Brief background: This proposal has been created initially for the Arbitrum GovHack Brussels and was selected as one of the finalists. This version is an updated version, especially making sure that this proposal is understood as a start to have more usage analytics around Orbit chains, and that the future process of data collection and onboarding of chains is streamlined, and constantly iterated on to make the listings cheaper and more affordable/sustainable for upcoming (and potentially smaller, more niche) Orbit chains.
We want to increase the transparency into the Orbit stack by aggregating important metrics on a chain level so that users, builders, and DAO members can make better data-driven decisions, including what revenue an Orbit chain generates. This allows to plan much better, for example around an Orbit liquidity plan or other discussions around Orbit chains and their current/future support, or even retroactive programs (through better historic and comparable data points).
There is high likelyhood that the DAO will want to run an incentive program for Orbit Chains in the future. By having the data ready to go, we can avoid having a short-term program proposal which bootstraps data gathering. A 2% (low estimate) productivity increase on $50 million would have been $1 million. This proposal can likely pay for itself!
It will be in the form of a dedicated Arbitrum Orbit Stack page on growthepie.xyz having 20 chains listed with standardized metrics for each chain as well as an aggregated fundamental metrics view for the whole stack.
So far, there is no go-to place that provides an overview of Arbitrum Orbit. Standardized metrics allow a better idea of the performance and outlook of each chain being part of the Arbitrum Orbit. This results in greater transparency for all chains regarding their activity and how the usage of one chain compares to another.
Users can use this information to gather a quick overview of the Orbit ecosystem. Builders can use the different metrics to better track adoption, and DAO members can make more data-driven decisions on future initiatives (e.g., Orbit retrospective funding based on onchain contribution to the DAO).
Also, visibility for the overall Arbitrum Orbit stack is increased, and the whole Ethereum ecosystem can see what is going on in the Arbitrum ecosystem - where to be and interact, build, or allocate funding towards. Additionally, for DAO members and delegates, revenue and cost metrics provide future insight into how the Orbit approach should be developed to make it profitable for the DAO as well (includes more transparency into how much Orbit chains are paying to Arbitrum One).
This proposal is meant as a start for a long-term partnership to provide listing of Orbit chains long-term and on a recurring basis on growthepie. After the listing of the first setup and 20 initial chains, we would like to follow up with another AIP to enable listing of the 21st+ chain.
growthepie is an entirely public goods funded analytics platform for Ethereum scaling solutions. The AIP aligns closely with Arbitrum community’s mission and guiding values. At growthepie, Ethereum alignment is at the core of our existence, ensuring that our efforts contribute to the broader Ethereum ecosystem.
We aim to enhance transparency, enabling data-driven decisions that are crucial for tracking outcomes and improving strategic decisions. All our code is open-source, allowing anyone to review and verify our metric logic. This openness fosters trust and ensures the integrity of our platform. We prioritize inclusivity by offering our platform and API completely free of charge, ensuring maximum accessibility for all users.
Our user-focused design philosophy centers on the needs of our diverse audience, making data easy to digest and actionable for all users. We uphold the values of neutrality and openness as we believe in the power of data to increase transparency and objectivity. All information on our platform is freely available, reinforcing our commitment to these principles.
growthepie has proven to be a platform for people wanting to understand the overall health, activity, and usage across the Ethereum scaling solutions ecosystem. Arbitrum One was listed as one of the first 5 chains from the beginning. Since then, Arbitrum members have used the platform to compare Arbitrum One with other Layer 2s, and we have provided reliable data and visualizations for Arbitrum’s community. Marketing has also used our charts to provide data-driven insights into the ecosystem and how Arbitrum One is growing, giving it more credibility.
Building on this, the Arbitrum Orbit should be given a dedicated place on growthepie with 20 chains listed in the beginning. This allows us to provide a mostly complete overview of the whole Arbitrum stack. This proposal is aimed at the start of a longer partnership. Hence, as part of this proposal, we will design and set up the initial pages and backend needed to onboard Orbit chains, aggregate fundamental metrics, and especially revenue metrics for each chain.
Which Orbit chains will be considered among the 20 chains as part of this proposal? Every chain that is above $1 million TVL (Total Value Locked) at time of the listing decision, will be eligible to be listed as part of this proposal. Every chain that is below at the start of the listing process will not be considered. In case a chain falls below $1 million TVL in the future (after the listing decision had been made), the chain will stay on growthepie, however. The chain will not be delisted and available data will be presented as long as no official announcement by the chain's team has been made that the chain will be shut down.
Each Orbit chain – as Arbitrum One and any other chain listed on growthepie – will have their own set of metrics (in the categories activity, value locked, economics, and convenience) and their own single chain page. Additionally, each chain will appear on each fundamental metrics page for which the specific metric is available.
Stack view for an aggregated Arbitrum Orbit view On top of that, we will introduce a Stack view (new page) that provides a complete overview of the whole stack aggregated. This will be on a dedicated page which will enable users, builders, and DAO members solely interested in the Orbit to go to this place and learn more. See the prototype which includes:
This set of views will make it possible to easily get an overview and see the growth of the whole Orbit ecosystem but also to compare certain Orbit chains against each other (or against other Layer 2s from other ecosystems).
[grid]
[/grid]
Timeframe starting from the date of DAO proposal approval and weeks/months add up to each other. Total duration ~ 5 months. Chain listing time is also dependent on potential collaboration with an indexing provider and their speed of chain indexing.
| Step | Resources (hrs) | Costs (in ARB) | Timeframes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design and implement general platform UX adjustments on growthepie.xyz (more chains mean restructuring of UI elements and different filter logic) | Design - 20, Frontend - 40 | $10,350.00 USD | 3 weeks |
| Design and implementing frontend views: Orbit specific stack view, Single chain view (for each Orbit chain), Fundamentals view (to compare Orbit chains) | Design – 15, Frontend – 50 | $11,200.00 USD | 3 weeks |
| Streamline listing process | Frontend – 10, Backend - 15 | $4,350.00 USD | 2 weeks |
| Data infra setup (RPCs, database execution) and Frontend hosting costs | Backend – 30 | $5,175.00 USD | 2 weeks |
| Metric aggregation & Logic: Activity (Transaction Count, Active Addresses – daily and monthly), Value locked (Stablecoin Market Cap, Total Value Locked), Economics (Revenue, Costs, Onchain Profit), plus Market Cap and Fully Diluted Valuation where applicable, Convenience metrics: Transaction Costs (median 1-day aggregation), DAO Contributions (how much back to ARB) | Research - 20, Backend - 40 | $10,350.00 USD | 2 weeks |
| Listing first 10 Orbit chains (above $1 million TVL) and maintaining frontend + data pipeline for 1 year | Design – 10, Research – 40, Backend – 80, Frontend – 20, Infra - fixed | $84,375.00 USD | 2 months |
| Listing 10 more Orbit chains (above $1 million TVL) and maintaining frontend + data pipeline for 1 year (20 total) | Design – 10, Research – 40, Backend – 80, Frontend – 20, Infra - fixed | $84,375.00 USD | 2 months |
The following cost are denominated in USD. The exact ARB amount will be determined closer to the onchain proposal date to reflect the US dollar ask.
Fix setup costs ($41,425.00 USD):
Initial chain listings (20 Orbit chains in total) and maintenance for 1 year ($168,750.00 USD):
Requirement: Arbitrum Foundation provides indexed data. If not, an additional cost for indexing will be added ($3,750.00 USD per chain)
Recurring costs also cover:
Total Costs: $210,175.00 USD
This proposal has been initiated during the Arbitrum GovHack Brussels 2024 for:
How might we help Arbitrum users, builders, and DAO members to make Orbit metrics available in an easy-to-digest manner so that DAO processes can be improved and builders can get an ecosystem overview resulting in more data-driven decisions and transparent processes?
growthepie team members:
Tobias Schreier, Matthias Seidl, plus growthepie team for implementation: Manish Gupta, Lorenz Lehmann, Ahoura Azarbin, Nader Bennour, Michael May, ETH Wave More on our contributors page: growthepie Contributors
Team Lead:
Tobias Schreier (TG: @tobschcom)
Links:
Brief background: This proposal has been created initially for the Arbitrum GovHack Brussels and was selected as one of the finalists. This version is an updated version, especially making sure that this proposal is understood as a start to have more usage analytics around Orbit chains, and that the future process of data collection and onboarding of chains is streamlined, and constantly iterated on to make the listings cheaper and more affordable/sustainable for upcoming (and potentially smaller, more niche) Orbit chains.
We want to increase the transparency into the Orbit stack by aggregating important metrics on a chain level so that users, builders, and DAO members can make better data-driven decisions, including what revenue an Orbit chain generates. This allows to plan much better, for example around an Orbit liquidity plan or other discussions around Orbit chains and their current/future support, or even retroactive programs (through better historic and comparable data points).
There is high likelyhood that the DAO will want to run an incentive program for Orbit Chains in the future. By having the data ready to go, we can avoid having a short-term program proposal which bootstraps data gathering. A 2% (low estimate) productivity increase on $50 million would have been $1 million. This proposal can likely pay for itself!
It will be in the form of a dedicated Arbitrum Orbit Stack page on growthepie.xyz having 20 chains listed with standardized metrics for each chain as well as an aggregated fundamental metrics view for the whole stack.
So far, there is no go-to place that provides an overview of Arbitrum Orbit. Standardized metrics allow a better idea of the performance and outlook of each chain being part of the Arbitrum Orbit. This results in greater transparency for all chains regarding their activity and how the usage of one chain compares to another.
Users can use this information to gather a quick overview of the Orbit ecosystem. Builders can use the different metrics to better track adoption, and DAO members can make more data-driven decisions on future initiatives (e.g., Orbit retrospective funding based on onchain contribution to the DAO).
Also, visibility for the overall Arbitrum Orbit stack is increased, and the whole Ethereum ecosystem can see what is going on in the Arbitrum ecosystem - where to be and interact, build, or allocate funding towards. Additionally, for DAO members and delegates, revenue and cost metrics provide future insight into how the Orbit approach should be developed to make it profitable for the DAO as well (includes more transparency into how much Orbit chains are paying to Arbitrum One).
This proposal is meant as a start for a long-term partnership to provide listing of Orbit chains long-term and on a recurring basis on growthepie. After the listing of the first setup and 20 initial chains, we would like to follow up with another AIP to enable listing of the 21st+ chain.
growthepie is an entirely public goods funded analytics platform for Ethereum scaling solutions. The AIP aligns closely with Arbitrum community’s mission and guiding values. At growthepie, Ethereum alignment is at the core of our existence, ensuring that our efforts contribute to the broader Ethereum ecosystem.
