This Arbitrum Improvement Proposal (AIP) seeks to enhance user acquisition and engagement efficiency in the Arbitrum ecosystem following the Short Term Incentive Program (STIP). The proposal aims to deploy 95 total quests across 62 unique applications. The goal is to provide a comprehensive onboarding, educational, and interaction model that results in sustained user commitment and thus solidifies Arbitrum’s position as a leading Layer 2 Ethereum scaling solution.
We propose an innovative solution to address an opportunity that has surfaced following the execution of the Short Term Incentive Program (STIP) – the need for effectively onboarding, educating, and retaining new users on the Arbitrum platforms that received STIP. The STIP successfully provides incentive to perform onchain actions, but it does not address the user onboarding experience aspect of attracting new users. This proposal is viewed as the missing puzzle piece to STIP. In addition, the STIP had teams qualify, but not receive funding, providing a situation we aim to reconcile by running additional quests for those teams that will improve user retention and increase usage of their protocols.
Our proposal aligns meticulously with Arbitrum's mission to foster an inclusive, vibrant, and engaged community. By ensuring all users - existing and new ones - are carried along inclusively and effectively via well-designed quests, we will be creating an environment that promotes continued learning, interaction, and commitment. This "sticky factor" is critical for a sustainable and thriving ecosystem.
Quests are guided learning activities, organized around specific crypto protocols and apps. They are designed to familiarize users with different protocols, their processes, and the potential benefits they offer within ecosystems like DeFi on Arbitrum.
Quests provide a hands-on learning experience which makes the understanding of complex protocols more enjoyable and interactive. They provide delightful step-by-step guidance which motivates users to explore and use these protocols, thereby increasing user adoption and contributing to the broader understanding of apps.
For instance, consider the above Quest on Layer3 called "Exploring Radiant". It guides users through learning about onmichain money markets, swapping, and depositing on Radiant, breaking down each step into comprehensible segments.
By engaging with the quest, users not only learn how to use the Radiant platform, but also get practical experience which they can apply in real-world situations. Quests like these play a crucial role in demystifying DeFi protocols, making them more accessible, and bringing users to Arbitrum.
In the case of Exploring Radiant, it managed to attract 31,181 completions. This demonstrates the high engagement rate and efficiency of quests as interactive learning tools in the DeFi space. The large number of participants signifies that the quest was not only successful in providing valuable insights about the protocol but also in garnering interest from a wider community, thereby increasing the adoption rate of the whole Radiant platform.
But it isn’t just Radiant.
There is a whole library of Arbitrum quests available on Layer3. As part of the STIP Enhancement and Inclusion Quest Proposal, a whole new category will be created on Layer3 to display the quests included in the STIP Enhancement and Inclusion Quest Program
Layer3 has played a significant role in the growth of Arbitrum.
We've guided over 337,613 users to complete more than 5.9 million on-chain transactions on Arbitrum, all at no cost to the user or Arbitrum DAO. Our initiatives, particularly interactive quests, have already greatly increased user engagement and education on Arbitrum.
By transforming onchain operations into bite-sized, step-by-step quests, we have managed to make Arbitrum accessible to a wider audience. We have made it accessible and comprehensible to users, regardless of their technical proficiency level.
Upon approval, we will embark on the design and execution of 95 quests structured strategically for the following protocols and teams in direct support of the STIP.
This includes one quest for each STIP-qualified protocol (29 projects, one quest each) and two quests for each recipient that received a greater than 50% majority in favor of their STIP proposal and more than 71.51 million ARB in support for their proposal (33 projects, two quests each). Each quest is meticulously designed to enhance user comprehension, interaction, and loyalty to the respective protocols.
The list of protocols and teams includes but is not limited to:
| Quest Section | Projects |
|---|---|
| 1 | Camelot, Jones, Dopex, GMX, LODESTAR, Socket, Timeswap, RADIANT, Pendle Finance, MUX, Frax, Tally, Rysk, Silo Finance, Stella, Good Entry, Gamma, Umami, Abracadabra, KyberSwap, OpenOcean, Angle, Trader Joe, Dolomite, Premia, Vertex, Perennial Finance, Balancer, WINR |
| 2 | WOOFi, Gains Netowrk, DefiEdge, Synapse Protocol, PancakeSwap, Notional Finance, Rodeo, Magpie, Stargate, Savvy, Tales of Elleria, Thales, TIDE, Solv Protocol, Furucombo, dForce, Sanko GameCorp, RAMSES, Vela Exchange, Thetanuts, JOJO Exchange, Wormhole, Shell Protocol, REALM, unshETH, StakeDAO, Curve, iZUMi, Beefy Finance, Arrakis Finance, Florence Finance, CVI, Prime Protocol |
The compensation for this proposal will encompass a real-time, continuous flow of 1 million ARB tokens, streamed via the Superfluid protocol. The stream will commence immediately post-approval and will run continuously up until May 19, 2024.
Should we fall short of fulfilling our obligations at any point within the specified period, a new proposal can be initiated to stop the stream of funds.
In the spirit of transparency, we commit to providing regular progress updates and upon completion of each of the 3 phases and maintaining Dune Analytics impact dashboards for the duration of the initiative, both at the application and ecosystem level. In a scenario where we fail to deliver our commitments, the community possesses the full right to propose halting the stream until the matter is adequately addressed and resolved.
Steps to Implement:
By confronting these steps, we can continuously refine our approach, ensuring that we provide mutually beneficial outcomes for both users and protocols involved in the STIP program.
Objective: Guide users through the process of performing a token swap and adding liquidity to a Trader Joe pool on Arbitrum.
User Flow:
Metrics to Monitor:
| Category | KPI | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Impact Analysis | Total Value Locked (TVL) Impact | Measures the change in TVL on Trader Joe as a result of quests |
| Swap Volume Impact | Measures the change in total swap volumes on Trader Joe as a result of quests | |
| User Engagement | Total Quest Participants | The total number of users who participated in the Trader Joe quests |
| Quest Completion Rate | Percentage of users who completed the Trader Joe quests compared to those who started | |
| Protocol-Specific Metrics | Average Swaps per User | Average number of swaps executed per user during the quest |
| Transaction Fees | Fees generated by the Trader Joe as a result of quests. |
| Category | KPI | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Impact Analysis | Network Usage | Measures the change in total transactions on Arbitrum before and after the campaign |
| Transaction Fees | Measures the amount of transaction fees generated by Arbitrum as a result of quests | |
| Gas Costs Saved | Measures the amount of gas saved as a result of Layer2 adoption | |
| User Engagement | User Retention Rate | The percentage of users who returned to Arbitrum platform for subsequent transactions |
| Unique User Rates | Unique New Starters | Number of new users who started a Trader Joe quest on Arbitrum |
| Unique Completion Rates | Percentage of quests that were started and completed by completely new users on Arbitrum |
Layer3 ran a GMX Quest Program in June 2022
User Engagement Metrics: 119,433 total unique participants across 6 quests
Unique User Rates: 95% of Layer3 users who completed the quest hadn’t used GMX prior to the quest
Protocol Specific Metrics: For the period covered, Layer3 accounted for 11.6% of the transactions on GMX
The implementation is divided into three distinct stages, each targeting a specific group of protocols:
Phase 1 - STIP Proposal Quests (November 2023 - January 2024): Quests specifically designed for all STIP-qualified protocols will be released in six groups, each running for a month. The intention is to boost user engagement with these protocols that have received official STIP funding and guide users on how to use STIP protocols.
Phase 2 - Non-STIP Proposal Quests 1 (February 2024 - April 2024): The second phase focuses on those teams that met the STIP criteria but did not receive funding. This stage ensures that these projects also get beneficial visibility and user engagement through their initial quests.
Phase 3 - Non-STIP Proposal Quests 2 (March 2024 - May 2024): The final phase continues the support for non-STIP funded projects, further providing engagement through a second quest for each team. This step is designed to maintain and enhance user interest and interaction, consolidating the engagement prompted in Phase 2.
Running two quests for non-STIP funded projects (Phase 2 and 3) is particularly beneficial as it contributes to user retention through a deeper experience with the protocol.
The aim is to attract users and provide a solid foundation for them to be engaged, active and aligned with the protocol over a longer period. This ultimately contributes to the longevity and sustainability of each protocol.
This phased approach allows us to target attention to each group of protocols, ensuring each has optimized quests and yields the best possible results for all involved.
The total cost to implement this AIP is 1M ARB where:
Recurring costs will entail updates and maintenance, community engagement efforts, partnerships, performance tracking, and reporting.
This proposal lends to Arbitrum's goal to build an engaged and knowledgeable community committed to the platform's longevity. By incorporating all users in a guided and rewarding learning journey, we act as a funnel for new Arbitrum users, rather than current participants dominating rewards. By also acknowledging and rewarding the efforts of teams that did not qualify for STIP, we foster a fairer and more inclusive community spirit, further underlining Arbitrum's commitment to its members.
This dynamic, transparent, and comprehensive approach propels the strength and sustainability of the Arbitrum community.
This Arbitrum Improvement Proposal (AIP) seeks to enhance user acquisition and engagement efficiency in the Arbitrum ecosystem following the Short Term Incentive Program (STIP). The proposal aims to deploy 95 total quests across 62 unique applications. The goal is to provide a comprehensive onboarding, educational, and interaction model that results in sustained user commitment and thus solidifies Arbitrum’s position as a leading Layer 2 Ethereum scaling solution.
We propose an innovative solution to address an opportunity that has surfaced following the execution of the Short Term Incentive Program (STIP) – the need for effectively onboarding, educating, and retaining new users on the Arbitrum platforms that received STIP. The STIP successfully provides incentive to perform onchain actions, but it does not address the user onboarding experience aspect of attracting new users. This proposal is viewed as the missing puzzle piece to STIP. In addition, the STIP had teams qualify, but not receive funding, providing a situation we aim to reconcile by running additional quests for those teams that will improve user retention and increase usage of their protocols.
Our proposal aligns meticulously with Arbitrum's mission to foster an inclusive, vibrant, and engaged community. By ensuring all users - existing and new ones - are carried along inclusively and effectively via well-designed quests, we will be creating an environment that promotes continued learning, interaction, and commitment. This "sticky factor" is critical for a sustainable and thriving ecosystem.
Quests are guided learning activities, organized around specific crypto protocols and apps. They are designed to familiarize users with different protocols, their processes, and the potential benefits they offer within ecosystems like DeFi on Arbitrum.
Quests provide a hands-on learning experience which makes the understanding of complex protocols more enjoyable and interactive. They provide delightful step-by-step guidance which motivates users to explore and use these protocols, thereby increasing user adoption and contributing to the broader understanding of apps.
For instance, consider the above Quest on Layer3 called "Exploring Radiant". It guides users through learning about onmichain money markets, swapping, and depositing on Radiant, breaking down each step into comprehensible segments.
By engaging with the quest, users not only learn how to use the Radiant platform, but also get practical experience which they can apply in real-world situations. Quests like these play a crucial role in demystifying DeFi protocols, making them more accessible, and bringing users to Arbitrum.
In the case of Exploring Radiant, it managed to attract 31,181 completions. This demonstrates the high engagement rate and efficiency of quests as interactive learning tools in the DeFi space. The large number of participants signifies that the quest was not only successful in providing valuable insights about the protocol but also in garnering interest from a wider community, thereby increasing the adoption rate of the whole Radiant platform.
But it isn’t just Radiant.
There is a whole library of Arbitrum quests available on Layer3. As part of the STIP Enhancement and Inclusion Quest Proposal, a whole new category will be created on Layer3 to display the quests included in the STIP Enhancement and Inclusion Quest Program
Layer3 has played a significant role in the growth of Arbitrum.
We've guided over 337,613 users to complete more than 5.9 million on-chain transactions on Arbitrum, all at no cost to the user or Arbitrum DAO. Our initiatives, particularly interactive quests, have already greatly increased user engagement and education on Arbitrum.
By transforming onchain operations into bite-sized, step-by-step quests, we have managed to make Arbitrum accessible to a wider audience. We have made it accessible and comprehensible to users, regardless of their technical proficiency level.
Upon approval, we will embark on the design and execution of 95 quests structured strategically for the following protocols and teams in direct support of the STIP.
This includes one quest for each STIP-qualified protocol (29 projects, one quest each) and two quests for each recipient that received a greater than 50% majority in favor of their STIP proposal and more than 71.51 million ARB in support for their proposal (33 projects, two quests each). Each quest is meticulously designed to enhance user comprehension, interaction, and loyalty to the respective protocols.
The list of protocols and teams includes but is not limited to:
| Quest Section | Projects |
|---|---|
| 1 | Camelot, Jones, Dopex, GMX, LODESTAR, Socket, Timeswap, RADIANT, Pendle Finance, MUX, Frax, Tally, Rysk, Silo Finance, Stella, Good Entry, Gamma, Umami, Abracadabra, KyberSwap, OpenOcean, Angle, Trader Joe, Dolomite, Premia, Vertex, Perennial Finance, Balancer, WINR |
| 2 | WOOFi, Gains Netowrk, DefiEdge, Synapse Protocol, PancakeSwap, Notional Finance, Rodeo, Magpie, Stargate, Savvy, Tales of Elleria, Thales, TIDE, Solv Protocol, Furucombo, dForce, Sanko GameCorp, RAMSES, Vela Exchange, Thetanuts, JOJO Exchange, Wormhole, Shell Protocol, REALM, unshETH, StakeDAO, Curve, iZUMi, Beefy Finance, Arrakis Finance, Florence Finance, CVI, Prime Protocol |
The compensation for this proposal will encompass a real-time, continuous flow of 1 million ARB tokens, streamed via the Superfluid protocol. The stream will commence immediately post-approval and will run continuously up until May 19, 2024.
Should we fall short of fulfilling our obligations at any point within the specified period, a new proposal can be initiated to stop the stream of funds.
In the spirit of transparency, we commit to providing regular progress updates and upon completion of each of the 3 phases and maintaining Dune Analytics impact dashboards for the duration of the initiative, both at the application and ecosystem level. In a scenario where we fail to deliver our commitments, the community possesses the full right to propose halting the stream until the matter is adequately addressed and resolved.
Steps to Implement:
By confronting these steps, we can continuously refine our approach, ensuring that we provide mutually beneficial outcomes for both users and protocols involved in the STIP program.
Objective: Guide users through the process of performing a token swap and adding liquidity to a Trader Joe pool on Arbitrum.
User Flow:
Metrics to Monitor:
| Category | KPI | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Impact Analysis | Total Value Locked (TVL) Impact | Measures the change in TVL on Trader Joe as a result of quests |
| Swap Volume Impact | Measures the change in total swap volumes on Trader Joe as a result of quests | |
| User Engagement | Total Quest Participants | The total number of users who participated in the Trader Joe quests |
| Quest Completion Rate | Percentage of users who completed the Trader Joe quests compared to those who started | |
| Protocol-Specific Metrics | Average Swaps per User | Average number of swaps executed per user during the quest |
| Transaction Fees | Fees generated by the Trader Joe as a result of quests. |
| Category | KPI | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Impact Analysis | Network Usage | Measures the change in total transactions on Arbitrum before and after the campaign |
| Transaction Fees | Measures the amount of transaction fees generated by Arbitrum as a result of quests | |
| Gas Costs Saved | Measures the amount of gas saved as a result of Layer2 adoption | |
| User Engagement | User Retention Rate | The percentage of users who returned to Arbitrum platform for subsequent transactions |
| Unique User Rates | Unique New Starters | Number of new users who started a Trader Joe quest on Arbitrum |
| Unique Completion Rates | Percentage of quests that were started and completed by completely new users on Arbitrum |
Layer3 ran a GMX Quest Program in June 2022
User Engagement Metrics: 119,433 total unique participants across 6 quests
Unique User Rates: 95% of Layer3 users who completed the quest hadn’t used GMX prior to the quest
Protocol Specific Metrics: For the period covered, Layer3 accounted for 11.6% of the transactions on GMX
The implementation is divided into three distinct stages, each targeting a specific group of protocols:
Phase 1 - STIP Proposal Quests (November 2023 - January 2024): Quests specifically designed for all STIP-qualified protocols will be released in six groups, each running for a month. The intention is to boost user engagement with these protocols that have received official STIP funding and guide users on how to use STIP protocols.
