The Arbitrum Domain Allocator Offerings Grant Program (D.A.O.) has operated for one year across two six-month seasons. The program has evolved and improved based on previous results, growing from its first season, which allocated $250,000 across four domains, to a second season with funding of $1,000,000 per domain.
We are now proposing a third season that would run for a full year, encompassing the existing four domains (Protocols, Education/Community and Events, Dev Tooling, and Gaming) while potentially adding a fifth domain (Orbit). The vision is to create a modular program where new domains can be integrated over time based on DAO requirements and perceived needs. This new season will also improve tracking of grantee progress after funding and facilitate fast-tracking of exceptional projects into other DAO initiatives, such as Arbitrum Foundation programs and the GCP.
Questbook will serve as the technical partner of the program, offering their services through the Questbook.app portal.
Season 1 of the Grant Program was initiated through an RFC in April 2023, designed to serve four distinct domains: New Protocols and Ideas, Dev Tooling, Education/Community/Events, and Gaming. Following a successful snapshot and tally vote along with elections for the four DAs, the program officially launched in October 2023. The team consisted of JoJo, SEEDGov, Flook, and Juandi as Domain Allocators, with Srijith serving as Program Manager.
The first season operated for six months with a budget of $250,000 per domain, totaling $1 million in funding, and implemented a soft cap of $25,000 per project. In April 2024, the program was renewed for Season 2 with the same team but expanded funding to $1,000,000 per domain. The soft cap was increased to $50,000, with proposals exceeding $25,000 requiring evaluation from two Domain Allocators.
Season 2 has now completed its fund allocation phase and will continue operating at reduced capacity for the next six months to oversee milestone completion and grant disbursement. Bear in mind that Season 2 results are partial from the first 6 months, and it will have its natural end in May 2025.
The following are the numbers so far achieved:
Note: Uncompleted projects are those currently active but were either unable to complete their proposals within the last six months or pivoted to a different idea. Abandoned projects are from teams that weren't able to operate in the market. Withdrawn projects are those that were approved but decided not to proceed with their grant. While there was no specific timeline set, we feel Season 1 has come to its natural end, and we are in the process of informing teams and withdrawing remaining funds.
More details on the results can be found here.
In the last year, and potentially for the next year, the D.A.O. Grant Program has brought and will continue to bring the following value to the DAO:
While these points have always been advocated and envisioned as the natural shape of the program, below is a non-comprehensive list of value propositions that has been provided so far through in the last two seasons of the program:
A few specific examples of what we think can be defined as success stories:
In this new iteration, the DA program will last one year. After two six-month seasons with subsequent renewals, there is sufficient maturity in both the program and the DAO to extend it, reducing the burden on delegates for operational renewal and addressing issues such as gaps between seasons.
Funding will be proportional to Season 2, which effectively allocated $750,000 for each of the four domains for six months: for a one-year program, the funding for the four domains will be $1,500,000 per domain, for a total of $6,000,000 for the four domains excluding OpEx. Additionally, after discussions with several delegates and the Foundation, and assessment of the current DAO landscape and working groups, there is interest in a potential fifth domain related to Orbit chains. Acknowledging its experimental nature, the proposal suggests funding this domain with half the amount of other domains: $750,000 for one year.
The grant structure will remain unchanged. Grantees can request up to $25,000 with a single DA review, and up to $50,000 with two DA reviews. Grants will be paid on a milestone basis, where projects must first complete the milestone, verify it with the DA, and then receive the corresponding portion of the grant. Only in exceptional cases, such as when milestone funds are essential for completion or in situations of economic distress, may the DA, at their discretion, release milestone funds in advance.
Upon completing KYC/KYB, grantees will have up to six months to complete their proposal. If they fail to do so, remaining funds will be retained by the program and either reassigned to new projects or, if the program has naturally concluded, returned to the DAO.
Upon proposal completion, grantees must publish a final report in the Arbitrum forum to inform the general DAO community about their project.
Three months after proposal completion, grantees must complete a survey and publish an update to their final report, aimed at tracking their success, foothold gained in Arbitrum, and adherence to or pivot from their original idea.
Before completion, a subset of projects will be internally selected by the PM and DAs for fast-tracking through a PM pitch into other ecosystem programs, such as the Arbitrum Foundation Grant Program or the GCP. While this won't necessarily guarantee further grants from these or other entities, it will ensure exceptional protocols can continue their journey and expand within the ecosystem.
With these modifications, several gaps from previous seasons are addressed:
Excluding the initial phases of snapshot discussion, temp check on the proposal, candidacy for DAs, elections for DAs, and on-chain vote, the program is articulated in the following phases:
During all of these phases, there will be parallel communication phases related to
So far the program has run with four main domains:
All these domains remain pillars of our DAO today, even more so than a year ago. We are, for better or worse (though mostly better), the most accessible DAO in crypto, the first ecosystem to create a gaming fund of the size of GCP, and we have a technology stack that enables permissionless creation of L3s. Our ecosystem's nature and soul, combined with the entry-level grant structure of this program and the diversity we inevitably achieve through it, provides strong justification to maintain all four domains. While most operational changes will be in the framework that moves projects from this program to others, we plan to specify domains based on relevant stakeholders’ feedback (Arbitrum Foundation, OCL, Delegates) to add more specificity and better tailored results.
The domain has seen significant attention, receiving the highest number of proposals in both seasons. Through discussions with Foundation members and key stakeholders, two additional focus areas have emerged where the grant program can provide value:
Events Focus:
Developer Relations:
To reiterate: the domain won’t change its nature to only serve requests such as the one mentioned in the above examples, but might give in some cases more weights in the evaluation as there is value added in coordination with the broad ecosystem. The DA will still retain all its liberty of evaluation.
The gaming vertical has gained increased attention throughout the year in Arbitrum, partly due to the GCP initiative. Key stakeholders, including OCL, have identified a primary need: Arbitrum Games should begin targeting the web2 gaming industry, creators and gamers.
While acknowledging that the grantee budget cap of $50,000 isn't sufficient to attract web2 developers, we can broaden the domain's scope by focusing on user acquisition through initiatives such as:
Important notes:
The Dev Tooling will undergo changes based on what the Arbitrum ecosystem has achieved, both technologically and in terms of PMF, in the last 12 months.
Nova, initially included in the scope, hasn’t seen the forecasted adoption. At the same time we have seen a big conviction bet on Stylus.
While it doesn’t make sense to exclude specifically Nova, it can’t be anymore one of the focus of the domain, which will be now called "Dev Tooling on One and Stylus," incorporating the recent Stylus release. There shouldn’t be any consistent overlap with the current year-long "Stylus Spring" program for several reasons:
The rubric will also be modified to put emphasis on Telegram’s tooling such as trading bots, fairly available in other ecosystems but less widespread in Arbitrum.
The "New Protocols and Ideas" domain will remain the most general capture-oriented domain, as it has been in the last two seasons. Its inherent generality enables it to cover both classic ideas, like financing DeFi protocols, and DAO-specific needs like governance tooling. This domain will remain largely unchanged, except for maintaining constant alignment with the Foundation and other stakeholders on what is considered important and valuable when assigning grants. Additionally, there will be attention paid to the evolving narratives driving the broader market.
There has been growing interest in a possible fifth domain related to Orbit chains. Many delegates have shown interest in or directly requested funding for an Orbit chains program, which is also supported by the existing working group.
The Orbit Chains domain will have the mission to:
The Orbit chain domain won’t cover the deployment of new Orbit chains, since this is a mission that is currently facilitated by the Foundation. This doesn’t mean that a project can’t have, in its milestone, the deployment of its own chain if that is part of a broader plan; but this can’t be the main focus of the proposal.
The rubric and template will be drafted in detail with the elected team member, following the same process used for the other domain rubrics (1, 2, 3, 4).
Acknowledging that the DAO might consider it premature to launch an Orbit domain, particularly before seeing results from the related working group, the snapshot will provide an option to exclude it from the current program. This domain could then be integrated later during the program's one-year duration. As for the current iteration, we propose MaxLomu as lead for the Orbit domain. While we can accommodate the DAO's preference for elections in this domain, we believe there would be no better lead than him, given his background and current working group proposal.
Several parties have expressed interest in adding new domains to the DA program.
While it wouldn't be wise to expand the program further at this time, new domains might be needed at different intervals, as illustrated by the Orbit domain example, where the DAO might require a new domain program six months from now. For this reason, Season 3 is designed to be modular.
If the DAO votes to allocate capital for a new domain, it can be integrated into the current program by leveraging the existing infrastructure and Program Manager. The costs for adding domains would vary based on specific implementation requirements:
Note that:
Evaluating success for an entry-level grant program can be challenging. The evaluation primarily focuses on three key metrics:
The election process will follow established best practices as outlined in the Code of Conduct:
In recognition that one year is a relatively long period for a DAO's program, procedures must be established for cases where team members cannot complete their tenure. If a member resigns, they will assist with the transition, and the team will attempt to source a replacement. A snapshot vote will be held with two options: "Yes, proceed with the new member" or "No, hold elections."
If approved, the new member will be onboarded to the team. If rejected, a standard election process will occur over three weeks (two weeks for candidacy, one week for voting). During any transition period where the former member cannot fulfill their duties, the current DAs and PM will temporarily manage the domain, including grantee collaboration, proposal evaluation, and milestone payments. Any compensation due to the departing member during this interim phase will be fairly distributed among contributing team members.
The RFC will request $1,500,000 for each of the four domains "New Protocols and Ideas", "Education, Community Growth and Events", "Dev Tooling on One and Nova", and "Gaming", for a total amount of $6,000,000 excluding OpEx. The requested amount will be in ARB and, upon receiving, will be converted into USDC.
Earmarked costs are as follows:
Total operational costs: $622,200
If the Orbit Chains domain is added as a fifth domain:
Note: If approved, JoJo will forfeit any remaining payments from Season 2 at the start of Season 3. Similarly, if any of the current Domain Allocators will participate in the elections and will be re-elected, they will forfeit any remaining payments from Season 2.
A more clear and standardized reporting will take place going forward. Specifically
The DAO vote on Snapshot will be a single choice vote:
ARB received from Tally, with a 35% buffer, will be transferred to the Arbitrum Foundation for the conversion in USDC of only the amount approved; any ARB surplus will be returned to the DAO. Upon completion, funds will be split as per the following
Season 1 RFC Season 2 RFC Season 2 update thread New Protocols and Ideas RFP Education, Community Growth and Events RFP Gaming RFP, Dev Tooling on One and NOVA RFP
There are a lot of people to thank for this proposal. In random order: Cliffton/David/Mariam from the Foundation, Krzysztof, Max, Dan Peng, Kiet from OCL, DK, the Seed team, Callen from Wintermute, and many more for the feedback to draft this proposal. I literally chased some of you, physically, in bkk, thanks for the patience.
The Arbitrum Domain Allocator Offerings Grant Program (D.A.O.) has operated for one year across two six-month seasons. The program has evolved and improved based on previous results, growing from its first season, which allocated $250,000 across four domains, to a second season with funding of $1,000,000 per domain.
We are now proposing a third season that would run for a full year, encompassing the existing four domains (Protocols, Education/Community and Events, Dev Tooling, and Gaming) while potentially adding a fifth domain (Orbit). The vision is to create a modular program where new domains can be integrated over time based on DAO requirements and perceived needs. This new season will also improve tracking of grantee progress after funding and facilitate fast-tracking of exceptional projects into other DAO initiatives, such as Arbitrum Foundation programs and the GCP.
Questbook will serve as the technical partner of the program, offering their services through the Questbook.app portal.
Season 1 of the Grant Program was initiated through an RFC in April 2023, designed to serve four distinct domains: New Protocols and Ideas, Dev Tooling, Education/Community/Events, and Gaming. Following a successful snapshot and tally vote along with elections for the four DAs, the program officially launched in October 2023. The team consisted of JoJo, SEEDGov, Flook, and Juandi as Domain Allocators, with Srijith serving as Program Manager.
The first season operated for six months with a budget of $250,000 per domain, totaling $1 million in funding, and implemented a soft cap of $25,000 per project. In April 2024, the program was renewed for Season 2 with the same team but expanded funding to $1,000,000 per domain. The soft cap was increased to $50,000, with proposals exceeding $25,000 requiring evaluation from two Domain Allocators.
Season 2 has now completed its fund allocation phase and will continue operating at reduced capacity for the next six months to oversee milestone completion and grant disbursement. Bear in mind that Season 2 results are partial from the first 6 months, and it will have its natural end in May 2025.
The following are the numbers so far achieved:
Note: Uncompleted projects are those currently active but were either unable to complete their proposals within the last six months or pivoted to a different idea. Abandoned projects are from teams that weren't able to operate in the market. Withdrawn projects are those that were approved but decided not to proceed with their grant. While there was no specific timeline set, we feel Season 1 has come to its natural end, and we are in the process of informing teams and withdrawing remaining funds.
More details on the results can be found here.
In the last year, and potentially for the next year, the D.A.O. Grant Program has brought and will continue to bring the following value to the DAO:
While these points have always been advocated and envisioned as the natural shape of the program, below is a non-comprehensive list of value propositions that has been provided so far through in the last two seasons of the program:
A few specific examples of what we think can be defined as success stories:
In this new iteration, the DA program will last one year. After two six-month seasons with subsequent renewals, there is sufficient maturity in both the program and the DAO to extend it, reducing the burden on delegates for operational renewal and addressing issues such as gaps between seasons.
Funding will be proportional to Season 2, which effectively allocated $750,000 for each of the four domains for six months: for a one-year program, the funding for the four domains will be $1,500,000 per domain, for a total of $6,000,000 for the four domains excluding OpEx. Additionally, after discussions with several delegates and the Foundation, and assessment of the current DAO landscape and working groups, there is interest in a potential fifth domain related to Orbit chains. Acknowledging its experimental nature, the proposal suggests funding this domain with half the amount of other domains: $750,000 for one year.
The grant structure will remain unchanged. Grantees can request up to $25,000 with a single DA review, and up to $50,000 with two DA reviews. Grants will be paid on a milestone basis, where projects must first complete the milestone, verify it with the DA, and then receive the corresponding portion of the grant. Only in exceptional cases, such as when milestone funds are essential for completion or in situations of economic distress, may the DA, at their discretion, release milestone funds in advance.
Upon completing KYC/KYB, grantees will have up to six months to complete their proposal. If they fail to do so, remaining funds will be retained by the program and either reassigned to new projects or, if the program has naturally concluded, returned to the DAO.
Upon proposal completion, grantees must publish a final report in the Arbitrum forum to inform the general DAO community about their project.
Three months after proposal completion, grantees must complete a survey and publish an update to their final report, aimed at tracking their success, foothold gained in Arbitrum, and adherence to or pivot from their original idea.
Before completion, a subset of projects will be internally selected by the PM and DAs for fast-tracking through a PM pitch into other ecosystem programs, such as the Arbitrum Foundation Grant Program or the GCP. While this won't necessarily guarantee further grants from these or other entities, it will ensure exceptional protocols can continue their journey and expand within the ecosystem.
With these modifications, several gaps from previous seasons are addressed:
Excluding the initial phases of snapshot discussion, temp check on the proposal, candidacy for DAs, elections for DAs, and on-chain vote, the program is articulated in the following phases:
During all of these phases, there will be parallel communication phases related to
So far the program has run with four main domains:
All these domains remain pillars of our DAO today, even more so than a year ago. We are, for better or worse (though mostly better), the most accessible DAO in crypto, the first ecosystem to create a gaming fund of the size of GCP, and we have a technology stack that enables permissionless creation of L3s. Our ecosystem's nature and soul, combined with the entry-level grant structure of this program and the diversity we inevitably achieve through it, provides strong justification to maintain all four domains. While most operational changes will be in the framework that moves projects from this program to others, we plan to specify domains based on relevant stakeholders’ feedback (Arbitrum Foundation, OCL, Delegates) to add more specificity and better tailored results.
The domain has seen significant attention, receiving the highest number of proposals in both seasons. Through discussions with Foundation members and key stakeholders, two additional focus areas have emerged where the grant program can provide value:
Events Focus:
Developer Relations:
To reiterate: the domain won’t change its nature to only serve requests such as the one mentioned in the above examples, but might give in some cases more weights in the evaluation as there is value added in coordination with the broad ecosystem. The DA will still retain all its liberty of evaluation.
The gaming vertical has gained increased attention throughout the year in Arbitrum, partly due to the GCP initiative. Key stakeholders, including OCL, have identified a primary need: Arbitrum Games should begin targeting the web2 gaming industry, creators and gamers.
While acknowledging that the grantee budget cap of $50,000 isn't sufficient to attract web2 developers, we can broaden the domain's scope by focusing on user acquisition through initiatives such as:
Important notes:
The Dev Tooling will undergo changes based on what the Arbitrum ecosystem has achieved, both technologically and in terms of PMF, in the last 12 months.
Nova, initially included in the scope, hasn’t seen the forecasted adoption. At the same time we have seen a big conviction bet on Stylus.
While it doesn’t make sense to exclude specifically Nova, it can’t be anymore one of the focus of the domain, which will be now called "Dev Tooling on One and Stylus," incorporating the recent Stylus release. There shouldn’t be any consistent overlap with the current year-long "Stylus Spring" program for several reasons:
The rubric will also be modified to put emphasis on Telegram’s tooling such as trading bots, fairly available in other ecosystems but less widespread in Arbitrum.
The "New Protocols and Ideas" domain will remain the most general capture-oriented domain, as it has been in the last two seasons. Its inherent generality enables it to cover both classic ideas, like financing DeFi protocols, and DAO-specific needs like governance tooling. This domain will remain largely unchanged, except for maintaining constant alignment with the Foundation and other stakeholders on what is considered important and valuable when assigning grants. Additionally, there will be attention paid to the evolving narratives driving the broader market.
There has been growing interest in a possible fifth domain related to Orbit chains. Many delegates have shown interest in or directly requested funding for an Orbit chains program, which is also supported by the existing working group.
The Orbit Chains domain will have the mission to:
The Orbit chain domain won’t cover the deployment of new Orbit chains, since this is a mission that is currently facilitated by the Foundation. This doesn’t mean that a project can’t have, in its milestone, the deployment of its own chain if that is part of a broader plan; but this can’t be the main focus of the proposal.
The rubric and template will be drafted in detail with the elected team member, following the same process used for the other domain rubrics (1, 2, 3, 4).
Acknowledging that the DAO might consider it premature to launch an Orbit domain, particularly before seeing results from the related working group, the snapshot will provide an option to exclude it from the current program. This domain could then be integrated later during the program's one-year duration. As for the current iteration, we propose MaxLomu as lead for the Orbit domain. While we can accommodate the DAO's preference for elections in this domain, we believe there would be no better lead than him, given his background and current working group proposal.
Several parties have expressed interest in adding new domains to the DA program.
While it wouldn't be wise to expand the program further at this time, new domains might be needed at different intervals, as illustrated by the Orbit domain example, where the DAO might require a new domain program six months from now. For this reason, Season 3 is designed to be modular.
If the DAO votes to allocate capital for a new domain, it can be integrated into the current program by leveraging the existing infrastructure and Program Manager. The costs for adding domains would vary based on specific implementation requirements:
Note that:
Evaluating success for an entry-level grant program can be challenging. The evaluation primarily focuses on three key metrics:
The election process will follow established best practices as outlined in the Code of Conduct:
In recognition that one year is a relatively long period for a DAO's program, procedures must be established for cases where team members cannot complete their tenure. If a member resigns, they will assist with the transition, and the team will attempt to source a replacement. A snapshot vote will be held with two options: "Yes, proceed with the new member" or "No, hold elections."
If approved, the new member will be onboarded to the team. If rejected, a standard election process will occur over three weeks (two weeks for candidacy, one week for voting). During any transition period where the former member cannot fulfill their duties, the current DAs and PM will temporarily manage the domain, including grantee collaboration, proposal evaluation, and milestone payments. Any compensation due to the departing member during this interim phase will be fairly distributed among contributing team members.
The RFC will request $1,500,000 for each of the four domains "New Protocols and Ideas", "Education, Community Growth and Events", "Dev Tooling on One and Nova", and "Gaming", for a total amount of $6,000,000 excluding OpEx. The requested amount will be in ARB and, upon receiving, will be converted into USDC.
Earmarked costs are as follows:
Total operational costs: $622,200
If the Orbit Chains domain is added as a fifth domain:
Note: If approved, JoJo will forfeit any remaining payments from Season 2 at the start of Season 3. Similarly, if any of the current Domain Allocators will participate in the elections and will be re-elected, they will forfeit any remaining payments from Season 2.
A more clear and standardized reporting will take place going forward. Specifically
The DAO vote on Snapshot will be a single choice vote:
ARB received from Tally, with a 35% buffer, will be transferred to the Arbitrum Foundation for the conversion in USDC of only the amount approved; any ARB surplus will be returned to the DAO. Upon completion, funds will be split as per the following
Season 1 RFC Season 2 RFC Season 2 update thread New Protocols and Ideas RFP Education, Community Growth and Events RFP Gaming RFP, Dev Tooling on One and NOVA RFP
There are a lot of people to thank for this proposal. In random order: Cliffton/David/Mariam from the Foundation, Krzysztof, Max, Dan Peng, Kiet from OCL, DK, the Seed team, Callen from Wintermute, and many more for the feedback to draft this proposal. I literally chased some of you, physically, in bkk, thanks for the patience.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/155?u=tane
Supporting this proposal ensures the Arbitrum grant program continues to evolve, fostering ecosystem growth through structured funding, improved tracking, and seamless integration of high-impact projects into broader DAO initiatives.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/154?u=blockful
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/155?u=tane
Supporting this proposal ensures the Arbitrum grant program continues to evolve, fostering ecosystem growth through structured funding, improved tracking, and seamless integration of high-impact projects into broader DAO initiatives.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/154?u=blockful
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/149?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/147?u=linzerd
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/148?u=amira
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this Proposal (ehARB-82): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-82
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this Proposal (ehARB-82): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-82
devs candidate was not our first choice.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/143?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/juanrah-delegate-communication-thread/27395/27?u=juanrah
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/81
lacking other mechanisms, these grant programs provide an entry-gate
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/140
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/51?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/138?u=tempetechie
all things considered, I think there’s more pros than cons (barely) and the DAO needs an active grant program (up to $50k) right now. There’s a bunch of details I don’t agree with this is proposal to be honest, but all in all, it gets my For vote. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/137?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/134?u=pedrob
Our position has changed from the initial Snapshot vote where we expressed support for the trial 5th domain and some iterative improvements. While that remains the case, we agree with Entropy that by the third season, this program can be better optimized. For example, the administrative costs of the program are approaching 10% of the total budget. While not out of the realm of reasonable, that can be brought down closer to 5%. Another example is getting the program firmly and properly branded, with educational resources and information clearly denoting it as an Arbitrum governance program. Unlike Entropy, we would support a renewal with a more streamlined cost structure and a formal plan to harmonize the objectives of the grant program with the overall strategic objectives of governance (e.g. less emphasis on education, more emphasis on key verticals like RWA)
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/46?u=castlecapital
Continuing successful programs is a good idea.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/133?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/74?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/131?u=gabriel
Generally I support programs that move forward somehow the activity of the DAO. I'm worried that without a project like this, maybe the DAO will just have nothing.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/129?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/62?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/82
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/37?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/125?u=maxlomu
Questbook has been doing a good job, it's a great place for grantees to get onboarded on Arbitrum. The budget it’s growing but their asking is reasonable, they are allocating more funds to. Their ask is below 10% which is quite competitive in the space, lets see it grow and looking forward to season 3 results.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/123?u=0xdonpepe
I am voting for this proposal because it helps support new projects and developers in the Arbitrum ecosystem. The grant program has already helped many teams, and extending it for another year will bring more growth and innovation. Adding a new domain for Orbit Chains is also a good idea to expand opportunities.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/120
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/59?u=ezr3al
abstaining since I am the proposed PM
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/120?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/114?u=dragonawr
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/90
This has been the primary path for small, quick grants in Arbitrum, and support renewing the program with the trial expansion.
expansion into Orbit coverage will create hopefully a nice pipeline for the ongoing growth of Orbit grants and growing our L2/L3 ecosystem
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/88?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/51?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/85?u=tane
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-61: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-61
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-61: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-61
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/83?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/82
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/81
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/80?u=ocandocrypto
Our decision aligns with the broader goal of fostering innovation and expanding the Arbitrum ecosystem.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/juanrah-delegate-communication-thread/27395/12?u=juanrah
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/75?u=tempetechie
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/74?u=todayindefi
I am voting for Season 3 of the Arbitrum Grant Program to empower diverse builders, boost ecosystem growth through targeted funding, and support innovative projects across established and experimental domains like Orbit.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/71?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/70?u=tekr0x.eth
I'm the proposer, abstaining for obvious reasons
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/66?u=duoko
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/65?u=kuicl
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/64?u=pedro
I voted to renew the program with 5 domains. Orbit Chains will help Arbitrum compete with other blockchains on sidechains and L2 solutions.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/37?u=bruce
this grant program is one of the most important mechanisms that the DAO has to onboard new contributors, builders, and projects into Arbitrum. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/63?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/62?u=0xale
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/61?u=0xtal
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/60?u=gabri
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/95?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/59?u=ezr3a
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/58?u=0xdon
The 5th Romain is key for us advancing to lead the space as an interoperability network.
Orbit is potentially interesting, but a separate proposal (and likely research on the best approach before) would be ideal
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/149?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/147?u=linzerd
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/148?u=amira
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this Proposal (ehARB-82): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-82
The Event Horizon Community voted FOR on this Proposal (ehARB-82): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-82
devs candidate was not our first choice.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/143?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/juanrah-delegate-communication-thread/27395/27?u=juanrah
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/81
lacking other mechanisms, these grant programs provide an entry-gate
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/140
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/51?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/138?u=tempetechie
all things considered, I think there’s more pros than cons (barely) and the DAO needs an active grant program (up to $50k) right now. There’s a bunch of details I don’t agree with this is proposal to be honest, but all in all, it gets my For vote. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/137?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/134?u=pedrob
Our position has changed from the initial Snapshot vote where we expressed support for the trial 5th domain and some iterative improvements. While that remains the case, we agree with Entropy that by the third season, this program can be better optimized. For example, the administrative costs of the program are approaching 10% of the total budget. While not out of the realm of reasonable, that can be brought down closer to 5%. Another example is getting the program firmly and properly branded, with educational resources and information clearly denoting it as an Arbitrum governance program. Unlike Entropy, we would support a renewal with a more streamlined cost structure and a formal plan to harmonize the objectives of the grant program with the overall strategic objectives of governance (e.g. less emphasis on education, more emphasis on key verticals like RWA)
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/46?u=castlecapital
Continuing successful programs is a good idea.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/133?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/74?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/131?u=gabriel
Generally I support programs that move forward somehow the activity of the DAO. I'm worried that without a project like this, maybe the DAO will just have nothing.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/129?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/62?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/82
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/37?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/125?u=maxlomu
Questbook has been doing a good job, it's a great place for grantees to get onboarded on Arbitrum. The budget it’s growing but their asking is reasonable, they are allocating more funds to. Their ask is below 10% which is quite competitive in the space, lets see it grow and looking forward to season 3 results.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/123?u=0xdonpepe
I am voting for this proposal because it helps support new projects and developers in the Arbitrum ecosystem. The grant program has already helped many teams, and extending it for another year will bring more growth and innovation. Adding a new domain for Orbit Chains is also a good idea to expand opportunities.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/120
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/59?u=ezr3al
abstaining since I am the proposed PM
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/120?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/114?u=dragonawr
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/90
This has been the primary path for small, quick grants in Arbitrum, and support renewing the program with the trial expansion.
expansion into Orbit coverage will create hopefully a nice pipeline for the ongoing growth of Orbit grants and growing our L2/L3 ecosystem
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/88?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/51?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/85?u=tane
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-61: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-61
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-61: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-61
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/83?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/82
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/81
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/80?u=ocandocrypto
Our decision aligns with the broader goal of fostering innovation and expanding the Arbitrum ecosystem.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/juanrah-delegate-communication-thread/27395/12?u=juanrah
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/75?u=tempetechie
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/74?u=todayindefi
I am voting for Season 3 of the Arbitrum Grant Program to empower diverse builders, boost ecosystem growth through targeted funding, and support innovative projects across established and experimental domains like Orbit.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/71?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/70?u=tekr0x.eth
I'm the proposer, abstaining for obvious reasons
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/66?u=duoko
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/65?u=kuicl
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/64?u=pedro
I voted to renew the program with 5 domains. Orbit Chains will help Arbitrum compete with other blockchains on sidechains and L2 solutions.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/37?u=bruce
this grant program is one of the most important mechanisms that the DAO has to onboard new contributors, builders, and projects into Arbitrum. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/63?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/62?u=0xale
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/61?u=0xtal
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/60?u=gabri
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/95?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/59?u=ezr3a
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/58?u=0xdon
The 5th Romain is key for us advancing to lead the space as an interoperability network.
Orbit is potentially interesting, but a separate proposal (and likely research on the best approach before) would be ideal
Hi @JoJo , thanks for the proposal, :smiley:
I was just reading through and this thing from Orbit Chains section stood out for me
Deploy technological solutions aimed at addressing current user experience fragmentation
Hi @JoJo , thanks for the proposal, :smiley:
I was just reading through and this thing from Orbit Chains section stood out for me
Deploy technological solutions aimed at addressing current user experience fragmentation
Is there any internal roadmap for addressing user experience fragmentation? specifically regarding interoperability between Orbit chains. Is there a more thorough vision or plan in place that aims at strengthening the interaction between different chains within the Orbit ecosystem?
I've also read through the 2024-2025 Offchain Labs roadmap and loved to see interoperability as one of the core values.
I’m curious to hear your thoughts on whether it would make sense to develop a more unified block explorer that offers insights and transparency across the entire Orbit ecosystem.
Would love to hear your thoughts, and thank you again for this
Rebeca from routescan.io
Hola Don Pepe,
I’m just scrolling through the forum, answering questions about the DDA program, and sharing some thoughts from the perspective of a DA.
Hola Don Pepe,
I’m just scrolling through the forum, answering questions about the DDA program, and sharing some thoughts from the perspective of a DA.