We aim to enhance transparency, enabling data-driven decisions that are crucial for tracking outcomes and improving strategic decisions. All our code is open-source, allowing anyone to review and verify our metric logic. This openness fosters trust and ensures the integrity of our platform. We prioritize inclusivity by offering our platform and API completely free of charge, ensuring maximum accessibility for all users.
Our user-focused design philosophy centers on the needs of our diverse audience, making data easy to digest and actionable for all users. We uphold the values of neutrality and openness as we believe in the power of data to increase transparency and objectivity. All information on our platform is freely available, reinforcing our commitment to these principles.
growthepie has proven to be a platform for people wanting to understand the overall health, activity, and usage across the Ethereum scaling solutions ecosystem. Arbitrum One was listed as one of the first 5 chains from the beginning. Since then, Arbitrum members have used the platform to compare Arbitrum One with other Layer 2s, and we have provided reliable data and visualizations for Arbitrum’s community. Marketing has also used our charts to provide data-driven insights into the ecosystem and how Arbitrum One is growing, giving it more credibility.
Building on this, the Arbitrum Orbit should be given a dedicated place on growthepie with 20 chains listed in the beginning. This allows us to provide a mostly complete overview of the whole Arbitrum stack. This proposal is aimed at the start of a longer partnership. Hence, as part of this proposal, we will design and set up the initial pages and backend needed to onboard Orbit chains, aggregate fundamental metrics, and especially revenue metrics for each chain.
Which Orbit chains will be considered among the 20 chains as part of this proposal? Every chain that is above $1 million TVL (Total Value Locked) at time of the listing decision, will be eligible to be listed as part of this proposal. Every chain that is below at the start of the listing process will not be considered. In case a chain falls below $1 million TVL in the future (after the listing decision had been made), the chain will stay on growthepie, however. The chain will not be delisted and available data will be presented as long as no official announcement by the chain's team has been made that the chain will be shut down.
Each Orbit chain – as Arbitrum One and any other chain listed on growthepie – will have their own set of metrics (in the categories activity, value locked, economics, and convenience) and their own single chain page. Additionally, each chain will appear on each fundamental metrics page for which the specific metric is available.
Stack view for an aggregated Arbitrum Orbit view On top of that, we will introduce a Stack view (new page) that provides a complete overview of the whole stack aggregated. This will be on a dedicated page which will enable users, builders, and DAO members solely interested in the Orbit to go to this place and learn more. See the prototype which includes:
This set of views will make it possible to easily get an overview and see the growth of the whole Orbit ecosystem but also to compare certain Orbit chains against each other (or against other Layer 2s from other ecosystems).
[grid]
[/grid]
Timeframe starting from the date of DAO proposal approval and weeks/months add up to each other. Total duration ~ 5 months. Chain listing time is also dependent on potential collaboration with an indexing provider and their speed of chain indexing.
| Step | Resources (hrs) | Costs (in ARB) | Timeframes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design and implement general platform UX adjustments on growthepie.xyz (more chains mean restructuring of UI elements and different filter logic) | Design - 20, Frontend - 40 | $10,350.00 USD | 3 weeks |
| Design and implementing frontend views: Orbit specific stack view, Single chain view (for each Orbit chain), Fundamentals view (to compare Orbit chains) | Design – 15, Frontend – 50 | $11,200.00 USD | 3 weeks |
| Streamline listing process | Frontend – 10, Backend - 15 | $4,350.00 USD | 2 weeks |
| Data infra setup (RPCs, database execution) and Frontend hosting costs | Backend – 30 | $5,175.00 USD | 2 weeks |
| Metric aggregation & Logic: Activity (Transaction Count, Active Addresses – daily and monthly), Value locked (Stablecoin Market Cap, Total Value Locked), Economics (Revenue, Costs, Onchain Profit), plus Market Cap and Fully Diluted Valuation where applicable, Convenience metrics: Transaction Costs (median 1-day aggregation), DAO Contributions (how much back to ARB) | Research - 20, Backend - 40 | $10,350.00 USD | 2 weeks |
| Listing first 10 Orbit chains (above $1 million TVL) and maintaining frontend + data pipeline for 1 year | Design – 10, Research – 40, Backend – 80, Frontend – 20, Infra - fixed | $84,375.00 USD | 2 months |
| Listing 10 more Orbit chains (above $1 million TVL) and maintaining frontend + data pipeline for 1 year (20 total) | Design – 10, Research – 40, Backend – 80, Frontend – 20, Infra - fixed | $84,375.00 USD | 2 months |
The following cost are denominated in USD. The exact ARB amount will be determined closer to the onchain proposal date to reflect the US dollar ask.
Fix setup costs ($41,425.00 USD):
Initial chain listings (20 Orbit chains in total) and maintenance for 1 year ($168,750.00 USD):
Requirement: Arbitrum Foundation provides indexed data. If not, an additional cost for indexing will be added ($3,750.00 USD per chain)
Recurring costs also cover:
Total Costs: $210,175.00 USD
This proposal has been initiated during the Arbitrum GovHack Brussels 2024 for:
How might we help Arbitrum users, builders, and DAO members to make Orbit metrics available in an easy-to-digest manner so that DAO processes can be improved and builders can get an ecosystem overview resulting in more data-driven decisions and transparent processes?
growthepie team members:
Tobias Schreier, Matthias Seidl, plus growthepie team for implementation: Manish Gupta, Lorenz Lehmann, Ahoura Azarbin, Nader Bennour, Michael May, ETH Wave More on our contributors page: growthepie Contributors
Team Lead:
Tobias Schreier (TG: @tobschcom)
Links:
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-transparency-and-standardized-metrics-for-orbit-chains-on-growthepie-xyz-allowing-dat
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-transparency-and-standardized-metrics-for-orbit-chains-on-growthepie-xyz-allowing-dat
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-transparency-and-standardized-metrics-for-orbit-chains-on-growthepie-xyz-allowing-dat
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/3?u=alexlumley
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-transparency-and-standardized-metrics-for-orbit-chains-on-growthepie-xyz-allowing-dat
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-transparency-and-standardized-metrics-for-orbit-chains-on-growthepie-xyz-allowing-dat
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/19?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tane-delegate-communication-thread/23585/17?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-transparency-and-standardized-metrics-for-orbit-chains-on-growthepie-xyz-allowing-dat
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tekr0x-eth-delegate-communication-thread/24804/3?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-transparency-and-standardized-metrics-for-orbit-chains-on-growthepie-xyz-allowing-dat
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-transparency-and-standardized-metrics-for-orbit-chains-on-growthepie-xyz-allowing-dat
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-transparency-and-standardized-metrics-for-orbit-chains-on-growthepie-xyz-allowing-dat
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-transparency-and-standardized-metrics-for-orbit-chains-on-growthepie-xyz-allowing-dat
support，By introducing clearer standards and transparency measures, it will enhance community trust and ensure fair and effective governance
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-transparency-and-standardized-metrics-for-orbit-chains-on-growthepie-xyz-allowing-dat
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/3?u=alexlumley
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-transparency-and-standardized-metrics-for-orbit-chains-on-growthepie-xyz-allowing-dat
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-transparency-and-standardized-metrics-for-orbit-chains-on-growthepie-xyz-allowing-dat
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/19?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tane-delegate-communication-thread/23585/17?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-transparency-and-standardized-metrics-for-orbit-chains-on-growthepie-xyz-allowing-dat
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tekr0x-eth-delegate-communication-thread/24804/3?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-transparency-and-standardized-metrics-for-orbit-chains-on-growthepie-xyz-allowing-dat
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-transparency-and-standardized-metrics-for-orbit-chains-on-growthepie-xyz-allowing-dat
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-transparency-and-standardized-metrics-for-orbit-chains-on-growthepie-xyz-allowing-dat
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-transparency-and-standardized-metrics-for-orbit-chains-on-growthepie-xyz-allowing-dat
support，By introducing clearer standards and transparency measures, it will enhance community trust and ensure fair and effective governance
Hello @everyone,
thanks for the discussion in this forum post. Although it is unfortunate that the proposal has not gained a majority vote for it on Snapshot, we appreciate anyone who shared feedback backing up their decision to vote for or against it.
Hello @everyone,
thanks for the discussion in this forum post. Although it is unfortunate that the proposal has not gained a majority vote for it on Snapshot, we appreciate anyone who shared feedback backing up their decision to vote for or against it.
This was also a great learning opportunity how this DAO functions and we had already decided to also engage more in Governance, which we find important to further decentralise decision-making and bring in our expertise on various scaling solutions.
We look forward for potential future collaborations in the Arbitrum ecosystem and what we can do to further highlight the needs for more transparency for everyone, and giving transparency and understanding to not just the few that have internal data analysts/experts anyways.
Hence we will evaluate next steps in terms of the Arbitrum Orbit.
hey @everyone, a friendly reminder that we are offering our AMA today at 3pm UTC. It would be great to have you join in case you have any open questions or if anything seems unclear.
You can find it on the Governance Community calendar here or directly using this Google Meet link: https://meet.google.com/bvn-yrqd-ffv
Hope to see you there 😊
It seems that there is a misunderstanding. What @davidgarcia described only makes things easier for data platforms like ours (and would make it accessible to other providers with a different focus), because there would be an indexing provider that is reliably in place.
In our case, we would have some cost reductions because the data would be readily accessible for us to take and then aggregate metrics, etc. We can then provide your end users, builders and DAO members to actually read and understand the data through visualisations. Also, these aggregations would be available for everyone to take through our API and make their own analysis if someone wants to make correlations, go deeper, combine it with a different data set, etc.
Hello @everyone,
thanks for the discussion in this forum post. Although it is unfortunate that the proposal has not gained a majority vote for it on Snapshot, we appreciate anyone who shared feedback backing up their decision to vote for or against it.
Hello @everyone,
thanks for the discussion in this forum post. Although it is unfortunate that the proposal has not gained a majority vote for it on Snapshot, we appreciate anyone who shared feedback backing up their decision to vote for or against it.
This was also a great learning opportunity how this DAO functions and we had already decided to also engage more in Governance, which we find important to further decentralise decision-making and bring in our expertise on various scaling solutions.
We look forward for potential future collaborations in the Arbitrum ecosystem and what we can do to further highlight the needs for more transparency for everyone, and giving transparency and understanding to not just the few that have internal data analysts/experts anyways.
Hence we will evaluate next steps in terms of the Arbitrum Orbit.
hey @everyone, a friendly reminder that we are offering our AMA today at 3pm UTC. It would be great to have you join in case you have any open questions or if anything seems unclear.
You can find it on the Governance Community calendar here or directly using this Google Meet link: https://meet.google.com/bvn-yrqd-ffv
Hope to see you there 😊
It seems that there is a misunderstanding. What @davidgarcia described only makes things easier for data platforms like ours (and would make it accessible to other providers with a different focus), because there would be an indexing provider that is reliably in place.
