Thanks for your proposal! Coming a bit late in the discussion, I must say that I found the app interesting.

The proposed Arbitrum community shows the potential of the app to act as a hub, merging the community side of it and the apps running on Arbitrum (a swap in Camelot worked fine). That being said, I have a few comments/questions:

• It is possible to understand the vision, but it is a bit hard to visualize it at this point. As other mentioned, the current audience of the app is low, and it seems that is not a “forced” migration from Discord that will pull the trigger. IMO, it is not reasonable to think about a Discord replacement for a couple of reasons. This tool would need to exist in addition to it for a long time, and should rely in the mini apps + embedded ecosystem to drive adoption.

• I believe it would be easier to sell with a more polished/populated Proof of Concept of the Arbitrum community within CG. More dapps, mini apps/games, main protocols already onboarded (with thatm I mean the embedded version oth them) that could highlight/show all the points that were discussed here. By having a more complete experience to show (as something more concrete), it would be an easier sell. I understand that all of that takes money and time to build, so I’m wondering: Did you guys think of applying for any of the categories in the DAO grants program? Maybe it would make sense to fund this PoC so the DAO can have a better view of CG’s capabilities.

I spent some time playing around with the app and thought the experience was quite neat! I also appreciate the effort that went into the proposal.

That said, I have some concerns with some of the assumptions and the overall execution plan:

• You mention that mini apps are revolutionizing how users discover and use blockchain applications. Personally, I’ve found the UX to be clunky – I much prefer using apps through their native interfaces rather than iframe-style embeds. Since this is a core part of the thesis, it’d be helpful to see concrete data on mini app user retention and engagement from platforms like Farcaster, Telegram, or Worldcoin. Without that, it’s hard to tell whether this is a real behavior shift or not.

• Totally agree that Arbitrum would benefit from a tighter, more connected community. But I’m not convinced that embedding apps into a Discord-like interface will move the needle – especially since Common Ground doesn’t already have significant distribution to offer. Solana, in part, built community by building regional developer hubs, and Farcaster by giving developers primitives like Frames to experiment with. What both got right was putting developers front and center, and I don't see how this proposal achieves that. Arbitrum is a developer platform at the end of the day, so more emphasis on how Common Ground will attract more developers building on Arbitrum would strengthen value prop.

• The proposal is requesting $100K for a one-year subscription + $50K in migration incentives to pull people off Discord/Telegram – both of which are currently free. It’s unclear to me why Arbitrum should bear that cost. Also, if the migration requires incentives, it suggests demand for the platform isn’t organic yet. Why not launch independently, prove demand and adoption, and come back with usage data? That would make for a much stronger case.

Thank you @florian for the proposal. The idea is interesting, but putting it on a new platform is the wrong approach. Users already have to move between apps, extensions, Telegram, and Discord and asking them to adopt yet another platform adds unnecessary friction and will appeal to a smaller audience.

It also overlaps with what Arbitrum Portals is meant to be, as highlighted by @Arbitrum.

[quote=“Arbitrum, post:17, topic:29621”]

• The proposed app marketplace functionality appears to duplicate the existing Arbitrum Portals offering. This could confuse users over which is the “go-to” hub for discovering Arbitrum projects, potentially diluting traffic and engagement rather than consolidating it.

  [/quote]

Our preference is to upgrade Portals into the app store rather than stand up a gated destination. With Offchain Labs’ ZeroDev acquisition, Portals can also ship passkey/email onboarding and direct connection to dApps, so the user journey from discovery to use doesn’t require a separate wallet flow and feels more integrated.

We’re open to a revision to Arbitrum Portals as the discovery surface, but not the implementation of a completely separate platform.

Thanks for sharing your proposal and walking us through the concept for the Common Ground Arbitrum App Store & Builder Communities Hub. We’ve reviewed it internally and wanted to share our thoughts.

While we can see the effort and vision behind the initiative, there are several points that raise concerns for us at this stage:

1. The proposed app marketplace functionality appears to duplicate the existing Arbitrum Portals offering. This could confuse users over which is the “go-to” hub for discovering Arbitrum projects, potentially diluting traffic and engagement rather than consolidating it.

2. The community element does offer an interesting social layer, but we are not convinced it would, at present, drive a meaningful increase in engagement within the Arbitrum ecosystem. We would need to see stronger evidence that the feature would materially change user behavior.

3. It remains unclear how the proposed solution would translate into tangible growth in on-chain activity and TVL for Arbitrum. Given our focus on measurable ecosystem impact, this is a key consideration for us.

4. Our preference would be for a standalone, Arbitrum-dedicated front end, rather than embedding Arbitrum discovery within a broader multi-ecosystem product.

Given these concerns, we’re not in a position to support this proposal in its current form. We would encourage the proposal author to assess for any unaddressed gaps in the Arbitrum ecosystem that Common Ground could potentially solve for, rather than aiming to duplicate existing solutions.

Thanks for your proposal! Coming a bit late in the discussion, I must say that I found the app interesting.

The proposed Arbitrum community shows the potential of the app to act as a hub, merging the community side of it and the apps running on Arbitrum (a swap in Camelot worked fine). That being said, I have a few comments/questions:

• It is possible to understand the vision, but it is a bit hard to visualize it at this point. As other mentioned, the current audience of the app is low, and it seems that is not a “forced” migration from Discord that will pull the trigger. IMO, it is not reasonable to think about a Discord replacement for a couple of reasons. This tool would need to exist in addition to it for a long time, and should rely in the mini apps + embedded ecosystem to drive adoption.

• I believe it would be easier to sell with a more polished/populated Proof of Concept of the Arbitrum community within CG. More dapps, mini apps/games, main protocols already onboarded (with thatm I mean the embedded version oth them) that could highlight/show all the points that were discussed here. By having a more complete experience to show (as something more concrete), it would be an easier sell. I understand that all of that takes money and time to build, so I’m wondering: Did you guys think of applying for any of the categories in the DAO grants program? Maybe it would make sense to fund this PoC so the DAO can have a better view of CG’s capabilities.

I spent some time playing around with the app and thought the experience was quite neat! I also appreciate the effort that went into the proposal.

That said, I have some concerns with some of the assumptions and the overall execution plan:

• You mention that mini apps are revolutionizing how users discover and use blockchain applications. Personally, I’ve found the UX to be clunky – I much prefer using apps through their native interfaces rather than iframe-style embeds. Since this is a core part of the thesis, it’d be helpful to see concrete data on mini app user retention and engagement from platforms like Farcaster, Telegram, or Worldcoin. Without that, it’s hard to tell whether this is a real behavior shift or not.