Phase 2 - Non-STIP Proposal Quests 1 (February 2024 - April 2024): The second phase focuses on those teams that met the STIP criteria but did not receive funding. This stage ensures that these projects also get beneficial visibility and user engagement through their initial quests.
Phase 3 - Non-STIP Proposal Quests 2 (March 2024 - May 2024): The final phase continues the support for non-STIP funded projects, further providing engagement through a second quest for each team. This step is designed to maintain and enhance user interest and interaction, consolidating the engagement prompted in Phase 2.
Running two quests for non-STIP funded projects (Phase 2 and 3) is particularly beneficial as it contributes to user retention through a deeper experience with the protocol.
The aim is to attract users and provide a solid foundation for them to be engaged, active and aligned with the protocol over a longer period. This ultimately contributes to the longevity and sustainability of each protocol.
This phased approach allows us to target attention to each group of protocols, ensuring each has optimized quests and yields the best possible results for all involved.
The total cost to implement this AIP is 1M ARB where:
Recurring costs will entail updates and maintenance, community engagement efforts, partnerships, performance tracking, and reporting.
This proposal lends to Arbitrum's goal to build an engaged and knowledgeable community committed to the platform's longevity. By incorporating all users in a guided and rewarding learning journey, we act as a funnel for new Arbitrum users, rather than current participants dominating rewards. By also acknowledging and rewarding the efforts of teams that did not qualify for STIP, we foster a fairer and more inclusive community spirit, further underlining Arbitrum's commitment to its members.
This dynamic, transparent, and comprehensive approach propels the strength and sustainability of the Arbitrum community.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-build-optimal-onboarding-for-stip-teams-boost/19114/67?u=itublockchain
A lot of STIP projects have confirmed to distribute their rewards via Galxe campaigns. Unnecessary to spend additional 1M to build this.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-build-optimal-onboarding-for-stip-teams-boost/19114/67?u=itublockchain
A lot of STIP projects have confirmed to distribute their rewards via Galxe campaigns. Unnecessary to spend additional 1M to build this.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-build-optimal-onboarding-for-stip-teams-boost/19114/63?u=krst
With Rabbithole and Galxe — both set to receive STIP funding — offering services that overlap, I see no reason to go ahead with this
https://twitter.com/CarlZielinski/status/1719173852599881943
I would prefer to see this go thru a grants program first, get validated for a small number of projects and then grow from there.
I'm generally for this initiative, but there are a few forum questions which would need to be addressed before I vote yes on Tally.
StableLab believes this will improve user discoverability for the STIP incentives and will generate significant ARB sequencer revenue
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-build-optimal-onboarding-for-stip-teams-boost/19114/63?u=krst
With Rabbithole and Galxe — both set to receive STIP funding — offering services that overlap, I see no reason to go ahead with this
https://twitter.com/CarlZielinski/status/1719173852599881943
I would prefer to see this go thru a grants program first, get validated for a small number of projects and then grow from there.
I'm generally for this initiative, but there are a few forum questions which would need to be addressed before I vote yes on Tally.
StableLab believes this will improve user discoverability for the STIP incentives and will generate significant ARB sequencer revenue
From Beefy's side we fully support this proposal. Layer3 has proven to be an amazing and innovative to incentivize current users, but most importantly capturing new ones. The complete proposal seems pretty thought out and makes a lot of sense.
From Beefy's side we fully support this proposal. Layer3 has proven to be an amazing and innovative to incentivize current users, but most importantly capturing new ones. The complete proposal seems pretty thought out and makes a lot of sense.
In considering these 2 proposals, is it correct to treat the Rabbithole and Layer3 proposals as equal?
@krst How did the governance team assign weight / impact to the educational impact of a product like Layer3, vs. the short-term money raining incentives that Rabbithole quests operate with. I believe @JoJo mentioned this above.
In considering these 2 proposals, is it correct to treat the Rabbithole and Layer3 proposals as equal?
@krst How did the governance team assign weight / impact to the educational impact of a product like Layer3, vs. the short-term money raining incentives that Rabbithole quests operate with. I believe @JoJo mentioned this above.
On the Arbitrum call just now, Joe highlighted these are 2 very different products.
Layer3 proposal = onboarding and education
Rabbithole proposal = more liquidity mining and incentives
Both can work, but they're not the same. A pilot does seem like a good idea regardless.
Very supportive of the proposal.
Goal of STIP is to acquire new users and running quests on top of STIP can boost the awareness of incentives and attract users.
Overall I feel the proposal is aligned with the DAO main goal and values.
Leaving my two cents here - Layer3 campaigns have proven to be useful to outside ecosystems. In terms of value to the actual network, Dk put it nicely, this grant pays most of itself back via fees to the sequencer. Commiting to do a campaign for every project is also top notch and this proposal has my full support.
We can attest to the effectiveness of Layer3's campaigns, seeing as we have used them before. Airdrop incentives, alone, are not enough for sticky users and TVL. Layer3, undoubtedly, helps bridge the gap for users who are unfamiliar with the available products on any DeFi ecosystem. We therefore support this proposal.
Without delving into the finer details of budgeting or the cost associated with running these quests, we believe there is value in implementing questing programs to complement the STIP for achieving maximum effectiveness. It is commendable that teams which didn't qualify for STIP are also able to acquire users through this program, making it a fair and inclusive approach. We appreciate the Layer3 team for addressing the questions from the community. We fully support the proposal and believe it will provide a net value-add to the overall Arbitrum ecosystem.
In considering these 2 proposals, is it correct to treat the Rabbithole and Layer3 proposals as equal?
@krst How did the governance team assign weight / impact to the educational impact of a product like Layer3, vs. the short-term money raining incentives that Rabbithole quests operate with. I believe @JoJo mentioned this above.
In considering these 2 proposals, is it correct to treat the Rabbithole and Layer3 proposals as equal?
@krst How did the governance team assign weight / impact to the educational impact of a product like Layer3, vs. the short-term money raining incentives that Rabbithole quests operate with. I believe @JoJo mentioned this above.
On the Arbitrum call just now, Joe highlighted these are 2 very different products.
Layer3 proposal = onboarding and education
Rabbithole proposal = more liquidity mining and incentives
Both can work, but they're not the same. A pilot does seem like a good idea regardless.
Very supportive of the proposal.
Goal of STIP is to acquire new users and running quests on top of STIP can boost the awareness of incentives and attract users.
Overall I feel the proposal is aligned with the DAO main goal and values.
Leaving my two cents here - Layer3 campaigns have proven to be useful to outside ecosystems. In terms of value to the actual network, Dk put it nicely, this grant pays most of itself back via fees to the sequencer. Commiting to do a campaign for every project is also top notch and this proposal has my full support.
We can attest to the effectiveness of Layer3's campaigns, seeing as we have used them before. Airdrop incentives, alone, are not enough for sticky users and TVL. Layer3, undoubtedly, helps bridge the gap for users who are unfamiliar with the available products on any DeFi ecosystem. We therefore support this proposal.
Without delving into the finer details of budgeting or the cost associated with running these quests, we believe there is value in implementing questing programs to complement the STIP for achieving maximum effectiveness. It is commendable that teams which didn't qualify for STIP are also able to acquire users through this program, making it a fair and inclusive approach. We appreciate the Layer3 team for addressing the questions from the community. We fully support the proposal and believe it will provide a net value-add to the overall Arbitrum ecosystem.
Regardless of anything else, can we assume that both Quest Development & Maintenance and Platform Costs will be directly go to L3 teams wallet, right?
I strongly support this proposal.
Layer3 has put forward a proposal that genuinely aims to enhance the entire STIP's effectiveness for the ecosystem by addressing a key issue that hasn't been widely focused on: new user onboarding.
I strongly support this proposal.
Layer3 has put forward a proposal that genuinely aims to enhance the entire STIP's effectiveness for the ecosystem by addressing a key issue that hasn't been widely focused on: new user onboarding.
There's a prevailing sentiment that 'if we provide incentives, users will come'. While it's true that some users will venture into the ecosystem seeking out these incentives, the real power of the STIP lies in acquiring new users who are potentially new to DeFi or not yet confident enough to explore other ecosystems. This approach to focus on acquiring these newer audiences is crucial for the grassroots growth of the ecosystem and will benefit all participants for the longer term.
Questing has consistently proven to be a fantastic Web3 specialized medium capable of targeting and onboarding users who are new to DeFi or even just new to specific types of protocols. Layer3 is also a highly respected platform with a strong track record of delivering high-quality user experiences that genuinely drive activity, acquisition, and aid in improving user education and safety.
This proposal aligns well with the values held by the Arbitrum DAO, and I commend Layer3's efforts to showcase the diverse ecosystem by including many protocols as part of this comprehensive proposal.
Supporting this proposal will benefit the ecosystem during a pivotal time and i hope the DAO also view this as a genuine value add proposal.
I suggest that the delegates carefully consider this proposal before making any hasty decisions.
In fact, there are better alternatives available for allocating 1 million arb, and the community currently lacks a proper process for establishing its own grants.
I suggest that the delegates carefully consider this proposal before making any hasty decisions.
In fact, there are better alternatives available for allocating 1 million arb, and the community currently lacks a proper process for establishing its own grants.
In my opinion, this rushed approach is a poor way to begin. In the long run, releasing a proposal for discussion with only 1-2 days of deliberation time will disrupt the governance of the dao.
It seems @limes and @brandonkumar keep repeating the same outline instead of actually providing any reasoning or explanation as to why they should have preferential treatment over questing services that provide similar services for free. Also, instead of providing valid arguments, they just rushed a Snapshot vote.
It seems @limes and @brandonkumar keep repeating the same outline instead of actually providing any reasoning or explanation as to why they should have preferential treatment over questing services that provide similar services for free. Also, instead of providing valid arguments, they just rushed a Snapshot vote.
You have just acknowledged that you do not require any funding to launch quests, but rather you want Arbitrum DAO to pay up for the privilege. This is not the language that your colleague @limes used when he stated that the funds are not going into your pockets.
Your communication here has been a major red flag, and your intentional skipping of the STIP application only further proves you just want to pocket the funds. Other questing services (Rabbithole and Galxe) have applied and the allocated funds will be going directly to users (which is an actual incentive).
You mention transparency but your communication in this discussion has only shown the lack of it. The only replies we've been receiving so far are canned responses about your previous achievements (which you didn't request funding for).
I'm strongly against this proposal, and suggest everyone to thoroughly review this discussion before voting.
It’s unclear why the proposal was rushed to a vote amidst ongoing disputes. Is this an abuse of delegate or voting power?
Agree with you and @Womnayden. There has been an avoidance of questions and there seems to be a rushed Snapshot which comes off as an attempt to loot the treasury. Of course the projects that are included in the proposal will be for the proposal. This sets poor precedent for the DAO, and will lead to more situations like this in the future where projects are taking advantage of governance. I'd encourage delegates and voters to read through the entire discussion.
Hey limes! Westie from Blockworks Research here
Couple of comments and questions surrounding this proposal:
Hey limes! Westie from Blockworks Research here
Couple of comments and questions surrounding this proposal:
Looking forward to hearing your feedback here! I do think Quests as a whole are a good quantitative way to onboard new users, but this proposal is lacking in certain areas.
It seems the Layer3 team is not addressing the core concern - why do you require operational funding from the DAO when other questing providers are doing this for free?
As I've mentioned before (which was also denied by the Layer3 representatives), the requested budget will be pocketed by the team, while other questing service providers applied for STIP and will use their funding to distribute to users as rewards directly.
It seems the Layer3 team is not addressing the core concern - why do you require operational funding from the DAO when other questing providers are doing this for free?
As I've mentioned before (which was also denied by the Layer3 representatives), the requested budget will be pocketed by the team, while other questing service providers applied for STIP and will use their funding to distribute to users as rewards directly.
This proposal is clearly flawed and I'm not exactly sure the intent of the Layer3 team is in the right place. You did not apply for STIP because it wouldn't have allowed you to pocket the funds, and now you are outlining a strategy which is essentially paid marketing that costs the treasury 1M ARB. Other questing providers do not require operational budget to run quests, they applied directly for STIP and do not pocket any funds. What this means is you intentionally did not apply so you could angle your proposal to promote STIP applicants for a paid fee covered by the treasury.
The benefits of quests for growth and engagement is undeniable. What is concerning here is the lack of transparency and the contradicting statements Layer3 representatives have provided in this discussion.
Why this is already on Snapshot when there are open discussions here? I dont get it why rushing things, like wtf.
I might vote against.
Having collaborated with Layer3 previously, we've seen firsthand its efficacy in educating and channeling high-quality users focused on DeFi to us. Given that most STIP projects this round lean into DeFi, we fully support this proposal as an effective method to introduce new users, highlight innovative protocols, and draw interest in Arbitrum.
Regardless of anything else, can we assume that both Quest Development & Maintenance and Platform Costs will be directly go to L3 teams wallet, right?
I strongly support this proposal.
Layer3 has put forward a proposal that genuinely aims to enhance the entire STIP's effectiveness for the ecosystem by addressing a key issue that hasn't been widely focused on: new user onboarding.
I strongly support this proposal.
Layer3 has put forward a proposal that genuinely aims to enhance the entire STIP's effectiveness for the ecosystem by addressing a key issue that hasn't been widely focused on: new user onboarding.
There's a prevailing sentiment that 'if we provide incentives, users will come'. While it's true that some users will venture into the ecosystem seeking out these incentives, the real power of the STIP lies in acquiring new users who are potentially new to DeFi or not yet confident enough to explore other ecosystems. This approach to focus on acquiring these newer audiences is crucial for the grassroots growth of the ecosystem and will benefit all participants for the longer term.
Questing has consistently proven to be a fantastic Web3 specialized medium capable of targeting and onboarding users who are new to DeFi or even just new to specific types of protocols. Layer3 is also a highly respected platform with a strong track record of delivering high-quality user experiences that genuinely drive activity, acquisition, and aid in improving user education and safety.
This proposal aligns well with the values held by the Arbitrum DAO, and I commend Layer3's efforts to showcase the diverse ecosystem by including many protocols as part of this comprehensive proposal.
Supporting this proposal will benefit the ecosystem during a pivotal time and i hope the DAO also view this as a genuine value add proposal.
I suggest that the delegates carefully consider this proposal before making any hasty decisions.
In fact, there are better alternatives available for allocating 1 million arb, and the community currently lacks a proper process for establishing its own grants.
I suggest that the delegates carefully consider this proposal before making any hasty decisions.
In fact, there are better alternatives available for allocating 1 million arb, and the community currently lacks a proper process for establishing its own grants.
In my opinion, this rushed approach is a poor way to begin. In the long run, releasing a proposal for discussion with only 1-2 days of deliberation time will disrupt the governance of the dao.
It seems @limes and @brandonkumar keep repeating the same outline instead of actually providing any reasoning or explanation as to why they should have preferential treatment over questing services that provide similar services for free. Also, instead of providing valid arguments, they just rushed a Snapshot vote.
It seems @limes and @brandonkumar keep repeating the same outline instead of actually providing any reasoning or explanation as to why they should have preferential treatment over questing services that provide similar services for free. Also, instead of providing valid arguments, they just rushed a Snapshot vote.