In our case, we would have some cost reductions because the data would be readily accessible for us to take and then aggregate metrics, etc. We can then provide your end users, builders and DAO members to actually read and understand the data through visualisations. Also, these aggregations would be available for everyone to take through our API and make their own analysis if someone wants to make correlations, go deeper, combine it with a different data set, etc.
hey @pedrob - the limit of 20 Orbit chains is necessary from our end because we cannot guarantee an endless amount of chains (it would be impossible for us to determine the infra need). We can assure you though that we don't want to conclude the contract as quickly as possible. As written above and also mentioned on the governance call yesterday, we are planning on implementing @swmartin idea of the $1M TVL threshold for this - so that the "top" 20 chains will be listed.
Hope this info helps!
Thanks @Frisson, @SEEDGov and @0x_ultra for your support and sharing your rationale openly.
Apart from what you all mentioned above, I would also remind everyone of the marketing potential as well, for the whole Orbit stack and each and every Orbit chain individually. growthepie is one place where they can differentiate themselves more clearly and show their value proposition. End users, builders as well as media outlets like podcasters (The Daily Gwei, Milk Road etc.) and sites like TheBlock, Decrypt, etc. use growthepie to see and highlight developments in the scaling space as well as individual chains. Most recently done by Blockworks, for example: https://blockworks.co/news/zora-uniswap-onchain-nft-secondary-market
Thanks @Frisson, @SEEDGov and @0x_ultra for your support and sharing your rationale openly.
Apart from what you all mentioned above, I would also remind everyone of the marketing potential as well, for the whole Orbit stack and each and every Orbit chain individually. growthepie is one place where they can differentiate themselves more clearly and show their value proposition. End users, builders as well as media outlets like podcasters (The Daily Gwei, Milk Road etc.) and sites like TheBlock, Decrypt, etc. use growthepie to see and highlight developments in the scaling space as well as individual chains. Most recently done by Blockworks, for example: https://blockworks.co/news/zora-uniswap-onchain-nft-secondary-market
We also decided to host a 30 minute call on Thursday at 3pm UTC. You can find it on the Governance Community calendar here or directly using this Google Meet link: https://meet.google.com/bvn-yrqd-ffv
Thanks for the comments and open discussion @everyone 🙏🏼
Hey everyone, Matthias here from growthepie!
I want to extend my sincere appreciation for all the thoughtful comments shared. Please know that we’re taking each one seriously and are actively working to find solutions, as well as improve how we communicate why we believe this initiative will be a net positive for the DAO.
Hey everyone, Matthias here from growthepie!
I want to extend my sincere appreciation for all the thoughtful comments shared. Please know that we’re taking each one seriously and are actively working to find solutions, as well as improve how we communicate why we believe this initiative will be a net positive for the DAO.
The topic of costs has come up multiple times, and we understand the concerns. It’s great to see @cp0x recognize that these costs are reasonable, but we also acknowledge the differing perspectives. From a data standpoint, we anticipate being able to reduce costs after the first year as we automate more processes and apply our learnings from the Orbits ecosystem. So, the $10k/year mentioned will certainly decrease over time.
In addition to our data tasks, we’re heavily focused on frontend development and external communication. Currently, only about 40% of our team is dedicated to data and backend tasks, while the rest is committed to ensuring seamless UX, fostering collaborations, and maintaining active communication across various social platforms. Although this work often goes unnoticed, it significantly benefits the Arbitrum DAO by making relevant data easily accessible, especially for chain and application developers, without requiring much effort on their part.
I also want to briefly address the question raised by @gauntlet about whether data presentation should be managed more by the Arbitrum Foundation versus third-party providers like us. This is a strategic question that, due to our inherent conflict of interest, we’re not in a position to definitively answer for the DAO. However, I’d like to share our perspective as impartially as possible (though please keep in mind our bias):
In the crypto space, neutral representation of data is crucial. While we’re not suggesting that any solution developed by the Foundation would lack neutrality, our experience has shown that users value platforms like ours for our unbiased reporting on the data and developments across various chains. It was also mentioned that data providers, including us, are willing to build dashboards independently. While this is true, it’s important to note that this may not be a sustainable model. So far, we’ve extracted and stored nearly 1 billion Arbitrum One transactions (https://www.growthepie.xyz/chains/arbitrum), labeled over 12,000 contracts on Arbitrum One (https://labels.growthepie.xyz/), enhanced transparency in real-time TPS and fees metrics (https://fees.growthepie.xyz/), and published hundreds of posts about Arbitrum across various social networks—all without requesting any contributions from the DAO. We’ve been able to maintain this credible, neutral approach thanks to initial funding from the Ethereum Foundation. Moving forward, we hope to continue on this path in partnership with the Arbitrum DAO.
We believe that the Orbit proposal represents a strong first step toward closer collaboration with the Arbitrum DAO. Together, we can better serve the builders in the Arbitrum ecosystem and enhance transparency around the underlying data.
GM @maxlomu!
This is $10k/year, hence a recurring cost. The indexing provider definitely helps because we can be sure that the data is also available, however, each data platform also has to do their own aggregations, save data in their database, etc. which means infrastructure and maintenance cost. However, as stated above, we try to make this cheaper once the chains are better known (for example, depending on TPS), so I would assume this will become cheaper in the long run.
hey @pedrob - the limit of 20 Orbit chains is necessary from our end because we cannot guarantee an endless amount of chains (it would be impossible for us to determine the infra need). We can assure you though that we don't want to conclude the contract as quickly as possible. As written above and also mentioned on the governance call yesterday, we are planning on implementing @swmartin idea of the $1M TVL threshold for this - so that the "top" 20 chains will be listed.
Hope this info helps!
Thanks @Frisson, @SEEDGov and @0x_ultra for your support and sharing your rationale openly.
Apart from what you all mentioned above, I would also remind everyone of the marketing potential as well, for the whole Orbit stack and each and every Orbit chain individually. growthepie is one place where they can differentiate themselves more clearly and show their value proposition. End users, builders as well as media outlets like podcasters (The Daily Gwei, Milk Road etc.) and sites like TheBlock, Decrypt, etc. use growthepie to see and highlight developments in the scaling space as well as individual chains. Most recently done by Blockworks, for example: https://blockworks.co/news/zora-uniswap-onchain-nft-secondary-market
Thanks @Frisson, @SEEDGov and @0x_ultra for your support and sharing your rationale openly.
Apart from what you all mentioned above, I would also remind everyone of the marketing potential as well, for the whole Orbit stack and each and every Orbit chain individually. growthepie is one place where they can differentiate themselves more clearly and show their value proposition. End users, builders as well as media outlets like podcasters (The Daily Gwei, Milk Road etc.) and sites like TheBlock, Decrypt, etc. use growthepie to see and highlight developments in the scaling space as well as individual chains. Most recently done by Blockworks, for example: https://blockworks.co/news/zora-uniswap-onchain-nft-secondary-market
We also decided to host a 30 minute call on Thursday at 3pm UTC. You can find it on the Governance Community calendar here or directly using this Google Meet link: https://meet.google.com/bvn-yrqd-ffv
Thanks for the comments and open discussion @everyone 🙏🏼
Hey everyone, Matthias here from growthepie!
I want to extend my sincere appreciation for all the thoughtful comments shared. Please know that we’re taking each one seriously and are actively working to find solutions, as well as improve how we communicate why we believe this initiative will be a net positive for the DAO.
Hey everyone, Matthias here from growthepie!
I want to extend my sincere appreciation for all the thoughtful comments shared. Please know that we’re taking each one seriously and are actively working to find solutions, as well as improve how we communicate why we believe this initiative will be a net positive for the DAO.
The topic of costs has come up multiple times, and we understand the concerns. It’s great to see @cp0x recognize that these costs are reasonable, but we also acknowledge the differing perspectives. From a data standpoint, we anticipate being able to reduce costs after the first year as we automate more processes and apply our learnings from the Orbits ecosystem. So, the $10k/year mentioned will certainly decrease over time.
In addition to our data tasks, we’re heavily focused on frontend development and external communication. Currently, only about 40% of our team is dedicated to data and backend tasks, while the rest is committed to ensuring seamless UX, fostering collaborations, and maintaining active communication across various social platforms. Although this work often goes unnoticed, it significantly benefits the Arbitrum DAO by making relevant data easily accessible, especially for chain and application developers, without requiring much effort on their part.
I also want to briefly address the question raised by @gauntlet about whether data presentation should be managed more by the Arbitrum Foundation versus third-party providers like us. This is a strategic question that, due to our inherent conflict of interest, we’re not in a position to definitively answer for the DAO. However, I’d like to share our perspective as impartially as possible (though please keep in mind our bias):
In the crypto space, neutral representation of data is crucial. While we’re not suggesting that any solution developed by the Foundation would lack neutrality, our experience has shown that users value platforms like ours for our unbiased reporting on the data and developments across various chains. It was also mentioned that data providers, including us, are willing to build dashboards independently. While this is true, it’s important to note that this may not be a sustainable model. So far, we’ve extracted and stored nearly 1 billion Arbitrum One transactions (https://www.growthepie.xyz/chains/arbitrum), labeled over 12,000 contracts on Arbitrum One (https://labels.growthepie.xyz/), enhanced transparency in real-time TPS and fees metrics (https://fees.growthepie.xyz/), and published hundreds of posts about Arbitrum across various social networks—all without requesting any contributions from the DAO. We’ve been able to maintain this credible, neutral approach thanks to initial funding from the Ethereum Foundation. Moving forward, we hope to continue on this path in partnership with the Arbitrum DAO.
We believe that the Orbit proposal represents a strong first step toward closer collaboration with the Arbitrum DAO. Together, we can better serve the builders in the Arbitrum ecosystem and enhance transparency around the underlying data.
GM @maxlomu!
This is $10k/year, hence a recurring cost. The indexing provider definitely helps because we can be sure that the data is also available, however, each data platform also has to do their own aggregations, save data in their database, etc. which means infrastructure and maintenance cost. However, as stated above, we try to make this cheaper once the chains are better known (for example, depending on TPS), so I would assume this will become cheaper in the long run.
David here from the Arbitrum Foundation. Foundation is finalizing an agreement with an indexing provider. This will allow us to distribute indexed data across the Arbitrum ecosystem and partners.
We expect having indexed data for 10 chains within one month. We will also implement a KPI to determine when Orbit data should be indexed. Based on this, we expect to achieve indexed data for 20 chains within the next 2-4 months, depending on the shown activity levels.
David here from the Arbitrum Foundation. Foundation is finalizing an agreement with an indexing provider. This will allow us to distribute indexed data across the Arbitrum ecosystem and partners.