While the incentives are certainly noteworthy for all parties involved and have been discussed extensively in previous reviews, I’m personally against them. My concern is that they could lead to "review bias," where the focus shifts towards inflating internal DA metrics rather than genuinely supporting builders and entrepreneurs who rely on grants to kickstart curiosity and project development.
The current compensation structure for DAs works well. It's designed to ensure that delegated domain allocators provide value to grantees as elected by popular vote from DAO members and delegates.
I’d love to hear other perspectives from the community, but I firmly believe that introducing such incentives could skew milestone reviews and hinder outcomes for grantees and their projects in the post-grant phase. Our role is to foster activity and innovation in the Arbitrum ecosystem—not to obsess over milestones for the sake of additional compensation. Domain Allocators already receive a standard DAO rate, which has been effective across multiple iterations of grant programs in the industry.
Hey Pedro,
Thanks for taking the time to reply on the forum! I’d love to connect and discuss the continuation of projects from the first season of the Developer Tooling Domain. If you could reach out on Telegram (@jewandidi), we can chat about successful use cases and the results achieved post-grant delivery.
Looking forward to hearing from you!
Hey Pedro,
Thanks for taking the time to reply on the forum! I’d love to connect and discuss the continuation of projects from the first season of the Developer Tooling Domain. If you could reach out on Telegram (@jewandidi), we can chat about successful use cases and the results achieved post-grant delivery.
Looking forward to hearing from you!
PS -- While JoJo's comment of not having those data points available is extremely valid as our responsibility is start-to-end, at the Developer Tooling domain we have been helping early stage infrastructure companies getting subsequent funding from formal investors and establishing a proper pitch deck and GTM strategy.
Hey DuoKong,
We could also consider reducing the initial budget for the Orbit domain, especially since other grant programs, like Compound, allocate different budgets to their domains. While Arbitrum has a much broader ecosystem than a single DeFi protocol, testing a different budget size for the Orbit domain could serve as a great proof of concept (PoC) to evaluate whether doubling down on funding for sidechains is worthwhile.
Hey DuoKong,
We could also consider reducing the initial budget for the Orbit domain, especially since other grant programs, like Compound, allocate different budgets to their domains. While Arbitrum has a much broader ecosystem than a single DeFi protocol, testing a different budget size for the Orbit domain could serve as a great proof of concept (PoC) to evaluate whether doubling down on funding for sidechains is worthwhile.
During our time in the Developer Tooling domain, we had opportunities to fund certain milestones using Arbitrum Nova. However, in the second iteration of the Developer Tooling domain, we've seen increased demand and even better results—for example, the block explorer Dora. I'd love to hear more about your reasoning behind advocating for a leaner budget in this domain rather than maintaining parity with the others.
Personally, I’m open to both outcomes for the available funding. There’s already demonstrated demand, and in the worst-case scenario, unused funds can always be returned to the DAO treasury.
Hi @JoJo , thanks for the proposal, :smiley:
I was just reading through and this thing from Orbit Chains section stood out for me
Deploy technological solutions aimed at addressing current user experience fragmentation
Hi @JoJo , thanks for the proposal, :smiley:
I was just reading through and this thing from Orbit Chains section stood out for me
Deploy technological solutions aimed at addressing current user experience fragmentation
Is there any internal roadmap for addressing user experience fragmentation? specifically regarding interoperability between Orbit chains. Is there a more thorough vision or plan in place that aims at strengthening the interaction between different chains within the Orbit ecosystem?
I've also read through the 2024-2025 Offchain Labs roadmap and loved to see interoperability as one of the core values.
I’m curious to hear your thoughts on whether it would make sense to develop a more unified block explorer that offers insights and transparency across the entire Orbit ecosystem.
Would love to hear your thoughts, and thank you again for this
Rebeca from routescan.io
Hola Don Pepe,
I’m just scrolling through the forum, answering questions about the DDA program, and sharing some thoughts from the perspective of a DA.
Hola Don Pepe,
I’m just scrolling through the forum, answering questions about the DDA program, and sharing some thoughts from the perspective of a DA.
While the incentives are certainly noteworthy for all parties involved and have been discussed extensively in previous reviews, I’m personally against them. My concern is that they could lead to "review bias," where the focus shifts towards inflating internal DA metrics rather than genuinely supporting builders and entrepreneurs who rely on grants to kickstart curiosity and project development.
The current compensation structure for DAs works well. It's designed to ensure that delegated domain allocators provide value to grantees as elected by popular vote from DAO members and delegates.
I’d love to hear other perspectives from the community, but I firmly believe that introducing such incentives could skew milestone reviews and hinder outcomes for grantees and their projects in the post-grant phase. Our role is to foster activity and innovation in the Arbitrum ecosystem—not to obsess over milestones for the sake of additional compensation. Domain Allocators already receive a standard DAO rate, which has been effective across multiple iterations of grant programs in the industry.
Hey Pedro,
Thanks for taking the time to reply on the forum! I’d love to connect and discuss the continuation of projects from the first season of the Developer Tooling Domain. If you could reach out on Telegram (@jewandidi), we can chat about successful use cases and the results achieved post-grant delivery.
Looking forward to hearing from you!
Hey Pedro,
Thanks for taking the time to reply on the forum! I’d love to connect and discuss the continuation of projects from the first season of the Developer Tooling Domain. If you could reach out on Telegram (@jewandidi), we can chat about successful use cases and the results achieved post-grant delivery.
Looking forward to hearing from you!
PS -- While JoJo's comment of not having those data points available is extremely valid as our responsibility is start-to-end, at the Developer Tooling domain we have been helping early stage infrastructure companies getting subsequent funding from formal investors and establishing a proper pitch deck and GTM strategy.
Hey DuoKong,
We could also consider reducing the initial budget for the Orbit domain, especially since other grant programs, like Compound, allocate different budgets to their domains. While Arbitrum has a much broader ecosystem than a single DeFi protocol, testing a different budget size for the Orbit domain could serve as a great proof of concept (PoC) to evaluate whether doubling down on funding for sidechains is worthwhile.
Hey DuoKong,
We could also consider reducing the initial budget for the Orbit domain, especially since other grant programs, like Compound, allocate different budgets to their domains. While Arbitrum has a much broader ecosystem than a single DeFi protocol, testing a different budget size for the Orbit domain could serve as a great proof of concept (PoC) to evaluate whether doubling down on funding for sidechains is worthwhile.
During our time in the Developer Tooling domain, we had opportunities to fund certain milestones using Arbitrum Nova. However, in the second iteration of the Developer Tooling domain, we've seen increased demand and even better results—for example, the block explorer Dora. I'd love to hear more about your reasoning behind advocating for a leaner budget in this domain rather than maintaining parity with the others.
Personally, I’m open to both outcomes for the available funding. There’s already demonstrated demand, and in the worst-case scenario, unused funds can always be returned to the DAO treasury.
Hey @JoJo - thank you for the proposal with the funniest acronym!
I think this initiative provides great value to the Arbitrum ecosystem, supporting its growth with a more streamlined process for small to medium sized grants.
Hey @JoJo - thank you for the proposal with the funniest acronym!
I think this initiative provides great value to the Arbitrum ecosystem, supporting its growth with a more streamlined process for small to medium sized grants.
As the initiative's scope is to support the Arbitrum ecosystem, I agree with the need of adding a fifth track that specifically focuses on Orbit chains. Arbitrum Orbits is a key element of the Arbitrum ecosystem and narrative, so it seems fitting for the Arbitrum D.A.O. program to have a dedicated track. I also support the decision of funding it with 750k, given its experimental nature.
One suggestion I have is for the program to work closely with other DAO-funded initiatives, such as the DAO Events budget for 2025 and the Security Services Subsidy Fund. I believe there are close synergies between the Arbitrum D.A.O. and these other initiatives, that could be used to benefit the entire Arbitrum ecosystem.
As the custodian of the 23,430,000 ARB from this proposal, the Arbitrum Foundation converted and transferred $7,477,800 USDC to the D.A.O Season 3 Program and returned the excess funds (4,923,764.32 ARB and $1,016.01 USDC) to DAO Treasury.
Due to an inadvertent inclusion of an extra $24,000 USDC in the initial transfer to the D.A.O Season 3 Program (compared to the requested $7,453,800 USDC), this amount was also returned by the program to the DAO Treasury.
Hey @JoJo - thank you for the proposal with the funniest acronym!
I think this initiative provides great value to the Arbitrum ecosystem, supporting its growth with a more streamlined process for small to medium sized grants.
Hey @JoJo - thank you for the proposal with the funniest acronym!
I think this initiative provides great value to the Arbitrum ecosystem, supporting its growth with a more streamlined process for small to medium sized grants.
As the initiative's scope is to support the Arbitrum ecosystem, I agree with the need of adding a fifth track that specifically focuses on Orbit chains. Arbitrum Orbits is a key element of the Arbitrum ecosystem and narrative, so it seems fitting for the Arbitrum D.A.O. program to have a dedicated track. I also support the decision of funding it with 750k, given its experimental nature.
One suggestion I have is for the program to work closely with other DAO-funded initiatives, such as the DAO Events budget for 2025 and the Security Services Subsidy Fund. I believe there are close synergies between the Arbitrum D.A.O. and these other initiatives, that could be used to benefit the entire Arbitrum ecosystem.
As the custodian of the 23,430,000 ARB from this proposal, the Arbitrum Foundation converted and transferred $7,477,800 USDC to the D.A.O Season 3 Program and returned the excess funds (4,923,764.32 ARB and $1,016.01 USDC) to DAO Treasury.
Due to an inadvertent inclusion of an extra $24,000 USDC in the initial transfer to the D.A.O Season 3 Program (compared to the requested $7,453,800 USDC), this amount was also returned by the program to the DAO Treasury.
Voting has ended!
===============
[Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4/proposal/2519698081138607162)
### Final Votes
| **Category** | **Result** | **Details** |
|----------------------|------------------|-----------------------------|
| **Quorum reached** | ✅ | 149.40M of 124.18M |
| **Majority Support** | ✅ | |
| **For** | | 115.65M (71.1%) |
| **Against** | | 13.33M (8.2%) |
| **Abstain** | | 33.75M (20.7%) |
* * *
I am a bot. Questions? Contact [email protected]
Onchain voting for this proposal is ending within 24 hours:
[Vote on Tally: Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4/proposal/2519698081138607162)
* * *
I am a bot. Questions? Contact [email protected]
Voting has ended!
===============
[Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4/proposal/2519698081138607162)
### Final Votes
| **Category** | **Result** | **Details** |
|----------------------|------------------|-----------------------------|
| **Quorum reached** | ✅ | 149.40M of 124.18M |
| **Majority Support** | ✅ | |
| **For** | | 115.65M (71.1%) |
| **Against** | | 13.33M (8.2%) |
| **Abstain** | | 33.75M (20.7%) |
* * *
I am a bot. Questions? Contact [email protected]
Onchain voting for this proposal is ending within 24 hours:
[Vote on Tally: Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4/proposal/2519698081138607162)
* * *
I am a bot. Questions? Contact [email protected]
Voting has started for this proposal! Vote on Tally: Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3
I am a bot. Questions? Contact [email protected]
Voting has started for this proposal! Vote on Tally: Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3
I am a bot. Questions? Contact [email protected]
Hi all,
Confirming the AF address mentioned by Jojo above, for receiving the funds: 0xb9a05fCcc841202f1ee0dEee557C6abE5cbb6615
Hi all,
Confirming the AF address mentioned by Jojo above, for receiving the funds: 0xb9a05fCcc841202f1ee0dEee557C6abE5cbb6615
Thanks for the feedback to all the delegates, @krst answering your question below.
The cost for Questbook’s platform seems rather high for the features and utility it offers. We’d like to better understand why the cost is as high as it is.
Thanks for the feedback to all the delegates, @krst answering your question below.
The cost for Questbook’s platform seems rather high for the features and utility it offers. We’d like to better understand why the cost is as high as it is.
The platform costs of Questbook are for the following reasons:
In the first season, we subsidized the costs of the product with the program manager's fee, season 2 Questbook decoupled the platform cost and the program manager fee differently so that the PM role doesn't get tied to the product itself. However, following through, even if the PM role is not tied to Questbook, the platform will still be taking care of both the legal and KYC sides, performing a semi-pm role in the background, aiding the main PM of the program.
Questbook is constantly adding new features to make the program smoother, last season we managed to automate agreement sending and KYC verification from within the Questbook platform itself. In the coming season, we will automate checks of the KYC names and the Agreement signed names automatically (previously we have been doing this manually) to make the overall application and due diligence process even smoother. We are also integrating more details like Github account proofs/other proof of works proof that a user claims in their application process using zktls to verify their claims and further improve the due diligence process and make it more trustless.
We are actively adding more checks so that things like this will be avoided automatically, giving DAs more data and proofs to work with in their due diligence process, reduing overall human error possible.
Ofcourse, we are always open to any new feature suggestions and will be adding them along the whole season per demand of the DAs and PM.
Thanks for the feedback to all the delegates, @krst answering your question below.
The cost for Questbook’s platform seems rather high for the features and utility it offers. We’d like to better understand why the cost is as high as it is.
Thanks for the feedback to all the delegates, @krst answering your question below.
The cost for Questbook’s platform seems rather high for the features and utility it offers. We’d like to better understand why the cost is as high as it is.
The platform costs of Questbook are for the following reasons:
In the first season, we subsidized the costs of the product with the program manager's fee, season 2 Questbook decoupled the platform cost and the program manager fee differently so that the PM role doesn't get tied to the product itself. However, following through, even if the PM role is not tied to Questbook, the platform will still be taking care of both the legal and KYC sides, performing a semi-pm role in the background, aiding the main PM of the program.
Questbook is constantly adding new features to make the program smoother, last season we managed to automate agreement sending and KYC verification from within the Questbook platform itself. In the coming season, we will automate checks of the KYC names and the Agreement signed names automatically (previously we have been doing this manually) to make the overall application and due diligence process even smoother. We are also integrating more details like Github account proofs/other proof of works proof that a user claims in their application process using zktls to verify their claims and further improve the due diligence process and make it more trustless.
We are actively adding more checks so that things like this will be avoided automatically, giving DAs more data and proofs to work with in their due diligence process, reduing overall human error possible.
Ofcourse, we are always open to any new feature suggestions and will be adding them along the whole season per demand of the DAs and PM.
There have been a lot of amazing projects funded so far from the second phase of the program, and we are looking forward to renewing for a third season with more improvements. Please do share any feedback here on the program to iterate on for the next season!
There have been a lot of amazing projects funded so far from the second phase of the program, and we are looking forward to renewing for a third season with more improvements. Please do share any feedback here on the program to iterate on for the next season!
That is a very bold acronym :grinning:
That is a very bold acronym :grinning:
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
While maintaining our support made at the Snapshot phase, we agree with the proposal from Entropy, which is to create an Arbitrum-branded platform for grants that is inspired by the dYdX grants initiative we are also familiar with, and echo the sentiment that SEEDGov shared and a potential proposal that is to improve the process for the next iteration in parallel.
blockful delegate team has decided to ABSTAIN.
While we acknowledge the importance of continuing grant programs (that already led us to scale ENS on Arbitrum and more) we believe that this is not the ideal timing for launching a new season. With Entropy becoming more active and the Arbitrum Foundation also playing a significant role , we see an opportunity for better alignment between the DAO, the Foundation, and OpCo regarding grant models and strategies. A more structured and well-defined approach could enhance the impact and efficiency of grant allocations . We believe that waiting for further coordination between these key stakeholders could result in a more effective framework, ensuring that the DAO’s funding mechanisms are optimized for long-term success.
blockful delegate team has decided to ABSTAIN.
While we acknowledge the importance of continuing grant programs (that already led us to scale ENS on Arbitrum and more) we believe that this is not the ideal timing for launching a new season. With Entropy becoming more active and the Arbitrum Foundation also playing a significant role , we see an opportunity for better alignment between the DAO, the Foundation, and OpCo regarding grant models and strategies. A more structured and well-defined approach could enhance the impact and efficiency of grant allocations . We believe that waiting for further coordination between these key stakeholders could result in a more effective framework, ensuring that the DAO’s funding mechanisms are optimized for long-term success.
For these reasons, blockful has chosen to abstain from this vote .
I voted FOR to this proposal in Tally. This is the rationale below:
I vote FOR this initiative, as it is clear that both previous seasons have yielded positive results, bootstrapping relevant platforms and protocols with funding enough to start operating, even if the number of completed projects sharply dropped in the second season.
This is why I applaud the new changes coming to increase the level of scrutiny over grantees, including the KYC measures, the video call, and the conditioned release of the final percentage of the grants.
I vote FOR this initiative, as it is clear that both previous seasons have yielded positive results, bootstrapping relevant platforms and protocols with funding enough to start operating, even if the number of completed projects sharply dropped in the second season.
This is why I applaud the new changes coming to increase the level of scrutiny over grantees, including the KYC measures, the video call, and the conditioned release of the final percentage of the grants.
The meticulous description of the domains and the proposal operation is also appreciated, given that some proposals avoid giving the necessary explanations to sufficiently detail their inner workings.
I voted FOR this proposal on Tally. I think it's helpful for the DAO to a small grants funding mechanism, and I really appreciate the level of work and effort put into designing the v3 program by JoJo and team.
DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal on Tally.
We supported the temp check on the premise that an updated spreadsheet be provided before the onchain vote. This was provided by Jojo and after reviewing the data, we were happy to maintain our support.
this comment above by the @Tally_Support bot is not correct, the voting period as not yet ended since the voting period was extended because of a late quorum.
The proposal is still available to be voted on for the next 27 hours, at https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/47215139570733026393508270943324710379923699871435188004224569883226292800465?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4
I believe this is a worthwhile initiative that can significantly enhance Arbitrum's standing in the Layer 2 space and the broader blockchain industry. They have a proven track record of success, and I’m for it.
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
While maintaining our support made at the Snapshot phase, we agree with the proposal from Entropy, which is to create an Arbitrum-branded platform for grants that is inspired by the dYdX grants initiative we are also familiar with, and echo the sentiment that SEEDGov shared and a potential proposal that is to improve the process for the next iteration in parallel.
blockful delegate team has decided to ABSTAIN.
While we acknowledge the importance of continuing grant programs (that already led us to scale ENS on Arbitrum and more) we believe that this is not the ideal timing for launching a new season. With Entropy becoming more active and the Arbitrum Foundation also playing a significant role , we see an opportunity for better alignment between the DAO, the Foundation, and OpCo regarding grant models and strategies. A more structured and well-defined approach could enhance the impact and efficiency of grant allocations . We believe that waiting for further coordination between these key stakeholders could result in a more effective framework, ensuring that the DAO’s funding mechanisms are optimized for long-term success.
blockful delegate team has decided to ABSTAIN.
While we acknowledge the importance of continuing grant programs (that already led us to scale ENS on Arbitrum and more) we believe that this is not the ideal timing for launching a new season. With Entropy becoming more active and the Arbitrum Foundation also playing a significant role , we see an opportunity for better alignment between the DAO, the Foundation, and OpCo regarding grant models and strategies. A more structured and well-defined approach could enhance the impact and efficiency of grant allocations . We believe that waiting for further coordination between these key stakeholders could result in a more effective framework, ensuring that the DAO’s funding mechanisms are optimized for long-term success.
For these reasons, blockful has chosen to abstain from this vote .
I voted FOR to this proposal in Tally. This is the rationale below:
I vote FOR this initiative, as it is clear that both previous seasons have yielded positive results, bootstrapping relevant platforms and protocols with funding enough to start operating, even if the number of completed projects sharply dropped in the second season.
This is why I applaud the new changes coming to increase the level of scrutiny over grantees, including the KYC measures, the video call, and the conditioned release of the final percentage of the grants.
I vote FOR this initiative, as it is clear that both previous seasons have yielded positive results, bootstrapping relevant platforms and protocols with funding enough to start operating, even if the number of completed projects sharply dropped in the second season.
This is why I applaud the new changes coming to increase the level of scrutiny over grantees, including the KYC measures, the video call, and the conditioned release of the final percentage of the grants.
The meticulous description of the domains and the proposal operation is also appreciated, given that some proposals avoid giving the necessary explanations to sufficiently detail their inner workings.
I voted FOR this proposal on Tally. I think it's helpful for the DAO to a small grants funding mechanism, and I really appreciate the level of work and effort put into designing the v3 program by JoJo and team.
DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal on Tally.
We supported the temp check on the premise that an updated spreadsheet be provided before the onchain vote. This was provided by Jojo and after reviewing the data, we were happy to maintain our support.
this comment above by the @Tally_Support bot is not correct, the voting period as not yet ended since the voting period was extended because of a late quorum.
The proposal is still available to be voted on for the next 27 hours, at https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/47215139570733026393508270943324710379923699871435188004224569883226292800465?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4
I believe this is a worthwhile initiative that can significantly enhance Arbitrum's standing in the Layer 2 space and the broader blockchain industry. They have a proven track record of success, and I’m for it.
this comment above by the @Tally_Support bot is not correct, the voting period as not yet ended since the voting period was extended because of a late quorum.
The proposal is still available to be voted on for the next 27 hours, at https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/47215139570733026393508270943324710379923699871435188004224569883226292800465?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4
LobbyFi voted abstain on this proposal, with this proposal being the first one to be closed on our side since the smart contract upgrade we conducted. The update changed the logic of the auction so that a threshold of 10% from the instant buy is to be reached by one of the pools in order to be eligible for the VP, otherwise abstain vote is cast. Since we did not see a lot of activity in our auction for this proposal (and the threshold was not reached), LobbyFi voted abstain here.
I vote FOR this proposal.
Grant programs play a key role in DAO growth. Since this is already Season 3, we have a clear understanding of its impact and execution. I support continuing the program.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas. It’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We’re voting FOR the proposal.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas. It’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We’re voting FOR the proposal.
When we cast our vote during temp-check, we raised 5 points that we’d like to see addressed before being comfortable voting in favor of the proposal onchain. We appreciate the amount of time and effort @Jojo put into addressing our feedback both on the forums and in private, as well as that of other delegates.
Although we voted to continue the program with just the original four domains, we’re happy to see the DAO approving Max Lomu to lead the Orbit domain and believe he’ll do good work as its domain allocator. We’re also pleased to see Questbook’s reduced cost relative to Snapshot.
We’d like to point out one thing, even though it's not a deal-breaker. As things are, Jojo is to receive a retroactive compensation of 24,000 ARB (to be delegated for at least 180 days) after feedback that his compensation as PM was lower than that of DAs. We understand that this is meant to mitigate the difference in the compensation between the PM and DAs, and it’s not necessarily compensation for drafting the proposal.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Tally Vote.
First of all, and in line with our internal policy, we decided to abstain as we have economic interests at stake in this proposal.
That said, we would like to add our perspective regarding the discussions that have taken place in recent days:
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Tally Vote.
First of all, and in line with our internal policy, we decided to abstain as we have economic interests at stake in this proposal.
That said, we would like to add our perspective regarding the discussions that have taken place in recent days:
It is true that the program currently saves the DAO from significant operational headaches. Considering that there were over 500 applicants in Season 2, we are certain it would be unfeasible for delegates to analyze, negotiate, and vote on each proposal individually. A few examples of this are the recent proposals in the forum requesting less than 50k, which have been "Sent to Questbook." Another case is the dozens of Stylus-related proposals that met the same fate due to budgetary constraints.
However, the other side of the coin shows that this alone cannot be sufficient reason to rush or delay a third iteration. We understand @Entropy’s argument that the focus should be on significantly improving the program. Given this, building a proper Arbitrum-branded platform for managing grant programs is not something that can be done quickly. The downside of delaying the program itself to achieve this could be very costly for the DAO and for delegates in terms of operational overload (although it is also true that the DAO could simply tell applicants to “wait until the new program is ready,” but that would also be a suboptimal solution).
Perhaps the ideal approach would be that, if this proposal is approved on Tally, a parallel initiative should begin to develop this platform so that it can be used in the future for this program and others (such as the previously mentioned Stylus Sprint).
Regarding the alignment of the program with the DAO’s objectives: We believe that the program has demonstrated alignment, even though the objectives are not yet fully defined. The reality is that the DAO (and we dare say also AF/OCL) has shown interest in the verticals proposed by the Domains if we analyze each one:
Education, Community Growth, and Events:
Gaming:
Dev Tooling:
New Protocols and Ideas:
Orbit Chains:
Yes, it is true—the program has a lot of room for improvement. It is also true that it is difficult to improve it properly without taking a step back to review past performance and gather feedback on how to move forward. However, in this case, there were at least two or three months to propose improvements before the on-chain vote.
What cannot be ignored is that the program has proven to add value to the ecosystem. This is not just another initiative that can be shut down overnight for the sake of "cleaning house."
Despite our abstention, we hope this proposal will be approved. We are more than willing to support @JoJo and other stakeholders in a parallel improvement process for the next iteration (or even for the second half of the program, if operationally viable).
We understand that the ARDC’s ongoing research into the program will provide valuable insights on what can be improved and what aspects of the program are already strong.
I voted FOR on Tally. I think it's important to have a grants program running, because we need a stream of new and innovative dApps in order to get to a few home runs which would bring a lot of users and liquidity to Arbitrum.
I understand that there can be improvements in the grants program, like @Entropy suggested, but I think it is not wise to vote against this proposal for something that may be better and it's not clear when it will come.
I voted FOR on Tally. I think it's important to have a grants program running, because we need a stream of new and innovative dApps in order to get to a few home runs which would bring a lot of users and liquidity to Arbitrum.
I understand that there can be improvements in the grants program, like @Entropy suggested, but I think it is not wise to vote against this proposal for something that may be better and it's not clear when it will come.
Also, I don't mind having two (or even more) grant programs running in parallel. So if Entropy (or someone else) comes up with an even better grants program a few months from now, I'm willing to support that one too. As I said, we need innovative dApps, preferably targeting end users, and with a great mobile UX.
Thanks Paulo, Tally will work on a fix for the bot to include late quorum extension.
I am voting FOR this proposal on Tally. The grant program is a positive initiative for Arbitrum. I agree with Danielo that this program serves as a gateway for new contributors. Several people have approached me with ideas or projects interested in collaborating with Arbitrum or looking for support, and I typically direct them to Questbook.
I have confidence in each domain PM’s ability to select high-potential projects for the ecosystem. At the same time, I believe a systematic and standardized evaluation framework could further improve transparency and give us a more complete way of assessing proposals. It will also be important to factor in the Strategic Objectives that the DAO eventually sets, to ensure all funded projects align with our long-term vision.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation. Voting FOR. Below the rationale:
Thank you for the answer @Entropy. I would like to take the time to go toward some statements here. Understanding thanks to your introduction that the vote is not personal (and I would have not taken in that regard anyway), let me premise something: my following answer is not adversarial, but in an historical moment in the DAO in which seems like we could see a "change of sentiment", is worth dotting the i and crossing the t.
Thank you for the answer @Entropy. I would like to take the time to go toward some statements here. Understanding thanks to your introduction that the vote is not personal (and I would have not taken in that regard anyway), let me premise something: my following answer is not adversarial, but in an historical moment in the DAO in which seems like we could see a "change of sentiment", is worth dotting the i and crossing the t.
This is true in everything, both in our DAO and in life as well
As it currently stands, the grants program is too separated from the DAO’s other strategies in our opinion.
Is important to define what we mean here for separation. If for separation you mean: not connected to initiatives currently in discussion like the SOS one, I can agree just even from a timing perspective. From a context perspective, tho, it might be useful to revisit some points of the initial proposal as well:
This new season will also improve tracking of grantee progress after funding and facilitate fast-tracking of exceptional projects into other DAO initiatives, such as Arbitrum Foundation programs and the GCP.
The rubric will also be modified to put emphasis on Telegram’s tooling such as trading bots, fairly available in other ecosystems but less widespread in Arbitrum.
The above are just 3 examples of the ideation that has happened, in the past 4 months, with the Arbitrum Foundation. To name one, the telegram vertical was an explicit input from the AF. The goal here is not to build a siloed program that will distribute $6-7M dollars, but allow for the growth of verticals and initiatives that are deemed valuable and being worked on by others as well. In general, the approach is the following: a 1 year program is extremely long in our DAO. I am pretty sure that priorities and narratives will take different shapes and evolve over time. The program will adapt as well, and the meetings with stakeholder will be a way to steer what we think is worth financing over time.
Given that the Arbitrum Foundation is capable of giving out grants in the interim and that this would be the third iteration of the program
For sure the AF is capable of operate in a more lean and efficient way. But one of the premise of the program as always been the following:
Introductory Grant Program: It fills the gap of Arbitrum Foundation grants (usually starting at $50,000, up to $150,000), serving as an entry-level program in our ecosystem.
As said above, there is always margin of improvement. Now, I find this statement quite inconsistent with the reality of a forum in which, in the last few months, we have had several requests of grants to which several delegates have answered "it should go to the new season of D.A.O. grants". Even the stylus program (to which you were PM, and I was part of the committee) has had tens and more proposals in which the judgment has been "rejection, but is worth pushing to the new season of D.A.O. grants". As a final note, in the last year we have had several grantees applying because "the arbitrum foundation did send them to the (ex-Questbook) program". Again: there is A LOT of margin of improvement. But this new course of the DAO can't make us being inconsistent with our past, even the most recent past like the Stylus program.
I want to briefly touch base on this number. I personally think we don't have the most efficient cost, but this also comes from the fact that the orbit domain has half of the funding of the domains; we would be below 10% if that was fully allocated. But this is more of a nuance than a fact. I want to pick the most recent grant iteration program we had, Stylus, to try and make a comparison. In Stylus we have 7 members running it at a cost of 300k ARB in a year out of a 5M ARB grant budget. But of these 7 members, only 4 are on payroll (me, seed, michael and gustavo from OZ). If we would have had the others on payroll as well, we would have accrued a cost of 450k ARB in a year, a proportion that is quite similar to the one proposed here. We could have indeed achieved the same operational efficiency in the D.A.O. program with, for example, Entropy running a couple of domains, or with the help of other unpaid members to be clear. It's also worth mentioning a big difference: the amount of hours necessary for the D.A.O. program compared to the stylus one is higher, just because of the amount of applications and of the more granular nature of it, with Stylus oriented toward few big impactful grants, and D.A.O. program more oriented toward introductory grants. Don't get me wrong, I am purposely nitpicky here. Mine is not a critique, but we need to take in account that the same numbers, in this case budget numbers, can just have behind different stories once you go in the details.
