I would like to thank all the community members and delegates for reviewing and sharing comments on our proposal. Thank you to the Domain allocators of the Questbook DDA grant program round 1, @JoJo, @cattin, @Juandi and @Flook for their valuable inputs and feedback of the program. Thanks to @krst for the feedback and demo day calls setup to showcase the impact of the program to the delegates and community so far and the feedback with which we have planned to improve the DDA program by.
Proposal: Request for Continuation of the Arbitrum DDA Program Request Category: Non-Constitutional AIPs
As we near the end of allocating the initial grant budget (link to proposal), where through the Arbitrum Grants Program run via the Delegated Domain Allocation model by Questbook, $912k has already been allocated to over 60 proposals. Based on the overwhelming response and number of quality proposals the grant program has received, we propose to start a new program for the Arbitrum Grants via DDA through Questbook with a budget of $4,000,000 spread across 4 domains over the next two quarters. We have received great feedback and support from the community, builders, and domain allocators for requesting additional budget and continue funding projects through the delegated domain allocation model.
The Arbitrum grants, administered via DDA by Questbook and 4 domain allocators, (Cattin, Adam, Juandi and JoJo) went live on the 5th of October with a total grants budget of $800k spread across four domains. Since the launch of the grants program, the Arbitrum domain allocators approved proposals requesting $912k and disbursed a total of ~$394,000 to accepted proposals from a pool of 201 proposals. These domain allocators were elected from the community and by the community. The specific information regarding the accepted proposals and the funded teams can be found here.
As previously stated in our initial proposal, Questbook launched the grants program to further scale it based on proposal volume and learnings from the first ever grants program in the Arbitrum Ecosystem. The Arbitrum Grants run through DDA has received overwhelming response, receiving over 200+ proposals since launch.
Please find below the Arbitrum DDA Grant Programs funding breakdown of relevant metrics and insights and proposed improvements going forward.
New Protocol Ideas Domain
Dev Tooling Domain
Education, Community Growth and Events Domain
Gaming Domain
PPT links of the meeting of each domain
Based on the impact and insights derived from Arbitrum DDA program, we propose renewing the Program with a budget of $4M for two quarters. The domain allocators will utilize this budget to fund proposals that align with Arbitrum’s roadmap. After researching, gathering feedback from domain allocators, active community members, and builders, we propose supporting the same domains as the previous program:
| Domain | Domain Allocator | Proposed Budget |
|---|---|---|
| New Protocol Ideas | Jojo | $920,000 |
| Gaming | Adam | $920,000 |
| Dev Tooling | Juandi | $920,000 |
| Education, Growth, Community and Events | Cattin (Seed Latam) | $920,000 |
RFPs, acceptance criteria and specifications for each domain
Similar to the model implemented in the initial program, the renewed grants program will be run using Delegated Domain Capital Allocation Model 1. Each domain allocator will run their respective domain on-chain for full transparency using Questbook. The data and performance across key metrics will be visible to the community.
While the program has produced, accordingly to preliminary conversation with protocols and delegates, good results, we want to address and integrate the feedbacks so far proposed and partially covered in the previous section, such as:
The DA will evaluate all the proposals through the rubrics provided for each domain, with the following framework:
The disbursement of the grant will take place on-chain from a multi-sig wallet controlled by the program manager & the domain allocator. The domain allocator will approve or reject the application based on evaluation rubric. A Grants SAFE, with 3/5 multi-sig, between the program manager and 4 domain allocators will be setup. We will then have 4 SAFEs for each of the domains with a 2/2 between the program manager and the specific domain allocator. The funds for the grants program will flow from the treasury into the Grants SAFE. This SAFE will hold the funds related to operational costs, committee compensation, and the grants budget. Funds that will be disbursed to the proposers will reside in the domain-level SAFEs.
After the end of two quarters, the grants committee and the Arbitrum community shall evaluate the performance of each domain using publicly available data and decide to eventually, renew the program and, if so, change any specification of the domains, the domain allocators or the program manager.
To ensure predictability of the funding of the program and a proper runaway, upon receiving the amount from the DAO, the DAs alongside the PM will convert it in stables. If the protocols request it, specific grants or milestones might be paid in $ARB by converting the needed amount at the moment of payout.
Arbitrum DDA program closed accepting new proposals from mid February. If the program will be renewed in the terms above, the DDA program will take care, alongside the evaluation of new proposal, to keep evaluating the milestones of the previous program, thus allowing for the continuity of the previous iteration in an accountable way for grantees.
Sourcing, reviewing, funding, marketing, tracking and nurturing proposals requires significant expertise and time commitment from the grants committee members and they should be fairly and competitively compensated for their efforts. Based on the learnings from the previous program specified above, we believe that opting for a fixed payment structure over an hourly paid model may be more impactful for the program. DAs and PMs have months where the work goes above and beyond the work hours mentioned, which does not get compensated accordingly, and there are constraints to work hours and impact a DA can provide within the limited hours provided. This indeed also impacted the turnaround time, alongside some technical difficulties.
We propose the following payment structure for the PM and DAs, with a base salary of $100/h and an increased projected workload of DA by 33% compared to the previous program, in consideration of the fact that DA not only have on average worked more than what initially was expected in the previous program, but also that they will need to spend time to cross evaluate all proposals above $25,000. On the other hand, the compensation of the PM is instead unchanged. We are also adding overhead for an extra 6 months, equivalent to 20% of full-time salaries, for the Domain Allocators and the PM to keep evaluating the milestones of the grantees after the natural end of the program. This will ensure the proper continuation of the program and the followup with grantees, despite the program potentially not being renewed if so decided by the DAO. In case the program would be renewed with the same structure and people, or in case the milestone verification would come to an end before the due time, any leftover would be given back to the Arbitrum DAO.
| Role | Monthly Cost | Total |
|---|---|---|
| Program Manager and Questbook | $10000 | $60,000* |
| Domain Allocator | $8000 | $192,000 |
| Overhead for extra 6 months | $8400 | $50,400 |
| Operations Cost, Misc. | $10,000 | |
| Totals: | $312,400 |
*Note: Questbook will provide the grants committee its grants orchestration tool at a cost of $5000 per month, included in the numbers above with the PM’s payment.
As per the above, the current costs to run program would be 7.8% of the overall budget of the grant program.
Program Success
Enhanced Community Involvement
Brand Awareness
Contribution of Funded Projects to Arbitrum
We welcome the community members to participate in the temperature check and share their feedback and comments below.
Temperature check on the proposal. Please vote!
[poll type=regular results=always public=true chartType=bar]
I would like to thank all the community members and delegates for reviewing and sharing comments on our proposal. Thank you to the Domain allocators of the Questbook DDA grant program round 1, @JoJo, @cattin, @Juandi and @Flook for their valuable inputs and feedback of the program. Thanks to @krst for the feedback and demo day calls setup to showcase the impact of the program to the delegates and community so far and the feedback with which we have planned to improve the DDA program by.
Proposal: Request for Continuation of the Arbitrum DDA Program Request Category: Non-Constitutional AIPs
As we near the end of allocating the initial grant budget (link to proposal), where through the Arbitrum Grants Program run via the Delegated Domain Allocation model by Questbook, $912k has already been allocated to over 60 proposals. Based on the overwhelming response and number of quality proposals the grant program has received, we propose to start a new program for the Arbitrum Grants via DDA through Questbook with a budget of $4,000,000 spread across 4 domains over the next two quarters. We have received great feedback and support from the community, builders, and domain allocators for requesting additional budget and continue funding projects through the delegated domain allocation model.
The Arbitrum grants, administered via DDA by Questbook and 4 domain allocators, (Cattin, Adam, Juandi and JoJo) went live on the 5th of October with a total grants budget of $800k spread across four domains. Since the launch of the grants program, the Arbitrum domain allocators approved proposals requesting $912k and disbursed a total of ~$394,000 to accepted proposals from a pool of 201 proposals. These domain allocators were elected from the community and by the community. The specific information regarding the accepted proposals and the funded teams can be found here.
As previously stated in our initial proposal, Questbook launched the grants program to further scale it based on proposal volume and learnings from the first ever grants program in the Arbitrum Ecosystem. The Arbitrum Grants run through DDA has received overwhelming response, receiving over 200+ proposals since launch.
Please find below the Arbitrum DDA Grant Programs funding breakdown of relevant metrics and insights and proposed improvements going forward.
New Protocol Ideas Domain
Dev Tooling Domain
Education, Community Growth and Events Domain
Gaming Domain
PPT links of the meeting of each domain
Based on the impact and insights derived from Arbitrum DDA program, we propose renewing the Program with a budget of $4M for two quarters. The domain allocators will utilize this budget to fund proposals that align with Arbitrum’s roadmap. After researching, gathering feedback from domain allocators, active community members, and builders, we propose supporting the same domains as the previous program:
| Domain | Domain Allocator | Proposed Budget |
|---|---|---|
| New Protocol Ideas | Jojo | $920,000 |
| Gaming | Adam | $920,000 |
| Dev Tooling | Juandi | $920,000 |
| Education, Growth, Community and Events | Cattin (Seed Latam) | $920,000 |
RFPs, acceptance criteria and specifications for each domain
Similar to the model implemented in the initial program, the renewed grants program will be run using Delegated Domain Capital Allocation Model 1. Each domain allocator will run their respective domain on-chain for full transparency using Questbook. The data and performance across key metrics will be visible to the community.
While the program has produced, accordingly to preliminary conversation with protocols and delegates, good results, we want to address and integrate the feedbacks so far proposed and partially covered in the previous section, such as:
The DA will evaluate all the proposals through the rubrics provided for each domain, with the following framework:
The disbursement of the grant will take place on-chain from a multi-sig wallet controlled by the program manager & the domain allocator. The domain allocator will approve or reject the application based on evaluation rubric. A Grants SAFE, with 3/5 multi-sig, between the program manager and 4 domain allocators will be setup. We will then have 4 SAFEs for each of the domains with a 2/2 between the program manager and the specific domain allocator. The funds for the grants program will flow from the treasury into the Grants SAFE. This SAFE will hold the funds related to operational costs, committee compensation, and the grants budget. Funds that will be disbursed to the proposers will reside in the domain-level SAFEs.
After the end of two quarters, the grants committee and the Arbitrum community shall evaluate the performance of each domain using publicly available data and decide to eventually, renew the program and, if so, change any specification of the domains, the domain allocators or the program manager.
To ensure predictability of the funding of the program and a proper runaway, upon receiving the amount from the DAO, the DAs alongside the PM will convert it in stables. If the protocols request it, specific grants or milestones might be paid in $ARB by converting the needed amount at the moment of payout.
Arbitrum DDA program closed accepting new proposals from mid February. If the program will be renewed in the terms above, the DDA program will take care, alongside the evaluation of new proposal, to keep evaluating the milestones of the previous program, thus allowing for the continuity of the previous iteration in an accountable way for grantees.
Sourcing, reviewing, funding, marketing, tracking and nurturing proposals requires significant expertise and time commitment from the grants committee members and they should be fairly and competitively compensated for their efforts. Based on the learnings from the previous program specified above, we believe that opting for a fixed payment structure over an hourly paid model may be more impactful for the program. DAs and PMs have months where the work goes above and beyond the work hours mentioned, which does not get compensated accordingly, and there are constraints to work hours and impact a DA can provide within the limited hours provided. This indeed also impacted the turnaround time, alongside some technical difficulties.
We propose the following payment structure for the PM and DAs, with a base salary of $100/h and an increased projected workload of DA by 33% compared to the previous program, in consideration of the fact that DA not only have on average worked more than what initially was expected in the previous program, but also that they will need to spend time to cross evaluate all proposals above $25,000. On the other hand, the compensation of the PM is instead unchanged. We are also adding overhead for an extra 6 months, equivalent to 20% of full-time salaries, for the Domain Allocators and the PM to keep evaluating the milestones of the grantees after the natural end of the program. This will ensure the proper continuation of the program and the followup with grantees, despite the program potentially not being renewed if so decided by the DAO. In case the program would be renewed with the same structure and people, or in case the milestone verification would come to an end before the due time, any leftover would be given back to the Arbitrum DAO.
| Role | Monthly Cost | Total |
|---|---|---|
| Program Manager and Questbook | $10000 | $60,000* |
| Domain Allocator | $8000 | $192,000 |
| Overhead for extra 6 months | $8400 | $50,400 |
| Operations Cost, Misc. | $10,000 | |
| Totals: | $312,400 |
*Note: Questbook will provide the grants committee its grants orchestration tool at a cost of $5000 per month, included in the numbers above with the PM’s payment.
As per the above, the current costs to run program would be 7.8% of the overall budget of the grant program.
Program Success
Enhanced Community Involvement
Brand Awareness
Contribution of Funded Projects to Arbitrum
We welcome the community members to participate in the temperature check and share their feedback and comments below.
Temperature check on the proposal. Please vote!