We expect having indexed data for 10 chains within one month. We will also implement a KPI to determine when Orbit data should be indexed. Based on this, we expect to achieve indexed data for 20 chains within the next 2-4 months, depending on the shown activity levels.
too would love to see the Arbitrum Foundation offer certain foundational datasets as a public good for data teams. It doesn’t make sense for every analytics team to build their own indexing infra, especially as more and more chains come online. Best to get out ahead of this problem!
I'm a big fan of growthepie's site and APIs, and believe they bring a lot of value to the ecosystem.
Requirement: Arbitrum Foundation provides indexed data. If not, an additional cost for indexing will be added ($3,750.00 USD per chain)
I'm a big fan of growthepie's site and APIs, and believe they bring a lot of value to the ecosystem.
Requirement: Arbitrum Foundation provides indexed data. If not, an additional cost for indexing will be added ($3,750.00 USD per chain)
I too would love to see the Arbitrum Foundation offer certain foundational datasets as a public good for data teams. It doesn't make sense for every analytics team to build their own indexing infra, especially as more and more chains come online. Best to get out ahead of this problem!
We really appreciate your input and the discussion. Also the general view that the pricing for this is reasonable.
I also want to highlight that we never see ourselves as competition to L2Beat (they do amazing work!), but rather an extension with a different set of metrics and also different user group for the most part.
We really appreciate your input and the discussion. Also the general view that the pricing for this is reasonable.
I also want to highlight that we never see ourselves as competition to L2Beat (they do amazing work!), but rather an extension with a different set of metrics and also different user group for the most part.
Of course, it is also always healthy to compare different data platforms and sources to get a complete picture for the users. Also with additional metrics.
In regards to @swmartin's point in terms of the 20 spots: The initial plan was to have a mostly complete picture of all chains in the long run, and the 20 chains in this proposal will be the start as it looks like there will be many more chains soon. The plan is to learn from launching the first 20 chains, because right now it is also difficult to foresee how much TPS and hence data there will be for the future chains. We also aim to improve the process of launching future chains, which hopefully lets us list chains (21+) more cheaply, this needs to be reevaluated along the way, however.
If the majority thinks it is better to tie this to KPI's like TVL as mentioned above, we are happy to incorporate this of course.
Hi @BlockworksResearch and thanks for your comments.
First, we actually do not see a conflict of interest with Blockworks, as you – like other sites – could be using our data to cross-reference and also include in reports, news or else. Our data is fully open-source and free to use through an API if preferred, this also applies with the ask for this proposal.
Hi @BlockworksResearch and thanks for your comments.
First, we actually do not see a conflict of interest with Blockworks, as you – like other sites – could be using our data to cross-reference and also include in reports, news or else. Our data is fully open-source and free to use through an API if preferred, this also applies with the ask for this proposal.
Although we have a small X/Farcaster follower base, other sites and podcasts like The Daily Gwei, Bankless and others reference and use our data to report. We are also organically growing (without purchasing artificially high follower bases) on our social media channels. Also, the Ethereum Foundation, for example, links to our platform as a go-to platform to learn about Layer 2s.
However, here are a couple of things that we have planned:
I hope this answers the questions! And we would love you to reevaluate your position, as I believe you can greatly benefit from a coherent and third-party data set and standardised metrics around activity, economics, etc. around Orbit chains.
Hi @Tane and for your questions.
We already see that with other ecosystems, our data and easy-to-understand visualisations are used a lot in marketing (the Arbitrum Foundation itself uses it and confirms their growth and statistics with our charts). Also, we are used a lot by media sites like The Block, Cointelegraph and other blogs to make people aware of what's happening and where something is happening.
Hi @Tane and for your questions.
We already see that with other ecosystems, our data and easy-to-understand visualisations are used a lot in marketing (the Arbitrum Foundation itself uses it and confirms their growth and statistics with our charts). Also, we are used a lot by media sites like The Block, Cointelegraph and other blogs to make people aware of what's happening and where something is happening.
Doing this for a breadth of Orbit chains only gives us more accurate data where users and builders can go. Most of these user groups are not data-experts, hence don't use "standard data platforms" but need easy to digest and curated view. Here lies our strength that we don't focus on everything and all chains in crypto, but on the Ethereum scaling ecosystem.
We usually work closely with the teams, coordinate, and also regularly post on our socials about the latest statistics (again, the Arbitrum Foundation can confirm), for which overhead we do not even account for here. We are not asking for a full dev team compensation, but for limited hours over 1 year's time for infra, maintenance and updates. We curate the platform a lot, so it stays easy to digest, even with a flood of new chains coming up.
We have been in talks a lot with other grants opportunities, and evaluated especially also at the Arbitrum GovHack in Brussels, that the DAO is the best suited for this.
I hope this clarifies our proposal more.
A little update from our side:
We joined the Governance call yesterday and presented the project. We received some feedback from the DAO, updated and incorporated suggestions @DisruptionJoe (Thank you!) and would love to bring it to Snapshot in the following week.
Is there any more feedback or points to clarify?
Thanks for these questions @cp0x!
Thanks for these questions @cp0x!
Included in these mentioned costs are also infra costs for storage and compute.
Hope this answers your questions! 🙏
David here from the Arbitrum Foundation. Foundation is finalizing an agreement with an indexing provider. This will allow us to distribute indexed data across the Arbitrum ecosystem and partners.
We expect having indexed data for 10 chains within one month. We will also implement a KPI to determine when Orbit data should be indexed. Based on this, we expect to achieve indexed data for 20 chains within the next 2-4 months, depending on the shown activity levels.
David here from the Arbitrum Foundation. Foundation is finalizing an agreement with an indexing provider. This will allow us to distribute indexed data across the Arbitrum ecosystem and partners.
We expect having indexed data for 10 chains within one month. We will also implement a KPI to determine when Orbit data should be indexed. Based on this, we expect to achieve indexed data for 20 chains within the next 2-4 months, depending on the shown activity levels.
too would love to see the Arbitrum Foundation offer certain foundational datasets as a public good for data teams. It doesn’t make sense for every analytics team to build their own indexing infra, especially as more and more chains come online. Best to get out ahead of this problem!
I'm a big fan of growthepie's site and APIs, and believe they bring a lot of value to the ecosystem.
Requirement: Arbitrum Foundation provides indexed data. If not, an additional cost for indexing will be added ($3,750.00 USD per chain)
I'm a big fan of growthepie's site and APIs, and believe they bring a lot of value to the ecosystem.
Requirement: Arbitrum Foundation provides indexed data. If not, an additional cost for indexing will be added ($3,750.00 USD per chain)
I too would love to see the Arbitrum Foundation offer certain foundational datasets as a public good for data teams. It doesn't make sense for every analytics team to build their own indexing infra, especially as more and more chains come online. Best to get out ahead of this problem!
We really appreciate your input and the discussion. Also the general view that the pricing for this is reasonable.
I also want to highlight that we never see ourselves as competition to L2Beat (they do amazing work!), but rather an extension with a different set of metrics and also different user group for the most part.
We really appreciate your input and the discussion. Also the general view that the pricing for this is reasonable.
I also want to highlight that we never see ourselves as competition to L2Beat (they do amazing work!), but rather an extension with a different set of metrics and also different user group for the most part.
Of course, it is also always healthy to compare different data platforms and sources to get a complete picture for the users. Also with additional metrics.
In regards to @swmartin's point in terms of the 20 spots: The initial plan was to have a mostly complete picture of all chains in the long run, and the 20 chains in this proposal will be the start as it looks like there will be many more chains soon. The plan is to learn from launching the first 20 chains, because right now it is also difficult to foresee how much TPS and hence data there will be for the future chains. We also aim to improve the process of launching future chains, which hopefully lets us list chains (21+) more cheaply, this needs to be reevaluated along the way, however.
If the majority thinks it is better to tie this to KPI's like TVL as mentioned above, we are happy to incorporate this of course.
Hi @BlockworksResearch and thanks for your comments.
First, we actually do not see a conflict of interest with Blockworks, as you – like other sites – could be using our data to cross-reference and also include in reports, news or else. Our data is fully open-source and free to use through an API if preferred, this also applies with the ask for this proposal.
Hi @BlockworksResearch and thanks for your comments.
First, we actually do not see a conflict of interest with Blockworks, as you – like other sites – could be using our data to cross-reference and also include in reports, news or else. Our data is fully open-source and free to use through an API if preferred, this also applies with the ask for this proposal.
Although we have a small X/Farcaster follower base, other sites and podcasts like The Daily Gwei, Bankless and others reference and use our data to report. We are also organically growing (without purchasing artificially high follower bases) on our social media channels. Also, the Ethereum Foundation, for example, links to our platform as a go-to platform to learn about Layer 2s.
However, here are a couple of things that we have planned:
I hope this answers the questions! And we would love you to reevaluate your position, as I believe you can greatly benefit from a coherent and third-party data set and standardised metrics around activity, economics, etc. around Orbit chains.
Hi @Tane and for your questions.
We already see that with other ecosystems, our data and easy-to-understand visualisations are used a lot in marketing (the Arbitrum Foundation itself uses it and confirms their growth and statistics with our charts). Also, we are used a lot by media sites like The Block, Cointelegraph and other blogs to make people aware of what's happening and where something is happening.
Hi @Tane and for your questions.
We already see that with other ecosystems, our data and easy-to-understand visualisations are used a lot in marketing (the Arbitrum Foundation itself uses it and confirms their growth and statistics with our charts). Also, we are used a lot by media sites like The Block, Cointelegraph and other blogs to make people aware of what's happening and where something is happening.
Doing this for a breadth of Orbit chains only gives us more accurate data where users and builders can go. Most of these user groups are not data-experts, hence don't use "standard data platforms" but need easy to digest and curated view. Here lies our strength that we don't focus on everything and all chains in crypto, but on the Ethereum scaling ecosystem.
We usually work closely with the teams, coordinate, and also regularly post on our socials about the latest statistics (again, the Arbitrum Foundation can confirm), for which overhead we do not even account for here. We are not asking for a full dev team compensation, but for limited hours over 1 year's time for infra, maintenance and updates. We curate the platform a lot, so it stays easy to digest, even with a flood of new chains coming up.
We have been in talks a lot with other grants opportunities, and evaluated especially also at the Arbitrum GovHack in Brussels, that the DAO is the best suited for this.
I hope this clarifies our proposal more.
A little update from our side:
We joined the Governance call yesterday and presented the project. We received some feedback from the DAO, updated and incorporated suggestions @DisruptionJoe (Thank you!) and would love to bring it to Snapshot in the following week.
Is there any more feedback or points to clarify?
Thanks for these questions @cp0x!