This is something that we should in general explore. We already spoke about this topic several times.
We would also like to further refine/cement the grant review process to ensure that grant recipients are of high caliber and that there are proper processes in place to ensure that recipients follow through with their original promises.
I want to end on a high note. I think @Entropy can give an extremely good contribution to the program without being directly involved in it, through a more detailed feedback on what we can realistically be done without breaking the terms of the proposal. As the PM, I will gladly listen to everybody and try to tune the program as much as I can toward the DAO's expectation. From a practical standpoint, I am eager for example to see the results of the SOS proposal, and see if the budget and rules of the D.A.O. program can contribute toward that.
Finally, despite the opposing vote, I want to thank @Entropy for their feedback. A dissenting voice, when it comes from someone who shares your passion and mission, can be extremely valuable and helpful in elevating you toward the goals you are striving to achieve.
I decided to vote FOR on Tally. I remain with the same reasoning as the snapshot vote.
voting FOR the current onchain proposal because all things considered, I think there's more pros than cons (barely) and the DAO needs an active grant program (up to $50k) right now. There's a bunch of details I don't agree with this is proposal to be honest, but all in all, it gets my For vote.
The issue with not having this program is exemplified by proposals like sponsoring ETH Bucharest: the DAO votes to be present there, but it lacks the ability to negotiate terms, secure speakers or content before approving funds, ensure booth presence, or exercise sufficient oversight (this is not a criticism of the proposal or those in charge of executing it, just a fact).
I am voting FOR this proposal on Tally.
I think this proposal will improve accountability, and support the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem. Im also voting for based on the members of the team, wich i consider they had a lot success on the results of season 1 and 2 (which I believe the completion rate is still in progress).
I am voting FOR this proposal on Tally.
I think this proposal will improve accountability, and support the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem. Im also voting for based on the members of the team, wich i consider they had a lot success on the results of season 1 and 2 (which I believe the completion rate is still in progress).
I liked to see what will happen now with the orbit domain… Thank you for all the time and effort on this program. I belive this program will help to bring a lot of new users to arbitrum.
Voted FOR
lacking other mechanisms, these programs provide a needed entry-gate. I do hope we'll continue to experiment with investments and offering non-financial support to projects so we can increase the ROI of capital deployments. Grants should be paused/restructured but it's too early to pause them now as there's only 1 pilot of investment programs
Voted For: Since Arbitrum DAO launched, there have been so many grant programs for different stages and levels of builders, run by different teams. So much experimentation was already done. This was a great way to see what works and what does not so much. Today, we can see that Arbitrum D.A.O. is a program that brings good results, it's simple for builders to understand, and most of all, it has an awesome team like Jojo and other domain allocators as part of the program.
At the moment, there are a lot of builders waiting for this program to pass so they can apply and hope to receive a grant. We even publicly instructed many projects here on the forum to wait with their proposals for this program to pass and apply there. This really shows how much burden this program carries for the DAO. This is why I decided to support this proposal.
First and foremost, we want to highlight that @JoJo has proven himself as an extremely high-quality executor on behalf of the DAO’s grants program, and our decision to vote against has nothing to do with the competency of any particular individual.
With that said, we believe that grants are one of the most important programs the DAO runs, as it is often the first time a new builder touches the Arbitrum ecosystem. Arbitrum DAO should strive to offer one of the best grant programs in the industry. When looking into past results and taking into account the ~$700k in operational overhead, we believe there is room for improvement. As it currently stands, the grants program is too separated from the DAO’s other strategies in our opinion. Given that the Arbitrum Foundation is capable of giving out grants in the interim and that this would be the third iteration of the program, it is time the DAO took a more methodical, professional approach in how it allocates capital for grants rather than rushing to get something put together for the sake of having something.
I decided to confirm my vote in favor of this proposal for the same reasons as those expressed during the temp-check: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/83
We previously voted FOR the snapshot of this but having further considered the state of the DAO and spending we believe a freeze of all non-essential spending is needed until a cleanup has taken place. We have therefore voted AGAINST this proposal on Tally.
Voting abstain on Tally - based on what I was able to research the program has been successful in Season 1, with Season 2 still tbd. In my opinion we should focus on doubling down on Season 2 participants and handhold them a bit further.
Having coached Start-Ups on behalf of incubators I wonder if we are doing any of it? The program talks about monitoring projects, but wouldn’t it be smarter to coach them in domains we as DAO are good at/can help them a hand to be successful? An Example is Lido Alliance but any Web2 Accelerator Program is doing it at some level i.e., giving money + expertise to make sure the money is “well invested”.
I voted FOR on Tally. The reasoning remains the same.
this comment above by the @Tally_Support bot is not correct, the voting period as not yet ended since the voting period was extended because of a late quorum.
The proposal is still available to be voted on for the next 27 hours, at https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/47215139570733026393508270943324710379923699871435188004224569883226292800465?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4
LobbyFi voted abstain on this proposal, with this proposal being the first one to be closed on our side since the smart contract upgrade we conducted. The update changed the logic of the auction so that a threshold of 10% from the instant buy is to be reached by one of the pools in order to be eligible for the VP, otherwise abstain vote is cast. Since we did not see a lot of activity in our auction for this proposal (and the threshold was not reached), LobbyFi voted abstain here.
I vote FOR this proposal.
Grant programs play a key role in DAO growth. Since this is already Season 3, we have a clear understanding of its impact and execution. I support continuing the program.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas. It’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We’re voting FOR the proposal.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas. It’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We’re voting FOR the proposal.
When we cast our vote during temp-check, we raised 5 points that we’d like to see addressed before being comfortable voting in favor of the proposal onchain. We appreciate the amount of time and effort @Jojo put into addressing our feedback both on the forums and in private, as well as that of other delegates.
Although we voted to continue the program with just the original four domains, we’re happy to see the DAO approving Max Lomu to lead the Orbit domain and believe he’ll do good work as its domain allocator. We’re also pleased to see Questbook’s reduced cost relative to Snapshot.
We’d like to point out one thing, even though it's not a deal-breaker. As things are, Jojo is to receive a retroactive compensation of 24,000 ARB (to be delegated for at least 180 days) after feedback that his compensation as PM was lower than that of DAs. We understand that this is meant to mitigate the difference in the compensation between the PM and DAs, and it’s not necessarily compensation for drafting the proposal.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Tally Vote.
First of all, and in line with our internal policy, we decided to abstain as we have economic interests at stake in this proposal.
That said, we would like to add our perspective regarding the discussions that have taken place in recent days:
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Tally Vote.
First of all, and in line with our internal policy, we decided to abstain as we have economic interests at stake in this proposal.
That said, we would like to add our perspective regarding the discussions that have taken place in recent days:
It is true that the program currently saves the DAO from significant operational headaches. Considering that there were over 500 applicants in Season 2, we are certain it would be unfeasible for delegates to analyze, negotiate, and vote on each proposal individually. A few examples of this are the recent proposals in the forum requesting less than 50k, which have been "Sent to Questbook." Another case is the dozens of Stylus-related proposals that met the same fate due to budgetary constraints.
However, the other side of the coin shows that this alone cannot be sufficient reason to rush or delay a third iteration. We understand @Entropy’s argument that the focus should be on significantly improving the program. Given this, building a proper Arbitrum-branded platform for managing grant programs is not something that can be done quickly. The downside of delaying the program itself to achieve this could be very costly for the DAO and for delegates in terms of operational overload (although it is also true that the DAO could simply tell applicants to “wait until the new program is ready,” but that would also be a suboptimal solution).
Perhaps the ideal approach would be that, if this proposal is approved on Tally, a parallel initiative should begin to develop this platform so that it can be used in the future for this program and others (such as the previously mentioned Stylus Sprint).
Regarding the alignment of the program with the DAO’s objectives: We believe that the program has demonstrated alignment, even though the objectives are not yet fully defined. The reality is that the DAO (and we dare say also AF/OCL) has shown interest in the verticals proposed by the Domains if we analyze each one:
Education, Community Growth, and Events:
Gaming:
Dev Tooling:
New Protocols and Ideas:
Orbit Chains:
Yes, it is true—the program has a lot of room for improvement. It is also true that it is difficult to improve it properly without taking a step back to review past performance and gather feedback on how to move forward. However, in this case, there were at least two or three months to propose improvements before the on-chain vote.
What cannot be ignored is that the program has proven to add value to the ecosystem. This is not just another initiative that can be shut down overnight for the sake of "cleaning house."
Despite our abstention, we hope this proposal will be approved. We are more than willing to support @JoJo and other stakeholders in a parallel improvement process for the next iteration (or even for the second half of the program, if operationally viable).
We understand that the ARDC’s ongoing research into the program will provide valuable insights on what can be improved and what aspects of the program are already strong.
I voted FOR on Tally. I think it's important to have a grants program running, because we need a stream of new and innovative dApps in order to get to a few home runs which would bring a lot of users and liquidity to Arbitrum.
I understand that there can be improvements in the grants program, like @Entropy suggested, but I think it is not wise to vote against this proposal for something that may be better and it's not clear when it will come.
I voted FOR on Tally. I think it's important to have a grants program running, because we need a stream of new and innovative dApps in order to get to a few home runs which would bring a lot of users and liquidity to Arbitrum.
I understand that there can be improvements in the grants program, like @Entropy suggested, but I think it is not wise to vote against this proposal for something that may be better and it's not clear when it will come.
Also, I don't mind having two (or even more) grant programs running in parallel. So if Entropy (or someone else) comes up with an even better grants program a few months from now, I'm willing to support that one too. As I said, we need innovative dApps, preferably targeting end users, and with a great mobile UX.
Thanks Paulo, Tally will work on a fix for the bot to include late quorum extension.
I am voting FOR this proposal on Tally. The grant program is a positive initiative for Arbitrum. I agree with Danielo that this program serves as a gateway for new contributors. Several people have approached me with ideas or projects interested in collaborating with Arbitrum or looking for support, and I typically direct them to Questbook.
I have confidence in each domain PM’s ability to select high-potential projects for the ecosystem. At the same time, I believe a systematic and standardized evaluation framework could further improve transparency and give us a more complete way of assessing proposals. It will also be important to factor in the Strategic Objectives that the DAO eventually sets, to ensure all funded projects align with our long-term vision.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation. Voting FOR. Below the rationale:
Thank you for the answer @Entropy. I would like to take the time to go toward some statements here. Understanding thanks to your introduction that the vote is not personal (and I would have not taken in that regard anyway), let me premise something: my following answer is not adversarial, but in an historical moment in the DAO in which seems like we could see a "change of sentiment", is worth dotting the i and crossing the t.
Thank you for the answer @Entropy. I would like to take the time to go toward some statements here. Understanding thanks to your introduction that the vote is not personal (and I would have not taken in that regard anyway), let me premise something: my following answer is not adversarial, but in an historical moment in the DAO in which seems like we could see a "change of sentiment", is worth dotting the i and crossing the t.
This is true in everything, both in our DAO and in life as well
As it currently stands, the grants program is too separated from the DAO’s other strategies in our opinion.
Is important to define what we mean here for separation. If for separation you mean: not connected to initiatives currently in discussion like the SOS one, I can agree just even from a timing perspective. From a context perspective, tho, it might be useful to revisit some points of the initial proposal as well:
This new season will also improve tracking of grantee progress after funding and facilitate fast-tracking of exceptional projects into other DAO initiatives, such as Arbitrum Foundation programs and the GCP.
The rubric will also be modified to put emphasis on Telegram’s tooling such as trading bots, fairly available in other ecosystems but less widespread in Arbitrum.
The above are just 3 examples of the ideation that has happened, in the past 4 months, with the Arbitrum Foundation. To name one, the telegram vertical was an explicit input from the AF. The goal here is not to build a siloed program that will distribute $6-7M dollars, but allow for the growth of verticals and initiatives that are deemed valuable and being worked on by others as well. In general, the approach is the following: a 1 year program is extremely long in our DAO. I am pretty sure that priorities and narratives will take different shapes and evolve over time. The program will adapt as well, and the meetings with stakeholder will be a way to steer what we think is worth financing over time.
Given that the Arbitrum Foundation is capable of giving out grants in the interim and that this would be the third iteration of the program
For sure the AF is capable of operate in a more lean and efficient way. But one of the premise of the program as always been the following:
Introductory Grant Program: It fills the gap of Arbitrum Foundation grants (usually starting at $50,000, up to $150,000), serving as an entry-level program in our ecosystem.
As said above, there is always margin of improvement. Now, I find this statement quite inconsistent with the reality of a forum in which, in the last few months, we have had several requests of grants to which several delegates have answered "it should go to the new season of D.A.O. grants". Even the stylus program (to which you were PM, and I was part of the committee) has had tens and more proposals in which the judgment has been "rejection, but is worth pushing to the new season of D.A.O. grants". As a final note, in the last year we have had several grantees applying because "the arbitrum foundation did send them to the (ex-Questbook) program". Again: there is A LOT of margin of improvement. But this new course of the DAO can't make us being inconsistent with our past, even the most recent past like the Stylus program.
I want to briefly touch base on this number. I personally think we don't have the most efficient cost, but this also comes from the fact that the orbit domain has half of the funding of the domains; we would be below 10% if that was fully allocated. But this is more of a nuance than a fact. I want to pick the most recent grant iteration program we had, Stylus, to try and make a comparison. In Stylus we have 7 members running it at a cost of 300k ARB in a year out of a 5M ARB grant budget. But of these 7 members, only 4 are on payroll (me, seed, michael and gustavo from OZ). If we would have had the others on payroll as well, we would have accrued a cost of 450k ARB in a year, a proportion that is quite similar to the one proposed here. We could have indeed achieved the same operational efficiency in the D.A.O. program with, for example, Entropy running a couple of domains, or with the help of other unpaid members to be clear. It's also worth mentioning a big difference: the amount of hours necessary for the D.A.O. program compared to the stylus one is higher, just because of the amount of applications and of the more granular nature of it, with Stylus oriented toward few big impactful grants, and D.A.O. program more oriented toward introductory grants. Don't get me wrong, I am purposely nitpicky here. Mine is not a critique, but we need to take in account that the same numbers, in this case budget numbers, can just have behind different stories once you go in the details.
This is something that we should in general explore. We already spoke about this topic several times.
We would also like to further refine/cement the grant review process to ensure that grant recipients are of high caliber and that there are proper processes in place to ensure that recipients follow through with their original promises.
I want to end on a high note. I think @Entropy can give an extremely good contribution to the program without being directly involved in it, through a more detailed feedback on what we can realistically be done without breaking the terms of the proposal. As the PM, I will gladly listen to everybody and try to tune the program as much as I can toward the DAO's expectation. From a practical standpoint, I am eager for example to see the results of the SOS proposal, and see if the budget and rules of the D.A.O. program can contribute toward that.
Finally, despite the opposing vote, I want to thank @Entropy for their feedback. A dissenting voice, when it comes from someone who shares your passion and mission, can be extremely valuable and helpful in elevating you toward the goals you are striving to achieve.
I decided to vote FOR on Tally. I remain with the same reasoning as the snapshot vote.
voting FOR the current onchain proposal because all things considered, I think there's more pros than cons (barely) and the DAO needs an active grant program (up to $50k) right now. There's a bunch of details I don't agree with this is proposal to be honest, but all in all, it gets my For vote.
The issue with not having this program is exemplified by proposals like sponsoring ETH Bucharest: the DAO votes to be present there, but it lacks the ability to negotiate terms, secure speakers or content before approving funds, ensure booth presence, or exercise sufficient oversight (this is not a criticism of the proposal or those in charge of executing it, just a fact).
I am voting FOR this proposal on Tally.
I think this proposal will improve accountability, and support the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem. Im also voting for based on the members of the team, wich i consider they had a lot success on the results of season 1 and 2 (which I believe the completion rate is still in progress).
I am voting FOR this proposal on Tally.
I think this proposal will improve accountability, and support the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem. Im also voting for based on the members of the team, wich i consider they had a lot success on the results of season 1 and 2 (which I believe the completion rate is still in progress).
I liked to see what will happen now with the orbit domain… Thank you for all the time and effort on this program. I belive this program will help to bring a lot of new users to arbitrum.
Voted FOR
lacking other mechanisms, these programs provide a needed entry-gate. I do hope we'll continue to experiment with investments and offering non-financial support to projects so we can increase the ROI of capital deployments. Grants should be paused/restructured but it's too early to pause them now as there's only 1 pilot of investment programs
Voted For: Since Arbitrum DAO launched, there have been so many grant programs for different stages and levels of builders, run by different teams. So much experimentation was already done. This was a great way to see what works and what does not so much. Today, we can see that Arbitrum D.A.O. is a program that brings good results, it's simple for builders to understand, and most of all, it has an awesome team like Jojo and other domain allocators as part of the program.
At the moment, there are a lot of builders waiting for this program to pass so they can apply and hope to receive a grant. We even publicly instructed many projects here on the forum to wait with their proposals for this program to pass and apply there. This really shows how much burden this program carries for the DAO. This is why I decided to support this proposal.
First and foremost, we want to highlight that @JoJo has proven himself as an extremely high-quality executor on behalf of the DAO’s grants program, and our decision to vote against has nothing to do with the competency of any particular individual.
With that said, we believe that grants are one of the most important programs the DAO runs, as it is often the first time a new builder touches the Arbitrum ecosystem. Arbitrum DAO should strive to offer one of the best grant programs in the industry. When looking into past results and taking into account the ~$700k in operational overhead, we believe there is room for improvement. As it currently stands, the grants program is too separated from the DAO’s other strategies in our opinion. Given that the Arbitrum Foundation is capable of giving out grants in the interim and that this would be the third iteration of the program, it is time the DAO took a more methodical, professional approach in how it allocates capital for grants rather than rushing to get something put together for the sake of having something.
I decided to confirm my vote in favor of this proposal for the same reasons as those expressed during the temp-check: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/83
We previously voted FOR the snapshot of this but having further considered the state of the DAO and spending we believe a freeze of all non-essential spending is needed until a cleanup has taken place. We have therefore voted AGAINST this proposal on Tally.
Voting abstain on Tally - based on what I was able to research the program has been successful in Season 1, with Season 2 still tbd. In my opinion we should focus on doubling down on Season 2 participants and handhold them a bit further.
Having coached Start-Ups on behalf of incubators I wonder if we are doing any of it? The program talks about monitoring projects, but wouldn’t it be smarter to coach them in domains we as DAO are good at/can help them a hand to be successful? An Example is Lido Alliance but any Web2 Accelerator Program is doing it at some level i.e., giving money + expertise to make sure the money is “well invested”.
I voted FOR on Tally. The reasoning remains the same.
The issue with not having this program is exemplified by proposals like sponsoring ETH Bucharest: the DAO votes to be present there, but it lacks the ability to negotiate terms, secure speakers or content before approving funds, ensure booth presence, or exercise sufficient oversight (this is not a criticism of the proposal or those in charge of executing it, just a fact).
I think there's another side to this example, which is, since ETH Bucharest went directly to the DAO, it will need to report directly to the DAO on the outcomes it will produce, which is inherently a much higher bar to aim for, at least much higher than the current expectations for a typical questbook events grant in my opinion.
First and foremost, we want to highlight that @JoJo has proven himself as an extremely high-quality executor on behalf of the DAO’s grants program, and our decision to vote against has nothing to do with the competency of any particular individual.
With that said, we believe that grants are one of the most important programs the DAO runs, as it is often the first time a new builder touches the Arbitrum ecosystem. Arbitrum DAO should strive to offer one of the best grant programs in the industry. When looking into past results and taking into account the ~$700k in operational overhead, we believe there is room for improvement. As it currently stands, the grants program is too separated from the DAO’s other strategies in our opinion. Given that the Arbitrum Foundation is capable of giving out grants in the interim and that this would be the third iteration of the program, it is time the DAO took a more methodical, professional approach in how it allocates capital for grants rather than rushing to get something put together for the sake of having something.
In practice, we are strongly in favor of creating a DAO-owned, Arbitrum-branded platform for grant workflows. The dYdX grant page is an excellent example of a frontend that the Entropy team admires and believes the DAO can emulate. We would also like to further refine/cement the grant review process to ensure that grant recipients are of high caliber and that there are proper processes in place to ensure that recipients follow through with their original promises.
While this is just our opinion, and our vote is unlikely to change the outcome of the grants program vote, our “Against” vote is in-line with our preference that this iteration of the program should be striving for perfection.
Voting abstain on Tally - based on what I was able to research the program has been successful in Season 1, with Season 2 still tbd. In my opinion we should focus on doubling down on Season 2 participants and handhold them a bit further.
Having coached Start-Ups on behalf of incubators I wonder if we are doing any of it? The program talks about monitoring projects, but wouldn’t it be smarter to coach them in domains we as DAO are good at/can help them a hand to be successful? An Example is Lido Alliance but any Web2 Accelerator Program is doing it at some level i.e., giving money + expertise to make sure the money is “well invested”.
On the other side I have faith in Jojo and team to act in the best interest of the ecosystem, hence I am torn and abstain.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting.
Many people want to contribute to the ecosystem, but not all require a full DAO proposal. This program fills the gap by providing structured support and funding to promising projects that can later grow into larger ecosystem players. Without such an initiative, valuable ideas and teams may struggle to get support.
Hence, this program serves as the entry gate for new teams and contributors who want to build on Arbitrum but may not yet have the scale or visibility to seek direct DAO funding.
Regarding the Orbit domain, we previously voted in favor of its inclusion during Snapshot voting, and we continue to support it in this vote. We believe that @maxlomu will manage this domain effectively, ensuring it supports and grows Orbit and aligns with the domain's goals.
We also have confidence that all elected Domain Allocators (DAs) will manage their domains responsibly, supporting deserving projects while ensuring past mistakes reported by @Entropy from DDA 2.0 are avoided.
Lastly, as mentioned by @Juanrah as well, Strategic Objectives for the DAO are being set up, we expect this program to align with MVP and SOS once it is up. This alignment will help ensure that the funded projects contribute meaningfully to Arbitrum’s and community member's long-term vision.
With these considerations, we are confident in supporting this proposal.
Thank you @JoJo for explanation. Helps a lot. :+1:
Hello. I think your numbers are not precise.
Hello. I think your numbers are not precise.
So current increase is $29k or 24%.
The main reason is that in previous season, through the bundling of PM + Platform, it was possible to save some costs. This time instead, the PM will have a more active role in the program, with duties spanning from proper reporting (in calls and texts) to internally directing specific projects to other DAO initiatives.
I'm voting FOR this proposal on Tally and Event Horizon. My rationale hasn't changed much since temp-check:
I’ve personally witnessed the tangible benefits this program has brought to individuals I know. It has empowered them to bring their ideas to life, which speaks volumes about its impact. Programs like this are vital for boosting innovation and creativity within our ecosystem.
I'm voting FOR this proposal on Tally and Event Horizon. My rationale hasn't changed much since temp-check:
I’ve personally witnessed the tangible benefits this program has brought to individuals I know. It has empowered them to bring their ideas to life, which speaks volumes about its impact. Programs like this are vital for boosting innovation and creativity within our ecosystem.
Also, the addition of Orbit to the framework will definitely help further boost its adoption and expand its reach. It’s a strategic move, and I’m excited to see the outcomes it will bring.
Furthermore, I'm also glad on the DA's that were elected for this season and trust they'll do a great work. Congratulations again to @JoJo , @Juandi , @SEEDGov , @CastleCapital , @Flook and @maxlomu , y'all have a great responsibility and I'm confident you will be allocate these funds wisely.
For the reasons I stated when voting on Snapshot, I am voting in favor of this proposal on Tally.
The DDA model has been working well, and I think it makes a lot of sense to renew it for another year. Overall, I strongly agree with the proposal in all aspects. Congratulations for the great work during seasons 1 & 2.
For the reasons I stated when voting on Snapshot, I am voting in favor of this proposal on Tally.
The DDA model has been working well, and I think it makes a lot of sense to renew it for another year. Overall, I strongly agree with the proposal in all aspects. Congratulations for the great work during seasons 1 & 2.
I would also like to share my pov regarding @Entropy 's stance, as it raises two interesting points that deserve in-depth discussion.
On one hand, it is true that there is room for improvement in the program, as with any initiative. @JoJo has already outlined a series of enhancements coming in this new iteration, along with mechanisms for better oversight of initiative execution.
That being said, this is the only general program (in the sense that it covers a broad range of areas among all four domains) that the DAO currently has in place where there is a clear counterparty to negotiate terms, milestones, funding amounts, and to enforce milestone execution.
The issue with not having this program is exemplified by proposals like sponsoring ETH Bucharest: the DAO votes to be present there, but it lacks the ability to negotiate terms, secure speakers or content before approving funds, ensure booth presence, or exercise sufficient oversight (this is not a criticism of the proposal or those in charge of executing it, just a fact). Without this program, the current state would be: Yes, why not? Let's sponsor this, with zero negotiation or control. The domain allocator is highly effective in this regard, with administrators who already have experience, understanding what has been done, what works, what the DAO needs, and where redundancy should be avoided.
Is it expensive? It depends. The benefits are also significant, as it serves as a continuous onboarding platform for builders and users.
Given that the Arbitrum Foundation is capable of giving out grants in the interim
The second point I’d like to address is the role of the Foundation. I welcome and am very pleased to see that the Foundation intends to become more involved in the DAO (at least, that’s what they have expressed on Twitter in recent days—TBD how they execute it; eager to see it).
That said, I don’t believe the new status quo for the DAO should be to disengage from all programs or transfer the management of all initiatives to the Foundation. The DAO must create work frameworks that are sustainable over time and that do not rely on the Foundation, any specific program manager, or a particular service provider. Ideally, these frameworks should be strengthened over time, incorporating tools that enable automation where possible. In my opinion, abandoning incentive programs in favor of leaving everything to the Foundation would be a step backward.
I understand that this is not exactly what you are suggesting, but rather that you are relying on them while the new program is being developed. However, to me, that also feels like a step backward in the same sense. I do agree with exploring an alternative incentive program that could replace or improve the domain allocator in the future. However, the time to start iterating on that new program is now—throughout the year while this one is running—rather than leaving the DAO without a program that has already proven to be effective.
We are going to vote AGAINST this proposal. While we acknowledge the importance and some success from past grant proposals, the spending at the DAO level has to be reduced and seriously evaluated. We are sure that this will not matter and the proposal will pass regardless, but it should serve as a signal to the DAO that it is continue to spend in a reckless manner.
Having coached Start-Ups on behalf of incubators I wonder if we are doing any of it?
Having coached Start-Ups on behalf of incubators I wonder if we are doing any of it?
Gm Tamara. No, we are currently not doing it officially. We have been doing it in a non official way, for a few projects, on a personal basis (personal = DAs). We are improving it by having a closer monitoring, plus internal pitching to AF/GCP/relevant party for what we will internally evaluate as good projects.
On thing is worth noticing: this season is modular, in the sense we can add domains if we want. But nothing stops us from adding an incubator approach. We would need to publicly discuss the approach, find the people and funds for this. But is potentially doable.
Let's talk in DM about this idea, you know where to find me.
I am voting FOR this proposal, as I believe it will further strengthen the Arbitrum ecosystem.
That said, I future proposals should be more reader-friendly, particularly with clearer cost comparisons across seasons and argumentation. For example, looking at the adjusted cost comparison for a 12-month period:
I am voting FOR this proposal, as I believe it will further strengthen the Arbitrum ecosystem.
That said, I future proposals should be more reader-friendly, particularly with clearer cost comparisons across seasons and argumentation. For example, looking at the adjusted cost comparison for a 12-month period:
| Category | Season 2 (6 months) | Season 2 (12-month projected) | Season 3 (12 months) | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Questbook & PM | $60,000 | $120,000 | $169,800 | +$49,800 (+42%) |
Can you provide a more detailed explanation of why this increase is necessary? This would not only improve transparency but also increase my confidence voting for the proposal.
Additionally, from a cost-benefit perspective, future proposals should place greater emphasis on both tangible and intangible value that the Grant Program will achieve (e.g. outlining benefits for Arbitrum & users, success metrics, and other expected ecosystem benefits).
In a nutshell, providing deeper justifications for cost changes and highlighting projected impact would make it easier for delegates to evaluate the proposal's effectiveness.
Looking forward to seeing how this initiative delivers on its goals. Thank you.
We are live on Tally!
In the meantime, we have updated the numbers related to the projects, milestones and funding related to season 2. The updated spreadsheet is the same of the first post and can be found here.
The following screenshot is from Tally.
(note, this data refers to around 10 days ago for some domains; the work for season 2 at low capacity is still ongoing).
We are live on Tally!
In the meantime, we have updated the numbers related to the projects, milestones and funding related to season 2. The updated spreadsheet is the same of the first post and can be found here.
The following screenshot is from Tally.
(note, this data refers to around 10 days ago for some domains; the work for season 2 at low capacity is still ongoing).
In case of successful on-chain vote as stated myself, @SEEDGov, @Flook and @Juandi will forfeit any of the remaining payment for season 2 from the start of season 3 which should happen, all things considered, the first of march.
I will vote YES on Tally to "renew the program with $7,477,800 and 5 domains". I am particularly keen on seeing how better methods to assess project sustainability in the long run are implemented from season 3 onward.
The program itself is a great idea, but the short or long-term viability of any grants is what we truly should use to determine its success.