You have just acknowledged that you do not require any funding to launch quests, but rather you want Arbitrum DAO to pay up for the privilege. This is not the language that your colleague @limes used when he stated that the funds are not going into your pockets.
Your communication here has been a major red flag, and your intentional skipping of the STIP application only further proves you just want to pocket the funds. Other questing services (Rabbithole and Galxe) have applied and the allocated funds will be going directly to users (which is an actual incentive).
You mention transparency but your communication in this discussion has only shown the lack of it. The only replies we've been receiving so far are canned responses about your previous achievements (which you didn't request funding for).
I'm strongly against this proposal, and suggest everyone to thoroughly review this discussion before voting.
It’s unclear why the proposal was rushed to a vote amidst ongoing disputes. Is this an abuse of delegate or voting power?
Agree with you and @Womnayden. There has been an avoidance of questions and there seems to be a rushed Snapshot which comes off as an attempt to loot the treasury. Of course the projects that are included in the proposal will be for the proposal. This sets poor precedent for the DAO, and will lead to more situations like this in the future where projects are taking advantage of governance. I'd encourage delegates and voters to read through the entire discussion.
Hey limes! Westie from Blockworks Research here
Couple of comments and questions surrounding this proposal:
Hey limes! Westie from Blockworks Research here
Couple of comments and questions surrounding this proposal:
Looking forward to hearing your feedback here! I do think Quests as a whole are a good quantitative way to onboard new users, but this proposal is lacking in certain areas.
It seems the Layer3 team is not addressing the core concern - why do you require operational funding from the DAO when other questing providers are doing this for free?
As I've mentioned before (which was also denied by the Layer3 representatives), the requested budget will be pocketed by the team, while other questing service providers applied for STIP and will use their funding to distribute to users as rewards directly.
It seems the Layer3 team is not addressing the core concern - why do you require operational funding from the DAO when other questing providers are doing this for free?
As I've mentioned before (which was also denied by the Layer3 representatives), the requested budget will be pocketed by the team, while other questing service providers applied for STIP and will use their funding to distribute to users as rewards directly.
This proposal is clearly flawed and I'm not exactly sure the intent of the Layer3 team is in the right place. You did not apply for STIP because it wouldn't have allowed you to pocket the funds, and now you are outlining a strategy which is essentially paid marketing that costs the treasury 1M ARB. Other questing providers do not require operational budget to run quests, they applied directly for STIP and do not pocket any funds. What this means is you intentionally did not apply so you could angle your proposal to promote STIP applicants for a paid fee covered by the treasury.
The benefits of quests for growth and engagement is undeniable. What is concerning here is the lack of transparency and the contradicting statements Layer3 representatives have provided in this discussion.
Why this is already on Snapshot when there are open discussions here? I dont get it why rushing things, like wtf.
I might vote against.
Having collaborated with Layer3 previously, we've seen firsthand its efficacy in educating and channeling high-quality users focused on DeFi to us. Given that most STIP projects this round lean into DeFi, we fully support this proposal as an effective method to introduce new users, highlight innovative protocols, and draw interest in Arbitrum.
Blockquote This number is arrived at by 1M ARB/95 Quests
The very basic question that was asked here is why you need 1M ARB to run the quests if you already ran plenty without any tokens. You have mentioned that you will need ARB to cover the costs of running the campaigns, which is a conflicting statement. You then mentioned that it will cost approximately 10,500 ARB to run each quest, and I have asked what the detailed breakdown is. 1M/95 is not an answer to this question.
Blockquote This number is arrived at by 1M ARB/95 Quests
The very basic question that was asked here is why you need 1M ARB to run the quests if you already ran plenty without any tokens. You have mentioned that you will need ARB to cover the costs of running the campaigns, which is a conflicting statement. You then mentioned that it will cost approximately 10,500 ARB to run each quest, and I have asked what the detailed breakdown is. 1M/95 is not an answer to this question.
As others have mentioned, proposals from other quest platforms like Galxe/RabbitHole had funds going directly to incentivizing contracts and users, whereas this is not the case.
I'd like to see more thoughtfulness be put into the proposal, as it seems very rushed and trying to take advantage of the fact that everyone can win with this proposal, which is idealistic and not feasible. Perhaps it may be a better idea to apply for Round 2 if it does end up happening, or even choose a subset of the projects and have a more strategic approach that the community can get behind
Agreed, and as far as I know, most of the projects on layer3 require payment to be listed.
In STIP, both Galxe's 500,000 $arb and RabbitHole's 1 million $arb will benefit users. Galxe will use it to support claim oat, while RabbitHole will distribute it to all users through the quest protocol. And is it a joke that Layer3 applied for 1 million $arb only for marketing and designing Quest?
Thanks for taking the time to answer the previous questions!
Some responses below:
Thanks for taking the time to answer the previous questions!
Some responses below:
Absolutely, we work closely with Spindl, a third-party data provider, to offer verified statistics. We’ll share public dashboards alongside our formal proposal. And to clarify, while GMX was a significant part of our campaign, many users were active on Layer3 before the GMX quest and completed quests across a variety of Arbitrum protocols. We’re committed to transparency and are more than willing to provide verifiable data to the community.
Great, looking forward to seeing this, I think that would be great for the community to see!
Historically, acquisition costs range from $0.75 to $4.00 per transaction. While each protocol has unique financial structures, our primary goal is to provide effective solutions that generate a positive ROI event.
How are you arriving at these acquisition costs if there are were no previous cost to projects or Arbitrum DAO? Also as far as I understand your model, users receive XP and NFTs for completing quests rather than direct ARB tokens, so just trying to understand the math a bit here.
We’re anticipating around 25,000 transactions per quest. Multiply that by the 95 quests we’re planning, and the community can expect a total of over 2 million transactions as a direct result of this initiative, roughly $0.40 per transaction.
Can you walk me through your process on why you think all 95 quests are created equal and will have the estimated same results? I understand the need to support everyone in the ecosystem with growth, but the community will want to double click on these assumptions.
Roughly 10,500 ARB per quest driving 15,000-25,000 users to make ~25,000 transactions per quest.
Can we see a detailed breakdown of how you're arriving at this 10,500 ARB? You mentioned most of the cost is around updates, maintenance, community engagement efforts, partnerships, performance targeting and reporting, but you have managed to get 5.9 million transactions without 1M ARB.
We have already the Odyssey campaign that is onboarding thousands and thousands of users and still have some time left. Why we should do another one on top of that or right after the Odyssey campaign ends? For me it makes no sense.
Also the Odyssey campaign (Galxe) its a near FREE cost campaign. For anyone working on any DAO knows that Layer3 quests are super expensive, looking at this it seems -for numbers i got quoted from Layer3 for other projects- that this campaign would cost $100k+
We have already the Odyssey campaign that is onboarding thousands and thousands of users and still have some time left. Why we should do another one on top of that or right after the Odyssey campaign ends? For me it makes no sense.
Also the Odyssey campaign (Galxe) its a near FREE cost campaign. For anyone working on any DAO knows that Layer3 quests are super expensive, looking at this it seems -for numbers i got quoted from Layer3 for other projects- that this campaign would cost $100k+
I dont see the benefits at least now. Maybe a campaign on Layer3 could do some good on Arbitrum Nova on some future when more dApps are deployed there.
Thanks for making this proposal! A couple of questions:
337,613 users to complete more than 5.9 million on-chain transactions on Arbitrum
Thanks for making this proposal! A couple of questions:
337,613 users to complete more than 5.9 million on-chain transactions on Arbitrum
Is there any way the community can verify these numbers? Etherscan/Flipside/Dune etc. Looks like the GMX campaign drove over 1/3 of those users if I understand correctly (113.7k)
How much did it cost to get those numbers and transcations? What did projects pay in these instances?
What is the projection of the number of transcations the community will receive for 1M ARB tokens? I didn't see it in the proposal.
What is the exact cost of marketing and developing each quest? Having these will help the community better understand the cost and return.
Thank you for answering the questions in advance!
This proposal seems to be to check both of the main things I look for in proposals. Number 1 it supports something that is innovative or something that would usually not be supported in traditional frameworks, rather than for example incentivising the 20th GMX fork. Making Arbitrum the home of everything, in this case SocialFi tooling, is important. On top of this, as my 2nd point and as @dk3 explains pefectly in his comment, it seems to make economical sense to support such a proposal from the DAOs perspective.
For these reasons, I support it.
I think it makes sense. If Arbitrum is going to invest 50M ARB into this incentive campaign, I think it's a good idea to take some of that ARB and apply it to services like Layer3 that can help funnel users to the incentivized opportunities. I'm sure the incentives to the STIP projects will be enough to draw a lot of users and TVL, but my guess is that companies like Layer3 can help maximize their effectiveness.
I think if Arbitrum is going to make this big investment in liquidity incentives, it might as well allocate some budget to ancillary services to try and maximize effectiveness of that investment.
The potential impact of running 95 Quests across over 60 protocols is undeniable, especially when taking into account the performance metrics mentioned above. Just for GMX, we engaged 119,000+ users, with 95% of them being new to GMX, to participate in on-chain transactions.
This proposal has the potential to really amplify the STIP rewards with an added layer of cross-education between different Arbitrum dApps to onboard new users into the chain and make the adoption stick. The track record of Layer3 in executing high impact quests gives also gives me confidence in their ability to carry this out.
We never applied to STIP.
Well, it does look like it's exactly the reason why you never applied for STIP - your proposal would be ineligible due to pocketing the funds.
Blockquote This number is arrived at by 1M ARB/95 Quests
The very basic question that was asked here is why you need 1M ARB to run the quests if you already ran plenty without any tokens. You have mentioned that you will need ARB to cover the costs of running the campaigns, which is a conflicting statement. You then mentioned that it will cost approximately 10,500 ARB to run each quest, and I have asked what the detailed breakdown is. 1M/95 is not an answer to this question.
Blockquote This number is arrived at by 1M ARB/95 Quests
The very basic question that was asked here is why you need 1M ARB to run the quests if you already ran plenty without any tokens. You have mentioned that you will need ARB to cover the costs of running the campaigns, which is a conflicting statement. You then mentioned that it will cost approximately 10,500 ARB to run each quest, and I have asked what the detailed breakdown is. 1M/95 is not an answer to this question.
As others have mentioned, proposals from other quest platforms like Galxe/RabbitHole had funds going directly to incentivizing contracts and users, whereas this is not the case.
I'd like to see more thoughtfulness be put into the proposal, as it seems very rushed and trying to take advantage of the fact that everyone can win with this proposal, which is idealistic and not feasible. Perhaps it may be a better idea to apply for Round 2 if it does end up happening, or even choose a subset of the projects and have a more strategic approach that the community can get behind
Agreed, and as far as I know, most of the projects on layer3 require payment to be listed.
In STIP, both Galxe's 500,000 $arb and RabbitHole's 1 million $arb will benefit users. Galxe will use it to support claim oat, while RabbitHole will distribute it to all users through the quest protocol. And is it a joke that Layer3 applied for 1 million $arb only for marketing and designing Quest?
Thanks for taking the time to answer the previous questions!
Some responses below:
Thanks for taking the time to answer the previous questions!
Some responses below:
Absolutely, we work closely with Spindl, a third-party data provider, to offer verified statistics. We’ll share public dashboards alongside our formal proposal. And to clarify, while GMX was a significant part of our campaign, many users were active on Layer3 before the GMX quest and completed quests across a variety of Arbitrum protocols. We’re committed to transparency and are more than willing to provide verifiable data to the community.
Great, looking forward to seeing this, I think that would be great for the community to see!
Historically, acquisition costs range from $0.75 to $4.00 per transaction. While each protocol has unique financial structures, our primary goal is to provide effective solutions that generate a positive ROI event.
How are you arriving at these acquisition costs if there are were no previous cost to projects or Arbitrum DAO? Also as far as I understand your model, users receive XP and NFTs for completing quests rather than direct ARB tokens, so just trying to understand the math a bit here.
We’re anticipating around 25,000 transactions per quest. Multiply that by the 95 quests we’re planning, and the community can expect a total of over 2 million transactions as a direct result of this initiative, roughly $0.40 per transaction.
Can you walk me through your process on why you think all 95 quests are created equal and will have the estimated same results? I understand the need to support everyone in the ecosystem with growth, but the community will want to double click on these assumptions.
Roughly 10,500 ARB per quest driving 15,000-25,000 users to make ~25,000 transactions per quest.
Can we see a detailed breakdown of how you're arriving at this 10,500 ARB? You mentioned most of the cost is around updates, maintenance, community engagement efforts, partnerships, performance targeting and reporting, but you have managed to get 5.9 million transactions without 1M ARB.
We have already the Odyssey campaign that is onboarding thousands and thousands of users and still have some time left. Why we should do another one on top of that or right after the Odyssey campaign ends? For me it makes no sense.
Also the Odyssey campaign (Galxe) its a near FREE cost campaign. For anyone working on any DAO knows that Layer3 quests are super expensive, looking at this it seems -for numbers i got quoted from Layer3 for other projects- that this campaign would cost $100k+
We have already the Odyssey campaign that is onboarding thousands and thousands of users and still have some time left. Why we should do another one on top of that or right after the Odyssey campaign ends? For me it makes no sense.
Also the Odyssey campaign (Galxe) its a near FREE cost campaign. For anyone working on any DAO knows that Layer3 quests are super expensive, looking at this it seems -for numbers i got quoted from Layer3 for other projects- that this campaign would cost $100k+
I dont see the benefits at least now. Maybe a campaign on Layer3 could do some good on Arbitrum Nova on some future when more dApps are deployed there.
Thanks for making this proposal! A couple of questions:
337,613 users to complete more than 5.9 million on-chain transactions on Arbitrum
Thanks for making this proposal! A couple of questions:
337,613 users to complete more than 5.9 million on-chain transactions on Arbitrum
Is there any way the community can verify these numbers? Etherscan/Flipside/Dune etc. Looks like the GMX campaign drove over 1/3 of those users if I understand correctly (113.7k)
How much did it cost to get those numbers and transcations? What did projects pay in these instances?
What is the projection of the number of transcations the community will receive for 1M ARB tokens? I didn't see it in the proposal.
What is the exact cost of marketing and developing each quest? Having these will help the community better understand the cost and return.
Thank you for answering the questions in advance!
This proposal seems to be to check both of the main things I look for in proposals. Number 1 it supports something that is innovative or something that would usually not be supported in traditional frameworks, rather than for example incentivising the 20th GMX fork. Making Arbitrum the home of everything, in this case SocialFi tooling, is important. On top of this, as my 2nd point and as @dk3 explains pefectly in his comment, it seems to make economical sense to support such a proposal from the DAOs perspective.
For these reasons, I support it.
I think it makes sense. If Arbitrum is going to invest 50M ARB into this incentive campaign, I think it's a good idea to take some of that ARB and apply it to services like Layer3 that can help funnel users to the incentivized opportunities. I'm sure the incentives to the STIP projects will be enough to draw a lot of users and TVL, but my guess is that companies like Layer3 can help maximize their effectiveness.
I think if Arbitrum is going to make this big investment in liquidity incentives, it might as well allocate some budget to ancillary services to try and maximize effectiveness of that investment.
The potential impact of running 95 Quests across over 60 protocols is undeniable, especially when taking into account the performance metrics mentioned above. Just for GMX, we engaged 119,000+ users, with 95% of them being new to GMX, to participate in on-chain transactions.
This proposal has the potential to really amplify the STIP rewards with an added layer of cross-education between different Arbitrum dApps to onboard new users into the chain and make the adoption stick. The track record of Layer3 in executing high impact quests gives also gives me confidence in their ability to carry this out.
We never applied to STIP.
