, it is difficult for us to comprehend or respond to such expectations from a DAO of this scale.
While the team clearly has good intentions and has successfully created a hub to showcase the DAO, it currently falls short of fulfilling its intended purpose. Its success depends on consistently updated information and ways of driving traffic to it, which it unfortunately seems to lack at the moment.
We hope this clarifies our position and underscores the need for proper support to take this initiative to the next level.
Best regards, Arbitrumhub
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee and is based on the collective research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
The concept of a central Arbitrum hub, alongside the Foundation website to address information fragmentation, is promising. The design of the arbitrumhub.io website is clean. However, much of the content is outdated, and several important sections—such as collaboration, initiatives, events, jobs, and incentives—remain entirely empty. This is unfortunate.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee and is based on the collective research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
The concept of a central Arbitrum hub, alongside the Foundation website to address information fragmentation, is promising. The design of the arbitrumhub.io website is clean. However, much of the content is outdated, and several important sections—such as collaboration, initiatives, events, jobs, and incentives—remain entirely empty. This is unfortunate.
The website has accumulated 12,700 views and 5,600 sessions since its launch; these numbers are decent but do not represent high-impact engagement. Additionally, the presence on socials is minimal; the X page has a small following and has not posted any content since August.
Given that the project previously received an education grant, we expected the site to be more up-to-date. That way, the initiative could demonstrate a clear and effective reach and impact before seeking a long-term contract from the DAO.
While the team clearly has good intentions and has successfully created a hub to showcase the DAO, it currently falls short of fulfilling its intended purpose. Its success depends on consistently updated information and ways of driving traffic to it, which it unfortunately seems to lack at the moment.
Will this initiative ultimately provide enough value and achieve the desired impact? It has the potential to do so; however, the proposed team size and budget, particularly on the communications side seem excessive.
In light of these concerns, we are inclined to vote against this proposal. Furthermore, we believe that such initiatives should be part of a strategic vision by the Arbitrum DAO to develop its own website and social media infrastructure.
Thank You @duokongcrypto @JoJo @karpatkey @kuiclub @Euphoria @cp0x @GensDAO @Jonezee @404DAO @gauntlet for participating into the healthy discussion and providing valuable feedback. We also thank all the community members for maintaining their professionalism, going through the proposal, then asking relevant questions from that.
We 100% agree with the mentioned problem:
The main problem i have is that we have the trend, in the dao, to build all sort of infrastructures (website, bot, dapp etc) that are detached one from another. Even more, we are doing this with no strategic view on top.
Thank you to all for being present during the call today and we appreciate you for asking relevant questions in the call.
We have a DAO call scheduled; however, there is an issue with allowing participants to join as the access is currently with @AlexLumley. We will reschedule the call in coordination with @AlexLumley and ensure proper admin access is granted for smoother participation.
Thank you for your understanding.
Thank You @duokongcrypto @JoJo @karpatkey @kuiclub @Euphoria @cp0x @GensDAO @Jonezee @404DAO @gauntlet for participating into the healthy discussion and providing valuable feedback. We also thank all the community members for maintaining their professionalism, going through the proposal, then asking relevant questions from that.
We 100% agree with the mentioned problem:
The main problem i have is that we have the trend, in the dao, to build all sort of infrastructures (website, bot, dapp etc) that are detached one from another. Even more, we are doing this with no strategic view on top.
Regarding:
I have the strong opinion that the dao should do a more comprehensive plan in this regard: have his own website, his own socials, his own initiative, and also own the infra and the content related to this.
We had already considered this issue during the establishment of the platform and incorporated it into the development of the platform Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). Specifically, we developed SOP(b) to address this concern.
Deliverables: As Required, Based on Research/Requests
To systematically manage and implement new sections and initiatives based on internal research findings or community requests.
Document each enhancement and include a summary in the Quarterly Platform Audit Report.
We are dedicated to this initiative and have implemented well-defined Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to ensure the continuous maintenance of the ArbitrumHub website. Additionally, we have established clear Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to monitor progress and deliver impactful results effectively. To strategically guide this initiative, we have established a periodic feedback mechanism to ensure continuous direction and improvement.
And to highlight:
Coordination by a single entity, such as @Entropy, may provide the clarity and leadership needed for streamlined execution and effective communication across initiatives.
We believe in the power of collaboration, especially with strategic teams like Entropy and key delegates. Having their input in our quarterly ArbitrumDAO meetings for ArbitrumHub would be incredibly valuable - their perspective could help shape and strengthen our initiatives.
While we're confident in our abilities (we've proven this by building and maintaining similar projects for Akash.Network and others), we know that the best outcomes come from working together. Regular feedback from ecosystem leaders helps ensure we're moving in the right direction.
The way we see it, combining our hands-on experience with insights from established teams can create something truly impactful for Arbitrum.
Is there user data on the traction the site has received to date?
Yess, we have made https://lookerstudio.google.com/u/0/reporting/f0081ef4-8322-4ba7-b685-afcc38547bb8/page/u9hPE for tracking the platform impact. We have got more than organic 12000 users on our Platform. And every month we are getting more than 1000 organic users. Having achieved such good organic numbers is remarkable achievement for our platform. Also, this platform is being ranked in some top links when we search about Arbitrum on google. This is again a remarkable because some organizations spend tons behind achieving those rankings. In past, we have played an important role in officially briefing various grant programs. If the DAO provides us with proper support, we can confidently promise that this initiative will evolve into an extremely useful resource for the DAO and its members.
And to follow more upon your question, we would like to also address other community concerns about user metrics.
ArbitrumHub is currently transitioning from its Introduction phase to the Growth phase of its product lifecycle. During this critical period, we have:
This transition phase requires substantial resources to successfully move from early Growth to established Growth phase. The cost structure we've presented reflects industry-standard hourly rates while remaining as economical as possible for work of this scope and complexity.
Although, We have seen strong organic engagement on the platform thus far. Our approach for the next year focuses on three key phases:
1. Foundational Work (Completed):
2. Implementation Phase (Next 12 Months):
3. Growth Phase:
These kinds of initiatives have a discoverability issue as they’re not associated with Arbitrum’s existing online presence and infra (as @JoJo mentioned above). So evidence of self-sustaining growth and discoverability is unfortunately critical.
ArbitrumHub was created after a year of deep research and planning when we identified some information gaps in the Arbitrum ecosystem.You can go through ArbitrumHub Deck or ArbitrumHub Research Document to understand it more in depth. In the early days, back in January-February, we received a starter grant from PL Labs, which helped us get started. Since then, we’ve been operating on our own.
For the next 12 months, our focus is to build a strong foundation of platform, set clear long-term goals, create practical use cases, and integrate it with different areas through collaboration with stakeholders like the Foundation, DAO, and other initiatives.
This proposal is for the pilot phase of ArbitrumHub, designed based on feedback from other delegates to keep the goals focused and realistic. The aim is to establish and maintain the platform effectively. Then take it to next level once the solid base is formed.
And for that, we’re requesting support from the DAO to help us take the next steps and move forward.
Thank you!
My initial thoughts;
The idea of a central Arbitrum hub alongside the Foundation website to combat info fragmentation is good. The design of the arbitrumhub.io website is also solid. However, beneath the surface, plenty of the content is dated and many crucial segments (collaboration, initiatives, events, jobs, incentives) remain empty.
My initial thoughts;
The idea of a central Arbitrum hub alongside the Foundation website to combat info fragmentation is good. The design of the arbitrumhub.io website is also solid. However, beneath the surface, plenty of the content is dated and many crucial segments (collaboration, initiatives, events, jobs, incentives) remain empty.
The X page has a minimal following and not posted since August. All other socials point to Arbitrum’s own channels. Website views are okay at 12,700 views / 5600 sessions since launch but not high-impact.
ArbitrumHub’s focus claims to be on:
- Internal Focus: Providing a comprehensive overview of all Arbitrum DAO initiatives, governance, and ecosystem activities - External Focus: Engaging a broad audience by offering insights into what the Arbitrum ecosystem has to offer. [..] and serving as a platform for showcasing community-driven projects.
Looking at it critically, which of these focus points have been successful so far..?
As a member of GMX’s Governance Committee, I lean towards JOJO's analysis above:
Shouldn’t this be part of a strategic plan by the Arbitrum DAO to develop its own website, infrastructure, socials, and content? Coordinating these initiatives under a unified vision? Based on the results achieved so far by the Hub, I have the feeling that would be the alternative path that likely drives optimal results, reach, and engagement.
Thanks again, @danielo. We will meet with @AlexLumley again to explore what can be done. Even if we are unable to merge the proposals, ArbitrumHub will closely collaborate to create a dedicated space for all the management and work Alex will be doing, ensuring easy access for everyone.
We are always open to collaboration and merging the initiatives; however, merging proposals is a complex process that takes time in a DAO landscape.
Thank you, @jameskbh and @0xTALVO.ETH_MTY, for the thoughtful feedback and highlighting areas for improvement. We will take it into consideration.
thanks @Argonaut for the feedback, really appreciate it.
However, would it not be possible to first seek approval from the foundation to formalize ArbitrumHub and then, in the future, request the necessary funding to enhance it?
thanks @Argonaut for the feedback, really appreciate it.
However, would it not be possible to first seek approval from the foundation to formalize ArbitrumHub and then, in the future, request the necessary funding to enhance it?
Thank you for bringing this up! We’d like to highlight that the ArbitrumHub team has closely collaborated with the Foundation and other program managers to bring it to this stage. They are fully aware of ArbitrumHub and its contributions.
We would also like to emphasize that ArbitrumHub has played an important role in the past by briefing users about various grant programs and helping them navigate active programs. It has been officially linked in the grant documentation maintained by the Foundation.
Thank you!
We’re hosting a dedicated call to discuss this proposal—join us tomorrow!
Title: ArbitrumHub Team Updates & Proposal Discussion Description: Stay up to date with the latest from ArbitrumHub! We'll be sharing updates on arbitrumhub's proposal. This is your chance to learn about our progress, contribute your ideas, and help shape the growth of the hub.
We’re hosting a dedicated call to discuss this proposal—join us tomorrow!
Title: ArbitrumHub Team Updates & Proposal Discussion Description: Stay up to date with the latest from ArbitrumHub! We'll be sharing updates on arbitrumhub's proposal. This is your chance to learn about our progress, contribute your ideas, and help shape the growth of the hub.
When: 14:30 UTC, Wednesday, 8th January Where: DAO Calendar
We invite all DAO members to join us, ask questions, and share your thoughts. Let’s build the future together!
Thank you @danielo & @TempeTechie for taking the time to share your feedback. We truly value your insights.
To clarify, we have already engaged in discussions with Alex via dm & meet, including reviewing his proposal during the Bi-Weekly Governance call. While Alex’s proposal addresses specific goals and audiences, our proposal is designed with distinct objectives and a broader operational focus. Both proposals hold unique merits and are complementary rather than overlapping.
Thank you @danielo & @TempeTechie for taking the time to share your feedback. We truly value your insights.
To clarify, we have already engaged in discussions with Alex via dm & meet, including reviewing his proposal during the Bi-Weekly Governance call. While Alex’s proposal addresses specific goals and audiences, our proposal is designed with distinct objectives and a broader operational focus. Both proposals hold unique merits and are complementary rather than overlapping.
Moreover we have briefed about our focus here:
On the topic of resource allocation, we recognize that this has been an area of extensive discussion in our past proposals including snapshot voting in august. In response, we’ve made significant refinements to our approach and have prioritized presenting a transparent operating cost structure this time. Our intent is to ensure clarity and accountability, aligning with the DAO’s expectations for openness in financial planning.
That said, we acknowledge that the evaluation of resources and costs can be subjective, often leading to varied interpretations. However, we firmly believe that this proposal reflects a balanced and strategic approach to achieving the outlined goals without compromising quality or efficiency.
We appreciate your perspective and remain open to further discussions as we collectively work toward building a strong foundation and position us for scalable growth in the upcoming phase of development .
Best regards, The Team
Thank you for your question. Based on the feedback received from the DAO regarding our previous proposal, the primary focus of this pilot phase has been platform maintenance, its relevance and optimization. Accordingly, our Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) have been structured to reflect this objective.
Thank you for your question. Based on the feedback received from the DAO regarding our previous proposal, the primary focus of this pilot phase has been platform maintenance, its relevance and optimization. Accordingly, our Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) have been structured to reflect this objective.
Our immediate priority is to establish a compelling and sustainable use case for the platform, ensuring user retention and engagement. The analytics gathered so far demonstrate positive traction, showcasing consistent platform activity, global reach, and user interaction.
It’s important to highlight that we have already achieved measurable progress despite operating without dedicated resource allocation. While the results indicate strong initial momentum, expecting 100% engagement or conversions without proper investment in resources is neither realistic nor professional.
We have also continuously incorporated feedback from key delegates, who emphasized the importance of prioritizing maintenance and foundation-building before focusing on aggressive growth and scaling efforts. This deliberate approach ensures a stable and scalable platform that can sustain long-term growth.
We firmly believe that having an established and dedicated platform in place serves as a proof of concept, validating the need and potential for such an initiative. This foundation demonstrates the platform’s viability and lays the groundwork for future expansion and optimization.
These accomplishments reflect our commitment to building a strong foundation and position us for scalable growth in the upcoming phase of development. We expect a positive support from the DAO to achieve this.
We appreciate your interest and look forward to sharing further updates as we continue optimizing, building and expanding the platform.
For both past and future analytics, following dashboard will serve as the key destination, accessible to everyone at any time (linked below).:
thanks
Thank You @duokongcrypto @JoJo @karpatkey @kuiclub @Euphoria @cp0x @GensDAO @Jonezee @404DAO @gauntlet for participating into the healthy discussion and providing valuable feedback. We also thank all the community members for maintaining their professionalism, going through the proposal, then asking relevant questions from that.
We 100% agree with the mentioned problem:
The main problem i have is that we have the trend, in the dao, to build all sort of infrastructures (website, bot, dapp etc) that are detached one from another. Even more, we are doing this with no strategic view on top.
Regarding:
I have the strong opinion that the dao should do a more comprehensive plan in this regard: have his own website, his own socials, his own initiative, and also own the infra and the content related to this.
We had already considered this issue during the establishment of the platform and incorporated it into the development of the platform Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). Specifically, we developed SOP(b) to address this concern.
Deliverables: As Required, Based on Research/Requests
To systematically manage and implement new sections and initiatives based on internal research findings or community requests.
Document each enhancement and include a summary in the Quarterly Platform Audit Report.
We are dedicated to this initiative and have implemented well-defined Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to ensure the continuous maintenance of the ArbitrumHub website. Additionally, we have established clear Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to monitor progress and deliver impactful results effectively. To strategically guide this initiative, we have established a periodic feedback mechanism to ensure continuous direction and improvement.
And to highlight:
Coordination by a single entity, such as @Entropy, may provide the clarity and leadership needed for streamlined execution and effective communication across initiatives.
We believe in the power of collaboration, especially with strategic teams like Entropy and key delegates. Having their input in our quarterly ArbitrumDAO meetings for ArbitrumHub would be incredibly valuable - their perspective could help shape and strengthen our initiatives.
While we're confident in our abilities (we've proven this by building and maintaining similar projects for Akash.Network and others), we know that the best outcomes come from working together. Regular feedback from ecosystem leaders helps ensure we're moving in the right direction.
The way we see it, combining our hands-on experience with insights from established teams can create something truly impactful for Arbitrum.
Is there user data on the traction the site has received to date?
Yess, we have made https://lookerstudio.google.com/u/0/reporting/f0081ef4-8322-4ba7-b685-afcc38547bb8/page/u9hPE for tracking the platform impact. We have got more than organic 12000 users on our Platform. And every month we are getting more than 1000 organic users. Having achieved such good organic numbers is remarkable achievement for our platform. Also, this platform is being ranked in some top links when we search about Arbitrum on google. This is again a remarkable because some organizations spend tons behind achieving those rankings. In past, we have played an important role in officially briefing various grant programs. If the DAO provides us with proper support, we can confidently promise that this initiative will evolve into an extremely useful resource for the DAO and its members.
And to follow more upon your question, we would like to also address other community concerns about user metrics.
ArbitrumHub is currently transitioning from its Introduction phase to the Growth phase of its product lifecycle. During this critical period, we have:
This transition phase requires substantial resources to successfully move from early Growth to established Growth phase. The cost structure we've presented reflects industry-standard hourly rates while remaining as economical as possible for work of this scope and complexity.
Although, We have seen strong organic engagement on the platform thus far. Our approach for the next year focuses on three key phases:
1. Foundational Work (Completed):
2. Implementation Phase (Next 12 Months):
3. Growth Phase:
These kinds of initiatives have a discoverability issue as they’re not associated with Arbitrum’s existing online presence and infra (as @JoJo mentioned above). So evidence of self-sustaining growth and discoverability is unfortunately critical.
ArbitrumHub was created after a year of deep research and planning when we identified some information gaps in the Arbitrum ecosystem.You can go through ArbitrumHub Deck or ArbitrumHub Research Document to understand it more in depth. In the early days, back in January-February, we received a starter grant from PL Labs, which helped us get started. Since then, we’ve been operating on our own.