The vote will go on tally in pending monday, 3rd of February, with on-chain vote starting the 6th. We will use the following address, controlled by the Foundation, to receive the ARB in case of a positive vote: 0xb9a05fCcc841202f1ee0dEee557C6abE5cbb6615
Thank you for your honest take. As an update, the proposal won't go to tally this weekend because we didn't had an address controlled by the AF that we could use for the on-chain vote, so we have the ability to discuss the detail above, as well as any other detail, for another week. All feedbacks appreciated.
when I suggested in the delegates telegram chat, that would make sense in this case, for the proposer to get compensated by drafting the proposal, I also added that that change would have to be done, in tandem, with an election for the PM position.
in my opinion, it only makes sense to reward a proposer for proposing, if the proposer doesn't financially benefit from the proposal passing. that's what happened in the ARDC V2 case with @Immutablelawyer getting 35k ARB for drafting the proposal and managing the election process.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
Given the community's desire to improve the program's effectiveness, as evidenced by the feedback and suggestions received, LobbyFi believes it is important to facilitate the passing of this proposal. The program has a strong track record of success, and LobbyFi sees the broader Arbitrum community, including potential grantees, as the primary beneficiaries of a positive outcome for this proposal. Considering these factors, LobbyFi will make its voting power available for auction for this proposal.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
Given the community's desire to improve the program's effectiveness, as evidenced by the feedback and suggestions received, LobbyFi believes it is important to facilitate the passing of this proposal. The program has a strong track record of success, and LobbyFi sees the broader Arbitrum community, including potential grantees, as the primary beneficiaries of a positive outcome for this proposal. Considering these factors, LobbyFi will make its voting power available for auction for this proposal.
As done for some other proposals we made available on lobbyfi.xyz, we would like to leave an option to “rescue” the proposal for a fraction of the full funding amount. The instant buy will be priced at 0.5% of that amount, which makes up ~13.5 ETH ($7,477,800 * 0.5% in ETH).
There will be 2 calls for them to attend and pitch their candidacy, one Monday at 7PM utc and one Tuesday at 10AM utc. Both will be recorded and made available in this topic and in the candidacy one
Сan we also attend the calls? Or we will only have access to the recording?
Honestly, I don’t have a strongly consolidated opinion on this matter. This change won’t make me vote against the proposal on Tally, but it does raise some questions, which I’ll outline for discussion.
Nothing more to add. I will vote YES on Tally
Disclosing conflict of interest: I have been proposed as a DA for one of the domains.
For example, we can split it into to steps:
We will vote YES on tally.
The undeniable success of season 1 and 2 and now season 3 with additional steps for optimisation and transparency offers great perspective. Thanks to @JoJo for spearheading this endevour.
One minor reserveration we have is the potential overallocation to gaming.
We will vote YES on tally.
The undeniable success of season 1 and 2 and now season 3 with additional steps for optimisation and transparency offers great perspective. Thanks to @JoJo for spearheading this endevour.
One minor reserveration we have is the potential overallocation to gaming.
In our opinion, the gaming vertical has not proven long term PMF to the extent that other crypto verticals have - like DeFi. While gaming has the potential to onboard a larger number of users, the nominal amounts in gaming are usually small in comparison to finance. This is true both in crypto and the non-crypto world.
We acknowledge that it's too late to adjust the proposal and therefore will support it, but we suggest that future iterations take into consideration general TVL trends in crypto and allocate funds proportionally.
The issue with not having this program is exemplified by proposals like sponsoring ETH Bucharest: the DAO votes to be present there, but it lacks the ability to negotiate terms, secure speakers or content before approving funds, ensure booth presence, or exercise sufficient oversight (this is not a criticism of the proposal or those in charge of executing it, just a fact).
I think there's another side to this example, which is, since ETH Bucharest went directly to the DAO, it will need to report directly to the DAO on the outcomes it will produce, which is inherently a much higher bar to aim for, at least much higher than the current expectations for a typical questbook events grant in my opinion.
First and foremost, we want to highlight that @JoJo has proven himself as an extremely high-quality executor on behalf of the DAO’s grants program, and our decision to vote against has nothing to do with the competency of any particular individual.
With that said, we believe that grants are one of the most important programs the DAO runs, as it is often the first time a new builder touches the Arbitrum ecosystem. Arbitrum DAO should strive to offer one of the best grant programs in the industry. When looking into past results and taking into account the ~$700k in operational overhead, we believe there is room for improvement. As it currently stands, the grants program is too separated from the DAO’s other strategies in our opinion. Given that the Arbitrum Foundation is capable of giving out grants in the interim and that this would be the third iteration of the program, it is time the DAO took a more methodical, professional approach in how it allocates capital for grants rather than rushing to get something put together for the sake of having something.
In practice, we are strongly in favor of creating a DAO-owned, Arbitrum-branded platform for grant workflows. The dYdX grant page is an excellent example of a frontend that the Entropy team admires and believes the DAO can emulate. We would also like to further refine/cement the grant review process to ensure that grant recipients are of high caliber and that there are proper processes in place to ensure that recipients follow through with their original promises.
While this is just our opinion, and our vote is unlikely to change the outcome of the grants program vote, our “Against” vote is in-line with our preference that this iteration of the program should be striving for perfection.
Voting abstain on Tally - based on what I was able to research the program has been successful in Season 1, with Season 2 still tbd. In my opinion we should focus on doubling down on Season 2 participants and handhold them a bit further.
Having coached Start-Ups on behalf of incubators I wonder if we are doing any of it? The program talks about monitoring projects, but wouldn’t it be smarter to coach them in domains we as DAO are good at/can help them a hand to be successful? An Example is Lido Alliance but any Web2 Accelerator Program is doing it at some level i.e., giving money + expertise to make sure the money is “well invested”.
On the other side I have faith in Jojo and team to act in the best interest of the ecosystem, hence I am torn and abstain.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting.
Many people want to contribute to the ecosystem, but not all require a full DAO proposal. This program fills the gap by providing structured support and funding to promising projects that can later grow into larger ecosystem players. Without such an initiative, valuable ideas and teams may struggle to get support.
Hence, this program serves as the entry gate for new teams and contributors who want to build on Arbitrum but may not yet have the scale or visibility to seek direct DAO funding.
Regarding the Orbit domain, we previously voted in favor of its inclusion during Snapshot voting, and we continue to support it in this vote. We believe that @maxlomu will manage this domain effectively, ensuring it supports and grows Orbit and aligns with the domain's goals.
We also have confidence that all elected Domain Allocators (DAs) will manage their domains responsibly, supporting deserving projects while ensuring past mistakes reported by @Entropy from DDA 2.0 are avoided.
Lastly, as mentioned by @Juanrah as well, Strategic Objectives for the DAO are being set up, we expect this program to align with MVP and SOS once it is up. This alignment will help ensure that the funded projects contribute meaningfully to Arbitrum’s and community member's long-term vision.
With these considerations, we are confident in supporting this proposal.
Thank you @JoJo for explanation. Helps a lot. :+1:
Hello. I think your numbers are not precise.
Hello. I think your numbers are not precise.
So current increase is $29k or 24%.
The main reason is that in previous season, through the bundling of PM + Platform, it was possible to save some costs. This time instead, the PM will have a more active role in the program, with duties spanning from proper reporting (in calls and texts) to internally directing specific projects to other DAO initiatives.
I'm voting FOR this proposal on Tally and Event Horizon. My rationale hasn't changed much since temp-check:
I’ve personally witnessed the tangible benefits this program has brought to individuals I know. It has empowered them to bring their ideas to life, which speaks volumes about its impact. Programs like this are vital for boosting innovation and creativity within our ecosystem.
I'm voting FOR this proposal on Tally and Event Horizon. My rationale hasn't changed much since temp-check:
I’ve personally witnessed the tangible benefits this program has brought to individuals I know. It has empowered them to bring their ideas to life, which speaks volumes about its impact. Programs like this are vital for boosting innovation and creativity within our ecosystem.
Also, the addition of Orbit to the framework will definitely help further boost its adoption and expand its reach. It’s a strategic move, and I’m excited to see the outcomes it will bring.
Furthermore, I'm also glad on the DA's that were elected for this season and trust they'll do a great work. Congratulations again to @JoJo , @Juandi , @SEEDGov , @CastleCapital , @Flook and @maxlomu , y'all have a great responsibility and I'm confident you will be allocate these funds wisely.
For the reasons I stated when voting on Snapshot, I am voting in favor of this proposal on Tally.
The DDA model has been working well, and I think it makes a lot of sense to renew it for another year. Overall, I strongly agree with the proposal in all aspects. Congratulations for the great work during seasons 1 & 2.
For the reasons I stated when voting on Snapshot, I am voting in favor of this proposal on Tally.
The DDA model has been working well, and I think it makes a lot of sense to renew it for another year. Overall, I strongly agree with the proposal in all aspects. Congratulations for the great work during seasons 1 & 2.
I would also like to share my pov regarding @Entropy 's stance, as it raises two interesting points that deserve in-depth discussion.
On one hand, it is true that there is room for improvement in the program, as with any initiative. @JoJo has already outlined a series of enhancements coming in this new iteration, along with mechanisms for better oversight of initiative execution.
That being said, this is the only general program (in the sense that it covers a broad range of areas among all four domains) that the DAO currently has in place where there is a clear counterparty to negotiate terms, milestones, funding amounts, and to enforce milestone execution.
The issue with not having this program is exemplified by proposals like sponsoring ETH Bucharest: the DAO votes to be present there, but it lacks the ability to negotiate terms, secure speakers or content before approving funds, ensure booth presence, or exercise sufficient oversight (this is not a criticism of the proposal or those in charge of executing it, just a fact). Without this program, the current state would be: Yes, why not? Let's sponsor this, with zero negotiation or control. The domain allocator is highly effective in this regard, with administrators who already have experience, understanding what has been done, what works, what the DAO needs, and where redundancy should be avoided.
Is it expensive? It depends. The benefits are also significant, as it serves as a continuous onboarding platform for builders and users.
Given that the Arbitrum Foundation is capable of giving out grants in the interim
The second point I’d like to address is the role of the Foundation. I welcome and am very pleased to see that the Foundation intends to become more involved in the DAO (at least, that’s what they have expressed on Twitter in recent days—TBD how they execute it; eager to see it).
That said, I don’t believe the new status quo for the DAO should be to disengage from all programs or transfer the management of all initiatives to the Foundation. The DAO must create work frameworks that are sustainable over time and that do not rely on the Foundation, any specific program manager, or a particular service provider. Ideally, these frameworks should be strengthened over time, incorporating tools that enable automation where possible. In my opinion, abandoning incentive programs in favor of leaving everything to the Foundation would be a step backward.
I understand that this is not exactly what you are suggesting, but rather that you are relying on them while the new program is being developed. However, to me, that also feels like a step backward in the same sense. I do agree with exploring an alternative incentive program that could replace or improve the domain allocator in the future. However, the time to start iterating on that new program is now—throughout the year while this one is running—rather than leaving the DAO without a program that has already proven to be effective.
We are going to vote AGAINST this proposal. While we acknowledge the importance and some success from past grant proposals, the spending at the DAO level has to be reduced and seriously evaluated. We are sure that this will not matter and the proposal will pass regardless, but it should serve as a signal to the DAO that it is continue to spend in a reckless manner.
Having coached Start-Ups on behalf of incubators I wonder if we are doing any of it?
Having coached Start-Ups on behalf of incubators I wonder if we are doing any of it?
Gm Tamara. No, we are currently not doing it officially. We have been doing it in a non official way, for a few projects, on a personal basis (personal = DAs). We are improving it by having a closer monitoring, plus internal pitching to AF/GCP/relevant party for what we will internally evaluate as good projects.
On thing is worth noticing: this season is modular, in the sense we can add domains if we want. But nothing stops us from adding an incubator approach. We would need to publicly discuss the approach, find the people and funds for this. But is potentially doable.
Let's talk in DM about this idea, you know where to find me.
I am voting FOR this proposal, as I believe it will further strengthen the Arbitrum ecosystem.
That said, I future proposals should be more reader-friendly, particularly with clearer cost comparisons across seasons and argumentation. For example, looking at the adjusted cost comparison for a 12-month period:
I am voting FOR this proposal, as I believe it will further strengthen the Arbitrum ecosystem.
That said, I future proposals should be more reader-friendly, particularly with clearer cost comparisons across seasons and argumentation. For example, looking at the adjusted cost comparison for a 12-month period:
| Category | Season 2 (6 months) | Season 2 (12-month projected) | Season 3 (12 months) | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Questbook & PM | $60,000 | $120,000 | $169,800 | +$49,800 (+42%) |
Can you provide a more detailed explanation of why this increase is necessary? This would not only improve transparency but also increase my confidence voting for the proposal.
Additionally, from a cost-benefit perspective, future proposals should place greater emphasis on both tangible and intangible value that the Grant Program will achieve (e.g. outlining benefits for Arbitrum & users, success metrics, and other expected ecosystem benefits).
In a nutshell, providing deeper justifications for cost changes and highlighting projected impact would make it easier for delegates to evaluate the proposal's effectiveness.
Looking forward to seeing how this initiative delivers on its goals. Thank you.
We are live on Tally!
In the meantime, we have updated the numbers related to the projects, milestones and funding related to season 2. The updated spreadsheet is the same of the first post and can be found here.
The following screenshot is from Tally.
(note, this data refers to around 10 days ago for some domains; the work for season 2 at low capacity is still ongoing).
We are live on Tally!
In the meantime, we have updated the numbers related to the projects, milestones and funding related to season 2. The updated spreadsheet is the same of the first post and can be found here.
The following screenshot is from Tally.
(note, this data refers to around 10 days ago for some domains; the work for season 2 at low capacity is still ongoing).
In case of successful on-chain vote as stated myself, @SEEDGov, @Flook and @Juandi will forfeit any of the remaining payment for season 2 from the start of season 3 which should happen, all things considered, the first of march.
I will vote YES on Tally to "renew the program with $7,477,800 and 5 domains". I am particularly keen on seeing how better methods to assess project sustainability in the long run are implemented from season 3 onward.
The program itself is a great idea, but the short or long-term viability of any grants is what we truly should use to determine its success.
The vote will go on tally in pending monday, 3rd of February, with on-chain vote starting the 6th. We will use the following address, controlled by the Foundation, to receive the ARB in case of a positive vote: 0xb9a05fCcc841202f1ee0dEee557C6abE5cbb6615
Thank you for your honest take. As an update, the proposal won't go to tally this weekend because we didn't had an address controlled by the AF that we could use for the on-chain vote, so we have the ability to discuss the detail above, as well as any other detail, for another week. All feedbacks appreciated.
when I suggested in the delegates telegram chat, that would make sense in this case, for the proposer to get compensated by drafting the proposal, I also added that that change would have to be done, in tandem, with an election for the PM position.
in my opinion, it only makes sense to reward a proposer for proposing, if the proposer doesn't financially benefit from the proposal passing. that's what happened in the ARDC V2 case with @Immutablelawyer getting 35k ARB for drafting the proposal and managing the election process.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
Given the community's desire to improve the program's effectiveness, as evidenced by the feedback and suggestions received, LobbyFi believes it is important to facilitate the passing of this proposal. The program has a strong track record of success, and LobbyFi sees the broader Arbitrum community, including potential grantees, as the primary beneficiaries of a positive outcome for this proposal. Considering these factors, LobbyFi will make its voting power available for auction for this proposal.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
Given the community's desire to improve the program's effectiveness, as evidenced by the feedback and suggestions received, LobbyFi believes it is important to facilitate the passing of this proposal. The program has a strong track record of success, and LobbyFi sees the broader Arbitrum community, including potential grantees, as the primary beneficiaries of a positive outcome for this proposal. Considering these factors, LobbyFi will make its voting power available for auction for this proposal.
As done for some other proposals we made available on lobbyfi.xyz, we would like to leave an option to “rescue” the proposal for a fraction of the full funding amount. The instant buy will be priced at 0.5% of that amount, which makes up ~13.5 ETH ($7,477,800 * 0.5% in ETH).
There will be 2 calls for them to attend and pitch their candidacy, one Monday at 7PM utc and one Tuesday at 10AM utc. Both will be recorded and made available in this topic and in the candidacy one
Сan we also attend the calls? Or we will only have access to the recording?
Honestly, I don’t have a strongly consolidated opinion on this matter. This change won’t make me vote against the proposal on Tally, but it does raise some questions, which I’ll outline for discussion.
Nothing more to add. I will vote YES on Tally
Disclosing conflict of interest: I have been proposed as a DA for one of the domains.
For example, we can split it into to steps:
We will vote YES on tally.
The undeniable success of season 1 and 2 and now season 3 with additional steps for optimisation and transparency offers great perspective. Thanks to @JoJo for spearheading this endevour.
One minor reserveration we have is the potential overallocation to gaming.
We will vote YES on tally.
The undeniable success of season 1 and 2 and now season 3 with additional steps for optimisation and transparency offers great perspective. Thanks to @JoJo for spearheading this endevour.
One minor reserveration we have is the potential overallocation to gaming.
In our opinion, the gaming vertical has not proven long term PMF to the extent that other crypto verticals have - like DeFi. While gaming has the potential to onboard a larger number of users, the nominal amounts in gaming are usually small in comparison to finance. This is true both in crypto and the non-crypto world.
We acknowledge that it's too late to adjust the proposal and therefore will support it, but we suggest that future iterations take into consideration general TVL trends in crypto and allocate funds proportionally.
Honestly, I don’t have a strongly consolidated opinion on this matter. This change won’t make me vote against the proposal on Tally, but it does raise some questions, which I’ll outline for discussion.
I do agree with rewarding the drafting and execution of proposals when the proposal gets approved on Tally. It’s a task that requires significant time and effort, so it makes sense. And if there’s someone who works exceptionally well and deserves to be rewarded, it’s @JoJo
That said, this brings up several questions for me.
First, what is the appropriate amount to pay for this? What would be the right criteria? Should we consider setting a cap or criteria in the future?
Second, does it matter who drafts the proposal when deciding on payment approval? Let me explain. The proposal could be drafted by a contributor who is not directly involved in its execution—for instance, like Joseph with the ARDC—or it could be drafted by someone who directly benefits from its execution, such as Jojo in this case, given his role as PM. Should there be some differentiation in these cases?
Additionally, many proposals are drafted by delegates, and the DAO has already approved a compensation mechanism for that:
How can I earn Bonus Points (BP)?
As outlined in the proposal, at the end of each month, delegates who have submitted proposals of significant impact to the DAO (such as L2BEAT with its proposal on security council changes) will have the opportunity to earn bonus points (up to a maximum of 30%) which will be added to their final score for the month.
It’s crucial to emphasize that this bonus will only be awarded to proposals that do not have funds allocated to the creator, aiming to prevent double funding within the DAO.
So, should delegates be encouraged to request payment when a compensation mechanism is outlined in the DIP? I understand that, in many cases, that 30% BP doesn’t reflect the actual cost in hours of work. But perhaps that’s how the DAO values this work when it’s carried out by delegates who are already incentivized in their role as active delegates.
These thoughts make me believe that we need a clear policy for this.
That being said, I support the proposed changes and will vote in favor on Tally.
Disclosing conflict of interest: I have been proposed as a DA for one of the domains.
Confirming my favorable vote also on Tally with the same rationale.
For example, we can split it into to steps:
The main problem is that is unlikely that there will be any meaningful result to evaluate in the first 6 months: grantees that apply have, technically, up to 6 months to complete their application, we might just not have the instruments to make this evaluation. I am fairly sure it was mentioned somewhere in this long discussion.
By the way, during the first season, we had budget only $250 000 per domain. Maybe for the new one Orbit domain (because for the Orbit it will be the “first season”), we can also allocated the same budget and then split it into steps, which I described earlier?
In the first season the cap was $25k, while in second and in the now third will be $50k. $250k means you might just pass 5-7 proposal, and then run out of funds. Honestly I think the compromise above (1 year, half of fundings of other domain) is good enough, especially because a lot of folks advocated to have full allocation in orbit: quite the opposite of the current conservative stance.
Сan we also attend the calls? Or we will only have access to the recording?
Thanks, @JoJo, for this proposal.
Additionally, after discussions with several delegates and the Foundation, and assessment of the current DAO landscape and working groups, there is interest in a potential fifth domain related to Orbit chains. Acknowledging its experimental nature, the proposal suggests funding this domain with half the amount of other domains: $750,000 for one year
Thanks, @JoJo, for this proposal.
Additionally, after discussions with several delegates and the Foundation, and assessment of the current DAO landscape and working groups, there is interest in a potential fifth domain related to Orbit chains. Acknowledging its experimental nature, the proposal suggests funding this domain with half the amount of other domains: $750,000 for one year
I think adding a new Orbit domain is an exciting idea, but since Orbit domain is still new, it makes sense to start with a smaller budget.
I understood, that it's not $1 500 000 for the whole year like four other domains, but instead of giving the Orbit domain $750,000 for the whole year, it would be better splitting the funding into more steps, because starting with a smaller amount helps the program avoid wasting money while still supporting Orbit’s growth.
For example, we can split it into to steps:
First Half of the Year: Start with $375,000 for the first six months. This will give enough funds to test the interest and quality of Orbit projects.
Review and Adjust: After six months, take a closer look at the results. We can check how many projects applied, how well they used their funds, and if they achieved their goals. And then based on this:
Do you think it´s not a good idea? Because in this way, we can test how effective this domain is before spending a larger amount of money.
By the way, during the first season, we had budget only $250 000 per domain. Maybe for the new one Orbit domain (because for the Orbit it will be the "first season"), we can also allocated the same budget and then split it into steps, which I described earlier?
I do agree with the PM having at least the same compensation as the DAs, especially because the role comes with the responsibility for the PM to guarantee that there’s no erroneous spending.
and given what we recently learned about the intricacies, quirks and features of the platform being used, I appreciate that the money to cover the raise in the PM compensation comes from the Questbook share.
First, what is the appropriate amount to pay for this? What would be the right criteria? Should we consider setting a cap or criteria in the future?
First, what is the appropriate amount to pay for this? What would be the right criteria? Should we consider setting a cap or criteria in the future?
I might have posted it in an unclear way to be honest. While the "retro" part is there, the amount, 25k arb, is mostly to align the salary of PM to the DAs.
This was noted, publicly, here
The PM has lower compensation compared to the domain allocators. While we understand that the volume of work might be smaller, we want to ensure that the compensation is adequate enough for delegates to be able to have reasonable expectations from the PM.
I can say that a few delegates reached out privately as well on this matter, highlighting how in grant programs usually the PM has at least the same salary of the committee, even just because of responsibilities more than the workload . But, in all honestly, I was struggling in increasing the overall opex of a program that doesn't cost as a ratio too much but has indeed an important cost (around 10.5% of overall budget). The solution was to cut a bit from the fees of the technological provider; at the same time, just a straight increase of the usdc payout on the comp was still something not advisable even just from an optic perspective among others. The proposed solution was then to have an allocation in arb that was not sellable for the first 6 months, and that should have been delegated. At current prices of $0.72 would mean $18,000 which would put the monthly comp at around $7850 (considering the low capacity period of the last 6 months after 1 year). Clarified these details, we have several options here:
I'm open to any suggestion of the above or others, including 4 of course.
Second, does it matter who drafts the proposal when deciding on payment approval? Let me explain. The proposal could be drafted by a contributor who is not directly involved in its execution—for instance, like Joseph with the ARDC—or it could be drafted by someone who directly benefits from its execution, such as Jojo in this case, given his role as PM. Should there be some differentiation in these cases?
I generally think is hard to find people motivated enough to draft a proposal that doesn't have a followup for them. Note that the followup doesn't necessary have to be the direct involvement in the program, because secondary effects like increasing private business or others can play a strong factor in the decision. But this is more of a personal opinion than anything else.
Small update on the timeline:
Hello and good morning. After a successful first phase, we are currently through the elections phase with 4 snapshots live until Thursday. In the meantime, we have hosted two calls for all candidates to pitch their candidacies: you can find the recordings in the following post.
While we are on the election phase to determine the future DAs, is time to discuss the proposed changes for Tally. Based on the public and private feedbacks received, the three areas to target improvements: Grantees accountability, Program and DAs operations, Compliance to future changes in the DAO.
Hello and good morning. After a successful first phase, we are currently through the elections phase with 4 snapshots live until Thursday. In the meantime, we have hosted two calls for all candidates to pitch their candidacies: you can find the recordings in the following post.
While we are on the election phase to determine the future DAs, is time to discuss the proposed changes for Tally. Based on the public and private feedbacks received, the three areas to target improvements: Grantees accountability, Program and DAs operations, Compliance to future changes in the DAO.
Grantee Accountability: it's clear that the DAO wants to have better results from the program, where better = more stickiness of teams, less frauds (which can be unfortunately frequent in low sized grant programs), better results over time. For better accountabilities of the team these changes will be introduced:
Improvement in operations for the program and the Domain Allocators: there have been reports and feedbacks on how the DAs can operate better, and how the program could also improve through technological improvements, to guarantee more quality in the program. The following will be implemented:
Compliance to future DAO changes: several delegates requested the program to be in compliance with changes to the rules of the DAO in the future, specifically regarding communication, oversight and other details:
As per the timeline, and unless there is a meaningful desire from the DAO for profound changes and discussion of the proposal, the plan is to publish it on Tally Monday the 27th, to go live for a vote Thursday the 30th. We want to use this current week to address any further concerns, so all delegates are invited to provide feedback on the above changes.
As a final note, there could potentially be some adjustments to the compensation based on internal feedback from delegates. To be clear, the current discussion doesn't aim to introduce more budget to the program nor make meaningful changes, but rather suggests some modifications in the overall distribution; if there is a consensus, it will be posted in the forum beforehand.
Thanks for the response - I appreciate the reflections on expansion. Let's see what the DAO decides in the future but I think if we can get a report in 6 months of the results so far, as well as an update to the results of the previous season, I'd be in support of adding more budget.
My question was about how you handled checks and balances in terms of controlling the power of domain allocators, you answered it in the first part of the post so thanks for that.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, and consensus of various committee members.
The DDA program is a continuation of the initiative previously implemented by Questbook. It has proven to be one of the most successful programs for the DAO, yielding a strong track record of impactful projects. Given its success, we are open to supporting the program having 5 domains.
Castle has voted FOR Renew with 5 Domains on Snapshot. We feel that the program has had positive impact for Arbitrum and are supportive in extending it. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/46?u=castlecapital
The snapshot vote passed with majority voting for 5 domains.
Next steps are the following, as reported in the timeline:
The snapshot vote passed with majority voting for 5 domains.
Next steps are the following, as reported in the timeline:
In the meantime the discussion can take place in this thread regarding any meaningful change or addiction to provide to the proposal before it goes up for an on-chain vote; so far it was suggested to add a clause for reporting to adhere to any convention the DAO might vote upon in the future, as well to adhere to any general oversight council that could be elected by the DAO. This will be accommodated.
There is also an ongoing discussion, from several delegates, about potentially changing/raising the overall compensation of the team. While I am personally hesitant in increasing the overall OpEx, will take the time to privately contact few delegates to ask their opinion on the matter.
As a final note, it could be worth reflecting on the name, which was chosen to have an higher ownership for the DAO on the program, but that maybe could be rethought by people more savvy on marketing topics.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “Renew with 5 domains (adding Orbit Domain)” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Having participated in Seasons 1 and 2, our opinion may be biased, but we agree with other delegates that this is one of the DAO's most successful programs.
That said, there are a few suggestions we would like to make:
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “Renew with 5 domains (adding Orbit Domain)” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Having participated in Seasons 1 and 2, our opinion may be biased, but we agree with other delegates that this is one of the DAO's most successful programs.
That said, there are a few suggestions we would like to make:
Regarding @Krst's query: at least in the "Education, Community Growth and Events" Domain, the review and follow-up of all work associated with the Domain takes approximately 5 hours per day. Over 5 days (Monday to Friday), this equates to a total of 25 hours per week.
However, there have been instances where we’ve had to add a couple of hours on weekends for revisions due to a heavy proposal load. For example, proposals requesting more than $25K require a sharper review and, at times, calls with proposers who could only schedule meetings on weekends.
Considering the above, we estimate the total average time commitment to be around 30 hours per week or approximately 120 hours per month. This translates to a rate of $66.67 per hour.
We hope you find this information helpful.
Better communication and maintenance
We did a very surface-level check on the communication around Questbook (specifically on the platform and on Discord) and there wasn’t a lot of information for the applications that were accepted. We want the PM to do a better job ensuring that DAs are being very thorough (that also applies with due dilligence on applicants, to avoid cases like this).
In our case, we have published monthly reports for the Domain in our Reports Thread, detailing each approved project, its geographic distribution, and the remaining funding. Regarding due diligence, we would like to mention that we have identified and rejected at least 9 scam applicants, all cases involving individuals attempting to impersonate someone else. No applicant advances past the initial review stage without verifying their identity. To ensure this, we not only check their social media profiles but also hold meetings with cameras turned on. We agree that these practices should be replicated in all domains and from our perspective Jojo is very well positioned to ensure this.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal and choosing the 4 domains option.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal and choosing the 4 domains option.
The DAO needs a grant program, and the Questbook DDA program has proven to be a sensible approach to one. We were in favor of establishing it and then extending it. Now, although we do have some small concerns, we’re also generally in favor of renewing it for a longer timeframe.
Some of the things we’d like to see better explained and addressed before the proposal goes to an onchain vote are:
The cost for Questbook’s platform seems rather high for the features and utility it offers. We’d like to better understand why the cost is as high as it is.
The PM has lower compensation compared to the domain allocators. While we understand that the volume of work might be smaller, we want to ensure that the compensation is adequate enough for delegates to be able to have reasonable expectations from the PM.
As things are right now, DAs are to receive $8,000 a month for their work, but we have no way of knowing what their time commitment looks like. Whether we are to expect 10 hours a week or 40 isn’t mentioned anywhere.
If the DAO is to establish a reporting standard or an oversight council of sorts, we’d like to see the program adhere to it. Adding a clause to cover that in the event it happens is probably good enough.
We did a very surface-level check on the communication around Questbook (specifically on the platform and on Discord) and there wasn’t a lot of information for the applications that were accepted. We want the PM to do a better job ensuring that DAs are being very thorough (that also applies with due dilligence on applicants, to avoid cases like this).
Update on the initiatives:
Blockworks Advisory will be voting FOR (+1 Orbit Domain) this proposal.
We believe that there will be an interim between this proposal and the next iteration proposed on Tally. We think as it stands the current proposal should pass a temperature check, but the domain allocation program should be subject to more reporting. Additionally, it's time for the DAO to choose categories with priority. We're allocating equal funds across all domains when some of these domains are clearly unequal or have downstream benefits to Arbitrum that are hard to measure and thus harder to reward. Should an Orbit receive the same value as other domains here? Personally, we don't think so.