Well, it does look like it's exactly the reason why you never applied for STIP - your proposal would be ineligible due to pocketing the funds.
The potential impact of running 95 Quests across over 60 protocols is undeniable, especially when taking into account the performance metrics mentioned above. Just for GMX, we engaged 119,000+ users, with 95% of them being new to GMX, to participate in on-chain transactions.
We genuinely believe that this proposal will bring clear and immediate benefits to the DAO and the broader Arbitrum ecosystem. We're dedicated to its success and welcome continued dialogue to ensure its effectiveness.
Thanks for the reply @brandonkumar.
I'm not denying any achievements of Layer3 or any added benefits from running Arbitrum quests in general. My question is straightforward - what are the reasons of requesting such a large sum of ARB to simply run quests for the aforementioned protocols?
You have just stated in your response that Layer3 has already developed and maintained quests for Arbitrum. @limes mentioned that 'the funds will be allocated towards designing, developing and maintaining these quest systems'. This shows you have previously driven engagement to Arbitrum without requesting an operational budget. Why are you requesting one this time?
Keep in mind, I have no reason to deny the general effectiveness of running quests for the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem. My point is, you are requesting a large amount of funds for something that: a) you have previously done without requesting an operational budget; b) other questing systems provide the same questing service without requesting an operational budget.
Well, it does look like it's exactly the reason why you never applied for STIP - your proposal would be ineligible due to pocketing the funds.
As for the funding, it certainly doesn’t go into our pockets. The funds will be allocated towards designing, developing, and maintaining these quest systems, and in turn, contributing to making Arbitrum more accessible.
Sorry, but isn't this exactly the definition of the funds going to your pockets? What you just described here is allocating the budget towards your platform's quest systems, rather than directly rewarding users for engagement with Arbitrum.
As @peter mentioned, the incentive should be strong motivation in itself, and this goes back to the original point as to why your proposal would not have passed for STIP (I'm assuming this is the reason why you didn't apply in the first place).
I understand the idea of the proposal, but the fund allocation and amount is simply inefficient. Proposals from both Rabbithole and Galxe (which both applied for STIP) are developing and maintaining quest systems for Arbitrum without additionally requesting operational budget to do so.
The WOOFi team has worked closely with Layer3 for more than a year now, and I can vouch that their ability to execute engaging, user-friendly quests is second to none. I support this proposal and see it as a great way to bring new users into the ecosystem, showcase budding/innovative protocols, and ultimately drive wider interest in Arbitrum.
A request of 1M ARB is extremely unreasonable and unfair for any project that did not qualify for STIP.
Rabbithole's STIP proposal did not make the cutoff and requested 1M ARB for the same initiative where incentives directly go towards user engagement. In your case, the requested funds would be pocketed and I'm having trouble identifying the benefit for Arbitrum.
A request of 1M ARB is extremely unreasonable and unfair for any project that did not qualify for STIP.
Rabbithole's STIP proposal did not make the cutoff and requested 1M ARB for the same initiative where incentives directly go towards user engagement. In your case, the requested funds would be pocketed and I'm having trouble identifying the benefit for Arbitrum.
This seems unnecessary and I strongly disagree with this proposal.
- Given there’s also a proposal from Rabbithole in the forum, which is requesting for half the requested budget by Layer3 to be distributed as incentives, we should discuss as a DAO and come up with a way to make both work.
- We’d much rather fund a pilot program with just a few quests covering few chosen protocols to better understand impact, and then determine whether we want to go for a fully fledged quests program.
We agree that funding both to have a side-by-side comparison to help analyze results and with a smaller pilot would be most beneficial for the DAO to understand quest platforms more broadly. We are happy to help with this.
The potential impact of running 95 Quests across over 60 protocols is undeniable, especially when taking into account the performance metrics mentioned above. Just for GMX, we engaged 119,000+ users, with 95% of them being new to GMX, to participate in on-chain transactions.
We genuinely believe that this proposal will bring clear and immediate benefits to the DAO and the broader Arbitrum ecosystem. We're dedicated to its success and welcome continued dialogue to ensure its effectiveness.
Thanks for the reply @brandonkumar.
I'm not denying any achievements of Layer3 or any added benefits from running Arbitrum quests in general. My question is straightforward - what are the reasons of requesting such a large sum of ARB to simply run quests for the aforementioned protocols?
You have just stated in your response that Layer3 has already developed and maintained quests for Arbitrum. @limes mentioned that 'the funds will be allocated towards designing, developing and maintaining these quest systems'. This shows you have previously driven engagement to Arbitrum without requesting an operational budget. Why are you requesting one this time?
Keep in mind, I have no reason to deny the general effectiveness of running quests for the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem. My point is, you are requesting a large amount of funds for something that: a) you have previously done without requesting an operational budget; b) other questing systems provide the same questing service without requesting an operational budget.
Well, it does look like it's exactly the reason why you never applied for STIP - your proposal would be ineligible due to pocketing the funds.
As for the funding, it certainly doesn’t go into our pockets. The funds will be allocated towards designing, developing, and maintaining these quest systems, and in turn, contributing to making Arbitrum more accessible.
Sorry, but isn't this exactly the definition of the funds going to your pockets? What you just described here is allocating the budget towards your platform's quest systems, rather than directly rewarding users for engagement with Arbitrum.
As @peter mentioned, the incentive should be strong motivation in itself, and this goes back to the original point as to why your proposal would not have passed for STIP (I'm assuming this is the reason why you didn't apply in the first place).
I understand the idea of the proposal, but the fund allocation and amount is simply inefficient. Proposals from both Rabbithole and Galxe (which both applied for STIP) are developing and maintaining quest systems for Arbitrum without additionally requesting operational budget to do so.
The WOOFi team has worked closely with Layer3 for more than a year now, and I can vouch that their ability to execute engaging, user-friendly quests is second to none. I support this proposal and see it as a great way to bring new users into the ecosystem, showcase budding/innovative protocols, and ultimately drive wider interest in Arbitrum.
A request of 1M ARB is extremely unreasonable and unfair for any project that did not qualify for STIP.
Rabbithole's STIP proposal did not make the cutoff and requested 1M ARB for the same initiative where incentives directly go towards user engagement. In your case, the requested funds would be pocketed and I'm having trouble identifying the benefit for Arbitrum.
A request of 1M ARB is extremely unreasonable and unfair for any project that did not qualify for STIP.
Rabbithole's STIP proposal did not make the cutoff and requested 1M ARB for the same initiative where incentives directly go towards user engagement. In your case, the requested funds would be pocketed and I'm having trouble identifying the benefit for Arbitrum.
This seems unnecessary and I strongly disagree with this proposal.
- Given there’s also a proposal from Rabbithole in the forum, which is requesting for half the requested budget by Layer3 to be distributed as incentives, we should discuss as a DAO and come up with a way to make both work.
- We’d much rather fund a pilot program with just a few quests covering few chosen protocols to better understand impact, and then determine whether we want to go for a fully fledged quests program.
We agree that funding both to have a side-by-side comparison to help analyze results and with a smaller pilot would be most beneficial for the DAO to understand quest platforms more broadly. We are happy to help with this.
- Given there’s also a proposal from Rabbithole in the forum, which is requesting for half the requested budget by Layer3 to be distributed as incentives, we should discuss as a DAO and come up with a way to make both work.
- We’d much rather fund a pilot program with just a few quests covering few chosen protocols to better understand impact, and then determine whether we want to go for a fully fledged quests program.
We agree that funding both to have a side-by-side comparison to help analyze results and with a smaller pilot would be most beneficial for the DAO to understand quest platforms more broadly. We are happy to help with this.
@quaternary A couple of thoughts:
@krst How did the governance team assign weight / impact to the educational impact of a product like Layer3, vs. the short-term money raining incentives that Rabbithole quests operate with. I believe @JoJo mentioned this above.
Quest rewards are a fraction of the gas cost, in which users earn rebates for completing actions. Quests with ERC20s are about rewarding users with ownership, not financial incentives. You can see for yourself by checking out Quest Terminal.
On the Arbitrum call just now, Joe highlighted these are 2 very different products.
Layer3 proposal = onboarding and education
Rabbithole proposal = more liquidity mining and incentives
My two cents, but think this is a false categorization of the two products. RabbitHole is indeed focused on onboarding and education as well as an end user product. It's important that this is not to be confused by Quest Protocol, which is the infratructure that underlies RabbitHole and other quest platforms like the Arbitrum Quest Platform
Thanks for posting these numbers Brandon, I think it's very helpful for the community to see! However, it doesn't look like there is a way to verify this onchain anywhere by a third party (we don't have access to Spindl's data or can't audit it) Can you point us to where we can verify these metrics are correct?
We are really excited that the Arbitrum community is interested in diversifying into other quest platforms to drive new users and growth alongside the STIP. However, as others have pointed out in this discussion, we believe that the Layer3 model not only has misaligned incentives with the DAO by using ARB as operational cost and distributing none to users, but also lacks the ability to be transparent with their data.
We have put forth a new proposal that addresses these concerns, with the same goals in mind: To use Quest Protocol to drive growth to STIP projects that received grants and didn't make the cutoff, as well as new goals such as increase the number of ARB holders that are participating in the network. Hope you can give it a read here.
We are really excited that the Arbitrum community is interested in diversifying into other quest platforms to drive new users and growth alongside the STIP. However, as others have pointed out in this discussion, we believe that the Layer3 model not only has misaligned incentives with the DAO by using ARB as operational cost and distributing none to users, but also lacks the ability to be transparent with their data.
We have put forth a new proposal that addresses these concerns, with the same goals in mind: To use Quest Protocol to drive growth to STIP projects that received grants and didn't make the cutoff, as well as new goals such as increase the number of ARB holders that are participating in the network. Hope you can give it a read here.
We believe the Arbitrum DAO deserves an open, honest conversation about the benefits that quest platforms offer, as well the pros/cons of having an offchain and onchain model.
Just in case anyone isn't aware, Snapshot is simply used as a temperature check and the result is not binding. It can help spur discussion about a proposal before going to the real on-chain vote (via Tally's UI).
It's unclear why the proposal was rushed to a vote amidst ongoing disputes. Is this an abuse of delegate or voting power? cc: @Womnayden @jellyfish
- Given there’s also a proposal from Rabbithole in the forum, which is requesting for half the requested budget by Layer3 to be distributed as incentives, we should discuss as a DAO and come up with a way to make both work.
- We’d much rather fund a pilot program with just a few quests covering few chosen protocols to better understand impact, and then determine whether we want to go for a fully fledged quests program.
We agree that funding both to have a side-by-side comparison to help analyze results and with a smaller pilot would be most beneficial for the DAO to understand quest platforms more broadly. We are happy to help with this.
@quaternary A couple of thoughts:
@krst How did the governance team assign weight / impact to the educational impact of a product like Layer3, vs. the short-term money raining incentives that Rabbithole quests operate with. I believe @JoJo mentioned this above.
Quest rewards are a fraction of the gas cost, in which users earn rebates for completing actions. Quests with ERC20s are about rewarding users with ownership, not financial incentives. You can see for yourself by checking out Quest Terminal.
On the Arbitrum call just now, Joe highlighted these are 2 very different products.
Layer3 proposal = onboarding and education
Rabbithole proposal = more liquidity mining and incentives
My two cents, but think this is a false categorization of the two products. RabbitHole is indeed focused on onboarding and education as well as an end user product. It's important that this is not to be confused by Quest Protocol, which is the infratructure that underlies RabbitHole and other quest platforms like the Arbitrum Quest Platform
Thanks for posting these numbers Brandon, I think it's very helpful for the community to see! However, it doesn't look like there is a way to verify this onchain anywhere by a third party (we don't have access to Spindl's data or can't audit it) Can you point us to where we can verify these metrics are correct?
We are really excited that the Arbitrum community is interested in diversifying into other quest platforms to drive new users and growth alongside the STIP. However, as others have pointed out in this discussion, we believe that the Layer3 model not only has misaligned incentives with the DAO by using ARB as operational cost and distributing none to users, but also lacks the ability to be transparent with their data.
We have put forth a new proposal that addresses these concerns, with the same goals in mind: To use Quest Protocol to drive growth to STIP projects that received grants and didn't make the cutoff, as well as new goals such as increase the number of ARB holders that are participating in the network. Hope you can give it a read here.
We are really excited that the Arbitrum community is interested in diversifying into other quest platforms to drive new users and growth alongside the STIP. However, as others have pointed out in this discussion, we believe that the Layer3 model not only has misaligned incentives with the DAO by using ARB as operational cost and distributing none to users, but also lacks the ability to be transparent with their data.
We have put forth a new proposal that addresses these concerns, with the same goals in mind: To use Quest Protocol to drive growth to STIP projects that received grants and didn't make the cutoff, as well as new goals such as increase the number of ARB holders that are participating in the network. Hope you can give it a read here.
We believe the Arbitrum DAO deserves an open, honest conversation about the benefits that quest platforms offer, as well the pros/cons of having an offchain and onchain model.
Just in case anyone isn't aware, Snapshot is simply used as a temperature check and the result is not binding. It can help spur discussion about a proposal before going to the real on-chain vote (via Tally's UI).
It's unclear why the proposal was rushed to a vote amidst ongoing disputes. Is this an abuse of delegate or voting power? cc: @Womnayden @jellyfish
As @zeck mentioned the DAO has already spent 500K $ARB on the Galxe solution through STIP. There must have been a logical reason they didn't choose Layer3 at the first place. I really doubt what kind of added value Layer3 offers which costs the DAO further up 1M $ARB?
Why do we need to spend money on marketing to attract dApp users when the incentive itself is a strong motivation? I'm sure there will be a lot of tweets about how to farm it effectively, which will also educate users and get newcomers on board. I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is a waste of money.
As @zeck mentioned the DAO has already spent 500K $ARB on the Galxe solution through STIP. There must have been a logical reason they didn't choose Layer3 at the first place. I really doubt what kind of added value Layer3 offers which costs the DAO further up 1M $ARB?
Why do we need to spend money on marketing to attract dApp users when the incentive itself is a strong motivation? I'm sure there will be a lot of tweets about how to farm it effectively, which will also educate users and get newcomers on board. I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is a waste of money.
Thanks @limes, for the thoughtful proposal. A few thoughts:
Evidence suggests this style of quest enhances user engagement and transactions (and thus network fees), while having less of an impact on liquidity metrics like TVL, suggesting a complimentary synergy here for STIP grantees (1, 2).
Thanks @limes, for the thoughtful proposal. A few thoughts:
Evidence suggests this style of quest enhances user engagement and transactions (and thus network fees), while having less of an impact on liquidity metrics like TVL, suggesting a complimentary synergy here for STIP grantees (1, 2).
Batching STIP groups across various periods also helps the DAO evaluate user interactions and the quests’ impact across each incentivized protocol. The approach aligns with the goal to cultivate insights for a durable long-term strategy.
My one wish would be that looking forward, more stakeholders engage from the onset of future programs. If Arbitrum wants to innovate, it must transition from outdated, traditional incentives like STIP and leverage novel companies, products, and smart-contracts. Insights from folks like Layer3, Galxe, etc. appear to be an essential piece of this puzzle.
Regardless of if this proposal proceeds, I'd encourage similar stakeholders to continue to be involved in WGs, continue to draft proposals like this one, and continue to work in concert w/ data providers and protocols to help ideate more robust long-term solutions. I genuinely believe we're at the beginning of an explosion of novel and innovative design in this area, and I think the Arbitrum community is actually uniquely positioned for collaboration.
Thanks @limes, for the thoughtful proposal. A few thoughts:
Evidence suggests this style of quest enhances user engagement and transactions (and thus network fees), while having less of an impact on liquidity metrics like TVL, suggesting a complimentary synergy here for STIP grantees (1, 2).