• Totally agree that Arbitrum would benefit from a tighter, more connected community. But I’m not convinced that embedding apps into a Discord-like interface will move the needle – especially since Common Ground doesn’t already have significant distribution to offer. Solana, in part, built community by building regional developer hubs, and Farcaster by giving developers primitives like Frames to experiment with. What both got right was putting developers front and center, and I don't see how this proposal achieves that. Arbitrum is a developer platform at the end of the day, so more emphasis on how Common Ground will attract more developers building on Arbitrum would strengthen value prop.

• The proposal is requesting $100K for a one-year subscription + $50K in migration incentives to pull people off Discord/Telegram – both of which are currently free. It’s unclear to me why Arbitrum should bear that cost. Also, if the migration requires incentives, it suggests demand for the platform isn’t organic yet. Why not launch independently, prove demand and adoption, and come back with usage data? That would make for a much stronger case.

Thank you @florian for the proposal. The idea is interesting, but putting it on a new platform is the wrong approach. Users already have to move between apps, extensions, Telegram, and Discord and asking them to adopt yet another platform adds unnecessary friction and will appeal to a smaller audience.

It also overlaps with what Arbitrum Portals is meant to be, as highlighted by @Arbitrum.

[quote=“Arbitrum, post:17, topic:29621”]

• The proposed app marketplace functionality appears to duplicate the existing Arbitrum Portals offering. This could confuse users over which is the “go-to” hub for discovering Arbitrum projects, potentially diluting traffic and engagement rather than consolidating it.

  [/quote]

Our preference is to upgrade Portals into the app store rather than stand up a gated destination. With Offchain Labs’ ZeroDev acquisition, Portals can also ship passkey/email onboarding and direct connection to dApps, so the user journey from discovery to use doesn’t require a separate wallet flow and feels more integrated.

We’re open to a revision to Arbitrum Portals as the discovery surface, but not the implementation of a completely separate platform.

Thanks for sharing your proposal and walking us through the concept for the Common Ground Arbitrum App Store & Builder Communities Hub. We’ve reviewed it internally and wanted to share our thoughts.

While we can see the effort and vision behind the initiative, there are several points that raise concerns for us at this stage:

1. The proposed app marketplace functionality appears to duplicate the existing Arbitrum Portals offering. This could confuse users over which is the “go-to” hub for discovering Arbitrum projects, potentially diluting traffic and engagement rather than consolidating it.

2. The community element does offer an interesting social layer, but we are not convinced it would, at present, drive a meaningful increase in engagement within the Arbitrum ecosystem. We would need to see stronger evidence that the feature would materially change user behavior.

3. It remains unclear how the proposed solution would translate into tangible growth in on-chain activity and TVL for Arbitrum. Given our focus on measurable ecosystem impact, this is a key consideration for us.

4. Our preference would be for a standalone, Arbitrum-dedicated front end, rather than embedding Arbitrum discovery within a broader multi-ecosystem product.

Given these concerns, we’re not in a position to support this proposal in its current form. We would encourage the proposal author to assess for any unaddressed gaps in the Arbitrum ecosystem that Common Ground could potentially solve for, rather than aiming to duplicate existing solutions.

Thank you for the thoughtful feedback! Let me start with what makes Common Ground different and then look at the history of failed app distribution attempts in the wider Ethereum ecosystem and how Common Ground walks a different path.

How Common Ground Is Different

Social Context, Not Isolation: Apps on Common Ground don't exist in isolation—they're used within community spaces where people collaborate, discuss, and learn together. This fundamentally changes the user experience from "trying another random dApp" to "using tools my community finds valuable."

It’s also fundamentally different than running an app inside a wallet - since a wallet does not have “community context”. dApps in wallets will focus on personal finance, maybe farcaster like social feeds or xmtp style p2p messaging. But the app experience in Common Ground could be more compared to logging into Steam or BattleNet. It’s a social arena. In fact we believe that pairing game distribution, group game play, and fast transactions on Arbitrum into one package could be a huge growth driver in the future.

Wallet Integration Strategy

At the same time, wallet integration is crucial. Our approach is complementary, not competitive:

API-First Architecture: Common Ground apps can be surfaced in wallets through our open APIs. Imagine wallet discovery showing "apps your communities use" alongside traditional dApp listings.

Deep Linking: Apps discovered on Common Ground can be opened directly in users' preferred wallets, maintaining their existing workflows while adding social context.

Wallet Partnership Opportunities: We're open to partnerships where wallets surface community-recommended apps from Common Ground, adding social proof to wallet-based discovery.

Progressive Integration: Start with embedded experiences for community coordination, then expand to wallet integration as adoption grows.

Why Most previous attempts at dApp discovery suffered from fundamental flaws:

Mist Browser (2015–2017):

An ambitious early attempt by the Ethereum Foundation, Mist bundled a full Ethereum node with a browser UI. It was one of the first efforts to make decentralized applications discoverable and usable. But it required users to run a full node locally, which made it slow, resource-intensive, and inaccessible for most users. The dApp discovery interface was rudimentary, and the need to sync the chain before use killed any chance of mass adoption.

Status (2017–ongoing):

Status aimed to be a mobile-first Ethereum OS, combining messaging, wallet, and dApp browsing. While still live, its focus drifted from general-purpose dApp discovery toward a niche privacy-focused messenger. The dApp browser was often unstable or outdated, and without critical mass on mobile, most users never adopted it as their main interface for the Ethereum ecosystem.

Trust Wallet dApp Browser (2018–2022):

A popular mobile wallet with a built-in dApp browser, Trust Wallet had moderate success, especially during the DeFi summer. However, Apple began cracking down on dApp browsers in iOS apps, forcing Trust to remove the feature. Even before that, discovery was limited to manually entering URLs or scrolling through a basic list of promoted dApps—far from the intuitive app store experience users expect.

MetaMask’s dApp Browser (mobile, 2020–present):

MetaMask’s mobile browser tried to offer a native Web3 browsing experience. But it never solved discovery—users still need to know what dApp they want to use. There’s no recommendation engine, no ranking system, and no sense of social proof. It’s a terminal, not a map.

DappRadar, State of the DApps, and similar aggregators:

These are web-based directories of dApps with rankings based on metrics like daily active users or volume. While useful for researchers or power users, they suffer from multiple issues:

• Lack of curation: many low-quality or dead projects are listed.