After internal feedbacks from delegates regarding aligning the PM to the rest of the team, and potential concerns about the platform's costs, the following changes will be made to the economics of the Tally proposals:
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, we're voting "Renew with 5 domains". Below is our rationale:
We vote for Renew with 5 domains (adding Orbit) .
With a good structure and system, Questbook to target the right audience to provide the grants for the Arbitrum ecosystem. the Arbitrum D.A.O. (while we don't necessarily like the naming of it as it's confusing with DAO) should continue with the new addition for the important offering of the Arbitrum ecosystem, Orbit. We appreciate @maxlomu 's contribution to the Orbit domain grants as well.
DAOplomats voted Renew with 5 domains on Snapshot.
The Domain Allocator program has been a sound initiative and @JoJo has done a great job coordinating. We are particularly excited about the introduction of the fifth domain and looking forward to how that shapes up.
DAOplomats voted Renew with 5 domains on Snapshot.
The Domain Allocator program has been a sound initiative and @JoJo has done a great job coordinating. We are particularly excited about the introduction of the fifth domain and looking forward to how that shapes up.
However, we want to reiterate our suggestion of getting an updated metric on the S2's completed projects before this goes live for onchain voting, as that would give us more confidence to support this then.
I have voted to renew 5 domains, adding Orbit. The work done by this team has been positive, a look at Questbook's page (https://arbitrum.questbook.app/) shows in a very good level of detail what's happening with the funds, who is getting them, who approved them, and where funds went on-chain. Also, Milestone-based disbursements are a very good incentive structure. This is great for long-tail grants.
I'm voting in favor of the renewal with five domains. Given the positive results of the previous seasons, I'm happy to support the 3rd iteration. I appreciate how the lessons learned from previous seasons were integrated into the new proposal. Concerning the voting option, I think that the inclusion of Orbit as a vertical offers significant benefits for projects considering launching their own chain and currently deciding on a stack, builders on orbit chains and the growth of the ecosystem as a whole. By incorporating this domain, we create a more attractive ecosystem for innovative projects and we essentially create a pre-existing free grant program for any chain deciding to choose Orbit as a stack. Of course this approach not only encourages the development of new chains but also addresses fragmentation issues. Thanks @JoJo for this proposal, can't wait to see the projects that will emerge from this initiative!
Thanks for the feedback. Let me go point by point here
The cost for Questbook’s platform seems rather high for the features and utility it offers. We’d like to better understand why the cost is as high as it is.
Honestly, I don’t have a strongly consolidated opinion on this matter. This change won’t make me vote against the proposal on Tally, but it does raise some questions, which I’ll outline for discussion.
I do agree with rewarding the drafting and execution of proposals when the proposal gets approved on Tally. It’s a task that requires significant time and effort, so it makes sense. And if there’s someone who works exceptionally well and deserves to be rewarded, it’s @JoJo
That said, this brings up several questions for me.
First, what is the appropriate amount to pay for this? What would be the right criteria? Should we consider setting a cap or criteria in the future?
Second, does it matter who drafts the proposal when deciding on payment approval? Let me explain. The proposal could be drafted by a contributor who is not directly involved in its execution—for instance, like Joseph with the ARDC—or it could be drafted by someone who directly benefits from its execution, such as Jojo in this case, given his role as PM. Should there be some differentiation in these cases?
Additionally, many proposals are drafted by delegates, and the DAO has already approved a compensation mechanism for that:
How can I earn Bonus Points (BP)?
As outlined in the proposal, at the end of each month, delegates who have submitted proposals of significant impact to the DAO (such as L2BEAT with its proposal on security council changes) will have the opportunity to earn bonus points (up to a maximum of 30%) which will be added to their final score for the month.
It’s crucial to emphasize that this bonus will only be awarded to proposals that do not have funds allocated to the creator, aiming to prevent double funding within the DAO.
So, should delegates be encouraged to request payment when a compensation mechanism is outlined in the DIP? I understand that, in many cases, that 30% BP doesn’t reflect the actual cost in hours of work. But perhaps that’s how the DAO values this work when it’s carried out by delegates who are already incentivized in their role as active delegates.
These thoughts make me believe that we need a clear policy for this.
That being said, I support the proposed changes and will vote in favor on Tally.
Disclosing conflict of interest: I have been proposed as a DA for one of the domains.
Confirming my favorable vote also on Tally with the same rationale.
For example, we can split it into to steps:
The main problem is that is unlikely that there will be any meaningful result to evaluate in the first 6 months: grantees that apply have, technically, up to 6 months to complete their application, we might just not have the instruments to make this evaluation. I am fairly sure it was mentioned somewhere in this long discussion.
By the way, during the first season, we had budget only $250 000 per domain. Maybe for the new one Orbit domain (because for the Orbit it will be the “first season”), we can also allocated the same budget and then split it into steps, which I described earlier?
In the first season the cap was $25k, while in second and in the now third will be $50k. $250k means you might just pass 5-7 proposal, and then run out of funds. Honestly I think the compromise above (1 year, half of fundings of other domain) is good enough, especially because a lot of folks advocated to have full allocation in orbit: quite the opposite of the current conservative stance.
Сan we also attend the calls? Or we will only have access to the recording?
Thanks, @JoJo, for this proposal.
Additionally, after discussions with several delegates and the Foundation, and assessment of the current DAO landscape and working groups, there is interest in a potential fifth domain related to Orbit chains. Acknowledging its experimental nature, the proposal suggests funding this domain with half the amount of other domains: $750,000 for one year
Thanks, @JoJo, for this proposal.
Additionally, after discussions with several delegates and the Foundation, and assessment of the current DAO landscape and working groups, there is interest in a potential fifth domain related to Orbit chains. Acknowledging its experimental nature, the proposal suggests funding this domain with half the amount of other domains: $750,000 for one year
I think adding a new Orbit domain is an exciting idea, but since Orbit domain is still new, it makes sense to start with a smaller budget.
I understood, that it's not $1 500 000 for the whole year like four other domains, but instead of giving the Orbit domain $750,000 for the whole year, it would be better splitting the funding into more steps, because starting with a smaller amount helps the program avoid wasting money while still supporting Orbit’s growth.
For example, we can split it into to steps:
First Half of the Year: Start with $375,000 for the first six months. This will give enough funds to test the interest and quality of Orbit projects.
Review and Adjust: After six months, take a closer look at the results. We can check how many projects applied, how well they used their funds, and if they achieved their goals. And then based on this:
Do you think it´s not a good idea? Because in this way, we can test how effective this domain is before spending a larger amount of money.
By the way, during the first season, we had budget only $250 000 per domain. Maybe for the new one Orbit domain (because for the Orbit it will be the "first season"), we can also allocated the same budget and then split it into steps, which I described earlier?
I do agree with the PM having at least the same compensation as the DAs, especially because the role comes with the responsibility for the PM to guarantee that there’s no erroneous spending.
and given what we recently learned about the intricacies, quirks and features of the platform being used, I appreciate that the money to cover the raise in the PM compensation comes from the Questbook share.
First, what is the appropriate amount to pay for this? What would be the right criteria? Should we consider setting a cap or criteria in the future?
First, what is the appropriate amount to pay for this? What would be the right criteria? Should we consider setting a cap or criteria in the future?
I might have posted it in an unclear way to be honest. While the "retro" part is there, the amount, 25k arb, is mostly to align the salary of PM to the DAs.
This was noted, publicly, here
The PM has lower compensation compared to the domain allocators. While we understand that the volume of work might be smaller, we want to ensure that the compensation is adequate enough for delegates to be able to have reasonable expectations from the PM.
I can say that a few delegates reached out privately as well on this matter, highlighting how in grant programs usually the PM has at least the same salary of the committee, even just because of responsibilities more than the workload . But, in all honestly, I was struggling in increasing the overall opex of a program that doesn't cost as a ratio too much but has indeed an important cost (around 10.5% of overall budget). The solution was to cut a bit from the fees of the technological provider; at the same time, just a straight increase of the usdc payout on the comp was still something not advisable even just from an optic perspective among others. The proposed solution was then to have an allocation in arb that was not sellable for the first 6 months, and that should have been delegated. At current prices of $0.72 would mean $18,000 which would put the monthly comp at around $7850 (considering the low capacity period of the last 6 months after 1 year). Clarified these details, we have several options here:
I'm open to any suggestion of the above or others, including 4 of course.
Second, does it matter who drafts the proposal when deciding on payment approval? Let me explain. The proposal could be drafted by a contributor who is not directly involved in its execution—for instance, like Joseph with the ARDC—or it could be drafted by someone who directly benefits from its execution, such as Jojo in this case, given his role as PM. Should there be some differentiation in these cases?
I generally think is hard to find people motivated enough to draft a proposal that doesn't have a followup for them. Note that the followup doesn't necessary have to be the direct involvement in the program, because secondary effects like increasing private business or others can play a strong factor in the decision. But this is more of a personal opinion than anything else.
Small update on the timeline:
Hello and good morning. After a successful first phase, we are currently through the elections phase with 4 snapshots live until Thursday. In the meantime, we have hosted two calls for all candidates to pitch their candidacies: you can find the recordings in the following post.
While we are on the election phase to determine the future DAs, is time to discuss the proposed changes for Tally. Based on the public and private feedbacks received, the three areas to target improvements: Grantees accountability, Program and DAs operations, Compliance to future changes in the DAO.
Hello and good morning. After a successful first phase, we are currently through the elections phase with 4 snapshots live until Thursday. In the meantime, we have hosted two calls for all candidates to pitch their candidacies: you can find the recordings in the following post.
While we are on the election phase to determine the future DAs, is time to discuss the proposed changes for Tally. Based on the public and private feedbacks received, the three areas to target improvements: Grantees accountability, Program and DAs operations, Compliance to future changes in the DAO.
Grantee Accountability: it's clear that the DAO wants to have better results from the program, where better = more stickiness of teams, less frauds (which can be unfortunately frequent in low sized grant programs), better results over time. For better accountabilities of the team these changes will be introduced:
Improvement in operations for the program and the Domain Allocators: there have been reports and feedbacks on how the DAs can operate better, and how the program could also improve through technological improvements, to guarantee more quality in the program. The following will be implemented:
Compliance to future DAO changes: several delegates requested the program to be in compliance with changes to the rules of the DAO in the future, specifically regarding communication, oversight and other details:
As per the timeline, and unless there is a meaningful desire from the DAO for profound changes and discussion of the proposal, the plan is to publish it on Tally Monday the 27th, to go live for a vote Thursday the 30th. We want to use this current week to address any further concerns, so all delegates are invited to provide feedback on the above changes.
As a final note, there could potentially be some adjustments to the compensation based on internal feedback from delegates. To be clear, the current discussion doesn't aim to introduce more budget to the program nor make meaningful changes, but rather suggests some modifications in the overall distribution; if there is a consensus, it will be posted in the forum beforehand.
Thanks for the response - I appreciate the reflections on expansion. Let's see what the DAO decides in the future but I think if we can get a report in 6 months of the results so far, as well as an update to the results of the previous season, I'd be in support of adding more budget.
My question was about how you handled checks and balances in terms of controlling the power of domain allocators, you answered it in the first part of the post so thanks for that.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, and consensus of various committee members.
The DDA program is a continuation of the initiative previously implemented by Questbook. It has proven to be one of the most successful programs for the DAO, yielding a strong track record of impactful projects. Given its success, we are open to supporting the program having 5 domains.
Castle has voted FOR Renew with 5 Domains on Snapshot. We feel that the program has had positive impact for Arbitrum and are supportive in extending it. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arbitrum-d-a-o-domain-allocator-offerings-grant-program-season-3/27584/46?u=castlecapital
The snapshot vote passed with majority voting for 5 domains.
Next steps are the following, as reported in the timeline:
The snapshot vote passed with majority voting for 5 domains.
Next steps are the following, as reported in the timeline:
In the meantime the discussion can take place in this thread regarding any meaningful change or addiction to provide to the proposal before it goes up for an on-chain vote; so far it was suggested to add a clause for reporting to adhere to any convention the DAO might vote upon in the future, as well to adhere to any general oversight council that could be elected by the DAO. This will be accommodated.
There is also an ongoing discussion, from several delegates, about potentially changing/raising the overall compensation of the team. While I am personally hesitant in increasing the overall OpEx, will take the time to privately contact few delegates to ask their opinion on the matter.
As a final note, it could be worth reflecting on the name, which was chosen to have an higher ownership for the DAO on the program, but that maybe could be rethought by people more savvy on marketing topics.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “Renew with 5 domains (adding Orbit Domain)” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Having participated in Seasons 1 and 2, our opinion may be biased, but we agree with other delegates that this is one of the DAO's most successful programs.
That said, there are a few suggestions we would like to make:
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “Renew with 5 domains (adding Orbit Domain)” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Having participated in Seasons 1 and 2, our opinion may be biased, but we agree with other delegates that this is one of the DAO's most successful programs.
That said, there are a few suggestions we would like to make:
Regarding @Krst's query: at least in the "Education, Community Growth and Events" Domain, the review and follow-up of all work associated with the Domain takes approximately 5 hours per day. Over 5 days (Monday to Friday), this equates to a total of 25 hours per week.
However, there have been instances where we’ve had to add a couple of hours on weekends for revisions due to a heavy proposal load. For example, proposals requesting more than $25K require a sharper review and, at times, calls with proposers who could only schedule meetings on weekends.
Considering the above, we estimate the total average time commitment to be around 30 hours per week or approximately 120 hours per month. This translates to a rate of $66.67 per hour.
We hope you find this information helpful.
Better communication and maintenance
We did a very surface-level check on the communication around Questbook (specifically on the platform and on Discord) and there wasn’t a lot of information for the applications that were accepted. We want the PM to do a better job ensuring that DAs are being very thorough (that also applies with due dilligence on applicants, to avoid cases like this).
In our case, we have published monthly reports for the Domain in our Reports Thread, detailing each approved project, its geographic distribution, and the remaining funding. Regarding due diligence, we would like to mention that we have identified and rejected at least 9 scam applicants, all cases involving individuals attempting to impersonate someone else. No applicant advances past the initial review stage without verifying their identity. To ensure this, we not only check their social media profiles but also hold meetings with cameras turned on. We agree that these practices should be replicated in all domains and from our perspective Jojo is very well positioned to ensure this.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal and choosing the 4 domains option.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal and choosing the 4 domains option.
The DAO needs a grant program, and the Questbook DDA program has proven to be a sensible approach to one. We were in favor of establishing it and then extending it. Now, although we do have some small concerns, we’re also generally in favor of renewing it for a longer timeframe.
Some of the things we’d like to see better explained and addressed before the proposal goes to an onchain vote are:
The cost for Questbook’s platform seems rather high for the features and utility it offers. We’d like to better understand why the cost is as high as it is.
The PM has lower compensation compared to the domain allocators. While we understand that the volume of work might be smaller, we want to ensure that the compensation is adequate enough for delegates to be able to have reasonable expectations from the PM.
As things are right now, DAs are to receive $8,000 a month for their work, but we have no way of knowing what their time commitment looks like. Whether we are to expect 10 hours a week or 40 isn’t mentioned anywhere.
If the DAO is to establish a reporting standard or an oversight council of sorts, we’d like to see the program adhere to it. Adding a clause to cover that in the event it happens is probably good enough.
We did a very surface-level check on the communication around Questbook (specifically on the platform and on Discord) and there wasn’t a lot of information for the applications that were accepted. We want the PM to do a better job ensuring that DAs are being very thorough (that also applies with due dilligence on applicants, to avoid cases like this).
Update on the initiatives:
Blockworks Advisory will be voting FOR (+1 Orbit Domain) this proposal.
We believe that there will be an interim between this proposal and the next iteration proposed on Tally. We think as it stands the current proposal should pass a temperature check, but the domain allocation program should be subject to more reporting. Additionally, it's time for the DAO to choose categories with priority. We're allocating equal funds across all domains when some of these domains are clearly unequal or have downstream benefits to Arbitrum that are hard to measure and thus harder to reward. Should an Orbit receive the same value as other domains here? Personally, we don't think so.
After internal feedbacks from delegates regarding aligning the PM to the rest of the team, and potential concerns about the platform's costs, the following changes will be made to the economics of the Tally proposals:
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, we're voting "Renew with 5 domains". Below is our rationale:
We vote for Renew with 5 domains (adding Orbit) .
With a good structure and system, Questbook to target the right audience to provide the grants for the Arbitrum ecosystem. the Arbitrum D.A.O. (while we don't necessarily like the naming of it as it's confusing with DAO) should continue with the new addition for the important offering of the Arbitrum ecosystem, Orbit. We appreciate @maxlomu 's contribution to the Orbit domain grants as well.
DAOplomats voted Renew with 5 domains on Snapshot.
The Domain Allocator program has been a sound initiative and @JoJo has done a great job coordinating. We are particularly excited about the introduction of the fifth domain and looking forward to how that shapes up.
DAOplomats voted Renew with 5 domains on Snapshot.
The Domain Allocator program has been a sound initiative and @JoJo has done a great job coordinating. We are particularly excited about the introduction of the fifth domain and looking forward to how that shapes up.
However, we want to reiterate our suggestion of getting an updated metric on the S2's completed projects before this goes live for onchain voting, as that would give us more confidence to support this then.
I have voted to renew 5 domains, adding Orbit. The work done by this team has been positive, a look at Questbook's page (https://arbitrum.questbook.app/) shows in a very good level of detail what's happening with the funds, who is getting them, who approved them, and where funds went on-chain. Also, Milestone-based disbursements are a very good incentive structure. This is great for long-tail grants.
I'm voting in favor of the renewal with five domains. Given the positive results of the previous seasons, I'm happy to support the 3rd iteration. I appreciate how the lessons learned from previous seasons were integrated into the new proposal. Concerning the voting option, I think that the inclusion of Orbit as a vertical offers significant benefits for projects considering launching their own chain and currently deciding on a stack, builders on orbit chains and the growth of the ecosystem as a whole. By incorporating this domain, we create a more attractive ecosystem for innovative projects and we essentially create a pre-existing free grant program for any chain deciding to choose Orbit as a stack. Of course this approach not only encourages the development of new chains but also addresses fragmentation issues. Thanks @JoJo for this proposal, can't wait to see the projects that will emerge from this initiative!
Thanks for the feedback. Let me go point by point here
The cost for Questbook’s platform seems rather high for the features and utility it offers. We’d like to better understand why the cost is as high as it is.
After internal feedbacks from delegates regarding aligning the PM to the rest of the team, and potential concerns about the platform's costs, the following changes will be made to the economics of the Tally proposals:
As a consequence, the total cost OpEx of the program will change from the previous $727,800 for 5 domains to $703,800 + 25,000 ARB.
Thanks for the feedback. Let me go point by point here
The cost for Questbook’s platform seems rather high for the features and utility it offers. We’d like to better understand why the cost is as high as it is.
In the previous iterations, Questbook had a single management of both the PM and the platform, for a total of 10k/month. This was, likely, a way to optimize costs on their side, which now fell off with the decoupling of platform/role. For the utility, as we have seen so far the biggest part is the public availability of information and the accountability part: while this depends mostly on how DAs engage with the grantees, we see that if milestones are properly reported as comment in questbook it becomes easier to effectively track the flow of information; same thing for analysing approved versus rejected proposals. But I would like to leave the word to @Srijith-Questbook for a better analysis.
The PM has lower compensation compared to the domain allocators. While we understand that the volume of work might be smaller, we want to ensure that the compensation is adequate enough for delegates to be able to have reasonable expectations from the PM.
To be perfectly clear, the PM having less compensation compared to the DAs has been something dragged from the previous seasons. And it has been, up to some degree, an anomaly compared to most grant programs, both here and in other ecosystem, in which usually the PM has a more prominent compensation. That said, while I don't have a specific answer for this (and i will contact you privately to clarify your point of view here), I am seeing several delegates suggesting different type of compensation, either in quantity or structure or both, which at this point could be worth exploring.
As things are right now, DAs are to receive $8,000 a month for their work, but we have no way of knowing what their time commitment looks like. Whether we are to expect 10 hours a week or 40 isn’t mentioned anywhere.
The $8K salary is from season 2, in which we mostly quantified the work as an 80 hours per month work at a comp of $100 per hour. This is also just a reference number: there has been a very different way to engage from the different DAs, likely also due to the very different nature of domains. As stated in previous comments, we are likely scraping the bottom of the barrel on the DA side. The work is almost linear based on the amount of proposal inflow, the more proposals in, the higher the amount of work, and we can honestly expect the inflow to grow since this has been trued between season 1 and 2.
If the DAO is to establish a reporting standard or an oversight council of sorts, we’d like to see the program adhere to it. Adding a clause to cover that in the event it happens is probably good enough.
I'll contact you privately on this: discord archives after some time the discussions so not sure if everything that was discussed was still there; on that very specific case, and in general situations like this, I am currently working with entropy to mitigate the issue, and will post more in the report thread
This was incredibly helpful @JoJo. We think this program has been an extremely worthwhile exploration of mechanisms for the DAO to engage in grants across a diverse set of domains and we are looking forward to continuing this conversation.
With respect to scaling financially, I believe that this next Season is a great opportunity to begin increasing the expenditure and monitoring how that influences each sector individually. As we progress, grant recipients from past seasons will reach a maturity in which we will be able to accurately iterate on how we may skew these distributions going forward. We also expect that if this cycle progresses and Arbitrum's ecosystem continues to highlight progress in respective sectors then we will be able to better justify not only a funding increase, but analyze experimenting with skewing the weights.
This was incredibly helpful @JoJo. We think this program has been an extremely worthwhile exploration of mechanisms for the DAO to engage in grants across a diverse set of domains and we are looking forward to continuing this conversation.
With respect to scaling financially, I believe that this next Season is a great opportunity to begin increasing the expenditure and monitoring how that influences each sector individually. As we progress, grant recipients from past seasons will reach a maturity in which we will be able to accurately iterate on how we may skew these distributions going forward. We also expect that if this cycle progresses and Arbitrum's ecosystem continues to highlight progress in respective sectors then we will be able to better justify not only a funding increase, but analyze experimenting with skewing the weights.
With regards to your last point, we will continue to take some time to reflect on success and what that means with respect to each sector. Each domain's metric through which "success: can be determined is unique and you are correct that as we develop the program, a yes or no to completion will not suffice. Even projects that fail provide opportunity for insight and reason for the continuation of a domain. As the DAO matures as well, this program will evolve past the low-hanging fruit to offer the Arbitrum's staple projects grants for significant contributions to ecosystem.
We think as it stands the current proposal should pass a temperature check, but the domain allocation program should be subject to more reporting.
We think as it stands the current proposal should pass a temperature check, but the domain allocation program should be subject to more reporting.
As wrote in the proposal (while only at high level), the reporting should match the following:
Any idea on the above @BlockworksResearch? If you think is not enough, or should be different.
Additionally, it’s time for the DAO to choose categories with priority. We’re allocating equal funds across all domains when some of these domains are clearly unequal or have downstream benefits to Arbitrum that are hard to measure and thus harder to reward. Should an Orbit receive the same value as other domains here? Personally, we don’t think so.
Can you explain:
We agree with @PGov that this season will be one to continue analyzing for insights into how this program may scale with the addition of DAs. We like the initial approach of scaling horizontally by adding domains, with supporting Orbit development being the correct candidate for this season. As the current PM, we are interested in @JoJo’s perspective here and how the structure may evolve as we wish to continue supporting successful programs such as this.
We agree with @PGov that this season will be one to continue analyzing for insights into how this program may scale with the addition of DAs. We like the initial approach of scaling horizontally by adding domains, with supporting Orbit development being the correct candidate for this season. As the current PM, we are interested in @JoJo’s perspective here and how the structure may evolve as we wish to continue supporting successful programs such as this.
How to scale this. So, first, I think funding is at the limit on the downside: while the program is big in absolute terms, we are talking about $1.5M each domain which means, on a spending basis, $125k per month per domain. This can be a lot, or not, and is either 2.5 grants at $50k or 5 grants of $25k to put tghins in perspective. If we think this program will become important over time we should do a reflection during 2025 on how to differentiate spending, because maybe we will understand that not all domains are born equals so to say. So the first way to scale this into a new season would be to skew weights in financing.
Second thing, would obviously be to eventually add new domains OR specialized existing domains OR drop non interesting domains.
A more nuanced evolution would be for the program to be a stage 1 of other program. We could think about incubator program, live in our dao, through avi or other initiatives, and the current program could be an initial version of it. This is likely far away in time, because in term of coordination with other daos program and infra we have so many low hanging fruit to tap into first that this is not likely the best return of value vs the energy put into it. But a cow can dream.
All of this might also need to potentially at some point scale personnel. We decided for this season to keep it as almost as it was, both in monetary terms and in amount of people involved; if the program is going to be succesfull it might likely change.
Finally, and here the dao could chim in a lot, defining what success looks like could allow to unlock better directionality. So far, success = amount of completed projects. This is extremely basic level if we want to be honest, also because the bar in crypto is generally quite low; a completed project might not be a success, might be completed but abandoned (or an outright fraud), might not contribute to the ecosystem etc. We are currently keeping a pragmatic approach: entry level grant program, allow small teams to bootstrap in arbitrum, allow big teams to prioritise subset of functions in arbitrum, and we will do our best to plug in good initiatives into other programs like the ones run by the Arbitrum Foundation. Again, this is a pragmatic approach of a dao that needs "stuff to be done", is not necessarily the best and most valuable approach.
So TLDR how to evolve the program
Hope this answer your question @AranaDigital
Thank you @JoJo for delivering this proposal and our appreciation to @Srijith-Questbook and the Questbook team for their support. We have worked with them to iterate and improve this program over the first two seasons and are pleased to see its proposed return for a third. The transparency and impact of this program is impressive and one that we support the continuation of.
We agree with @PGov that this season will be one to continue analyzing for insights into how this program may scale with the addition of DAs. We like the initial approach of scaling horizontally by adding domains, with supporting Orbit development being the correct candidate for this season. As the current PM, we are interested in @JoJo's perspective here and how the structure may evolve as we wish to continue supporting successful programs such as this.
We're Voting FOR this proposal
The proposal for Season 3 of the Arbitrum D.A.O. Grant Program presents a solid foundation for continued ecosystem growth and support, including supporting Orbit chain adoption.
We're Voting FOR this proposal
The proposal for Season 3 of the Arbitrum D.A.O. Grant Program presents a solid foundation for continued ecosystem growth and support, including supporting Orbit chain adoption.
I voted FOR, with 5 DAs, introducing Orbit.
This is one of the most successful programs within the DAO and it is time to have a stronger support for Orbit, and I'm sure that there will be coordination with Stylus Sprint Evaluation committee to ensure there is no overlap.
I will be voting for, with 5 domains. As I stated above this is one of the most successful DAO-led projects and I think it's important to continue it. It serves an important niche of smaller-scale projects and is done in a cost-effective manner. I look forward to seeing how the 5th domain evolves.
I am long-term concerned about bandwidth of the domain allocators, but JoJo has indicated it should be okay for the upcoming season. I think something to think about as the program goes forward is considering ways to make sure it is sustainable long, long term. Whether that is additional roles or backups incase one of the allocators has to leave and a new person can come in with sufficient knowledge. But ultimately that is a small issue that I am confident the team can handle when ready / relevant.
Voted to Renew with 5 domains (adding the Orbit domain):
I believe this is the most comprehensive and direct grant program we have developed as a DAO. It is simple and straightforward for builders, while on the other hand, we have a very capable and complete team and DA working on it.
Voted to Renew with 5 domains (adding the Orbit domain):
I believe this is the most comprehensive and direct grant program we have developed as a DAO. It is simple and straightforward for builders, while on the other hand, we have a very capable and complete team and DA working on it.
I decided to fully support the proposal, including the possibility of adding a 5th domain. I would like to point out to the team that as ambitions and the program grow, we expect the quality of the program to remain as high as it was in previous seasons. The responsibility has never been greater.
I expect all team members and the DA to bring their A-game and make this the best program for builders.
Having participated in the Questbook program, we recognize its well-structured approach and appreciate the improvements JoJo has highlighted from Seasons 1 and 2. With that said, support renewing the Arbitrum D.A.O. Grant Program with 5 domains, building on the success of funding over 190 projects with strong outcomes. Adding the Orbit Chains domain addresses evolving ecosystem needs, and we are excited to see its potential while acknowledging it requires focused attention moving forward.
Having participated in the Questbook program, we recognize its well-structured approach and appreciate the improvements JoJo has highlighted from Seasons 1 and 2. With that said, support renewing the Arbitrum D.A.O. Grant Program with 5 domains, building on the success of funding over 190 projects with strong outcomes. Adding the Orbit Chains domain addresses evolving ecosystem needs, and we are excited to see its potential while acknowledging it requires focused attention moving forward.
The main challenge is: allocating, to that single project, in a way that bears the most return for the ecosystem. We want to ensure diversity in the program but we also want to leverage expertise and success, tracking metrics such as if the team has been around 3 months after the grant will help us understand if we are going in the right direction.
We are overall in favor of the changes from last iteration to this one. The one-year term is a logical progression, and the framework offers flexibility for future domain additions.
Some thoughts:
We are overall in favor of the changes from last iteration to this one. The one-year term is a logical progression, and the framework offers flexibility for future domain additions.
Some thoughts:
Improved tracking via Questbook and monthly unified reports ensuring the community remains informed is great
Expanded efforts in Gaming and the potential Orbit domain are interesting, we like the orbit domain a lot and think it should be added
The inclusion of post-grant surveys and milestone tracking of needed and we are in support
The $750K allocation for Orbit seems large for an experimental domain, but with chains we understand a decent amount is needed to move the needle, will keep looking out for other comments.
67% of Season 2 projects incomplete is quite high. How are we ensuring that those are kept up with?
Might be worth making more than one allocator per domain in the future?
For this new season, maybe a clearer success metric for new domains like Orbit would enhance community buy-in fully?
I am voting on Snapshot to「 renew the five domains and add the Orbit domain」 This proposal, while maintaining the original four core domains, flexibly introduces the Orbit domain and provides a modular framework for future expansion. This architecture allows for iterative updates without disrupting existing structures, aligning better with the DAO’s long-term growth needs.
Building on the first two seasons’ experience, the third season sets clear funding allocations and upper limits for each domain, while reserving half the funds for the potential new domain. This ensures continuity and sustainability in the funding structure, offering recipients a more predictable growth environment.