Thanks @limes, for the thoughtful proposal. A few thoughts:
Evidence suggests this style of quest enhances user engagement and transactions (and thus network fees), while having less of an impact on liquidity metrics like TVL, suggesting a complimentary synergy here for STIP grantees (1, 2).
Batching STIP groups across various periods also helps the DAO evaluate user interactions and the quests’ impact across each incentivized protocol. The approach aligns with the goal to cultivate insights for a durable long-term strategy.
My one wish would be that looking forward, more stakeholders engage from the onset of future programs. If Arbitrum wants to innovate, it must transition from outdated, traditional incentives like STIP and leverage novel companies, products, and smart-contracts. Insights from folks like Layer3, Galxe, etc. appear to be an essential piece of this puzzle.
Regardless of if this proposal proceeds, I'd encourage similar stakeholders to continue to be involved in WGs, continue to draft proposals like this one, and continue to work in concert w/ data providers and protocols to help ideate more robust long-term solutions. I genuinely believe we're at the beginning of an explosion of novel and innovative design in this area, and I think the Arbitrum community is actually uniquely positioned for collaboration.
Sharing the final results of the Snapshot here. Just want to say thank you, everyone, for your feedback and engagement during this proposal process, we deeply appreciate the thoughtful conversations and inputs. We'll take these insights back internally to consider our next steps. Despite the outcome of the Snapshot vote, we remain committed to supporting Arbitrum independent of BOOST.
Sharing the final results of the Snapshot here. Just want to say thank you, everyone, for your feedback and engagement during this proposal process, we deeply appreciate the thoughtful conversations and inputs. We'll take these insights back internally to consider our next steps. Despite the outcome of the Snapshot vote, we remain committed to supporting Arbitrum independent of BOOST.
We’ve been happy to be a part of this community since June 2022 and look forward to continuing development of the ecosystem. :slight_smile:
The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote AGAINST this proposal at the Temperature Check.
We recognize the value of these projects in attracting new users to the ecosystem. However, we have decided to vote against it for the following reasons:
The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote AGAINST this proposal at the Temperature Check.
We recognize the value of these projects in attracting new users to the ecosystem. However, we have decided to vote against it for the following reasons:
We hope that the proposal will include more details and that the costs will be justified and detailed. As we mentioned at the beginning, we know that this type of project attracts new users and could be beneficial to the arbitrum ecosystem.
Firstly, we appreciate your support for the STIP projects and your efforts in drafting this proposal. As ITU Blockchain, we acknowledge and commend the achievements of Layer 3. However, we find it inappropriate to initiate the Temperature Check vote without concluding the ongoing discussions on this proposal. There have been requests for a breakdown of the 1M ARB grant to explain its allocation. Regrettably, we have not seen such a breakdown. We believe that 1M ARB is excessive for creating 95 quests on an existing application (Layer 3).
For all these reasons, ITU Blockchain casts an "Against" vote. If the grant amount is reduced and a detailed breakdown is shared, we would be very keen to reassess this proposal.
In considering these 2 proposals, is it correct to treat the Rabbithole and Layer3 proposals as equal?
@krst How did the governance team assign weight / impact to the educational impact of a product like Layer3, vs. the short-term money raining incentives that Rabbithole quests operate with. I believe @JoJo mentioned this above.
On the Arbitrum call just now, Joe highlighted these are 2 very different products.
Layer3 proposal = onboarding and education
Rabbithole proposal = more liquidity mining and incentives.
Correct @quaternary. Brian said himself that RabbitHole is no longer focused on education.
In considering these 2 proposals, is it correct to treat the Rabbithole and Layer3 proposals as equal?
@krst How did the governance team assign weight / impact to the educational impact of a product like Layer3, vs. the short-term money raining incentives that Rabbithole quests operate with. I believe @JoJo mentioned this above.
On the Arbitrum call just now, Joe highlighted these are 2 very different products.
Layer3 proposal = onboarding and education
Rabbithole proposal = more liquidity mining and incentives.
Correct @quaternary. Brian said himself that RabbitHole is no longer focused on education.
As we outlined in our proposal above, "Layer3 Quests provide a hands-on learning experience which makes the understanding of complex protocols more enjoyable and interactive. They provide delightful step-by-step guidance which motivates users to explore and use these protocols, thereby increasing user adoption and contributing to the broader understanding of apps."
We’d much rather fund a pilot program with just a few quests covering few chosen protocols to better understand impact, and then determine whether we want to go for a fully fledged quests program.
We're aligned in our belief that Questing offers a positive-sum outcome, not a zero-sum one. We're fully on board with piloting a side-by-side comparison to validate the results @quaternary.
Blockworks Research has decided to vote "Abstain" for the initial Snapshot vote for the BOOST proposal. Here are our reasons for doing so:
Blockworks Research has decided to vote "Abstain" for the initial Snapshot vote for the BOOST proposal. Here are our reasons for doing so:
This does not mean that we will not be in favor of future iterations of this proposal, rather that we are not confident in the state of the current Snapshot vote. We will be following this proposal as it updates to make sure the community has given sufficient feedback and that the vote itself becomes clear.
The below response 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 against the proposal in the temp-check, although we are very much in favour of experimenting with questing platforms to incentivise actions on Arbitrum and help STIP recipients distribute part of their incentives to users who complete quests.
Having reviewed the proposal and taking into consideration feedback from other delegates, we are inclined to support this proposal AIP for the following reasons:
Education Leading to Adoption: The AIP's emphasis on designing quests is a interesting approach to both onboarding and education. These structured and immersive quests simplify the complex world of DeFi, making it more accessible to newcomers. By breaking down intricacies into digestible formats, we not only empower users with knowledge but also encourage deeper engagement with the protocols, leading to increased adoption.
Upholding Inclusivity and Foster Community Building: The proposal's deliberate effort to support both STIP-funded projects and those that missed out showcases Arbitrum's commitment to inclusivity and fairness. By ensuring all deserving projects have an opportunity for visibility and engagement, we're fostering a strong foundation for a community that thrives on collaboration and mutual growth.
Phased Implementation: The proposal strategically segments the quest rollout into distinct stages, ensuring each protocol gets dedicated focus and resources. This approach allows for tailored quest design specific to each protocol, offers an adaptive feedback loop after each phase for continuous improvement, and promotes sustained user engagement. By spreading the releases over time, we keep the community consistently engaged, optimizing both user experience and interaction within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
One thing that would be helpful and maybe to include in the proposal for the next step (if voted for in temp check) is plans for a recommended path of quest completion for the stip projects. Doesn't even have to be fancy, but a simple directed list or map to handhold users I think would go far in terms of retention time.
Like This or an Advent Calendar (1 Focused Quest a Day)
We're appreciative of the support from our fellow builders and DAO members. To enhance the transparency and depth of our proposal, we've partnered with Spindl to further clarify the impact of Layer3 on the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Here are a few updated metrics as of October 26th, 2023:
While is debatable if engaging through quests will lead to sticky tvl, we need all to understand that, while L2 are our bread and butter, for a lot of folks are something that is either unknown, or just too obscure. Useless to say, incentivization of activity through money raining is always a good motivation for retails, and so the whole initiative should have a good effect in term of number of users onboarded. Also, @dk3 made some quick napkin math (for which I thank him in the name of all of us left curve brains) showing how the initiative would also have economic value overall.
Support.
Michigan Blockchain is voting FOR this proposal on the temperature check. Layer3 campaigns and quests have seen great success and we are excited for their team to work with the Arbitrum community to further encourage widespread ecosystem participation for the protocols that are on the receiving end of the recent STIP and beyond. We appreciate their commitment to assisting the large list of projects individually and developing quests to better onboard users and engage participants. Given this sustainable impact, we support this proposal and hope to continue to communicate with the Layer3 team to run a successful program that includes transparent usage of their ARB allocation and widespread ecosystem benefits.
Below is some feedback from the Uniswap DAO's Arbitrum governance team, composed of @juanbug and @AbdullahUmar:
Creating this proposal was very much a strategic move by the Layer3 team. They could very well have applied as a participant in the STIP race, but they decided to wait until afterwards so they could frame themselves as an initiative that would tie together all the other STIPs. Another reason for not applying during the STIP round is likely because the contents of this proposal would have failed to successfully meet the criteria designated by the STIP designers. Layer3 is NOT distributing the 1M ARB as incentives. The incentives simply come from the $50M STIP pot. Instead, the 1M ARB will be used for development and marketing purposes. Although the breakdown of expenses is not fleshed out to a sufficient degree–granted it’s often hard to anticipate such expenses, but estimates wouldn’t hurt their case–we do see the merits behind questing programs. And since this one is directly tied to helping facilitate the current incentive program that has already been given $50M, it would be a shame if the STIP initiative didn’t prove to be as successful as anticipated. The current Layer3 proposal effectively helps give the STIP initiative a spurt of momentum. That being said, we are voting YES for the snapshot–but hoping to see a more comprehensive breakdown of costs during the onchain vote.
Here is my view on how this proposal aligns to DAO priorities.
This is intended to show how this proposal aligns to our strategic priorities. (Scale: Actively against, Not aligned, Neutral, Aligned, Highly Aligned)
This proposal could help make STIP more inclusive and attract a broader set of users.
We are highly supportive of the Arbitrum Improvement Proposal (AIP) titled "Build Optimal Onboarding for STIP Teams (BOOST) via Quests." It's heartening to see a proposal that's squarely focused on fostering a more inclusive and informed community, aligning perfectly with Arbitrum's core mission.
The idea of deploying 95 quests across a wide range of projects is a remarkable step forward in creating an inviting space for both seasoned crypto enthusiasts and newcomers. It's essentially about breaking down the complexities of DeFi on Arbitrum into manageable, interactive quests. This, in our opinion, is fundamental for the sustainable growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Sharing the final results of the Snapshot here. Just want to say thank you, everyone, for your feedback and engagement during this proposal process, we deeply appreciate the thoughtful conversations and inputs. We'll take these insights back internally to consider our next steps. Despite the outcome of the Snapshot vote, we remain committed to supporting Arbitrum independent of BOOST.
Sharing the final results of the Snapshot here. Just want to say thank you, everyone, for your feedback and engagement during this proposal process, we deeply appreciate the thoughtful conversations and inputs. We'll take these insights back internally to consider our next steps. Despite the outcome of the Snapshot vote, we remain committed to supporting Arbitrum independent of BOOST.
We’ve been happy to be a part of this community since June 2022 and look forward to continuing development of the ecosystem. :slight_smile:
The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote AGAINST this proposal at the Temperature Check.
We recognize the value of these projects in attracting new users to the ecosystem. However, we have decided to vote against it for the following reasons:
The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote AGAINST this proposal at the Temperature Check.
We recognize the value of these projects in attracting new users to the ecosystem. However, we have decided to vote against it for the following reasons:
We hope that the proposal will include more details and that the costs will be justified and detailed. As we mentioned at the beginning, we know that this type of project attracts new users and could be beneficial to the arbitrum ecosystem.
Firstly, we appreciate your support for the STIP projects and your efforts in drafting this proposal. As ITU Blockchain, we acknowledge and commend the achievements of Layer 3. However, we find it inappropriate to initiate the Temperature Check vote without concluding the ongoing discussions on this proposal. There have been requests for a breakdown of the 1M ARB grant to explain its allocation. Regrettably, we have not seen such a breakdown. We believe that 1M ARB is excessive for creating 95 quests on an existing application (Layer 3).
For all these reasons, ITU Blockchain casts an "Against" vote. If the grant amount is reduced and a detailed breakdown is shared, we would be very keen to reassess this proposal.
In considering these 2 proposals, is it correct to treat the Rabbithole and Layer3 proposals as equal?
@krst How did the governance team assign weight / impact to the educational impact of a product like Layer3, vs. the short-term money raining incentives that Rabbithole quests operate with. I believe @JoJo mentioned this above.
On the Arbitrum call just now, Joe highlighted these are 2 very different products.
Layer3 proposal = onboarding and education
Rabbithole proposal = more liquidity mining and incentives.
Correct @quaternary. Brian said himself that RabbitHole is no longer focused on education.
In considering these 2 proposals, is it correct to treat the Rabbithole and Layer3 proposals as equal?
@krst How did the governance team assign weight / impact to the educational impact of a product like Layer3, vs. the short-term money raining incentives that Rabbithole quests operate with. I believe @JoJo mentioned this above.
On the Arbitrum call just now, Joe highlighted these are 2 very different products.
Layer3 proposal = onboarding and education
Rabbithole proposal = more liquidity mining and incentives.
Correct @quaternary. Brian said himself that RabbitHole is no longer focused on education.
As we outlined in our proposal above, "Layer3 Quests provide a hands-on learning experience which makes the understanding of complex protocols more enjoyable and interactive. They provide delightful step-by-step guidance which motivates users to explore and use these protocols, thereby increasing user adoption and contributing to the broader understanding of apps."
We’d much rather fund a pilot program with just a few quests covering few chosen protocols to better understand impact, and then determine whether we want to go for a fully fledged quests program.
We're aligned in our belief that Questing offers a positive-sum outcome, not a zero-sum one. We're fully on board with piloting a side-by-side comparison to validate the results @quaternary.
Blockworks Research has decided to vote "Abstain" for the initial Snapshot vote for the BOOST proposal. Here are our reasons for doing so:
Blockworks Research has decided to vote "Abstain" for the initial Snapshot vote for the BOOST proposal. Here are our reasons for doing so:
This does not mean that we will not be in favor of future iterations of this proposal, rather that we are not confident in the state of the current Snapshot vote. We will be following this proposal as it updates to make sure the community has given sufficient feedback and that the vote itself becomes clear.
The below response 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 against the proposal in the temp-check, although we are very much in favour of experimenting with questing platforms to incentivise actions on Arbitrum and help STIP recipients distribute part of their incentives to users who complete quests.
Having reviewed the proposal and taking into consideration feedback from other delegates, we are inclined to support this proposal AIP for the following reasons:
Education Leading to Adoption: The AIP's emphasis on designing quests is a interesting approach to both onboarding and education. These structured and immersive quests simplify the complex world of DeFi, making it more accessible to newcomers. By breaking down intricacies into digestible formats, we not only empower users with knowledge but also encourage deeper engagement with the protocols, leading to increased adoption.
Upholding Inclusivity and Foster Community Building: The proposal's deliberate effort to support both STIP-funded projects and those that missed out showcases Arbitrum's commitment to inclusivity and fairness. By ensuring all deserving projects have an opportunity for visibility and engagement, we're fostering a strong foundation for a community that thrives on collaboration and mutual growth.
Phased Implementation: The proposal strategically segments the quest rollout into distinct stages, ensuring each protocol gets dedicated focus and resources. This approach allows for tailored quest design specific to each protocol, offers an adaptive feedback loop after each phase for continuous improvement, and promotes sustained user engagement. By spreading the releases over time, we keep the community consistently engaged, optimizing both user experience and interaction within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
One thing that would be helpful and maybe to include in the proposal for the next step (if voted for in temp check) is plans for a recommended path of quest completion for the stip projects. Doesn't even have to be fancy, but a simple directed list or map to handhold users I think would go far in terms of retention time.
Like This or an Advent Calendar (1 Focused Quest a Day)
We're appreciative of the support from our fellow builders and DAO members. To enhance the transparency and depth of our proposal, we've partnered with Spindl to further clarify the impact of Layer3 on the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Here are a few updated metrics as of October 26th, 2023:
While is debatable if engaging through quests will lead to sticky tvl, we need all to understand that, while L2 are our bread and butter, for a lot of folks are something that is either unknown, or just too obscure. Useless to say, incentivization of activity through money raining is always a good motivation for retails, and so the whole initiative should have a good effect in term of number of users onboarded. Also, @dk3 made some quick napkin math (for which I thank him in the name of all of us left curve brains) showing how the initiative would also have economic value overall.