[poll type=regular results=always public=true chartType=bar]
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/21266/14?u=savvydao
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/questbook-dda-program-phase-2-request-for-continuation/21326/65
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-11: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-11
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/questbook-dda-program-phase-2-request-for-continuation/21326/64?u=winverse
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/21266/14?u=savvydao
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/questbook-dda-program-phase-2-request-for-continuation/21326/65
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-11: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-11
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/questbook-dda-program-phase-2-request-for-continuation/21326/64?u=winverse
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/questbook-dda-program-phase-2-request-for-continuation/21326/62?u=princetonblockchain
Rationale https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/questbook-dda-program-phase-2-request-for-continuation/21326/61?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/questbook-dda-program-phase-2-request-for-continuation/21326/26?u=bob-rossi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/questbook-dda-program-phase-2-request-for-continuation/21326/60?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/questbook-dda-program-phase-2-request-for-continuation/21326/59?u=blockworksresearch
We hope that the future stage will be even more successful for the development of projects in Arbitrum
I like this suggestion, let's make Arbitrum great again 🚀
Voting abstain cause I am one of the domain allocator. But my heart would love to vote "for" for what it matters.
Thank you for providing a detailed overview of the current status and future development plans of the Arbitrum funding program. The suggestion to launch a new funding initiative and the proposed updates to the specifications and implementation plans will help foster the continuous growth of the projects. The detailed explanation of the compensation structure and operating costs adds transparency and credibility to the process. Looking forward to seeing these measures positively impact the overall development of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/questbook-dda-program-phase-2-request-for-continuation/21326/50?u=princetonblockchain
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/questbook-dda-program-phase-2-request-for-continuation/21326/49?u=krst
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/questbook-dda-program-phase-2-request-for-continuation/21326/48?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/21266/7?u=savvydao
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/questbook-dda-program-phase-2-request-for-continuation/21326/22?u=maxlomu
I'd like to see new domains and even an open domain in future, but this working group and program really works for the DAO. FOR.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/questbook-dda-program-phase-2-request-for-continuation/21326/26?u=bob-rossi
In general, I support the proposal, but I think the fees for experts are overpriced
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/questbook-dda-program-phase-2-request-for-continuation/21326/62?u=princetonblockchain
Rationale https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/questbook-dda-program-phase-2-request-for-continuation/21326/61?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/questbook-dda-program-phase-2-request-for-continuation/21326/26?u=bob-rossi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/questbook-dda-program-phase-2-request-for-continuation/21326/60?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/questbook-dda-program-phase-2-request-for-continuation/21326/59?u=blockworksresearch
We hope that the future stage will be even more successful for the development of projects in Arbitrum
I like this suggestion, let's make Arbitrum great again 🚀
Voting abstain cause I am one of the domain allocator. But my heart would love to vote "for" for what it matters.
Thank you for providing a detailed overview of the current status and future development plans of the Arbitrum funding program. The suggestion to launch a new funding initiative and the proposed updates to the specifications and implementation plans will help foster the continuous growth of the projects. The detailed explanation of the compensation structure and operating costs adds transparency and credibility to the process. Looking forward to seeing these measures positively impact the overall development of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/questbook-dda-program-phase-2-request-for-continuation/21326/50?u=princetonblockchain
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/questbook-dda-program-phase-2-request-for-continuation/21326/49?u=krst
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/questbook-dda-program-phase-2-request-for-continuation/21326/48?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/21266/7?u=savvydao
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/questbook-dda-program-phase-2-request-for-continuation/21326/22?u=maxlomu
I'd like to see new domains and even an open domain in future, but this working group and program really works for the DAO. FOR.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/questbook-dda-program-phase-2-request-for-continuation/21326/26?u=bob-rossi
In general, I support the proposal, but I think the fees for experts are overpriced
Heya Max!
Appreciate the great comments on the current iteration of the Questbook DDA Program.
On another note, I believe there's two key thing to this that we should also consider for granted projects and companies who should get incubated or raise from the DAO.
Heya Max!
Appreciate the great comments on the current iteration of the Questbook DDA Program.
On another note, I believe there's two key thing to this that we should also consider for granted projects and companies who should get incubated or raise from the DAO.
Ability to edit milestones and have a more flexible way to evaluate based on company or product pivots: Milestones sometimes are strict with the current implementation of grants and we see multiple companies that do a small change in the 'north star metric' of their product but are dependent on grant funding to kickstart user acquisition funnels or infrastructure cost which puts the grant on a standing of it is 'abandoned' due to a pivot or if it continues with a different evaluation criteria. A quick solution to this is starting to implement growth-oriented grants in the RFPs but we should also explore alternatives to provide the best possible funding funnel for a flexible and iterating product.
An in-house incubator/accelerator for Arbitrum native projects with terms similar to Codebase by Avalanche or Celo Camp. This can really help the DAO take positions either in equity or token on projects that are a priority to the current agenda while aiming to provide the most value as possible. If we leave early stage growth strictly to grant programs we might have a lot of churn in products and services based on Arbitrum that are going to take longer to raise and of course get less exposure than those who have centralized efforts to push the funding agenda forward.
I'd love to hear opinions about these two topics in this or in another post and also input about how we can start evaluating ways to scale the grant proposals from a 0 -> 1 by mentoring projects into viable and sustainable businesses with healthy token practices.
Representing web3 Warri - one of the grantees from the Questbook DDA grant program round 1, I support this proposal.
Community building and the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem should be approached as a long-term goal. Leading to sustainability, growth, and a wide nest for proposals and ideas in the long run.
And the detailed report from round 1 by the team is commendable.
As a beneficiary of this grant program through DeFi Africa, I have witnessed firsthand the immense impact it has had on our community of developers. The support provided has been instrumental in fostering innovation, enhancing knowledge sharing, and empowering developers to build impactful dApps.
I wholeheartedly endorse the efforts to extend this program. Count me in as a staunch supporter and I eagerly anticipate the continued success of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Heya Max!
Appreciate the great comments on the current iteration of the Questbook DDA Program.
On another note, I believe there's two key thing to this that we should also consider for granted projects and companies who should get incubated or raise from the DAO.
Heya Max!
Appreciate the great comments on the current iteration of the Questbook DDA Program.
On another note, I believe there's two key thing to this that we should also consider for granted projects and companies who should get incubated or raise from the DAO.
Ability to edit milestones and have a more flexible way to evaluate based on company or product pivots: Milestones sometimes are strict with the current implementation of grants and we see multiple companies that do a small change in the 'north star metric' of their product but are dependent on grant funding to kickstart user acquisition funnels or infrastructure cost which puts the grant on a standing of it is 'abandoned' due to a pivot or if it continues with a different evaluation criteria. A quick solution to this is starting to implement growth-oriented grants in the RFPs but we should also explore alternatives to provide the best possible funding funnel for a flexible and iterating product.
An in-house incubator/accelerator for Arbitrum native projects with terms similar to Codebase by Avalanche or Celo Camp. This can really help the DAO take positions either in equity or token on projects that are a priority to the current agenda while aiming to provide the most value as possible. If we leave early stage growth strictly to grant programs we might have a lot of churn in products and services based on Arbitrum that are going to take longer to raise and of course get less exposure than those who have centralized efforts to push the funding agenda forward.
I'd love to hear opinions about these two topics in this or in another post and also input about how we can start evaluating ways to scale the grant proposals from a 0 -> 1 by mentoring projects into viable and sustainable businesses with healthy token practices.
Representing web3 Warri - one of the grantees from the Questbook DDA grant program round 1, I support this proposal.
Community building and the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem should be approached as a long-term goal. Leading to sustainability, growth, and a wide nest for proposals and ideas in the long run.
And the detailed report from round 1 by the team is commendable.
As a beneficiary of this grant program through DeFi Africa, I have witnessed firsthand the immense impact it has had on our community of developers. The support provided has been instrumental in fostering innovation, enhancing knowledge sharing, and empowering developers to build impactful dApps.
I wholeheartedly endorse the efforts to extend this program. Count me in as a staunch supporter and I eagerly anticipate the continued success of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
I would like to provide feedback on the Arbitrum QUESTBOOK program.
To do this, I would like to draw some parallels as I have participated in several other programs, including recently one from another CHAIN with which we have a partnership.
The way communities interact is very different, and how you pay attention to projects is seen as something that will benefit everyone.
I would like to provide feedback on the Arbitrum QUESTBOOK program.
To do this, I would like to draw some parallels as I have participated in several other programs, including recently one from another CHAIN with which we have a partnership.
The way communities interact is very different, and how you pay attention to projects is seen as something that will benefit everyone.
The Arbitrum DAO has had a very positive impact on me, becoming one of the places where I spend the most time learning and interacting.
The entire program was very well designed. In my case, the allocated funds will help kickstart the project, and the growth potential within the community is very appealing.
I appreciate @Flook and @Ricardo_Gordon for all the support provided.
Marco Maia (Osten Games - Data2073)
I've been following the DAO since the beginning and I really enjoy seeing how the ecosystem is growing through the DDA. Kudos to Juandi, who is an exceptionally willing and proactive guy, and to JoJo for his readiness to provide support.
This represents something incredible in the ecosystem, looking forward to seeing all the projects completed. The Arbitrum ecosystem is huge, boosted by giants and made by giants.
We support well ran and documented initiatives as this one. Jojo and the rest of the team has provided granular documentation on the progress so far with the DDA program and IMO looks like a net positive to keep running this program as proposed above.
I would like to provide feedback on the Arbitrum QUESTBOOK program.
To do this, I would like to draw some parallels as I have participated in several other programs, including recently one from another CHAIN with which we have a partnership.
The way communities interact is very different, and how you pay attention to projects is seen as something that will benefit everyone.
I would like to provide feedback on the Arbitrum QUESTBOOK program.
To do this, I would like to draw some parallels as I have participated in several other programs, including recently one from another CHAIN with which we have a partnership.
The way communities interact is very different, and how you pay attention to projects is seen as something that will benefit everyone.
The Arbitrum DAO has had a very positive impact on me, becoming one of the places where I spend the most time learning and interacting.
The entire program was very well designed. In my case, the allocated funds will help kickstart the project, and the growth potential within the community is very appealing.
I appreciate @Flook and @Ricardo_Gordon for all the support provided.
Marco Maia (Osten Games - Data2073)
I've been following the DAO since the beginning and I really enjoy seeing how the ecosystem is growing through the DDA. Kudos to Juandi, who is an exceptionally willing and proactive guy, and to JoJo for his readiness to provide support.
This represents something incredible in the ecosystem, looking forward to seeing all the projects completed. The Arbitrum ecosystem is huge, boosted by giants and made by giants.
We support well ran and documented initiatives as this one. Jojo and the rest of the team has provided granular documentation on the progress so far with the DDA program and IMO looks like a net positive to keep running this program as proposed above.
We are going live on Tally by tomorrow, the vote is live at : https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/98446466630612736687159241204141593794174501692677162686607521796118942563659
I look forward to the support of the DAO, delegates and community members in the continuation of the Questbook DDA program phase 2!
For this proposal of converting the Arb to stablecoins, Aera will be using Bebop as the primary exchange and Uniswap as a fallback. Bebop is an onchain exchange that taps into a solver network. Bebop is critical for this proposal due to its ability to tap into offchain liquidity (which is much deeper than onchain liquidity). In concept, Bebop is similar to CoWSwap in how it taps into an offchain network of solvers. Uniswap will also be enabled as part of the Aera vault, and will be used in a fallback capacity. Uniswap has the deepest onchain liquidity for ARB on Arbitrum, and we will use it as a fallback should Bebop have worse execution.
One important question is why Bebop and Uniswap and not other aggregators or exchanges. In many ways Bebop is an aggregator already, solvers filling orders on Bebop can tap into whatever onchain or offchain liquidity sources they want in order to fill an order. As such Aera doesn’t need to explicitly tap into alternative DEXes or Aggregators to fill orders.
For this proposal of converting the Arb to stablecoins, Aera will be using Bebop as the primary exchange and Uniswap as a fallback. Bebop is an onchain exchange that taps into a solver network. Bebop is critical for this proposal due to its ability to tap into offchain liquidity (which is much deeper than onchain liquidity). In concept, Bebop is similar to CoWSwap in how it taps into an offchain network of solvers. Uniswap will also be enabled as part of the Aera vault, and will be used in a fallback capacity. Uniswap has the deepest onchain liquidity for ARB on Arbitrum, and we will use it as a fallback should Bebop have worse execution.
One important question is why Bebop and Uniswap and not other aggregators or exchanges. In many ways Bebop is an aggregator already, solvers filling orders on Bebop can tap into whatever onchain or offchain liquidity sources they want in order to fill an order. As such Aera doesn’t need to explicitly tap into alternative DEXes or Aggregators to fill orders.
Please do share or comment if there are any feedback, we will be moving to Tally soon!
Thank you to all the Delegates and community members who voted to pass the proposal with overwhelming support!
Before moving the proposal to Tally, we are adding the process through which the Arb will be converted to USDC and look for any feedback/comments if any.
Thank you to all the Delegates and community members who voted to pass the proposal with overwhelming support!
Before moving the proposal to Tally, we are adding the process through which the Arb will be converted to USDC and look for any feedback/comments if any.
In the process, we are requesting for 30% additional Arb in notional USD terms to make sure that there are $4M in the multisig in the end of the process due to any price actions, and whatever is extra, will be returned back to the DAO post the conversion.
In addition, if there is an important downturn in the value of Arb from the beginning of the Tally vote towards the end which affects the value received in USD terms significantly, we would potentially putup a second vote to re-fund the leftover USD needed as per the original $4M request.
Questbook will work with Aera, in collaboration with Gauntlet, thanks @Matt_Gauntlet for your help with this collaboration.
The following description is from the Aera team on the process of converting the Arb received to stablecoins.