Sure!
how does this work onchain? do each domain allocators keep these funds in a SAFE?
Snapshot Voting in favor of renewing the Arbitrum D.A.O. Domain Allocator Offerings Grant Program with five domains, including the experimental Orbit domain. This renewal strengthens the ecosystem by fostering innovation across diverse fields while allowing room for new ideas with Orbit’s introduction. The program’s focus on mentorship, tracking progress, and fast-tracking outstanding projects ensures accountability and positions Arbitrum as a leader in decentralized development.
I'm voting FOR the proposal on Snapshot, more precisely the option "Renew with 5 domains".
When it comes to attracting developers to apply for the grant, I suggest also taking a look at past ETH Global hackathon winners. Some gems may be hiding there, even if they deployed their projects on another chain (this grant can get them to move to Arbitrum). Just an idea :slight_smile:
I vote snapshot Support the renew with 5 domains, adding Orbit”** and suggest some adjustments: The success of Seasons 1 and 2 has already proven the value of this program, and Season 3 is absolutely worth continuing. Through this funding initiative, Arbitrum can attract more creative projects, drive innovation, and foster long-term ecosystem growth.
What’s even more important is ensuring that these projects achieve long-term sustainability after receiving funding. This is crucial for building a stronger, more resilient ecosystem and enabling projects to thrive on Arbitrum over the long term.
Thanks @JoJo for this proposal.
We have voted for Season 3 of the Arbitrum Grant Program. We think it helps new builders create exciting projects in important areas like gaming, tools, and events. The program is fair and open, making sure projects meet goals before getting more funding. Adding the new Orbit domain gives us a chance to try fresh ideas and grow the Arbitrum community even more.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR the “Renew with 5 domains (adding the Orbit domain)” option in the Snapshot voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR the “Renew with 5 domains (adding the Orbit domain)” option in the Snapshot voting.
Overall, this proposal is well-thought-out, and we look forward to Season 3 of this program.
As mentioned in our comment during the proposal discussion:
We believe that the option of adding Orbit Chains should be for the same amount as other Domains.
We believe the Orbit chain should receive the same amount as the other domains. Considering the program’s duration of one year, this amount would be more appropriate for Season 3.
Thank you, @JoJo, for this great proposal; I just voted 'For renew with 5 domains adding Orbit.' The results of S1 and S2 are quite positive, and I'm glad to learn that a protocol like Mountain was bootstrapped by an Arbitrum grant.
I do think Arbitrum should continue to invest to attract builders and build a strong ecosystem, especially now, as the competition with other L2s is fierce. The budget matches industry standards, and I am in favor of vested bonuses that align with long-term incentives.
For the reasons I shared in this thread, I vote FOR this proposal and support the inclusion of the Orbit Domain.
Once again I want to signal my support for the new Domain to get the 100% of the funds, not just a part.
Thanks @JoJo for the great work.
After internal feedbacks from delegates regarding aligning the PM to the rest of the team, and potential concerns about the platform's costs, the following changes will be made to the economics of the Tally proposals:
As a consequence, the total cost OpEx of the program will change from the previous $727,800 for 5 domains to $703,800 + 25,000 ARB.
Thanks for the feedback. Let me go point by point here
The cost for Questbook’s platform seems rather high for the features and utility it offers. We’d like to better understand why the cost is as high as it is.
In the previous iterations, Questbook had a single management of both the PM and the platform, for a total of 10k/month. This was, likely, a way to optimize costs on their side, which now fell off with the decoupling of platform/role. For the utility, as we have seen so far the biggest part is the public availability of information and the accountability part: while this depends mostly on how DAs engage with the grantees, we see that if milestones are properly reported as comment in questbook it becomes easier to effectively track the flow of information; same thing for analysing approved versus rejected proposals. But I would like to leave the word to @Srijith-Questbook for a better analysis.
The PM has lower compensation compared to the domain allocators. While we understand that the volume of work might be smaller, we want to ensure that the compensation is adequate enough for delegates to be able to have reasonable expectations from the PM.
To be perfectly clear, the PM having less compensation compared to the DAs has been something dragged from the previous seasons. And it has been, up to some degree, an anomaly compared to most grant programs, both here and in other ecosystem, in which usually the PM has a more prominent compensation. That said, while I don't have a specific answer for this (and i will contact you privately to clarify your point of view here), I am seeing several delegates suggesting different type of compensation, either in quantity or structure or both, which at this point could be worth exploring.
As things are right now, DAs are to receive $8,000 a month for their work, but we have no way of knowing what their time commitment looks like. Whether we are to expect 10 hours a week or 40 isn’t mentioned anywhere.
The $8K salary is from season 2, in which we mostly quantified the work as an 80 hours per month work at a comp of $100 per hour. This is also just a reference number: there has been a very different way to engage from the different DAs, likely also due to the very different nature of domains. As stated in previous comments, we are likely scraping the bottom of the barrel on the DA side. The work is almost linear based on the amount of proposal inflow, the more proposals in, the higher the amount of work, and we can honestly expect the inflow to grow since this has been trued between season 1 and 2.
If the DAO is to establish a reporting standard or an oversight council of sorts, we’d like to see the program adhere to it. Adding a clause to cover that in the event it happens is probably good enough.
I'll contact you privately on this: discord archives after some time the discussions so not sure if everything that was discussed was still there; on that very specific case, and in general situations like this, I am currently working with entropy to mitigate the issue, and will post more in the report thread
This was incredibly helpful @JoJo. We think this program has been an extremely worthwhile exploration of mechanisms for the DAO to engage in grants across a diverse set of domains and we are looking forward to continuing this conversation.
With respect to scaling financially, I believe that this next Season is a great opportunity to begin increasing the expenditure and monitoring how that influences each sector individually. As we progress, grant recipients from past seasons will reach a maturity in which we will be able to accurately iterate on how we may skew these distributions going forward. We also expect that if this cycle progresses and Arbitrum's ecosystem continues to highlight progress in respective sectors then we will be able to better justify not only a funding increase, but analyze experimenting with skewing the weights.
This was incredibly helpful @JoJo. We think this program has been an extremely worthwhile exploration of mechanisms for the DAO to engage in grants across a diverse set of domains and we are looking forward to continuing this conversation.
With respect to scaling financially, I believe that this next Season is a great opportunity to begin increasing the expenditure and monitoring how that influences each sector individually. As we progress, grant recipients from past seasons will reach a maturity in which we will be able to accurately iterate on how we may skew these distributions going forward. We also expect that if this cycle progresses and Arbitrum's ecosystem continues to highlight progress in respective sectors then we will be able to better justify not only a funding increase, but analyze experimenting with skewing the weights.
With regards to your last point, we will continue to take some time to reflect on success and what that means with respect to each sector. Each domain's metric through which "success: can be determined is unique and you are correct that as we develop the program, a yes or no to completion will not suffice. Even projects that fail provide opportunity for insight and reason for the continuation of a domain. As the DAO matures as well, this program will evolve past the low-hanging fruit to offer the Arbitrum's staple projects grants for significant contributions to ecosystem.
We think as it stands the current proposal should pass a temperature check, but the domain allocation program should be subject to more reporting.
We think as it stands the current proposal should pass a temperature check, but the domain allocation program should be subject to more reporting.
As wrote in the proposal (while only at high level), the reporting should match the following:
Any idea on the above @BlockworksResearch? If you think is not enough, or should be different.
Additionally, it’s time for the DAO to choose categories with priority. We’re allocating equal funds across all domains when some of these domains are clearly unequal or have downstream benefits to Arbitrum that are hard to measure and thus harder to reward. Should an Orbit receive the same value as other domains here? Personally, we don’t think so.
Can you explain:
We agree with @PGov that this season will be one to continue analyzing for insights into how this program may scale with the addition of DAs. We like the initial approach of scaling horizontally by adding domains, with supporting Orbit development being the correct candidate for this season. As the current PM, we are interested in @JoJo’s perspective here and how the structure may evolve as we wish to continue supporting successful programs such as this.
We agree with @PGov that this season will be one to continue analyzing for insights into how this program may scale with the addition of DAs. We like the initial approach of scaling horizontally by adding domains, with supporting Orbit development being the correct candidate for this season. As the current PM, we are interested in @JoJo’s perspective here and how the structure may evolve as we wish to continue supporting successful programs such as this.
How to scale this. So, first, I think funding is at the limit on the downside: while the program is big in absolute terms, we are talking about $1.5M each domain which means, on a spending basis, $125k per month per domain. This can be a lot, or not, and is either 2.5 grants at $50k or 5 grants of $25k to put tghins in perspective. If we think this program will become important over time we should do a reflection during 2025 on how to differentiate spending, because maybe we will understand that not all domains are born equals so to say. So the first way to scale this into a new season would be to skew weights in financing.
Second thing, would obviously be to eventually add new domains OR specialized existing domains OR drop non interesting domains.
A more nuanced evolution would be for the program to be a stage 1 of other program. We could think about incubator program, live in our dao, through avi or other initiatives, and the current program could be an initial version of it. This is likely far away in time, because in term of coordination with other daos program and infra we have so many low hanging fruit to tap into first that this is not likely the best return of value vs the energy put into it. But a cow can dream.
All of this might also need to potentially at some point scale personnel. We decided for this season to keep it as almost as it was, both in monetary terms and in amount of people involved; if the program is going to be succesfull it might likely change.
Finally, and here the dao could chim in a lot, defining what success looks like could allow to unlock better directionality. So far, success = amount of completed projects. This is extremely basic level if we want to be honest, also because the bar in crypto is generally quite low; a completed project might not be a success, might be completed but abandoned (or an outright fraud), might not contribute to the ecosystem etc. We are currently keeping a pragmatic approach: entry level grant program, allow small teams to bootstrap in arbitrum, allow big teams to prioritise subset of functions in arbitrum, and we will do our best to plug in good initiatives into other programs like the ones run by the Arbitrum Foundation. Again, this is a pragmatic approach of a dao that needs "stuff to be done", is not necessarily the best and most valuable approach.
So TLDR how to evolve the program
Hope this answer your question @AranaDigital
Thank you @JoJo for delivering this proposal and our appreciation to @Srijith-Questbook and the Questbook team for their support. We have worked with them to iterate and improve this program over the first two seasons and are pleased to see its proposed return for a third. The transparency and impact of this program is impressive and one that we support the continuation of.
We agree with @PGov that this season will be one to continue analyzing for insights into how this program may scale with the addition of DAs. We like the initial approach of scaling horizontally by adding domains, with supporting Orbit development being the correct candidate for this season. As the current PM, we are interested in @JoJo's perspective here and how the structure may evolve as we wish to continue supporting successful programs such as this.
We're Voting FOR this proposal
The proposal for Season 3 of the Arbitrum D.A.O. Grant Program presents a solid foundation for continued ecosystem growth and support, including supporting Orbit chain adoption.
We're Voting FOR this proposal
The proposal for Season 3 of the Arbitrum D.A.O. Grant Program presents a solid foundation for continued ecosystem growth and support, including supporting Orbit chain adoption.
I voted FOR, with 5 DAs, introducing Orbit.
This is one of the most successful programs within the DAO and it is time to have a stronger support for Orbit, and I'm sure that there will be coordination with Stylus Sprint Evaluation committee to ensure there is no overlap.
I will be voting for, with 5 domains. As I stated above this is one of the most successful DAO-led projects and I think it's important to continue it. It serves an important niche of smaller-scale projects and is done in a cost-effective manner. I look forward to seeing how the 5th domain evolves.
I am long-term concerned about bandwidth of the domain allocators, but JoJo has indicated it should be okay for the upcoming season. I think something to think about as the program goes forward is considering ways to make sure it is sustainable long, long term. Whether that is additional roles or backups incase one of the allocators has to leave and a new person can come in with sufficient knowledge. But ultimately that is a small issue that I am confident the team can handle when ready / relevant.
Voted to Renew with 5 domains (adding the Orbit domain):
I believe this is the most comprehensive and direct grant program we have developed as a DAO. It is simple and straightforward for builders, while on the other hand, we have a very capable and complete team and DA working on it.
Voted to Renew with 5 domains (adding the Orbit domain):
I believe this is the most comprehensive and direct grant program we have developed as a DAO. It is simple and straightforward for builders, while on the other hand, we have a very capable and complete team and DA working on it.
I decided to fully support the proposal, including the possibility of adding a 5th domain. I would like to point out to the team that as ambitions and the program grow, we expect the quality of the program to remain as high as it was in previous seasons. The responsibility has never been greater.
I expect all team members and the DA to bring their A-game and make this the best program for builders.
Having participated in the Questbook program, we recognize its well-structured approach and appreciate the improvements JoJo has highlighted from Seasons 1 and 2. With that said, support renewing the Arbitrum D.A.O. Grant Program with 5 domains, building on the success of funding over 190 projects with strong outcomes. Adding the Orbit Chains domain addresses evolving ecosystem needs, and we are excited to see its potential while acknowledging it requires focused attention moving forward.
Having participated in the Questbook program, we recognize its well-structured approach and appreciate the improvements JoJo has highlighted from Seasons 1 and 2. With that said, support renewing the Arbitrum D.A.O. Grant Program with 5 domains, building on the success of funding over 190 projects with strong outcomes. Adding the Orbit Chains domain addresses evolving ecosystem needs, and we are excited to see its potential while acknowledging it requires focused attention moving forward.
The main challenge is: allocating, to that single project, in a way that bears the most return for the ecosystem. We want to ensure diversity in the program but we also want to leverage expertise and success, tracking metrics such as if the team has been around 3 months after the grant will help us understand if we are going in the right direction.
We are overall in favor of the changes from last iteration to this one. The one-year term is a logical progression, and the framework offers flexibility for future domain additions.
Some thoughts:
We are overall in favor of the changes from last iteration to this one. The one-year term is a logical progression, and the framework offers flexibility for future domain additions.
Some thoughts:
Improved tracking via Questbook and monthly unified reports ensuring the community remains informed is great
Expanded efforts in Gaming and the potential Orbit domain are interesting, we like the orbit domain a lot and think it should be added
The inclusion of post-grant surveys and milestone tracking of needed and we are in support
The $750K allocation for Orbit seems large for an experimental domain, but with chains we understand a decent amount is needed to move the needle, will keep looking out for other comments.
67% of Season 2 projects incomplete is quite high. How are we ensuring that those are kept up with?
Might be worth making more than one allocator per domain in the future?
For this new season, maybe a clearer success metric for new domains like Orbit would enhance community buy-in fully?
I am voting on Snapshot to「 renew the five domains and add the Orbit domain」 This proposal, while maintaining the original four core domains, flexibly introduces the Orbit domain and provides a modular framework for future expansion. This architecture allows for iterative updates without disrupting existing structures, aligning better with the DAO’s long-term growth needs.
Building on the first two seasons’ experience, the third season sets clear funding allocations and upper limits for each domain, while reserving half the funds for the potential new domain. This ensures continuity and sustainability in the funding structure, offering recipients a more predictable growth environment.
Sure!
how does this work onchain? do each domain allocators keep these funds in a SAFE?
Snapshot Voting in favor of renewing the Arbitrum D.A.O. Domain Allocator Offerings Grant Program with five domains, including the experimental Orbit domain. This renewal strengthens the ecosystem by fostering innovation across diverse fields while allowing room for new ideas with Orbit’s introduction. The program’s focus on mentorship, tracking progress, and fast-tracking outstanding projects ensures accountability and positions Arbitrum as a leader in decentralized development.
I'm voting FOR the proposal on Snapshot, more precisely the option "Renew with 5 domains".
When it comes to attracting developers to apply for the grant, I suggest also taking a look at past ETH Global hackathon winners. Some gems may be hiding there, even if they deployed their projects on another chain (this grant can get them to move to Arbitrum). Just an idea :slight_smile:
I vote snapshot Support the renew with 5 domains, adding Orbit”** and suggest some adjustments: The success of Seasons 1 and 2 has already proven the value of this program, and Season 3 is absolutely worth continuing. Through this funding initiative, Arbitrum can attract more creative projects, drive innovation, and foster long-term ecosystem growth.
What’s even more important is ensuring that these projects achieve long-term sustainability after receiving funding. This is crucial for building a stronger, more resilient ecosystem and enabling projects to thrive on Arbitrum over the long term.
Thanks @JoJo for this proposal.
We have voted for Season 3 of the Arbitrum Grant Program. We think it helps new builders create exciting projects in important areas like gaming, tools, and events. The program is fair and open, making sure projects meet goals before getting more funding. Adding the new Orbit domain gives us a chance to try fresh ideas and grow the Arbitrum community even more.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR the “Renew with 5 domains (adding the Orbit domain)” option in the Snapshot voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR the “Renew with 5 domains (adding the Orbit domain)” option in the Snapshot voting.
Overall, this proposal is well-thought-out, and we look forward to Season 3 of this program.
As mentioned in our comment during the proposal discussion:
We believe that the option of adding Orbit Chains should be for the same amount as other Domains.
We believe the Orbit chain should receive the same amount as the other domains. Considering the program’s duration of one year, this amount would be more appropriate for Season 3.
Thank you, @JoJo, for this great proposal; I just voted 'For renew with 5 domains adding Orbit.' The results of S1 and S2 are quite positive, and I'm glad to learn that a protocol like Mountain was bootstrapped by an Arbitrum grant.
I do think Arbitrum should continue to invest to attract builders and build a strong ecosystem, especially now, as the competition with other L2s is fierce. The budget matches industry standards, and I am in favor of vested bonuses that align with long-term incentives.
For the reasons I shared in this thread, I vote FOR this proposal and support the inclusion of the Orbit Domain.
Once again I want to signal my support for the new Domain to get the 100% of the funds, not just a part.
Thanks @JoJo for the great work.
I am voting on Snapshot to「 renew the five domains and add the Orbit domain」 This proposal, while maintaining the original four core domains, flexibly introduces the Orbit domain and provides a modular framework for future expansion. This architecture allows for iterative updates without disrupting existing structures, aligning better with the DAO’s long-term growth needs.
Building on the first two seasons’ experience, the third season sets clear funding allocations and upper limits for each domain, while reserving half the funds for the potential new domain. This ensures continuity and sustainability in the funding structure, offering recipients a more predictable growth environment.
Additionally, the proposal strengthens reporting requirements, communication mechanisms, and the election process, thereby increasing the transparency and auditability of governance. This reduces information asymmetry and boosts community trust and support for the funding initiative. In summary, while inheriting the successful elements of previous seasons, this proposal optimizes capital allocation, domain expansion, governance procedures, and ecosystem integration strategies, thereby creating a more efficient, sustainable, and flexible funding framework for the Arbitrum DAO.
Sure!
how does this work onchain? do each domain allocators keep these funds in a SAFE?
have you thought about adding some sort of checks and balances to the process? How free are the domain allocators?
if this works well, why are we not expanding the scope here? If we were to triple the money in this system, do you think we could be able to spend it intelligently? How would we do it - more domains, more domain allocators in the same domains, bigger grants?
I vote snapshot Support the renew with 5 domains, adding Orbit”** and suggest some adjustments: The success of Seasons 1 and 2 has already proven the value of this program, and Season 3 is absolutely worth continuing. Through this funding initiative, Arbitrum can attract more creative projects, drive innovation, and foster long-term ecosystem growth.
What’s even more important is ensuring that these projects achieve long-term sustainability after receiving funding. This is crucial for building a stronger, more resilient ecosystem and enabling projects to thrive on Arbitrum over the long term.
The inclusion of Orbit is a promising addition. It not only paves the way for Arbitrum’s expansion to L3 but also improves the user experience. With the modular design, the program becomes more flexible and comprehensive. Adding Orbit doesn’t disrupt the progress of existing domains but instead enhances the overall impact.
I also believe that raising the budget and easing KPI requirements is a necessary step. This will allow for more efficient support of outstanding projects and accelerate the realization of results. Overall, this proposal is heading in the right direction with a clear execution plan. Supporting it is supporting the future growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem!
I voted in favor (Renew with 5 domains adding Orb) on Snapshot for the reasons I previously mentioned:
I agree that the program should continue given its performance in the first two stages. It's a good sign that fewer projects have been abandoned. I have no doubt that the incorporation of Orbit will benefit the project.
67% of Season 2 projects incomplete is quite high. How are we ensuring that those are kept up with?
67% of Season 2 projects incomplete is quite high. How are we ensuring that those are kept up with?
Hello and thanks :) answer of this was provided here:
Onto the other questions:
This is something we have been discussing. To be totally fair, DAs are almost at the natural limit, at list for the comp provided, for the amount of work done. So it will make sense at some point, but only if we increase the overall allocation of capital to distribute per domain, otherwise OpEx would just be too high % wise. I guess we will revisit this for an eventual fourth season, or during the year if the DAO decides to commit more capital on current domains (highly unlikely, but who knows).
The $750K allocation for Orbit seems large for an experimental domain, but with chains we understand a decent amount is needed to move the needle, will keep looking out for other comments.
While of course $750K is quite a large amount in absolute term, is relative low on a monthly basis. We are talking aroun $62K per month, which is a bit more of a single 50k grant, or 2-3 $25K grants. It's likely enough to experiment with a new domain for a vertical that the DAO still needs to properly strategize upon, but also a relative low amount if you think about a total financing, in 1 year, of 15-25 projects.
Please, if any delegate has any feedback on the amount that should be committed to Orbit, do voice your opinion. While the vote is so far indicating that might make sense to spin up the Orbit domain, some has expressed how maybe Orbit capital allocation should match the other domain as well. If there is a strong interest toward this, we could discuss and address it before tally, even with a further snapshot vote.
Im voting NO, as there are already so many initiatives running and no clear monitoring of all of those. Im still in the camp saying the DAO needs a fixed budget and someone taking care of treasury management. If the budget is used up, the DAO has to find ways to pay for initiatives.
Interesting perspective. Definitely, this is a principle that a well-functioning program should adhere to.
I just voted in favor on Snapshot to renew the program with 5 domains. As I mentioned on my previous reply, the program's impact has been exceptional, and I believe this renewal will further drive innovation and creativity. Excited to see what comes next.
voting Renew with 5 domains (adding Orb on the current offchain proposal because this grant program is one of the most important mechanisms that the DAO has to onboard new contributors, builders, and projects into Arbitrum.
Thank you for this proposal! I’m delighted to see the Grant program continuing to advance. I must say, @JoJo' execution is unparalleled—one of the most diligent and effective people I’ve encountered in Arbitrum DAO.
From the data, it’s apparent that the completion rate for Season 2 has dropped significantly. I believe this is not only because Season 2 is still ongoing but also due to the bear market. However, with the market now warming up, I think Orbit is poised for a rapid growth phase.
Thank you for this proposal! I’m delighted to see the Grant program continuing to advance. I must say, @JoJo' execution is unparalleled—one of the most diligent and effective people I’ve encountered in Arbitrum DAO.
From the data, it’s apparent that the completion rate for Season 2 has dropped significantly. I believe this is not only because Season 2 is still ongoing but also due to the bear market. However, with the market now warming up, I think Orbit is poised for a rapid growth phase.
So we could adopt a more aggressive approach by slightly relaxing the criteria for projects to receive Grants. Overly strict KPIs could potentially stifle innovation. Has @JoJo considered this issue? Happy to get your feedback!
Both in snapshot, and likely in tally, it would be hard to cementify specifically these details since our dao is slowly moving toward initiatives, like the one proposed by @AlexLumley, in which there should be some sort of standardization of reporting (and likely repository).
That said, the suggesion in term of details is great, and is kinda what we track internally already but everyone in his own spreadsheet that we will standardize (below a snippet of mine to give a practical example).
While not loving notion, I am agnostic on the platform. It can definitely be a start. One of my strongest desire is that, however we start, by end of next year we will have indeed a platform, dao owned, in which we can put these and other informations as well. But that is OT here.
Thanks for the suggestion!
gm - I voted in favor of the renewal of the program. As I mentioned before, the Questbook program has demonstrated the ability to move with agility and effectiveness, and I am confident it will have an even bigger impact in S3.
Disclosing conflict of interest: I have been proposed as a DA for one of the domains.
What I mean is that this proposal from Entropy suggests a certain path of development https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/3 I wanted grants to be given to projects that correspond to this path, only that.
You are right, it even turns out that the fund has decreased a little.
First, thanks to @JoJo for bringing this proposal forward. The Questbook programs during S1 and S2 have been a great mechanism to provide alternative funding for grants outside of Arbitrum Foundation grants and direct DAO funding. The growth of Questbook Domain Allocator Offerings from one of the earliest DAO pilot programs to now its 3rd season is a great success story.
On the specifics of the proposal, we are supportive of the increased timeline and budgets as well as adding the 5th domain for Orbit. However, we would like to see more detail around post-grant tracking. We’d like to recommend a central public database in Notion that includes:
On @pedrob’s suggestion of a vested ARB bonus tied to completing the 12-month term, we agree that a potential bonus can be allocated for DAs without reducing the monthly payments.
n @pedrob’s suggestion of a vested ARB bonus tied to completing the 12-month term, we agree that a potential bonus can be allocated for DAs without reducing the monthly payments
The success of Ss 1 and 2 is proof that Season 3 is worth continuing. Arbitrum can attract more creative projects, driving innovation, and growing the ecosystem in the long term.
One key goal here I see really reasonable is ensuring long-term sustainability for projects post-funding. This will help Arbitrum build a stronger, more sustainable ecosystem and keeping projects thriving on Arbitrum for the long run.
Yes, absolutely, I completely agree with this point. Flow is incredibly important for a new project in Crypto. In fact, I am very eager to see projects similar to Pump.fun and Friend.tech emerge on Arbitrum. However, this creates a paradox: if a project has already been launched and is well-received, does it still need these tens of thousands of dollars in Grants? This is a tricky question.
I believe that if we can support developers when their ideas are still in the concept stage, it would be more impactful. Of course, this is extremely challenging and difficult to evaluate in terms of KPIs.
So we could adopt a more aggressive approach by slightly relaxing the criteria for projects to receive Grants. Overly strict KPIs could potentially stifle innovation. Has @JoJo considered this issue? Happy to get your feedback!
You are right @Argonaut. I crafted the section "Program Phases" to better explain the timeline, please let me know if there is anything to clarify further.
Why do you think that the continuation of this program will be successful if the second season clearly showed poor results and the first was significantly more successful?
Thanks for the proposal and for seasons 1 and 2. You have done exceptional work with this program. I'm looking forward to season 3, and I agree that having a new domain that enables orbits to grow is a great idea and challenge.
One thing that always comes to mind is incentives and how to align the domain allocators with the correct incentives—not just for deploying but for being cautious with the money being handled. I would love to see better incentive alignment.
D.A.O. grants are among the few programs to show meaningful value and returns to the DAO and community. A few thoughts:
I am voting on Snapshot to「 renew the five domains and add the Orbit domain」 This proposal, while maintaining the original four core domains, flexibly introduces the Orbit domain and provides a modular framework for future expansion. This architecture allows for iterative updates without disrupting existing structures, aligning better with the DAO’s long-term growth needs.
Building on the first two seasons’ experience, the third season sets clear funding allocations and upper limits for each domain, while reserving half the funds for the potential new domain. This ensures continuity and sustainability in the funding structure, offering recipients a more predictable growth environment.
Additionally, the proposal strengthens reporting requirements, communication mechanisms, and the election process, thereby increasing the transparency and auditability of governance. This reduces information asymmetry and boosts community trust and support for the funding initiative. In summary, while inheriting the successful elements of previous seasons, this proposal optimizes capital allocation, domain expansion, governance procedures, and ecosystem integration strategies, thereby creating a more efficient, sustainable, and flexible funding framework for the Arbitrum DAO.
Sure!
how does this work onchain? do each domain allocators keep these funds in a SAFE?
have you thought about adding some sort of checks and balances to the process? How free are the domain allocators?
if this works well, why are we not expanding the scope here? If we were to triple the money in this system, do you think we could be able to spend it intelligently? How would we do it - more domains, more domain allocators in the same domains, bigger grants?
I vote snapshot Support the renew with 5 domains, adding Orbit”** and suggest some adjustments: The success of Seasons 1 and 2 has already proven the value of this program, and Season 3 is absolutely worth continuing. Through this funding initiative, Arbitrum can attract more creative projects, drive innovation, and foster long-term ecosystem growth.
What’s even more important is ensuring that these projects achieve long-term sustainability after receiving funding. This is crucial for building a stronger, more resilient ecosystem and enabling projects to thrive on Arbitrum over the long term.
The inclusion of Orbit is a promising addition. It not only paves the way for Arbitrum’s expansion to L3 but also improves the user experience. With the modular design, the program becomes more flexible and comprehensive. Adding Orbit doesn’t disrupt the progress of existing domains but instead enhances the overall impact.
I also believe that raising the budget and easing KPI requirements is a necessary step. This will allow for more efficient support of outstanding projects and accelerate the realization of results. Overall, this proposal is heading in the right direction with a clear execution plan. Supporting it is supporting the future growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem!
I voted in favor (Renew with 5 domains adding Orb) on Snapshot for the reasons I previously mentioned:
I agree that the program should continue given its performance in the first two stages. It's a good sign that fewer projects have been abandoned. I have no doubt that the incorporation of Orbit will benefit the project.
67% of Season 2 projects incomplete is quite high. How are we ensuring that those are kept up with?
67% of Season 2 projects incomplete is quite high. How are we ensuring that those are kept up with?
Hello and thanks :) answer of this was provided here:
Onto the other questions:
This is something we have been discussing. To be totally fair, DAs are almost at the natural limit, at list for the comp provided, for the amount of work done. So it will make sense at some point, but only if we increase the overall allocation of capital to distribute per domain, otherwise OpEx would just be too high % wise. I guess we will revisit this for an eventual fourth season, or during the year if the DAO decides to commit more capital on current domains (highly unlikely, but who knows).
The $750K allocation for Orbit seems large for an experimental domain, but with chains we understand a decent amount is needed to move the needle, will keep looking out for other comments.
While of course $750K is quite a large amount in absolute term, is relative low on a monthly basis. We are talking aroun $62K per month, which is a bit more of a single 50k grant, or 2-3 $25K grants. It's likely enough to experiment with a new domain for a vertical that the DAO still needs to properly strategize upon, but also a relative low amount if you think about a total financing, in 1 year, of 15-25 projects.