Support.
Michigan Blockchain is voting FOR this proposal on the temperature check. Layer3 campaigns and quests have seen great success and we are excited for their team to work with the Arbitrum community to further encourage widespread ecosystem participation for the protocols that are on the receiving end of the recent STIP and beyond. We appreciate their commitment to assisting the large list of projects individually and developing quests to better onboard users and engage participants. Given this sustainable impact, we support this proposal and hope to continue to communicate with the Layer3 team to run a successful program that includes transparent usage of their ARB allocation and widespread ecosystem benefits.
Below is some feedback from the Uniswap DAO's Arbitrum governance team, composed of @juanbug and @AbdullahUmar:
Creating this proposal was very much a strategic move by the Layer3 team. They could very well have applied as a participant in the STIP race, but they decided to wait until afterwards so they could frame themselves as an initiative that would tie together all the other STIPs. Another reason for not applying during the STIP round is likely because the contents of this proposal would have failed to successfully meet the criteria designated by the STIP designers. Layer3 is NOT distributing the 1M ARB as incentives. The incentives simply come from the $50M STIP pot. Instead, the 1M ARB will be used for development and marketing purposes. Although the breakdown of expenses is not fleshed out to a sufficient degree–granted it’s often hard to anticipate such expenses, but estimates wouldn’t hurt their case–we do see the merits behind questing programs. And since this one is directly tied to helping facilitate the current incentive program that has already been given $50M, it would be a shame if the STIP initiative didn’t prove to be as successful as anticipated. The current Layer3 proposal effectively helps give the STIP initiative a spurt of momentum. That being said, we are voting YES for the snapshot–but hoping to see a more comprehensive breakdown of costs during the onchain vote.
Here is my view on how this proposal aligns to DAO priorities.
This is intended to show how this proposal aligns to our strategic priorities. (Scale: Actively against, Not aligned, Neutral, Aligned, Highly Aligned)
This proposal could help make STIP more inclusive and attract a broader set of users.
We are highly supportive of the Arbitrum Improvement Proposal (AIP) titled "Build Optimal Onboarding for STIP Teams (BOOST) via Quests." It's heartening to see a proposal that's squarely focused on fostering a more inclusive and informed community, aligning perfectly with Arbitrum's core mission.
The idea of deploying 95 quests across a wide range of projects is a remarkable step forward in creating an inviting space for both seasoned crypto enthusiasts and newcomers. It's essentially about breaking down the complexities of DeFi on Arbitrum into manageable, interactive quests. This, in our opinion, is fundamental for the sustainable growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
The below response 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 against the proposal in the temp-check, although we are very much in favour of experimenting with questing platforms to incentivise actions on Arbitrum and help STIP recipients distribute part of their incentives to users who complete quests.
The reasons we’re voting against the proposal in the temp-check are:
We’re happy to participate in the discussion and ideation as well as to facilitate a roll call of interested parties to reshape the proposal before bringing it forward to an on-chain vote.
Having reviewed the proposal and taking into consideration feedback from other delegates, we are inclined to support this proposal AIP for the following reasons:
Education Leading to Adoption: The AIP's emphasis on designing quests is a interesting approach to both onboarding and education. These structured and immersive quests simplify the complex world of DeFi, making it more accessible to newcomers. By breaking down intricacies into digestible formats, we not only empower users with knowledge but also encourage deeper engagement with the protocols, leading to increased adoption.
Upholding Inclusivity and Foster Community Building: The proposal's deliberate effort to support both STIP-funded projects and those that missed out showcases Arbitrum's commitment to inclusivity and fairness. By ensuring all deserving projects have an opportunity for visibility and engagement, we're fostering a strong foundation for a community that thrives on collaboration and mutual growth.
Phased Implementation: The proposal strategically segments the quest rollout into distinct stages, ensuring each protocol gets dedicated focus and resources. This approach allows for tailored quest design specific to each protocol, offers an adaptive feedback loop after each phase for continuous improvement, and promotes sustained user engagement. By spreading the releases over time, we keep the community consistently engaged, optimizing both user experience and interaction within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
On another note, we think it's important to address potential concerns to uphold the integrity of our decision-making framework. The notable amount of voting power held by Layer3 and the author of the proposal (@limes) raises questions about our stands against potential conflicts of interest. Their commitment to the Arbitrum ecosystem is clear, yet the act of voting on their initiatives deserves better clarity. This is less about questioning motives and more about seeking clarity on our voting ethos within the ArbitrumDAO community. We suggest delving deeper into this matter in another dedicated forum thread, ensuring transparency and a shared understanding.
One thing that would be helpful and maybe to include in the proposal for the next step (if voted for in temp check) is plans for a recommended path of quest completion for the stip projects. Doesn't even have to be fancy, but a simple directed list or map to handhold users I think would go far in terms of retention time.
Like This or an Advent Calendar (1 Focused Quest a Day)
Cause I feel like when I sign into layer3 sometimes it's like this
We're appreciative of the support from our fellow builders and DAO members. To enhance the transparency and depth of our proposal, we've partnered with Spindl to further clarify the impact of Layer3 on the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Here are a few updated metrics as of October 26th, 2023:
342,500 users have successfully completed a Layer3 Quest on Arbitrum.
Layer3 has driven 10,000,000 transactions on Arbitrum.
Layer3 has driven $1.6 million in transaction fees on Arbitrum.
We are confident that this proposal will deliver tangible and immediate advantages to both the DAO and the larger Arbitrum ecosystem. The metrics above underscore the reach and influence of our platform. We are committed to Arbitrum's success and invite ongoing discussions to ensure we're capturing feedback from the entire community.
Below is some feedback from the Uniswap DAO's Arbitrum governance team, composed of @juanbug and @AbdullahUmar:
Creating this proposal was very much a strategic move by the Layer3 team. They could very well have applied as a participant in the STIP race, but they decided to wait until afterwards so they could frame themselves as an initiative that would tie together all the other STIPs. Another reason for not applying during the STIP round is likely because the contents of this proposal would have failed to successfully meet the criteria designated by the STIP designers. Layer3 is NOT distributing the 1M ARB as incentives. The incentives simply come from the $50M STIP pot. Instead, the 1M ARB will be used for development and marketing purposes. Although the breakdown of expenses is not fleshed out to a sufficient degree–granted it’s often hard to anticipate such expenses, but estimates wouldn’t hurt their case–we do see the merits behind questing programs. And since this one is directly tied to helping facilitate the current incentive program that has already been given $50M, it would be a shame if the STIP initiative didn’t prove to be as successful as anticipated. The current Layer3 proposal effectively helps give the STIP initiative a spurt of momentum. That being said, we are voting YES for the snapshot–but hoping to see a more comprehensive breakdown of costs during the onchain vote.
Here is my view on how this proposal aligns to DAO priorities.
This is intended to show how this proposal aligns to our strategic priorities. (Scale: Actively against, Not aligned, Neutral, Aligned, Highly Aligned)
This proposal could help make STIP more inclusive and attract a broader set of users.
This review is cost neutral. It's only concern is alignment to strategic priorities. The DAO always reserves the right approve any proposal, aligned or not.
We are highly supportive of the Arbitrum Improvement Proposal (AIP) titled "Build Optimal Onboarding for STIP Teams (BOOST) via Quests." It's heartening to see a proposal that's squarely focused on fostering a more inclusive and informed community, aligning perfectly with Arbitrum's core mission.
The idea of deploying 95 quests across a wide range of projects is a remarkable step forward in creating an inviting space for both seasoned crypto enthusiasts and newcomers. It's essentially about breaking down the complexities of DeFi on Arbitrum into manageable, interactive quests. This, in our opinion, is fundamental for the sustainable growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Moreover, the phased approach in the proposal, targeting both STIP-qualified and non-STIP-qualified projects, is a strategic move that could facilitate enduring user engagement and allegiance. The investment made here isn't just financial but a commitment to building a resilient, thriving community. The proposal's pledge to maintain transparency and accountability adds an extra layer of assurance for the community. In essence, we find this AIP a compelling step towards advancing Arbitrum's mission, and lend our full support to it. We have already voted FOR.
In addition, we appreciate Layer3's inclusion of the smaller and earlier stage protocols that approved in STIP, but did not receive funding. This inclusion shows a thoughtfulness to improving the onboarding and continued retention of the new Arbi users brought by STIP.
Hi Westie!
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback regarding our proposal. We appreciate the attention you've given to it and acknowledge your concerns. Here are some clarifications and responses:
Hi Westie!
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback regarding our proposal. We appreciate the attention you've given to it and acknowledge your concerns. Here are some clarifications and responses:
We are still very much open for discussion and debate :grinning:
Completeness of Experience: Although STIP provides the funds, it doesn’t address the actual user onboarding experience. Quests, on the other hand, offer a structured, enjoyable, and interactive way to onboard users, making the transition smoother and more engaging.
Increased Retention: While STIP might bring users to platforms, our Quests ensure they remain active, educated, and engaged, leading to better user retention.
Unfunded Projects: We’ve also addressed the projects that met STIP criteria but didn't receive funding. Through Quests, these projects also gain visibility and engagement.
Quest Development & Maintenance: Approximately 40% will go towards the development, iteration, and maintenance of the 95 quests. This includes creating content, integrating with different platforms, and testing.
Community Engagement: 20% will be allocated to community engagement, partnerships, and promotional activities, ensuring the quests reach a broader audience.
Performance Tracking & Reporting: 15% will be dedicated to analytics, tracking, and reporting, to ensure transparency and effectiveness of our efforts.
Platform Costs: 10% will cater to costs associated with Layer3, such as hosting, scaling, and other operational costs.
Reserves: The remaining 15% is reserved for unforeseen costs, additional enhancements based on community feedback, and potential future expansions of the initiative.
We truly believe that with the combined power of STIP and our Quests initiative, Arbitrum becomes a more accessible, enjoyable, and productive environment for both old and new users alike. We're continuously working on refining our approach and are open to feedback you’d like to see to make this more beneficial.
Thanks for your time and constructive input.
Thanks, Jellyfish and Womnayden! Fortunately, this is a clear win for the DAO as our track record has shown that we will drive new user growth, increased transaction activity, improved governance participation, and heightened community awareness.
The potential impact of running 95 Quests across over 60 protocols is undeniable, especially when taking into account the performance metrics mentioned above.
Thanks, Jellyfish and Womnayden! Fortunately, this is a clear win for the DAO as our track record has shown that we will drive new user growth, increased transaction activity, improved governance participation, and heightened community awareness.
The potential impact of running 95 Quests across over 60 protocols is undeniable, especially when taking into account the performance metrics mentioned above.
We genuinely believe that this proposal will bring clear and immediate benefits to the DAO and the broader Arbitrum ecosystem. We’re dedicated to its success and welcome continued dialogue to ensure its effectiveness.
It’s evident that others share this belief, given the support from community members and projects like Notional, WooFi, OpenOcean, Mariam, dk3, and 0xWenMoon.
Thanks for your input, Peter! We've had a constructive and extensive discussion above. Like yourself, we are eager to contribute to the swift growth and success of this community.
We have addressed and provided clear responses to all the open questions raised, ensuring transparency and alignment with the community's objectives. Our proposal aligns meticulously with Arbitrum’s mission to foster an inclusive, vibrant, and engaged community.
Thanks for your input, Peter! We've had a constructive and extensive discussion above. Like yourself, we are eager to contribute to the swift growth and success of this community.
We have addressed and provided clear responses to all the open questions raised, ensuring transparency and alignment with the community's objectives. Our proposal aligns meticulously with Arbitrum’s mission to foster an inclusive, vibrant, and engaged community.
By ensuring all users - existing and new ones - are carried along inclusively and effectively via well-designed quests, we will be creating an environment that promotes continued learning, interaction, and commitment.
The snapshot is the best way to measure the community's interest in this proposal.
We've put proposal up for voting on Snapshot.
Thank you for such an engaging discussion!
We appreciate the support from community members and projects like Notional, WooFi, OpenOcean, Mariam, dk3, and 0xWenMoon.
See below for clarity on a few open topics:
Thank you for such an engaging discussion!
We appreciate the support from community members and projects like Notional, WooFi, OpenOcean, Mariam, dk3, and 0xWenMoon.
See below for clarity on a few open topics:
Grant: To state the obvious, Layer3, like any other enterprise, has a fixed amount of resources. The reality of running a high-quality service is that it requires resources. Therefore we need to allocate our resources across many different chains. This grant enables us to channel our resources towards Arbitrum's growth. It's about investing the treasury where it's most needed for the betterment of Arbitrum. Without this grant, Layer3 may need to allocate its resources towards other chains and apps.
Our Proven Track Record: We stand by our track record. We've successfully driven 337,000+ users to complete more than 5.9 million on-chain transactions on Arbitrum. The numbers, particularly from our GMX campaign, speak volumes. We brought in 119,000+ users, 95% of whom were new to GMX. These aren't hypotheticals; these are real, tangible results.
Transparency and Commitment: The detail of the proposal above and the clarity in our responses shows that we operate with complete transparency.
Premium Product: Layer3 is recognized as a premium product, partnering with leading projects like Coinbase, Phantom, Brave, Slingshot, Uniswap, and dozens of others. It's worth noting that platforms such as Odyssey are known to face UX challenges, leading to user and project frustrations. As dk3 mentioned, our commitment to excellence is evident not just in our results, but also in the seamless user experience we provide.
Again, we appreciate the support from so many community members and projects above. This grant is about aligning our strategies, resources, and capabilities to serve Arbitrum most effectively. We're all on the same side, aiming for the growth and success of this community.
Gonna weigh in here as both a user/delegate, a previous layer3 customer, and Odyssey selected project.
The infrastructure to run these campaigns is not cheap. You may not see it, but projects pay Layer3 for their quests, @limes has provided this costing to you, that is real $$ that a project pays Layer3 to run a campaign.
Gonna weigh in here as both a user/delegate, a previous layer3 customer, and Odyssey selected project.
The infrastructure to run these campaigns is not cheap. You may not see it, but projects pay Layer3 for their quests, @limes has provided this costing to you, that is real $$ that a project pays Layer3 to run a campaign.
Layer3 and Galaxe have different approaches. Layer3 does all of the heavy lifting for you, Galaxe does not. A Galaxe quest will cost the running project engineering time to build tracking, set up infrastructure, test, etc, then designer time to create marketing and quest assets, quite a few things. I am not saying one model is better than the other, I am just saying they are very different models from the project standpoint.
As a user/delegate I would prefer not to put all eggs in one basket; they have some segments that overlap, and they have some segments that do not overlap, each has their own strenghts. I think a great example to look at today is Cipher, they were the go-to SocialFi app on Arbitrum, today they announced (after 250k in revenue) they are not making enough to be a profitable platform and are going to shut down. Even after raising investor capital.
How are you arriving at these acquisition costs if there are were no previous cost to projects or Arbitrum DAO?
These are acquisition costs that customers pay Layer3.
How are you arriving at these acquisition costs if there are were no previous cost to projects or Arbitrum DAO?
These are acquisition costs that customers pay Layer3.
Can you walk me through your process on why you think all 95 quests are created equal
We fully expect them to be different and seek the input of the protocols as to what they think would be most effective for their platform! These are averages.
Can we see a detailed breakdown of how you’re arriving at this 10,500 ARB?
This number is arrived at by 1M ARB/95 Quests
Is there any way the community can verify these numbers? Etherscan/Flipside/Dune etc. Looks like the GMX campaign drove over 1/3 of those users if I understand correctly (113.7k)
Is there any way the community can verify these numbers? Etherscan/Flipside/Dune etc. Looks like the GMX campaign drove over 1/3 of those users if I understand correctly (113.7k)
How much did it cost to get those numbers and transcations? What did projects pay in these instances?