• Gaming the metrics: volume and activity are easily faked with bots.

• Zero social context: there’s no way to know which dApps are being used by your community, friends, or trusted projects.

• Not embedded in the user’s daily experience: they’re separate websites, not something people open daily like Discord or Telegram.

Frame, Tally, and other wallet-centric interfaces:

Aimed more at power users and DAO participants, these interfaces tend to serve governance and multisig workflows well, but they’re not optimized for discovering new dApps or browsing ecosystems. Their UX is often still geared toward developers or advanced users.

Conclusion:

Every past attempt failed because it treated dApp discovery as either a technical problem (run a node!), a search problem (here’s a list!), or a developer showcase (look what we built!). What none of them cracked was the social layer of app discovery—the way real users find new apps: through communities, friends, and shared interests.

A successful dApp store in Web3 has to start where users already are—not in a separate browser or a clunky directory, but embedded within the digital social spaces where communities form, transact, and coordinate.

The Bottom Line

You're right that individual user habits are hard to change. That's why we're not trying to change them—we're building distribution through community networks and social proof, then integrating with existing user workflows rather than replacing them.

The question isn't whether individual users will abandon their wallets for discovery—it's whether communities will use Common Ground to coordinate and build together, creating social proof that can then be surfaced wherever users prefer to discover apps.

We can validate the community-driven approach in a trial phase first, then build the wallet integrations that make the most sense based on actual usage patterns.

What are your thoughts on this approach? I'd love to understand any specific wallet integration patterns you think would be most valuable for the Arbitrum ecosystem.

Thank you for putting forward this thoughtful proposal, Florian — it's great to see innovative ideas aimed at strengthening Arbitrum's ecosystem. As a delegate in the ARB DAO, I appreciate the focus on addressing fragmentation in app discovery and community coordination, especially through a platform like Common Ground that integrates social features with embedded apps. The emphasis on community-driven curation and network effects could indeed help bridge some of the gaps we've seen in user onboarding and builder engagement.

That said, while I support exploring tools that enhance distribution, my view is that mini-app discovery is more likely to thrive directly within wallets, much like how traditional apps are found and installed via app stores. We've seen numerous intermediary platforms attempt this for dApps in the past, but they've often struggled with widespread adoption due to user habits and ecosystem inertia. I'd love to hear more about how Common Ground plans to differentiate in this space and potentially integrate with wallet experiences to maximize impact.

Overall, this has strong potential, and I'm open to seeing how a trial phase plays out. Looking forward to the discussion!

Thank you for testing the platform and for the honest feedback. These are exactly the right questions to ask.

Why hasn't CG picked up yet after 2 years? Honestly, we've had to navigate several major pivots and market shifts:

1. Market timing: We launched targeting DAOs in 2022, right as the DAO space went dormant. Our original thesis was solid, but the market disappeared. 2. Product-market fit evolution: We initially built for governance and coordination, but discovered the real need was for richer, more integrated community experiences. The app store concept emerged from this learning. 3. Network effects challenge: Social platforms need critical mass, and we spent too long building in isolation rather than focusing on specific use cases that create immediate value.

The recent organic growth (particularly with US students choosing us over blocked platforms) shows we're finding real PMF, but you're right—it took longer than expected.

What happened with previous partnerships like Fuel? Great question. Early partnerships were often too broad and not focused enough on specific value creation. Communities would set up on Common Ground but continue using their existing tools for core activities. We learned that successful adoption requires:

• Clear, immediate value that existing tools don't provide
• Network effects that make the platform more valuable over time
• Open Sourcing & a real governance token create trust

This is why the app store concept and our open source + token roadmap are so important—it creates unique value that communities can't get elsewhere.

Why should Arbitrum invest in CG instead of going where users already are?

This is the core question, and I think there are several compelling reasons:

1. Unique Value Proposition: Common Ground is built Web3-native from the ground up. The community-driven app store creates distribution dynamics that simply don't exist elsewhere. Just look at what Base shipped yesterday - it’s basically what Common Ground is building but under corporate ownership & governance, which is not what Arbitrum can adopt or should even strive for. Arbitrum needs its own answer and Common Ground is the perfect strategic gambit 2. Ownership vs. Dependency: As I mentioned in my other response to cpox, we’ve built Common Ground with the goal of it being owned by its ecosystems, communities and users. That means our ownership structure is designed to remove this “principle / agent” problem between SaaS vendors and customers. Part of how we do that is by offsetting any “subscription fees” with a commensurate amount of $CG Tokens, which are the governance token in the project. There is also no parallel stock-based ownership structure that would compete with the $CG tokens over influence on the project. 3. Network Effects: While behemoths like Discord, Telegram may have more users, they're not Web3-native. Common Ground's smaller but highly engaged Web3 community creates better conversion rates and more meaningful adoption. 4. Timing: We're at an inflection point. The next 18 months will determine which distribution channels become dominant in Web3. Being early gives Arbitrum a competitive advantage. 5. Complementary Strategy: This doesn't replace building on other platforms and apps —it's complementary. But it gives Arbitrum a unique channel that it’s strategic competitors like Base or Solana won't have.

The honest answer on user acquisition: You're absolutely right that user acquisition is our biggest challenge. But I'd argue that's also our biggest opportunity. The Web3 space is still early, and the communities that matter most (developers, power users, protocol teams) are looking for better coordination tools. We're seeing this in our user research data (ask RnDAO on more details there).

We are betting on community-owned & driven, app-integrated coordination becoming the norm. If we're right, Arbitrum could secure itself a massive advantage here. As I mentioned in my response to cpox, we are also open to talk about Arbitrum as the “Default” Chain on Common Ground, which will become a valuable spot to occupy as the platform grows.

What would success look like?

• 6 months: Key Arbitrum protocols actively using Common Ground for coordination
• 12 months: Arbitrum app store driving meaningful discovery and adoption
• 18 months: Common Ground becomes the go-to platform for Arbitrum apps and communities

Given this, the resource commitment would be relatively low compared to the potential impact.

Thank you for the thoughtful questions about platform fundamentals.

Before I dive into your questions, let me address your strategic concern re “implementing this through a third-party platform”: we’ve built Common Ground with the goal of it being owned by its ecosystems, communities and users. That means our ownership structure is designed to remove this “principle / agent” problem between SaaS vendors and customers. Part of how we do that is by offsetting any “subscription fees” with a commensurate amount of $CG Tokens, which are the governance token in the project. There is also no parallel stock-based ownership structure that would compete with the $CG tokens over influence on the project.

