We propose launching Arbitrum Grants DAO, a community-run grants program that aims to build a thriving developer community around Arbitrum. We propose allocating $10 million worth of ARB to grants for developers, community contributors, developer-focused events, and sponsorships. We would love to get feedback from the community on this proposal. It is structured as a 6 month pilot program, after which the DAO will once again vote on whether or not it should continue.
For context, I’m Shreyas, a cofounder at Llama and previously started and led Aave Grants, one of the first and most successful protocol grants programs. We'd love to get input from community members and also recruit interested members to be part of Arbitrum Grants DAO.
Most protocols have slowed down spending due to the latest bear market. Arbitrum has $4.1B in ARB in its treasury, so it can take advantage of this opportunity by spending to attract and retain developers who can help grow Arbitrum.
Grants will be divided into standard grants (prospective grants) and retroactive grants, with approximately 70% allocated to standard grants and 30% allocated to retroactive grants. Note that retroactive grantees who have added value can also apply for standard grants.
While Arbitrum’s airdrop distributed ARB tokens to many projects that have positively served the ecosystem, it focused only on projects that were DAOs or had tokens. We believe there are several projects that have had a positive impact on Arbitrum that didn’t fall under the criteria initially outlined in the Arbitrum token distribution. We hope to reward them for their work.
Arbitrum’s strategic priorities include:
We will target the following general categories for grant funding:
Existing protocol grants programs are siloed programs run by a few people on a multisig. Arbitrum Grants DAO is a one-of-a-kind structure in protocol grants: it aims to bring effectiveness and rigor to grants while still involving the community in a lightweight way.
The evaluation of grants will be qualitative, as the best grants often don’t have obvious metrics. For example, when the Ethereum Foundation funded Uniswap, there weren’t immediately measurable metrics for that grant, but Uniswap led to the birth of DeFi, which is of immense value to Ethereum.
Evaluation criteria for standard grants:
It is a requirement that projects should be open-source to apply for an Arbitrum grant, though rare exceptions can be made on a case by case basis.
Evaluation criteria for retroactive grants:
Over 6-12 months, we will evaluate if these projects have positively impacted Arbitrum with the following KPIs:
Our goal is to ensure that grantees have a world-class experience in terms of speed, responsiveness, and quality of communication from Arbitrum Grants DAO. Additionally, we will make sure that grants, especially larger ones, have sufficient diligence before approval.
There are three types of grants that interested grantees can apply to:
I’m a cofounder of Llama and previously led Aave Grants, one of the first and most successful protocol grants programs. Llama has contributed to Aave, Uniswap, Nouns, Lido, and Maker.
Llama has built a lightweight governance system for onchain organizations, designed for use cases like running a protocol grants program. Through Llama, Arbitrum Grants DAO can issue permissions to members to allocate grants, set rules for how allocations are approved, and display a live dashboard to the Arbitrum community of grant allocations.
We will have a real-time dashboard to show how Arbitrum grants are being allocated, similar to the examples shown below.
There will be 8 initial reviewers in Arbitrum Grants DAO. Shreyas from Llama will be one of the members of the Grants DAO and the process to be a reviewer will be run openly via the governance forum.
Arbitrum community members can apply to be reviewers in the Grants DAO by replying to this forum post. If you're interested, please respond with a comment indicating your interest in being a reviewer. Briefly share your background and why you are interested. We would like to have reviewers from a range of backgrounds, including engineering, risk, analytics, DeFi, and governance.
We propose to run the pilot grants program over two quarters. We request a max grants budget of $10 million and a max operating budget of $350k. Since Arbitrum is a core infrastructure protocol with one of the largest community treasuries, it makes sense to strategically allocate grants to grow the ecosystem. For comparison, Optimism’s current and planned spending on grants till date total over $100 million. The operating budget will be used to pay for the members of the Grants DAO, software services, legal expenses, and administrative costs to set up the grants program. The operating budget is 3.5% of the total grants budget, which is well below standard norms of 15-20%. Any unused ARB from the grant or operating budget will be returned to the Arbitrum treasury.
Arbitrum Grants DAO aims to build a thriving developer community around Arbitrum. Let us know if you have any questions or feedback on this proposal! If you are interested in being part of Arbitrum Grants DAO as a reviewer, please comment below. We’d love to have thoughtful people involved in the grant allocation process.
We propose launching Arbitrum Grants DAO, a community-run grants program that aims to build a thriving developer community around Arbitrum. We propose allocating $10 million worth of ARB to grants for developers, community contributors, developer-focused events, and sponsorships. We would love to get feedback from the community on this proposal. It is structured as a 6 month pilot program, after which the DAO will once again vote on whether or not it should continue.
For context, I’m Shreyas, a cofounder at Llama and previously started and led Aave Grants, one of the first and most successful protocol grants programs. We'd love to get input from community members and also recruit interested members to be part of Arbitrum Grants DAO.
Most protocols have slowed down spending due to the latest bear market. Arbitrum has $4.1B in ARB in its treasury, so it can take advantage of this opportunity by spending to attract and retain developers who can help grow Arbitrum.
Grants will be divided into standard grants (prospective grants) and retroactive grants, with approximately 70% allocated to standard grants and 30% allocated to retroactive grants. Note that retroactive grantees who have added value can also apply for standard grants.