For the next 12 months, our focus is to build a strong foundation of platform, set clear long-term goals, create practical use cases, and integrate it with different areas through collaboration with stakeholders like the Foundation, DAO, and other initiatives.
This proposal is for the pilot phase of ArbitrumHub, designed based on feedback from other delegates to keep the goals focused and realistic. The aim is to establish and maintain the platform effectively. Then take it to next level once the solid base is formed.
And for that, we’re requesting support from the DAO to help us take the next steps and move forward.
Thank you!
My initial thoughts;
The idea of a central Arbitrum hub alongside the Foundation website to combat info fragmentation is good. The design of the arbitrumhub.io website is also solid. However, beneath the surface, plenty of the content is dated and many crucial segments (collaboration, initiatives, events, jobs, incentives) remain empty.
My initial thoughts;
The idea of a central Arbitrum hub alongside the Foundation website to combat info fragmentation is good. The design of the arbitrumhub.io website is also solid. However, beneath the surface, plenty of the content is dated and many crucial segments (collaboration, initiatives, events, jobs, incentives) remain empty.
The X page has a minimal following and not posted since August. All other socials point to Arbitrum’s own channels. Website views are okay at 12,700 views / 5600 sessions since launch but not high-impact.
ArbitrumHub’s focus claims to be on:
- Internal Focus: Providing a comprehensive overview of all Arbitrum DAO initiatives, governance, and ecosystem activities - External Focus: Engaging a broad audience by offering insights into what the Arbitrum ecosystem has to offer. [..] and serving as a platform for showcasing community-driven projects.
Looking at it critically, which of these focus points have been successful so far..?
As a member of GMX’s Governance Committee, I lean towards JOJO's analysis above:
Shouldn’t this be part of a strategic plan by the Arbitrum DAO to develop its own website, infrastructure, socials, and content? Coordinating these initiatives under a unified vision? Based on the results achieved so far by the Hub, I have the feeling that would be the alternative path that likely drives optimal results, reach, and engagement.
Thanks again, @danielo. We will meet with @AlexLumley again to explore what can be done. Even if we are unable to merge the proposals, ArbitrumHub will closely collaborate to create a dedicated space for all the management and work Alex will be doing, ensuring easy access for everyone.
We are always open to collaboration and merging the initiatives; however, merging proposals is a complex process that takes time in a DAO landscape.
Thank you, @jameskbh and @0xTALVO.ETH_MTY, for the thoughtful feedback and highlighting areas for improvement. We will take it into consideration.
thanks @Argonaut for the feedback, really appreciate it.
However, would it not be possible to first seek approval from the foundation to formalize ArbitrumHub and then, in the future, request the necessary funding to enhance it?
thanks @Argonaut for the feedback, really appreciate it.
However, would it not be possible to first seek approval from the foundation to formalize ArbitrumHub and then, in the future, request the necessary funding to enhance it?
Thank you for bringing this up! We’d like to highlight that the ArbitrumHub team has closely collaborated with the Foundation and other program managers to bring it to this stage. They are fully aware of ArbitrumHub and its contributions.
We would also like to emphasize that ArbitrumHub has played an important role in the past by briefing users about various grant programs and helping them navigate active programs. It has been officially linked in the grant documentation maintained by the Foundation.
Thank you!
We’re hosting a dedicated call to discuss this proposal—join us tomorrow!
Title: ArbitrumHub Team Updates & Proposal Discussion Description: Stay up to date with the latest from ArbitrumHub! We'll be sharing updates on arbitrumhub's proposal. This is your chance to learn about our progress, contribute your ideas, and help shape the growth of the hub.
We’re hosting a dedicated call to discuss this proposal—join us tomorrow!
Title: ArbitrumHub Team Updates & Proposal Discussion Description: Stay up to date with the latest from ArbitrumHub! We'll be sharing updates on arbitrumhub's proposal. This is your chance to learn about our progress, contribute your ideas, and help shape the growth of the hub.
When: 14:30 UTC, Wednesday, 8th January Where: DAO Calendar
We invite all DAO members to join us, ask questions, and share your thoughts. Let’s build the future together!
Thank you @danielo & @TempeTechie for taking the time to share your feedback. We truly value your insights.
To clarify, we have already engaged in discussions with Alex via dm & meet, including reviewing his proposal during the Bi-Weekly Governance call. While Alex’s proposal addresses specific goals and audiences, our proposal is designed with distinct objectives and a broader operational focus. Both proposals hold unique merits and are complementary rather than overlapping.
Thank you @danielo & @TempeTechie for taking the time to share your feedback. We truly value your insights.
To clarify, we have already engaged in discussions with Alex via dm & meet, including reviewing his proposal during the Bi-Weekly Governance call. While Alex’s proposal addresses specific goals and audiences, our proposal is designed with distinct objectives and a broader operational focus. Both proposals hold unique merits and are complementary rather than overlapping.
Moreover we have briefed about our focus here:
On the topic of resource allocation, we recognize that this has been an area of extensive discussion in our past proposals including snapshot voting in august. In response, we’ve made significant refinements to our approach and have prioritized presenting a transparent operating cost structure this time. Our intent is to ensure clarity and accountability, aligning with the DAO’s expectations for openness in financial planning.
That said, we acknowledge that the evaluation of resources and costs can be subjective, often leading to varied interpretations. However, we firmly believe that this proposal reflects a balanced and strategic approach to achieving the outlined goals without compromising quality or efficiency.
We appreciate your perspective and remain open to further discussions as we collectively work toward building a strong foundation and position us for scalable growth in the upcoming phase of development .
Best regards, The Team
Thank you for your question. Based on the feedback received from the DAO regarding our previous proposal, the primary focus of this pilot phase has been platform maintenance, its relevance and optimization. Accordingly, our Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) have been structured to reflect this objective.
Thank you for your question. Based on the feedback received from the DAO regarding our previous proposal, the primary focus of this pilot phase has been platform maintenance, its relevance and optimization. Accordingly, our Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) have been structured to reflect this objective.
Our immediate priority is to establish a compelling and sustainable use case for the platform, ensuring user retention and engagement. The analytics gathered so far demonstrate positive traction, showcasing consistent platform activity, global reach, and user interaction.
It’s important to highlight that we have already achieved measurable progress despite operating without dedicated resource allocation. While the results indicate strong initial momentum, expecting 100% engagement or conversions without proper investment in resources is neither realistic nor professional.
We have also continuously incorporated feedback from key delegates, who emphasized the importance of prioritizing maintenance and foundation-building before focusing on aggressive growth and scaling efforts. This deliberate approach ensures a stable and scalable platform that can sustain long-term growth.
We firmly believe that having an established and dedicated platform in place serves as a proof of concept, validating the need and potential for such an initiative. This foundation demonstrates the platform’s viability and lays the groundwork for future expansion and optimization.
These accomplishments reflect our commitment to building a strong foundation and position us for scalable growth in the upcoming phase of development. We expect a positive support from the DAO to achieve this.
We appreciate your interest and look forward to sharing further updates as we continue optimizing, building and expanding the platform.
For both past and future analytics, following dashboard will serve as the key destination, accessible to everyone at any time (linked below).:
thanks
Thank you so much @Ignas for your thoughtful and supportive feedback on our proposal. We truly appreciate the time and care you’ve taken to review it.
Thank you so much @Ignas for your thoughtful and supportive feedback on our proposal. We truly appreciate the time and care you’ve taken to review it.
As a recently joined DAO delegate myself (together with a full-time researcher) it can still be overwhelming to keep up to date with all that’s happening in the DAO.
So this proposal could bring stability to Arbitrum and encourage more user participation in the ecosystem.
The breakdown into 5 roles makes sense, especially with the reduced minimum hours to optimize costs while still delivering outputs :slight_smile:
As for the retroactive funding, I’m think it’s right to request funds for work already done before. I understand that developing a large initiative like this takes a huge amount of effort and this could be a breakout initiative for next year, so for now I’ll vote "For with retroactive.”
thanks again for your support.
Thanks, @Tekr0x.eth, for the feedback and kind words.
Regarding the retro, we are keeping it entirely optional for the DAO. While we don’t have robust analytics for past work, there has been notable participation in some of the initiatives. For instance, ArbitrumHub became a key destination for exploring various grant programs and accepted projects, even being linked in the official documentation of the grant program.
Thanks, @Tekr0x.eth, for the feedback and kind words.
Regarding the retro, we are keeping it entirely optional for the DAO. While we don’t have robust analytics for past work, there has been notable participation in some of the initiatives. For instance, ArbitrumHub became a key destination for exploring various grant programs and accepted projects, even being linked in the official documentation of the grant program.
The ArbitrumHub team diligently collaborated with the foundation and program managers to build dedicated sections for different initiatives, all made live on the platform without any external funding. Considering the efforts and use cases that have gone into building this platform so far, the ask may be reasonable; however, it remains fully optional and at the discretion of the DAO.
Thanks again.
Thank you, Larva, for your feedback; we truly appreciate it.
Regarding the five roles, we want to clarify that these are intended to outline responsibilities rather than requests for five separate roles. We have specified 2 hours/day for some and 4 hours/day for others to clearly demonstrate the scope of work and how it aligns with each responsibility. This detailed breakdown ensures transparency by outlining time commitments, responsibilities, and the corresponding allocation of resources.
Thank you, Larva, for your feedback; we truly appreciate it.
Regarding the five roles, we want to clarify that these are intended to outline responsibilities rather than requests for five separate roles. We have specified 2 hours/day for some and 4 hours/day for others to clearly demonstrate the scope of work and how it aligns with each responsibility. This detailed breakdown ensures transparency by outlining time commitments, responsibilities, and the corresponding allocation of resources.
Thank you.
Thank you so much @Ignas for your thoughtful and supportive feedback on our proposal. We truly appreciate the time and care you’ve taken to review it.
Thank you so much @Ignas for your thoughtful and supportive feedback on our proposal. We truly appreciate the time and care you’ve taken to review it.
As a recently joined DAO delegate myself (together with a full-time researcher) it can still be overwhelming to keep up to date with all that’s happening in the DAO.
So this proposal could bring stability to Arbitrum and encourage more user participation in the ecosystem.
The breakdown into 5 roles makes sense, especially with the reduced minimum hours to optimize costs while still delivering outputs :slight_smile:
As for the retroactive funding, I’m think it’s right to request funds for work already done before. I understand that developing a large initiative like this takes a huge amount of effort and this could be a breakout initiative for next year, so for now I’ll vote "For with retroactive.”
thanks again for your support.
Thanks, @Tekr0x.eth, for the feedback and kind words.
Regarding the retro, we are keeping it entirely optional for the DAO. While we don’t have robust analytics for past work, there has been notable participation in some of the initiatives. For instance, ArbitrumHub became a key destination for exploring various grant programs and accepted projects, even being linked in the official documentation of the grant program.
Thanks, @Tekr0x.eth, for the feedback and kind words.
Regarding the retro, we are keeping it entirely optional for the DAO. While we don’t have robust analytics for past work, there has been notable participation in some of the initiatives. For instance, ArbitrumHub became a key destination for exploring various grant programs and accepted projects, even being linked in the official documentation of the grant program.
The ArbitrumHub team diligently collaborated with the foundation and program managers to build dedicated sections for different initiatives, all made live on the platform without any external funding. Considering the efforts and use cases that have gone into building this platform so far, the ask may be reasonable; however, it remains fully optional and at the discretion of the DAO.
Thanks again.
Thank you, Larva, for your feedback; we truly appreciate it.
Regarding the five roles, we want to clarify that these are intended to outline responsibilities rather than requests for five separate roles. We have specified 2 hours/day for some and 4 hours/day for others to clearly demonstrate the scope of work and how it aligns with each responsibility. This detailed breakdown ensures transparency by outlining time commitments, responsibilities, and the corresponding allocation of resources.
Thank you, Larva, for your feedback; we truly appreciate it.
Regarding the five roles, we want to clarify that these are intended to outline responsibilities rather than requests for five separate roles. We have specified 2 hours/day for some and 4 hours/day for others to clearly demonstrate the scope of work and how it aligns with each responsibility. This detailed breakdown ensures transparency by outlining time commitments, responsibilities, and the corresponding allocation of resources.
Thank you.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
In line with what other delegates have expressed, a budget of nearly a quarter of a million for maintaining a website seems excessive. Additionally, much of the information overlaps with existing platforms, making it essential for a Hub like this to be developed in collaboration with stakeholders who have a deep understanding of the DAO.
LobbyFi voted against the proposal since the voting power has been acquired by @paulofonseca instantly to vote for this option. Due to the technical issue that we faced in other recent proposals, the option has been wrongly encrypted and hence is not valid on snapshot.
I voted against due to alignment with all previous concerns raised by delegates. Website design looks very professional, but costs presented seemed high to me. I also think this would work better not isoldated but in the context of a coordinated effort with other proposals (like opco) or the foundation itself
Gauntlet has decided to vote against this proposal, ultimately believing that while ArbitrumHub has put in significant effort (the web design and visuals of the website are of high quality - it looks great), there is insufficient traction or need in the Arbitrum community to justify the cost. For most decentralized entities, a project's formal communications and brand are domains that the Foundation and Labs teams have best managed. Perhaps there is an opportunity to support websites for more specific DAO programs (GCP, OpCo, etc.). Having sites for those private domains or perhaps a route to nest Arbitrum Hub within more formal Arbitrum websites makes more sense.
That said, if the DAO supports this proposal, we will reconsider our position, and we are open to others' opinions on whether the community feels this asset has greater value than we believe it does currently.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting AGAINST the proposal.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting AGAINST the proposal.
We maintain our stance since the last time we voted against it as we believe that this proposal doesn’t address the needs of the DAO in an adequate manner. The core idea of the Hub is to cover relevant content in a digestible format, which can be valuable, but the proposal’s focus is mostly based on the website’s development rather than the content itself.
Additionally, we believe that the proposing team is not as deeply integrated into the DAO as it’d be needed for such an initiative to bear any fruitful results. The effective execution of this initiative requires a close look at ongoing discussions, calls, and working groups, which the proposing team, to our knowledge, isn’t as familiar with.
With that in mind and factoring in the requested budget, which we believe is on the higher end of the spectrum, we cannot vote in favor of the proposal.
voting Against the current offchain proposal because I believe that for this kind of initiative to be setup for success, it needs to be included in a bigger marketing and growth unit that would manage several brand properties, like a website very similar to this one, several social media accounts, and so forth. In my opinion, this project is really high quality, and actually deserves to be paid more than what they are asking for. But the fact is that since it's inception 9 months ago, this project has only had 12k pageviews in total. That's very very very very little for an informational website like this, clearly revealing that this kind of initiative needs a strong social media effort to feed traffic into it. I recommended and connected the authors of this proposal with other people in the DAO that are doing solid social media work for Arbitrum DAO, and I hope they will get together and collaborate in a more encompassing proposal for the DAO.
gm, I voted in favor of this proposal.
The team has done a solid job executing the site, and I appreciate the clean layout and the value of having an alternative portal to the Foundation. The cost seems reasonable given that it basically covers two full-time people managing the website, social media, and newsletters.
I’d be down to run this as an experiment for one quarter to see its impact.
DAOplomats is voting for without retroactive
The ArbitrumHub proposal has been well iterated on and we are comfortable with the changes made. However, because we agree with some delegates about the cost still being high, we decided to support but without retroactive as this somewhat justifies the cost for us.
Thanks for presenting this proposal and all the work that has gone into maintaining ArbitrumHub. To reecho the views of others, we think the budgetary concerns are valid and the platform / operations can be run with significantly less funding. We also feel the same about the retroactive compensation. The overall ask is not justified by the reported outcomes and what we perceive to be the amount of effort needed to run this project.
Otherwise, this is an initiative that we would like to see supported but perhaps in some other way (e.g, via smaller ecosystem grants like Questbook) than direct DAO funding. We’re sure with continuous improvement, it can evolve into a highly valuable resource for DAO contributors, participants and newcomers.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation. Voting FOR, without retroactive in this proposal. Below the rationale:
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
In line with what other delegates have expressed, a budget of nearly a quarter of a million for maintaining a website seems excessive. Additionally, much of the information overlaps with existing platforms, making it essential for a Hub like this to be developed in collaboration with stakeholders who have a deep understanding of the DAO.
LobbyFi voted against the proposal since the voting power has been acquired by @paulofonseca instantly to vote for this option. Due to the technical issue that we faced in other recent proposals, the option has been wrongly encrypted and hence is not valid on snapshot.
I voted against due to alignment with all previous concerns raised by delegates. Website design looks very professional, but costs presented seemed high to me. I also think this would work better not isoldated but in the context of a coordinated effort with other proposals (like opco) or the foundation itself
Gauntlet has decided to vote against this proposal, ultimately believing that while ArbitrumHub has put in significant effort (the web design and visuals of the website are of high quality - it looks great), there is insufficient traction or need in the Arbitrum community to justify the cost. For most decentralized entities, a project's formal communications and brand are domains that the Foundation and Labs teams have best managed. Perhaps there is an opportunity to support websites for more specific DAO programs (GCP, OpCo, etc.). Having sites for those private domains or perhaps a route to nest Arbitrum Hub within more formal Arbitrum websites makes more sense.