Now let me address each of your questions:

Is your platform open-source? On the way to open source (see Github). We started closed source because at the time (3y ago) we believed that was necessary. Now we are planning to open source by Q4 this year. We are still researching licensing ideas and we appreciate recent discussions on exactly this topic. While we're still in the process of fully open-sourcing, our plugin/app system is already open with public libraries on Github and npm.

How do you plan to attract users to your system? Our user acquisition strategy is focused on partnering with blockchain ecosystems. When an ecosystem moves to Common Ground, they bring many communities, creating pockets of network effects, critical for sustaining activity on the platform beyond the initial hype We've seen this work with ecosystems like Lukso (see info in original post re ecosystem pub crawl event etc).

For Arbitrum specifically, the strategy would be:

1. Start with key ecosystem communities (protocols, DAOs, developer groups)
2. Leverage the app store network effects—communities join to access unique applications
3. Organic growth through cross-community discovery and collaboration

What utility does the $CG token have, and why does it have value? The $CG Token will serve both as a governance and utility token. Currently, Common Ground still operates without a token—we have been focused on building real utility first. When we do release the token, it will provide value by allowing people to access gated chats, discussions and votes on the platform, which allows them to have a voice in the future development of Common Ground. There are many more possibilities for the $CG token to evolve in the future. At the moment we focus on preparing the initial distribution, which will then kickstart the next phases of development in conjunction with community input.

Have other entities invested in your platform under similar terms? Common Ground has been possible thanks to the ongoing support by a range of well-known angel investors, accelerators, funds and ecosystems from within the crypto space over the past 3 years. We've also received investment and support from RnDAO - a well-recognized entity in the Arbitrum ecosystem. More info on our token page.

In terms of similar ecosystem deals, the Lukso ecosystem has invested at similar terms: an annual ecosystem subscription in return for premium support, active feature development and a commensurate amount of $CG Tokens to offset the entire subscription cost.

Ultimately, we're proposing a partnership where Arbitrum leverages Common Ground's infrastructure to solve ecosystem distribution challenges. The value exchange is mutual: Arbitrum gets a native app distribution channel, and Common Ground gains a major ecosystem partner. We are also open to talk about Arbitrum as the “Default” Chain on Common Ground, which will become a valuable spot to occupy as the platform grows.

For Arbitrum partnership, we'd establish specific KPIs around:

• Community adoption rate
• Arbitrum app discovery and adoption rates
• Cross-community engagement with Arbitrum applications
• Developer onboarding and app publication metrics
• TVL and transaction volume driven through the platform

Took some time to explore Common Grounds and try it out. Overall, the experience was very good. The app is super fast and smooth,and has good UX. Anyone familiar with using Discord or TG should have no problem navigating this app. Great job team!

In terms of the proposal, there are quite a wide range of things you are asking. Before I share my thoughts on the proposal, I have a few questions:

1. Why hasn't CG picked up yet? You have been around for around 2 years, correct? What were the biggest learning experiences you had so far?

2. It seems you did deals with some projects (like Fuel), but it doesn't seem they are active anymore. Why is that?

3. I liked the pitch about Mini Apps and how this could become the Arbitrum App Store, but the lack of users (in my eyes) is the main issue here. Why should Arbitrum invest in building on CG instead of going directly where users already are (like Farcaster, mobile wallets, etc.)?

The sooner we get clear answers, the easier it will be for me to keep the conversation going. I really appreciate that you're considering building on Arbitrum.

I really like the idea of creating a kind of product marketplace, where new users can easily deposit funds, swap them on DEXes, and earn through Arbitrum incentives.

However, implementing this through a third-party platform raises some concerns:

1. Is your platform open-source?
2. How do you plan to attract users to your system?
3. What utility does the $CG token have, and why does it have value? Does it offer any governance rights?
4. Have other entities invested in your platform under similar terms?
5. What KPIs are in place?

Thank you for the thoughtful feedback! Let me start with what makes Common Ground different and then look at the history of failed app distribution attempts in the wider Ethereum ecosystem and how Common Ground walks a different path.

How Common Ground Is Different

Social Context, Not Isolation: Apps on Common Ground don't exist in isolation—they're used within community spaces where people collaborate, discuss, and learn together. This fundamentally changes the user experience from "trying another random dApp" to "using tools my community finds valuable."

It’s also fundamentally different than running an app inside a wallet - since a wallet does not have “community context”. dApps in wallets will focus on personal finance, maybe farcaster like social feeds or xmtp style p2p messaging. But the app experience in Common Ground could be more compared to logging into Steam or BattleNet. It’s a social arena. In fact we believe that pairing game distribution, group game play, and fast transactions on Arbitrum into one package could be a huge growth driver in the future.

Wallet Integration Strategy

At the same time, wallet integration is crucial. Our approach is complementary, not competitive:

API-First Architecture: Common Ground apps can be surfaced in wallets through our open APIs. Imagine wallet discovery showing "apps your communities use" alongside traditional dApp listings.

Deep Linking: Apps discovered on Common Ground can be opened directly in users' preferred wallets, maintaining their existing workflows while adding social context.

Wallet Partnership Opportunities: We're open to partnerships where wallets surface community-recommended apps from Common Ground, adding social proof to wallet-based discovery.

Progressive Integration: Start with embedded experiences for community coordination, then expand to wallet integration as adoption grows.

Why Most previous attempts at dApp discovery suffered from fundamental flaws:

Mist Browser (2015–2017):

An ambitious early attempt by the Ethereum Foundation, Mist bundled a full Ethereum node with a browser UI. It was one of the first efforts to make decentralized applications discoverable and usable. But it required users to run a full node locally, which made it slow, resource-intensive, and inaccessible for most users. The dApp discovery interface was rudimentary, and the need to sync the chain before use killed any chance of mass adoption.

Status (2017–ongoing):

Status aimed to be a mobile-first Ethereum OS, combining messaging, wallet, and dApp browsing. While still live, its focus drifted from general-purpose dApp discovery toward a niche privacy-focused messenger. The dApp browser was often unstable or outdated, and without critical mass on mobile, most users never adopted it as their main interface for the Ethereum ecosystem.