As part of their engagement with the DAO, Questbook will be leveraging Aera to diversify out of the ARB tokens into USDC. Aera has engaged with the DAO previously to create a detailed report on treasury management. This report spoke in-depth about execution dynamics for ARB and specifically around the onchain impact of small and large ARB liquidations, particularly that there was outsized market impact relative to the size of liquidations from having grantees in individuals selling ARB themselves. Aera introduces a concept of Protocol Owned Execution (PoE), where the DAO would own the execution out of the governance token via Aera to achieve better execution on the whole.
In the context of the Questbook proposal, the flow for using Aera looks like the following:
To clarify how this works:
Questbook multisig will be the owner of the Aera vault. This gives only the Questbook Multisig the ability to withdraw and deposit from the vault at any time, as well as select which assets can be held, and which DeFi protocols can be interacted with.
The Guardian of the Aera Vault will be Gauntlet. Gauntlet acting as a guardian submits rebalance transactions against the vault to sell ARB for USDC.
Execution will be done in batches to prevent a outsized price impact. Furthermore, Aera has the ability to conduct operations under specific slippage requirements, if desired.
The Aera vault has hooks in place that prevent >3% loss per day due to guardian interactions, and it disallows interaction with anything not previously approved by the Owner (Questbook Multisig).
Questbook is looking to generate $4M in USDC from selling ARB. One risk here is that price fluctuations in ARB bring the initial ARB allocation below the needed $4M USDC notional. While there is fundamentally no way to mitigate this entirely (From Mar 13th - 19th the price of ARB dropped >30%), it is possible to hedge this by asking for a sufficient buffer. Given historical drawdowns a 30% additional ARB buffer (in notional USD terms) should be sufficient.
Thank you for your support @krst, @Sinkas looking forward to your review and suggestions.
Thank you for your support @krst, @Sinkas looking forward to your review and suggestions.
We will be voting FOR the proposal in the temperature check vote. We have analyzed the past performance of the Questbook program and believe it should be renewed with additional funding. We will provide a longer explanation with some suggestions for improvement shortly.
Thank you for your support @PrincetonBlockchain
The first phase of the program has demonstrated clear value for the ecosystem, and we’d like to see these smaller, more focused grants continue.
Thank you for your support @Michigan_Blockchain
Michigan Blockchain is voting in favor of continuing this program. We believe it effectively leverages the success from the initial phase and demonstrates a commitment to support diverse areas of the ecosystem. This proposal aims to support existing projects while also attracting new builders and we are excited to see more domain-specific grants continue.
Thank you for your feedback @mcfly. I do understand the need for an election, however we believe that for the roles, going for re-elections would be sufficient past a 1 year term instead of every 6 months based on @jengajojo's description here. The current program ended sooner than expected and has run successfully and we believe the existing structure should continue as it is atleast for 1 more term.
Rationale:
Thank you for your feedback @mcfly. I do understand the need for an election, however we believe that for the roles, going for re-elections would be sufficient past a 1 year term instead of every 6 months based on @jengajojo's description here. The current program ended sooner than expected and has run successfully and we believe the existing structure should continue as it is atleast for 1 more term.
Rationale:
We are going live on Tally by tomorrow, the vote is live at : https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/98446466630612736687159241204141593794174501692677162686607521796118942563659
I look forward to the support of the DAO, delegates and community members in the continuation of the Questbook DDA program phase 2!
For this proposal of converting the Arb to stablecoins, Aera will be using Bebop as the primary exchange and Uniswap as a fallback. Bebop is an onchain exchange that taps into a solver network. Bebop is critical for this proposal due to its ability to tap into offchain liquidity (which is much deeper than onchain liquidity). In concept, Bebop is similar to CoWSwap in how it taps into an offchain network of solvers. Uniswap will also be enabled as part of the Aera vault, and will be used in a fallback capacity. Uniswap has the deepest onchain liquidity for ARB on Arbitrum, and we will use it as a fallback should Bebop have worse execution.
One important question is why Bebop and Uniswap and not other aggregators or exchanges. In many ways Bebop is an aggregator already, solvers filling orders on Bebop can tap into whatever onchain or offchain liquidity sources they want in order to fill an order. As such Aera doesn’t need to explicitly tap into alternative DEXes or Aggregators to fill orders.
For this proposal of converting the Arb to stablecoins, Aera will be using Bebop as the primary exchange and Uniswap as a fallback. Bebop is an onchain exchange that taps into a solver network. Bebop is critical for this proposal due to its ability to tap into offchain liquidity (which is much deeper than onchain liquidity). In concept, Bebop is similar to CoWSwap in how it taps into an offchain network of solvers. Uniswap will also be enabled as part of the Aera vault, and will be used in a fallback capacity. Uniswap has the deepest onchain liquidity for ARB on Arbitrum, and we will use it as a fallback should Bebop have worse execution.
One important question is why Bebop and Uniswap and not other aggregators or exchanges. In many ways Bebop is an aggregator already, solvers filling orders on Bebop can tap into whatever onchain or offchain liquidity sources they want in order to fill an order. As such Aera doesn’t need to explicitly tap into alternative DEXes or Aggregators to fill orders.
Please do share or comment if there are any feedback, we will be moving to Tally soon!
Thank you to all the Delegates and community members who voted to pass the proposal with overwhelming support!
Before moving the proposal to Tally, we are adding the process through which the Arb will be converted to USDC and look for any feedback/comments if any.
Thank you to all the Delegates and community members who voted to pass the proposal with overwhelming support!
Before moving the proposal to Tally, we are adding the process through which the Arb will be converted to USDC and look for any feedback/comments if any.
In the process, we are requesting for 30% additional Arb in notional USD terms to make sure that there are $4M in the multisig in the end of the process due to any price actions, and whatever is extra, will be returned back to the DAO post the conversion.
In addition, if there is an important downturn in the value of Arb from the beginning of the Tally vote towards the end which affects the value received in USD terms significantly, we would potentially putup a second vote to re-fund the leftover USD needed as per the original $4M request.
Questbook will work with Aera, in collaboration with Gauntlet, thanks @Matt_Gauntlet for your help with this collaboration.
The following description is from the Aera team on the process of converting the Arb received to stablecoins.
As part of their engagement with the DAO, Questbook will be leveraging Aera to diversify out of the ARB tokens into USDC. Aera has engaged with the DAO previously to create a detailed report on treasury management. This report spoke in-depth about execution dynamics for ARB and specifically around the onchain impact of small and large ARB liquidations, particularly that there was outsized market impact relative to the size of liquidations from having grantees in individuals selling ARB themselves. Aera introduces a concept of Protocol Owned Execution (PoE), where the DAO would own the execution out of the governance token via Aera to achieve better execution on the whole.
In the context of the Questbook proposal, the flow for using Aera looks like the following:
To clarify how this works:
Questbook multisig will be the owner of the Aera vault. This gives only the Questbook Multisig the ability to withdraw and deposit from the vault at any time, as well as select which assets can be held, and which DeFi protocols can be interacted with.
The Guardian of the Aera Vault will be Gauntlet. Gauntlet acting as a guardian submits rebalance transactions against the vault to sell ARB for USDC.
Execution will be done in batches to prevent a outsized price impact. Furthermore, Aera has the ability to conduct operations under specific slippage requirements, if desired.
The Aera vault has hooks in place that prevent >3% loss per day due to guardian interactions, and it disallows interaction with anything not previously approved by the Owner (Questbook Multisig).
Questbook is looking to generate $4M in USDC from selling ARB. One risk here is that price fluctuations in ARB bring the initial ARB allocation below the needed $4M USDC notional. While there is fundamentally no way to mitigate this entirely (From Mar 13th - 19th the price of ARB dropped >30%), it is possible to hedge this by asking for a sufficient buffer. Given historical drawdowns a 30% additional ARB buffer (in notional USD terms) should be sufficient.
Thank you for your support @krst, @Sinkas looking forward to your review and suggestions.
Thank you for your support @krst, @Sinkas looking forward to your review and suggestions.
We will be voting FOR the proposal in the temperature check vote. We have analyzed the past performance of the Questbook program and believe it should be renewed with additional funding. We will provide a longer explanation with some suggestions for improvement shortly.
Thank you for your support @PrincetonBlockchain
The first phase of the program has demonstrated clear value for the ecosystem, and we’d like to see these smaller, more focused grants continue.
Thank you for your support @Michigan_Blockchain
Michigan Blockchain is voting in favor of continuing this program. We believe it effectively leverages the success from the initial phase and demonstrates a commitment to support diverse areas of the ecosystem. This proposal aims to support existing projects while also attracting new builders and we are excited to see more domain-specific grants continue.
Thank you for your feedback @mcfly. I do understand the need for an election, however we believe that for the roles, going for re-elections would be sufficient past a 1 year term instead of every 6 months based on @jengajojo's description here. The current program ended sooner than expected and has run successfully and we believe the existing structure should continue as it is atleast for 1 more term.
Rationale:
Thank you for your feedback @mcfly. I do understand the need for an election, however we believe that for the roles, going for re-elections would be sufficient past a 1 year term instead of every 6 months based on @jengajojo's description here. The current program ended sooner than expected and has run successfully and we believe the existing structure should continue as it is atleast for 1 more term.
Rationale:
Hi, for new elections, if the DAO feels that the domain allocators have not been upto par, then we would hold new elections if there's strong interest to change the DAs. In addition, if we introduce new domains to the program down the line, then yes, there will be new elections for it.
Thank you @cp0x for your vote, we hope to address any concerns as the program progresses and are thankful for your view of the program!
Thank you for your support @SmolPhil and the TreasureDAO's support!
Our proposal is live for vote on Snapshot at: https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x5bede8277e7fe0beef5764d2915d1d1c288fcc47747c6fa576b501f5cb3d6115
We will be moving this post to Snapshot soon if there are no other remarks.
Hi, for new elections, if the DAO feels that the domain allocators have not been upto par, then we would hold new elections if there's strong interest to change the DAs. In addition, if we introduce new domains to the program down the line, then yes, there will be new elections for it.
Thank you @cp0x for your vote, we hope to address any concerns as the program progresses and are thankful for your view of the program!
Thank you for your support @SmolPhil and the TreasureDAO's support!
Our proposal is live for vote on Snapshot at: https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x5bede8277e7fe0beef5764d2915d1d1c288fcc47747c6fa576b501f5cb3d6115
We will be moving this post to Snapshot soon if there are no other remarks.
Thank you for your feedback @jengajojo.
We believe that as the domain allocators have been allocated for the community by the community, and as their performance is kept consistent, there need not be a term limit, as most applications as they come by are new.
Thank you for your feedback @jengajojo.
We believe that as the domain allocators have been allocated for the community by the community, and as their performance is kept consistent, there need not be a term limit, as most applications as they come by are new.
However if there is a glaring request by the community to change a domain or all the domain allocators we can consider it, but we believe as long as performance is consistent there won’t be a need to set term limits.
Regardless, I do wish to revisit this discussion more towards the end of the next term and evaluate again on how to proceed then.
Thank you for the valuable feedback @Bob-Rossi!
What we have observed is those that could not fit into the domains of Dev-Tooling, Gaming and Education, all ended up applying to New-Protocol Ideas domain, but even in the New Protocol ideas domain, there was a mix of DeFi, dApps, Integration and NFT based ideas, but none were very overwhelming enough where we think there is a need for a seperate domain here.
Thank you for the valuable feedback @Bob-Rossi!
What we have observed is those that could not fit into the domains of Dev-Tooling, Gaming and Education, all ended up applying to New-Protocol Ideas domain, but even in the New Protocol ideas domain, there was a mix of DeFi, dApps, Integration and NFT based ideas, but none were very overwhelming enough where we think there is a need for a seperate domain here.
However, based on @dk3 and @axlvaz_SEEDLATAM.eth opinions as shared:
The idea behind Joe’s firestarter I really liked, and I thought it was super effective, so potentially having a 5th domain for like “special initiatives” that is maybe governed by questbook, or the domain allocaters as a group I think has merit, so if someone is really grinding away, and we want to keep them committed we can funnel those individuals to this 5th bucket. Maybe gate it behind a needed recommendation or endorsement from a delegate, so its only utilized for time sensitive or high priority initiatives.
There maybe potential upside in having a special initiatives Domain.
Thank you for the feedback @SmolPhil. Based on the previous program, we are creating deadlines for Milestones instead of leaving them open.
One question that arose during my review of the proposal: ‘Define a more robust and structured set of rules for applicants, in regards to providing a timeline for their project(s)’. Will these set of rules be made public before the Snapshot vote?
Thank you for the feedback @SmolPhil. Based on the previous program, we are creating deadlines for Milestones instead of leaving them open.
One question that arose during my review of the proposal: ‘Define a more robust and structured set of rules for applicants, in regards to providing a timeline for their project(s)’. Will these set of rules be made public before the Snapshot vote?
The DAs of each domain will work with the respective grantees to set appropriate deadlines. Grantees that have not posted an update post 1 month of their deadline will be regarded as having abandoned their projects. In this case, we are evaluating two options.
The proposal can be taken over by a different team, for projects that are abandoned we will run a 2 week campaign for another team to come and take over the project, the DA will select the most appropriate team. (this does not apply to gaming domain, or education domain (IRL events).
The funds become unallocated and can be allocated to a different project now.
I have the same question in regards to the standardization of the report frequency and template used.
For Reporting templates: As the PM I will be posting biweekly updates on the forum, and attending all the open governance calls to provide an update with the following information.