That said, if the DAO supports this proposal, we will reconsider our position, and we are open to others' opinions on whether the community feels this asset has greater value than we believe it does currently.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting AGAINST the proposal.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting AGAINST the proposal.
We maintain our stance since the last time we voted against it as we believe that this proposal doesn’t address the needs of the DAO in an adequate manner. The core idea of the Hub is to cover relevant content in a digestible format, which can be valuable, but the proposal’s focus is mostly based on the website’s development rather than the content itself.
Additionally, we believe that the proposing team is not as deeply integrated into the DAO as it’d be needed for such an initiative to bear any fruitful results. The effective execution of this initiative requires a close look at ongoing discussions, calls, and working groups, which the proposing team, to our knowledge, isn’t as familiar with.
With that in mind and factoring in the requested budget, which we believe is on the higher end of the spectrum, we cannot vote in favor of the proposal.
voting Against the current offchain proposal because I believe that for this kind of initiative to be setup for success, it needs to be included in a bigger marketing and growth unit that would manage several brand properties, like a website very similar to this one, several social media accounts, and so forth. In my opinion, this project is really high quality, and actually deserves to be paid more than what they are asking for. But the fact is that since it's inception 9 months ago, this project has only had 12k pageviews in total. That's very very very very little for an informational website like this, clearly revealing that this kind of initiative needs a strong social media effort to feed traffic into it. I recommended and connected the authors of this proposal with other people in the DAO that are doing solid social media work for Arbitrum DAO, and I hope they will get together and collaborate in a more encompassing proposal for the DAO.
gm, I voted in favor of this proposal.
The team has done a solid job executing the site, and I appreciate the clean layout and the value of having an alternative portal to the Foundation. The cost seems reasonable given that it basically covers two full-time people managing the website, social media, and newsletters.
I’d be down to run this as an experiment for one quarter to see its impact.
DAOplomats is voting for without retroactive
The ArbitrumHub proposal has been well iterated on and we are comfortable with the changes made. However, because we agree with some delegates about the cost still being high, we decided to support but without retroactive as this somewhat justifies the cost for us.
Thanks for presenting this proposal and all the work that has gone into maintaining ArbitrumHub. To reecho the views of others, we think the budgetary concerns are valid and the platform / operations can be run with significantly less funding. We also feel the same about the retroactive compensation. The overall ask is not justified by the reported outcomes and what we perceive to be the amount of effort needed to run this project.
Otherwise, this is an initiative that we would like to see supported but perhaps in some other way (e.g, via smaller ecosystem grants like Questbook) than direct DAO funding. We’re sure with continuous improvement, it can evolve into a highly valuable resource for DAO contributors, participants and newcomers.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation. Voting FOR, without retroactive in this proposal. Below the rationale:
gm, I voted in favor of this proposal.
The team has done a solid job executing the site, and I appreciate the clean layout and the value of having an alternative portal to the Foundation. The cost seems reasonable given that it basically covers two full-time people managing the website, social media, and newsletters.
I’d be down to run this as an experiment for one quarter to see its impact.
Beyond just collecting docs and resources, the real question is: can you improve the reach of Arbitrum? Can we measure whether more users, developers, or DAO contributors are onboarded through this? If we can track that effectively, it’ll be easier to justify continued support.
We have voted AGAINST the proposal on Snapshot. The concerns we raised in our previous feedback remain unaddressed. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-proposal-for-piloting-enhancements-and-strengthening-the-sustainability-of-arbitrumhub-in-the-year-ahead/28055/41?u=castlecapital
While we find the concept of ArbitrumHub interesting, the proposed annual budget of $230,400 is difficult to justify. We suggest reducing the scope exclusively to ArbitrumHub's core functionality and removing the social media management and newsletter components. Maybe it is a possible direction for the team to consider.
We'll vote AGAINST. While ArbitrumHub addresses a legitimate need for consolidated ecosystem information, the proposed solution appears overengineered and unnecessarily expensive for what is essentially a content maintenance operation. The $19,200 monthly budget, though reduced from initial proposals, remains difficult to justify given the current stage of platform development and demonstrated user engagement.
I also bought the 92.358,45 ARB of voting power available in lobbyfi.xyz to vote Against in this offchain proposal https://arbiscan.io/tx/0x64fa6594d9d8de4968ea149a47c165c0656753dcc6974f389bcd0c181e214b86
We vote AGAINST the proposal on Snapshot.
We appreciate the ongoing efforts of the ArbitrumHub team. While we see the value in a centralized and regularly updated portal for Arbitrum DAO-related information, relying on a third-party team for its maintenance presents significant challenges and unnecessary costs. A more effective approach would be to align with existing initiatives like GRC and its dashboard or contribute to the Foundation's team managing the main Arbitrum site. Otherwise, long-term discoverability and maintainability could become problematic.
After reviewing the proposal, we have decided to vote against it due to concerns about the cost. While we appreciate the effort to build a resource hub for Arbitrum, the budget remains high, particularly with increased hourly rates, and we believe there may still be room for reductions. Additionally, more insights into user engagement would help justify the funding request. We also encourage exploring alternative funding options like Questbook.
I'm voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot. The proposal’s high cost, and unresolved redundancy with existing resources like the Arbitrum Foundation’s platform fail to justify its necessity. Until the team demonstrates organic demand, cost efficiency, and clear alignment with the DAO’s core priorities (rather than duplicating efforts) I cannot support this proposal.
The website is very well made and it looks well-engineered. I think one of the main reasons this project seems costly for delegates is the fact that it is trying to go beyond the basic needs of an information hub. The project looks structured as to be both, an information repository and an analytics platform.
This is potentially creating an unnecessary scope expansion and also driving up costs, as it includes research and copyright roles. Engaged delegates within the DAO already have all the information accessible in order to make informed decisions. While I agree that some of this information might seem scattered, it is easy enough to find if one puts a little bit of effort. The argument that we need a comprehensive platform with full-time research and content creation roles to enable participation seems to overstate the actual barriers to entry.
The website is very well made and it looks well-engineered. I think one of the main reasons this project seems costly for delegates is the fact that it is trying to go beyond the basic needs of an information hub. The project looks structured as to be both, an information repository and an analytics platform.
This is potentially creating an unnecessary scope expansion and also driving up costs, as it includes research and copyright roles. Engaged delegates within the DAO already have all the information accessible in order to make informed decisions. While I agree that some of this information might seem scattered, it is easy enough to find if one puts a little bit of effort. The argument that we need a comprehensive platform with full-time research and content creation roles to enable participation seems to overstate the actual barriers to entry.
A hub with the characteristics mentioned in the proposal would be convenient, but this convenience does not justify the cost, especially not knowing how useful it will be once it is operational. Passing this proposal risks creating an expensive, ongoing obligation without clear evidence that it would meaningfully improve governance participation or decision-making.
For this reasons, I am voting AGAINST in Snapshot.
Having said this, I do recognize the team's resilience and their technical prowess. I commend you to continue building and keep creating new projects.
I am supportive of this proposal as the team has already shown themselves to go above and beyond. Their value is worth the price, but their intangible value is worth much more.
Thanks, @ArbitrumHub.io, for this proposal and for your great job! This proposal shows good effort in trying to centralize ArbitrumDAO information and support the community. The focus on platform maintenance and the detailed cost breakdown are helpful, but $230,400 for the first year seems too high. Can the team start with a smaller budget? This would make the plan more practical and easier to support.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot voting.
We appreciate the hard work and dedication the team has put into the project so far, as well as their efforts in answering and incorporating the delegate's feedback.
The idea of having a platform where users can easily find all the information about the DAO is valuable. This project has great potential to benefit the community, especially new users, by making it simple to stay updated and engaged. We like the vision and believe it can benefit the Arbitrum community. However, we feel that the proposed budget is higher than what makes sense for the project's current stage.
We suggest the team apply in the upcoming Questbook round and use it to run a pilot phase of this project. Completing a pilot would help show the platform’s value, get some info on the analytics, refine the budget, and create a stronger plan for the future. This approach could make it easier for the DAO to support the project in the future.
We look forward to seeing the team come back with the updated platform, results, a revised budget, and a solid roadmap to make this project a success in the future.
Voted Against: I really like the ArbitrumHub website, and I think you did a great job collecting so much information in one place and organizing it so it is easy to find, especially for new people joining the DAO or builders looking for a grant.
My main issue is the budget ($230k+) and the justification for it. I went to check out Analytics. Having roughly 1k views per month and around 500 sessions on average in 2024 is a clear stat that the website is a nice thing to have, not a necessity for the DAO. It's just not crucial, and this is why I think the budget doesn't justify it.
I decided to vote "Against" following my comments. Anyways i do believe this is a valuable and great initiative.
Edit: Vote in tempcheck
Voting NO on this proposal
Rationale: Very on the fence here because its a good idea to have a resource which gathers useful info for: -DAO delegates -developers -ARB Holders -potential ambassadars And also to introduce people to Arbitrum DAO in general,
Voting NO on this proposal
Rationale: Very on the fence here because its a good idea to have a resource which gathers useful info for: -DAO delegates -developers -ARB Holders -potential ambassadars And also to introduce people to Arbitrum DAO in general,
The budget would be reasonable if it addressed those use cases specifically and actionably, however looking at the current MVP there’s signs that it may not do so: -the website doesnt address key stakeholders clearly -the order of buttons and stakeholders doesnt seem organized in a way that makes sense (for instnace ambassadars is one of the first items but delegates, users, developers, would arguably be higher priority stakeholders to target) -there are several broken links for key items -many of the most useful working links are to AF docs or AF resources
On the plus side, we like the proposal hub, grant hub, meetings page. These provide useful content and guidance which is complementary to the Arbitrum foundation page.
Once again this is not a bad idea - having a resource for arbitrum DAO, but the current lack of focus and lack of clarity in messaging makes it hard for us to vote for this proposal, especially as many of the more important functions like the developer hub are duplicated with AF or basically link to their resources.
Would suggest progressing the MVP more with a quest book Grant.
First of all, I want to acknowledge the significant effort and dedication the @ArbitrumHub.io team has shown in refining this proposal multiple times, taking into account community feedback and working to address previous concerns. However, while I recognize ArbitrumHub's importance to the ecosystem, I must vote against this proposal. The main reasons are:
I voted abstain on this proposal at the temp check stage. I think the plan and budget are fine, and I think the team has done a reasonable job executing on the site to date. My concern is that I don't like fracturing comms across many properties. I would prefer to have a marketing website for the DAO that is connected to the rest of the Arbitrum Foundation properties. With that said, I'm open to moving forward with this proposal if the DAO supports it.
I’m leaning towards voting For without retroactive。 After reviewing it, my initial impression is that while this proposal may not be the DAO’s most urgent need right now, it shows a solid effort to address community feedback. The team has refined the scope and budget, focusing more on content quality and platform maintenance, which is a positive step forward. They’ve shown they’re reliable and trustworthy.
The budget might seem a bit high, but the overall plan demonstrates efficient resource allocation. Plus, the quarterly funding reviews and termination clause provide a layer of transparency for DAO funds. That said, I hope the team can continue to optimize budget management, further clarify how the platform differentiates itself from the Foundation, and strengthen community participation and transparency in the future.
Please, we are still wiating for the following to get some more clear information about what past work has delivered for the DAO.
We would like to see these in any further proposals before voting yes:
- Clear outcomes from past work with specific numbers and evidence
- Examples of past work from each role category that was produced within the scope of the proposal
The current proposal presents two disconnected pieces: a list of planned tasks and a monthly hour allocation. What's missing is the crucial connection between these two - specifically, how each activity translates into the quoted hours.
A detailed task-based breakdown is usually requested and expected from any vendor in professional project planning, especially when pitching for a job. Let me illustrate this with a simple example:
The current proposal presents two disconnected pieces: a list of planned tasks and a monthly hour allocation. What's missing is the crucial connection between these two - specifically, how each activity translates into the quoted hours.
A detailed task-based breakdown is usually requested and expected from any vendor in professional project planning, especially when pitching for a job. Let me illustrate this with a simple example:
In the case of newsletter publishing. A proper breakdown would look like this:
Newsletter Production (Bi-monthly)
At $X per hour for copywriting and $Y per hour for art direction, this would total $Z per issue, or $2Z per month for two issues.
This level of detail needs to be applied across all proposed tasks to justify the requested monthly budget. Each team member's role should be mapped to specific tasks with corresponding time estimates and hourly rates. This granular breakdown would allow us to properly evaluate the total monthly retainer being requested, which we feel is currently a high ask.
This approach justifies the costs and provides clear metrics for evaluating performance and deliverables. Hope this helps in future.
I’m voting AGAINST this proposal. While I appreciate the team’s efforts and intentions, the implementation doesn’t seem particularly useful at this point.
Most links redirect to the Arbitrum Governance Docs or other sections of the same website. Since the Governance Docs are already well-structured with a clear outline, I’m not sure why they would need a separate front end.
I’m voting AGAINST this proposal. While I appreciate the team’s efforts and intentions, the implementation doesn’t seem particularly useful at this point.
Most links redirect to the Arbitrum Governance Docs or other sections of the same website. Since the Governance Docs are already well-structured with a clear outline, I’m not sure why they would need a separate front end.
Additionally, the Developer Hub links currently point to the Hardhat/Foundry/Brownie homepage. I don’t think introducing developers to Hardhat, Foundry, or Brownie is the issue—our target audience is likely already familiar with these tools. This approach doesn’t seem like the most effective way to address their needs.
Thank you for the effort, but I believe the ArbitrumHub could be reworked to add more tangible value.
I cast an abstain vote on Snapshot.
First, I want to acknowledge the team’s effort in incorporating feedback from the previous two failed proposals. By clarifying key performance indicators , budget details, and prioritizing platform maintenance, the team has demonstrated significant effort and a strong commitment to contributing to the DAO.
I cast an abstain vote on Snapshot.
First, I want to acknowledge the team’s effort in incorporating feedback from the previous two failed proposals. By clarifying key performance indicators , budget details, and prioritizing platform maintenance, the team has demonstrated significant effort and a strong commitment to contributing to the DAO.
The reason for my abstention primarily lies in concerns over positioning +budgeting. The positioning of ArbitrumHub appears to overlap with the existing Foundation website and other community tools. Within the current DAO framework, duplicative efforts could impact overall efficiency. Without a clear differentiation in value from the existing platforms, sustaining the Hub in the long term may be challenging。
the rationale for the trial-phase budget and retrospective funding still requires further elaboration. These concerns regarding positioning and budget have not fully convinced me, but I do not oppose the team’s continued optimization and progress，My abstention reflects a desire to see more discussion and refinement of the proposal, rather than a rejection of the team’s efforts.
gm, I voted in favor of this proposal.
The team has done a solid job executing the site, and I appreciate the clean layout and the value of having an alternative portal to the Foundation. The cost seems reasonable given that it basically covers two full-time people managing the website, social media, and newsletters.
I’d be down to run this as an experiment for one quarter to see its impact.
Beyond just collecting docs and resources, the real question is: can you improve the reach of Arbitrum? Can we measure whether more users, developers, or DAO contributors are onboarded through this? If we can track that effectively, it’ll be easier to justify continued support.
We have voted AGAINST the proposal on Snapshot. The concerns we raised in our previous feedback remain unaddressed. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-proposal-for-piloting-enhancements-and-strengthening-the-sustainability-of-arbitrumhub-in-the-year-ahead/28055/41?u=castlecapital
While we find the concept of ArbitrumHub interesting, the proposed annual budget of $230,400 is difficult to justify. We suggest reducing the scope exclusively to ArbitrumHub's core functionality and removing the social media management and newsletter components. Maybe it is a possible direction for the team to consider.
We'll vote AGAINST. While ArbitrumHub addresses a legitimate need for consolidated ecosystem information, the proposed solution appears overengineered and unnecessarily expensive for what is essentially a content maintenance operation. The $19,200 monthly budget, though reduced from initial proposals, remains difficult to justify given the current stage of platform development and demonstrated user engagement.
I also bought the 92.358,45 ARB of voting power available in lobbyfi.xyz to vote Against in this offchain proposal https://arbiscan.io/tx/0x64fa6594d9d8de4968ea149a47c165c0656753dcc6974f389bcd0c181e214b86
We vote AGAINST the proposal on Snapshot.
We appreciate the ongoing efforts of the ArbitrumHub team. While we see the value in a centralized and regularly updated portal for Arbitrum DAO-related information, relying on a third-party team for its maintenance presents significant challenges and unnecessary costs. A more effective approach would be to align with existing initiatives like GRC and its dashboard or contribute to the Foundation's team managing the main Arbitrum site. Otherwise, long-term discoverability and maintainability could become problematic.
After reviewing the proposal, we have decided to vote against it due to concerns about the cost. While we appreciate the effort to build a resource hub for Arbitrum, the budget remains high, particularly with increased hourly rates, and we believe there may still be room for reductions. Additionally, more insights into user engagement would help justify the funding request. We also encourage exploring alternative funding options like Questbook.
I'm voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot. The proposal’s high cost, and unresolved redundancy with existing resources like the Arbitrum Foundation’s platform fail to justify its necessity. Until the team demonstrates organic demand, cost efficiency, and clear alignment with the DAO’s core priorities (rather than duplicating efforts) I cannot support this proposal.