While Arbitrum’s airdrop distributed ARB tokens to many projects that have positively served the ecosystem, it focused only on projects that were DAOs or had tokens. We believe there are several projects that have had a positive impact on Arbitrum that didn’t fall under the criteria initially outlined in the Arbitrum token distribution. We hope to reward them for their work.
Arbitrum’s strategic priorities include:
We will target the following general categories for grant funding:
Existing protocol grants programs are siloed programs run by a few people on a multisig. Arbitrum Grants DAO is a one-of-a-kind structure in protocol grants: it aims to bring effectiveness and rigor to grants while still involving the community in a lightweight way.
The evaluation of grants will be qualitative, as the best grants often don’t have obvious metrics. For example, when the Ethereum Foundation funded Uniswap, there weren’t immediately measurable metrics for that grant, but Uniswap led to the birth of DeFi, which is of immense value to Ethereum.
Evaluation criteria for standard grants:
It is a requirement that projects should be open-source to apply for an Arbitrum grant, though rare exceptions can be made on a case by case basis.
Evaluation criteria for retroactive grants:
Over 6-12 months, we will evaluate if these projects have positively impacted Arbitrum with the following KPIs:
Our goal is to ensure that grantees have a world-class experience in terms of speed, responsiveness, and quality of communication from Arbitrum Grants DAO. Additionally, we will make sure that grants, especially larger ones, have sufficient diligence before approval.
There are three types of grants that interested grantees can apply to:
I’m a cofounder of Llama and previously led Aave Grants, one of the first and most successful protocol grants programs. Llama has contributed to Aave, Uniswap, Nouns, Lido, and Maker.
Llama has built a lightweight governance system for onchain organizations, designed for use cases like running a protocol grants program. Through Llama, Arbitrum Grants DAO can issue permissions to members to allocate grants, set rules for how allocations are approved, and display a live dashboard to the Arbitrum community of grant allocations.
We will have a real-time dashboard to show how Arbitrum grants are being allocated, similar to the examples shown below.
There will be 8 initial reviewers in Arbitrum Grants DAO. Shreyas from Llama will be one of the members of the Grants DAO and the process to be a reviewer will be run openly via the governance forum.
Arbitrum community members can apply to be reviewers in the Grants DAO by replying to this forum post. If you're interested, please respond with a comment indicating your interest in being a reviewer. Briefly share your background and why you are interested. We would like to have reviewers from a range of backgrounds, including engineering, risk, analytics, DeFi, and governance.
We propose to run the pilot grants program over two quarters. We request a max grants budget of $10 million and a max operating budget of $350k. Since Arbitrum is a core infrastructure protocol with one of the largest community treasuries, it makes sense to strategically allocate grants to grow the ecosystem. For comparison, Optimism’s current and planned spending on grants till date total over $100 million. The operating budget will be used to pay for the members of the Grants DAO, software services, legal expenses, and administrative costs to set up the grants program. The operating budget is 3.5% of the total grants budget, which is well below standard norms of 15-20%. Any unused ARB from the grant or operating budget will be returned to the Arbitrum treasury.
Arbitrum Grants DAO aims to build a thriving developer community around Arbitrum. Let us know if you have any questions or feedback on this proposal! If you are interested in being part of Arbitrum Grants DAO as a reviewer, please comment below. We’d love to have thoughtful people involved in the grant allocation process.
I look forward to the DAO
Oh let me fix it, here you can read https://mirror.xyz/0x50CE06Ab2404C72fbD57620EA8aa0E282065A831/KYyrQXDSeQpfeIBzAqYN5CAiZbmO1IyBV1P2AMYyDII
fyi your article is medium pay-walled. Cant read it.
I look forward to the DAO
Oh let me fix it, here you can read https://mirror.xyz/0x50CE06Ab2404C72fbD57620EA8aa0E282065A831/KYyrQXDSeQpfeIBzAqYN5CAiZbmO1IyBV1P2AMYyDII
fyi your article is medium pay-walled. Cant read it.
Thank @helloshreyas for the explanation. We've developed something truly innovative called "Bloc" (previously known as Mini DAO, as detailed here: Bloc article). Our goal is to instill full security and on-chain trust into the Grant DAO, addressing potential gaps. I would be pleased to share more information and explore how we can assist in structuring the idea of the Grant DAO. Overall, I believe it's a fantastic concept, and I fully support it.
Thank you @helloshreyas for your prompt response. However, when looking at on-chain interactions, there doesn't seem to be a true integration between the ARB DAO and the Grant DAO. For instance, hypothetically speaking, if the ARB DAO were to send 1 million USDC (or any other assets) to the Grant DAO, and the Grant DAO then decided to transfer, say, 50k each time to an individual's personal wallet or even to a fictitious address, there's nothing the main ARB DAO could do to prevent this. Essentially, the ARB DAO could just see its funds drained without recourse, correct?
Hello @helloshreyas,
I find the idea intriguing, as it certainly has the potential to benefit the ARB ecosystem. I am currently striving to comprehend the technical linkage between the ARB DAO and the Grant DAO – do they exhibit any form of interrelation? Furthermore, what measures are in place to avert the occurrence of a malicious attack? Could you elaborate on how we intend to monitor on-chain decisions effectively?