For the DAs, there will be a detailed report posted on the forum every 45 days. for the template of the update from the DA side with the following details
Number of Proposals: Number of proposals accepted: Number of Proposals rejected: Number of Proposals in review:
Propopsal wise updates: Name of Proposal Accepted: Funding Approved for: Milestones completed: Reason for Approval as DA: Impact Achieved/perceived(if project is completed, impact is something we are still defining):
If this is something we get community support for, I definitely think we can add a domain to the program, and equivalently add a similar budget as the rest of the domains here. Would love to see and get feedback on that.
Thank you for your feedback @jengajojo.
We believe that as the domain allocators have been allocated for the community by the community, and as their performance is kept consistent, there need not be a term limit, as most applications as they come by are new.
Thank you for your feedback @jengajojo.
We believe that as the domain allocators have been allocated for the community by the community, and as their performance is kept consistent, there need not be a term limit, as most applications as they come by are new.
However if there is a glaring request by the community to change a domain or all the domain allocators we can consider it, but we believe as long as performance is consistent there won’t be a need to set term limits.
Regardless, I do wish to revisit this discussion more towards the end of the next term and evaluate again on how to proceed then.
Thank you for the valuable feedback @Bob-Rossi!
What we have observed is those that could not fit into the domains of Dev-Tooling, Gaming and Education, all ended up applying to New-Protocol Ideas domain, but even in the New Protocol ideas domain, there was a mix of DeFi, dApps, Integration and NFT based ideas, but none were very overwhelming enough where we think there is a need for a seperate domain here.
Thank you for the valuable feedback @Bob-Rossi!
What we have observed is those that could not fit into the domains of Dev-Tooling, Gaming and Education, all ended up applying to New-Protocol Ideas domain, but even in the New Protocol ideas domain, there was a mix of DeFi, dApps, Integration and NFT based ideas, but none were very overwhelming enough where we think there is a need for a seperate domain here.
However, based on @dk3 and @axlvaz_SEEDLATAM.eth opinions as shared:
The idea behind Joe’s firestarter I really liked, and I thought it was super effective, so potentially having a 5th domain for like “special initiatives” that is maybe governed by questbook, or the domain allocaters as a group I think has merit, so if someone is really grinding away, and we want to keep them committed we can funnel those individuals to this 5th bucket. Maybe gate it behind a needed recommendation or endorsement from a delegate, so its only utilized for time sensitive or high priority initiatives.
There maybe potential upside in having a special initiatives Domain.
Thank you for the feedback @SmolPhil. Based on the previous program, we are creating deadlines for Milestones instead of leaving them open.
One question that arose during my review of the proposal: ‘Define a more robust and structured set of rules for applicants, in regards to providing a timeline for their project(s)’. Will these set of rules be made public before the Snapshot vote?
Thank you for the feedback @SmolPhil. Based on the previous program, we are creating deadlines for Milestones instead of leaving them open.
One question that arose during my review of the proposal: ‘Define a more robust and structured set of rules for applicants, in regards to providing a timeline for their project(s)’. Will these set of rules be made public before the Snapshot vote?
The DAs of each domain will work with the respective grantees to set appropriate deadlines. Grantees that have not posted an update post 1 month of their deadline will be regarded as having abandoned their projects. In this case, we are evaluating two options.
The proposal can be taken over by a different team, for projects that are abandoned we will run a 2 week campaign for another team to come and take over the project, the DA will select the most appropriate team. (this does not apply to gaming domain, or education domain (IRL events).
The funds become unallocated and can be allocated to a different project now.
I have the same question in regards to the standardization of the report frequency and template used.
For Reporting templates: As the PM I will be posting biweekly updates on the forum, and attending all the open governance calls to provide an update with the following information.
For the DAs, there will be a detailed report posted on the forum every 45 days. for the template of the update from the DA side with the following details
Number of Proposals: Number of proposals accepted: Number of Proposals rejected: Number of Proposals in review:
Propopsal wise updates: Name of Proposal Accepted: Funding Approved for: Milestones completed: Reason for Approval as DA: Impact Achieved/perceived(if project is completed, impact is something we are still defining):
If this is something we get community support for, I definitely think we can add a domain to the program, and equivalently add a similar budget as the rest of the domains here. Would love to see and get feedback on that.
I think the Quesbook program is great, I've been following it closely since Phase 1. The Domain allocators appear to be experts in each of their respective domains and the allocations from the first two phases look great overall: they are geographically diverse, scope diverse, etc
Overall what worries me( as someone who's been dealing with grant programs for 3 years) and that I've been wanting to speak about for a while is the "incentives" game.
I think the Quesbook program is great, I've been following it closely since Phase 1. The Domain allocators appear to be experts in each of their respective domains and the allocations from the first two phases look great overall: they are geographically diverse, scope diverse, etc
Overall what worries me( as someone who's been dealing with grant programs for 3 years) and that I've been wanting to speak about for a while is the "incentives" game.
How can Arbitrum DAO be certain that the DA's are doing the best job possible and not just allocating to hit certain targets. Moreso, I noticed a lot of IRL events got funded, who is representing Arbitrum at those events, how do we know if the $ was properly spent without an IRL representative there o the ground? :smiley: There is a trend in web3 lately, namely, events are being organized, but often times you will find that the events help the organizers more than the organization that funds them or the builders that are participating, would be great if we as a DAO find a solution 2 this.
That being said, I believe Questbook is doing an amazing job overall, 90% better than most of grant programs we have in web3. Congratulations, GL with the proposal and if you wanna discuss anything grant related anytime hit me up :smiley:
I guess is, partially, also a matter of time. For sure, there have been slower than expected advancements in some applications. Personally think is due to a mix of teams being very very novel (some are indeed at their first project, and this unfortunately also means the rate of failure compared to more mature ones is higher) and the lack of a timeline policy that we are only introducing in season 2. We will do our best to improve this metric, thanks for pointing it ou.
I think you've done a really good job so far, and I'm in full support of the increase in funding to make sure we're paying competitive salaries at the Arbitrum DAO. My one comment is the following: how do you explain the relative lack of progress in terms of milestones achieved, especially in key areas such as New Protocol Ideas. How do we make sure that a sector as important as this one receives sufficient contributions? Or is this simply a matter of time?
Appreciate the quick response, the questions I asked are just meant as "food for thought" and I hope they didn't come across as accusatory(kinda wrote the reply in a rush).
Regarding this, we generally coordinate with Arbitrum Foundation ( Specifically with Ana belén, the Arbitrum Foundation CM) and its ambassadors to ensure that qualified people represent Arbitrum at these events. Additionally, we always try to add some hackathon or technical workshop along with sponsorship to introduce the technology to new users, making these events have more impact than just a mention or banner.
Hello, thanks for your comment!
How can Arbitrum DAO be certain that the DA’s are doing the best job possible and not just allocating to hit certain targets
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 voted in favor of the proposal during temp-check and we’ll be voting in favor of the proposal during the on-chain vote as well. We believe Questbook’s DDA program was overall a value-add to the DAO and we’d like to see it continue so we can iterate and improve it.
DAOplomats maintain our vote from Snapshot onto Tally.
There have been a lot of positives from the initial iteration that gives us the confidence to vote in favor. The team behind it is solid as well. Looking forward to the continued success in respective domains.
At Tané, we maintain our voting at its Snapshot proposal and vote FOR the on-chain proposal of the continuation of the program and the updated compensations for DA and PM. We have also confirmed that, as suggested by @Srijith-Questbook, the team is willing to going for annual re-elections, which was our concern at the Snapshot phase and appropriately addressed. We also appreciated the clear explanations about how the swap for the fund will be handled.
Savvy DAO has voted FOR the Request for "Continuation of the Arbitrum DDA Program Request" on Tally.
See rationale here here
I think the Quesbook program is great, I've been following it closely since Phase 1. The Domain allocators appear to be experts in each of their respective domains and the allocations from the first two phases look great overall: they are geographically diverse, scope diverse, etc
Overall what worries me( as someone who's been dealing with grant programs for 3 years) and that I've been wanting to speak about for a while is the "incentives" game.
I think the Quesbook program is great, I've been following it closely since Phase 1. The Domain allocators appear to be experts in each of their respective domains and the allocations from the first two phases look great overall: they are geographically diverse, scope diverse, etc
Overall what worries me( as someone who's been dealing with grant programs for 3 years) and that I've been wanting to speak about for a while is the "incentives" game.
How can Arbitrum DAO be certain that the DA's are doing the best job possible and not just allocating to hit certain targets. Moreso, I noticed a lot of IRL events got funded, who is representing Arbitrum at those events, how do we know if the $ was properly spent without an IRL representative there o the ground? :smiley: There is a trend in web3 lately, namely, events are being organized, but often times you will find that the events help the organizers more than the organization that funds them or the builders that are participating, would be great if we as a DAO find a solution 2 this.
That being said, I believe Questbook is doing an amazing job overall, 90% better than most of grant programs we have in web3. Congratulations, GL with the proposal and if you wanna discuss anything grant related anytime hit me up :smiley:
I guess is, partially, also a matter of time. For sure, there have been slower than expected advancements in some applications. Personally think is due to a mix of teams being very very novel (some are indeed at their first project, and this unfortunately also means the rate of failure compared to more mature ones is higher) and the lack of a timeline policy that we are only introducing in season 2. We will do our best to improve this metric, thanks for pointing it ou.
I think you've done a really good job so far, and I'm in full support of the increase in funding to make sure we're paying competitive salaries at the Arbitrum DAO. My one comment is the following: how do you explain the relative lack of progress in terms of milestones achieved, especially in key areas such as New Protocol Ideas. How do we make sure that a sector as important as this one receives sufficient contributions? Or is this simply a matter of time?
Appreciate the quick response, the questions I asked are just meant as "food for thought" and I hope they didn't come across as accusatory(kinda wrote the reply in a rush).
Regarding this, we generally coordinate with Arbitrum Foundation ( Specifically with Ana belén, the Arbitrum Foundation CM) and its ambassadors to ensure that qualified people represent Arbitrum at these events. Additionally, we always try to add some hackathon or technical workshop along with sponsorship to introduce the technology to new users, making these events have more impact than just a mention or banner.
Hello, thanks for your comment!
How can Arbitrum DAO be certain that the DA’s are doing the best job possible and not just allocating to hit certain targets
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 voted in favor of the proposal during temp-check and we’ll be voting in favor of the proposal during the on-chain vote as well. We believe Questbook’s DDA program was overall a value-add to the DAO and we’d like to see it continue so we can iterate and improve it.
DAOplomats maintain our vote from Snapshot onto Tally.
There have been a lot of positives from the initial iteration that gives us the confidence to vote in favor. The team behind it is solid as well. Looking forward to the continued success in respective domains.
At Tané, we maintain our voting at its Snapshot proposal and vote FOR the on-chain proposal of the continuation of the program and the updated compensations for DA and PM. We have also confirmed that, as suggested by @Srijith-Questbook, the team is willing to going for annual re-elections, which was our concern at the Snapshot phase and appropriately addressed. We also appreciated the clear explanations about how the swap for the fund will be handled.
Savvy DAO has voted FOR the Request for "Continuation of the Arbitrum DDA Program Request" on Tally.
See rationale here here
Appreciate the quick response, the questions I asked are just meant as "food for thought" and I hope they didn't come across as accusatory(kinda wrote the reply in a rush).
Regarding this, we generally coordinate with Arbitrum Foundation ( Specifically with Ana belén, the Arbitrum Foundation CM) and its ambassadors to ensure that qualified people represent Arbitrum at these events. Additionally, we always try to add some hackathon or technical workshop along with sponsorship to introduce the technology to new users, making these events have more impact than just a mention or banner.
This makes sense, didn't know that, thanks for the clarifications.
Hello, thanks for your comment!
How can Arbitrum DAO be certain that the DA’s are doing the best job possible and not just allocating to hit certain targets
First of all, it is important to remember that Questbook has several mechanisms to determine this, such as the calls and discussions we have in the public forum on Discord. This is something that SEEDGov particularly implemented in the first iteration, and it was adopted in other domains due to the good results it provided. You can check this into the Questbook website and the discord channel, all interactions are public : https://discord.gg/WqQmnUXj
Moreso, I noticed a lot of IRL events got funded, who is representing Arbitrum at those events, how do we know if the $ was properly spent without an IRL representative there o the ground?
Regarding this, we generally coordinate with Arbitrum Foundation ( Specifically with Ana belén, the Arbitrum Foundation CM) and its ambassadors to ensure that qualified people represent Arbitrum at these events. Additionally, we always try to add some hackathon or technical workshop along with sponsorship to introduce the technology to new users, making these events have more impact than just a mention or banner. On the other hand, for smaller events, we always validate the proposers' experience with their previous work, as this is something we use as a critical point to determine the evaluation result. Finally, we invite you to review our reports. There you can see more details about it.
Domain Allocator 1.0
Domain Allocator 2.0
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 voted in favor of the proposal during temp-check and we’ll be voting in favor of the proposal during the on-chain vote as well. We believe Questbook’s DDA program was overall a value-add to the DAO and we’d like to see it continue so we can iterate and improve it.
Our decision to vote in favor of the program came after a thorough review of the program and its result, and extensive discussion with the domain allocators and delegates which we helped facilitate.
After further review, we're maintaining our support for the Questbook DDA Grants program on Tally for the same reasons as previously mentioned.