The website is very well made and it looks well-engineered. I think one of the main reasons this project seems costly for delegates is the fact that it is trying to go beyond the basic needs of an information hub. The project looks structured as to be both, an information repository and an analytics platform.
This is potentially creating an unnecessary scope expansion and also driving up costs, as it includes research and copyright roles. Engaged delegates within the DAO already have all the information accessible in order to make informed decisions. While I agree that some of this information might seem scattered, it is easy enough to find if one puts a little bit of effort. The argument that we need a comprehensive platform with full-time research and content creation roles to enable participation seems to overstate the actual barriers to entry.
The website is very well made and it looks well-engineered. I think one of the main reasons this project seems costly for delegates is the fact that it is trying to go beyond the basic needs of an information hub. The project looks structured as to be both, an information repository and an analytics platform.
This is potentially creating an unnecessary scope expansion and also driving up costs, as it includes research and copyright roles. Engaged delegates within the DAO already have all the information accessible in order to make informed decisions. While I agree that some of this information might seem scattered, it is easy enough to find if one puts a little bit of effort. The argument that we need a comprehensive platform with full-time research and content creation roles to enable participation seems to overstate the actual barriers to entry.
A hub with the characteristics mentioned in the proposal would be convenient, but this convenience does not justify the cost, especially not knowing how useful it will be once it is operational. Passing this proposal risks creating an expensive, ongoing obligation without clear evidence that it would meaningfully improve governance participation or decision-making.
For this reasons, I am voting AGAINST in Snapshot.
Having said this, I do recognize the team's resilience and their technical prowess. I commend you to continue building and keep creating new projects.
I am supportive of this proposal as the team has already shown themselves to go above and beyond. Their value is worth the price, but their intangible value is worth much more.
Thanks, @ArbitrumHub.io, for this proposal and for your great job! This proposal shows good effort in trying to centralize ArbitrumDAO information and support the community. The focus on platform maintenance and the detailed cost breakdown are helpful, but $230,400 for the first year seems too high. Can the team start with a smaller budget? This would make the plan more practical and easier to support.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot voting.
We appreciate the hard work and dedication the team has put into the project so far, as well as their efforts in answering and incorporating the delegate's feedback.
The idea of having a platform where users can easily find all the information about the DAO is valuable. This project has great potential to benefit the community, especially new users, by making it simple to stay updated and engaged. We like the vision and believe it can benefit the Arbitrum community. However, we feel that the proposed budget is higher than what makes sense for the project's current stage.
We suggest the team apply in the upcoming Questbook round and use it to run a pilot phase of this project. Completing a pilot would help show the platform’s value, get some info on the analytics, refine the budget, and create a stronger plan for the future. This approach could make it easier for the DAO to support the project in the future.
We look forward to seeing the team come back with the updated platform, results, a revised budget, and a solid roadmap to make this project a success in the future.
Voted Against: I really like the ArbitrumHub website, and I think you did a great job collecting so much information in one place and organizing it so it is easy to find, especially for new people joining the DAO or builders looking for a grant.
My main issue is the budget ($230k+) and the justification for it. I went to check out Analytics. Having roughly 1k views per month and around 500 sessions on average in 2024 is a clear stat that the website is a nice thing to have, not a necessity for the DAO. It's just not crucial, and this is why I think the budget doesn't justify it.
I decided to vote "Against" following my comments. Anyways i do believe this is a valuable and great initiative.
Edit: Vote in tempcheck
Voting NO on this proposal
Rationale: Very on the fence here because its a good idea to have a resource which gathers useful info for: -DAO delegates -developers -ARB Holders -potential ambassadars And also to introduce people to Arbitrum DAO in general,
Voting NO on this proposal
Rationale: Very on the fence here because its a good idea to have a resource which gathers useful info for: -DAO delegates -developers -ARB Holders -potential ambassadars And also to introduce people to Arbitrum DAO in general,
The budget would be reasonable if it addressed those use cases specifically and actionably, however looking at the current MVP there’s signs that it may not do so: -the website doesnt address key stakeholders clearly -the order of buttons and stakeholders doesnt seem organized in a way that makes sense (for instnace ambassadars is one of the first items but delegates, users, developers, would arguably be higher priority stakeholders to target) -there are several broken links for key items -many of the most useful working links are to AF docs or AF resources
On the plus side, we like the proposal hub, grant hub, meetings page. These provide useful content and guidance which is complementary to the Arbitrum foundation page.
Once again this is not a bad idea - having a resource for arbitrum DAO, but the current lack of focus and lack of clarity in messaging makes it hard for us to vote for this proposal, especially as many of the more important functions like the developer hub are duplicated with AF or basically link to their resources.
Would suggest progressing the MVP more with a quest book Grant.
First of all, I want to acknowledge the significant effort and dedication the @ArbitrumHub.io team has shown in refining this proposal multiple times, taking into account community feedback and working to address previous concerns. However, while I recognize ArbitrumHub's importance to the ecosystem, I must vote against this proposal. The main reasons are:
I voted abstain on this proposal at the temp check stage. I think the plan and budget are fine, and I think the team has done a reasonable job executing on the site to date. My concern is that I don't like fracturing comms across many properties. I would prefer to have a marketing website for the DAO that is connected to the rest of the Arbitrum Foundation properties. With that said, I'm open to moving forward with this proposal if the DAO supports it.
I’m leaning towards voting For without retroactive。 After reviewing it, my initial impression is that while this proposal may not be the DAO’s most urgent need right now, it shows a solid effort to address community feedback. The team has refined the scope and budget, focusing more on content quality and platform maintenance, which is a positive step forward. They’ve shown they’re reliable and trustworthy.
The budget might seem a bit high, but the overall plan demonstrates efficient resource allocation. Plus, the quarterly funding reviews and termination clause provide a layer of transparency for DAO funds. That said, I hope the team can continue to optimize budget management, further clarify how the platform differentiates itself from the Foundation, and strengthen community participation and transparency in the future.
Please, we are still wiating for the following to get some more clear information about what past work has delivered for the DAO.
We would like to see these in any further proposals before voting yes:
- Clear outcomes from past work with specific numbers and evidence
- Examples of past work from each role category that was produced within the scope of the proposal
The current proposal presents two disconnected pieces: a list of planned tasks and a monthly hour allocation. What's missing is the crucial connection between these two - specifically, how each activity translates into the quoted hours.
A detailed task-based breakdown is usually requested and expected from any vendor in professional project planning, especially when pitching for a job. Let me illustrate this with a simple example:
The current proposal presents two disconnected pieces: a list of planned tasks and a monthly hour allocation. What's missing is the crucial connection between these two - specifically, how each activity translates into the quoted hours.
A detailed task-based breakdown is usually requested and expected from any vendor in professional project planning, especially when pitching for a job. Let me illustrate this with a simple example:
In the case of newsletter publishing. A proper breakdown would look like this:
Newsletter Production (Bi-monthly)
At $X per hour for copywriting and $Y per hour for art direction, this would total $Z per issue, or $2Z per month for two issues.
This level of detail needs to be applied across all proposed tasks to justify the requested monthly budget. Each team member's role should be mapped to specific tasks with corresponding time estimates and hourly rates. This granular breakdown would allow us to properly evaluate the total monthly retainer being requested, which we feel is currently a high ask.
This approach justifies the costs and provides clear metrics for evaluating performance and deliverables. Hope this helps in future.
I’m voting AGAINST this proposal. While I appreciate the team’s efforts and intentions, the implementation doesn’t seem particularly useful at this point.
Most links redirect to the Arbitrum Governance Docs or other sections of the same website. Since the Governance Docs are already well-structured with a clear outline, I’m not sure why they would need a separate front end.
I’m voting AGAINST this proposal. While I appreciate the team’s efforts and intentions, the implementation doesn’t seem particularly useful at this point.
Most links redirect to the Arbitrum Governance Docs or other sections of the same website. Since the Governance Docs are already well-structured with a clear outline, I’m not sure why they would need a separate front end.
Additionally, the Developer Hub links currently point to the Hardhat/Foundry/Brownie homepage. I don’t think introducing developers to Hardhat, Foundry, or Brownie is the issue—our target audience is likely already familiar with these tools. This approach doesn’t seem like the most effective way to address their needs.
Thank you for the effort, but I believe the ArbitrumHub could be reworked to add more tangible value.
I cast an abstain vote on Snapshot.
First, I want to acknowledge the team’s effort in incorporating feedback from the previous two failed proposals. By clarifying key performance indicators , budget details, and prioritizing platform maintenance, the team has demonstrated significant effort and a strong commitment to contributing to the DAO.
I cast an abstain vote on Snapshot.
First, I want to acknowledge the team’s effort in incorporating feedback from the previous two failed proposals. By clarifying key performance indicators , budget details, and prioritizing platform maintenance, the team has demonstrated significant effort and a strong commitment to contributing to the DAO.
The reason for my abstention primarily lies in concerns over positioning +budgeting. The positioning of ArbitrumHub appears to overlap with the existing Foundation website and other community tools. Within the current DAO framework, duplicative efforts could impact overall efficiency. Without a clear differentiation in value from the existing platforms, sustaining the Hub in the long term may be challenging。
the rationale for the trial-phase budget and retrospective funding still requires further elaboration. These concerns regarding positioning and budget have not fully convinced me, but I do not oppose the team’s continued optimization and progress，My abstention reflects a desire to see more discussion and refinement of the proposal, rather than a rejection of the team’s efforts.
Voted Against: I really like the ArbitrumHub website, and I think you did a great job collecting so much information in one place and organizing it so it is easy to find, especially for new people joining the DAO or builders looking for a grant.
My main issue is the budget ($230k+) and the justification for it. I went to check out Analytics. Having roughly 1k views per month and around 500 sessions on average in 2024 is a clear stat that the website is a nice thing to have, not a necessity for the DAO. It's just not crucial, and this is why I think the budget doesn't justify it.
I would hope you guys keep on building. There are incentives like Questbook grants or maybe even outside funding like Gitcoin or Giveth grants available where you might participate. I really hope you guys find a way to fund yourselves and continue building.
First of all, I want to acknowledge the significant effort and dedication the @ArbitrumHub.io team has shown in refining this proposal multiple times, taking into account community feedback and working to address previous concerns. However, while I recognize ArbitrumHub's importance to the ecosystem, I must vote against this proposal. The main reasons are:
While I recognize ArbitrumHub's potential value as a central information resource for the ecosystem, I think we should explore a more cost-effective approach. Rather than fully funding an external team, we could focus on covering basic infrastructure costs plus a modest allowance for platform enhancements. I suggest opening a competitive bidding process to explore alternative solutions, combined with implementing small rewards for active DAO participants who contribute to maintenance and onboarding efforts. This would not only reduce costs but also leverage existing community expertise while fostering greater ecosystem engagement.
First, we want to acknowledge the effort invested in maintaining the platform with limited resources. We also appreciate the $15,600 monthly price reduction and the revisions of the proposal to incorporate feedback from the previous iteration.
We support the idea of establishing an ArbitrumHub to aggregate information, and this is the primary reason we will be voting in favor at the snapshot. Our main concern is about how this initiative will integrate with other DAO efforts and its scope to ensure it can truly become the go-to resource for information. As highlighted by other delegates, we believe it would be beneficial for users to have straightforward access to the "source" of the information, rather than duplicating content that is already available on other platforms. Simplifying the layout and removing non-essential information would be a good approach to ensuring success.
First, we want to acknowledge the effort invested in maintaining the platform with limited resources. We also appreciate the $15,600 monthly price reduction and the revisions of the proposal to incorporate feedback from the previous iteration.
We support the idea of establishing an ArbitrumHub to aggregate information, and this is the primary reason we will be voting in favor at the snapshot. Our main concern is about how this initiative will integrate with other DAO efforts and its scope to ensure it can truly become the go-to resource for information. As highlighted by other delegates, we believe it would be beneficial for users to have straightforward access to the "source" of the information, rather than duplicating content that is already available on other platforms. Simplifying the layout and removing non-essential information would be a good approach to ensuring success.
We recognize that we are entering the budget discussion late. While we do not take issue with the monthly hours outlined, ideally we would like to see adjustments to the hourly rates for the research and copywriting roles before Tally.
Finally, do you have an estimate for hosting or tool-related costs? Even if these will be covered by the ArbitrumHub, it would still be helpful to have a clearer understanding of these expenses.
I vote against this proposal on Snapshot. The cost is excessive and I don't believe it's a priority for the DAO at this time. Additionally, the initial feedback I provided regarding the platform has not been addressed, which makes me doubt the community's input is truly being considered.
Thank you, @ArbitrumHub.io, for the proposal, the context provided, and the analytics. Currently, I am voting AGAINST this proposal, as many delegates have highlighted that the current costs, unless revised, are a significant impediment.
As a new delegate, I was actively seeking a centralized hub for all information related to Arbitrum. Unfortunately, I had difficulty finding your website, possibly because it was not listed in the Foundation Governance documents, and it may also suffer from limited visibility on social platforms like Twitter.
Thank you, @ArbitrumHub.io, for the proposal, the context provided, and the analytics. Currently, I am voting AGAINST this proposal, as many delegates have highlighted that the current costs, unless revised, are a significant impediment.
As a new delegate, I was actively seeking a centralized hub for all information related to Arbitrum. Unfortunately, I had difficulty finding your website, possibly because it was not listed in the Foundation Governance documents, and it may also suffer from limited visibility on social platforms like Twitter.
I fully support the idea suggested by @pedrob of creating a smaller hub focused solely on DAO topics. I would be pleased to support a proposal of this nature if it comes with a more modest budget
a reply worthy of a bold panther! respect!
I will vote in favor of this proposal during the temp check, but my support on Tally will depend on significant modifications and commitments from the team.
First: I am voting in favor because I agree with the concept, although not so much with its current execution.
I will vote in favor of this proposal during the temp check, but my support on Tally will depend on significant modifications and commitments from the team.
First: I am voting in favor because I agree with the concept, although not so much with its current execution.
The problem I see, which needs to be addressed, is that the DAO lacks a centralized platform or a single "one-stop shop" where all up-to-date information is readily available. This would include details on current working groups, points of contact, easily digestible summaries of proposals or initiatives, meeting schedules, etc.
For instance, I imagine a platform where I can log in with minimal knowledge of the DAO and quickly understand the Delegates Incentive Program and how to participate.
Or a place where I immediately receive alerts about upcoming elections for a position in the Domain Allocator, with clear explanations of what it entails and how to apply.
And so on.
For this reason, I would eliminate all content unrelated to the DAO or Arbitrum’s technology. I would remove initiatives from the foundation and the community hub (at least in an initial iteration). I would aim for an extremely simple site: updates on what’s happening in the DAO and how to participate—always up to date and with alerts. That’s it.
The idea is that any delegate or DAO participant, when asked where to find information on how to apply / participate / whatever, would instinctively answer: "The Arbitrum DAO Hub." (Emphasis in “DAO” btw)
Similarly, any delegate or DAO participant should be able to find out, in just three clicks, when the next meeting to discuss DAO incentive programs is happening—and join it.
Etc., etc.
I like the idea of a bi-weekly newsletter and social media updates. I think these would complement a simple yet practical platform very well.
Regarding Jojo’s comments:
All to say that I personally can’t currently support this proposal because I think we need an higher level plan from the dao to craft and create infrastructures and content that make sense based on the goals that we have (and for this the SOS proposal from @Entropy, after the vision proposal we just voted, will be able to help as well).
Don’t get me wrong, we need a front end for the dao, even this forum is hosted on the foundation domain. But we are at the point in which we need to own it, and we are also at the point in which we need to collectively establish what content we want in there, and then hire eventually service providers or elect people to create such content. It has to fall into a more strategic plan.
I agree with the concept, but I don’t think we can wait for the OpCo to be in place to execute something like this. It would make sense for you guys to also express your willingness to eventually integrate into that structure as a provider and align with the DAO’s mandate for the OpCo.
As mentioned by others, I’m also not convinced by the budget. Since I’m proposing a much more defined and “smaller” hub, I believe it could be significantly reduced to avoid it becoming an issue. I recommend a substantial budget cut, with a bonus payment at the end of the first year if the DAO is satisfied with the execution. As demonstrated in recent discussions in the Telegram group, expectations for this type of initiative can vary, which is why a bonus might be more appealing for delegates to approve.
Additionally, I don’t agree with the retroactive payment. I understand and I'm grateful for the work done so far, but the information is not up-to-date, nor is it a useful resource at this time. Therefore, I choose to vote against including this addition.
That said, I am casting my vote in favor during the temp check because I like the idea and believe it has the potential to address one of the DAO's current needs.
Fair, you have the right to pick your own rates (the same as a client has the right to refuse them - speaking generally). I just think your proposal would have a better chance of going through with lower rates. Personally I don't think US (or Western Europe) rates should be the default in web3 (not to mention the cost of living there is higher than elsewhere), but again, anyone is free to set up their own rate.
I voted against the proposal. As I mentioned before, the team size is too big and the proposed salaries are way too high for the location the team comes from (India). An average yearly salary in India is well-below $10k. If the proposal was, let's say, $20k per year per person (which is still very high for the region), and the team size was reduced to 3 full-time persons, I'd consider supporting the proposal even though monthly website views are not that high (1700 monthly non-unique page views). I suggest the team applies for a Questbook grant instead.