Thanks for these questions @cp0x!
Included in these mentioned costs are also infra costs for storage and compute.
Hope this answers your questions! 🙏
The results are in for the Transparency and Standardized Metrics for Orbit Chains offchain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/709
The results are in for the Transparency and Standardized Metrics for Orbit Chains offchain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/709
Voted FOR - Orbit is a mainstay of Arbitrum value and the costs seem reasonable given the expansive use cases we could see. Looking forward to seeing more details addressing the legit feedback provided (costs, why now vs later, etc).
Voted FOR - Orbit is a mainstay of Arbitrum value and the costs seem reasonable given the expansive use cases we could see. Looking forward to seeing more details addressing the legit feedback provided (costs, why now vs later, etc).
Voting Against on this proposal.
Absolutely think there is scope for growthepie.xyz proposal, and considered there presentation and efforts showcasing at the recent govhack a clear sign of their efforts to align and work with Arbitrum.
Voting Against on this proposal.
Absolutely think there is scope for growthepie.xyz proposal, and considered there presentation and efforts showcasing at the recent govhack a clear sign of their efforts to align and work with Arbitrum.
I think the proposal struggles in terms of how we address scalability because the potential per chain cost would not be sustainable if we get to the points of 100s, 1000s or more chains over time. The foundation is clearly working on activities in this space, likely having had the opportunity to understand the issue somewhat more deeply ... would like to see those thoughts added to the discussion as well before we keep going.
Hope discussion continues, that if an open process commences for such a dashboard that growthpie.xyz will be considered as a possible implementation partner.
@Camelot see the post above yours from @krst, it seems your assertion L2Beat is already providing what is needed and this would be redundant is incorrect, why would L2Beat argue in favour of this proposal being needed, if L2Beat is currently getting custom data queries from GrowThePie.
Camelot is voting AGAINST the proposal “Transparency and Standardized Metrics for Orbit Chains.”
Camelot is the protocol most aligned with Arbitrum’s vision for Orbit: we have integrated six chains so far, with more to come. For this reason, we are well aware of the current numbers in terms of TVL, volume, and other relevant KPIs. As of now, the tracking done by L2Beat is not only well implemented but also more than sufficient for the DAO’s needs. Currently, we see that only three Orbit chains have a TVL above $1M, which is the threshold proposed for integration into the dashboard. Additionally, the volume is not significant yet.
Camelot is voting AGAINST the proposal “Transparency and Standardized Metrics for Orbit Chains.”
Camelot is the protocol most aligned with Arbitrum’s vision for Orbit: we have integrated six chains so far, with more to come. For this reason, we are well aware of the current numbers in terms of TVL, volume, and other relevant KPIs. As of now, the tracking done by L2Beat is not only well implemented but also more than sufficient for the DAO’s needs. Currently, we see that only three Orbit chains have a TVL above $1M, which is the threshold proposed for integration into the dashboard. Additionally, the volume is not significant yet.
At this time, it doesn’t make much sense for the DAO to finance and maintain a dashboard like this when L2Beat is already publishing what we consider to be the relevant data as a public good: we definitely think is important to have transparent and detailed data around Orbit, but the current proposal doesn’t seem to add any new value to already existing solutions. However, we are open to revisiting this reasoning when the Orbit market becomes substantial enough.
We voted against this proposal, as there are some concerns with the value of this service. The first point is that while confirmed by Blockworks that this sums up to below market value, the total cost coming out to 210k is still a big ask. The ROI and value proposition of this proposal is not apparent to us, and until that proposition is visible, this proposal does not seem like a good use of money. If another vote were to take place with more explanation/vision of how Orbit chains and their analytics can be useful in specific cases, we could get behind that.
Below are the reflections of the UADP:
We decided to vote against this proposal since we feel that other data providers will be willing to provide this data without the DAO having to expend funds. To prevent the DAO from spending on initiatives that have a high degree of overlap, this does not yet make much sense. As the Orbit ecosystem expands and as the chain begins to differentiate, it may be worthwhile to begin exploring newer dashboards with more specific or chain-dependent metrics. Generalized metrics are well-addressed by teams like L2Beat and DefiLlama. It may also be worth exploring this initiative through a grant program since the cost isn’t very cumbersome.
Transparency is great but there's absolutely no need to spend 200k/year for such a tool.
DAOplomats would be voting FOR this proposal during the temp check.
We initially wanted to vote against this proposal but after @tobsch provided this clarity on how the Foundation's agreement with an indexing provider helps bolster their work, we would be supporting this proposal.
DAOplomats would be voting FOR this proposal during the temp check.
We initially wanted to vote against this proposal but after @tobsch provided this clarity on how the Foundation's agreement with an indexing provider helps bolster their work, we would be supporting this proposal.
It seems that there is a misunderstanding. What @davidgarcia described only makes things easier for data platforms like ours (and would make it accessible to other providers with a different focus), because there would be an indexing provider that is reliably in place.
However, we would love to see an update on these cost reductions before supporting this proposal if it goes to onchain vote.
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’ll be voting FOR this proposal during the temperature check, but we would like to see more discussion around it and some clarification on the contentious issues raised in this thread before it goes to an onchain vote.
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’ll be voting FOR this proposal during the temperature check, but we would like to see more discussion around it and some clarification on the contentious issues raised in this thread before it goes to an onchain vote.
As Arbitrum's current growth strategy seems to be centered around growing with Orbit chains, we believe it's absolutely crucial to have data that allows us to make well-informed decisions.
GrowThePie already proved to be competent and reliable as a provider for metrics and dashboards showcasing chain activity, they've been also providing the delegates (including us) with custom data queries regarding Orbit usage, revenue and costs. It would be much more effective however if that data could be accessed, fact-checked and verified anytime on their dashboard.
Having said that, we share some of the concerns raised in this thread regarding scope, scaling and the choice of chains to cover, and therefore advise GtP to hold dedicated workshops for delegates before going to an onchain vote to address any confusion and concerns and to ensure that the dashboards bring value to the Orbit-centeric growth strategy.
I am voting "Against" this initiative.
Nothing wrong with it as a general idea, I appreciate the intent, but I would like first to elaborate on what @AlexLumley posted:
We are in favor of this proposal. Given the low cost relative to the significant infrastructure and work involved, it offers excellent value for the DAO. GTP is already a recognized leader and knowledge hub within the ecosystem, and centralizing the tracking of these metrics will enhance branding and completeness.
Moreover, this initiative will generate accessible content, which is perfect for marketing efforts and valuable for key opinion leaders (KOLs) as they discuss the growth of the Orbit ecosystem.
We are in favor of this proposal. Given the low cost relative to the significant infrastructure and work involved, it offers excellent value for the DAO. GTP is already a recognized leader and knowledge hub within the ecosystem, and centralizing the tracking of these metrics will enhance branding and completeness.
Moreover, this initiative will generate accessible content, which is perfect for marketing efforts and valuable for key opinion leaders (KOLs) as they discuss the growth of the Orbit ecosystem.
However, it’s important to note that this proposal doesn’t fully solve the challenge of making Orbit chain data more accessible for analytics. At present, it’s nearly impossible to delve into Orbit chain data due to the lack of coverage. Without addressing this more comprehensively, the DAO risks repeatedly funding similar dashboard projects as different contributors attempt to close the same gaps.
We’re eager to see how this proposal progresses and hope to see further steps taken to address the broader data accessibility issue.
Implementing standardized metrics is essential, and the GrowThePie team is fully equipped to execute this successfully. I support this proposal.
Voting in favor. As I said, I usually support initiatives that aim at increasing transparency, and costs were my main concern in this proposal. However, as Matthias mentioned in the response above, they will most probably decrease over time and I also believe that potential benefits of the proposal are promising.
Voting "Against"
Based on the response by @davidgarcia , it seems something of this nature is already in process and while I am generally in favor of multiple sources where possible... this is a large spend for what seems like will be a redundancy.
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
After our initial comment, there have been more clarifications, discussions and affirmations (on the cost by other data tool providers) that make this proposal appealing and we are convinced of potential returns that this analytics tools can provide in the long run. Especially the development cost of the foundation is considered reasonable and promising for future marketing uses that would lead to more developers and users on the Arbitrum ecosystem.
I voted against this proposal. Despite thinking it has relevance, I feel that we would benefit of a more structured process where the DAO defines its needs.
Voting Against on this proposal.
Absolutely think there is scope for growthepie.xyz proposal, and considered there presentation and efforts showcasing at the recent govhack a clear sign of their efforts to align and work with Arbitrum.
Voting Against on this proposal.
Absolutely think there is scope for growthepie.xyz proposal, and considered there presentation and efforts showcasing at the recent govhack a clear sign of their efforts to align and work with Arbitrum.
I think the proposal struggles in terms of how we address scalability because the potential per chain cost would not be sustainable if we get to the points of 100s, 1000s or more chains over time. The foundation is clearly working on activities in this space, likely having had the opportunity to understand the issue somewhat more deeply ... would like to see those thoughts added to the discussion as well before we keep going.
Hope discussion continues, that if an open process commences for such a dashboard that growthpie.xyz will be considered as a possible implementation partner.
@Camelot see the post above yours from @krst, it seems your assertion L2Beat is already providing what is needed and this would be redundant is incorrect, why would L2Beat argue in favour of this proposal being needed, if L2Beat is currently getting custom data queries from GrowThePie.
Camelot is voting AGAINST the proposal “Transparency and Standardized Metrics for Orbit Chains.”
Camelot is the protocol most aligned with Arbitrum’s vision for Orbit: we have integrated six chains so far, with more to come. For this reason, we are well aware of the current numbers in terms of TVL, volume, and other relevant KPIs. As of now, the tracking done by L2Beat is not only well implemented but also more than sufficient for the DAO’s needs. Currently, we see that only three Orbit chains have a TVL above $1M, which is the threshold proposed for integration into the dashboard. Additionally, the volume is not significant yet.
Camelot is voting AGAINST the proposal “Transparency and Standardized Metrics for Orbit Chains.”
Camelot is the protocol most aligned with Arbitrum’s vision for Orbit: we have integrated six chains so far, with more to come. For this reason, we are well aware of the current numbers in terms of TVL, volume, and other relevant KPIs. As of now, the tracking done by L2Beat is not only well implemented but also more than sufficient for the DAO’s needs. Currently, we see that only three Orbit chains have a TVL above $1M, which is the threshold proposed for integration into the dashboard. Additionally, the volume is not significant yet.
At this time, it doesn’t make much sense for the DAO to finance and maintain a dashboard like this when L2Beat is already publishing what we consider to be the relevant data as a public good: we definitely think is important to have transparent and detailed data around Orbit, but the current proposal doesn’t seem to add any new value to already existing solutions. However, we are open to revisiting this reasoning when the Orbit market becomes substantial enough.