Trust Wallet dApp Browser (2018–2022):

A popular mobile wallet with a built-in dApp browser, Trust Wallet had moderate success, especially during the DeFi summer. However, Apple began cracking down on dApp browsers in iOS apps, forcing Trust to remove the feature. Even before that, discovery was limited to manually entering URLs or scrolling through a basic list of promoted dApps—far from the intuitive app store experience users expect.

MetaMask’s dApp Browser (mobile, 2020–present):

MetaMask’s mobile browser tried to offer a native Web3 browsing experience. But it never solved discovery—users still need to know what dApp they want to use. There’s no recommendation engine, no ranking system, and no sense of social proof. It’s a terminal, not a map.

DappRadar, State of the DApps, and similar aggregators:

These are web-based directories of dApps with rankings based on metrics like daily active users or volume. While useful for researchers or power users, they suffer from multiple issues:

• Lack of curation: many low-quality or dead projects are listed.

• Gaming the metrics: volume and activity are easily faked with bots.

• Zero social context: there’s no way to know which dApps are being used by your community, friends, or trusted projects.

• Not embedded in the user’s daily experience: they’re separate websites, not something people open daily like Discord or Telegram.

Frame, Tally, and other wallet-centric interfaces:

Aimed more at power users and DAO participants, these interfaces tend to serve governance and multisig workflows well, but they’re not optimized for discovering new dApps or browsing ecosystems. Their UX is often still geared toward developers or advanced users.

Conclusion:

Every past attempt failed because it treated dApp discovery as either a technical problem (run a node!), a search problem (here’s a list!), or a developer showcase (look what we built!). What none of them cracked was the social layer of app discovery—the way real users find new apps: through communities, friends, and shared interests.

A successful dApp store in Web3 has to start where users already are—not in a separate browser or a clunky directory, but embedded within the digital social spaces where communities form, transact, and coordinate.

The Bottom Line

You're right that individual user habits are hard to change. That's why we're not trying to change them—we're building distribution through community networks and social proof, then integrating with existing user workflows rather than replacing them.

The question isn't whether individual users will abandon their wallets for discovery—it's whether communities will use Common Ground to coordinate and build together, creating social proof that can then be surfaced wherever users prefer to discover apps.

We can validate the community-driven approach in a trial phase first, then build the wallet integrations that make the most sense based on actual usage patterns.

What are your thoughts on this approach? I'd love to understand any specific wallet integration patterns you think would be most valuable for the Arbitrum ecosystem.

Thank you for putting forward this thoughtful proposal, Florian — it's great to see innovative ideas aimed at strengthening Arbitrum's ecosystem. As a delegate in the ARB DAO, I appreciate the focus on addressing fragmentation in app discovery and community coordination, especially through a platform like Common Ground that integrates social features with embedded apps. The emphasis on community-driven curation and network effects could indeed help bridge some of the gaps we've seen in user onboarding and builder engagement.

That said, while I support exploring tools that enhance distribution, my view is that mini-app discovery is more likely to thrive directly within wallets, much like how traditional apps are found and installed via app stores. We've seen numerous intermediary platforms attempt this for dApps in the past, but they've often struggled with widespread adoption due to user habits and ecosystem inertia. I'd love to hear more about how Common Ground plans to differentiate in this space and potentially integrate with wallet experiences to maximize impact.

Overall, this has strong potential, and I'm open to seeing how a trial phase plays out. Looking forward to the discussion!

Thank you for testing the platform and for the honest feedback. These are exactly the right questions to ask.

Why hasn't CG picked up yet after 2 years? Honestly, we've had to navigate several major pivots and market shifts:

1. Market timing: We launched targeting DAOs in 2022, right as the DAO space went dormant. Our original thesis was solid, but the market disappeared. 2. Product-market fit evolution: We initially built for governance and coordination, but discovered the real need was for richer, more integrated community experiences. The app store concept emerged from this learning. 3. Network effects challenge: Social platforms need critical mass, and we spent too long building in isolation rather than focusing on specific use cases that create immediate value.

The recent organic growth (particularly with US students choosing us over blocked platforms) shows we're finding real PMF, but you're right—it took longer than expected.

What happened with previous partnerships like Fuel? Great question. Early partnerships were often too broad and not focused enough on specific value creation. Communities would set up on Common Ground but continue using their existing tools for core activities. We learned that successful adoption requires:

• Clear, immediate value that existing tools don't provide
• Network effects that make the platform more valuable over time
• Open Sourcing & a real governance token create trust

This is why the app store concept and our open source + token roadmap are so important—it creates unique value that communities can't get elsewhere.

Why should Arbitrum invest in CG instead of going where users already are?

This is the core question, and I think there are several compelling reasons:

1. Unique Value Proposition: Common Ground is built Web3-native from the ground up. The community-driven app store creates distribution dynamics that simply don't exist elsewhere. Just look at what Base shipped yesterday - it’s basically what Common Ground is building but under corporate ownership & governance, which is not what Arbitrum can adopt or should even strive for. Arbitrum needs its own answer and Common Ground is the perfect strategic gambit 2. Ownership vs. Dependency: As I mentioned in my other response to cpox, we’ve built Common Ground with the goal of it being owned by its ecosystems, communities and users. That means our ownership structure is designed to remove this “principle / agent” problem between SaaS vendors and customers. Part of how we do that is by offsetting any “subscription fees” with a commensurate amount of $CG Tokens, which are the governance token in the project. There is also no parallel stock-based ownership structure that would compete with the $CG tokens over influence on the project. 3. Network Effects: While behemoths like Discord, Telegram may have more users, they're not Web3-native. Common Ground's smaller but highly engaged Web3 community creates better conversion rates and more meaningful adoption. 4. Timing: We're at an inflection point. The next 18 months will determine which distribution channels become dominant in Web3. Being early gives Arbitrum a competitive advantage. 5. Complementary Strategy: This doesn't replace building on other platforms and apps —it's complementary. But it gives Arbitrum a unique channel that it’s strategic competitors like Base or Solana won't have.

The honest answer on user acquisition: You're absolutely right that user acquisition is our biggest challenge. But I'd argue that's also our biggest opportunity. The Web3 space is still early, and the communities that matter most (developers, power users, protocol teams) are looking for better coordination tools. We're seeing this in our user research data (ask RnDAO on more details there).

We are betting on community-owned & driven, app-integrated coordination becoming the norm. If we're right, Arbitrum could secure itself a massive advantage here. As I mentioned in my response to cpox, we are also open to talk about Arbitrum as the “Default” Chain on Common Ground, which will become a valuable spot to occupy as the platform grows.