Hello @helloshreyas,
I find the idea intriguing, as it certainly has the potential to benefit the ARB ecosystem. I am currently striving to comprehend the technical linkage between the ARB DAO and the Grant DAO – do they exhibit any form of interrelation? Furthermore, what measures are in place to avert the occurrence of a malicious attack? Could you elaborate on how we intend to monitor on-chain decisions effectively?
Best regards, Ohad Chelo Labs
Hello @helloshreyas thanks for your ideas. I am Tony from The Insider Group, we are a media community and support for ecosystems like Near, Arbitrum, etc and and at Near I joined the Grant DAO model like this. I have some contributions as follows:
Hello @helloshreyas thanks for your ideas. I am Tony from The Insider Group, we are a media community and support for ecosystems like Near, Arbitrum, etc and and at Near I joined the Grant DAO model like this. I have some contributions as follows:
Elephant in the room here is the other grants program that had a snapshot which was in favor. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-3-non-constitutional-fund-the-arbitrum-grants-framework-proposal-milestone-1/14976
Why discuss another grants program when a bigger one is already voted in?
Which also already will run while Questbook is also another grants program on Arbitrum?
Elephant in the room here is the other grants program that had a snapshot which was in favor. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-3-non-constitutional-fund-the-arbitrum-grants-framework-proposal-milestone-1/14976
Why discuss another grants program when a bigger one is already voted in?
Which also already will run while Questbook is also another grants program on Arbitrum?
Do we really need multiple grant programs people?
Fantastic proposal, @helloshreyas!
This is Abhay from DappLooker. Having received Aave DAO grants three times, I am well-acquainted with the process and its significance. I would be thrilled to contribute to the Arbitrum DAO as a data and analytics partner, leveraging my expertise to build real-time dashboards.
Fantastic proposal, @helloshreyas!
This is Abhay from DappLooker. Having received Aave DAO grants three times, I am well-acquainted with the process and its significance. I would be thrilled to contribute to the Arbitrum DAO as a data and analytics partner, leveraging my expertise to build real-time dashboards.
We already have Arbitrum network integration for no-code on chain analysis and dashboards.
Additionally, if I meet the criteria, I would also love to participate as a reviewer.
Would you be open to utilizing the questbook infra for managing this program?
Grants DAOs is a good and effective idea; however, I believe the operating budget is excessive. Could you please publish a more precise plan in the future?
Thank @helloshreyas for the explanation. We've developed something truly innovative called "Bloc" (previously known as Mini DAO, as detailed here: Bloc article). Our goal is to instill full security and on-chain trust into the Grant DAO, addressing potential gaps. I would be pleased to share more information and explore how we can assist in structuring the idea of the Grant DAO. Overall, I believe it's a fantastic concept, and I fully support it.
Thank you @helloshreyas for your prompt response. However, when looking at on-chain interactions, there doesn't seem to be a true integration between the ARB DAO and the Grant DAO. For instance, hypothetically speaking, if the ARB DAO were to send 1 million USDC (or any other assets) to the Grant DAO, and the Grant DAO then decided to transfer, say, 50k each time to an individual's personal wallet or even to a fictitious address, there's nothing the main ARB DAO could do to prevent this. Essentially, the ARB DAO could just see its funds drained without recourse, correct?
Hello @helloshreyas,
I find the idea intriguing, as it certainly has the potential to benefit the ARB ecosystem. I am currently striving to comprehend the technical linkage between the ARB DAO and the Grant DAO – do they exhibit any form of interrelation? Furthermore, what measures are in place to avert the occurrence of a malicious attack? Could you elaborate on how we intend to monitor on-chain decisions effectively?
Hello @helloshreyas,
I find the idea intriguing, as it certainly has the potential to benefit the ARB ecosystem. I am currently striving to comprehend the technical linkage between the ARB DAO and the Grant DAO – do they exhibit any form of interrelation? Furthermore, what measures are in place to avert the occurrence of a malicious attack? Could you elaborate on how we intend to monitor on-chain decisions effectively?
Best regards, Ohad Chelo Labs
Hello @helloshreyas thanks for your ideas. I am Tony from The Insider Group, we are a media community and support for ecosystems like Near, Arbitrum, etc and and at Near I joined the Grant DAO model like this. I have some contributions as follows:
Hello @helloshreyas thanks for your ideas. I am Tony from The Insider Group, we are a media community and support for ecosystems like Near, Arbitrum, etc and and at Near I joined the Grant DAO model like this. I have some contributions as follows:
Elephant in the room here is the other grants program that had a snapshot which was in favor. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-3-non-constitutional-fund-the-arbitrum-grants-framework-proposal-milestone-1/14976
Why discuss another grants program when a bigger one is already voted in?
Which also already will run while Questbook is also another grants program on Arbitrum?
Elephant in the room here is the other grants program that had a snapshot which was in favor. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-3-non-constitutional-fund-the-arbitrum-grants-framework-proposal-milestone-1/14976
Why discuss another grants program when a bigger one is already voted in?
Which also already will run while Questbook is also another grants program on Arbitrum?
Do we really need multiple grant programs people?
Fantastic proposal, @helloshreyas!