After considering the arguments put forth by @Srijith-Questbook and @jengajojo regarding the Request for Continuation of the Arbitrum DDA Program Request proposal, I've decided to cast my vote in favor of it at the onchain stage on Tally.
Jengajojo makes valid points about the benefits of term limits, including preventing entrenchment, encouraging new ideas, and mitigating potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, I believe Srijith-Questbook's suggestion of annual re-elections strikes a reasonable balance. Given the program's success and its unexpected early conclusion, allowing the current structure to persist for another term with the requirement of annual re-election provides both continuity and accountability.
After considering the arguments put forth by @Srijith-Questbook and @jengajojo regarding the Request for Continuation of the Arbitrum DDA Program Request proposal, I've decided to cast my vote in favor of it at the onchain stage on Tally.
Jengajojo makes valid points about the benefits of term limits, including preventing entrenchment, encouraging new ideas, and mitigating potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, I believe Srijith-Questbook's suggestion of annual re-elections strikes a reasonable balance. Given the program's success and its unexpected early conclusion, allowing the current structure to persist for another term with the requirement of annual re-election provides both continuity and accountability.
This approach ensures the program can continue to build on its positive momentum while still incorporating checks and balances that prevent stagnation and promote fresh perspectives. As such, I believe supporting the proposal in its current form is the most pragmatic path forward for the Arbitrum ecosystem at this juncture.
Blockworks Research will be voting FOR this proposal on Tally.
From what we can tell, the program has been incredibly valuable for its target audience. Moreover, the operational team has been extremely transparent and communications/documentation have been clear. We support most of the new changes made compared to the previous program. The capital to be allocated in two quarters seems to be on the higher side, but based on the previous program’s demand, makes sense, and the proposed OpEx is reasonable.
Blockworks Research will be voting FOR this proposal on Tally.
From what we can tell, the program has been incredibly valuable for its target audience. Moreover, the operational team has been extremely transparent and communications/documentation have been clear. We support most of the new changes made compared to the previous program. The capital to be allocated in two quarters seems to be on the higher side, but based on the previous program’s demand, makes sense, and the proposed OpEx is reasonable.
To echo what has been said by many in this thread, going forward, we would prefer that elections for the DA/PM roles be held each time the program is up for renewal. Although the current contributors have clearly done a great job, open competition is generally a good thing, and an additional election process shouldn’t cause too much additional workload for the community.
I decided to vote FOR this proposal in Tally.
The transparency and clarity demonstrated in the initial DDA Program, along with the professionalism of the team and the impact communication, solidify my support for continuing such initiatives.
I decided to vote FOR this proposal in Tally.
The transparency and clarity demonstrated in the initial DDA Program, along with the professionalism of the team and the impact communication, solidify my support for continuing such initiatives.
Having been involved (as grantee) in one of these programs through the Arbitrum Onboarding Working Group, I observed the execution and transparent discussions firsthand.
I look forward to seeing more categories or domains in the future, understanding that it's a current limitation of the Questbook platform but one likely already under consideration for future enhancements.
Penn Blockchain / FranklinDAO voted FOR the proposal on Tally. The first phase of Questbook's DDA program funded a diverse range of useful projects, and we hope the 2nd phase leads to even more innovative projects. Setting milestone deadlines for grant recipients is a good step to encourage more recipients to deliver their projects on time and lead to less wasted time and work. Further, the increase to $50k cap will allow for funding of larger projects with longer term impact which we hope to see.
As mentioned before, I support the progress made by the program and I am voting FOR also on Tally.
The Princeton Blockchain Club is voting in favor of continuing the Questbook DDA Grants program at the Snapshot stage.
The first phase of the program has demonstrated clear value for the ecosystem, and we'd like to see these smaller, more focused grants continue.
Michigan Blockchain is voting in favor of continuing this program. We believe it effectively leverages the success from the initial phase and demonstrates a commitment to support diverse areas of the ecosystem. This proposal aims to support existing projects while also attracting new builders and we are excited to see more domain-specific grants continue.
As the snapshot vote is ending in 12 hours and my latest comment was left unanswered, I'll be voting ABSTAIN on this proposal.
I understand it's short notice to reply over the weekend, so I don't fault the author for not addressing my concerns yet. However, I would prefer to wait for further discussion between the proposal author and the commenters who expressed their desire to run new elections for the Program Manager and Domain Allocator roles, as I mentioned in my comment two days ago.
As the snapshot vote is ending in 12 hours and my latest comment was left unanswered, I'll be voting ABSTAIN on this proposal.
I understand it's short notice to reply over the weekend, so I don't fault the author for not addressing my concerns yet. However, I would prefer to wait for further discussion between the proposal author and the commenters who expressed their desire to run new elections for the Program Manager and Domain Allocator roles, as I mentioned in my comment two days ago.
I believe having this conversation is important for maintaining transparency and ensuring the community has a say in who leads this initiative. I hope we can revisit this topic and find a path forward that aligns with the community's expectations for an open and democratic process.
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 will be voting FOR the proposal in the temperature check vote. We have analyzed the past performance of the Questbook program and believe it should be renewed with additional funding. We will provide a longer explanation with some suggestions for improvement shortly.
Hi everyone.
I've thoroughly reviewed the proposal for the continuation of the Arbitrum DDA Program, and I appreciate the detailed information provided about the previous program's success and the plans for the next iteration. The increased budget, higher grant cap, and additional accountability measures seem well-considered.
However, I have a couple of thoughts I'd like to share for discussion:
Hi all. We would like to express gratitude to @Srijith-Questbook and all contributors of the program including Domain Allocators who put hard work into the it to make relatively small yet important projects to be funded to make impact on the Arbitrum ecosystem. Really appreciated.
We are in support of the continuation of the program and renewed budget and compensation and voted for the Snapshot proposal.
Hi all. We would like to express gratitude to @Srijith-Questbook and all contributors of the program including Domain Allocators who put hard work into the it to make relatively small yet important projects to be funded to make impact on the Arbitrum ecosystem. Really appreciated.
We are in support of the continuation of the program and renewed budget and compensation and voted for the Snapshot proposal.
However, we'd also like to echo others who voiced the needs for the elections for program contributors to open up the opportunities for other potential contributors to get involved in the program regardless of what the current team has achieved or success they brought to the ecosystem. We think the current members should be allowed for re-election if they choose to continue.
I voted in favor of the proposal, good luck
I voted for this proposal on Snapshot because I think the DDA program phase 1 provided an important avenue for builders to get started/expand their work in the Arbitrum ecosystem and would like to see the program continued.
We are in favor of supporting the Questbook DDA Program Phase 2, acknowledging their significant past contributions However, we recommend a governance revision, particularly advocating for new elections for domain allocators, to encourage diversity and fresh ideas, avoid power capture, and ensure an equitable and dynamic selection process for those willing to undertake responsibilities.
I have a question about domain allocators, could there be a new election for this role in the future?
Appreciate the quick response, the questions I asked are just meant as "food for thought" and I hope they didn't come across as accusatory(kinda wrote the reply in a rush).
Regarding this, we generally coordinate with Arbitrum Foundation ( Specifically with Ana belén, the Arbitrum Foundation CM) and its ambassadors to ensure that qualified people represent Arbitrum at these events. Additionally, we always try to add some hackathon or technical workshop along with sponsorship to introduce the technology to new users, making these events have more impact than just a mention or banner.
This makes sense, didn't know that, thanks for the clarifications.
Hello, thanks for your comment!
How can Arbitrum DAO be certain that the DA’s are doing the best job possible and not just allocating to hit certain targets
First of all, it is important to remember that Questbook has several mechanisms to determine this, such as the calls and discussions we have in the public forum on Discord. This is something that SEEDGov particularly implemented in the first iteration, and it was adopted in other domains due to the good results it provided. You can check this into the Questbook website and the discord channel, all interactions are public : https://discord.gg/WqQmnUXj
Moreso, I noticed a lot of IRL events got funded, who is representing Arbitrum at those events, how do we know if the $ was properly spent without an IRL representative there o the ground?
Regarding this, we generally coordinate with Arbitrum Foundation ( Specifically with Ana belén, the Arbitrum Foundation CM) and its ambassadors to ensure that qualified people represent Arbitrum at these events. Additionally, we always try to add some hackathon or technical workshop along with sponsorship to introduce the technology to new users, making these events have more impact than just a mention or banner. On the other hand, for smaller events, we always validate the proposers' experience with their previous work, as this is something we use as a critical point to determine the evaluation result. Finally, we invite you to review our reports. There you can see more details about it.
Domain Allocator 1.0
Domain Allocator 2.0
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 voted in favor of the proposal during temp-check and we’ll be voting in favor of the proposal during the on-chain vote as well. We believe Questbook’s DDA program was overall a value-add to the DAO and we’d like to see it continue so we can iterate and improve it.
Our decision to vote in favor of the program came after a thorough review of the program and its result, and extensive discussion with the domain allocators and delegates which we helped facilitate.
After further review, we're maintaining our support for the Questbook DDA Grants program on Tally for the same reasons as previously mentioned.
After considering the arguments put forth by @Srijith-Questbook and @jengajojo regarding the Request for Continuation of the Arbitrum DDA Program Request proposal, I've decided to cast my vote in favor of it at the onchain stage on Tally.
Jengajojo makes valid points about the benefits of term limits, including preventing entrenchment, encouraging new ideas, and mitigating potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, I believe Srijith-Questbook's suggestion of annual re-elections strikes a reasonable balance. Given the program's success and its unexpected early conclusion, allowing the current structure to persist for another term with the requirement of annual re-election provides both continuity and accountability.
After considering the arguments put forth by @Srijith-Questbook and @jengajojo regarding the Request for Continuation of the Arbitrum DDA Program Request proposal, I've decided to cast my vote in favor of it at the onchain stage on Tally.
Jengajojo makes valid points about the benefits of term limits, including preventing entrenchment, encouraging new ideas, and mitigating potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, I believe Srijith-Questbook's suggestion of annual re-elections strikes a reasonable balance. Given the program's success and its unexpected early conclusion, allowing the current structure to persist for another term with the requirement of annual re-election provides both continuity and accountability.
This approach ensures the program can continue to build on its positive momentum while still incorporating checks and balances that prevent stagnation and promote fresh perspectives. As such, I believe supporting the proposal in its current form is the most pragmatic path forward for the Arbitrum ecosystem at this juncture.
Blockworks Research will be voting FOR this proposal on Tally.
From what we can tell, the program has been incredibly valuable for its target audience. Moreover, the operational team has been extremely transparent and communications/documentation have been clear. We support most of the new changes made compared to the previous program. The capital to be allocated in two quarters seems to be on the higher side, but based on the previous program’s demand, makes sense, and the proposed OpEx is reasonable.
Blockworks Research will be voting FOR this proposal on Tally.
From what we can tell, the program has been incredibly valuable for its target audience. Moreover, the operational team has been extremely transparent and communications/documentation have been clear. We support most of the new changes made compared to the previous program. The capital to be allocated in two quarters seems to be on the higher side, but based on the previous program’s demand, makes sense, and the proposed OpEx is reasonable.
To echo what has been said by many in this thread, going forward, we would prefer that elections for the DA/PM roles be held each time the program is up for renewal. Although the current contributors have clearly done a great job, open competition is generally a good thing, and an additional election process shouldn’t cause too much additional workload for the community.
I decided to vote FOR this proposal in Tally.
The transparency and clarity demonstrated in the initial DDA Program, along with the professionalism of the team and the impact communication, solidify my support for continuing such initiatives.
I decided to vote FOR this proposal in Tally.
The transparency and clarity demonstrated in the initial DDA Program, along with the professionalism of the team and the impact communication, solidify my support for continuing such initiatives.
Having been involved (as grantee) in one of these programs through the Arbitrum Onboarding Working Group, I observed the execution and transparent discussions firsthand.
I look forward to seeing more categories or domains in the future, understanding that it's a current limitation of the Questbook platform but one likely already under consideration for future enhancements.
Penn Blockchain / FranklinDAO voted FOR the proposal on Tally. The first phase of Questbook's DDA program funded a diverse range of useful projects, and we hope the 2nd phase leads to even more innovative projects. Setting milestone deadlines for grant recipients is a good step to encourage more recipients to deliver their projects on time and lead to less wasted time and work. Further, the increase to $50k cap will allow for funding of larger projects with longer term impact which we hope to see.
As mentioned before, I support the progress made by the program and I am voting FOR also on Tally.
The Princeton Blockchain Club is voting in favor of continuing the Questbook DDA Grants program at the Snapshot stage.
The first phase of the program has demonstrated clear value for the ecosystem, and we'd like to see these smaller, more focused grants continue.
Michigan Blockchain is voting in favor of continuing this program. We believe it effectively leverages the success from the initial phase and demonstrates a commitment to support diverse areas of the ecosystem. This proposal aims to support existing projects while also attracting new builders and we are excited to see more domain-specific grants continue.
As the snapshot vote is ending in 12 hours and my latest comment was left unanswered, I'll be voting ABSTAIN on this proposal.
I understand it's short notice to reply over the weekend, so I don't fault the author for not addressing my concerns yet. However, I would prefer to wait for further discussion between the proposal author and the commenters who expressed their desire to run new elections for the Program Manager and Domain Allocator roles, as I mentioned in my comment two days ago.