What would success look like?

• 6 months: Key Arbitrum protocols actively using Common Ground for coordination
• 12 months: Arbitrum app store driving meaningful discovery and adoption
• 18 months: Common Ground becomes the go-to platform for Arbitrum apps and communities

Given this, the resource commitment would be relatively low compared to the potential impact.

Thank you for the thoughtful questions about platform fundamentals.

Before I dive into your questions, let me address your strategic concern re “implementing this through a third-party platform”: we’ve built Common Ground with the goal of it being owned by its ecosystems, communities and users. That means our ownership structure is designed to remove this “principle / agent” problem between SaaS vendors and customers. Part of how we do that is by offsetting any “subscription fees” with a commensurate amount of $CG Tokens, which are the governance token in the project. There is also no parallel stock-based ownership structure that would compete with the $CG tokens over influence on the project.

Now let me address each of your questions:

Is your platform open-source? On the way to open source (see Github). We started closed source because at the time (3y ago) we believed that was necessary. Now we are planning to open source by Q4 this year. We are still researching licensing ideas and we appreciate recent discussions on exactly this topic. While we're still in the process of fully open-sourcing, our plugin/app system is already open with public libraries on Github and npm.

How do you plan to attract users to your system? Our user acquisition strategy is focused on partnering with blockchain ecosystems. When an ecosystem moves to Common Ground, they bring many communities, creating pockets of network effects, critical for sustaining activity on the platform beyond the initial hype We've seen this work with ecosystems like Lukso (see info in original post re ecosystem pub crawl event etc).

For Arbitrum specifically, the strategy would be:

1. Start with key ecosystem communities (protocols, DAOs, developer groups)
2. Leverage the app store network effects—communities join to access unique applications
3. Organic growth through cross-community discovery and collaboration

What utility does the $CG token have, and why does it have value? The $CG Token will serve both as a governance and utility token. Currently, Common Ground still operates without a token—we have been focused on building real utility first. When we do release the token, it will provide value by allowing people to access gated chats, discussions and votes on the platform, which allows them to have a voice in the future development of Common Ground. There are many more possibilities for the $CG token to evolve in the future. At the moment we focus on preparing the initial distribution, which will then kickstart the next phases of development in conjunction with community input.

Have other entities invested in your platform under similar terms? Common Ground has been possible thanks to the ongoing support by a range of well-known angel investors, accelerators, funds and ecosystems from within the crypto space over the past 3 years. We've also received investment and support from RnDAO - a well-recognized entity in the Arbitrum ecosystem. More info on our token page.

In terms of similar ecosystem deals, the Lukso ecosystem has invested at similar terms: an annual ecosystem subscription in return for premium support, active feature development and a commensurate amount of $CG Tokens to offset the entire subscription cost.

Ultimately, we're proposing a partnership where Arbitrum leverages Common Ground's infrastructure to solve ecosystem distribution challenges. The value exchange is mutual: Arbitrum gets a native app distribution channel, and Common Ground gains a major ecosystem partner. We are also open to talk about Arbitrum as the “Default” Chain on Common Ground, which will become a valuable spot to occupy as the platform grows.

For Arbitrum partnership, we'd establish specific KPIs around:

• Community adoption rate
• Arbitrum app discovery and adoption rates
• Cross-community engagement with Arbitrum applications
• Developer onboarding and app publication metrics
• TVL and transaction volume driven through the platform

Took some time to explore Common Grounds and try it out. Overall, the experience was very good. The app is super fast and smooth,and has good UX. Anyone familiar with using Discord or TG should have no problem navigating this app. Great job team!

In terms of the proposal, there are quite a wide range of things you are asking. Before I share my thoughts on the proposal, I have a few questions:

1. Why hasn't CG picked up yet? You have been around for around 2 years, correct? What were the biggest learning experiences you had so far?

2. It seems you did deals with some projects (like Fuel), but it doesn't seem they are active anymore. Why is that?

3. I liked the pitch about Mini Apps and how this could become the Arbitrum App Store, but the lack of users (in my eyes) is the main issue here. Why should Arbitrum invest in building on CG instead of going directly where users already are (like Farcaster, mobile wallets, etc.)?

The sooner we get clear answers, the easier it will be for me to keep the conversation going. I really appreciate that you're considering building on Arbitrum.

I really like the idea of creating a kind of product marketplace, where new users can easily deposit funds, swap them on DEXes, and earn through Arbitrum incentives.

However, implementing this through a third-party platform raises some concerns:

1. Is your platform open-source?
2. How do you plan to attract users to your system?
3. What utility does the $CG token have, and why does it have value? Does it offer any governance rights?
4. Have other entities invested in your platform under similar terms?
5. What KPIs are in place?

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

Thanks, @florian, for the proposal and the work behind envisioning a Web3-native hub for Arbitrum. An all-in-one social and app discovery platform feels relevant, especially with Arbitrum now at ~300K+ on-chain DAUs and a Discord community of over 335K as of now. We appreciate how you’re aiming to address these gaps head-on.

This is a point we agree with, app discovery and social coordination remain real challenges for Arbitrum. We want to highlight that the Arbitrum Portal already lists over 1,000 apps managed by OCL and is a strong base for discovery. It would be great to use data from the Portal (you can get in touch with AF or OCL), such as most-visited apps or user drop-off points, as a baseline for measuring improvement. We’d also suggest a quick user survey or feedback round with Portal users to identify where discovery still feels limited and how Common Ground can add value, especially through community or social layers.

As @Tekr0x.eth already noted, migrating such a large Discord community, already managed by the AF, is a massive undertaking. Could you clarify which metrics would signal success for this migration? For example, is there a target percentage of active Discord users you aim to onboard during the trial phase? What happens if the migration progresses more slowly than expected? From our side, we recommend first connecting with the AF to get their input, and also considering a phased or optional migration, perhaps starting with a smaller, high-engagement community.

Could you clarify what specific governance powers $CG holders will have? Beyond holding tokens, what ensures that the DAO has real influence, perhaps guaranteed proposal rights or a temporary observer seat in governance?

We agree with @karpatkey here, onboarding fresh faces is the real test. We want to know about how you plan to reach non-crypto-native users. For example, could there be pilot programs with university blockchain clubs, hackathons, social platforms or even crossover events with Web2 communities?