This is Abhay from DappLooker. Having received Aave DAO grants three times, I am well-acquainted with the process and its significance. I would be thrilled to contribute to the Arbitrum DAO as a data and analytics partner, leveraging my expertise to build real-time dashboards.
Fantastic proposal, @helloshreyas!
This is Abhay from DappLooker. Having received Aave DAO grants three times, I am well-acquainted with the process and its significance. I would be thrilled to contribute to the Arbitrum DAO as a data and analytics partner, leveraging my expertise to build real-time dashboards.
We already have Arbitrum network integration for no-code on chain analysis and dashboards.
Additionally, if I meet the criteria, I would also love to participate as a reviewer.
Would you be open to utilizing the questbook infra for managing this program?
Grants DAOs is a good and effective idea; however, I believe the operating budget is excessive. Could you please publish a more precise plan in the future?
I definitely agree with you that we should definitely have a lot of safeguards, the ability for the DAO to cancel the program at any time, and the ability to change and re-elect members. Open to more feedback!
I definitely agree with you that we should definitely have a lot of safeguards, the ability for the DAO to cancel the program at any time, and the ability to change and re-elect members. Open to more feedback!
My comments were mainly around this and avoiding mishaps that have plagued other DAOs in the past. I think it's imp to learn from mistakes and lean more into transparency, check points and milestone management regardless of the size of the treasury.
Hey @helloshreyas thanks for putting this forward - imo the sum requested is far too high for a pilot, as is the operating cost. From experience, at the start of all DAOs there is a flurry of spending, less than ideal returns and then everyone is concerned about it all and valuable things end up getting cut because of the initial splurges.
I suggest a much smaller pilot allocation, followed by an election for the reviewers (they must show clear expertise and a range of perspectives to ensure fair and valuable allocation of resource) and then a clear and thorough milestone review process. The dashboard is ok but it shows spend only, we need to see value add and growth across the verticals mentioned.
Hey @helloshreyas thanks for putting this forward - imo the sum requested is far too high for a pilot, as is the operating cost. From experience, at the start of all DAOs there is a flurry of spending, less than ideal returns and then everyone is concerned about it all and valuable things end up getting cut because of the initial splurges.
I suggest a much smaller pilot allocation, followed by an election for the reviewers (they must show clear expertise and a range of perspectives to ensure fair and valuable allocation of resource) and then a clear and thorough milestone review process. The dashboard is ok but it shows spend only, we need to see value add and growth across the verticals mentioned.
I would like to see more detail around the above vs general strokes...
Explored. In general, the approach is possible. But I would like to focus specifically on retro-grants: in my opinion, you should always look for those who are already doing something and doing it right. Because often, projects participating in grants rely on doing something and getting funds (there have even been research on this topic), while the project is important "live" cases. Hopefully, Arbitrum will take this into account and give grants to those who have already made, tested and launched products.
I've read a couple hundred delegate platforms and I'd believe there are two main themes:
(Long time listener, first time poster)
I think grant-giving organizations are going to be crucial for the continued growth and success of protocols, but only if done intentionally. Many grant programs today are reactive, receiving proposals from teams looking for funding instead of searching for teams solving a pressing need. I have a significant appreciation for the work done by the teams at the Uniswap Foundation and Reverie (currently managing dYdX and Osmosis grants) for how they spend time studying the respective protocol and its users to understand their pain points and fund grants solving them.
(Long time listener, first time poster)
I think grant-giving organizations are going to be crucial for the continued growth and success of protocols, but only if done intentionally. Many grant programs today are reactive, receiving proposals from teams looking for funding instead of searching for teams solving a pressing need. I have a significant appreciation for the work done by the teams at the Uniswap Foundation and Reverie (currently managing dYdX and Osmosis grants) for how they spend time studying the respective protocol and its users to understand their pain points and fund grants solving them.
If approved, how will this Grants DAO think about the selection process and understanding the true needs of the Arbitrum ecosystem? Will there be an RFP process developed in conjunction with other core DAO contributors to ensure that the projects being funded are utilized appropriately?
While it's a valid consideration to compare the size of the grants allocation to other protocols, I would be more interested in a bottoms-up model to understand how much of an investment each of the specified areas would require and how those funds would be invested and tracked to determine the impact on relevant KPIs.
Separate from the above, can you provide additional details on how the $350k operating budget would be spent? With the prior experience with grants, there should be best practices we can pull from to understand what the expected people costs would be for this and a list of necessary tooling.
In all, I agree Arbitrum deserves a grants-giving organization to support its continued growth, but would push the community to deeply consider the strategy for investing that budget to ensure it drives positive ROI over a longer time horizon.
We can set up the grants program to ensure security and flexibility for the DAO:
@arbitrum.insider thank you for your interest! Will follow up when we have more details.
Quick general update: we have received a lot of interest in this proposal! We are soliciting more feedback and revising a few items including scope and budget. We will share this on the forum when it is ready. We want to make sure that this grants program is value additive to Arbitrum DAO in addition to the two programs that have been proposed earlier.