Costs vary depending on quest complexity, marketing, development, and other factors. Historically, acquisition costs range from $0.75 to $4.00 per transaction. While each protocol has unique financial structures, our primary goal is to provide effective solutions that generate a positive ROI event.
What is the projection of the number of transcations the community will receive for 1M ARB tokens? I didn’t see it in the proposal.
For the investment of 1M ARB tokens, we project a substantial return in terms of transactional activity. Based on our models and previous campaigns, we're anticipating around 25,000 transactions per quest. Multiply that by the 95 quests we're planning, and the community can expect a total of over 2 million transactions as a direct result of this initiative, roughly $0.40 per transaction. Our focus with Layer3 is not just about immediate numbers but ensuring that each of those transactions are meaningful, promoting long-term engagement within the ecosystem.
What is the exact cost of marketing and developing each quest? Having these will help the community better understand the cost and return.
Roughly 10,500 ARB per quest driving 15,000-25,000 users to make ~25,000 transactions per quest.
Thanks for reviewing the proposal and sharing your perspective, @Womnayden. It's critical to emphasize that Layer3 has already developed and maintained Quests for Arbitrum, successfully driving 337,000+ users to complete more than 5.9 million on-chain transactions. We pride ourselves on being the market leader in delivering high-quality, results-driven Quests, and our goal is to increase our focus on projects that received or were eligible for STIP funding.
The potential impact of running 95 Quests across over 60 protocols is undeniable, especially when taking into account the performance metrics mentioned above. Just for GMX, we engaged 119,000+ users, with 95% of them being new to GMX, to participate in on-chain transactions.
Thanks for reviewing the proposal and sharing your perspective, @Womnayden. It's critical to emphasize that Layer3 has already developed and maintained Quests for Arbitrum, successfully driving 337,000+ users to complete more than 5.9 million on-chain transactions. We pride ourselves on being the market leader in delivering high-quality, results-driven Quests, and our goal is to increase our focus on projects that received or were eligible for STIP funding.
The potential impact of running 95 Quests across over 60 protocols is undeniable, especially when taking into account the performance metrics mentioned above. Just for GMX, we engaged 119,000+ users, with 95% of them being new to GMX, to participate in on-chain transactions.
We genuinely believe that this proposal will bring clear and immediate benefits to the DAO and the broader Arbitrum ecosystem. We're dedicated to its success and welcome continued dialogue to ensure its effectiveness.
We have already the Odyssey campaign that is onboarding thousands and thousands of users and still have some time left. Why we should do another one on top of that or right after the Odyssey campaign ends? For me it makes no sense.
While the Odyssey campaign serves its purpose, our initiative at Layer3 is distinctly tailored for STIP projects. With us, you're not just getting another campaign; you're investing in a comprehensive service package including quest design, marketing & promotion, content creation, technical build, quality assurance, technical support, and transparent reporting. With Layer3, you're ensuring that STIP projects reach the widest and highest quality audience possible.
The first goal listed in the STIP proposal is:
A request of 1M ARB is extremely unreasonable and unfair for any project that did not qualify for STIP.
We never applied to STIP.
Thanks for putting this together!
In addition to the protocol revenue, our biggest value we hope to drive is to a "Contributoooor Supply Chain". This means attracting new users -> getting them up to speed on protocols and education through hands on learning -> guiding them to be a meaningful contributor in governance (See quests about Snapshot and Tally)
I have thoroughly reviewed the Arbitrum Improvement Proposal submitted by Layer3, which aims to foster user engagement and education through the Building Optimal Onboarding for STIP Teams (BOOST) initiative. I appreciate the effort and thought put into this proposal, and I have some thoughts and concerns that I would like to share to ensure we make well-informed decisions moving forward.
Pure speculative math. Historic Value Brought to Arbitrum 5.9mm Txns * 0.20c per txn = 1.18mm $$
Future Value Brought to Arbitrum ~50k $$ in overhead for the Setup of 95 Quests + $$$ Infra Costs Market Cost to facilitate an undertaking like this is probably ~300k ++ Marketing Cost on Navigated User Acquisition ?? (Likely expensive) ++ 300k Users * 95 Quests * 0.20c per txn = 5.7mm $$ (Best Case)
Pure speculative math. Historic Value Brought to Arbitrum 5.9mm Txns * 0.20c per txn = 1.18mm $$
Future Value Brought to Arbitrum ~50k $$ in overhead for the Setup of 95 Quests + $$$ Infra Costs Market Cost to facilitate an undertaking like this is probably ~300k ++ Marketing Cost on Navigated User Acquisition ?? (Likely expensive) ++ 300k Users * 95 Quests * 0.20c per txn = 5.7mm $$ (Best Case)
Assuming that the numbers hit even 20% best case on-chain activity seems EV+ to support this initiative on pure economics. (1.14mm - 920k cost = 220k)
Obviously, sequencer has costs, but the value of the distribution Layer 3 can achieve as the starting point for users to explore/navigate the STIP programs is quite valuable in itself.
The plan to create 95 quests for 62 different dapps is a big task, and it makes me wonder if you have thought enough about how much time and effort this will take
The below response 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 against the proposal in the temp-check, although we are very much in favour of experimenting with questing platforms to incentivise actions on Arbitrum and help STIP recipients distribute part of their incentives to users who complete quests.
The reasons we’re voting against the proposal in the temp-check are:
We’re happy to participate in the discussion and ideation as well as to facilitate a roll call of interested parties to reshape the proposal before bringing it forward to an on-chain vote.
Having reviewed the proposal and taking into consideration feedback from other delegates, we are inclined to support this proposal AIP for the following reasons:
Education Leading to Adoption: The AIP's emphasis on designing quests is a interesting approach to both onboarding and education. These structured and immersive quests simplify the complex world of DeFi, making it more accessible to newcomers. By breaking down intricacies into digestible formats, we not only empower users with knowledge but also encourage deeper engagement with the protocols, leading to increased adoption.
Upholding Inclusivity and Foster Community Building: The proposal's deliberate effort to support both STIP-funded projects and those that missed out showcases Arbitrum's commitment to inclusivity and fairness. By ensuring all deserving projects have an opportunity for visibility and engagement, we're fostering a strong foundation for a community that thrives on collaboration and mutual growth.
Phased Implementation: The proposal strategically segments the quest rollout into distinct stages, ensuring each protocol gets dedicated focus and resources. This approach allows for tailored quest design specific to each protocol, offers an adaptive feedback loop after each phase for continuous improvement, and promotes sustained user engagement. By spreading the releases over time, we keep the community consistently engaged, optimizing both user experience and interaction within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
On another note, we think it's important to address potential concerns to uphold the integrity of our decision-making framework. The notable amount of voting power held by Layer3 and the author of the proposal (@limes) raises questions about our stands against potential conflicts of interest. Their commitment to the Arbitrum ecosystem is clear, yet the act of voting on their initiatives deserves better clarity. This is less about questioning motives and more about seeking clarity on our voting ethos within the ArbitrumDAO community. We suggest delving deeper into this matter in another dedicated forum thread, ensuring transparency and a shared understanding.
One thing that would be helpful and maybe to include in the proposal for the next step (if voted for in temp check) is plans for a recommended path of quest completion for the stip projects. Doesn't even have to be fancy, but a simple directed list or map to handhold users I think would go far in terms of retention time.
Like This or an Advent Calendar (1 Focused Quest a Day)
Cause I feel like when I sign into layer3 sometimes it's like this
We're appreciative of the support from our fellow builders and DAO members. To enhance the transparency and depth of our proposal, we've partnered with Spindl to further clarify the impact of Layer3 on the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Here are a few updated metrics as of October 26th, 2023:
342,500 users have successfully completed a Layer3 Quest on Arbitrum.
Layer3 has driven 10,000,000 transactions on Arbitrum.
Layer3 has driven $1.6 million in transaction fees on Arbitrum.
We are confident that this proposal will deliver tangible and immediate advantages to both the DAO and the larger Arbitrum ecosystem. The metrics above underscore the reach and influence of our platform. We are committed to Arbitrum's success and invite ongoing discussions to ensure we're capturing feedback from the entire community.
Below is some feedback from the Uniswap DAO's Arbitrum governance team, composed of @juanbug and @AbdullahUmar:
Creating this proposal was very much a strategic move by the Layer3 team. They could very well have applied as a participant in the STIP race, but they decided to wait until afterwards so they could frame themselves as an initiative that would tie together all the other STIPs. Another reason for not applying during the STIP round is likely because the contents of this proposal would have failed to successfully meet the criteria designated by the STIP designers. Layer3 is NOT distributing the 1M ARB as incentives. The incentives simply come from the $50M STIP pot. Instead, the 1M ARB will be used for development and marketing purposes. Although the breakdown of expenses is not fleshed out to a sufficient degree–granted it’s often hard to anticipate such expenses, but estimates wouldn’t hurt their case–we do see the merits behind questing programs. And since this one is directly tied to helping facilitate the current incentive program that has already been given $50M, it would be a shame if the STIP initiative didn’t prove to be as successful as anticipated. The current Layer3 proposal effectively helps give the STIP initiative a spurt of momentum. That being said, we are voting YES for the snapshot–but hoping to see a more comprehensive breakdown of costs during the onchain vote.
Here is my view on how this proposal aligns to DAO priorities.
This is intended to show how this proposal aligns to our strategic priorities. (Scale: Actively against, Not aligned, Neutral, Aligned, Highly Aligned)
This proposal could help make STIP more inclusive and attract a broader set of users.
This review is cost neutral. It's only concern is alignment to strategic priorities. The DAO always reserves the right approve any proposal, aligned or not.
We are highly supportive of the Arbitrum Improvement Proposal (AIP) titled "Build Optimal Onboarding for STIP Teams (BOOST) via Quests." It's heartening to see a proposal that's squarely focused on fostering a more inclusive and informed community, aligning perfectly with Arbitrum's core mission.
The idea of deploying 95 quests across a wide range of projects is a remarkable step forward in creating an inviting space for both seasoned crypto enthusiasts and newcomers. It's essentially about breaking down the complexities of DeFi on Arbitrum into manageable, interactive quests. This, in our opinion, is fundamental for the sustainable growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Moreover, the phased approach in the proposal, targeting both STIP-qualified and non-STIP-qualified projects, is a strategic move that could facilitate enduring user engagement and allegiance. The investment made here isn't just financial but a commitment to building a resilient, thriving community. The proposal's pledge to maintain transparency and accountability adds an extra layer of assurance for the community. In essence, we find this AIP a compelling step towards advancing Arbitrum's mission, and lend our full support to it. We have already voted FOR.
In addition, we appreciate Layer3's inclusion of the smaller and earlier stage protocols that approved in STIP, but did not receive funding. This inclusion shows a thoughtfulness to improving the onboarding and continued retention of the new Arbi users brought by STIP.
Hi Westie!
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback regarding our proposal. We appreciate the attention you've given to it and acknowledge your concerns. Here are some clarifications and responses:
Hi Westie!
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback regarding our proposal. We appreciate the attention you've given to it and acknowledge your concerns. Here are some clarifications and responses:
We are still very much open for discussion and debate :grinning:
Completeness of Experience: Although STIP provides the funds, it doesn’t address the actual user onboarding experience. Quests, on the other hand, offer a structured, enjoyable, and interactive way to onboard users, making the transition smoother and more engaging.
Increased Retention: While STIP might bring users to platforms, our Quests ensure they remain active, educated, and engaged, leading to better user retention.
Unfunded Projects: We’ve also addressed the projects that met STIP criteria but didn't receive funding. Through Quests, these projects also gain visibility and engagement.
Quest Development & Maintenance: Approximately 40% will go towards the development, iteration, and maintenance of the 95 quests. This includes creating content, integrating with different platforms, and testing.
Community Engagement: 20% will be allocated to community engagement, partnerships, and promotional activities, ensuring the quests reach a broader audience.
Performance Tracking & Reporting: 15% will be dedicated to analytics, tracking, and reporting, to ensure transparency and effectiveness of our efforts.
Platform Costs: 10% will cater to costs associated with Layer3, such as hosting, scaling, and other operational costs.
Reserves: The remaining 15% is reserved for unforeseen costs, additional enhancements based on community feedback, and potential future expansions of the initiative.
We truly believe that with the combined power of STIP and our Quests initiative, Arbitrum becomes a more accessible, enjoyable, and productive environment for both old and new users alike. We're continuously working on refining our approach and are open to feedback you’d like to see to make this more beneficial.
Thanks for your time and constructive input.
Thanks, Jellyfish and Womnayden! Fortunately, this is a clear win for the DAO as our track record has shown that we will drive new user growth, increased transaction activity, improved governance participation, and heightened community awareness.
The potential impact of running 95 Quests across over 60 protocols is undeniable, especially when taking into account the performance metrics mentioned above.
Thanks, Jellyfish and Womnayden! Fortunately, this is a clear win for the DAO as our track record has shown that we will drive new user growth, increased transaction activity, improved governance participation, and heightened community awareness.
The potential impact of running 95 Quests across over 60 protocols is undeniable, especially when taking into account the performance metrics mentioned above.
We genuinely believe that this proposal will bring clear and immediate benefits to the DAO and the broader Arbitrum ecosystem. We’re dedicated to its success and welcome continued dialogue to ensure its effectiveness.
It’s evident that others share this belief, given the support from community members and projects like Notional, WooFi, OpenOcean, Mariam, dk3, and 0xWenMoon.
Thanks for your input, Peter! We've had a constructive and extensive discussion above. Like yourself, we are eager to contribute to the swift growth and success of this community.
We have addressed and provided clear responses to all the open questions raised, ensuring transparency and alignment with the community's objectives. Our proposal aligns meticulously with Arbitrum’s mission to foster an inclusive, vibrant, and engaged community.
Thanks for your input, Peter! We've had a constructive and extensive discussion above. Like yourself, we are eager to contribute to the swift growth and success of this community.
We have addressed and provided clear responses to all the open questions raised, ensuring transparency and alignment with the community's objectives. Our proposal aligns meticulously with Arbitrum’s mission to foster an inclusive, vibrant, and engaged community.
By ensuring all users - existing and new ones - are carried along inclusively and effectively via well-designed quests, we will be creating an environment that promotes continued learning, interaction, and commitment.
The snapshot is the best way to measure the community's interest in this proposal.
We've put proposal up for voting on Snapshot.
Thank you for such an engaging discussion!
We appreciate the support from community members and projects like Notional, WooFi, OpenOcean, Mariam, dk3, and 0xWenMoon.
See below for clarity on a few open topics:
Thank you for such an engaging discussion!
We appreciate the support from community members and projects like Notional, WooFi, OpenOcean, Mariam, dk3, and 0xWenMoon.
See below for clarity on a few open topics:
Grant: To state the obvious, Layer3, like any other enterprise, has a fixed amount of resources. The reality of running a high-quality service is that it requires resources. Therefore we need to allocate our resources across many different chains. This grant enables us to channel our resources towards Arbitrum's growth. It's about investing the treasury where it's most needed for the betterment of Arbitrum. Without this grant, Layer3 may need to allocate its resources towards other chains and apps.
Our Proven Track Record: We stand by our track record. We've successfully driven 337,000+ users to complete more than 5.9 million on-chain transactions on Arbitrum. The numbers, particularly from our GMX campaign, speak volumes. We brought in 119,000+ users, 95% of whom were new to GMX. These aren't hypotheticals; these are real, tangible results.
Transparency and Commitment: The detail of the proposal above and the clarity in our responses shows that we operate with complete transparency.