We voted against this proposal, as there are some concerns with the value of this service. The first point is that while confirmed by Blockworks that this sums up to below market value, the total cost coming out to 210k is still a big ask. The ROI and value proposition of this proposal is not apparent to us, and until that proposition is visible, this proposal does not seem like a good use of money. If another vote were to take place with more explanation/vision of how Orbit chains and their analytics can be useful in specific cases, we could get behind that.
Below are the reflections of the UADP:
We decided to vote against this proposal since we feel that other data providers will be willing to provide this data without the DAO having to expend funds. To prevent the DAO from spending on initiatives that have a high degree of overlap, this does not yet make much sense. As the Orbit ecosystem expands and as the chain begins to differentiate, it may be worthwhile to begin exploring newer dashboards with more specific or chain-dependent metrics. Generalized metrics are well-addressed by teams like L2Beat and DefiLlama. It may also be worth exploring this initiative through a grant program since the cost isn’t very cumbersome.
Transparency is great but there's absolutely no need to spend 200k/year for such a tool.
DAOplomats would be voting FOR this proposal during the temp check.
We initially wanted to vote against this proposal but after @tobsch provided this clarity on how the Foundation's agreement with an indexing provider helps bolster their work, we would be supporting this proposal.
DAOplomats would be voting FOR this proposal during the temp check.
We initially wanted to vote against this proposal but after @tobsch provided this clarity on how the Foundation's agreement with an indexing provider helps bolster their work, we would be supporting this proposal.
It seems that there is a misunderstanding. What @davidgarcia described only makes things easier for data platforms like ours (and would make it accessible to other providers with a different focus), because there would be an indexing provider that is reliably in place.
However, we would love to see an update on these cost reductions before supporting this proposal if it goes to onchain vote.
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’ll be voting FOR this proposal during the temperature check, but we would like to see more discussion around it and some clarification on the contentious issues raised in this thread before it goes to an onchain vote.
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’ll be voting FOR this proposal during the temperature check, but we would like to see more discussion around it and some clarification on the contentious issues raised in this thread before it goes to an onchain vote.
As Arbitrum's current growth strategy seems to be centered around growing with Orbit chains, we believe it's absolutely crucial to have data that allows us to make well-informed decisions.
GrowThePie already proved to be competent and reliable as a provider for metrics and dashboards showcasing chain activity, they've been also providing the delegates (including us) with custom data queries regarding Orbit usage, revenue and costs. It would be much more effective however if that data could be accessed, fact-checked and verified anytime on their dashboard.
Having said that, we share some of the concerns raised in this thread regarding scope, scaling and the choice of chains to cover, and therefore advise GtP to hold dedicated workshops for delegates before going to an onchain vote to address any confusion and concerns and to ensure that the dashboards bring value to the Orbit-centeric growth strategy.
I am voting "Against" this initiative.
Nothing wrong with it as a general idea, I appreciate the intent, but I would like first to elaborate on what @AlexLumley posted:
We are in favor of this proposal. Given the low cost relative to the significant infrastructure and work involved, it offers excellent value for the DAO. GTP is already a recognized leader and knowledge hub within the ecosystem, and centralizing the tracking of these metrics will enhance branding and completeness.
Moreover, this initiative will generate accessible content, which is perfect for marketing efforts and valuable for key opinion leaders (KOLs) as they discuss the growth of the Orbit ecosystem.
We are in favor of this proposal. Given the low cost relative to the significant infrastructure and work involved, it offers excellent value for the DAO. GTP is already a recognized leader and knowledge hub within the ecosystem, and centralizing the tracking of these metrics will enhance branding and completeness.
Moreover, this initiative will generate accessible content, which is perfect for marketing efforts and valuable for key opinion leaders (KOLs) as they discuss the growth of the Orbit ecosystem.
However, it’s important to note that this proposal doesn’t fully solve the challenge of making Orbit chain data more accessible for analytics. At present, it’s nearly impossible to delve into Orbit chain data due to the lack of coverage. Without addressing this more comprehensively, the DAO risks repeatedly funding similar dashboard projects as different contributors attempt to close the same gaps.
We’re eager to see how this proposal progresses and hope to see further steps taken to address the broader data accessibility issue.
Implementing standardized metrics is essential, and the GrowThePie team is fully equipped to execute this successfully. I support this proposal.
Voting in favor. As I said, I usually support initiatives that aim at increasing transparency, and costs were my main concern in this proposal. However, as Matthias mentioned in the response above, they will most probably decrease over time and I also believe that potential benefits of the proposal are promising.
Voting "Against"
Based on the response by @davidgarcia , it seems something of this nature is already in process and while I am generally in favor of multiple sources where possible... this is a large spend for what seems like will be a redundancy.
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
After our initial comment, there have been more clarifications, discussions and affirmations (on the cost by other data tool providers) that make this proposal appealing and we are convinced of potential returns that this analytics tools can provide in the long run. Especially the development cost of the foundation is considered reasonable and promising for future marketing uses that would lead to more developers and users on the Arbitrum ecosystem.
I voted against this proposal. Despite thinking it has relevance, I feel that we would benefit of a more structured process where the DAO defines its needs.
We will support this proposal because it adds crucial transparency by including information on how much fees Orbit Chains pay back to Arbitrum, something current tools don’t provide. This data is essential for ArbitrumDAO to anticipate developments and make informed decisions for the ecosystem's future.
Additionally, we believe the information provided by the platform will be valuable not only for users but also for the DAO in making decisions on Orbit Chain initiatives, such as incentive programs for Orbit Chains. However, we do have some concerns about the budget, though we expect costs for adding new chains to decrease as the project scales. We also support the idea of future proposals like this going through a competitive process and suggest funding similar initiatives through a dedicated grant program. Diversifying information sources will provide a more comprehensive understanding and strengthen decision-making.
After careful consideration, I have decided to vote AGAINST the proposal on Snapshot. I believe the proposal's intent is correct, and—based on the opinions of the experts who have previously commented—it's well-priced. I also think that what is being proposed adds value, and the DAO needs easily accessible information about the status of the Orbit Chains for potential future incentive programs and to properly collect the revenue promised in the licensing agreement.
Why am I voting against it? Several reasons:
After careful consideration, I have decided to vote AGAINST the proposal on Snapshot. I believe the proposal's intent is correct, and—based on the opinions of the experts who have previously commented—it's well-priced. I also think that what is being proposed adds value, and the DAO needs easily accessible information about the status of the Orbit Chains for potential future incentive programs and to properly collect the revenue promised in the licensing agreement.
Why am I voting against it? Several reasons:
I believe we should have a provider or a resource dedicated exclusively to Arbitrum and the Orbit Chains, which could eventually be integrated with other features for Arbitrum, rather than funding the growth of an external data provider. I wouldn’t oppose your team developing and maintaining this resource.
I don’t understand the need to limit development to 20 Orbit Chains, and agree with @swmartin that it could lead to a race to conclude the contract. Currently, there are already more than 60 publicly announced Orbit Chains, with many more in development that have not yet been publicly announced.
Therefore, I would be inclined to vote in favor of a proposal that covers all Orbit Chains and develops an Arbitrum-exclusive resource. I also think @AlexLumley idea of creating an RFP for this purpose is a good one.
I fully support this proposal. By providing transparency and standardized metrics for Arbitrum Orbit chains on growthepie.xyz, this initiative will significantly enhance the decision-making capabilities of DAO members, developers, and users, ensuring that we can make more informed, data-driven choices. The proposed metrics and stack view for Orbit chains will not only bring greater transparency to the entire Arbitrum ecosystem but also lay the groundwork for future incentive programs and retrospective initiatives. The long-term partnership potential of this proposal is also highly promising, especially considering how it will improve visibility and governance efficiency within the Arbitrum Orbit.
Overall, I'm a strong believer that we need metrics to continue making decisions that align us with the future and to make better choices. However, I'm not sure if I agree with the amount or the development approach.
On the other hand, considering David's response above, suggesting a 2 to 4-month timeline to provide the indexer would reduce the cost, right?
Overall, I'm a strong believer that we need metrics to continue making decisions that align us with the future and to make better choices. However, I'm not sure if I agree with the amount or the development approach.
On the other hand, considering David's response above, suggesting a 2 to 4-month timeline to provide the indexer would reduce the cost, right?
Is this something that Offchain Labs or the foundation was expecting to have, or is it okay for a third party to run it?
For now, I'll abstain due to many questions, but I would like to see a clear reformulation of the proposal for on-chain consideration.
When it comes to increasing transparency I'm usually in favor, as it's one of Arbitrum and crypto's principles. This proposal definitely goes in that direction increasing transparency and enabling data-driven decisions for Arbitrum Orbit eco. However, I think that the total costs are still too high for what is being proposed and I'd like to see them slimmed down.
Overall, we are currently in favor but would be much more supportive if we would be able to see some budget cuts.
Additionally, @gauntlet's questions regarding the role of this entity versus a native entity hiring and implementing Orbit chains from their side is an important one. Would be nice to have some comments and opinions on that end.
Gm @tobsch thanks for posting the proposal.
Could you clarify if the $10k/year per chain is expected to be a recurring cost or is it a one-off fee?
Also does the new indexing service the foundation is working on help in reducing the cost of adding new chains as data become more standardized?
I voted NO because of this comment. I do think having these kind of metrics need to be maintained by the Arbitrum Foundation. Also i do think the cost are heavy.
After consideration, Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal
We voted FOR this proposal
We found this proposal hard to analyse without the broader context of the other work in this domain. After consultation with stakeholders, our conclusion was:
After consideration, Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal
We voted FOR this proposal
We found this proposal hard to analyse without the broader context of the other work in this domain. After consultation with stakeholders, our conclusion was:
For these reasons, we chose to support this proposal at the Snapshot stage. However, we would like to emphasize that, in the future, our preference is for similar-sized initiatives to be funded through Grants Programs to reduce pressure on delegates and bring funded grants under a structured evaluation framework.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
After reviewing the proposal, we would like to offer the following feedback:
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
After reviewing the proposal, we would like to offer the following feedback:
I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage. I support this proposal because it meets a clear need (analytics) in an area of strategic focus for Arbitrum (Orbit), is priced reasonably, and is being implemented by a team with a track record of delivering quality product.
I really appreciate this proposal and especially how the team went to GovHack and continued progressing.
I have a few concerns.
I really appreciate this proposal and especially how the team went to GovHack and continued progressing.
I have a few concerns.
Why is this Orbit chain data so important for the DAO? I don't understand why it is important for the DAO to have this data? Will this cause more people to switch to the Arbitrum techstack? Will it improve our Orbit chain incentive programs? Simply having "data" is not enough, it needs to go towards our business objectives.