I voted against this proposal. In my previous comment, I detailed the issues that I see with it, so I can't support the current format.
While the overall proposal is much improved from past versions, the cost structure could still be revised, especially because the rational for retroactive funding does not seem to be properly accounted for or broken down like future expenses.
Moving forward the SOPs and structure do check out, save for some hourly billing (mainly the Coprywriter role warranting the same hourly rates as Development and Design). Clearer info on these two topics should do away with most concerns to get it passed.
Even though the cost seems high for a website like arbitrumub. We do have a problem to solve here with the entrance of new users, and the collection of information on the forum.
Im going to go FOR with Retroactive because I think that the idea of a central Arbitrum hub alongside the Foundation website making it easer to collect the information is something we must invest on. And even though the website has a lot of adjustments to do. I think if we approve and support this with some financial backing, we can achieve better standards on the website. I’m looking at this website like a prototype not as a website that should be running perfect, especially without financial backing. So I believe if we support this, the adjustments can be made along the way...
Hi there,
first of all I also want to acknoledge the effort you made into gathering feedback, adjusting the proposal and this several times as people, including me voted against it in the past for several reasons. With this new scope I do see the difference between the foundation website and the hub and think it got way better.
Hi there,
first of all I also want to acknoledge the effort you made into gathering feedback, adjusting the proposal and this several times as people, including me voted against it in the past for several reasons. With this new scope I do see the difference between the foundation website and the hub and think it got way better.
In terms of funding I do also agree with the others that it has changed and the justification is not quite clear to me. Im soneone that is looking at DAOs spending at taking this into account, it will cost a lot to compensate. Especially when the ARB token will loose more value, do you want to ask for more token? This wont help the token price nor anyone asking for funds, so we have to keep thinking about this all the time when spending these.
I am going to abstain for now as im still not 100% sure, if reasonable arguments are brought I might change.
Nevertheless good luck and thanks for being here.
Thank you for sharing your proposal; we appreciate the effort and thought you've put into it. We have a few points we'd like to understand better:
I am voting against this proposal.
First I want to commend @0x_Buidler and his crew on iterating on this project for several months if not almost a year: we need, in Arbitrum, builders like you capable to stick to their personal vision. This is not a statement to just sweeten the pill here, I really mean it. That said, I still have two big issues: the fact this is an isolated initiative for the infra of the dao, and the costs. To report what I posted above for clarity.
The continued refinement of the proposal from delegate feedback is really appreciated, but I ultimately will have to repeat my basic feedback from the last post (https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-proposal-for-maintenance-and-continuous-enhancement-of-arbitrumhub-to-meet-the-evolving-needs-of-the-arbitrum-ecosystem-and-dao/27667/41?u=bob-rossi).
Basically, I think the cost is too much to justify for this type of website. The reduction in cost is appreciated, but it's still too much. I think this would be best targeted towards a Questbooks type grant, or moving forward with only the retroactive portion of this.
Thanks for the proposal. Is there user data on the traction the site has received to date? The hourly rates are very reasonable, but it's difficult to measure the site's impact and value without evidence of existing usage.
These kinds of initiatives have a discoverability issue as they're not associated with Arbitrum's existing online presence and infra (as @JoJo mentioned above). So evidence of self-sustaining growth and discoverability is unfortunately critical.
Thank you, ArbitrumHub, for sharing this refined proposal. We appreciate the effort you’ve invested in incorporating the community’s feedback and updating the proposal with clear KPIs and deliverables.
With that said, this initiative represents a significant undertaking. Maintaining a relevant and useful hub requires high DAO-context and expertise, making the Research role outlined in the budget especially critical. Could you clarify which individuals will be taking on this role and their qualifications? Additionally, what incentives are in place to encourage community members to contribute by submitting GitHub requests to keep the platform up-to-date?
First, we want to acknowledge the continuous effort you’ve put into refining this proposal. It's clear that there’s a strong commitment to improving ArbitrumHub, that deserves a recognition. That said, we believe there are still opportunities to strengthen it and ensure this platform. One key area is the need to more directly tie the platform's goals to measurable outcomes within the DAO ecosystem. While the KPIs outlined in the proposal are effective for tracking operational performance, such as updates and audits, they do not fully address the platform’s impact on governance. For instance, how does ArbitrumHub contribute to enhancing delegate participation, or how often do proposals leverage resources hosted on the platform? Gathering feedback from delegates through periodic surveys could also provide actionable insights, allowing the platform to evolve in ways that directly serve its users and the DAO’s broader goals. Regarding the budget, the reliance on $ARB for quarterly withdrawals introduces an element of uncertainty due to the token’s price fluctuations. While the focus is often on potential losses, it is also worth considering the scenario where the token appreciates significantly. If the funds exceed what is needed to maintain operations, will the surplus be returned to the DAO treasury, reinvested in expanding the platform, or allocated elsewhere? Lastly, I see an untapped opportunity for ArbitrumHub to expand its role in education. Many proposals under the Questbook domain have been approved for educational initiatives, and these could be integrated into the platform to enrich its offerings. By adding a dedicated section for governance education and leveraging existing resources, ArbitrumHub could guide members through the complexities of governance processes, making them more accessible. Summaries of key proposals, tutorials on using governance tools, or insights into best practices could elevate the platform’s value. This could position ArbitrumHub as an essential resource for all DAO members, from newcomers to advanced users.
Thank you for the detailed proposal. I remember your previous one and this has become significantly better, both in terms of goals and in terms of lowering the costs.
However, like some other delegates, I have comments and questions:
Thank you for the detailed proposal. I remember your previous one and this has become significantly better, both in terms of goals and in terms of lowering the costs.
However, like some other delegates, I have comments and questions:
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you @ArbitrumHub.io for your continuous improvements to the proposal and for addressing the feedback from the delegates on the proposal.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you @ArbitrumHub.io for your continuous improvements to the proposal and for addressing the feedback from the delegates on the proposal.
We still believe that this proposal could be a valuable initiative for the Arbitrum DAO. A centralized platform like ArbitrumHub would streamline new user onboarding by gathering resources in one place and minimizing scattered information.
But we have some points to mention -
While we recognize the value of the platform you've built, I'd like to address the monthly allocations for design ($2,400) and development ($2,400). The involvement of designers and developers may be essential during the initial build phase, but it seems unlikely that such a level of engagement will be necessary once the platform is ready. Personally, I believe that roles such as researcher and copywriter will be more crucial for the platform in the long run. As the DAO evolves, the flow of data and information will likely grow, demanding more focus on collecting and delivering accurate, timely content rather than regular design updates.
For a maintenance-focused operation post-development, it would make more sense to allocate the budget primarily to research ($4,000 monthly) and copywriting ($7,200 monthly), which directly support content maintenance. Development and design could be restructured as quarterly retainers for essential updates, potentially saving the DAO around $3,000-4,000 monthly while maintaining the platform's quality and functionality. We suggest restructuring the design and development allocations to a retainer model post-development. This adjustment would preserve the platform's core functions and quality while reducing the annual budget by approximately $15k-$25k if we remove the core development if the budget is drafted this way.
We notice that these metrics are focused on output quantities, such as '26 newsletters per year' and '5 original posts per week'. While these are measurable deliverables, they don't necessarily reflect the actual impact on the Arbitrum ecosystem.
While having an analytics dashboard is valuable, the proposal doesn't set concrete targets for what success looks like. Some impact measurements can be thought of -
We particularly noticed that while your proposal mentions using Looker Studio for analytics, it doesn't define what constitutes successful engagement levels. Setting specific, measurable targets would help the DAO better evaluate the platform's effectiveness in achieving its mission of improving ecosystem engagement and accessibility.
Thank you for the follow-up proposal and we applaud your tenacity in pushing the proposal through. We however have some concerns which we would like to bring up for your consideration.
Thank you for the follow-up proposal and we applaud your tenacity in pushing the proposal through. We however have some concerns which we would like to bring up for your consideration.
The content plan we feel has been padded unnecessarily and a standalone social media account for ArbitrumHub further fragments mindshare amongst an already fragmented social media presence for Arbitrum as a whole. This is something that needs a different discussion amongst the various stakeholders in our opinion and we agree with @JoJo.
I have the strong opinion that the dao should do a more comprehensive plan in this regard: have his own website, his own socials, his own initiative, and also own the infra and the content related to this.
We've also touched on the challenges with Arbitrum's marketing in a different proposal but the same holds true here. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/are-we-overlooking-marketing-in-favor-of-development-in-arbitrum/27904/17?u=castlecapital
The cost seems exceptionally high for a website like ArbitrumHub. The monthly cost for Research and Copywriting is the equivalent of a full time hire. Whereas in the estimate its accounted for as 10 and 15 mandays respectively.
While the breakdown of costs according to planned resources is good, this needs to be tied back to the costs associated with deliverables. I.e. monthly newsletters, content updates (monthly), and research reports (quarterly), and they are tied back to your man-hour estimation for each role and summed to equal the cost as listed.
But quite honestly, the cost of $19,200 per month and $230,400 per annum as already highlighted by @danielo, @Gabriel, @cp0x and others is not feasible. The cost needs to be looked into and revised downwards significantly.
At the moment, based on the current proposal, our stance is not in favour.
Voted Against: I really like the ArbitrumHub website, and I think you did a great job collecting so much information in one place and organizing it so it is easy to find, especially for new people joining the DAO or builders looking for a grant.
My main issue is the budget ($230k+) and the justification for it. I went to check out Analytics. Having roughly 1k views per month and around 500 sessions on average in 2024 is a clear stat that the website is a nice thing to have, not a necessity for the DAO. It's just not crucial, and this is why I think the budget doesn't justify it.
I would hope you guys keep on building. There are incentives like Questbook grants or maybe even outside funding like Gitcoin or Giveth grants available where you might participate. I really hope you guys find a way to fund yourselves and continue building.
First of all, I want to acknowledge the significant effort and dedication the @ArbitrumHub.io team has shown in refining this proposal multiple times, taking into account community feedback and working to address previous concerns. However, while I recognize ArbitrumHub's importance to the ecosystem, I must vote against this proposal. The main reasons are:
While I recognize ArbitrumHub's potential value as a central information resource for the ecosystem, I think we should explore a more cost-effective approach. Rather than fully funding an external team, we could focus on covering basic infrastructure costs plus a modest allowance for platform enhancements. I suggest opening a competitive bidding process to explore alternative solutions, combined with implementing small rewards for active DAO participants who contribute to maintenance and onboarding efforts. This would not only reduce costs but also leverage existing community expertise while fostering greater ecosystem engagement.
First, we want to acknowledge the effort invested in maintaining the platform with limited resources. We also appreciate the $15,600 monthly price reduction and the revisions of the proposal to incorporate feedback from the previous iteration.
We support the idea of establishing an ArbitrumHub to aggregate information, and this is the primary reason we will be voting in favor at the snapshot. Our main concern is about how this initiative will integrate with other DAO efforts and its scope to ensure it can truly become the go-to resource for information. As highlighted by other delegates, we believe it would be beneficial for users to have straightforward access to the "source" of the information, rather than duplicating content that is already available on other platforms. Simplifying the layout and removing non-essential information would be a good approach to ensuring success.
First, we want to acknowledge the effort invested in maintaining the platform with limited resources. We also appreciate the $15,600 monthly price reduction and the revisions of the proposal to incorporate feedback from the previous iteration.
We support the idea of establishing an ArbitrumHub to aggregate information, and this is the primary reason we will be voting in favor at the snapshot. Our main concern is about how this initiative will integrate with other DAO efforts and its scope to ensure it can truly become the go-to resource for information. As highlighted by other delegates, we believe it would be beneficial for users to have straightforward access to the "source" of the information, rather than duplicating content that is already available on other platforms. Simplifying the layout and removing non-essential information would be a good approach to ensuring success.
We recognize that we are entering the budget discussion late. While we do not take issue with the monthly hours outlined, ideally we would like to see adjustments to the hourly rates for the research and copywriting roles before Tally.
Finally, do you have an estimate for hosting or tool-related costs? Even if these will be covered by the ArbitrumHub, it would still be helpful to have a clearer understanding of these expenses.
I vote against this proposal on Snapshot. The cost is excessive and I don't believe it's a priority for the DAO at this time. Additionally, the initial feedback I provided regarding the platform has not been addressed, which makes me doubt the community's input is truly being considered.
Thank you, @ArbitrumHub.io, for the proposal, the context provided, and the analytics. Currently, I am voting AGAINST this proposal, as many delegates have highlighted that the current costs, unless revised, are a significant impediment.
As a new delegate, I was actively seeking a centralized hub for all information related to Arbitrum. Unfortunately, I had difficulty finding your website, possibly because it was not listed in the Foundation Governance documents, and it may also suffer from limited visibility on social platforms like Twitter.
Thank you, @ArbitrumHub.io, for the proposal, the context provided, and the analytics. Currently, I am voting AGAINST this proposal, as many delegates have highlighted that the current costs, unless revised, are a significant impediment.
As a new delegate, I was actively seeking a centralized hub for all information related to Arbitrum. Unfortunately, I had difficulty finding your website, possibly because it was not listed in the Foundation Governance documents, and it may also suffer from limited visibility on social platforms like Twitter.
I fully support the idea suggested by @pedrob of creating a smaller hub focused solely on DAO topics. I would be pleased to support a proposal of this nature if it comes with a more modest budget
a reply worthy of a bold panther! respect!
I will vote in favor of this proposal during the temp check, but my support on Tally will depend on significant modifications and commitments from the team.
First: I am voting in favor because I agree with the concept, although not so much with its current execution.
I will vote in favor of this proposal during the temp check, but my support on Tally will depend on significant modifications and commitments from the team.
First: I am voting in favor because I agree with the concept, although not so much with its current execution.
The problem I see, which needs to be addressed, is that the DAO lacks a centralized platform or a single "one-stop shop" where all up-to-date information is readily available. This would include details on current working groups, points of contact, easily digestible summaries of proposals or initiatives, meeting schedules, etc.
For instance, I imagine a platform where I can log in with minimal knowledge of the DAO and quickly understand the Delegates Incentive Program and how to participate.
Or a place where I immediately receive alerts about upcoming elections for a position in the Domain Allocator, with clear explanations of what it entails and how to apply.
And so on.
For this reason, I would eliminate all content unrelated to the DAO or Arbitrum’s technology. I would remove initiatives from the foundation and the community hub (at least in an initial iteration). I would aim for an extremely simple site: updates on what’s happening in the DAO and how to participate—always up to date and with alerts. That’s it.
The idea is that any delegate or DAO participant, when asked where to find information on how to apply / participate / whatever, would instinctively answer: "The Arbitrum DAO Hub." (Emphasis in “DAO” btw)
Similarly, any delegate or DAO participant should be able to find out, in just three clicks, when the next meeting to discuss DAO incentive programs is happening—and join it.
Etc., etc.
I like the idea of a bi-weekly newsletter and social media updates. I think these would complement a simple yet practical platform very well.
Regarding Jojo’s comments:
All to say that I personally can’t currently support this proposal because I think we need an higher level plan from the dao to craft and create infrastructures and content that make sense based on the goals that we have (and for this the SOS proposal from @Entropy, after the vision proposal we just voted, will be able to help as well).
Don’t get me wrong, we need a front end for the dao, even this forum is hosted on the foundation domain. But we are at the point in which we need to own it, and we are also at the point in which we need to collectively establish what content we want in there, and then hire eventually service providers or elect people to create such content. It has to fall into a more strategic plan.
I agree with the concept, but I don’t think we can wait for the OpCo to be in place to execute something like this. It would make sense for you guys to also express your willingness to eventually integrate into that structure as a provider and align with the DAO’s mandate for the OpCo.
As mentioned by others, I’m also not convinced by the budget. Since I’m proposing a much more defined and “smaller” hub, I believe it could be significantly reduced to avoid it becoming an issue. I recommend a substantial budget cut, with a bonus payment at the end of the first year if the DAO is satisfied with the execution. As demonstrated in recent discussions in the Telegram group, expectations for this type of initiative can vary, which is why a bonus might be more appealing for delegates to approve.
Additionally, I don’t agree with the retroactive payment. I understand and I'm grateful for the work done so far, but the information is not up-to-date, nor is it a useful resource at this time. Therefore, I choose to vote against including this addition.
That said, I am casting my vote in favor during the temp check because I like the idea and believe it has the potential to address one of the DAO's current needs.
Fair, you have the right to pick your own rates (the same as a client has the right to refuse them - speaking generally). I just think your proposal would have a better chance of going through with lower rates. Personally I don't think US (or Western Europe) rates should be the default in web3 (not to mention the cost of living there is higher than elsewhere), but again, anyone is free to set up their own rate.
I voted against the proposal. As I mentioned before, the team size is too big and the proposed salaries are way too high for the location the team comes from (India). An average yearly salary in India is well-below $10k. If the proposal was, let's say, $20k per year per person (which is still very high for the region), and the team size was reduced to 3 full-time persons, I'd consider supporting the proposal even though monthly website views are not that high (1700 monthly non-unique page views). I suggest the team applies for a Questbook grant instead.
I voted against this proposal. In my previous comment, I detailed the issues that I see with it, so I can't support the current format.