Multiple Arbitrum members and delegates have shown an interest in there being multiple grants programs. As long as the budget is reasonable and the process for grantees is smooth, this could let the DAO assess which programs it would like to retain, test what types of projects are suited for funding via a grants program, and how the funding system can be improved overall. Regarding size, we are getting feedback from more community members and will put up a revised proposal with reduced size and scope. If other programs are approved, we will work with them to ensure alignment on scope and build out an efficient process for grantees.
Appreciate it! Will reach out to schedule a call.
Thank you! We're having conversations with potential reviewers and participants right now. This will help select the initial group of reviewers as well as inform how the eventual proposal should be shaped.
The goal is to build a relatively diverse set of reviewers with backgrounds in engineering, risk, analytics, DeFi, NFTs, social/gaming, and governance. We are looking for reviewers who have demonstrated clear aptitude to judge developer grants, make informed grant allocations, work well in a group, and have a strong interest in growing Arbitrum. After narrowing down a core group, we will share it on the forum, put up the revised proposal with the list of reviewers for a vote on Snapshot, and potentially host a Twitter spaces for wider discussion and feedback.
I definitely agree with you that we should definitely have a lot of safeguards, the ability for the DAO to cancel the program at any time, and the ability to change and re-elect members. Open to more feedback!
I definitely agree with you that we should definitely have a lot of safeguards, the ability for the DAO to cancel the program at any time, and the ability to change and re-elect members. Open to more feedback!
My comments were mainly around this and avoiding mishaps that have plagued other DAOs in the past. I think it's imp to learn from mistakes and lean more into transparency, check points and milestone management regardless of the size of the treasury.
Hey @helloshreyas thanks for putting this forward - imo the sum requested is far too high for a pilot, as is the operating cost. From experience, at the start of all DAOs there is a flurry of spending, less than ideal returns and then everyone is concerned about it all and valuable things end up getting cut because of the initial splurges.
I suggest a much smaller pilot allocation, followed by an election for the reviewers (they must show clear expertise and a range of perspectives to ensure fair and valuable allocation of resource) and then a clear and thorough milestone review process. The dashboard is ok but it shows spend only, we need to see value add and growth across the verticals mentioned.
Hey @helloshreyas thanks for putting this forward - imo the sum requested is far too high for a pilot, as is the operating cost. From experience, at the start of all DAOs there is a flurry of spending, less than ideal returns and then everyone is concerned about it all and valuable things end up getting cut because of the initial splurges.
I suggest a much smaller pilot allocation, followed by an election for the reviewers (they must show clear expertise and a range of perspectives to ensure fair and valuable allocation of resource) and then a clear and thorough milestone review process. The dashboard is ok but it shows spend only, we need to see value add and growth across the verticals mentioned.
I would like to see more detail around the above vs general strokes...
Explored. In general, the approach is possible. But I would like to focus specifically on retro-grants: in my opinion, you should always look for those who are already doing something and doing it right. Because often, projects participating in grants rely on doing something and getting funds (there have even been research on this topic), while the project is important "live" cases. Hopefully, Arbitrum will take this into account and give grants to those who have already made, tested and launched products.
I've read a couple hundred delegate platforms and I'd believe there are two main themes:
(Long time listener, first time poster)
I think grant-giving organizations are going to be crucial for the continued growth and success of protocols, but only if done intentionally. Many grant programs today are reactive, receiving proposals from teams looking for funding instead of searching for teams solving a pressing need. I have a significant appreciation for the work done by the teams at the Uniswap Foundation and Reverie (currently managing dYdX and Osmosis grants) for how they spend time studying the respective protocol and its users to understand their pain points and fund grants solving them.
(Long time listener, first time poster)
I think grant-giving organizations are going to be crucial for the continued growth and success of protocols, but only if done intentionally. Many grant programs today are reactive, receiving proposals from teams looking for funding instead of searching for teams solving a pressing need. I have a significant appreciation for the work done by the teams at the Uniswap Foundation and Reverie (currently managing dYdX and Osmosis grants) for how they spend time studying the respective protocol and its users to understand their pain points and fund grants solving them.
If approved, how will this Grants DAO think about the selection process and understanding the true needs of the Arbitrum ecosystem? Will there be an RFP process developed in conjunction with other core DAO contributors to ensure that the projects being funded are utilized appropriately?
While it's a valid consideration to compare the size of the grants allocation to other protocols, I would be more interested in a bottoms-up model to understand how much of an investment each of the specified areas would require and how those funds would be invested and tracked to determine the impact on relevant KPIs.
Separate from the above, can you provide additional details on how the $350k operating budget would be spent? With the prior experience with grants, there should be best practices we can pull from to understand what the expected people costs would be for this and a list of necessary tooling.
In all, I agree Arbitrum deserves a grants-giving organization to support its continued growth, but would push the community to deeply consider the strategy for investing that budget to ensure it drives positive ROI over a longer time horizon.
We can set up the grants program to ensure security and flexibility for the DAO:
@arbitrum.insider thank you for your interest! Will follow up when we have more details.
Quick general update: we have received a lot of interest in this proposal! We are soliciting more feedback and revising a few items including scope and budget. We will share this on the forum when it is ready. We want to make sure that this grants program is value additive to Arbitrum DAO in addition to the two programs that have been proposed earlier.