Shouldn't this be an RFP process? There are multiple service providers who can provide this data (L2Beat, Dune Dashboards, etc) shouldn't this be an RFP process? I would rather we spend $10K to determine the scope and validate the problem and then create an RFP process from there. An additional option is to create this in house.
I'll note that these questions are more about a general process the DAO is currently using where we have proposals that are "self-serving" as opposed to scoping, defining and validating the requirements of the DAO and then creating an RFP process.
One option is to have someone from the community apply to a questbook for a small grant to lead this RFP process and then have GrowThePie apply to that.
See voting rationale here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-transparency-and-standardized-metrics-for-orbit-chains-on-growthepie-xyz-allowing-data-driven-decision-making/25911/17?u=alexlumley
I generally support this proposal. What are we doing here if there isn't data transparency for average users? Some may argue redundancy with L2Beat's incredible dashboards makes this spend unworthy, but having multiple sources to keep information in check is never a bad thing in my opinion. In terms of the price tag - I see it as fairly priced. This is as much a marketing play as it is a data/user transparency play. Some crypto natives go to L2Beat for data, others go to growthepie. Same goes with Coingecko vs Coinmarketcap, why would you not want to be listed on both?
My only qualm with this proposal, which is qouted below, is that it feels like this will be a race for the growthepie team to get up as many Orbit Chains as possible to conclude their contract. This, for me, is enough to turn this from an overwhelming yes to a definitive no.
I like the idea of preparing ourselves for reporting usage and other relevant metrics on the Orbit chains, specially after we are voting for Change Arbitrum Expansion Program to allow deployments of new Orbit chains on any blockchain.
This is a very detailed proposal and congratulate the proposers for it. However, I believe that this topic is best suited for an RFP process, as the DAO would have other proposals to compare, and a healthy competition between services providers. I would like to ask inputs from ADPC members like @Immutablelawyer, @Bernard or @sid_areta, if possible.
As a team that builds dashboards for our Research platform subscriber base, in addition to building dashboards for other protocols, we fully understand the costs associated with this kind of endeavor.
From our perspective, this pricing is very reasonable and is below cost for a firm like Blockworks Research to execute on when you factor in salaries + backend infra + frontend work + misc expenses.
The Arbitrum Foundation is actively investing in indexing and tooling for Orbit Chains. While this proposal represents an opportunity for the DAO to extend the presentation of that data, it raises the question of whether it is a service the Arbitrum DAO should subsidize for a single third-party provider. Is this a cost that the Arbitrum Foundation/DAO/Offchain Labs/Entropy should hire someone to implement and host on the Arbitrum site?
Orbit chain data is inevitably becoming as fractionalized as its liquidity. Suppose the DAO is to invest in a data platform. In that case, it's worth considering a self-hosted approach rather than funding relevant onchain data and metrics across many frontends.
I support the proposal for implementing transparency and standardized metrics for Orbit chains. This initiative would provide clear, data-driven insights into the performance of Orbit chains, improving accountability and decision-making within the Arbitrum ecosystem. By offering standardized metrics on platforms like growthepie.xyz, developers and DAO members can make informed choices, optimizing resource allocation and governance. This transparency will also boost confidence among stakeholders, driving further adoption and growth of Orbit chains, ultimately benefiting the entire Arbitrum network.
I have a few questions:
We will support this proposal because it adds crucial transparency by including information on how much fees Orbit Chains pay back to Arbitrum, something current tools don’t provide. This data is essential for ArbitrumDAO to anticipate developments and make informed decisions for the ecosystem's future.
Additionally, we believe the information provided by the platform will be valuable not only for users but also for the DAO in making decisions on Orbit Chain initiatives, such as incentive programs for Orbit Chains. However, we do have some concerns about the budget, though we expect costs for adding new chains to decrease as the project scales. We also support the idea of future proposals like this going through a competitive process and suggest funding similar initiatives through a dedicated grant program. Diversifying information sources will provide a more comprehensive understanding and strengthen decision-making.
After careful consideration, I have decided to vote AGAINST the proposal on Snapshot. I believe the proposal's intent is correct, and—based on the opinions of the experts who have previously commented—it's well-priced. I also think that what is being proposed adds value, and the DAO needs easily accessible information about the status of the Orbit Chains for potential future incentive programs and to properly collect the revenue promised in the licensing agreement.
Why am I voting against it? Several reasons:
After careful consideration, I have decided to vote AGAINST the proposal on Snapshot. I believe the proposal's intent is correct, and—based on the opinions of the experts who have previously commented—it's well-priced. I also think that what is being proposed adds value, and the DAO needs easily accessible information about the status of the Orbit Chains for potential future incentive programs and to properly collect the revenue promised in the licensing agreement.
Why am I voting against it? Several reasons:
I believe we should have a provider or a resource dedicated exclusively to Arbitrum and the Orbit Chains, which could eventually be integrated with other features for Arbitrum, rather than funding the growth of an external data provider. I wouldn’t oppose your team developing and maintaining this resource.
I don’t understand the need to limit development to 20 Orbit Chains, and agree with @swmartin that it could lead to a race to conclude the contract. Currently, there are already more than 60 publicly announced Orbit Chains, with many more in development that have not yet been publicly announced.
Therefore, I would be inclined to vote in favor of a proposal that covers all Orbit Chains and develops an Arbitrum-exclusive resource. I also think @AlexLumley idea of creating an RFP for this purpose is a good one.
I fully support this proposal. By providing transparency and standardized metrics for Arbitrum Orbit chains on growthepie.xyz, this initiative will significantly enhance the decision-making capabilities of DAO members, developers, and users, ensuring that we can make more informed, data-driven choices. The proposed metrics and stack view for Orbit chains will not only bring greater transparency to the entire Arbitrum ecosystem but also lay the groundwork for future incentive programs and retrospective initiatives. The long-term partnership potential of this proposal is also highly promising, especially considering how it will improve visibility and governance efficiency within the Arbitrum Orbit.
Overall, I'm a strong believer that we need metrics to continue making decisions that align us with the future and to make better choices. However, I'm not sure if I agree with the amount or the development approach.
On the other hand, considering David's response above, suggesting a 2 to 4-month timeline to provide the indexer would reduce the cost, right?
Overall, I'm a strong believer that we need metrics to continue making decisions that align us with the future and to make better choices. However, I'm not sure if I agree with the amount or the development approach.
On the other hand, considering David's response above, suggesting a 2 to 4-month timeline to provide the indexer would reduce the cost, right?
Is this something that Offchain Labs or the foundation was expecting to have, or is it okay for a third party to run it?
For now, I'll abstain due to many questions, but I would like to see a clear reformulation of the proposal for on-chain consideration.
When it comes to increasing transparency I'm usually in favor, as it's one of Arbitrum and crypto's principles. This proposal definitely goes in that direction increasing transparency and enabling data-driven decisions for Arbitrum Orbit eco. However, I think that the total costs are still too high for what is being proposed and I'd like to see them slimmed down.
Overall, we are currently in favor but would be much more supportive if we would be able to see some budget cuts.
Additionally, @gauntlet's questions regarding the role of this entity versus a native entity hiring and implementing Orbit chains from their side is an important one. Would be nice to have some comments and opinions on that end.
Gm @tobsch thanks for posting the proposal.
Could you clarify if the $10k/year per chain is expected to be a recurring cost or is it a one-off fee?
Also does the new indexing service the foundation is working on help in reducing the cost of adding new chains as data become more standardized?
I voted NO because of this comment. I do think having these kind of metrics need to be maintained by the Arbitrum Foundation. Also i do think the cost are heavy.
After consideration, Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal
We voted FOR this proposal
We found this proposal hard to analyse without the broader context of the other work in this domain. After consultation with stakeholders, our conclusion was:
After consideration, Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal
We voted FOR this proposal
We found this proposal hard to analyse without the broader context of the other work in this domain. After consultation with stakeholders, our conclusion was:
For these reasons, we chose to support this proposal at the Snapshot stage. However, we would like to emphasize that, in the future, our preference is for similar-sized initiatives to be funded through Grants Programs to reduce pressure on delegates and bring funded grants under a structured evaluation framework.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
After reviewing the proposal, we would like to offer the following feedback:
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
After reviewing the proposal, we would like to offer the following feedback:
I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage. I support this proposal because it meets a clear need (analytics) in an area of strategic focus for Arbitrum (Orbit), is priced reasonably, and is being implemented by a team with a track record of delivering quality product.
I really appreciate this proposal and especially how the team went to GovHack and continued progressing.
I have a few concerns.
I really appreciate this proposal and especially how the team went to GovHack and continued progressing.
I have a few concerns.
Why is this Orbit chain data so important for the DAO? I don't understand why it is important for the DAO to have this data? Will this cause more people to switch to the Arbitrum techstack? Will it improve our Orbit chain incentive programs? Simply having "data" is not enough, it needs to go towards our business objectives.
Shouldn't this be an RFP process? There are multiple service providers who can provide this data (L2Beat, Dune Dashboards, etc) shouldn't this be an RFP process? I would rather we spend $10K to determine the scope and validate the problem and then create an RFP process from there. An additional option is to create this in house.
I'll note that these questions are more about a general process the DAO is currently using where we have proposals that are "self-serving" as opposed to scoping, defining and validating the requirements of the DAO and then creating an RFP process.
One option is to have someone from the community apply to a questbook for a small grant to lead this RFP process and then have GrowThePie apply to that.
See voting rationale here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-transparency-and-standardized-metrics-for-orbit-chains-on-growthepie-xyz-allowing-data-driven-decision-making/25911/17?u=alexlumley
I generally support this proposal. What are we doing here if there isn't data transparency for average users? Some may argue redundancy with L2Beat's incredible dashboards makes this spend unworthy, but having multiple sources to keep information in check is never a bad thing in my opinion. In terms of the price tag - I see it as fairly priced. This is as much a marketing play as it is a data/user transparency play. Some crypto natives go to L2Beat for data, others go to growthepie. Same goes with Coingecko vs Coinmarketcap, why would you not want to be listed on both?
My only qualm with this proposal, which is qouted below, is that it feels like this will be a race for the growthepie team to get up as many Orbit Chains as possible to conclude their contract. This, for me, is enough to turn this from an overwhelming yes to a definitive no.
I like the idea of preparing ourselves for reporting usage and other relevant metrics on the Orbit chains, specially after we are voting for Change Arbitrum Expansion Program to allow deployments of new Orbit chains on any blockchain.
This is a very detailed proposal and congratulate the proposers for it. However, I believe that this topic is best suited for an RFP process, as the DAO would have other proposals to compare, and a healthy competition between services providers. I would like to ask inputs from ADPC members like @Immutablelawyer, @Bernard or @sid_areta, if possible.