As the snapshot vote is ending in 12 hours and my latest comment was left unanswered, I'll be voting ABSTAIN on this proposal.
I understand it's short notice to reply over the weekend, so I don't fault the author for not addressing my concerns yet. However, I would prefer to wait for further discussion between the proposal author and the commenters who expressed their desire to run new elections for the Program Manager and Domain Allocator roles, as I mentioned in my comment two days ago.
I believe having this conversation is important for maintaining transparency and ensuring the community has a say in who leads this initiative. I hope we can revisit this topic and find a path forward that aligns with the community's expectations for an open and democratic process.
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 will be voting FOR the proposal in the temperature check vote. We have analyzed the past performance of the Questbook program and believe it should be renewed with additional funding. We will provide a longer explanation with some suggestions for improvement shortly.
Hi everyone.
I've thoroughly reviewed the proposal for the continuation of the Arbitrum DDA Program, and I appreciate the detailed information provided about the previous program's success and the plans for the next iteration. The increased budget, higher grant cap, and additional accountability measures seem well-considered.
However, I have a couple of thoughts I'd like to share for discussion:
Hi all. We would like to express gratitude to @Srijith-Questbook and all contributors of the program including Domain Allocators who put hard work into the it to make relatively small yet important projects to be funded to make impact on the Arbitrum ecosystem. Really appreciated.
We are in support of the continuation of the program and renewed budget and compensation and voted for the Snapshot proposal.
Hi all. We would like to express gratitude to @Srijith-Questbook and all contributors of the program including Domain Allocators who put hard work into the it to make relatively small yet important projects to be funded to make impact on the Arbitrum ecosystem. Really appreciated.
We are in support of the continuation of the program and renewed budget and compensation and voted for the Snapshot proposal.
However, we'd also like to echo others who voiced the needs for the elections for program contributors to open up the opportunities for other potential contributors to get involved in the program regardless of what the current team has achieved or success they brought to the ecosystem. We think the current members should be allowed for re-election if they choose to continue.
I voted in favor of the proposal, good luck
I voted for this proposal on Snapshot because I think the DDA program phase 1 provided an important avenue for builders to get started/expand their work in the Arbitrum ecosystem and would like to see the program continued.
We are in favor of supporting the Questbook DDA Program Phase 2, acknowledging their significant past contributions However, we recommend a governance revision, particularly advocating for new elections for domain allocators, to encourage diversity and fresh ideas, avoid power capture, and ensure an equitable and dynamic selection process for those willing to undertake responsibilities.
I have a question about domain allocators, could there be a new election for this role in the future?
Hi everyone.
I've thoroughly reviewed the proposal for the continuation of the Arbitrum DDA Program, and I appreciate the detailed information provided about the previous program's success and the plans for the next iteration. The increased budget, higher grant cap, and additional accountability measures seem well-considered.
However, I have a couple of thoughts I'd like to share for discussion:
Elections for Program Manager and Domain Allocators: While the current team has undoubtedly done a commendable job, I believe it would be in the best interest of the Arbitrum DAO to hold an election to confirm their roles for the next program cycle. This would not only validate their good work but also provide an opportunity for past and new candidates to present their vision and potentially bring fresh perspectives to the program. Tools like Questbook offer valuable insights into the performance of the current managers, which should support their re-election if they choose to run.
Separate Proposals for Funding and Elections: To maintain clarity and allow for focused discussions, I suggest splitting this proposal into two distinct parts – one for the funding request and another for the nomination and election process of the Program Manager and Domain Allocators. This separation would allow the community to evaluate the program's budget and structure independently from the individuals proposed to lead it.
I believe addressing these points would further strengthen the proposal and ensure the Arbitrum community has a clear voice in the process. I look forward to hearing thoughts from the proposal authors and other community members on these suggestions.
Let's continue the discussion to ensure the Arbitrum DDA Program remains a transparent, effective, and community-driven initiative.
We are in favor of supporting the Questbook DDA Program Phase 2, acknowledging their significant past contributions However, we recommend a governance revision, particularly advocating for new elections for domain allocators, to encourage diversity and fresh ideas, avoid power capture, and ensure an equitable and dynamic selection process for those willing to undertake responsibilities.
Rationale:
We also agree with @jengajojo on this; however, we believe this position should be re-elected every phase.
After discussions within the team, we, cp0x, decided to vote FOR this proposal. We have no questions about the previous stage of this program and we hope that the future stage will be even more successful for the development of projects in Arbitrum. This does not mean that we agree with all points of this program, but in general the useful prevails here.
Posting on behalf of the UADP. A couple points that may be important that we haven't seen discussed yet is that this program as a whole encourages other similar grant programs to be held more liable and cumulatively increases the quality of grants and submissions across the board (competition to a degree makes all output better).
Additionally agree that the first trial program went well and should be renewed!
I'd recommend we use the framework to better clarify the questbook domains. The current "domains" are primarily aligned with "functions" in the framework.
The reason I leave Gaming out is because it is just one vertical in the product market fit bets function.
By understanding where we are and aren't focusing funds, we can identify the highest potential opportunities.
Thanks for the proposal QB team and @Srijith-Questbook
I would like to request term limits of maximum 1 year on the domain allocation seats for individuals. i.e. each individual can occupy the seat for maximum 1 year.
Rationale:
Thanks for the proposal QB team and @Srijith-Questbook
I would like to request term limits of maximum 1 year on the domain allocation seats for individuals. i.e. each individual can occupy the seat for maximum 1 year.
Rationale:
Yes. These can fit within the pluralist funding framework. This does not mean that it needs to be funded by the Plurality Labs proposal. The intention of the framework is to provide clarity and shared understanding of what is being funded, how we measure accountability, and how we provide pathways to success.
Video from EthDenver explaining the framework
may make sense to move forward without the firestarter/special initiatives domain. We are going to wrap that into an OpCo with a separate proposal this week btw.
I am glad to see that Questbook is moving forward with a Phase 2 of their grants program. I think that last 6+ months have proven the value this project has added to the Arbitrum DAO and is a textbook example of how to run a project like this for a few reasons:
I am glad to see that Questbook is moving forward with a Phase 2 of their grants program. I think that last 6+ months have proven the value this project has added to the Arbitrum DAO and is a textbook example of how to run a project like this for a few reasons:
As alluded to in earlier posts, I think Questbook fills a very important role in the DAOs grant space by targeting lower-cost grants. The reality is there are tons of smaller, start-up projects that simply can't compete in a STIPP/LTIPP setting. The fact that this grant program was out of funding so quickly is a testament to the demand for something like this, and I think abandoning this group of applicants would be a detriment to the DAO's grantsphere. It was also great to see a fairly even distribution among the domains.
As for administrative cost, I think the amount is a fair ask. It's clear that the demand surpassed initial expectations and the job is closer to a fulltime role then note. I think too the nature of targeting lower value grants will always result in a 'premium' cost (as a % of total grant). i.e. a $1 Million grant does not take 100x the man hours to approve over a $10,000 grant. If there is concern the domain allocators overworked, a possible resolution is a '5th' allocator who isn't assigned a specific domain in return for being flexible to assist where needed. The benefit then being they can be an experienced replacement for a future domain or if one of the allocators has to step down.
Without going to long into a response, I pretty much just widely agree with all the proposed changes. They look to be thought out and as noted above the willingness to reflect and resolve issues that came up in round 1 is appreciated. I would vote "For" this proposal if it went to Snapshot.
Question for Questbook (or any of the allocators who wish to respond) - did you feel there was a subsection of the community that showed a lot of interest in apply for grants but due to not fitting the defined domains could not be helped out? Basically, is do you have any thoughts on if there would be a net positive to expanding to additional domains?
Edit 4/14/2024: Editing here to save forum space, as my opinion has remained unchanged since this post. Voting "For" the continuation of this Questbook on Tally. As I believe that they have shown both a history of doing really good work with the 1st round of Questbook grants, as well as a willingness to learn and grow by making some tweaks to the 2nd round to improve their processes.
Hello @Srijith-Questbook,
I am Oyeniyi Abiola Peace from the Blockchain Innovation Hub. We are in support of the continuation of the Questbook DDA Grants program. The DDA program has been valuable for promoting and developing the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Hello @Srijith-Questbook,
I am Oyeniyi Abiola Peace from the Blockchain Innovation Hub. We are in support of the continuation of the Questbook DDA Grants program. The DDA program has been valuable for promoting and developing the Arbitrum ecosystem.
As a beneficiary of the DDA phase one, we have first-hand experience of how smooth the program was. We received timely support from people like @Manugotsuka and prompt fund disbursement.
At some point, we had an issue uploading images to the Questbook platform via comments, but I was pleased to see that the team quickly resolved the problem.
The DDA Grants helped us onboard 100 developers into the ecosystem and organized a hackathon.
I have been thinking about this, I think we need a category for "Orbital Chains" as they are growing and surely need DAO support. I also think that L3 races are just around the corner.
gm all, I appreciate the time and effort you guys put into creating such a detailed proposal with references to further check and balance the activities of the DAs and PMs in the previous iteration.
You have done a great job by setting milestones and achieving them (I understand that not all milestones have been achieved and some are still pending).
gm all, I appreciate the time and effort you guys put into creating such a detailed proposal with references to further check and balance the activities of the DAs and PMs in the previous iteration.
You have done a great job by setting milestones and achieving them (I understand that not all milestones have been achieved and some are still pending).
I fully support the extension of the program, I believe it's been one of the most viable tools to boost the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Some thoughts related to funding builders. @DisruptionJoe would love your opinoin here if this could fit within the Pluralistic framework.
I wonder if there is a way to make the DAO even more effective with post-funding activity.
Once projects have completed their milestones and received the full grant, how can we keep nurturing them? How can the DAO make sure those projects succeed?
There could be a sort of fellowship program where we keep in touch and maintain relationships with these projects and give the DAO updated information about them monthly.
This helps the DAO know important elements like:
In the future, this could be run as an incubator style where, depending on their success and need, we introduce them to VCs, investors and further expose them to our community. Today, it could be a simple report with the main objective is to monitor their progress and help wherever we need to.
thanks for chiming in and for the feedback!
Idea of timeline was formalized here
thanks for chiming in and for the feedback!
Idea of timeline was formalized here
As an addition to the previous iteration, projects will have to submit a proposed timeline for their project. The maximum time to complete the final milestone will be 1 year from the start of this iteration of the program (equivalent of 6 months after the natural end of it); after this date, all undistributed funds related to grant that did not complete their milestones will be given back to the Arbitrum DAO
This implicitely means that the natural duration of the program, plus the projects approved, is 1y from the voting. So
Also, realistically: as DA, we will try to setup timelines with the grantees that makes sense, and as a rule of thumb 6 months on average. But this can change quite a lot depending on the different proposals (and, I also guess in the different domains).
Hope this clarifies. If it does not clarify, did you had anything specific in your mind?
would think this could fall into the "new protocols and domain" section. Which is a general bucket.
But I also guess that if the DAO wants to push for more orbit chains (that settles on arbitrum hopefully), we could spin up a specific section with specific funding and a specific framework. It can definitely make sense.
So, we have the following distribution:
| Role | Monthly Cost Was | Future Monthly Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Program Manager and Questbook | $10000 | $10000 |
| Domain Allocator | $5000 | $8,000 |
| Overhead for extra 6 months | $0 | $8400 |
| Operations Cost, Misc. | $3,333 | $1 666 |
| Total | Total Cost Was | Future Total Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Totals: | $200,000 | $312,400 |
Good morning, @JoJo .
I thank you for your detailed answer to my questions.
Good morning, @JoJo .
I thank you for your detailed answer to my questions.
Before doing so, we also asked some informal feedback to a few delegates, to understand if this was a fair rate to propose to the DAO. General feedback was positive, especially because currently the average DAO hourly rate is definitely higher than 100$/h
i actually really like this idea. Question: would it be possible to split up the expansion? What I mean is: we figure out, if DAO likes it, a way to move forward the above. And in parallel we also start to discuss this.
Realistically, season 2 of questbook goes live, and while that is live we finalise the discussion and any addendum to the program itself.
i actually really like this idea. Question: would it be possible to split up the expansion? What I mean is: we figure out, if DAO likes it, a way to move forward the above. And in parallel we also start to discuss this.
Realistically, season 2 of questbook goes live, and while that is live we finalise the discussion and any addendum to the program itself.
The other questions I have: currently QB covers protocols, gaming, developers, community. What is left out from this in your opinion? Because to me (and I am obviously biased) the potential improvement is a better specialisation of the protocol domain that I manage. It encapsulates basically all the stuff that does not fall in the others, so it tends to be broad. I guess there could be a way to specialise a portion of it?
Otherwise, what special initiatives might fall into this new bucket?
A quick recommendation: maybe change the name to something like "Questbook Phase 2. DDA Funding" or something at least with Questbook in it, you know cause branding and to make it easier to notice.
Super supportive of this, and kind of even want to expand the scope potentially (that can also always be done via another proposal, but I would consider potentially including it in this proposal). The idea behind Joe's firestarter I really liked, and I thought it was super effective, so potentially having a 5th domain for like "special initiatives" that is maybe governed by questbook, or the domain allocaters as a group I think has merit, so if someone is really grinding away, and we want to keep them committed we can funnel those individuals to this 5th bucket. Maybe gate it behind a needed recommendation or endorsement from a delegate, so its only utilized for time sensitive or high priority initiatives.