Multiple Arbitrum members and delegates have shown an interest in there being multiple grants programs. As long as the budget is reasonable and the process for grantees is smooth, this could let the DAO assess which programs it would like to retain, test what types of projects are suited for funding via a grants program, and how the funding system can be improved overall. Regarding size, we are getting feedback from more community members and will put up a revised proposal with reduced size and scope. If other programs are approved, we will work with them to ensure alignment on scope and build out an efficient process for grantees.
Appreciate it! Will reach out to schedule a call.
Thank you! We're having conversations with potential reviewers and participants right now. This will help select the initial group of reviewers as well as inform how the eventual proposal should be shaped.
The goal is to build a relatively diverse set of reviewers with backgrounds in engineering, risk, analytics, DeFi, NFTs, social/gaming, and governance. We are looking for reviewers who have demonstrated clear aptitude to judge developer grants, make informed grant allocations, work well in a group, and have a strong interest in growing Arbitrum. After narrowing down a core group, we will share it on the forum, put up the revised proposal with the list of reviewers for a vote on Snapshot, and potentially host a Twitter spaces for wider discussion and feedback.
I've read a couple hundred delegate platforms and I'd believe there are two main themes:
The structure and priority of this proposal aligns well with those goals in mind. In my opinion, this proposal should be compared with rather than against other grant programs. That said, I'd be happy to be a reviewer having done so previously for Aave and Compound. Additionally, @gauntlet is an Arbitrum delegate which I believe complements that stewardship role.
Disclosures: Conflicts of interest include direct work with Aave, Compound, and various other DAOs. I would recuse myself from any grant consideration including but not limited to grants seen as competitive to Gauntlet or from current/previous protocols or teams I have worked with.
We can set up the grants program to ensure security and flexibility for the DAO:
TLDR: the DAO can audit what is happening in real-time and can cancel the program and clawback funds if it chooses to. Please note that this gives the DAO more rights and protections than almost any major protocol grants program in the crypto ecosystem. Usually, the DAO just hands over funds to a multisig to spend as they see fit. No grant program requires tokenholder vote on every decision as that would be highly cumbersome and not optimal for tokenholders, reviewers, or grantees.
@Ohad_Chelo_Labs thank you for your comment. The way Llama works: policies are issued to individuals (grant reviewers) and smart contracts (Arbitrum’s governor contract). Rules and guardrails are set onchain for transferring funds. For example, amounts below $20k need approval from two reviewers, amounts between $20k and $70k need approval from 20% of the grants DAO, and large amounts need approval from the DAO tokenholders. These numbers are just an example and the rules can be configured in a different way. The goal is to ensure that grantees have a straightforward process while incorporating secure guardrails so that the DAO’s funds are allocated effectively.
Thank you for your interest! Useful background, will reach out to you to schedule a call.
Appreciate it and will do! Just waiting for more feedback on the scope, proposal, and size before sharing more details on the operational budget because that may change based on community input.
Sorry mate that message of mine it wasn't meant to be posted here. It was for another proposal. I just messed up. Been deleted, forget about it.
Noted and 100% in agreement, thanks @SPOP!
We will wait for more feedback from others about the size of the program; happy to rework the proposal based on feedback from you and others. The safeguards, guardrails, and transparency will definitely be present - the DAO can audit what is happening in real-time and can cancel the program and clawback funds if it chooses to.
Thank you for your feedback. We will wait for more feedback from other community members; happy to rework the total size of the program based on feedback.
Thanks for your comments @SPOP!
We can set up the grants program to ensure security and flexibility for the DAO:
Thanks for your comments @SPOP!
We can set up the grants program to ensure security and flexibility for the DAO:
Definitely open to more feedback, but I think $10 million is well within reason given Arbitrum’s size and stage of maturity. Here are some comparables:
Unlike applications like Uniswap and Aave, Arbitrum is a core infrastructure protocol with the largest treasury among others currently.
I definitely agree with you that we should definitely have a lot of safeguards, the ability for the DAO to cancel the program at any time, and the ability to change and re-elect members. Open to more feedback!
Agreed with this! This is why we have allocated some of the budget for retroactive grants.
I am confused as to why a grantee should be entitled to approve new grants? What benefits and risks do you see in this approach?
The structure and priority of this proposal aligns well with those goals in mind. In my opinion, this proposal should be compared with rather than against other grant programs. That said, I’d be happy to be a reviewer having done so previously for Aave and Compound. Additionally, @gauntlet is an Arbitrum delegate which I believe complements that stewardship role.
Thanks for your thoughts @benhoneill, pretty much in alignment with most of your points.
We’ve spent some time speaking to Arbitrum stakeholders on some of the key areas to focus on and have arrived at these strategic priorities:
Thanks for your thoughts @benhoneill, pretty much in alignment with most of your points.
We’ve spent some time speaking to Arbitrum stakeholders on some of the key areas to focus on and have arrived at these strategic priorities:
Approximately 70% will be spent on tooling, applications, and development that brings growth to Arbitrum (the first three categories listed above) while 30% will be spent on developer focused events and hackathons that attract people to build on Arbitrum.
Additionally, approximately 70% of the total grants budget will be spent on standard grants while 30% will be spent on retroactive grants for protocols, tools, and applications that have added value to Arbitrum.