Please, if any delegate has any feedback on the amount that should be committed to Orbit, do voice your opinion. While the vote is so far indicating that might make sense to spin up the Orbit domain, some has expressed how maybe Orbit capital allocation should match the other domain as well. If there is a strong interest toward this, we could discuss and address it before tally, even with a further snapshot vote.
Im voting NO, as there are already so many initiatives running and no clear monitoring of all of those. Im still in the camp saying the DAO needs a fixed budget and someone taking care of treasury management. If the budget is used up, the DAO has to find ways to pay for initiatives.
Interesting perspective. Definitely, this is a principle that a well-functioning program should adhere to.
I just voted in favor on Snapshot to renew the program with 5 domains. As I mentioned on my previous reply, the program's impact has been exceptional, and I believe this renewal will further drive innovation and creativity. Excited to see what comes next.
voting Renew with 5 domains (adding Orb on the current offchain proposal because this grant program is one of the most important mechanisms that the DAO has to onboard new contributors, builders, and projects into Arbitrum.
Thank you for this proposal! I’m delighted to see the Grant program continuing to advance. I must say, @JoJo' execution is unparalleled—one of the most diligent and effective people I’ve encountered in Arbitrum DAO.
From the data, it’s apparent that the completion rate for Season 2 has dropped significantly. I believe this is not only because Season 2 is still ongoing but also due to the bear market. However, with the market now warming up, I think Orbit is poised for a rapid growth phase.
Thank you for this proposal! I’m delighted to see the Grant program continuing to advance. I must say, @JoJo' execution is unparalleled—one of the most diligent and effective people I’ve encountered in Arbitrum DAO.
From the data, it’s apparent that the completion rate for Season 2 has dropped significantly. I believe this is not only because Season 2 is still ongoing but also due to the bear market. However, with the market now warming up, I think Orbit is poised for a rapid growth phase.
So we could adopt a more aggressive approach by slightly relaxing the criteria for projects to receive Grants. Overly strict KPIs could potentially stifle innovation. Has @JoJo considered this issue? Happy to get your feedback!
Both in snapshot, and likely in tally, it would be hard to cementify specifically these details since our dao is slowly moving toward initiatives, like the one proposed by @AlexLumley, in which there should be some sort of standardization of reporting (and likely repository).
That said, the suggesion in term of details is great, and is kinda what we track internally already but everyone in his own spreadsheet that we will standardize (below a snippet of mine to give a practical example).
While not loving notion, I am agnostic on the platform. It can definitely be a start. One of my strongest desire is that, however we start, by end of next year we will have indeed a platform, dao owned, in which we can put these and other informations as well. But that is OT here.
Thanks for the suggestion!
gm - I voted in favor of the renewal of the program. As I mentioned before, the Questbook program has demonstrated the ability to move with agility and effectiveness, and I am confident it will have an even bigger impact in S3.
Disclosing conflict of interest: I have been proposed as a DA for one of the domains.
What I mean is that this proposal from Entropy suggests a certain path of development https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/3 I wanted grants to be given to projects that correspond to this path, only that.
You are right, it even turns out that the fund has decreased a little.
First, thanks to @JoJo for bringing this proposal forward. The Questbook programs during S1 and S2 have been a great mechanism to provide alternative funding for grants outside of Arbitrum Foundation grants and direct DAO funding. The growth of Questbook Domain Allocator Offerings from one of the earliest DAO pilot programs to now its 3rd season is a great success story.
On the specifics of the proposal, we are supportive of the increased timeline and budgets as well as adding the 5th domain for Orbit. However, we would like to see more detail around post-grant tracking. We’d like to recommend a central public database in Notion that includes:
On @pedrob’s suggestion of a vested ARB bonus tied to completing the 12-month term, we agree that a potential bonus can be allocated for DAs without reducing the monthly payments.
n @pedrob’s suggestion of a vested ARB bonus tied to completing the 12-month term, we agree that a potential bonus can be allocated for DAs without reducing the monthly payments
The success of Ss 1 and 2 is proof that Season 3 is worth continuing. Arbitrum can attract more creative projects, driving innovation, and growing the ecosystem in the long term.
One key goal here I see really reasonable is ensuring long-term sustainability for projects post-funding. This will help Arbitrum build a stronger, more sustainable ecosystem and keeping projects thriving on Arbitrum for the long run.
Yes, absolutely, I completely agree with this point. Flow is incredibly important for a new project in Crypto. In fact, I am very eager to see projects similar to Pump.fun and Friend.tech emerge on Arbitrum. However, this creates a paradox: if a project has already been launched and is well-received, does it still need these tens of thousands of dollars in Grants? This is a tricky question.
I believe that if we can support developers when their ideas are still in the concept stage, it would be more impactful. Of course, this is extremely challenging and difficult to evaluate in terms of KPIs.
So we could adopt a more aggressive approach by slightly relaxing the criteria for projects to receive Grants. Overly strict KPIs could potentially stifle innovation. Has @JoJo considered this issue? Happy to get your feedback!
You are right @Argonaut. I crafted the section "Program Phases" to better explain the timeline, please let me know if there is anything to clarify further.
Why do you think that the continuation of this program will be successful if the second season clearly showed poor results and the first was significantly more successful?
Thanks for the proposal and for seasons 1 and 2. You have done exceptional work with this program. I'm looking forward to season 3, and I agree that having a new domain that enables orbits to grow is a great idea and challenge.
One thing that always comes to mind is incentives and how to align the domain allocators with the correct incentives—not just for deploying but for being cautious with the money being handled. I would love to see better incentive alignment.
D.A.O. grants are among the few programs to show meaningful value and returns to the DAO and community. A few thoughts:
First, thanks to @JoJo for bringing this proposal forward. The Questbook programs during S1 and S2 have been a great mechanism to provide alternative funding for grants outside of Arbitrum Foundation grants and direct DAO funding. The growth of Questbook Domain Allocator Offerings from one of the earliest DAO pilot programs to now its 3rd season is a great success story.
On the specifics of the proposal, we are supportive of the increased timeline and budgets as well as adding the 5th domain for Orbit. However, we would like to see more detail around post-grant tracking. We’d like to recommend a central public database in Notion that includes:
We believe these additions will help strengthen the program in Season 3 and beyond.
On @pedrob’s suggestion of a vested ARB bonus tied to completing the 12-month term, we agree that a potential bonus can be allocated for DAs without reducing the monthly payments.
I guess if there is enough consensus on this, sure, we can structure a bonus that is either on completion, or paid pro rata with a rollover into new DA/PM/people in case of substitution (mentioning the second cause I remember reading this in a few proposals, but this is on top of my mind and might be wrong). Would have to study how we are currently doing it, and in general check consensus with delegates.
Interesting in seeing if there is enough appetite for it, and would appreciate anyone who can chim in on this topic.
n @pedrob’s suggestion of a vested ARB bonus tied to completing the 12-month term, we agree that a potential bonus can be allocated for DAs without reducing the monthly payments
Yes! After discussing it with @JoJo and understanding that the workload for DDAs is very heavy in applications, I agree that the best way to align the role with the long-term view is to add a bonus without reducing the base compensation for the position.
Interesting in seeing if there is enough appetite for it, and would appreciate anyone who can chim in on this topic.
So we could adopt a more aggressive approach by slightly relaxing the criteria for projects to receive Grants. Overly strict KPIs could potentially stifle innovation. Has @JoJo considered this issue? Happy to get your feedback!
what I have observed over the last year is that the influx of participants is really a function among others of the narratives currently live in crypto as a whole plus the enthusiasm of crypto participants. The success of the program is very flow dependant, but at the third iteration we might just be in the situation that the program is established enough for people to know about it and come to us, and this should help in this regard :)
You are right @Argonaut. I crafted the section "Program Phases" to better explain the timeline, please let me know if there is anything to clarify further.
Excluding the initial phases of snapshot discussion, temp check on the proposal, candidacy for DAs, elections for DAs, and on-chain vote, the program is articulated in the following phases:
During all of these phases, there will be parallel communication phases related to
Why do you think that the continuation of this program will be successful if the second season clearly showed poor results and the first was significantly more successful?
Hello and thanks for the comment. I think what I posted above is not necessarily clear, will try to rewrite: what is happening in phase 2 is that, when a project is approved, it has up to 6 months to complete their deliverable. Since season 2, at full capacity, has finished 25 days ago, it means that we have up to 5 months for projects to complete. This explains why the % of completion seems low but is not necessarily low: we have until beginning of may for projects to finish what they promised. To give the DAO a better sense check of performances, I will take care of updating the numbers before we go to tally (so in a month or so). One other thing that should happen is that @Entropy is looking into auditing some of the projects to allow the DAO to have a better, unbiased view. This won't encompass all of course, but is should partially highlight if the program went as expected or not.
Also, I don’t think it’s worth increasing the volume of grants if we don’t know the reasons for the deterioration in indicators.
While I can understand why you posted this due to the misunderstanding above, I would like to reiterate that the volume is not increasing. We had, in previous season, $750,000 per domain over a 6 months period. Having now $1,500,000 per domain over a 1 year period is maintaining the same level, just more extended in time. (and is also technically less than what we should have had: in season 2, we voted for $1,000,000 each domain, but by the end of Tally voting and conversion we had less, around $750,000 per domain, due to volatility of arb. We decided, after that experience, that $750,000 was likely enough for 6 months to be mindful of the DAO spending rate).
First of all, I have a question about detox in grants. I think it is too early to offer continuation of grants until we understand the conclusions from the previous grants.
Most of the detox discussion has been around incentive programs and not grants, but I can also understand your point here. One of the perks of the current timeline is that we will vote for tally around the end of January, when the detox period is more than over.
Secondly, I think that we should also wait for a certain plan for a year or three ahead from Entropy to understand which grants are best for us to give.
This, sorry, I don't understand, could you clarify?
Thanks for the proposal and for seasons 1 and 2. You have done exceptional work with this program. I'm looking forward to season 3, and I agree that having a new domain that enables orbits to grow is a great idea and challenge.
One thing that always comes to mind is incentives and how to align the domain allocators with the correct incentives—not just for deploying but for being cautious with the money being handled. I would love to see better incentive alignment.
Also, I think it would be incredibly healthy to have rotation in some domain allocators.
I will vote "FOR" in snapshot for full 5 domains.
D.A.O. grants are among the few programs to show meaningful value and returns to the DAO and community. A few thoughts:
Lastly, Gaming has received a lot of capital via the GCP (even if not yet deployed), and it would be nice to see a new focus here, although we're not against the domain as it will serve as a stopgap until capital is unlocked there.
Overall, these are more curiosities than critiques, and we generally look forward to Season 3.
Hi! Thank you for the offer. I think that grants of this level are definitely needed by Arithrum and there are many projects with small needs for funds. However, First of all, I have a question about detox in grants. I think it is too early to offer continuation of grants until we understand the conclusions from the previous grants. Secondly, I think that we should also wait for a certain plan for a year or three ahead from Entropy to understand which grants are best for us to give.
Amount of uncompleted projects: 85 / 67%
Hi! Thank you for the offer. I think that grants of this level are definitely needed by Arithrum and there are many projects with small needs for funds. However, First of all, I have a question about detox in grants. I think it is too early to offer continuation of grants until we understand the conclusions from the previous grants. Secondly, I think that we should also wait for a certain plan for a year or three ahead from Entropy to understand which grants are best for us to give.
Why do you think that the continuation of this program will be successful if the second season clearly showed poor results and the first was significantly more successful?
Perhaps it is worth changing the rules for selecting projects for grants, if the percentage of successful projects has dropped so much since the first season?
Also, I don’t think it’s worth increasing the volume of grants if we don’t know the reasons for the deterioration in indicators.
As we move forward, we just want to ask that what are the key takeaways or challenges from SS1 and SS2 that could guide improvements or adjustments for SS3?
As we move forward, we just want to ask that what are the key takeaways or challenges from SS1 and SS2 that could guide improvements or adjustments for SS3?
if I had to take a guess: we have limited funding, and always oversubscribed domains. So far, 1 out of 4 takes a grant, overtime it will likely become 1 out of 5, but that's not really a challenge it only means the program is succesfull.
The main challenge is: allocating, to that single project, in a way that bears the most return for the ecosystem. We want to ensure diversity in the program but we also want to leverage expertise and success, tracking metrics such as if the team has been around 3 months after the grant will help us understand if we are going in the right direction.
We are pleased with the proposal and acknowledge that, with the experience gained from previous programs, you have once again managed to present a proposal that includes all the necessary details.
However, we would like to make a small observation: the image shared, which details the timelines for each stage, indicates that the total duration of the proposal is one year and 9 months. For this reason, we believe it would be important to include a textual breakdown of these timelines, clearly differentiating between the program duration (one year) and the overall proposal, to enhance understanding.
I wanted grants to be given to projects that correspond to this path, only that.
I wanted grants to be given to projects that correspond to this path, only that.
This is a very interesting take and first time I hear it referred to this set of grants which are, de facto, introductionary in our DAO. I disagree on the premise here, in the sense that this program can serve, among others, the goal to attract builders and new teams in arbitrum, which is a goal consistent with the overarching goals we have as a DAO and as a rollup. What I mean is that to me is consistent with the MVP posted by Entropy, and obviously devil will be in the execution of the program more than anything else. I also understand that what I just posted can be something to which not everybody can necessarily agree. But is always good to have different visions and pov.
However, this creates a paradox: if a project has already been launched and is well-received, does it still need these tens of thousands of dollars in Grants? This is a tricky question.
However, this creates a paradox: if a project has already been launched and is well-received, does it still need these tens of thousands of dollars in Grants? This is a tricky question.
this is something I covered but not sure if it was here, so will gladly repeat. I get this question a lot: does a project that has made a seed round for a few millions need to tap into a program like this one? Answer is: depends. While a project can have a fat treasury, doesn't mean is keen on spending. While 50k can be a lot, or not, they can be enough to prioritize certain development of core functionalities in our chain, or expantion in our chain, knowing that these functionalities/expantion might have likely come at some point in future but not knowing when or in what regards. In this sense for a big project a program like this allows to move arbitrum related milestone on top of the list; if you add to this the fact that the DAs can also negotiate, up to some degree, for a deployment that is in the best interest of the ecosystem, I think the answer is yes, big projects should tap into this as long as their application can bring value in the ecosystem.
This is also partially related to what we saw in stip/ltipp, with extremely big project tapping into the program, and some questioning if it was the case for this "rich" projects to do so. In the end, the answer is in how is executed more than in the fact per se.
I believe that if we can support developers when their ideas are still in the concept stage, it would be more impactful. Of course, this is extremely challenging and difficult to evaluate in terms of KPIs.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you for sharing the Season 3 proposal for the Arbitrum Domain Allocator Offerings (D.A.O.) Grant Program. We find this proposal truly impressive and appreciate the thoughtful evolution of the program across its previous seasons. The focus on enabling small teams and builders to bootstrap their projects perfectly aligns with the DAO's vision of fostering ecosystem innovation.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you for sharing the Season 3 proposal for the Arbitrum Domain Allocator Offerings (D.A.O.) Grant Program. We find this proposal truly impressive and appreciate the thoughtful evolution of the program across its previous seasons. The focus on enabling small teams and builders to bootstrap their projects perfectly aligns with the DAO's vision of fostering ecosystem innovation.
As a grantee in Season 2 of the Education track, we can attest to how smooth the entire process was — from the application stage to the clear communication during the feedback period, and through to the approval and ongoing communication. The work done by the domain allocators in Season 2 has been truly impressive.
Nova, initially included in the scope, hasn't seen the forecasted adoption.
We're curious about Nova's current trajectory. Would it be beneficial to allocate a specific portion of the Dev Tooling domain's budget to projects that could potentially drive Nova adoption? Or is the focus shifting away from this area?
Three months after proposal completion, grantees must complete a survey and publish an update to their final report, aimed at tracking their success, foothold gained in Arbitrum, and adherence to or pivot from their original idea.
The post-grant tracking mechanism is an excellent addition. This will provide meaningful insights into the real impact of funded projects.
The following section is very well included in this proposal. It sets clear guidelines on standard reporting which will go a long way.
There has been growing interest in a possible fifth domain related to Orbit chains. Many delegates have shown interest in or directly requested funding for an Orbit chains program, which is also supported by the existing working group.
The potential inclusion of the Orbit Chains domain is particularly exciting, demonstrating the DAO's adaptability and readiness to explore new opportunities. We support it and are eager to see how this experimental addition might support dApp expansion and address user experience challenges. We believe that the option of adding Orbit Chains should be for the same amount as other Domains.
Regarding budget management, will all ARB be converted to USDC at once? We suggest spreading the conversion of all ARB to USDC across four quarterly intervals or two semi-annual periods, rather than converting everything at once. This approach could help manage liquidity and minimize price impact.
Additionally, we suggest an innovative approach of reserving 10% of the budget for domains like DevTooling, New Protocols, and Gaming, specifically for previous grantees. This could provide continuity for promising projects still seeking product-market fit, without requiring a full DAO vote.
Overall, this proposal reflects a well-thought-out and forward-looking plan.
Thanks for the questions @gauntlet
Thanks for the questions @gauntlet
New protocols and ideas is definitely the right bucket for this task, and yes, this could be one of the usage. Would be even better if this approach could be cointegrated through future iteration of the security subsidy funds, or any other growth initiative of the DAO; and this will be one of the task of the pm, trying to put together all of these programs in term of coordination when there is a project that can fit all the boxes. Yes, open to discussion, you know where to find me :grin:
Lastly, Gaming has received a lot of capital via the GCP (even if not yet deployed), and it would be nice to see a new focus here, although we’re not against the domain as it will serve as a stopgap until capital is unlocked there.
Agree; this is the reason why, If you check the description above for gaming, you will see that is orienting toward user acquisition and KOL campaigns more than development of product and infra. This is something that has naturally occurred over time in season 2, and in season 3 we have worked, with the help of Kiet from OCL to better define a scope, user acquisition, that should now tap not into web3 users but in web2 ones. From a practical standpoint this has translated not only in analysing what could be done with the capital available in the program (again, 50k is a good amount of money, but for sure you won't be able to build the next call of duty with it), but also sourcing strong candidates that could have web2 and kols connections for the next elections.
Thanks for the splendid proposal！ Arbitrum D.A.O.Season 3 seeks to extend the program’s reach while addressing prior gaps, ensuring Arbitrum remains a leading hub for innovation and community-driven growth. I love the idea of "Long-term Project Sustainability", which is necessary to track the current status of projects and I wish to see more details of this Metric. However, I decide it is premature to launch the fifth domain at this stage. Based on the current development, Season 3 could focus on systematically reviewing and rebuilding on the progress made in the previous seasons. Once the four existing domains have achieved significant results, we can then consider launching the Orbit Chain.
Not sure about the bonus idea TBH. It's hard to see how a bonus would tie to quality improvement... but if there was a way to reconcile that, sure
gm, great to see the Questbook program advancing for season 3. I agree with the general sentiment that this has been one of the most useful and well-run programs so far, so I was equally pleased to learn I was being considered as a DA for the Orbit track.
If the proposal passes, I’ll do my best to use the acquired knowledge and skills in the orbit and interop realms to start driving competitive advantages and innovation to orbit chains, and complement the actions of the Foundation and OCL.
it really happens that new protocols and ideas is a capture all type of bucket, but in the good sense, with some crazy ideas being dropped there in the last year. It has been fun so far :slight_smile: And for the fifth domain: this is the reason why we are gathering feedbacks here, but also we will vote directly on having or not having it, knowing that any specific answer might just be reverted at some point in future with a new voting if the dao wants, because we really need flexibility in a 1 year program.
If this prop passes temp check, could we get an updated metric on season 2’s completed projects before going to onchain vote in January?
Oh, I see what you mean. Thank you for your explanation, I agree with your perspective.
Thank you for the proposal, Curia also participated in the program and the DAs have been very helpful and easy to work with throughout the process.
As we move forward, we just want to ask that what are the key takeaways or challenges from SS1 and SS2 that could guide improvements or adjustments for SS3?
(crazy to think it’s already on it’s third iteration!)
Time flies, both in life and in the dao :slight_smile:
Additionally, regarding the program length, I wonder if there is a plan for interim reviews to assess performance across domains. Such reviews could allow for flexibility in adjusting funding, focus, or strategy as needed, ensuring the program stays aligned with its objectives.
Glad to see a Season 3 of this (crazy to think it's already on it's third iteration!). This has been, IMO, one of the more successful DAO-led projects. It fills an important niche of funding small-scale projects and does so in an effective and cost-efficient manner. Definitely think this should be continued, and I think we have enough data to absolutely make the step to 1 year intervals instead of 6 months.
Question - does the team still think 1 member / team per domain is enough to handle the increased applicant load? Just curious
Glad to see a Season 3 of this (crazy to think it's already on it's third iteration!). This has been, IMO, one of the more successful DAO-led projects. It fills an important niche of funding small-scale projects and does so in an effective and cost-efficient manner. Definitely think this should be continued, and I think we have enough data to absolutely make the step to 1 year intervals instead of 6 months.
Question - does the team still think 1 member / team per domain is enough to handle the increased applicant load? Just curious
I'll add...
Gaming - I'm glad to see some evolution of this domain and acknowledgement of the GCP will inevitably have some over-lapping work. And I'm glad it's still a domain, as I said above this program fills a niche that the GCP might not be able to handle with their larger scale. Should be interesting to see how this plays out
Orbit - I think it's good to get ahead of this stuff. Something I think we've learned with the GCP among other things. Last thing we want to do is wait for something to be live and then be behind, so I can see the rationale in starting it now. I think as long as there is an avenue to get funds back if nothing materializes of this I can support it.
Thank you for the proposal. We’re overall supportive of the continuation of the program and the inclusion of Orbit as a new domain.
Glad to see the inclusion of a checkpoint after their final milestone and metric. We believe this is critical to measure long term alignment and outcomes of the program.
We echo the sentiment below, given its the first iteration of this length.
Thank you @JoJo for bringing forward the new program! I'm fully in support of continuing. It will bring great ideas that ultimately benefit and bring life to the project. I think it's very positive to include Orbit given the amount of support it's received from the Arbitrum community. I'm glad to see fewer abandoned projects in Season 2, which is a good sign that things are on the right track. I'd like to recommend "Kick" as a new platform in the gaming area that is currently being used a lot, without forgetting Facebook Gaming which also has a large user base.
Good work on the Season 3 proposal! It looks solid, but I have a few questions:
First, thanks to @JoJo for bringing this proposal forward. The Questbook programs during S1 and S2 have been a great mechanism to provide alternative funding for grants outside of Arbitrum Foundation grants and direct DAO funding. The growth of Questbook Domain Allocator Offerings from one of the earliest DAO pilot programs to now its 3rd season is a great success story.
On the specifics of the proposal, we are supportive of the increased timeline and budgets as well as adding the 5th domain for Orbit. However, we would like to see more detail around post-grant tracking. We’d like to recommend a central public database in Notion that includes:
We believe these additions will help strengthen the program in Season 3 and beyond.
On @pedrob’s suggestion of a vested ARB bonus tied to completing the 12-month term, we agree that a potential bonus can be allocated for DAs without reducing the monthly payments.
I guess if there is enough consensus on this, sure, we can structure a bonus that is either on completion, or paid pro rata with a rollover into new DA/PM/people in case of substitution (mentioning the second cause I remember reading this in a few proposals, but this is on top of my mind and might be wrong). Would have to study how we are currently doing it, and in general check consensus with delegates.
Interesting in seeing if there is enough appetite for it, and would appreciate anyone who can chim in on this topic.
n @pedrob’s suggestion of a vested ARB bonus tied to completing the 12-month term, we agree that a potential bonus can be allocated for DAs without reducing the monthly payments
Yes! After discussing it with @JoJo and understanding that the workload for DDAs is very heavy in applications, I agree that the best way to align the role with the long-term view is to add a bonus without reducing the base compensation for the position.
Interesting in seeing if there is enough appetite for it, and would appreciate anyone who can chim in on this topic.
So we could adopt a more aggressive approach by slightly relaxing the criteria for projects to receive Grants. Overly strict KPIs could potentially stifle innovation. Has @JoJo considered this issue? Happy to get your feedback!
what I have observed over the last year is that the influx of participants is really a function among others of the narratives currently live in crypto as a whole plus the enthusiasm of crypto participants. The success of the program is very flow dependant, but at the third iteration we might just be in the situation that the program is established enough for people to know about it and come to us, and this should help in this regard :)
You are right @Argonaut. I crafted the section "Program Phases" to better explain the timeline, please let me know if there is anything to clarify further.
Excluding the initial phases of snapshot discussion, temp check on the proposal, candidacy for DAs, elections for DAs, and on-chain vote, the program is articulated in the following phases:
During all of these phases, there will be parallel communication phases related to
Why do you think that the continuation of this program will be successful if the second season clearly showed poor results and the first was significantly more successful?
Hello and thanks for the comment. I think what I posted above is not necessarily clear, will try to rewrite: what is happening in phase 2 is that, when a project is approved, it has up to 6 months to complete their deliverable. Since season 2, at full capacity, has finished 25 days ago, it means that we have up to 5 months for projects to complete. This explains why the % of completion seems low but is not necessarily low: we have until beginning of may for projects to finish what they promised. To give the DAO a better sense check of performances, I will take care of updating the numbers before we go to tally (so in a month or so). One other thing that should happen is that @Entropy is looking into auditing some of the projects to allow the DAO to have a better, unbiased view. This won't encompass all of course, but is should partially highlight if the program went as expected or not.
Also, I don’t think it’s worth increasing the volume of grants if we don’t know the reasons for the deterioration in indicators.
While I can understand why you posted this due to the misunderstanding above, I would like to reiterate that the volume is not increasing. We had, in previous season, $750,000 per domain over a 6 months period. Having now $1,500,000 per domain over a 1 year period is maintaining the same level, just more extended in time. (and is also technically less than what we should have had: in season 2, we voted for $1,000,000 each domain, but by the end of Tally voting and conversion we had less, around $750,000 per domain, due to volatility of arb. We decided, after that experience, that $750,000 was likely enough for 6 months to be mindful of the DAO spending rate).
First of all, I have a question about detox in grants. I think it is too early to offer continuation of grants until we understand the conclusions from the previous grants.
Most of the detox discussion has been around incentive programs and not grants, but I can also understand your point here. One of the perks of the current timeline is that we will vote for tally around the end of January, when the detox period is more than over.
Secondly, I think that we should also wait for a certain plan for a year or three ahead from Entropy to understand which grants are best for us to give.
This, sorry, I don't understand, could you clarify?
Thanks for the proposal and for seasons 1 and 2. You have done exceptional work with this program. I'm looking forward to season 3, and I agree that having a new domain that enables orbits to grow is a great idea and challenge.
One thing that always comes to mind is incentives and how to align the domain allocators with the correct incentives—not just for deploying but for being cautious with the money being handled. I would love to see better incentive alignment.
Also, I think it would be incredibly healthy to have rotation in some domain allocators.
I will vote "FOR" in snapshot for full 5 domains.
D.A.O. grants are among the few programs to show meaningful value and returns to the DAO and community. A few thoughts:
Lastly, Gaming has received a lot of capital via the GCP (even if not yet deployed), and it would be nice to see a new focus here, although we're not against the domain as it will serve as a stopgap until capital is unlocked there.
Overall, these are more curiosities than critiques, and we generally look forward to Season 3.
Hi! Thank you for the offer. I think that grants of this level are definitely needed by Arithrum and there are many projects with small needs for funds. However, First of all, I have a question about detox in grants. I think it is too early to offer continuation of grants until we understand the conclusions from the previous grants. Secondly, I think that we should also wait for a certain plan for a year or three ahead from Entropy to understand which grants are best for us to give.
Amount of uncompleted projects: 85 / 67%
Hi! Thank you for the offer. I think that grants of this level are definitely needed by Arithrum and there are many projects with small needs for funds. However, First of all, I have a question about detox in grants. I think it is too early to offer continuation of grants until we understand the conclusions from the previous grants. Secondly, I think that we should also wait for a certain plan for a year or three ahead from Entropy to understand which grants are best for us to give.
Why do you think that the continuation of this program will be successful if the second season clearly showed poor results and the first was significantly more successful?
Perhaps it is worth changing the rules for selecting projects for grants, if the percentage of successful projects has dropped so much since the first season?
Also, I don’t think it’s worth increasing the volume of grants if we don’t know the reasons for the deterioration in indicators.
As we move forward, we just want to ask that what are the key takeaways or challenges from SS1 and SS2 that could guide improvements or adjustments for SS3?
As we move forward, we just want to ask that what are the key takeaways or challenges from SS1 and SS2 that could guide improvements or adjustments for SS3?
if I had to take a guess: we have limited funding, and always oversubscribed domains. So far, 1 out of 4 takes a grant, overtime it will likely become 1 out of 5, but that's not really a challenge it only means the program is succesfull.
The main challenge is: allocating, to that single project, in a way that bears the most return for the ecosystem. We want to ensure diversity in the program but we also want to leverage expertise and success, tracking metrics such as if the team has been around 3 months after the grant will help us understand if we are going in the right direction.
We are pleased with the proposal and acknowledge that, with the experience gained from previous programs, you have once again managed to present a proposal that includes all the necessary details.
However, we would like to make a small observation: the image shared, which details the timelines for each stage, indicates that the total duration of the proposal is one year and 9 months. For this reason, we believe it would be important to include a textual breakdown of these timelines, clearly differentiating between the program duration (one year) and the overall proposal, to enhance understanding.
I wanted grants to be given to projects that correspond to this path, only that.
I wanted grants to be given to projects that correspond to this path, only that.
This is a very interesting take and first time I hear it referred to this set of grants which are, de facto, introductionary in our DAO. I disagree on the premise here, in the sense that this program can serve, among others, the goal to attract builders and new teams in arbitrum, which is a goal consistent with the overarching goals we have as a DAO and as a rollup. What I mean is that to me is consistent with the MVP posted by Entropy, and obviously devil will be in the execution of the program more than anything else. I also understand that what I just posted can be something to which not everybody can necessarily agree. But is always good to have different visions and pov.
However, this creates a paradox: if a project has already been launched and is well-received, does it still need these tens of thousands of dollars in Grants? This is a tricky question.