Hi, just to calrify this:
ut you understand that it’s impossible for You or Cattin (Seed Latam), because you have so much work in other committees besides this one.
Ok, point by point.
ECONOMICAL:
Thus, allocators will work 100 hours per month (80$/hr), but before they worked only 62,5.
Hi everyone.
I've thoroughly reviewed the proposal for the continuation of the Arbitrum DDA Program, and I appreciate the detailed information provided about the previous program's success and the plans for the next iteration. The increased budget, higher grant cap, and additional accountability measures seem well-considered.
However, I have a couple of thoughts I'd like to share for discussion:
Elections for Program Manager and Domain Allocators: While the current team has undoubtedly done a commendable job, I believe it would be in the best interest of the Arbitrum DAO to hold an election to confirm their roles for the next program cycle. This would not only validate their good work but also provide an opportunity for past and new candidates to present their vision and potentially bring fresh perspectives to the program. Tools like Questbook offer valuable insights into the performance of the current managers, which should support their re-election if they choose to run.
Separate Proposals for Funding and Elections: To maintain clarity and allow for focused discussions, I suggest splitting this proposal into two distinct parts – one for the funding request and another for the nomination and election process of the Program Manager and Domain Allocators. This separation would allow the community to evaluate the program's budget and structure independently from the individuals proposed to lead it.
I believe addressing these points would further strengthen the proposal and ensure the Arbitrum community has a clear voice in the process. I look forward to hearing thoughts from the proposal authors and other community members on these suggestions.
Let's continue the discussion to ensure the Arbitrum DDA Program remains a transparent, effective, and community-driven initiative.
We are in favor of supporting the Questbook DDA Program Phase 2, acknowledging their significant past contributions However, we recommend a governance revision, particularly advocating for new elections for domain allocators, to encourage diversity and fresh ideas, avoid power capture, and ensure an equitable and dynamic selection process for those willing to undertake responsibilities.
Rationale:
We also agree with @jengajojo on this; however, we believe this position should be re-elected every phase.
After discussions within the team, we, cp0x, decided to vote FOR this proposal. We have no questions about the previous stage of this program and we hope that the future stage will be even more successful for the development of projects in Arbitrum. This does not mean that we agree with all points of this program, but in general the useful prevails here.
Posting on behalf of the UADP. A couple points that may be important that we haven't seen discussed yet is that this program as a whole encourages other similar grant programs to be held more liable and cumulatively increases the quality of grants and submissions across the board (competition to a degree makes all output better).
Additionally agree that the first trial program went well and should be renewed!
I'd recommend we use the framework to better clarify the questbook domains. The current "domains" are primarily aligned with "functions" in the framework.
The reason I leave Gaming out is because it is just one vertical in the product market fit bets function.
By understanding where we are and aren't focusing funds, we can identify the highest potential opportunities.
Thanks for the proposal QB team and @Srijith-Questbook
I would like to request term limits of maximum 1 year on the domain allocation seats for individuals. i.e. each individual can occupy the seat for maximum 1 year.
Rationale:
Thanks for the proposal QB team and @Srijith-Questbook
I would like to request term limits of maximum 1 year on the domain allocation seats for individuals. i.e. each individual can occupy the seat for maximum 1 year.
Rationale:
Yes. These can fit within the pluralist funding framework. This does not mean that it needs to be funded by the Plurality Labs proposal. The intention of the framework is to provide clarity and shared understanding of what is being funded, how we measure accountability, and how we provide pathways to success.
Video from EthDenver explaining the framework
may make sense to move forward without the firestarter/special initiatives domain. We are going to wrap that into an OpCo with a separate proposal this week btw.
I am glad to see that Questbook is moving forward with a Phase 2 of their grants program. I think that last 6+ months have proven the value this project has added to the Arbitrum DAO and is a textbook example of how to run a project like this for a few reasons:
I am glad to see that Questbook is moving forward with a Phase 2 of their grants program. I think that last 6+ months have proven the value this project has added to the Arbitrum DAO and is a textbook example of how to run a project like this for a few reasons:
As alluded to in earlier posts, I think Questbook fills a very important role in the DAOs grant space by targeting lower-cost grants. The reality is there are tons of smaller, start-up projects that simply can't compete in a STIPP/LTIPP setting. The fact that this grant program was out of funding so quickly is a testament to the demand for something like this, and I think abandoning this group of applicants would be a detriment to the DAO's grantsphere. It was also great to see a fairly even distribution among the domains.
As for administrative cost, I think the amount is a fair ask. It's clear that the demand surpassed initial expectations and the job is closer to a fulltime role then note. I think too the nature of targeting lower value grants will always result in a 'premium' cost (as a % of total grant). i.e. a $1 Million grant does not take 100x the man hours to approve over a $10,000 grant. If there is concern the domain allocators overworked, a possible resolution is a '5th' allocator who isn't assigned a specific domain in return for being flexible to assist where needed. The benefit then being they can be an experienced replacement for a future domain or if one of the allocators has to step down.
Without going to long into a response, I pretty much just widely agree with all the proposed changes. They look to be thought out and as noted above the willingness to reflect and resolve issues that came up in round 1 is appreciated. I would vote "For" this proposal if it went to Snapshot.
Question for Questbook (or any of the allocators who wish to respond) - did you feel there was a subsection of the community that showed a lot of interest in apply for grants but due to not fitting the defined domains could not be helped out? Basically, is do you have any thoughts on if there would be a net positive to expanding to additional domains?
Edit 4/14/2024: Editing here to save forum space, as my opinion has remained unchanged since this post. Voting "For" the continuation of this Questbook on Tally. As I believe that they have shown both a history of doing really good work with the 1st round of Questbook grants, as well as a willingness to learn and grow by making some tweaks to the 2nd round to improve their processes.
Hello @Srijith-Questbook,
I am Oyeniyi Abiola Peace from the Blockchain Innovation Hub. We are in support of the continuation of the Questbook DDA Grants program. The DDA program has been valuable for promoting and developing the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Hello @Srijith-Questbook,
I am Oyeniyi Abiola Peace from the Blockchain Innovation Hub. We are in support of the continuation of the Questbook DDA Grants program. The DDA program has been valuable for promoting and developing the Arbitrum ecosystem.
As a beneficiary of the DDA phase one, we have first-hand experience of how smooth the program was. We received timely support from people like @Manugotsuka and prompt fund disbursement.
At some point, we had an issue uploading images to the Questbook platform via comments, but I was pleased to see that the team quickly resolved the problem.
The DDA Grants helped us onboard 100 developers into the ecosystem and organized a hackathon.
I have been thinking about this, I think we need a category for "Orbital Chains" as they are growing and surely need DAO support. I also think that L3 races are just around the corner.
gm all, I appreciate the time and effort you guys put into creating such a detailed proposal with references to further check and balance the activities of the DAs and PMs in the previous iteration.
You have done a great job by setting milestones and achieving them (I understand that not all milestones have been achieved and some are still pending).
gm all, I appreciate the time and effort you guys put into creating such a detailed proposal with references to further check and balance the activities of the DAs and PMs in the previous iteration.
You have done a great job by setting milestones and achieving them (I understand that not all milestones have been achieved and some are still pending).
I fully support the extension of the program, I believe it's been one of the most viable tools to boost the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Some thoughts related to funding builders. @DisruptionJoe would love your opinoin here if this could fit within the Pluralistic framework.
I wonder if there is a way to make the DAO even more effective with post-funding activity.
Once projects have completed their milestones and received the full grant, how can we keep nurturing them? How can the DAO make sure those projects succeed?
There could be a sort of fellowship program where we keep in touch and maintain relationships with these projects and give the DAO updated information about them monthly.
This helps the DAO know important elements like:
In the future, this could be run as an incubator style where, depending on their success and need, we introduce them to VCs, investors and further expose them to our community. Today, it could be a simple report with the main objective is to monitor their progress and help wherever we need to.
thanks for chiming in and for the feedback!
Idea of timeline was formalized here
thanks for chiming in and for the feedback!
Idea of timeline was formalized here
As an addition to the previous iteration, projects will have to submit a proposed timeline for their project. The maximum time to complete the final milestone will be 1 year from the start of this iteration of the program (equivalent of 6 months after the natural end of it); after this date, all undistributed funds related to grant that did not complete their milestones will be given back to the Arbitrum DAO
This implicitely means that the natural duration of the program, plus the projects approved, is 1y from the voting. So
Also, realistically: as DA, we will try to setup timelines with the grantees that makes sense, and as a rule of thumb 6 months on average. But this can change quite a lot depending on the different proposals (and, I also guess in the different domains).
Hope this clarifies. If it does not clarify, did you had anything specific in your mind?
would think this could fall into the "new protocols and domain" section. Which is a general bucket.
But I also guess that if the DAO wants to push for more orbit chains (that settles on arbitrum hopefully), we could spin up a specific section with specific funding and a specific framework. It can definitely make sense.
So, we have the following distribution:
| Role | Monthly Cost Was | Future Monthly Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Program Manager and Questbook | $10000 | $10000 |
| Domain Allocator | $5000 | $8,000 |
| Overhead for extra 6 months | $0 | $8400 |
| Operations Cost, Misc. | $3,333 | $1 666 |
| Total | Total Cost Was | Future Total Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Totals: | $200,000 | $312,400 |
Good morning, @JoJo .
I thank you for your detailed answer to my questions.
Good morning, @JoJo .
I thank you for your detailed answer to my questions.
Before doing so, we also asked some informal feedback to a few delegates, to understand if this was a fair rate to propose to the DAO. General feedback was positive, especially because currently the average DAO hourly rate is definitely higher than 100$/h
i actually really like this idea. Question: would it be possible to split up the expansion? What I mean is: we figure out, if DAO likes it, a way to move forward the above. And in parallel we also start to discuss this.
Realistically, season 2 of questbook goes live, and while that is live we finalise the discussion and any addendum to the program itself.
i actually really like this idea. Question: would it be possible to split up the expansion? What I mean is: we figure out, if DAO likes it, a way to move forward the above. And in parallel we also start to discuss this.
Realistically, season 2 of questbook goes live, and while that is live we finalise the discussion and any addendum to the program itself.
The other questions I have: currently QB covers protocols, gaming, developers, community. What is left out from this in your opinion? Because to me (and I am obviously biased) the potential improvement is a better specialisation of the protocol domain that I manage. It encapsulates basically all the stuff that does not fall in the others, so it tends to be broad. I guess there could be a way to specialise a portion of it?
Otherwise, what special initiatives might fall into this new bucket?
A quick recommendation: maybe change the name to something like "Questbook Phase 2. DDA Funding" or something at least with Questbook in it, you know cause branding and to make it easier to notice.
Super supportive of this, and kind of even want to expand the scope potentially (that can also always be done via another proposal, but I would consider potentially including it in this proposal). The idea behind Joe's firestarter I really liked, and I thought it was super effective, so potentially having a 5th domain for like "special initiatives" that is maybe governed by questbook, or the domain allocaters as a group I think has merit, so if someone is really grinding away, and we want to keep them committed we can funnel those individuals to this 5th bucket. Maybe gate it behind a needed recommendation or endorsement from a delegate, so its only utilized for time sensitive or high priority initiatives.
Hi, just to calrify this:
ut you understand that it’s impossible for You or Cattin (Seed Latam), because you have so much work in other committees besides this one.
Ok, point by point.
ECONOMICAL:
Thus, allocators will work 100 hours per month (80$/hr), but before they worked only 62,5.
So, we have the following distribution:
| Role | Monthly Cost Was | Future Monthly Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Program Manager and Questbook | $10000 | $10000 |
| Domain Allocator | $5000 | $8,000 |
| Overhead for extra 6 months | $0 | $8400 |
| Operations Cost, Misc. | $3,333 | $1 666 |
| Total | Total Cost Was | Future Total Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Totals: | $200,000 | $312,400 |
Thus, allocators will work 100 hours per month (80$/hr), but before they worked only 62,5. It almost full time job, but you understand that it's impossible for You or Cattin (Seed Latam), because you have so much work in other committees besides this one.
And please tell me about Overhead, that were are not used in previous period. I don’t understand their point if you have already increased payment for DA by 33% (in fact by 60%, from 5k to 8k per month)
And please tell me about second question: maybe it’s worth voting for roles in this project for other projects?
A quick recommendation: maybe change the name to something like "Questbook Phase 2. DDA Funding" or something at least with Questbook in it, you know cause branding and to make it easier to notice.
Super supportive of this, and kind of even want to expand the scope potentially (that can also always be done via another proposal, but I would consider potentially including it in this proposal). The idea behind Joe's firestarter I really liked, and I thought it was super effective, so potentially having a 5th domain for like "special initiatives" that is maybe governed by questbook, or the domain allocaters as a group I think has merit, so if someone is really grinding away, and we want to keep them committed we can funnel those individuals to this 5th bucket. Maybe gate it behind a needed recommendation or endorsement from a delegate, so its only utilized for time sensitive or high priority initiatives.
Food for thought, but otherwise i though questbook was very useful and transparent, and will support nonetheless.
Hi, just to calrify this:
ut you understand that it’s impossible for You or Cattin (Seed Latam), because you have so much work in other committees besides this one.
I'm not participating in other committees. @SEEDGov manages the Delegates Incentive system, and I assist them with comms with the DAO (since I'm a delegate I shouldn't be involved in the management of the program, regardless if I wouldn't receive compensation as stated in the proposal) and the advisor role for the LTIPP is also managed by other SEED Latam contributors (I'm not involved).