While the overall proposal is much improved from past versions, the cost structure could still be revised, especially because the rational for retroactive funding does not seem to be properly accounted for or broken down like future expenses.
Moving forward the SOPs and structure do check out, save for some hourly billing (mainly the Coprywriter role warranting the same hourly rates as Development and Design). Clearer info on these two topics should do away with most concerns to get it passed.
Even though the cost seems high for a website like arbitrumub. We do have a problem to solve here with the entrance of new users, and the collection of information on the forum.
Im going to go FOR with Retroactive because I think that the idea of a central Arbitrum hub alongside the Foundation website making it easer to collect the information is something we must invest on. And even though the website has a lot of adjustments to do. I think if we approve and support this with some financial backing, we can achieve better standards on the website. I’m looking at this website like a prototype not as a website that should be running perfect, especially without financial backing. So I believe if we support this, the adjustments can be made along the way...
Hi there,
first of all I also want to acknoledge the effort you made into gathering feedback, adjusting the proposal and this several times as people, including me voted against it in the past for several reasons. With this new scope I do see the difference between the foundation website and the hub and think it got way better.
Hi there,
first of all I also want to acknoledge the effort you made into gathering feedback, adjusting the proposal and this several times as people, including me voted against it in the past for several reasons. With this new scope I do see the difference between the foundation website and the hub and think it got way better.
In terms of funding I do also agree with the others that it has changed and the justification is not quite clear to me. Im soneone that is looking at DAOs spending at taking this into account, it will cost a lot to compensate. Especially when the ARB token will loose more value, do you want to ask for more token? This wont help the token price nor anyone asking for funds, so we have to keep thinking about this all the time when spending these.
I am going to abstain for now as im still not 100% sure, if reasonable arguments are brought I might change.
Nevertheless good luck and thanks for being here.
Thank you for sharing your proposal; we appreciate the effort and thought you've put into it. We have a few points we'd like to understand better:
I am voting against this proposal.
First I want to commend @0x_Buidler and his crew on iterating on this project for several months if not almost a year: we need, in Arbitrum, builders like you capable to stick to their personal vision. This is not a statement to just sweeten the pill here, I really mean it. That said, I still have two big issues: the fact this is an isolated initiative for the infra of the dao, and the costs. To report what I posted above for clarity.
The continued refinement of the proposal from delegate feedback is really appreciated, but I ultimately will have to repeat my basic feedback from the last post (https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-proposal-for-maintenance-and-continuous-enhancement-of-arbitrumhub-to-meet-the-evolving-needs-of-the-arbitrum-ecosystem-and-dao/27667/41?u=bob-rossi).
Basically, I think the cost is too much to justify for this type of website. The reduction in cost is appreciated, but it's still too much. I think this would be best targeted towards a Questbooks type grant, or moving forward with only the retroactive portion of this.
Thanks for the proposal. Is there user data on the traction the site has received to date? The hourly rates are very reasonable, but it's difficult to measure the site's impact and value without evidence of existing usage.
These kinds of initiatives have a discoverability issue as they're not associated with Arbitrum's existing online presence and infra (as @JoJo mentioned above). So evidence of self-sustaining growth and discoverability is unfortunately critical.
Thank you, ArbitrumHub, for sharing this refined proposal. We appreciate the effort you’ve invested in incorporating the community’s feedback and updating the proposal with clear KPIs and deliverables.
With that said, this initiative represents a significant undertaking. Maintaining a relevant and useful hub requires high DAO-context and expertise, making the Research role outlined in the budget especially critical. Could you clarify which individuals will be taking on this role and their qualifications? Additionally, what incentives are in place to encourage community members to contribute by submitting GitHub requests to keep the platform up-to-date?
First, we want to acknowledge the continuous effort you’ve put into refining this proposal. It's clear that there’s a strong commitment to improving ArbitrumHub, that deserves a recognition. That said, we believe there are still opportunities to strengthen it and ensure this platform. One key area is the need to more directly tie the platform's goals to measurable outcomes within the DAO ecosystem. While the KPIs outlined in the proposal are effective for tracking operational performance, such as updates and audits, they do not fully address the platform’s impact on governance. For instance, how does ArbitrumHub contribute to enhancing delegate participation, or how often do proposals leverage resources hosted on the platform? Gathering feedback from delegates through periodic surveys could also provide actionable insights, allowing the platform to evolve in ways that directly serve its users and the DAO’s broader goals. Regarding the budget, the reliance on $ARB for quarterly withdrawals introduces an element of uncertainty due to the token’s price fluctuations. While the focus is often on potential losses, it is also worth considering the scenario where the token appreciates significantly. If the funds exceed what is needed to maintain operations, will the surplus be returned to the DAO treasury, reinvested in expanding the platform, or allocated elsewhere? Lastly, I see an untapped opportunity for ArbitrumHub to expand its role in education. Many proposals under the Questbook domain have been approved for educational initiatives, and these could be integrated into the platform to enrich its offerings. By adding a dedicated section for governance education and leveraging existing resources, ArbitrumHub could guide members through the complexities of governance processes, making them more accessible. Summaries of key proposals, tutorials on using governance tools, or insights into best practices could elevate the platform’s value. This could position ArbitrumHub as an essential resource for all DAO members, from newcomers to advanced users.
Thank you for the detailed proposal. I remember your previous one and this has become significantly better, both in terms of goals and in terms of lowering the costs.
However, like some other delegates, I have comments and questions:
Thank you for the detailed proposal. I remember your previous one and this has become significantly better, both in terms of goals and in terms of lowering the costs.
However, like some other delegates, I have comments and questions:
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you @ArbitrumHub.io for your continuous improvements to the proposal and for addressing the feedback from the delegates on the proposal.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you @ArbitrumHub.io for your continuous improvements to the proposal and for addressing the feedback from the delegates on the proposal.
We still believe that this proposal could be a valuable initiative for the Arbitrum DAO. A centralized platform like ArbitrumHub would streamline new user onboarding by gathering resources in one place and minimizing scattered information.
But we have some points to mention -
While we recognize the value of the platform you've built, I'd like to address the monthly allocations for design ($2,400) and development ($2,400). The involvement of designers and developers may be essential during the initial build phase, but it seems unlikely that such a level of engagement will be necessary once the platform is ready. Personally, I believe that roles such as researcher and copywriter will be more crucial for the platform in the long run. As the DAO evolves, the flow of data and information will likely grow, demanding more focus on collecting and delivering accurate, timely content rather than regular design updates.
For a maintenance-focused operation post-development, it would make more sense to allocate the budget primarily to research ($4,000 monthly) and copywriting ($7,200 monthly), which directly support content maintenance. Development and design could be restructured as quarterly retainers for essential updates, potentially saving the DAO around $3,000-4,000 monthly while maintaining the platform's quality and functionality. We suggest restructuring the design and development allocations to a retainer model post-development. This adjustment would preserve the platform's core functions and quality while reducing the annual budget by approximately $15k-$25k if we remove the core development if the budget is drafted this way.
We notice that these metrics are focused on output quantities, such as '26 newsletters per year' and '5 original posts per week'. While these are measurable deliverables, they don't necessarily reflect the actual impact on the Arbitrum ecosystem.
While having an analytics dashboard is valuable, the proposal doesn't set concrete targets for what success looks like. Some impact measurements can be thought of -
We particularly noticed that while your proposal mentions using Looker Studio for analytics, it doesn't define what constitutes successful engagement levels. Setting specific, measurable targets would help the DAO better evaluate the platform's effectiveness in achieving its mission of improving ecosystem engagement and accessibility.
Thank you for the follow-up proposal and we applaud your tenacity in pushing the proposal through. We however have some concerns which we would like to bring up for your consideration.
Thank you for the follow-up proposal and we applaud your tenacity in pushing the proposal through. We however have some concerns which we would like to bring up for your consideration.
The content plan we feel has been padded unnecessarily and a standalone social media account for ArbitrumHub further fragments mindshare amongst an already fragmented social media presence for Arbitrum as a whole. This is something that needs a different discussion amongst the various stakeholders in our opinion and we agree with @JoJo.
I have the strong opinion that the dao should do a more comprehensive plan in this regard: have his own website, his own socials, his own initiative, and also own the infra and the content related to this.
We've also touched on the challenges with Arbitrum's marketing in a different proposal but the same holds true here. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/are-we-overlooking-marketing-in-favor-of-development-in-arbitrum/27904/17?u=castlecapital
The cost seems exceptionally high for a website like ArbitrumHub. The monthly cost for Research and Copywriting is the equivalent of a full time hire. Whereas in the estimate its accounted for as 10 and 15 mandays respectively.
While the breakdown of costs according to planned resources is good, this needs to be tied back to the costs associated with deliverables. I.e. monthly newsletters, content updates (monthly), and research reports (quarterly), and they are tied back to your man-hour estimation for each role and summed to equal the cost as listed.
But quite honestly, the cost of $19,200 per month and $230,400 per annum as already highlighted by @danielo, @Gabriel, @cp0x and others is not feasible. The cost needs to be looked into and revised downwards significantly.
At the moment, based on the current proposal, our stance is not in favour.
I am voting against this proposal.
First I want to commend @0x_Buidler and his crew on iterating on this project for several months if not almost a year: we need, in Arbitrum, builders like you capable to stick to their personal vision. This is not a statement to just sweeten the pill here, I really mean it. That said, I still have two big issues: the fact this is an isolated initiative for the infra of the dao, and the costs. To report what I posted above for clarity.
I have the strong opinion that the dao should do a more comprehensive plan in this regard: have his own website, his own socials, his own initiative, and also own the infra and the content related to this. This hasn’t happened so far because we lack a legal entity, and we have had the AF that has been a steward in this sense when it was needed. But, hopefully, will change when we have the OpCo.
All to say that I personally can’t currently support this proposal because I think we need an higher level plan from the dao to craft and create infrastructures and content that make sense based on the goals that we have (and for this the SOS proposal from @Entropy, after the vision proposal we just voted, will be able to help as well).
Don’t get me wrong, we need a front end for the dao, even this forum is hosted on the foundation domain. But we are at the point in which we need to own it, and we are also at the point in which we need to collectively establish what content we want in there, and then hire eventually service providers or elect people to create such content. It has to fall into a more strategic plan.
Beside this, I generally speaking agree with the comments on the budget. Without going into the specific details, 19k per month for all of this feels like a lot.
While there was the effort to embed this into the SOS proposal and any future change, I don't honestly think is enough: the website of the DAO will be one of our main front end for communication beside social accounts (assuming we will ever had dao managed ones), and it has to go through a more high level strategic plan. As a secondary point, the budget is still too high for the service provided. I think that for slightly more we could hire directly a marketing team for the dao which would help us filling a gap that we have. This would help not only driving the engagement higher, but also spread the geography (if we see the reporting dashboard with a 6 months horizon, of the 11,000 visit to the website almost half of them come from India, which is neither right or wrong but is likely a byproduct of the founder being based in that geography AFAIK. Which means, to me, that the current reach is mostly tied to personal effort, and we are at a point in which we need to step up the game in several areas.
As a final note, I don't know how the current team could interface themself with the DAO in future, and likely with OpCo going forward, I can't say if with the current terms this project could be for example absorbed by the opco, or the team hired as service provider. I like the work that was done, and I think we should find a way to reward the "stickiness" of a team in the ecosystem, just, not with these economical terms, and not without an higher level plan.
The continued refinement of the proposal from delegate feedback is really appreciated, but I ultimately will have to repeat my basic feedback from the last post (https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-proposal-for-maintenance-and-continuous-enhancement-of-arbitrumhub-to-meet-the-evolving-needs-of-the-arbitrum-ecosystem-and-dao/27667/41?u=bob-rossi).
Basically, I think the cost is too much to justify for this type of website. The reduction in cost is appreciated, but it's still too much. I think this would be best targeted towards a Questbooks type grant, or moving forward with only the retroactive portion of this.
Edit: Editing to save forum space as my opinion has not been changed from discussions below. I believe that the cost is too much, and will be voting "Against".
Thank you, ArbitrumHub, for sharing this refined proposal. We appreciate the effort you’ve invested in incorporating the community’s feedback and updating the proposal with clear KPIs and deliverables.
With that said, this initiative represents a significant undertaking. Maintaining a relevant and useful hub requires high DAO-context and expertise, making the Research role outlined in the budget especially critical. Could you clarify which individuals will be taking on this role and their qualifications? Additionally, what incentives are in place to encourage community members to contribute by submitting GitHub requests to keep the platform up-to-date?
Another concern that we have is with the budget. While we recognize the value of this initiative, we echo others’ sentiments that the requested funding seems quite large. We also believe this initiative may be better suited for funding through donation-based mechanisms, such as Gitcoin rounds or going through the DAO’s Questbook offering.
Thank you again for your hard work!
To echo what others are saying, the budget doesn't make too much sense. $230k to manage a (good) website, a newsletter and socials, for 1 year of service? Plus another $40k retro on top. I'm sorry but is just too much, I know it might sound cynic but if I just look at numbers it really doesn't make too much sense.
We are talking about 320 hours per month, 2 FTE being paid around 9.5k each per month excluding the retro.
Thank you for presenting your proposal for the ArbitrumHub initiative.
We believe ArbitrumHub provides meaningful value to the community by simplifying access to key information for users and builders. A well-organized, centralized platform is vital in fostering greater engagement and adoption. While we agree with previous comments that improvements could be made for it to reflect the ecosystem's growth better, the Hub is already a great resource.
Thank you for presenting your proposal for the ArbitrumHub initiative.
We believe ArbitrumHub provides meaningful value to the community by simplifying access to key information for users and builders. A well-organized, centralized platform is vital in fostering greater engagement and adoption. While we agree with previous comments that improvements could be made for it to reflect the ecosystem's growth better, the Hub is already a great resource.
However, we agree with @JoJo's comment:
The main problem i have is that we have the trend, in the dao, to build all sort of infrastructures (website, bot, dapp etc) that are detached one from another. Even more, we are doing this with no strategic view on top.
To maximize the impact of this initiative, we strongly encourage harmonizing ArbitrumHub with complementary efforts such as events, grants, ARB incentives, and social media campaigns. Coordinating these initiatives under a unified strategy would ensure a more cohesive and effective approach to ecosystem growth.
We also recommend further streamlining this proposal to focus primarily on consistently maintaining the ArbitrumHub website, ensuring it remains up-to-date and inclusive.
Pairing this ArbitrumHub website-focused initiative with others—like the DAO Events Budget for 2025 or the DeFi Renaissance Incentives Program—could amplify its effectiveness. Coordination by a single entity, such as @Entropy, may provide the clarity and leadership needed for streamlined execution and effective communication across initiatives.
Hello and thanks for the proposal.
Want to start by saying that the following opinion is quite personal.
I think the site is quite good, but would also need a lot of fix, partially on the structure and partially on the info (as highlighted by @jameskbh). But this is also ok because you did ran the whole time without funding.
Hello and thanks for the proposal.
Want to start by saying that the following opinion is quite personal.
I think the site is quite good, but would also need a lot of fix, partially on the structure and partially on the info (as highlighted by @jameskbh). But this is also ok because you did ran the whole time without funding.
The main problem i have is that we have the trend, in the dao, to build all sort of infrastructures (website, bot, dapp etc) that are detached one from another. Even more, we are doing this with no strategic view on top.
I have the strong opinion that the dao should do a more comprehensive plan in this regard: have his own website, his own socials, his own initiative, and also own the infra and the content related to this. This hasn't happened so far because we lack a legal entity, and we have had the AF that has been a steward in this sense when it was needed. But, hopefully, will change when we have the OpCo.
All to say that I personally can't currently support this proposal because I think we need an higher level plan from the dao to craft and create infrastructures and content that make sense based on the goals that we have (and for this the SOS proposal from @Entropy, after the vision proposal we just voted, will be able to help as well).
Don't get me wrong, we need a front end for the dao, even this forum is hosted on the foundation domain. But we are at the point in which we need to own it, and we are also at the point in which we need to collectively establish what content we want in there, and then hire eventually service providers or elect people to create such content. It has to fall into a more strategic plan.
Beside this, I generally speaking agree with the comments on the budget. Without going into the specific details, 19k per month for all of this feels like a lot.
We would like to highlight that we have been diligently working on and building this platform over the past year at our own discretion. Given the effort and commitment invested, we believe it is reasonable to seek retroactive compensation for the work completed thus far.
We respectfully request a minimum of $40k USD as retroactive funding for over 10+ months of dedicated work. This request is entirely optional and subject to the discretion of the DAO.
Should the DAO recognize and appreciate our contributions, we would be sincerely grateful. However, if the DAO decides otherwise, we fully understand and respect the decision, acknowledging the dynamics and priorities of the DAO landscape.
“Looking at your budget of roughly $230,000 per year, which also includes $40,000 in retroactive funding, what costing is this based on? Is there any possibility of compressing spending some more during the pilot to focus on core functionality first?” Personally, I think “the retroactive funding part is actually quite sensitive, is there a more detailed timeline and proof of results for the $40K? That way the community will be more receptive and more aware of the value of your previous efforts.” Dude, no offense, just my personal feedback.