As a team that builds dashboards for our Research platform subscriber base, in addition to building dashboards for other protocols, we fully understand the costs associated with this kind of endeavor.
From our perspective, this pricing is very reasonable and is below cost for a firm like Blockworks Research to execute on when you factor in salaries + backend infra + frontend work + misc expenses.
The Arbitrum Foundation is actively investing in indexing and tooling for Orbit Chains. While this proposal represents an opportunity for the DAO to extend the presentation of that data, it raises the question of whether it is a service the Arbitrum DAO should subsidize for a single third-party provider. Is this a cost that the Arbitrum Foundation/DAO/Offchain Labs/Entropy should hire someone to implement and host on the Arbitrum site?
Orbit chain data is inevitably becoming as fractionalized as its liquidity. Suppose the DAO is to invest in a data platform. In that case, it's worth considering a self-hosted approach rather than funding relevant onchain data and metrics across many frontends.
I support the proposal for implementing transparency and standardized metrics for Orbit chains. This initiative would provide clear, data-driven insights into the performance of Orbit chains, improving accountability and decision-making within the Arbitrum ecosystem. By offering standardized metrics on platforms like growthepie.xyz, developers and DAO members can make informed choices, optimizing resource allocation and governance. This transparency will also boost confidence among stakeholders, driving further adoption and growth of Orbit chains, ultimately benefiting the entire Arbitrum network.
I have a few questions:
I generally support this proposal. What are we doing here if there isn't data transparency for average users? Some may argue redundancy with L2Beat's incredible dashboards makes this spend unworthy, but having multiple sources to keep information in check is never a bad thing in my opinion. In terms of the price tag - I see it as fairly priced. This is as much a marketing play as it is a data/user transparency play. Some crypto natives go to L2Beat for data, others go to growthepie. Same goes with Coingecko vs Coinmarketcap, why would you not want to be listed on both?
My only qualm with this proposal, which is qouted below, is that it feels like this will be a race for the growthepie team to get up as many Orbit Chains as possible to conclude their contract. This, for me, is enough to turn this from an overwhelming yes to a definitive no.
Timeframe starting from the date of DAO proposal approval and weeks/months add up to each other. Total duration ~ 5 months. Chain listing time is also dependent on potential collaboration with an indexing provider and their speed of chain indexing.
My suggestion is to add KPIs that makes a given Orbit chain eligible to use one of our limited (20) slots on growthepie's UI. This could prove difficult as tx count and gas fees paid will be easily gamed given the very cheap and high throughput nature of Orbits when deployed as L3s. I think the good old fashioned $1M of TVL mark would be sufficient for now, leaving the DAO the ability to change these parameters at any time. Here is a snapshot from L2Beat to give folks an idea of who would qualify. Do we really want Cheesechain taking up one of our spots (lol)?
As a team that builds dashboards for our Research platform subscriber base, in addition to building dashboards for other protocols, we fully understand the costs associated with this kind of endeavor.
From our perspective, this pricing is very reasonable and is below cost for a firm like Blockworks Research to execute on when you factor in salaries + backend infra + frontend work + misc expenses.
While costs per chain can get amortized at scale, the ~$10k/chain for 20 orbit chains is not an issue from our point of view.
The Arbitrum Foundation is actively investing in indexing and tooling for Orbit Chains. While this proposal represents an opportunity for the DAO to extend the presentation of that data, it raises the question of whether it is a service the Arbitrum DAO should subsidize for a single third-party provider. Is this a cost that the Arbitrum Foundation/DAO/Offchain Labs/Entropy should hire someone to implement and host on the Arbitrum site?
Orbit chain data is inevitably becoming as fractionalized as its liquidity. Suppose the DAO is to invest in a data platform. In that case, it's worth considering a self-hosted approach rather than funding relevant onchain data and metrics across many frontends.
For generic chain data, history has shown that data providers are willing to build dashboards independently; whether DeFi Llama, TokenTerminal, L2Beat, or GrowThePie, data providers have historically fronted the development bill for traffic. Further, the proposal's data deliverables do not align with the granularity of data any growth or incentives program would require (user segmentation, DeFi protocol data, pool-level data, etc.), which is arguably the ecosystem's greatest current need.
As such, we are unsure of the return on investment here and plan to vote against the proposal in its current form.
Blockworks Research will be ABSTAINING from a possible related vote on this proposal in the future due to a conflict of interest.
As we provide our own data-related services, voting on this proposal could introduce bias or violate our conflict of interest policies. However, we would like to contribute to the discussion by raising questions about the distribution of this product. Specifically, what is the current user base size for growthepie, and what are the expected growth projections for the client base accessing Arbitrum's data?
Blockworks Research will be ABSTAINING from a possible related vote on this proposal in the future due to a conflict of interest.
As we provide our own data-related services, voting on this proposal could introduce bias or violate our conflict of interest policies. However, we would like to contribute to the discussion by raising questions about the distribution of this product. Specifically, what is the current user base size for growthepie, and what are the expected growth projections for the client base accessing Arbitrum's data?
Additionally, we would like to know what strategies are in place to drive user engagement and adoption of this platform. How will growthepie ensure that users, builders, and DAO members are aware of and actively using the new metrics provided? Effective user engagement is critical for maximizing the impact and value of the data.
Hi @tobsch, thanks for putting together the proposal.
While acknowledging the benefits of better data visualization and standardized metric viewing experience, we are struggling to see what the DAO can take advantage of them for by providing a rather large size cost. How do you see the deliverable that you provide will lead to more user and ecosystem growth so that the cost is justified?
Hi @tobsch, thanks for putting together the proposal.
While acknowledging the benefits of better data visualization and standardized metric viewing experience, we are struggling to see what the DAO can take advantage of them for by providing a rather large size cost. How do you see the deliverable that you provide will lead to more user and ecosystem growth so that the cost is justified?
Also, as cp0x pointed out, the implementation should cover an easy and fast integration of additional chains rather than asking for 2 months of a full dev team work.
We would suggest this project to go through a grant program with a very limited scope and validate the success of the product for Arbitrum One and a few Orbit chains.
I generally support this proposal. What are we doing here if there isn't data transparency for average users? Some may argue redundancy with L2Beat's incredible dashboards makes this spend unworthy, but having multiple sources to keep information in check is never a bad thing in my opinion. In terms of the price tag - I see it as fairly priced. This is as much a marketing play as it is a data/user transparency play. Some crypto natives go to L2Beat for data, others go to growthepie. Same goes with Coingecko vs Coinmarketcap, why would you not want to be listed on both?
My only qualm with this proposal, which is qouted below, is that it feels like this will be a race for the growthepie team to get up as many Orbit Chains as possible to conclude their contract. This, for me, is enough to turn this from an overwhelming yes to a definitive no.
Timeframe starting from the date of DAO proposal approval and weeks/months add up to each other. Total duration ~ 5 months. Chain listing time is also dependent on potential collaboration with an indexing provider and their speed of chain indexing.
My suggestion is to add KPIs that makes a given Orbit chain eligible to use one of our limited (20) slots on growthepie's UI. This could prove difficult as tx count and gas fees paid will be easily gamed given the very cheap and high throughput nature of Orbits when deployed as L3s. I think the good old fashioned $1M of TVL mark would be sufficient for now, leaving the DAO the ability to change these parameters at any time. Here is a snapshot from L2Beat to give folks an idea of who would qualify. Do we really want Cheesechain taking up one of our spots (lol)?
As a team that builds dashboards for our Research platform subscriber base, in addition to building dashboards for other protocols, we fully understand the costs associated with this kind of endeavor.
From our perspective, this pricing is very reasonable and is below cost for a firm like Blockworks Research to execute on when you factor in salaries + backend infra + frontend work + misc expenses.
While costs per chain can get amortized at scale, the ~$10k/chain for 20 orbit chains is not an issue from our point of view.
The Arbitrum Foundation is actively investing in indexing and tooling for Orbit Chains. While this proposal represents an opportunity for the DAO to extend the presentation of that data, it raises the question of whether it is a service the Arbitrum DAO should subsidize for a single third-party provider. Is this a cost that the Arbitrum Foundation/DAO/Offchain Labs/Entropy should hire someone to implement and host on the Arbitrum site?
Orbit chain data is inevitably becoming as fractionalized as its liquidity. Suppose the DAO is to invest in a data platform. In that case, it's worth considering a self-hosted approach rather than funding relevant onchain data and metrics across many frontends.
For generic chain data, history has shown that data providers are willing to build dashboards independently; whether DeFi Llama, TokenTerminal, L2Beat, or GrowThePie, data providers have historically fronted the development bill for traffic. Further, the proposal's data deliverables do not align with the granularity of data any growth or incentives program would require (user segmentation, DeFi protocol data, pool-level data, etc.), which is arguably the ecosystem's greatest current need.
As such, we are unsure of the return on investment here and plan to vote against the proposal in its current form.
Blockworks Research will be ABSTAINING from a possible related vote on this proposal in the future due to a conflict of interest.
As we provide our own data-related services, voting on this proposal could introduce bias or violate our conflict of interest policies. However, we would like to contribute to the discussion by raising questions about the distribution of this product. Specifically, what is the current user base size for growthepie, and what are the expected growth projections for the client base accessing Arbitrum's data?
Blockworks Research will be ABSTAINING from a possible related vote on this proposal in the future due to a conflict of interest.
As we provide our own data-related services, voting on this proposal could introduce bias or violate our conflict of interest policies. However, we would like to contribute to the discussion by raising questions about the distribution of this product. Specifically, what is the current user base size for growthepie, and what are the expected growth projections for the client base accessing Arbitrum's data?
Additionally, we would like to know what strategies are in place to drive user engagement and adoption of this platform. How will growthepie ensure that users, builders, and DAO members are aware of and actively using the new metrics provided? Effective user engagement is critical for maximizing the impact and value of the data.
Hi @tobsch, thanks for putting together the proposal.
While acknowledging the benefits of better data visualization and standardized metric viewing experience, we are struggling to see what the DAO can take advantage of them for by providing a rather large size cost. How do you see the deliverable that you provide will lead to more user and ecosystem growth so that the cost is justified?
Hi @tobsch, thanks for putting together the proposal.
While acknowledging the benefits of better data visualization and standardized metric viewing experience, we are struggling to see what the DAO can take advantage of them for by providing a rather large size cost. How do you see the deliverable that you provide will lead to more user and ecosystem growth so that the cost is justified?
Also, as cp0x pointed out, the implementation should cover an easy and fast integration of additional chains rather than asking for 2 months of a full dev team work.
We would suggest this project to go through a grant program with a very limited scope and validate the success of the product for Arbitrum One and a few Orbit chains.