If you want to read more about our domain you can check it out here.
Ok, point by point.
ECONOMICAL:
Thus, allocators will work 100 hours per month (80$/hr), but before they worked only 62,5.
On the amount of time/hours: personally, in january, I have worked 90 hours on questbook alone. And, obviously, got paid for the 60h that were planned. This is why we both increased the amount of projected hours but also switched to a fixed comp: it just creates friction to be paid by amount of hours, and you have some issue (re: DA, half of month, having topped out their hours and not being able to serve protocols). This I think is also well explained in the proposal. On the economical: we adjusted the rate at 100$/h for 80h/m. Before doing so, we also asked some informal feedback to a few delegates, to understand if this was a fair rate to propose to the DAO. General feedback was positive, especially because currently the average DAO hourly rate is definitely higher than 100$/h.
And please tell me about Overhead, that were are not used in previous period. I don’t understand their point if you have already increased payment for DA by 33% (in fact by 60%, from 5k to 8k per month)
Overhead is to manage the program after the end in 6 months. What happen is that, if you approve a development grant in, let's say, july, it can likely go up to december for example to deliver. You need to have the DA (or more than 1 DA) in there to verify the milestone, publish result, disburse payment, alongside the PM. To do this, we have basically put an allocation, for 5 people (4 DA + PM) for 8400/, which is basically 20% of the normal running costs (if monthly the costs is 42000, in here we have 42000*20% = 8400). This is a gap on the program that delegates asked to address. As of now, the current program has no coverage for milestones verification after march: we are going to either have to operate with no coverage, or just release the amount promised for the grants despite milestones not there yet. I am personally looking to do the former for what it matters.
If you think that the overall compensantion for DA or for the PM or for the platform is too much, or that the cost of the program is too much, please let us know.
PEOPLE AND TIME COMMITMENT:
It almost full time job, but you understand that it’s impossible for You or Cattin (Seed Latam), because you have so much work in other committees besides this one.
I personally feel that for you saying "this is impossible for me or Cattin", is, well, a bit of a stretch, and also a very subjective thing. Rest assure that if me, or anybody else, won't feel up to the task due to time commitment or other, we would have promptly said it. My opinion is that is up to the DAO to evaluate the results so far reached, and asses if the persons that so far has managed the program are up for the task or not, and not based on time commitment which again, is really really really subjective.
And please tell me about second question: maybe it’s worth voting for roles in this project for other projects?
If the community feels that either me, @Juandi, @Flook, @cattin, @Srijith-Questbook, or even all of us, did not do a good job, of course we can have new elections.
Just, please let me understand something tho: if you think the above is needed, I guess that it means you likely think that our collective results, or the results of at least one of the domain allocators, were not good enough. If that is the case, would you mind commenting on the following reports and data in regard to the program and results? Would love to read your comments on what we did so far, since I think this is the first time that I see you chiming into this program. (and, of course, I invite every delegate on commentating on our results so far).
Plus if you want:
Furthermore, Srijith prepared a financial report for the program: Arbitrum Transactions - Google Sheets
Probably is also worth mentioning this thread from @krst, that so far has helped us a lot in highlighting to the community what we did, to ensure a prompt discussion, and a quick renewal of the program (with or without new election I guess) due to the fact that currently the QB grants are the only one that can cover in a robust and reliable way the needs for smaller and small-mid size protocols. He literally called the thread "call for action". https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/call-for-action-review-of-delegate-domain-allocation-by-questbook-grants-program/21143
Hi, I have a question regarding financial results. How much was paid to Allocators and Managers? I cannot assess whether funding in this area is increasing. And the second question: maybe it’s worth voting for roles in this project for other projects?
I think the Arbitrum DDA program has contributed significantly to growing the Arbitrum ecosystem and I'm supportive of this plan for continuation. I like the idea of scaling the program up a bit in terms of total funding and funding allowed per grant.
Funding is indeed increasing, as you can check here.
For the managers, it was 10k/m; for DA, it was 5k/m; so a total of 30k/m for 6 months in the first iteration of the program.
In here we are asking 42k/m total for 6 months, plus some more overhead to manage the analysis of milestones for further 6 months for another 8.4k/m total.
EDIT all above numbers are in USD.
I want to add some color to this proposal that Srijith prepared alongside the help of us DA (me, @Juandi, @Flook and @cattin).
Want to start with something that usually goes at the end, and I will do it by quoting something i wrote a few days ago in the Report N° 2 for the domain "New Protocols and Ideas", knowing that Cattin, Adam and Juan all share the same feeling as I do.
I want to add some color to this proposal that Srijith prepared alongside the help of us DA (me, @Juandi, @Flook and @cattin).
Want to start with something that usually goes at the end, and I will do it by quoting something i wrote a few days ago in the Report N° 2 for the domain "New Protocols and Ideas", knowing that Cattin, Adam and Juan all share the same feeling as I do.
Because of this, I am personally proud of what we achieved, and the builders we have helped.
We want to keep going with this mission.
As of now, the available grant programs are
We feel like the Quesbtook program has really filled the gap between 0-25k. While some alternatives where there, Questbook was a consistent reality, always available, in 4 different categories. I personally think we can do even better with more funding as proposed and a cap of 50k, and not because "we want more money to keep going" as it, sometimes, happen, but more cause I saw the limitation of the 25k in some protocols not being able to properly apply just because the amount available was not enough for their needs. Obviously this is only doable with improvements and more checks and balances, like the one we integrated in the proposal above that came after calls with the community and chat with delegates.
We are really looking forward to know if this structure suites the DAO. We tried to cover what was missing (ie: a prosecution of the program to keep checking on milestones and distribute funds, in case the program doesn't get a renewal) and to make the overall program more robust.
So, we have the following distribution:
| Role | Monthly Cost Was | Future Monthly Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Program Manager and Questbook | $10000 | $10000 |
| Domain Allocator | $5000 | $8,000 |
| Overhead for extra 6 months | $0 | $8400 |
| Operations Cost, Misc. | $3,333 | $1 666 |
| Total | Total Cost Was | Future Total Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Totals: | $200,000 | $312,400 |
Thus, allocators will work 100 hours per month (80$/hr), but before they worked only 62,5. It almost full time job, but you understand that it's impossible for You or Cattin (Seed Latam), because you have so much work in other committees besides this one.
And please tell me about Overhead, that were are not used in previous period. I don’t understand their point if you have already increased payment for DA by 33% (in fact by 60%, from 5k to 8k per month)
And please tell me about second question: maybe it’s worth voting for roles in this project for other projects?
A quick recommendation: maybe change the name to something like "Questbook Phase 2. DDA Funding" or something at least with Questbook in it, you know cause branding and to make it easier to notice.
Super supportive of this, and kind of even want to expand the scope potentially (that can also always be done via another proposal, but I would consider potentially including it in this proposal). The idea behind Joe's firestarter I really liked, and I thought it was super effective, so potentially having a 5th domain for like "special initiatives" that is maybe governed by questbook, or the domain allocaters as a group I think has merit, so if someone is really grinding away, and we want to keep them committed we can funnel those individuals to this 5th bucket. Maybe gate it behind a needed recommendation or endorsement from a delegate, so its only utilized for time sensitive or high priority initiatives.
Food for thought, but otherwise i though questbook was very useful and transparent, and will support nonetheless.
Hi, just to calrify this:
ut you understand that it’s impossible for You or Cattin (Seed Latam), because you have so much work in other committees besides this one.
I'm not participating in other committees. @SEEDGov manages the Delegates Incentive system, and I assist them with comms with the DAO (since I'm a delegate I shouldn't be involved in the management of the program, regardless if I wouldn't receive compensation as stated in the proposal) and the advisor role for the LTIPP is also managed by other SEED Latam contributors (I'm not involved).
If you want to read more about our domain you can check it out here.
Ok, point by point.
ECONOMICAL:
Thus, allocators will work 100 hours per month (80$/hr), but before they worked only 62,5.
On the amount of time/hours: personally, in january, I have worked 90 hours on questbook alone. And, obviously, got paid for the 60h that were planned. This is why we both increased the amount of projected hours but also switched to a fixed comp: it just creates friction to be paid by amount of hours, and you have some issue (re: DA, half of month, having topped out their hours and not being able to serve protocols). This I think is also well explained in the proposal. On the economical: we adjusted the rate at 100$/h for 80h/m. Before doing so, we also asked some informal feedback to a few delegates, to understand if this was a fair rate to propose to the DAO. General feedback was positive, especially because currently the average DAO hourly rate is definitely higher than 100$/h.
And please tell me about Overhead, that were are not used in previous period. I don’t understand their point if you have already increased payment for DA by 33% (in fact by 60%, from 5k to 8k per month)
Overhead is to manage the program after the end in 6 months. What happen is that, if you approve a development grant in, let's say, july, it can likely go up to december for example to deliver. You need to have the DA (or more than 1 DA) in there to verify the milestone, publish result, disburse payment, alongside the PM. To do this, we have basically put an allocation, for 5 people (4 DA + PM) for 8400/, which is basically 20% of the normal running costs (if monthly the costs is 42000, in here we have 42000*20% = 8400). This is a gap on the program that delegates asked to address. As of now, the current program has no coverage for milestones verification after march: we are going to either have to operate with no coverage, or just release the amount promised for the grants despite milestones not there yet. I am personally looking to do the former for what it matters.
If you think that the overall compensantion for DA or for the PM or for the platform is too much, or that the cost of the program is too much, please let us know.
PEOPLE AND TIME COMMITMENT:
It almost full time job, but you understand that it’s impossible for You or Cattin (Seed Latam), because you have so much work in other committees besides this one.
I personally feel that for you saying "this is impossible for me or Cattin", is, well, a bit of a stretch, and also a very subjective thing. Rest assure that if me, or anybody else, won't feel up to the task due to time commitment or other, we would have promptly said it. My opinion is that is up to the DAO to evaluate the results so far reached, and asses if the persons that so far has managed the program are up for the task or not, and not based on time commitment which again, is really really really subjective.
And please tell me about second question: maybe it’s worth voting for roles in this project for other projects?
If the community feels that either me, @Juandi, @Flook, @cattin, @Srijith-Questbook, or even all of us, did not do a good job, of course we can have new elections.
Just, please let me understand something tho: if you think the above is needed, I guess that it means you likely think that our collective results, or the results of at least one of the domain allocators, were not good enough. If that is the case, would you mind commenting on the following reports and data in regard to the program and results? Would love to read your comments on what we did so far, since I think this is the first time that I see you chiming into this program. (and, of course, I invite every delegate on commentating on our results so far).
Plus if you want:
Furthermore, Srijith prepared a financial report for the program: Arbitrum Transactions - Google Sheets
Probably is also worth mentioning this thread from @krst, that so far has helped us a lot in highlighting to the community what we did, to ensure a prompt discussion, and a quick renewal of the program (with or without new election I guess) due to the fact that currently the QB grants are the only one that can cover in a robust and reliable way the needs for smaller and small-mid size protocols. He literally called the thread "call for action". https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/call-for-action-review-of-delegate-domain-allocation-by-questbook-grants-program/21143
Hi, I have a question regarding financial results. How much was paid to Allocators and Managers? I cannot assess whether funding in this area is increasing. And the second question: maybe it’s worth voting for roles in this project for other projects?
I think the Arbitrum DDA program has contributed significantly to growing the Arbitrum ecosystem and I'm supportive of this plan for continuation. I like the idea of scaling the program up a bit in terms of total funding and funding allowed per grant.
Funding is indeed increasing, as you can check here.
For the managers, it was 10k/m; for DA, it was 5k/m; so a total of 30k/m for 6 months in the first iteration of the program.
In here we are asking 42k/m total for 6 months, plus some more overhead to manage the analysis of milestones for further 6 months for another 8.4k/m total.
EDIT all above numbers are in USD.
I want to add some color to this proposal that Srijith prepared alongside the help of us DA (me, @Juandi, @Flook and @cattin).
Want to start with something that usually goes at the end, and I will do it by quoting something i wrote a few days ago in the Report N° 2 for the domain "New Protocols and Ideas", knowing that Cattin, Adam and Juan all share the same feeling as I do.
I want to add some color to this proposal that Srijith prepared alongside the help of us DA (me, @Juandi, @Flook and @cattin).
Want to start with something that usually goes at the end, and I will do it by quoting something i wrote a few days ago in the Report N° 2 for the domain "New Protocols and Ideas", knowing that Cattin, Adam and Juan all share the same feeling as I do.
Because of this, I am personally proud of what we achieved, and the builders we have helped.
We want to keep going with this mission.
As of now, the available grant programs are
We feel like the Quesbtook program has really filled the gap between 0-25k. While some alternatives where there, Questbook was a consistent reality, always available, in 4 different categories. I personally think we can do even better with more funding as proposed and a cap of 50k, and not because "we want more money to keep going" as it, sometimes, happen, but more cause I saw the limitation of the 25k in some protocols not being able to properly apply just because the amount available was not enough for their needs. Obviously this is only doable with improvements and more checks and balances, like the one we integrated in the proposal above that came after calls with the community and chat with delegates.
We are really looking forward to know if this structure suites the DAO. We tried to cover what was missing (ie: a prosecution of the program to keep checking on milestones and distribute funds, in case the program doesn't get a renewal) and to make the overall program more robust.