To foster continuous improvement and maintain alignment with community/DAO expectations, we have implemented a structured feedback mechanism integrated into our operational processes. This mechanism ensures that insights from users, stakeholders, and the broader community are systematically collected, evaluated, and acted upon.
In addition, “You mentioned that the target audience is different from the Foundation website, but how does this part of the differentiated value show up? Is there a plan to do a more visual comparison, such as the division of specific functional modules?”
Thank you for your proposal and for your work. 2025 my personal feedback on arb's first publication. Overall the proposal feels very detailed, but a few areas could use a little more refinement, such as could the budget be more streamlined? How can the persuasiveness of retroactive funding be strengthened? And how can the value of differentiation from foundations be made more intuitive. Also, I would like to suggest that more community interaction should be organized, such as regular reports on the progress of the platform, so that the community can better feel the value of the platform. Retroactive funding can be an option, but I would suggest that the scope of use and priority should be clearly defined first, for example, for compensating the working hours of key developers to avoid controversy. Happy New Year!
This proposal is much more reliable compared to the previous versions. The direction is clearer, and there are improvements in the details. Specifically, the focus on platform maintenance and optimization, instead of pursuing overly ambitious expansions, is commendable. Additionally, unlike the vague earlier versions, this proposal provides a clear budget, which at least shows how the funds will be spent and where. That’s a significant improvement.
This proposal is much more reliable compared to the previous versions. The direction is clearer, and there are improvements in the details. Specifically, the focus on platform maintenance and optimization, instead of pursuing overly ambitious expansions, is commendable. Additionally, unlike the vague earlier versions, this proposal provides a clear budget, which at least shows how the funds will be spent and where. That’s a significant improvement.
All to say that I personally can’t currently support this proposal because I think we need an higher level plan from the dao to craft and create infrastructures and content that make sense based on the goals that we have (and for this the SOS proposal from @Entropy, after the vision proposal we just voted, will be able to help as well).
However, I believe there’s still a need for a higher level of strategic coordination. I completely agree with @jojo’s point: the DAO needs a more comprehensive plan to design and build truly impactful infrastructure and content aligned with overarching goals. Without this broader perspective, it might be hard to achieve meaningful breakthroughs.
Additionally, the incentive mechanism needs to be reasonable, as it’s crucial for driving improvements and completing the work. Here are my suggestions:
Don’t try to accomplish everything within a year. Start by prioritizing platform content updates and community interaction. Deliver tangible improvements that users can feel, and then gradually expand other features.
Hold regular feedback sessions or community interactions to keep everyone updated on the progress. This not only ensures transparency but also strengthens community support.
Retroactive funding can be released in stages. Begin by evaluating short-term results to confirm that the platform delivers real value, and then allocate further funding based on actual performance. This approach will likely lead to greater community satisfaction with the outcomes.
Thank you for the effort of listening to the community and bringing this version to the table. I've navigated the page and noticed a few areas for improvement.
Arbitrum.hub The blank space for newsletter sign-ups is confusing as the characters, being white (instead of black), blend in with the background. This could reduce the number of sign-ups and, consequently, decrease the weekly newsletter's reach. As a suggestion, the page could have a pop-up for immediate sign-ups. Also, a login on the page could help build a more comprehensive database.
Thank you for the effort of listening to the community and bringing this version to the table. I've navigated the page and noticed a few areas for improvement.
Arbitrum.hub The blank space for newsletter sign-ups is confusing as the characters, being white (instead of black), blend in with the background. This could reduce the number of sign-ups and, consequently, decrease the weekly newsletter's reach. As a suggestion, the page could have a pop-up for immediate sign-ups. Also, a login on the page could help build a more comprehensive database.
Another suggestion is to have a "night mode" option to reduce eye strain. Adding a night mode can subtly enhance the page without losing Arbitrum's identity as the colors would remain cohesive.
The differentiation between "Arbitrum Hub" and "Arbitrum Foundation" is clear and solid. I'm interested in supporting this proposal and could contribute by sharing photos/videos of events we've had in Mexico, communicating initiatives, and distributing various content within the page for the community.
Regarding the breakdown of roles and associated costs, I consider this an improvement in the proposal. However, I find the cost of the Community Manager (copywriting) to be quite excessive.
For now, I support this initiative. I believe the changes that could be made are minimal for the platform to function optimally.
Thanks for this proposal!
My 2 cents here:
I want to start saying that I like the gist of it, and the visuals are really appealing.
The idea of having a hub, or an information aggregator, sounds interesting, and I support it. What does that mean to me? A place where I can easily go to the primary source of information. That saves time and help the data/information/content to be discoverable.
Thanks for this proposal!
My 2 cents here:
I want to start saying that I like the gist of it, and the visuals are really appealing.
The idea of having a hub, or an information aggregator, sounds interesting, and I support it. What does that mean to me? A place where I can easily go to the primary source of information. That saves time and help the data/information/content to be discoverable.
Having a look at this page, it does just that.
When we go to this page, content from the primary source is replicated. While that can provide more context, it introduces another place where the information needs to be updated. And verified for correctness. I don't think this part of the proposal generates value enough to justify the added cost of it.
I understand that we need to present information in a more digestible way, but I believe that gap should be filled with research/marketing pieces around the initiatives themselves instead of inflating a place (the hub) where I would like to go to have quick access to the info that I want.
We're quite skeptical of this proposal as it stands, though haven't particpated in previous rounds of feedback.
First, the current site and seems clearly out of date and missing some recent information like events. You mention this is because of lack of capacity. But then the proposal asks for retroactive payment for almost four full time resources, two mostly focused on producing content. So it would seem the current results are lacking. There was also not mention of the specific outcomes from this work that was beneficial to the DAO with something like more users or activity or builders.
We're quite skeptical of this proposal as it stands, though haven't particpated in previous rounds of feedback.
First, the current site and seems clearly out of date and missing some recent information like events. You mention this is because of lack of capacity. But then the proposal asks for retroactive payment for almost four full time resources, two mostly focused on producing content. So it would seem the current results are lacking. There was also not mention of the specific outcomes from this work that was beneficial to the DAO with something like more users or activity or builders.
We would like to see these in any further proposals before voting yes:
Without these it is hard to know what was accomplished and whether the price is worth it.
Our second point relates to price. A quarter of a million for 4 resources and unclear work done seems widly expensive. We would suggest revisting this number and reducing it if this proposal is to get our support.
We will look forward to further discussion and updates, but as it stands we will vote against this proposal as a further example of being against wasteful spending from the DAO.
We appreciate that you are listening to the community and making efforts to improve the proposal based on the feedback received. That said, we agree with several of the comments already shared.
We recognize the effort you have put in so far, but we see it as an investment in the ArbitrumHub project you are developing, which makes us hesitant to support retrospective funding.
We appreciate that you are listening to the community and making efforts to improve the proposal based on the feedback received. That said, we agree with several of the comments already shared.
We recognize the effort you have put in so far, but we see it as an investment in the ArbitrumHub project you are developing, which makes us hesitant to support retrospective funding.
Given the importance of this platform in fostering ecosystem cohesion and accessibility, we are seeking DAO approval to formalize ArbitrumHub’s role within the ArbitrumDAO structure.
On the other hand, we understand the need for funds to maintain the site. However, would it not be possible to first seek approval from the foundation to formalize ArbitrumHub and then, in the future, request the necessary funding to enhance it?
I agree with @danielo's take, both the team size and salaries are way too big for this size of a project. I believe the project is better suited to apply for a grant via Questbook than a standalone proposal.
Hello, first I’d like to thank you for the continuous work and for addressing the feedback from the delegates.
I find the proposal quite logical and easy to approve, as it should help make Arbitrum and the DAO a more accessible and welcoming place where everything is easy to find. That being said, after reviewing the analytics, I believe we should ask if this is truly worth the cost or what the Arbitrum Hub is lacking, since it’s not delivering particularly impressive numbers. The views and engagement seem quite low for a $250K budget and $40K in retroactive funding.
It's unfortunate you're separating both initiatives as I think merging them would have provided for a significanty more compelling business case around transparency and information dissemination in the DAO.
I recognise the DAO does need a way to monitor and track initiatives. @AlexLumley has been doing some of this work manually and there was a (failed) proposal to automate some of that. If you haven't checked that thread I really recommend it also likely a call with Alex.
The proposal could use some refinement on what exactly will be shown but I generally like it. That being said, the costs seem excessive. For $9,600 a month (research+copywrite) I can get a senior executive, if not full-time at least 4 days a week. It feels like a massive overkill and separating research and copywriter adds coordination costs (like the PM).
ArbitrumHub became a key destination for exploring various grant programs and accepted projects
Do you have any measurable and provable KPIs for this? Like, how many users visited ArbitrumHub in 2024? Can you share some analytics?
If you can show the results I think many more of us would be more inclined to support the proposal.
I support all kinds of efforts to make Arbitrum a better place for builders, and it seems that ArbitrumHub could become one of the tools to do that. However, since you are requesting funds for your effort so far (retro), we need to see some measurable results.
I have been missing any kind of measurable KPIs in the past. How many unique visitors did the website get? Are there other KPIs? Metrics from your socials are nonexistent.
I support all kinds of efforts to make Arbitrum a better place for builders, and it seems that ArbitrumHub could become one of the tools to do that. However, since you are requesting funds for your effort so far (retro), we need to see some measurable results.
I have been missing any kind of measurable KPIs in the past. How many unique visitors did the website get? Are there other KPIs? Metrics from your socials are nonexistent.
From the outside, this seems like a nice-to-have website, but I don't see a significant impact."
This is a big proposal that clearly requires a lot of effort. Thank you for that!
As a recently joined DAO delegate myself (together with a full-time researcher) it can still be overwhelming to keep up to date with all that’s happening in the DAO.
So this proposal could bring stability to Arbitrum and encourage more user participation in the ecosystem.
This is a big proposal that clearly requires a lot of effort. Thank you for that!
As a recently joined DAO delegate myself (together with a full-time researcher) it can still be overwhelming to keep up to date with all that’s happening in the DAO.
So this proposal could bring stability to Arbitrum and encourage more user participation in the ecosystem.
The breakdown into 5 roles makes sense, especially with the reduced minimum hours to optimize costs while still delivering outputs :)
As for the retroactive funding, I’m think it’s right to request funds for work already done before. I understand that developing a large initiative like this takes a huge amount of effort and this could be a breakout initiative for next year, so for now I’ll vote "For with retroactive.”
Happy new year ser! Thank you for your continuous improvements to the proposal. Regardless of the outcome, this attitude of addressing feedback from the DAO deserves respect from everyone.
This latest version of the proposal addresses my primary concern, which was the difference between ArbitrumHub and the Arbitrum Foundation's official website, and it explains the necessity of ArbitrumHub's existence.
Happy new year ser! Thank you for your continuous improvements to the proposal. Regardless of the outcome, this attitude of addressing feedback from the DAO deserves respect from everyone.
This latest version of the proposal addresses my primary concern, which was the difference between ArbitrumHub and the Arbitrum Foundation's official website, and it explains the necessity of ArbitrumHub's existence.
That said, I still have some suggestions for the latest version of the proposal.
First, I believe this project inherently carries a public welfare purpose. The requested funds should primarily be used to sustain future operations rather than compensate for past work. Therefore, I find the $40,000 retrospective funding request to be somewhat unreasonable.
Second, I noticed you’ve set up five positions, but throughout 2024, there has been minimal activity on social media platforms like Twitter. This suggests that ArbitrumHub may lack influence in content operations. So based on our three years of experience running ANDAO, I believe the roles of "research" and "copywriter" would be better combined into a single position.
Finally, regardless of whether this proposal is approved, I hope you will continue operating. For funding, you might consider adopting a donation-based model, similar to ANDAO. If what you’re doing genuinely provides value to developers and users, I believe there will be people willing to support you through donations.
I am voting against this proposal.
First I want to commend @0x_Buidler and his crew on iterating on this project for several months if not almost a year: we need, in Arbitrum, builders like you capable to stick to their personal vision. This is not a statement to just sweeten the pill here, I really mean it. That said, I still have two big issues: the fact this is an isolated initiative for the infra of the dao, and the costs. To report what I posted above for clarity.
I have the strong opinion that the dao should do a more comprehensive plan in this regard: have his own website, his own socials, his own initiative, and also own the infra and the content related to this. This hasn’t happened so far because we lack a legal entity, and we have had the AF that has been a steward in this sense when it was needed. But, hopefully, will change when we have the OpCo.
All to say that I personally can’t currently support this proposal because I think we need an higher level plan from the dao to craft and create infrastructures and content that make sense based on the goals that we have (and for this the SOS proposal from @Entropy, after the vision proposal we just voted, will be able to help as well).
Don’t get me wrong, we need a front end for the dao, even this forum is hosted on the foundation domain. But we are at the point in which we need to own it, and we are also at the point in which we need to collectively establish what content we want in there, and then hire eventually service providers or elect people to create such content. It has to fall into a more strategic plan.
Beside this, I generally speaking agree with the comments on the budget. Without going into the specific details, 19k per month for all of this feels like a lot.
While there was the effort to embed this into the SOS proposal and any future change, I don't honestly think is enough: the website of the DAO will be one of our main front end for communication beside social accounts (assuming we will ever had dao managed ones), and it has to go through a more high level strategic plan. As a secondary point, the budget is still too high for the service provided. I think that for slightly more we could hire directly a marketing team for the dao which would help us filling a gap that we have. This would help not only driving the engagement higher, but also spread the geography (if we see the reporting dashboard with a 6 months horizon, of the 11,000 visit to the website almost half of them come from India, which is neither right or wrong but is likely a byproduct of the founder being based in that geography AFAIK. Which means, to me, that the current reach is mostly tied to personal effort, and we are at a point in which we need to step up the game in several areas.
As a final note, I don't know how the current team could interface themself with the DAO in future, and likely with OpCo going forward, I can't say if with the current terms this project could be for example absorbed by the opco, or the team hired as service provider. I like the work that was done, and I think we should find a way to reward the "stickiness" of a team in the ecosystem, just, not with these economical terms, and not without an higher level plan.
The continued refinement of the proposal from delegate feedback is really appreciated, but I ultimately will have to repeat my basic feedback from the last post (https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-proposal-for-maintenance-and-continuous-enhancement-of-arbitrumhub-to-meet-the-evolving-needs-of-the-arbitrum-ecosystem-and-dao/27667/41?u=bob-rossi).
Basically, I think the cost is too much to justify for this type of website. The reduction in cost is appreciated, but it's still too much. I think this would be best targeted towards a Questbooks type grant, or moving forward with only the retroactive portion of this.
Edit: Editing to save forum space as my opinion has not been changed from discussions below. I believe that the cost is too much, and will be voting "Against".
Thank you, ArbitrumHub, for sharing this refined proposal. We appreciate the effort you’ve invested in incorporating the community’s feedback and updating the proposal with clear KPIs and deliverables.
With that said, this initiative represents a significant undertaking. Maintaining a relevant and useful hub requires high DAO-context and expertise, making the Research role outlined in the budget especially critical. Could you clarify which individuals will be taking on this role and their qualifications? Additionally, what incentives are in place to encourage community members to contribute by submitting GitHub requests to keep the platform up-to-date?
Another concern that we have is with the budget. While we recognize the value of this initiative, we echo others’ sentiments that the requested funding seems quite large. We also believe this initiative may be better suited for funding through donation-based mechanisms, such as Gitcoin rounds or going through the DAO’s Questbook offering.
Thank you again for your hard work!
To echo what others are saying, the budget doesn't make too much sense. $230k to manage a (good) website, a newsletter and socials, for 1 year of service? Plus another $40k retro on top. I'm sorry but is just too much, I know it might sound cynic but if I just look at numbers it really doesn't make too much sense.
We are talking about 320 hours per month, 2 FTE being paid around 9.5k each per month excluding the retro.
Thank you for presenting your proposal for the ArbitrumHub initiative.
We believe ArbitrumHub provides meaningful value to the community by simplifying access to key information for users and builders. A well-organized, centralized platform is vital in fostering greater engagement and adoption. While we agree with previous comments that improvements could be made for it to reflect the ecosystem's growth better, the Hub is already a great resource.
Thank you for presenting your proposal for the ArbitrumHub initiative.
We believe ArbitrumHub provides meaningful value to the community by simplifying access to key information for users and builders. A well-organized, centralized platform is vital in fostering greater engagement and adoption. While we agree with previous comments that improvements could be made for it to reflect the ecosystem's growth better, the Hub is already a great resource.
However, we agree with @JoJo's comment:
The main problem i have is that we have the trend, in the dao, to build all sort of infrastructures (website, bot, dapp etc) that are detached one from another. Even more, we are doing this with no strategic view on top.
To maximize the impact of this initiative, we strongly encourage harmonizing ArbitrumHub with complementary efforts such as events, grants, ARB incentives, and social media campaigns. Coordinating these initiatives under a unified strategy would ensure a more cohesive and effective approach to ecosystem growth.
We also recommend further streamlining this proposal to focus primarily on consistently maintaining the ArbitrumHub website, ensuring it remains up-to-date and inclusive.
Pairing this ArbitrumHub website-focused initiative with others—like the DAO Events Budget for 2025 or the DeFi Renaissance Incentives Program—could amplify its effectiveness. Coordination by a single entity, such as @Entropy, may provide the clarity and leadership needed for streamlined execution and effective communication across initiatives.