This is a valid point. Web3 is fragmented, and users often struggle to find information in one place. Could CG run a formal, transparent pilot comparing its platform to existing aggregators, tracking metrics like onboarding, engagement, and builder retention within the Arbitrum ecosystem?

That kind of organic traction, especially with US universities, is nice to see. Can you publish ongoing KPIs specifically for the Arbitrum, like monthly active users, app installs, and engagement breakdowns between organic and incentivized actions if there are any?

We share a similar perspective as @TodayInDeFi, which reflects much of the sentiment. We'd suggest structuring the proposal as a clear, phased experiment with explicit checkpoints reviewed by the DAO, including exit ramps at each stage, and to consider starting with a multi-chain approach, where Arbitrum is featured but not the sole focus, to gather organic feedback before fully committing to the DAO.

Beyond these points, we recommend exploring integrations such as wallet-based onboarding, collaboration with other Arbitrum ecosystem tools like Farcaster and Layer3, and prioritizing regular feedback sessions with the DAO, builders, and end-users. That said, before moving forward, it's important to gather concrete data showing that users actually want this and would be willing to shift to it if implemented. Overall, the vision of a composable, Arbitrum-native community hub feels directionally aligned and worth exploring further, provided there’s clear demand.

@cp0x @Tekr0x.eth @mcfly On the adoption challenges, the way I have been thinking about it is:

Comms platform patterns:

In Web2, companies used 3 patterns:

1. Chat platforms: 1-1 communication as the core focus and groups with very lean functionality, e.g. Whatsapp, Telegram, Signal, etc.
2. Social Media: similar to chat platforms but also includes public feeds for discovery e.g. Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, etc
3. Community/company platforms: provide a closed environment with customisation (define channels and categories of channels, add bots, etc.) e.g. Slack, Discord, Mighty Networks.

These apps are sometimes encroaching into each other's territory, but fundamentally they serve different use cases

1. Chat platforms optimise for low-friction, 1-1 communication and low organisation groups (very informal communities, etc.). Here the focus is mostly on keeping up with your relationships so you get all the 1-1 messages updates as focus.
2. Social media optimises for discovery (hence why ticktok did so well and took market share from the others). Discovery also means sidquest and distractions, making social media poor for 1-1 conversation and groups. Hence why facebook had separated messenger into a different app back in the day and most organisations use either Chat Platforms if informal/simple or then move to Community/organisation platforms (slack, discord, Microsoft teams, mighty networks.)
3. Community/org platforms optimise for creating a designed space where discovery is oriented towards what each organisation needs and not the open ended disctraction of social media. Here the focus is specifically related to the community.

As such, these different comms platform patterns are complementary. And most people and organisations end up using all of them but very differently, e.g. my company social graph doesn't match my LinkedIn social graph (it would be a mess if it had too).

Arbitrum positioning in comms

Unlike Optimism with Farcaster or Poygon with Lens, Arbitrum hasn't gotten a good candidate for the general comms category. The sub-category of Web3 Social Media is already heavily competed with Farcaster and Lense, Chat Platforms have many candidates across web3, mostly focused on privacy and struggling for adoption still. Meanwhile, for a Community/organisation platform, there aren't many trying it. At RnDAO we reviewed over 60 applications before selecting CommonGround to support because it has a USP here: composability.

Composability allows us to take community-led discovery to the next level while reducing a lot of the painpoints we identified for Community/Orgs Platforms e.g.

• DAO wants a community platform where people can also buy the token on uniswap/dex, but they have to leave the page or use a clunky (UX wise) link in Discord.
• a company wants to have chat channels and also task management in the same UI, but they don't want to be restricted to the task management app that is built by the comms platform.
• A DAO wants to have chat conversations and a forum in the same UI so it's simpler to onboard and smoother to navigate for everyday delegate work. Without having to learn a new UI or use the only opinionated option provided by an "all in one" platform.

Composability provides amazing flexibility and customisation for communities/organisations, solving the issue of fragmented workflows and community/org-based discovery.

Adoption

Ok, but how do we get users there?!

Unlike Social Media and Chat Platforms where network effects count for absolutely everything, Community/org Platforms have a lower barrier. As you have some sort of smaller groups where the network effects matter (the community or organisation. People outside this small group adopting it doesn't matter much for this usecase).

Broader adoption still makes the product financially sustainable, but getting initial traction is more about getting one community/organisaiton at a time to onboard and be happy so they recommend it to others. The key insight for us is that Comms/org Platforms are more of a B2B business model, while Social Media and Chat Platforms are more B2C.

As such, what we need for the adoption of CommonGround is concentrated campaigns in one community/organisation at a time. Over time snowballing to become the household name and go-to option.

Arbiturm already has a Discord server that it uses as a community platform. It's not a major platform but it's used every day. As such the strategy we proposed with our understanding of Arbitrum is that:

• CommonGround team can start by collecting feedback about what would be needed for adoption (from the AF, delegates, etc.)
• Once ready, Arbitrum can support CommonGround (a native SocialFi application that can help grow its ecosystem) by replacing the Arbitrum Discord with CommonGround. This provides CommonGround with a great case study, a bit of funding, and in return, CommonGround gives tokens to Arbitrum and also improves the discoverability of Arbitrum Apps to the users that are already organically joining the Discord server every week.
• Over time, CommonGround can get more Arbitrum communities/orgs to join, and grow adoption towards becoming the new go-to for Community/org Platforms. By onboarding other communities beyond Arbitrum, CG will be growing the Arbitrum ecosystem (via embedded Arbitrum apps discovery, which this proposal enables).

I hope this makes sense as to why we have both engaged with CG and advised them to make this proposal as we see it being both viable and beneficial to Arbitrum.

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

Thanks, @florian, for the proposal and the work behind envisioning a Web3-native hub for Arbitrum. An all-in-one social and app discovery platform feels relevant, especially with Arbitrum now at ~300K+ on-chain DAUs and a Discord community of over 335K as of now. We appreciate how you’re aiming to address these gaps head-on.

This is a point we agree with, app discovery and social coordination remain real challenges for Arbitrum. We want to highlight that the Arbitrum Portal already lists over 1,000 apps managed by OCL and is a strong base for discovery. It would be great to use data from the Portal (you can get in touch with AF or OCL), such as most-visited apps or user drop-off points, as a baseline for measuring improvement. We’d also suggest a quick user survey or feedback round with Portal users to identify where discovery still feels limited and how Common Ground can add value, especially through community or social layers.