From my experience leading grants at Aave, the exact percentages will be subject to change based on bottom up contributions and developer activity in the community.
We will build an RFP process along with other key members of the DAO and seek out specialized contributors to fulfil those RFPs.
Re. the budget: Uniswap Foundation and dYdX Grants, the two programs you cited, had annualized operating budgets of $4.7 million and $744,000 respectively, which is far above the operating budget in this proposal. We will wait to receive more input from community members on the size of the program, after which we may decide to rework the total budget and operating budget as well as share more details on the operating budget. The operating budget will be used to pay for the grants lead, reviewers, events coordinator, legal expenses, software services, and administrative costs to set up the grants program.
I've read a couple hundred delegate platforms and I'd believe there are two main themes:
The structure and priority of this proposal aligns well with those goals in mind. In my opinion, this proposal should be compared with rather than against other grant programs. That said, I'd be happy to be a reviewer having done so previously for Aave and Compound. Additionally, @gauntlet is an Arbitrum delegate which I believe complements that stewardship role.
Disclosures: Conflicts of interest include direct work with Aave, Compound, and various other DAOs. I would recuse myself from any grant consideration including but not limited to grants seen as competitive to Gauntlet or from current/previous protocols or teams I have worked with.
We can set up the grants program to ensure security and flexibility for the DAO:
TLDR: the DAO can audit what is happening in real-time and can cancel the program and clawback funds if it chooses to. Please note that this gives the DAO more rights and protections than almost any major protocol grants program in the crypto ecosystem. Usually, the DAO just hands over funds to a multisig to spend as they see fit. No grant program requires tokenholder vote on every decision as that would be highly cumbersome and not optimal for tokenholders, reviewers, or grantees.
@Ohad_Chelo_Labs thank you for your comment. The way Llama works: policies are issued to individuals (grant reviewers) and smart contracts (Arbitrum’s governor contract). Rules and guardrails are set onchain for transferring funds. For example, amounts below $20k need approval from two reviewers, amounts between $20k and $70k need approval from 20% of the grants DAO, and large amounts need approval from the DAO tokenholders. These numbers are just an example and the rules can be configured in a different way. The goal is to ensure that grantees have a straightforward process while incorporating secure guardrails so that the DAO’s funds are allocated effectively.
Thank you for your interest! Useful background, will reach out to you to schedule a call.
Appreciate it and will do! Just waiting for more feedback on the scope, proposal, and size before sharing more details on the operational budget because that may change based on community input.
Sorry mate that message of mine it wasn't meant to be posted here. It was for another proposal. I just messed up. Been deleted, forget about it.
Noted and 100% in agreement, thanks @SPOP!
We will wait for more feedback from others about the size of the program; happy to rework the proposal based on feedback from you and others. The safeguards, guardrails, and transparency will definitely be present - the DAO can audit what is happening in real-time and can cancel the program and clawback funds if it chooses to.
Thank you for your feedback. We will wait for more feedback from other community members; happy to rework the total size of the program based on feedback.
Thanks for your comments @SPOP!
We can set up the grants program to ensure security and flexibility for the DAO:
Thanks for your comments @SPOP!
We can set up the grants program to ensure security and flexibility for the DAO:
Definitely open to more feedback, but I think $10 million is well within reason given Arbitrum’s size and stage of maturity. Here are some comparables:
Unlike applications like Uniswap and Aave, Arbitrum is a core infrastructure protocol with the largest treasury among others currently.
I definitely agree with you that we should definitely have a lot of safeguards, the ability for the DAO to cancel the program at any time, and the ability to change and re-elect members. Open to more feedback!
Agreed with this! This is why we have allocated some of the budget for retroactive grants.
I am confused as to why a grantee should be entitled to approve new grants? What benefits and risks do you see in this approach?
The structure and priority of this proposal aligns well with those goals in mind. In my opinion, this proposal should be compared with rather than against other grant programs. That said, I’d be happy to be a reviewer having done so previously for Aave and Compound. Additionally, @gauntlet is an Arbitrum delegate which I believe complements that stewardship role.
Thanks for your thoughts @benhoneill, pretty much in alignment with most of your points.
We’ve spent some time speaking to Arbitrum stakeholders on some of the key areas to focus on and have arrived at these strategic priorities:
Thanks for your thoughts @benhoneill, pretty much in alignment with most of your points.
We’ve spent some time speaking to Arbitrum stakeholders on some of the key areas to focus on and have arrived at these strategic priorities:
Approximately 70% will be spent on tooling, applications, and development that brings growth to Arbitrum (the first three categories listed above) while 30% will be spent on developer focused events and hackathons that attract people to build on Arbitrum.
Additionally, approximately 70% of the total grants budget will be spent on standard grants while 30% will be spent on retroactive grants for protocols, tools, and applications that have added value to Arbitrum.
From my experience leading grants at Aave, the exact percentages will be subject to change based on bottom up contributions and developer activity in the community.
We will build an RFP process along with other key members of the DAO and seek out specialized contributors to fulfil those RFPs.
Re. the budget: Uniswap Foundation and dYdX Grants, the two programs you cited, had annualized operating budgets of $4.7 million and $744,000 respectively, which is far above the operating budget in this proposal. We will wait to receive more input from community members on the size of the program, after which we may decide to rework the total budget and operating budget as well as share more details on the operating budget. The operating budget will be used to pay for the grants lead, reviewers, events coordinator, legal expenses, software services, and administrative costs to set up the grants program.