Hello and thanks for the proposal.
Want to start by saying that the following opinion is quite personal.
I think the site is quite good, but would also need a lot of fix, partially on the structure and partially on the info (as highlighted by @jameskbh). But this is also ok because you did ran the whole time without funding.
Hello and thanks for the proposal.
Want to start by saying that the following opinion is quite personal.
I think the site is quite good, but would also need a lot of fix, partially on the structure and partially on the info (as highlighted by @jameskbh). But this is also ok because you did ran the whole time without funding.
The main problem i have is that we have the trend, in the dao, to build all sort of infrastructures (website, bot, dapp etc) that are detached one from another. Even more, we are doing this with no strategic view on top.
I have the strong opinion that the dao should do a more comprehensive plan in this regard: have his own website, his own socials, his own initiative, and also own the infra and the content related to this. This hasn't happened so far because we lack a legal entity, and we have had the AF that has been a steward in this sense when it was needed. But, hopefully, will change when we have the OpCo.
All to say that I personally can't currently support this proposal because I think we need an higher level plan from the dao to craft and create infrastructures and content that make sense based on the goals that we have (and for this the SOS proposal from @Entropy, after the vision proposal we just voted, will be able to help as well).
Don't get me wrong, we need a front end for the dao, even this forum is hosted on the foundation domain. But we are at the point in which we need to own it, and we are also at the point in which we need to collectively establish what content we want in there, and then hire eventually service providers or elect people to create such content. It has to fall into a more strategic plan.
Beside this, I generally speaking agree with the comments on the budget. Without going into the specific details, 19k per month for all of this feels like a lot.
We would like to highlight that we have been diligently working on and building this platform over the past year at our own discretion. Given the effort and commitment invested, we believe it is reasonable to seek retroactive compensation for the work completed thus far.
We respectfully request a minimum of $40k USD as retroactive funding for over 10+ months of dedicated work. This request is entirely optional and subject to the discretion of the DAO.
Should the DAO recognize and appreciate our contributions, we would be sincerely grateful. However, if the DAO decides otherwise, we fully understand and respect the decision, acknowledging the dynamics and priorities of the DAO landscape.
“Looking at your budget of roughly $230,000 per year, which also includes $40,000 in retroactive funding, what costing is this based on? Is there any possibility of compressing spending some more during the pilot to focus on core functionality first?” Personally, I think “the retroactive funding part is actually quite sensitive, is there a more detailed timeline and proof of results for the $40K? That way the community will be more receptive and more aware of the value of your previous efforts.” Dude, no offense, just my personal feedback.
To foster continuous improvement and maintain alignment with community/DAO expectations, we have implemented a structured feedback mechanism integrated into our operational processes. This mechanism ensures that insights from users, stakeholders, and the broader community are systematically collected, evaluated, and acted upon.
In addition, “You mentioned that the target audience is different from the Foundation website, but how does this part of the differentiated value show up? Is there a plan to do a more visual comparison, such as the division of specific functional modules?”
Thank you for your proposal and for your work. 2025 my personal feedback on arb's first publication. Overall the proposal feels very detailed, but a few areas could use a little more refinement, such as could the budget be more streamlined? How can the persuasiveness of retroactive funding be strengthened? And how can the value of differentiation from foundations be made more intuitive. Also, I would like to suggest that more community interaction should be organized, such as regular reports on the progress of the platform, so that the community can better feel the value of the platform. Retroactive funding can be an option, but I would suggest that the scope of use and priority should be clearly defined first, for example, for compensating the working hours of key developers to avoid controversy. Happy New Year!
This proposal is much more reliable compared to the previous versions. The direction is clearer, and there are improvements in the details. Specifically, the focus on platform maintenance and optimization, instead of pursuing overly ambitious expansions, is commendable. Additionally, unlike the vague earlier versions, this proposal provides a clear budget, which at least shows how the funds will be spent and where. That’s a significant improvement.
This proposal is much more reliable compared to the previous versions. The direction is clearer, and there are improvements in the details. Specifically, the focus on platform maintenance and optimization, instead of pursuing overly ambitious expansions, is commendable. Additionally, unlike the vague earlier versions, this proposal provides a clear budget, which at least shows how the funds will be spent and where. That’s a significant improvement.
All to say that I personally can’t currently support this proposal because I think we need an higher level plan from the dao to craft and create infrastructures and content that make sense based on the goals that we have (and for this the SOS proposal from @Entropy, after the vision proposal we just voted, will be able to help as well).
However, I believe there’s still a need for a higher level of strategic coordination. I completely agree with @jojo’s point: the DAO needs a more comprehensive plan to design and build truly impactful infrastructure and content aligned with overarching goals. Without this broader perspective, it might be hard to achieve meaningful breakthroughs.
Additionally, the incentive mechanism needs to be reasonable, as it’s crucial for driving improvements and completing the work. Here are my suggestions:
Don’t try to accomplish everything within a year. Start by prioritizing platform content updates and community interaction. Deliver tangible improvements that users can feel, and then gradually expand other features.
Hold regular feedback sessions or community interactions to keep everyone updated on the progress. This not only ensures transparency but also strengthens community support.
Retroactive funding can be released in stages. Begin by evaluating short-term results to confirm that the platform delivers real value, and then allocate further funding based on actual performance. This approach will likely lead to greater community satisfaction with the outcomes.
Thank you for the effort of listening to the community and bringing this version to the table. I've navigated the page and noticed a few areas for improvement.
Arbitrum.hub The blank space for newsletter sign-ups is confusing as the characters, being white (instead of black), blend in with the background. This could reduce the number of sign-ups and, consequently, decrease the weekly newsletter's reach. As a suggestion, the page could have a pop-up for immediate sign-ups. Also, a login on the page could help build a more comprehensive database.
Thank you for the effort of listening to the community and bringing this version to the table. I've navigated the page and noticed a few areas for improvement.
Arbitrum.hub The blank space for newsletter sign-ups is confusing as the characters, being white (instead of black), blend in with the background. This could reduce the number of sign-ups and, consequently, decrease the weekly newsletter's reach. As a suggestion, the page could have a pop-up for immediate sign-ups. Also, a login on the page could help build a more comprehensive database.
Another suggestion is to have a "night mode" option to reduce eye strain. Adding a night mode can subtly enhance the page without losing Arbitrum's identity as the colors would remain cohesive.
The differentiation between "Arbitrum Hub" and "Arbitrum Foundation" is clear and solid. I'm interested in supporting this proposal and could contribute by sharing photos/videos of events we've had in Mexico, communicating initiatives, and distributing various content within the page for the community.
Regarding the breakdown of roles and associated costs, I consider this an improvement in the proposal. However, I find the cost of the Community Manager (copywriting) to be quite excessive.
For now, I support this initiative. I believe the changes that could be made are minimal for the platform to function optimally.
Thanks for this proposal!
My 2 cents here:
I want to start saying that I like the gist of it, and the visuals are really appealing.
The idea of having a hub, or an information aggregator, sounds interesting, and I support it. What does that mean to me? A place where I can easily go to the primary source of information. That saves time and help the data/information/content to be discoverable.
Thanks for this proposal!
My 2 cents here:
I want to start saying that I like the gist of it, and the visuals are really appealing.
The idea of having a hub, or an information aggregator, sounds interesting, and I support it. What does that mean to me? A place where I can easily go to the primary source of information. That saves time and help the data/information/content to be discoverable.
Having a look at this page, it does just that.
When we go to this page, content from the primary source is replicated. While that can provide more context, it introduces another place where the information needs to be updated. And verified for correctness. I don't think this part of the proposal generates value enough to justify the added cost of it.
I understand that we need to present information in a more digestible way, but I believe that gap should be filled with research/marketing pieces around the initiatives themselves instead of inflating a place (the hub) where I would like to go to have quick access to the info that I want.
We're quite skeptical of this proposal as it stands, though haven't particpated in previous rounds of feedback.
First, the current site and seems clearly out of date and missing some recent information like events. You mention this is because of lack of capacity. But then the proposal asks for retroactive payment for almost four full time resources, two mostly focused on producing content. So it would seem the current results are lacking. There was also not mention of the specific outcomes from this work that was beneficial to the DAO with something like more users or activity or builders.
We're quite skeptical of this proposal as it stands, though haven't particpated in previous rounds of feedback.
First, the current site and seems clearly out of date and missing some recent information like events. You mention this is because of lack of capacity. But then the proposal asks for retroactive payment for almost four full time resources, two mostly focused on producing content. So it would seem the current results are lacking. There was also not mention of the specific outcomes from this work that was beneficial to the DAO with something like more users or activity or builders.
We would like to see these in any further proposals before voting yes:
Without these it is hard to know what was accomplished and whether the price is worth it.
Our second point relates to price. A quarter of a million for 4 resources and unclear work done seems widly expensive. We would suggest revisting this number and reducing it if this proposal is to get our support.
We will look forward to further discussion and updates, but as it stands we will vote against this proposal as a further example of being against wasteful spending from the DAO.
We appreciate that you are listening to the community and making efforts to improve the proposal based on the feedback received. That said, we agree with several of the comments already shared.
We recognize the effort you have put in so far, but we see it as an investment in the ArbitrumHub project you are developing, which makes us hesitant to support retrospective funding.
We appreciate that you are listening to the community and making efforts to improve the proposal based on the feedback received. That said, we agree with several of the comments already shared.
We recognize the effort you have put in so far, but we see it as an investment in the ArbitrumHub project you are developing, which makes us hesitant to support retrospective funding.
Given the importance of this platform in fostering ecosystem cohesion and accessibility, we are seeking DAO approval to formalize ArbitrumHub’s role within the ArbitrumDAO structure.
On the other hand, we understand the need for funds to maintain the site. However, would it not be possible to first seek approval from the foundation to formalize ArbitrumHub and then, in the future, request the necessary funding to enhance it?
I agree with @danielo's take, both the team size and salaries are way too big for this size of a project. I believe the project is better suited to apply for a grant via Questbook than a standalone proposal.
Hello, first I’d like to thank you for the continuous work and for addressing the feedback from the delegates.
I find the proposal quite logical and easy to approve, as it should help make Arbitrum and the DAO a more accessible and welcoming place where everything is easy to find. That being said, after reviewing the analytics, I believe we should ask if this is truly worth the cost or what the Arbitrum Hub is lacking, since it’s not delivering particularly impressive numbers. The views and engagement seem quite low for a $250K budget and $40K in retroactive funding.
It's unfortunate you're separating both initiatives as I think merging them would have provided for a significanty more compelling business case around transparency and information dissemination in the DAO.
I recognise the DAO does need a way to monitor and track initiatives. @AlexLumley has been doing some of this work manually and there was a (failed) proposal to automate some of that. If you haven't checked that thread I really recommend it also likely a call with Alex.
The proposal could use some refinement on what exactly will be shown but I generally like it. That being said, the costs seem excessive. For $9,600 a month (research+copywrite) I can get a senior executive, if not full-time at least 4 days a week. It feels like a massive overkill and separating research and copywriter adds coordination costs (like the PM).
ArbitrumHub became a key destination for exploring various grant programs and accepted projects
Do you have any measurable and provable KPIs for this? Like, how many users visited ArbitrumHub in 2024? Can you share some analytics?
If you can show the results I think many more of us would be more inclined to support the proposal.
I support all kinds of efforts to make Arbitrum a better place for builders, and it seems that ArbitrumHub could become one of the tools to do that. However, since you are requesting funds for your effort so far (retro), we need to see some measurable results.
I have been missing any kind of measurable KPIs in the past. How many unique visitors did the website get? Are there other KPIs? Metrics from your socials are nonexistent.
I support all kinds of efforts to make Arbitrum a better place for builders, and it seems that ArbitrumHub could become one of the tools to do that. However, since you are requesting funds for your effort so far (retro), we need to see some measurable results.
I have been missing any kind of measurable KPIs in the past. How many unique visitors did the website get? Are there other KPIs? Metrics from your socials are nonexistent.
From the outside, this seems like a nice-to-have website, but I don't see a significant impact."
This is a big proposal that clearly requires a lot of effort. Thank you for that!
As a recently joined DAO delegate myself (together with a full-time researcher) it can still be overwhelming to keep up to date with all that’s happening in the DAO.
So this proposal could bring stability to Arbitrum and encourage more user participation in the ecosystem.
This is a big proposal that clearly requires a lot of effort. Thank you for that!
As a recently joined DAO delegate myself (together with a full-time researcher) it can still be overwhelming to keep up to date with all that’s happening in the DAO.
So this proposal could bring stability to Arbitrum and encourage more user participation in the ecosystem.
The breakdown into 5 roles makes sense, especially with the reduced minimum hours to optimize costs while still delivering outputs :)
As for the retroactive funding, I’m think it’s right to request funds for work already done before. I understand that developing a large initiative like this takes a huge amount of effort and this could be a breakout initiative for next year, so for now I’ll vote "For with retroactive.”
Happy new year ser! Thank you for your continuous improvements to the proposal. Regardless of the outcome, this attitude of addressing feedback from the DAO deserves respect from everyone.
This latest version of the proposal addresses my primary concern, which was the difference between ArbitrumHub and the Arbitrum Foundation's official website, and it explains the necessity of ArbitrumHub's existence.
Happy new year ser! Thank you for your continuous improvements to the proposal. Regardless of the outcome, this attitude of addressing feedback from the DAO deserves respect from everyone.
This latest version of the proposal addresses my primary concern, which was the difference between ArbitrumHub and the Arbitrum Foundation's official website, and it explains the necessity of ArbitrumHub's existence.
That said, I still have some suggestions for the latest version of the proposal.
First, I believe this project inherently carries a public welfare purpose. The requested funds should primarily be used to sustain future operations rather than compensate for past work. Therefore, I find the $40,000 retrospective funding request to be somewhat unreasonable.
Second, I noticed you’ve set up five positions, but throughout 2024, there has been minimal activity on social media platforms like Twitter. This suggests that ArbitrumHub may lack influence in content operations. So based on our three years of experience running ANDAO, I believe the roles of "research" and "copywriter" would be better combined into a single position.
Finally, regardless of whether this proposal is approved, I hope you will continue operating. For funding, you might consider adopting a donation-based model, similar to ANDAO. If what you’re doing genuinely provides value to developers and users, I believe there will be people willing to support you through donations.
Hello, first I’d like to thank you for the continuous work and for addressing the feedback from the delegates.
I find the proposal quite logical and easy to approve, as it should help make Arbitrum and the DAO a more accessible and welcoming place where everything is easy to find. That being said, after reviewing the analytics, I believe we should ask if this is truly worth the cost or what the Arbitrum Hub is lacking, since it’s not delivering particularly impressive numbers. The views and engagement seem quite low for a $250K budget and $40K in retroactive funding.
At the moment, I am inclined to vote against it, as it feels more like an expensive webpage than a valuable resource that is generating significant buzz or attracting a lot of people to Arbitrum.
I would like to see this project grow into something bigger, but I suggest starting with a lower budget and demonstrating the need for more funds over time. To be clear, I will support the proposal if the budget is lowered for this year and it proves it needs more funding next year.
I recognise the DAO does need a way to monitor and track initiatives. @AlexLumley has been doing some of this work manually and there was a (failed) proposal to automate some of that. If you haven't checked that thread I really recommend it also likely a call with Alex.
The proposal could use some refinement on what exactly will be shown but I generally like it. That being said, the costs seem excessive. For $9,600 a month (research+copywrite) I can get a senior executive, if not full-time at least 4 days a week. It feels like a massive overkill and separating research and copywriter adds coordination costs (like the PM).
I see the job needed closer to maybe 1-2 days a week of a medium-level person to write some social content and a weekly newsletter, with a template design that doesn't really need updating. Or what am I missing?
Hello, first I’d like to thank you for the continuous work and for addressing the feedback from the delegates.
I find the proposal quite logical and easy to approve, as it should help make Arbitrum and the DAO a more accessible and welcoming place where everything is easy to find. That being said, after reviewing the analytics, I believe we should ask if this is truly worth the cost or what the Arbitrum Hub is lacking, since it’s not delivering particularly impressive numbers. The views and engagement seem quite low for a $250K budget and $40K in retroactive funding.
At the moment, I am inclined to vote against it, as it feels more like an expensive webpage than a valuable resource that is generating significant buzz or attracting a lot of people to Arbitrum.
I would like to see this project grow into something bigger, but I suggest starting with a lower budget and demonstrating the need for more funds over time. To be clear, I will support the proposal if the budget is lowered for this year and it proves it needs more funding next year.
I recognise the DAO does need a way to monitor and track initiatives. @AlexLumley has been doing some of this work manually and there was a (failed) proposal to automate some of that. If you haven't checked that thread I really recommend it also likely a call with Alex.
The proposal could use some refinement on what exactly will be shown but I generally like it. That being said, the costs seem excessive. For $9,600 a month (research+copywrite) I can get a senior executive, if not full-time at least 4 days a week. It feels like a massive overkill and separating research and copywriter adds coordination costs (like the PM).
I see the job needed closer to maybe 1-2 days a week of a medium-level person to write some social content and a weekly newsletter, with a template design that doesn't really need updating. Or what am I missing?