Premium Product: Layer3 is recognized as a premium product, partnering with leading projects like Coinbase, Phantom, Brave, Slingshot, Uniswap, and dozens of others. It's worth noting that platforms such as Odyssey are known to face UX challenges, leading to user and project frustrations. As dk3 mentioned, our commitment to excellence is evident not just in our results, but also in the seamless user experience we provide.
Again, we appreciate the support from so many community members and projects above. This grant is about aligning our strategies, resources, and capabilities to serve Arbitrum most effectively. We're all on the same side, aiming for the growth and success of this community.
Gonna weigh in here as both a user/delegate, a previous layer3 customer, and Odyssey selected project.
The infrastructure to run these campaigns is not cheap. You may not see it, but projects pay Layer3 for their quests, @limes has provided this costing to you, that is real $$ that a project pays Layer3 to run a campaign.
Gonna weigh in here as both a user/delegate, a previous layer3 customer, and Odyssey selected project.
The infrastructure to run these campaigns is not cheap. You may not see it, but projects pay Layer3 for their quests, @limes has provided this costing to you, that is real $$ that a project pays Layer3 to run a campaign.
Layer3 and Galaxe have different approaches. Layer3 does all of the heavy lifting for you, Galaxe does not. A Galaxe quest will cost the running project engineering time to build tracking, set up infrastructure, test, etc, then designer time to create marketing and quest assets, quite a few things. I am not saying one model is better than the other, I am just saying they are very different models from the project standpoint.
As a user/delegate I would prefer not to put all eggs in one basket; they have some segments that overlap, and they have some segments that do not overlap, each has their own strenghts. I think a great example to look at today is Cipher, they were the go-to SocialFi app on Arbitrum, today they announced (after 250k in revenue) they are not making enough to be a profitable platform and are going to shut down. Even after raising investor capital.
How are you arriving at these acquisition costs if there are were no previous cost to projects or Arbitrum DAO?
These are acquisition costs that customers pay Layer3.
How are you arriving at these acquisition costs if there are were no previous cost to projects or Arbitrum DAO?
These are acquisition costs that customers pay Layer3.
Can you walk me through your process on why you think all 95 quests are created equal
We fully expect them to be different and seek the input of the protocols as to what they think would be most effective for their platform! These are averages.
Can we see a detailed breakdown of how you’re arriving at this 10,500 ARB?
This number is arrived at by 1M ARB/95 Quests
Is there any way the community can verify these numbers? Etherscan/Flipside/Dune etc. Looks like the GMX campaign drove over 1/3 of those users if I understand correctly (113.7k)
Is there any way the community can verify these numbers? Etherscan/Flipside/Dune etc. Looks like the GMX campaign drove over 1/3 of those users if I understand correctly (113.7k)
How much did it cost to get those numbers and transcations? What did projects pay in these instances?
Costs vary depending on quest complexity, marketing, development, and other factors. Historically, acquisition costs range from $0.75 to $4.00 per transaction. While each protocol has unique financial structures, our primary goal is to provide effective solutions that generate a positive ROI event.
What is the projection of the number of transcations the community will receive for 1M ARB tokens? I didn’t see it in the proposal.
For the investment of 1M ARB tokens, we project a substantial return in terms of transactional activity. Based on our models and previous campaigns, we're anticipating around 25,000 transactions per quest. Multiply that by the 95 quests we're planning, and the community can expect a total of over 2 million transactions as a direct result of this initiative, roughly $0.40 per transaction. Our focus with Layer3 is not just about immediate numbers but ensuring that each of those transactions are meaningful, promoting long-term engagement within the ecosystem.
What is the exact cost of marketing and developing each quest? Having these will help the community better understand the cost and return.
Roughly 10,500 ARB per quest driving 15,000-25,000 users to make ~25,000 transactions per quest.
Thanks for reviewing the proposal and sharing your perspective, @Womnayden. It's critical to emphasize that Layer3 has already developed and maintained Quests for Arbitrum, successfully driving 337,000+ users to complete more than 5.9 million on-chain transactions. We pride ourselves on being the market leader in delivering high-quality, results-driven Quests, and our goal is to increase our focus on projects that received or were eligible for STIP funding.
The potential impact of running 95 Quests across over 60 protocols is undeniable, especially when taking into account the performance metrics mentioned above. Just for GMX, we engaged 119,000+ users, with 95% of them being new to GMX, to participate in on-chain transactions.
Thanks for reviewing the proposal and sharing your perspective, @Womnayden. It's critical to emphasize that Layer3 has already developed and maintained Quests for Arbitrum, successfully driving 337,000+ users to complete more than 5.9 million on-chain transactions. We pride ourselves on being the market leader in delivering high-quality, results-driven Quests, and our goal is to increase our focus on projects that received or were eligible for STIP funding.
The potential impact of running 95 Quests across over 60 protocols is undeniable, especially when taking into account the performance metrics mentioned above. Just for GMX, we engaged 119,000+ users, with 95% of them being new to GMX, to participate in on-chain transactions.
We genuinely believe that this proposal will bring clear and immediate benefits to the DAO and the broader Arbitrum ecosystem. We're dedicated to its success and welcome continued dialogue to ensure its effectiveness.
We have already the Odyssey campaign that is onboarding thousands and thousands of users and still have some time left. Why we should do another one on top of that or right after the Odyssey campaign ends? For me it makes no sense.
While the Odyssey campaign serves its purpose, our initiative at Layer3 is distinctly tailored for STIP projects. With us, you're not just getting another campaign; you're investing in a comprehensive service package including quest design, marketing & promotion, content creation, technical build, quality assurance, technical support, and transparent reporting. With Layer3, you're ensuring that STIP projects reach the widest and highest quality audience possible.
The first goal listed in the STIP proposal is:
A request of 1M ARB is extremely unreasonable and unfair for any project that did not qualify for STIP.
We never applied to STIP.
Thanks for putting this together!
In addition to the protocol revenue, our biggest value we hope to drive is to a "Contributoooor Supply Chain". This means attracting new users -> getting them up to speed on protocols and education through hands on learning -> guiding them to be a meaningful contributor in governance (See quests about Snapshot and Tally)
I have thoroughly reviewed the Arbitrum Improvement Proposal submitted by Layer3, which aims to foster user engagement and education through the Building Optimal Onboarding for STIP Teams (BOOST) initiative. I appreciate the effort and thought put into this proposal, and I have some thoughts and concerns that I would like to share to ensure we make well-informed decisions moving forward.
Pure speculative math. Historic Value Brought to Arbitrum 5.9mm Txns * 0.20c per txn = 1.18mm $$
Future Value Brought to Arbitrum ~50k $$ in overhead for the Setup of 95 Quests + $$$ Infra Costs Market Cost to facilitate an undertaking like this is probably ~300k ++ Marketing Cost on Navigated User Acquisition ?? (Likely expensive) ++ 300k Users * 95 Quests * 0.20c per txn = 5.7mm $$ (Best Case)
Pure speculative math. Historic Value Brought to Arbitrum 5.9mm Txns * 0.20c per txn = 1.18mm $$
Future Value Brought to Arbitrum ~50k $$ in overhead for the Setup of 95 Quests + $$$ Infra Costs Market Cost to facilitate an undertaking like this is probably ~300k ++ Marketing Cost on Navigated User Acquisition ?? (Likely expensive) ++ 300k Users * 95 Quests * 0.20c per txn = 5.7mm $$ (Best Case)
Assuming that the numbers hit even 20% best case on-chain activity seems EV+ to support this initiative on pure economics. (1.14mm - 920k cost = 220k)
Obviously, sequencer has costs, but the value of the distribution Layer 3 can achieve as the starting point for users to explore/navigate the STIP programs is quite valuable in itself.
The plan to create 95 quests for 62 different dapps is a big task, and it makes me wonder if you have thought enough about how much time and effort this will take
We have already the Odyssey campaign that is onboarding thousands and thousands of users and still have some time left. Why we should do another one on top of that or right after the Odyssey campaign ends? For me it makes no sense.
While the Odyssey campaign serves its purpose, our initiative at Layer3 is distinctly tailored for STIP projects. With us, you're not just getting another campaign; you're investing in a comprehensive service package including quest design, marketing & promotion, content creation, technical build, quality assurance, technical support, and transparent reporting. With Layer3, you're ensuring that STIP projects reach the widest and highest quality audience possible.
Also the Odyssey campaign (Galxe) its a near FREE cost campaign. For anyone working on any DAO knows that Layer3 quests are super expensive, looking at this it seems -for numbers i got quoted from Layer3 for other projects- that this campaign would cost $100k+
We believe in quality over quantity. While bulk offers might seem cost-effective initially, the real value lies in attracting and retaining high-quality users who genuinely engage with the platform. It's worth noting that platforms like Odyssey, despite their reach, are known to have UX challenges that lead to user and project frustration. Our commitment to excellence is evident not just in our results, but also in the seamless user experience we provide. Our results and partnerships underscore the premium value we bring to the table, including longstanding campaigns with Coinbase, Phantom, Brave, Slingshot, Uniswap, and other leading projects.
The first goal listed in the STIP proposal is:
And we want to accentuate that! Even if platforms are given all the ARB in the treasury, how will platforms reach new users? Tweets are much higher friction than a quest and don't support the teams that qualified for STI but didn't receive an ARB allocation.
A request of 1M ARB is extremely unreasonable and unfair for any project that did not qualify for STIP.
We never applied to STIP.
Rabbithole’s STIP proposal did not make the cutoff and requested 1M ARB for the same initiative where incentives directly go towards user engagement. In your case, the requested funds would be pocketed and I’m having trouble identifying the benefit for Arbitrum.
As for the funding, it certainly doesn’t go into our pockets. The funds will be allocated towards designing, developing, and maintaining these quest systems, and in turn, contributing to making Arbitrum more accessible.
In essence, this initiative's value proposition for Arbitrum lies in generating a more informed, confident, and committed user base, enhancing protocol adoption and usage.
I have thoroughly reviewed the Arbitrum Improvement Proposal submitted by Layer3, which aims to foster user engagement and education through the Building Optimal Onboarding for STIP Teams (BOOST) initiative. I appreciate the effort and thought put into this proposal, and I have some thoughts and concerns that I would like to share to ensure we make well-informed decisions moving forward.
The plan to create 95 quests for 62 different dapps is a big task, and it makes me wonder if you have thought enough about how much time and effort this will take. Also, I’m worried about the plan to use 1 million ARB tokens as rewards. We need to be sure that we are using our resources in the best way possible.
Additional Thought: Avoiding Overwhelming Users:
I’m also worried that if we start too many quests at once, it might be too much for our users to handle. We should think about introducing the quests slowly to keep users excited and involved.
I’m glad to see that we have clear goals and ways to measure our success. But we also need to be ready to change our plans based on what our users tell us and how the project is going.
The proposal doesn’t talk much about what we will do to keep users involved after they finish the quests. We need to think about ways to keep them interested in using the protocols.
The plan to create 95 quests for 62 different dapps is a big task, and it makes me wonder if you have thought enough about how much time and effort this will take
We have tons of experience running quests at Layer3! Check it out on our site. Additionally, I have added our expected timeline Gantt Chart in the Timeline section.
Also, I’m worried about the plan to use 1 million ARB tokens as rewards.
I’m also worried that if we start too many quests at once, it might be too much for our users to handle. We should think about introducing the quests slowly to keep users excited and involved.
I’m glad to see that we have clear goals and ways to measure our success. But we also need to be ready to change our plans based on what our users tell us and how the project is going.
Not sure what you mean here.
The proposal doesn’t talk much about what we will do to keep users involved after they finish the quests. We need to think about ways to keep them interested in using the protocols.
I think that's a great thing to track. A large part of the reason why we stretch the quest period over 27 weeks is to keep users coming back to Arbitrum to see what's new and set up habits to continually be engaged.
We have already the Odyssey campaign that is onboarding thousands and thousands of users and still have some time left. Why we should do another one on top of that or right after the Odyssey campaign ends? For me it makes no sense.
While the Odyssey campaign serves its purpose, our initiative at Layer3 is distinctly tailored for STIP projects. With us, you're not just getting another campaign; you're investing in a comprehensive service package including quest design, marketing & promotion, content creation, technical build, quality assurance, technical support, and transparent reporting. With Layer3, you're ensuring that STIP projects reach the widest and highest quality audience possible.
Also the Odyssey campaign (Galxe) its a near FREE cost campaign. For anyone working on any DAO knows that Layer3 quests are super expensive, looking at this it seems -for numbers i got quoted from Layer3 for other projects- that this campaign would cost $100k+
We believe in quality over quantity. While bulk offers might seem cost-effective initially, the real value lies in attracting and retaining high-quality users who genuinely engage with the platform. It's worth noting that platforms like Odyssey, despite their reach, are known to have UX challenges that lead to user and project frustration. Our commitment to excellence is evident not just in our results, but also in the seamless user experience we provide. Our results and partnerships underscore the premium value we bring to the table, including longstanding campaigns with Coinbase, Phantom, Brave, Slingshot, Uniswap, and other leading projects.
The first goal listed in the STIP proposal is:
And we want to accentuate that! Even if platforms are given all the ARB in the treasury, how will platforms reach new users? Tweets are much higher friction than a quest and don't support the teams that qualified for STI but didn't receive an ARB allocation.
A request of 1M ARB is extremely unreasonable and unfair for any project that did not qualify for STIP.
We never applied to STIP.
Rabbithole’s STIP proposal did not make the cutoff and requested 1M ARB for the same initiative where incentives directly go towards user engagement. In your case, the requested funds would be pocketed and I’m having trouble identifying the benefit for Arbitrum.
As for the funding, it certainly doesn’t go into our pockets. The funds will be allocated towards designing, developing, and maintaining these quest systems, and in turn, contributing to making Arbitrum more accessible.
In essence, this initiative's value proposition for Arbitrum lies in generating a more informed, confident, and committed user base, enhancing protocol adoption and usage.
I have thoroughly reviewed the Arbitrum Improvement Proposal submitted by Layer3, which aims to foster user engagement and education through the Building Optimal Onboarding for STIP Teams (BOOST) initiative. I appreciate the effort and thought put into this proposal, and I have some thoughts and concerns that I would like to share to ensure we make well-informed decisions moving forward.
The plan to create 95 quests for 62 different dapps is a big task, and it makes me wonder if you have thought enough about how much time and effort this will take. Also, I’m worried about the plan to use 1 million ARB tokens as rewards. We need to be sure that we are using our resources in the best way possible.
Additional Thought: Avoiding Overwhelming Users:
I’m also worried that if we start too many quests at once, it might be too much for our users to handle. We should think about introducing the quests slowly to keep users excited and involved.
I’m glad to see that we have clear goals and ways to measure our success. But we also need to be ready to change our plans based on what our users tell us and how the project is going.
The proposal doesn’t talk much about what we will do to keep users involved after they finish the quests. We need to think about ways to keep them interested in using the protocols.
The plan to create 95 quests for 62 different dapps is a big task, and it makes me wonder if you have thought enough about how much time and effort this will take
We have tons of experience running quests at Layer3! Check it out on our site. Additionally, I have added our expected timeline Gantt Chart in the Timeline section.
Also, I’m worried about the plan to use 1 million ARB tokens as rewards.
I’m also worried that if we start too many quests at once, it might be too much for our users to handle. We should think about introducing the quests slowly to keep users excited and involved.
I’m glad to see that we have clear goals and ways to measure our success. But we also need to be ready to change our plans based on what our users tell us and how the project is going.
Not sure what you mean here.
The proposal doesn’t talk much about what we will do to keep users involved after they finish the quests. We need to think about ways to keep them interested in using the protocols.
I think that's a great thing to track. A large part of the reason why we stretch the quest period over 27 weeks is to keep users coming back to Arbitrum to see what's new and set up habits to continually be engaged.