As @Tekr0x.eth already noted, migrating such a large Discord community, already managed by the AF, is a massive undertaking. Could you clarify which metrics would signal success for this migration? For example, is there a target percentage of active Discord users you aim to onboard during the trial phase? What happens if the migration progresses more slowly than expected? From our side, we recommend first connecting with the AF to get their input, and also considering a phased or optional migration, perhaps starting with a smaller, high-engagement community.

Could you clarify what specific governance powers $CG holders will have? Beyond holding tokens, what ensures that the DAO has real influence, perhaps guaranteed proposal rights or a temporary observer seat in governance?

We agree with @karpatkey here, onboarding fresh faces is the real test. We want to know about how you plan to reach non-crypto-native users. For example, could there be pilot programs with university blockchain clubs, hackathons, social platforms or even crossover events with Web2 communities?

This is a valid point. Web3 is fragmented, and users often struggle to find information in one place. Could CG run a formal, transparent pilot comparing its platform to existing aggregators, tracking metrics like onboarding, engagement, and builder retention within the Arbitrum ecosystem?

That kind of organic traction, especially with US universities, is nice to see. Can you publish ongoing KPIs specifically for the Arbitrum, like monthly active users, app installs, and engagement breakdowns between organic and incentivized actions if there are any?

We share a similar perspective as @TodayInDeFi, which reflects much of the sentiment. We'd suggest structuring the proposal as a clear, phased experiment with explicit checkpoints reviewed by the DAO, including exit ramps at each stage, and to consider starting with a multi-chain approach, where Arbitrum is featured but not the sole focus, to gather organic feedback before fully committing to the DAO.

Beyond these points, we recommend exploring integrations such as wallet-based onboarding, collaboration with other Arbitrum ecosystem tools like Farcaster and Layer3, and prioritizing regular feedback sessions with the DAO, builders, and end-users. That said, before moving forward, it's important to gather concrete data showing that users actually want this and would be willing to shift to it if implemented. Overall, the vision of a composable, Arbitrum-native community hub feels directionally aligned and worth exploring further, provided there’s clear demand.

@cp0x @Tekr0x.eth @mcfly On the adoption challenges, the way I have been thinking about it is:

Comms platform patterns:

In Web2, companies used 3 patterns:

1. Chat platforms: 1-1 communication as the core focus and groups with very lean functionality, e.g. Whatsapp, Telegram, Signal, etc.
2. Social Media: similar to chat platforms but also includes public feeds for discovery e.g. Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, etc
3. Community/company platforms: provide a closed environment with customisation (define channels and categories of channels, add bots, etc.) e.g. Slack, Discord, Mighty Networks.

These apps are sometimes encroaching into each other's territory, but fundamentally they serve different use cases

1. Chat platforms optimise for low-friction, 1-1 communication and low organisation groups (very informal communities, etc.). Here the focus is mostly on keeping up with your relationships so you get all the 1-1 messages updates as focus.
2. Social media optimises for discovery (hence why ticktok did so well and took market share from the others). Discovery also means sidquest and distractions, making social media poor for 1-1 conversation and groups. Hence why facebook had separated messenger into a different app back in the day and most organisations use either Chat Platforms if informal/simple or then move to Community/organisation platforms (slack, discord, Microsoft teams, mighty networks.)
3. Community/org platforms optimise for creating a designed space where discovery is oriented towards what each organisation needs and not the open ended disctraction of social media. Here the focus is specifically related to the community.

As such, these different comms platform patterns are complementary. And most people and organisations end up using all of them but very differently, e.g. my company social graph doesn't match my LinkedIn social graph (it would be a mess if it had too).

Arbitrum positioning in comms

Unlike Optimism with Farcaster or Poygon with Lens, Arbitrum hasn't gotten a good candidate for the general comms category. The sub-category of Web3 Social Media is already heavily competed with Farcaster and Lense, Chat Platforms have many candidates across web3, mostly focused on privacy and struggling for adoption still. Meanwhile, for a Community/organisation platform, there aren't many trying it. At RnDAO we reviewed over 60 applications before selecting CommonGround to support because it has a USP here: composability.

Composability allows us to take community-led discovery to the next level while reducing a lot of the painpoints we identified for Community/Orgs Platforms e.g.

• DAO wants a community platform where people can also buy the token on uniswap/dex, but they have to leave the page or use a clunky (UX wise) link in Discord.
• a company wants to have chat channels and also task management in the same UI, but they don't want to be restricted to the task management app that is built by the comms platform.
• A DAO wants to have chat conversations and a forum in the same UI so it's simpler to onboard and smoother to navigate for everyday delegate work. Without having to learn a new UI or use the only opinionated option provided by an "all in one" platform.

Composability provides amazing flexibility and customisation for communities/organisations, solving the issue of fragmented workflows and community/org-based discovery.

Adoption

Ok, but how do we get users there?!

Unlike Social Media and Chat Platforms where network effects count for absolutely everything, Community/org Platforms have a lower barrier. As you have some sort of smaller groups where the network effects matter (the community or organisation. People outside this small group adopting it doesn't matter much for this usecase).

Broader adoption still makes the product financially sustainable, but getting initial traction is more about getting one community/organisaiton at a time to onboard and be happy so they recommend it to others. The key insight for us is that Comms/org Platforms are more of a B2B business model, while Social Media and Chat Platforms are more B2C.

As such, what we need for the adoption of CommonGround is concentrated campaigns in one community/organisation at a time. Over time snowballing to become the household name and go-to option.

Arbiturm already has a Discord server that it uses as a community platform. It's not a major platform but it's used every day. As such the strategy we proposed with our understanding of Arbitrum is that:

• CommonGround team can start by collecting feedback about what would be needed for adoption (from the AF, delegates, etc.)
• Once ready, Arbitrum can support CommonGround (a native SocialFi application that can help grow its ecosystem) by replacing the Arbitrum Discord with CommonGround. This provides CommonGround with a great case study, a bit of funding, and in return, CommonGround gives tokens to Arbitrum and also improves the discoverability of Arbitrum Apps to the users that are already organically joining the Discord server every week.
• Over time, CommonGround can get more Arbitrum communities/orgs to join, and grow adoption towards becoming the new go-to for Community/org Platforms. By onboarding other communities beyond Arbitrum, CG will be growing the Arbitrum ecosystem (via embedded Arbitrum apps discovery, which this proposal enables).

I hope this makes sense as to why we have both engaged with CG and advised them to make this proposal as we see it being both viable and beneficial to Arbitrum.