I am confused as to why a grantee should be entitled to approve new grants? What benefits and risks do you see in this approach?
Great question. This is definitely a unique aspect of this grants structure where we are trying to involve more people who have shown positive contributions to Arbitrum in the grant allocation process over time rather than just the core 8 people. Note that this will be opt-in (only grantees that want to be involved should be) and that any member who is inactive or not adding value can be removed by other members.
Benefits:
Cons:
The structure and priority of this proposal aligns well with those goals in mind. In my opinion, this proposal should be compared with rather than against other grant programs. That said, I’d be happy to be a reviewer having done so previously for Aave and Compound. Additionally, @gauntlet is an Arbitrum delegate which I believe complements that stewardship role.
Thanks for your support and interest in being a reviewer, Nick!
I am confused as to why a grantee should be entitled to approve new grants? What benefits and risks do you see in this approach?
Great question. This is definitely a unique aspect of this grants structure where we are trying to involve more people who have shown positive contributions to Arbitrum in the grant allocation process over time rather than just the core 8 people. Note that this will be opt-in (only grantees that want to be involved should be) and that any member who is inactive or not adding value can be removed by other members.
Benefits:
Cons:
The structure and priority of this proposal aligns well with those goals in mind. In my opinion, this proposal should be compared with rather than against other grant programs. That said, I’d be happy to be a reviewer having done so previously for Aave and Compound. Additionally, @gauntlet is an Arbitrum delegate which I believe complements that stewardship role.
Thanks for your support and interest in being a reviewer, Nick!
Hi! Thanks for your proposal!
I share the concerns that the initial funding seems too high, and I like the suggestion of reviewing it and the introduction of retro-grants.
One question: How would be the selection process for the grant committee reviewers? Is it something that will go through a vote?
Fantastic! I have sent you a message on twitter for a direct contact.
Hi! Thanks for your proposal!
I share the concerns that the initial funding seems too high, and I like the suggestion of reviewing it and the introduction of retro-grants.
One question: How would be the selection process for the grant committee reviewers? Is it something that will go through a vote?
Fantastic! I have sent you a message on twitter for a direct contact.
Arbitrum community members can apply to be reviewers in the Grants DAO by replying to this forum post. If you’re interested, please respond with a comment indicating your interest in being a reviewer. Briefly share your background and why you are interested. We would like to have reviewers from a range of backgrounds, including engineering, risk, analytics, DeFi, and governance.
Arbitrum community members can apply to be reviewers in the Grants DAO by replying to this forum post. If you’re interested, please respond with a comment indicating your interest in being a reviewer. Briefly share your background and why you are interested. We would like to have reviewers from a range of backgrounds, including engineering, risk, analytics, DeFi, and governance.
Ehy, GM.
I am interested in pitching a reviewer in for the grant committee. I have both professional and personal interest in the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem. I have been contributing full-time to JonesDao, one of the most successful Arbitrum native ecosystems, and I have personally always found the DeFi experience in Arbitrum top-notch compared to other chains. I want to contribute to help this ecosystem grow, and I think this would be a great opportunity.
My background includes being an automation system engineer, and I have always had a knack for analyzing risks. Additionally, I have enjoy big time designing DeFi products. Recently, I have been gaining more experience in governance through my contributions to the Aura ecosystem. I would obviously recuse myself in case of any decision that could lead to a conflict of interest.
When a new grant is issued, the grantee is added to the Grants DAO with the permission to approve new grants
Hi Shreyas, thanks for writing the proposal. I am confused as to why a grantee should be entitled to approve new grants? What benefits and risks do you see in this approach?
Arbitrum community members can apply to be reviewers in the Grants DAO by replying to this forum post. If you’re interested, please respond with a comment indicating your interest in being a reviewer. Briefly share your background and why you are interested. We would like to have reviewers from a range of backgrounds, including engineering, risk, analytics, DeFi, and governance.
Arbitrum community members can apply to be reviewers in the Grants DAO by replying to this forum post. If you’re interested, please respond with a comment indicating your interest in being a reviewer. Briefly share your background and why you are interested. We would like to have reviewers from a range of backgrounds, including engineering, risk, analytics, DeFi, and governance.
Ehy, GM.
I am interested in pitching a reviewer in for the grant committee. I have both professional and personal interest in the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem. I have been contributing full-time to JonesDao, one of the most successful Arbitrum native ecosystems, and I have personally always found the DeFi experience in Arbitrum top-notch compared to other chains. I want to contribute to help this ecosystem grow, and I think this would be a great opportunity.
My background includes being an automation system engineer, and I have always had a knack for analyzing risks. Additionally, I have enjoy big time designing DeFi products. Recently, I have been gaining more experience in governance through my contributions to the Aura ecosystem. I would obviously recuse myself in case of any decision that could lead to a conflict of interest.
When a new grant is issued, the grantee is added to the Grants DAO with the permission to approve new grants
Hi Shreyas, thanks for writing the proposal. I am confused as to why a grantee should be entitled to approve new grants? What benefits and risks do you see in this approach?