However, this creates a paradox: if a project has already been launched and is well-received, does it still need these tens of thousands of dollars in Grants? This is a tricky question.
this is something I covered but not sure if it was here, so will gladly repeat. I get this question a lot: does a project that has made a seed round for a few millions need to tap into a program like this one? Answer is: depends. While a project can have a fat treasury, doesn't mean is keen on spending. While 50k can be a lot, or not, they can be enough to prioritize certain development of core functionalities in our chain, or expantion in our chain, knowing that these functionalities/expantion might have likely come at some point in future but not knowing when or in what regards. In this sense for a big project a program like this allows to move arbitrum related milestone on top of the list; if you add to this the fact that the DAs can also negotiate, up to some degree, for a deployment that is in the best interest of the ecosystem, I think the answer is yes, big projects should tap into this as long as their application can bring value in the ecosystem.
This is also partially related to what we saw in stip/ltipp, with extremely big project tapping into the program, and some questioning if it was the case for this "rich" projects to do so. In the end, the answer is in how is executed more than in the fact per se.
I believe that if we can support developers when their ideas are still in the concept stage, it would be more impactful. Of course, this is extremely challenging and difficult to evaluate in terms of KPIs.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you for sharing the Season 3 proposal for the Arbitrum Domain Allocator Offerings (D.A.O.) Grant Program. We find this proposal truly impressive and appreciate the thoughtful evolution of the program across its previous seasons. The focus on enabling small teams and builders to bootstrap their projects perfectly aligns with the DAO's vision of fostering ecosystem innovation.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you for sharing the Season 3 proposal for the Arbitrum Domain Allocator Offerings (D.A.O.) Grant Program. We find this proposal truly impressive and appreciate the thoughtful evolution of the program across its previous seasons. The focus on enabling small teams and builders to bootstrap their projects perfectly aligns with the DAO's vision of fostering ecosystem innovation.
As a grantee in Season 2 of the Education track, we can attest to how smooth the entire process was — from the application stage to the clear communication during the feedback period, and through to the approval and ongoing communication. The work done by the domain allocators in Season 2 has been truly impressive.
Nova, initially included in the scope, hasn't seen the forecasted adoption.
We're curious about Nova's current trajectory. Would it be beneficial to allocate a specific portion of the Dev Tooling domain's budget to projects that could potentially drive Nova adoption? Or is the focus shifting away from this area?
Three months after proposal completion, grantees must complete a survey and publish an update to their final report, aimed at tracking their success, foothold gained in Arbitrum, and adherence to or pivot from their original idea.
The post-grant tracking mechanism is an excellent addition. This will provide meaningful insights into the real impact of funded projects.
The following section is very well included in this proposal. It sets clear guidelines on standard reporting which will go a long way.
There has been growing interest in a possible fifth domain related to Orbit chains. Many delegates have shown interest in or directly requested funding for an Orbit chains program, which is also supported by the existing working group.
The potential inclusion of the Orbit Chains domain is particularly exciting, demonstrating the DAO's adaptability and readiness to explore new opportunities. We support it and are eager to see how this experimental addition might support dApp expansion and address user experience challenges. We believe that the option of adding Orbit Chains should be for the same amount as other Domains.
Regarding budget management, will all ARB be converted to USDC at once? We suggest spreading the conversion of all ARB to USDC across four quarterly intervals or two semi-annual periods, rather than converting everything at once. This approach could help manage liquidity and minimize price impact.
Additionally, we suggest an innovative approach of reserving 10% of the budget for domains like DevTooling, New Protocols, and Gaming, specifically for previous grantees. This could provide continuity for promising projects still seeking product-market fit, without requiring a full DAO vote.
Overall, this proposal reflects a well-thought-out and forward-looking plan.
Thanks for the questions @gauntlet
Thanks for the questions @gauntlet
New protocols and ideas is definitely the right bucket for this task, and yes, this could be one of the usage. Would be even better if this approach could be cointegrated through future iteration of the security subsidy funds, or any other growth initiative of the DAO; and this will be one of the task of the pm, trying to put together all of these programs in term of coordination when there is a project that can fit all the boxes. Yes, open to discussion, you know where to find me :grin:
Lastly, Gaming has received a lot of capital via the GCP (even if not yet deployed), and it would be nice to see a new focus here, although we’re not against the domain as it will serve as a stopgap until capital is unlocked there.
Agree; this is the reason why, If you check the description above for gaming, you will see that is orienting toward user acquisition and KOL campaigns more than development of product and infra. This is something that has naturally occurred over time in season 2, and in season 3 we have worked, with the help of Kiet from OCL to better define a scope, user acquisition, that should now tap not into web3 users but in web2 ones. From a practical standpoint this has translated not only in analysing what could be done with the capital available in the program (again, 50k is a good amount of money, but for sure you won't be able to build the next call of duty with it), but also sourcing strong candidates that could have web2 and kols connections for the next elections.
Thanks for the splendid proposal！ Arbitrum D.A.O.Season 3 seeks to extend the program’s reach while addressing prior gaps, ensuring Arbitrum remains a leading hub for innovation and community-driven growth. I love the idea of "Long-term Project Sustainability", which is necessary to track the current status of projects and I wish to see more details of this Metric. However, I decide it is premature to launch the fifth domain at this stage. Based on the current development, Season 3 could focus on systematically reviewing and rebuilding on the progress made in the previous seasons. Once the four existing domains have achieved significant results, we can then consider launching the Orbit Chain.
Not sure about the bonus idea TBH. It's hard to see how a bonus would tie to quality improvement... but if there was a way to reconcile that, sure
gm, great to see the Questbook program advancing for season 3. I agree with the general sentiment that this has been one of the most useful and well-run programs so far, so I was equally pleased to learn I was being considered as a DA for the Orbit track.
If the proposal passes, I’ll do my best to use the acquired knowledge and skills in the orbit and interop realms to start driving competitive advantages and innovation to orbit chains, and complement the actions of the Foundation and OCL.
it really happens that new protocols and ideas is a capture all type of bucket, but in the good sense, with some crazy ideas being dropped there in the last year. It has been fun so far :slight_smile: And for the fifth domain: this is the reason why we are gathering feedbacks here, but also we will vote directly on having or not having it, knowing that any specific answer might just be reverted at some point in future with a new voting if the dao wants, because we really need flexibility in a 1 year program.
If this prop passes temp check, could we get an updated metric on season 2’s completed projects before going to onchain vote in January?
Oh, I see what you mean. Thank you for your explanation, I agree with your perspective.
Thank you for the proposal, Curia also participated in the program and the DAs have been very helpful and easy to work with throughout the process.
As we move forward, we just want to ask that what are the key takeaways or challenges from SS1 and SS2 that could guide improvements or adjustments for SS3?
(crazy to think it’s already on it’s third iteration!)
Time flies, both in life and in the dao :slight_smile:
Additionally, regarding the program length, I wonder if there is a plan for interim reviews to assess performance across domains. Such reviews could allow for flexibility in adjusting funding, focus, or strategy as needed, ensuring the program stays aligned with its objectives.
Glad to see a Season 3 of this (crazy to think it's already on it's third iteration!). This has been, IMO, one of the more successful DAO-led projects. It fills an important niche of funding small-scale projects and does so in an effective and cost-efficient manner. Definitely think this should be continued, and I think we have enough data to absolutely make the step to 1 year intervals instead of 6 months.
Question - does the team still think 1 member / team per domain is enough to handle the increased applicant load? Just curious
Glad to see a Season 3 of this (crazy to think it's already on it's third iteration!). This has been, IMO, one of the more successful DAO-led projects. It fills an important niche of funding small-scale projects and does so in an effective and cost-efficient manner. Definitely think this should be continued, and I think we have enough data to absolutely make the step to 1 year intervals instead of 6 months.
Question - does the team still think 1 member / team per domain is enough to handle the increased applicant load? Just curious
I'll add...
Gaming - I'm glad to see some evolution of this domain and acknowledgement of the GCP will inevitably have some over-lapping work. And I'm glad it's still a domain, as I said above this program fills a niche that the GCP might not be able to handle with their larger scale. Should be interesting to see how this plays out
Orbit - I think it's good to get ahead of this stuff. Something I think we've learned with the GCP among other things. Last thing we want to do is wait for something to be live and then be behind, so I can see the rationale in starting it now. I think as long as there is an avenue to get funds back if nothing materializes of this I can support it.
Thank you for the proposal. We’re overall supportive of the continuation of the program and the inclusion of Orbit as a new domain.
Glad to see the inclusion of a checkpoint after their final milestone and metric. We believe this is critical to measure long term alignment and outcomes of the program.
We echo the sentiment below, given its the first iteration of this length.
Thank you @JoJo for bringing forward the new program! I'm fully in support of continuing. It will bring great ideas that ultimately benefit and bring life to the project. I think it's very positive to include Orbit given the amount of support it's received from the Arbitrum community. I'm glad to see fewer abandoned projects in Season 2, which is a good sign that things are on the right track. I'd like to recommend "Kick" as a new platform in the gaming area that is currently being used a lot, without forgetting Facebook Gaming which also has a large user base.
Good work on the Season 3 proposal! It looks solid, but I have a few questions:
it really happens that new protocols and ideas is a capture all type of bucket, but in the good sense, with some crazy ideas being dropped there in the last year. It has been fun so far :slight_smile: And for the fifth domain: this is the reason why we are gathering feedbacks here, but also we will vote directly on having or not having it, knowing that any specific answer might just be reverted at some point in future with a new voting if the dao wants, because we really need flexibility in a 1 year program.
If this prop passes temp check, could we get an updated metric on season 2’s completed projects before going to onchain vote in January?
Yes we will do our best to update numbers before tally so there is a clearer picture.
Yes. The timeline will be updated, because at it stands now, we won't be able to have elections before Christmas due to the pause from the code of conduct. So elections will be in january, with the candidacy period during december, and likely program ready by mid february.
Is there any internal roadmap for addressing user experience fragmentation?
Ehy Rebeca, this is more of a broad question for the DAO. As posted above there is a working group that is trying to answer questions like this one and other. While I see an overlap with the roadmap that OCL has created for us, Orbt is really a topic we are figuring out in real time, and any answer now might be different from any answer in 6 months - 8 months - 1 year. It will depend a lot on the lead of the domain and the vision he wants to apply, and this is why I am a strong proposer, for Orbit, to not have elections but appoint directly @maxlomu, because we need someone in charge able to deliver a vision.
I’m curious to hear your thoughts on whether it would make sense to develop a more unified block explorer that offers insights and transparency across the entire Orbit ecosystem.
As per the above this would mostly be a question for the future lead of the Orbit domain. But yes, explorer are currently a painpoint. From an economic standpoint the program is not necessarily equipped to provide enough for a block explorer in a single chain (we still have a 50k cap), and in general if the team that is running the orbit chain is not able to directly pay for this infra, is highly unlikely that a grant can make a difference in this sense beside some short term relieve. Curious about what you are doing at routescan, but also a bit OT in this discussion, and I guess if we will have an orbit domain there could definitely be space to talk in more details.
Time flies, both in life and in the dao :slight_smile:
Question - does the team still think 1 member / team per domain is enough to handle the increased applicant load? Just curious
I think there is a merit for keep going like this for another season; it can make sense to increase DAs, or payroll, only if we increase overall allocation so that we can serve more grants in the same span of time. As of now there is a decent effort to try to keep the opex low.
as I said above this program fills a niche that the GCP might not be able to handle with their larger scale. Should be interesting to see how this plays out
Once we will have the GCP investment thesis, which should come soon, and we will also have a more concrete view of what happens in the gaming domain here, we can definitely find a synergy between the 2 programs.
Additionally, regarding the program length, I wonder if there is a plan for interim reviews to assess performance across domains. Such reviews could allow for flexibility in adjusting funding, focus, or strategy as needed, ensuring the program stays aligned with its objectives.
Missed this part from @0xDonPepe in the previous message sorry. What do you have in mind here? Would it be a performance assessment on the domain itself, on the grantees or on the DA? If we are talking about adjusting the focus of domains, I can tell you that the narrative and market trends in crypto will dictate the flow of proposals in the domains. Especially in new protocols and ideas, when AI last year was mostly used for chatbot and as support services, we saw plenty of chatbot/support services proposal. I am expecting for example several proposals, out of the gate, for AI agents, which is a trend that formed in the last few weeks. If we are talking about increasing fundings in domains, this can always be done if the dao wants to through a snapshot discussion and tally voting; the same applies as you can see from the proposal to plug in new domains. I really really think we need the flexibility in a 1 year long program to adapt to what we want to do as a collective. Obviously all of this will be, partially, covered in the monthly report and the calls that will be done. I guess we can also prepare more detailed reports on a quarterly basis to also understand trends of the market. Would this suffice? Otherwise let me know what you have in mind here. (small note: the details about reporting etc are currently not included in snapshot. Idea is to include them in tally, not necessarily at an extra granular level, but in term of how frequently you want report (monthly), how frequent there are calls (likely monthly, either a specific call but seems an overkill, or through GCR/Open governance calls/whatever is gonna be utilized by the dao during the year), and if we want "special reports" like the above).
I’d like to recommend “Kick” as a new platform in the gaming area that is currently being used a lot, without forgetting Facebook Gaming which also has a large user base.
Could you please dm me a reference to this please? Curious to see it
Would it be beneficial to allocate a specific portion of the Dev Tooling domain’s budget to projects that could potentially drive Nova adoption? Or is the focus shifting away from this area?
best thing is likely let the market dictate what it wants without us putting too many constrains. If we will see a surge of Nova again as a technology, we will likely see plenty of proposals coming in. As of now, it doesn't seem a priority target for stakeholders, or at least seems less important than others such as stylus/orbit
will all ARB be converted to USDC at once? We suggest spreading the conversion of all ARB to USDC across four quarterly intervals or two semi-annual periods, rather than converting everything at once. This approach could help manage liquidity and minimize price impact.
As stated in the proposal, the idea is to use the support of the Foundation to do so. This means it shouldn't happen on chain, and should minimize the impact through the usage of coinbase prime. Will also coordinate with them to have more details into this; but, and I will be honest, I really don't want us to find ourself in the situation like in season 2, in which even with the buffer the program ended up with around 10-20% less funds than it should have had. The size has already been downscaled to what we effectively got in season 2 (so, not the full amount), risking of getting less would mean having a very non efficient program.
Additionally, we suggest an innovative approach of reserving 10% of the budget for domains like DevTooling, New Protocols, and Gaming, specifically for previous grantees. This could provide continuity for promising projects still seeking product-market fit, without requiring a full DAO vote.
I am not sure this is for the best. I think that someone that applied to season 1, or season 2, can apply again for season 3. Evaluation will obviously be biased by 1) previous goals achieved 2) the fact that, as for previous seasons, we will have an oversubscribed program which means every yes to a team is a no to another 3-4 teams. I also understand where you are going with programs having a a clearer path in our dao, potentially a growth path, and this is what we are building in season 3. I know we lacked this in previous seasons, so I can understand the why of your request.
Thank you for the proposal. We’re overall supportive of the continuation of the program and the inclusion of Orbit as a new domain.
Glad to see the inclusion of a checkpoint after their final milestone and metric. We believe this is critical to measure long term alignment and outcomes of the program.
We echo the sentiment below, given its the first iteration of this length.
Additionally, regarding the program length, I wonder if there is a plan for interim reviews to assess performance across domains. Such reviews could allow for flexibility in adjusting funding, focus, or strategy as needed, ensuring the program stays aligned with its objectives.
Good work on the Season 3 proposal! It looks solid, but I have a few questions:
.In Season 2, 127 projects got the green light, but 67% of them haven't hit their targets yet, and 47% of the milestones are still up in the air. As we look to reallocate unused funds, how can we make sure that new grantees have a better chance of success? For instance, did we consider more frequent audits or prior reliability metrics, such as success in previous seasons? Also, was there any talk about penalizing teams that abandon projects without good reason?
All grantees will have to follow up the aforementioned report, after three months, with a survey prepared to understand the effectiveness of both the grant itself and the idea from the team, including but not only understanding if the team has decided to keep building in Arbitrum
The proposed way of measuring teams three months after finishing their projects is interesting but might not have a lasting impact on the ecosystem. This only measures whether teams are active for a short time. It doesn't look at things like how stable they are or if they have what they need to grow. Have you thought about monitoring projects for longer than three months? This would help ensure that projects evolve and become fully integrated into the Arbitrum ecosystem. Could a mentorship program help teams with key areas like funding, scalability, and user adoption? Without this, promising projects might not overcome initial challenges and end up abandoned.
While acknowledging that the grantee budget cap of $50,000 isn’t sufficient to attract web2 developers, we can broaden the domain’s scope by focusing on user acquisition through initiatives
The push into Web2 gaming is an interesting strategic move, but it looks like there's a mismatch between the goal and the resources being used. we all know that the current budget of $50,000 per project isn't enough to attract web2 developers. you mention possible KPIs like reach and impressions, but you haven't set any concrete targets or defined the metrics. Also, how will you make sure that resources are allocated to proposals that actually contribute to these objectives? For example, could you give priority to projects that already have a Web2 user base or use hybrid tools that reduce adoption friction? Could we think about other ways to attract developers and creators from the Web2 ecosystem without relying only on budget?
The PM and the DAs will publish, once per month, a single unified report highlighting the status of the program
The proposal says that the reports will be sent out every month and published together by the Program Manager and the Domain Allocators. While this is a great improvement, how do you plan to get the community excited about actively participating in their review? It's not uncommon for lengthy reports to be overlooked. Have you considered creating an interactive or visual executive summary that's accessible to the general community?
I see your point: a specific DeFi domain.
For what is worth, this season is framed to be modular for this very reason: we should be able to add any type of domain, in an easy way, by just providing the capital, the goals behind the capital, and eventually 1 person to manage the domain.
If there is more interesting from other delegates to fork the "New Protocols and Ideas" domain in "New Protocols and Ideas" + "DeFi", we can surely do, knowing that
Regarding marketing/content: As in the Gaming category, the expanded scope could be done by people with the right skillset, not the project itself.
This is trickier. In gaming we were able to lay down the best growth path (users from web2) thanks to extensive talks with gaming department of OCL. By sourcing the right person to lead the domain, that can have web2 gaming kol connections for example, we can try to aim toward that goal. I don't see the same path for protocols tho. While the overarching goal should always to bring new users in arbitrum, and not necessarily users from sol/tron/bnb/others, is way easier to identify and execute a strategy for certain verticals (ie gaming) than other more general purpose (ie: new protocols and ideas). Which means, same scope there might just spread the whole domain too thin. Unless I am missing something specific here.
Thanks for putting this up, Jojo.
First off, very interesting abbreviation :laughing:
We have been impressed by the team's work so far. We've especially loved that New Protocols and Ideas wildcard. We also find the possibility of the fifth domain interesting. Not entirely sure where we stand with that but it sounds good.
Thanks for putting this up, Jojo.
First off, very interesting abbreviation :laughing:
We have been impressed by the team's work so far. We've especially loved that New Protocols and Ideas wildcard. We also find the possibility of the fifth domain interesting. Not entirely sure where we stand with that but it sounds good.
Our question/suggestion is this: If this prop passes temp check, could we get an updated metric on season 2's completed projects before going to onchain vote in January? As is, S1 did better than S2 in terms of project completion. We know there are still six months to the end of S2 but we would be more confident to support this proposal seeing more projects completed in S2 than in S1 before the onchain vote.
Also, here, we believe you meant mid February
Thanks for the detailed proposal, @JoJo. The reception and performance of Seasons 1 and 2 of the Domain Allocator Offerings definitely proven and delivered on its goals, and we are supportive and will vote to continue this program for Season 3 proposal with the 12-month Orbit track.
As I’ve seen mentioned on a few occasions, I believe that for roles with longer terms (not as short as six months), the compensation model should include a fixed payment in USD plus vested ARB tied to the completion of a 12-month term. This would incentivize full commitment and discourage resignations (although they can still happen—no one is exempt from new opportunities).
Thanks for the detailed proposal, @JoJo. The reception and performance of Seasons 1 and 2 of the Domain Allocator Offerings definitely proven and delivered on its goals, and we are supportive and will vote to continue this program for Season 3 proposal with the 12-month Orbit track.
As I’ve seen mentioned on a few occasions, I believe that for roles with longer terms (not as short as six months), the compensation model should include a fixed payment in USD plus vested ARB tied to the completion of a 12-month term. This would incentivize full commitment and discourage resignations (although they can still happen—no one is exempt from new opportunities).
On @pedrob’s suggestion of a vested ARB bonus tied to completing the 12-month term, we agree that a potential bonus can be allocated for DAs without reducing the monthly payments. Maybe it is something the DAO can vote on separately to approve or reject after the final report on the overall performance of Season 3.
Congratulations again on a well-executed programme.
This is a great program for the DAO and this iteration looks very solid. It is a great idea to include Orbit, we should continue adapting this program with the ecosystem's evolution as time goes by. I would only suggest increasing grant allocation transparency and to be more focused on the real impact of funded projects.
It’s great to add a new metric for the program, however instead of emphasizing completion rates alone, grants should prioritize projects that make measurable contributions to the ecosystem. Measuring growth in transaction volume or liquidity and onboarding new developers and users could help assess real traction.
This is a great program for the DAO and this iteration looks very solid. It is a great idea to include Orbit, we should continue adapting this program with the ecosystem's evolution as time goes by. I would only suggest increasing grant allocation transparency and to be more focused on the real impact of funded projects.
It’s great to add a new metric for the program, however instead of emphasizing completion rates alone, grants should prioritize projects that make measurable contributions to the ecosystem. Measuring growth in transaction volume or liquidity and onboarding new developers and users could help assess real traction.
On transparency it could be helpful to have detailed criteria for grant selection such as alignment with each of the domain’s objectives, the expected scalability of the project, and its potential ecosystem impact. Improving visibility into the decision-making process could also enhance accountability.
These developments would help in making sure that resources are allocated efficiently, and it will raise meaningful and measurable contributions to the Arbitrum ecosystem. It’s great to see this program’s continuity.
Thinking about it, perhaps that should be a separate track as it’s a different skillset to assess and mentor research proposals…
Thinking about it, perhaps that should be a separate track as it’s a different skillset to assess and mentor research proposals…
If any, I think it would be a separate track: the Education, Community and Event domain is one with a very clear identity, and the goal for season 3 would be to have more coordination with AF events and, eventually, DAO events, on the event side of things, and more coordination wiith AF resources on the deverel type of thing. What you are suggesting seems like something separate, more specific, with different dynamics and different goals.
Great to see this advancing.
One small suggestion I would make is to broaden the scope of the Community/Events and New Protocol/Dapps categories to explicitly include (mini grants) for researching an opportunity. We could save A LOT of money if builders could quickly get a small amount of funding to research an idea, as this avoids the constraint of having to build a pre-determined roadmap and the risk of finding out halfway that there's a better idea but you're not funded for that...
Great to see this advancing.
One small suggestion I would make is to broaden the scope of the Community/Events and New Protocol/Dapps categories to explicitly include (mini grants) for researching an opportunity. We could save A LOT of money if builders could quickly get a small amount of funding to research an idea, as this avoids the constraint of having to build a pre-determined roadmap and the risk of finding out halfway that there's a better idea but you're not funded for that...
Thinking about it, perhaps that should be a separate track as it's a different skillset to assess and mentor research proposals...
Your insights on the pilot program and resource allocation optimization for Orbit Chains are truly valuable.
Orbit Chains remind me of the rapid growth of OP Stack. In the current competitive environment, I believe that the priority and necessity of Orbit Chains should be elevated to the highest level. Its demand scenarios are very clear, but the current budget and priority settings might not fully unlock its potential. I recommend increasing the budget while ensuring effective resource utilization through regular reports and progress tracking.
Your insights on the pilot program and resource allocation optimization for Orbit Chains are truly valuable.
Orbit Chains remind me of the rapid growth of OP Stack. In the current competitive environment, I believe that the priority and necessity of Orbit Chains should be elevated to the highest level. Its demand scenarios are very clear, but the current budget and priority settings might not fully unlock its potential. I recommend increasing the budget while ensuring effective resource utilization through regular reports and progress tracking.
Orbit Chains provide L3 application chain expansion capabilities and attract more protocols to the ecosystem. I hope it can achieve even better results. Here are my personal suggestions: 1. Budget Increase:Raise the budget for Orbit Chains from $750,000 to $1,250,000 to support early developer incentives and technical infrastructure. If an immediate increase is not feasible, consider running it for 3-6 months and then evaluating performance to decide on additional funding. I firmly believe that spending adequately on the most important areas is essential—more funds enable better outcomes. 2. Priority Elevation:Elevate Orbit Chains to the same priority level as the other four domains, ensuring sufficient resource allocation and team focus to drive its development.
Thanks for the proposal!
I must say I find it missing a category for DeFi that mirrors the one for Gaming with the proposed expanded scope. We saw a few times DeFi protocols requesting help/resources from the DAO regarding content/marketing creation & amplification to expand beyond the current audience. It seems that the "New Protocols and Ideas" bucket does not cover it, neither the " Education, Community Growth and Events".
Thanks for the proposal!
I must say I find it missing a category for DeFi that mirrors the one for Gaming with the proposed expanded scope. We saw a few times DeFi protocols requesting help/resources from the DAO regarding content/marketing creation & amplification to expand beyond the current audience. It seems that the "New Protocols and Ideas" bucket does not cover it, neither the " Education, Community Growth and Events".
I'm not sure how to frame it, but in theory we are the "DeFi L2" by definition, but we are not providing funding to advertise this.
The proposal is logically structured, clearly targeted, and outlines well-defined improvements.
Seasons 1 and 2 have established a solid foundation, particularly in terms of the number of supported projects (200+), success rate (73% completion), and transparency in fund allocation. This type of entry-level funding is crucial for supporting new projects and small teams, helping to attract more developers to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
The proposal is logically structured, clearly targeted, and outlines well-defined improvements.
Seasons 1 and 2 have established a solid foundation, particularly in terms of the number of supported projects (200+), success rate (73% completion), and transparency in fund allocation. This type of entry-level funding is crucial for supporting new projects and small teams, helping to attract more developers to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Thoughts on Orbit Chains: The Orbit Chains proposal indeed showcases potential for a new domain; however, I personally feel that the DAO’s demand and direction for Orbit are not yet sufficiently clear. It may be more prudent to start with a standalone pilot program with a lower budget ($375K for 6 months) to establish proof of concept before scaling further.
Thanks for your reply, and to provide more arguments for a dedicated Domain for DeFi, with an extended scope for marketing.
Thanks for your reply, and to provide more arguments for a dedicated Domain for DeFi, with an extended scope for marketing.
A lot of messages, this is nice. Let's go step by step.
It’s great to add a new metric for the program, however instead of emphasizing completion rates alone, grants should prioritize projects that make measurable contributions to the ecosystem. Measuring growth in transaction volume or liquidity and onboarding new developers and users could help assess real traction.
A lot of messages, this is nice. Let's go step by step.
It’s great to add a new metric for the program, however instead of emphasizing completion rates alone, grants should prioritize projects that make measurable contributions to the ecosystem. Measuring growth in transaction volume or liquidity and onboarding new developers and users could help assess real traction.
On transparency it could be helpful to have detailed criteria for grant selection such as alignment with each of the domain’s objectives, the expected scalability of the project, and its potential ecosystem impact. Improving visibility into the decision-making process could also enhance accountability.
That said, I’d like to ask about the current incentives in place for domain allocators. Have you considered a model with bonuses for exceptional allocation performance—such as funding projects that exceed expectations or make substantial contributions? On the flip side, would it make sense to include a mechanism for penalizing allocations that consistently underdeliver?
I thought about that, yes. The simplest and maybe most effective mechanism would be a bonus per completed project. But it would introduce a bit of a perverted mechanism: a DA would be encouraged to not only approve only the proposal that he/she thinks can be delivered but also make the team modify the proposal in a way that milestones are way easier to complete and reach, thus reducing the effectiveness of the whole proposal. Remember: most of the times, in season 1 and 2, the proposal has been actively discussed with the grantees (in the questbook discord, accessible to everybody btw), with a back and forth toward the modification of milestones. The activity of DA is to try and tailor the proposal: if we move toward a completion bonus for DAs (or a penalty slash for uncompleted projects) we might just lose alignment of incentives.
It may be more prudent to start with a standalone pilot program with a lower budget ($375K for 6 months)
This was something that was also brainstormed in the proposal. Main problem is the following: after 6 months, both in the orbit domain and in the other domains, we will only see partial results, because projects once approved will have 6 months to complete. The main issue I have with a 6 months trial is that that 6 months trial can't be properly evaluated before 10-12 months, thus making it potentially ineffective.
Regarding Season 1, is there any data or report showing the continuity of the projects that were funded?
Unfortunately, no. This data point was never added to season 1 and 2, and had no ownership for this task to be completed. I know that some delegates are looking into samples of this data and want to show off some partial results during this discussion to have more clarity. For what is worth, this is exactly why the 3 months check after completion was added: tracking what grantees have been doing after the program.
I propose slightly reducing the monthly amount and reallocating that reduction into ARB vested upon completing the 12 months.
I can totally see the point here. Here is also the current counterargument, from the perspective of someone that has been on the other side of the barricade (aka the DAs one): while compensation is for sure good, is also slightly undervalued in my opinion. Reason is simple: this program is growing overtime, which means more and more projects will come to apply. As you remember from LTIPP, the workload is basically almost linearly related to the amount of proposal. Season 1 and 2 saw a surge, due to both more popularity of the program and increased cap. I personally expect in season 3 to have even more requests. Considering the 4 domains have had an average amount of proposals of 128, it means that technically in Season 2 the DAO has paid through the 6 months salary of each DA every evaluation $375 (8k*6/128). And yes, there is a ton of variance here but we need to give reference numbers as well. To give a comparison, in Season 1 this cost was $654. I expect this cost to drop lower in Season 3. Why am I saying all of this? The cost of labour for DAs is directly dependant on the commitment and analysis and time and energy that each DAs put in every proposal. My fear is that if we lower the base salary, DAs won't be incentivised to do a good job to be honest. And so to apply your framework, I would only see it possible if we effectively increase, by a semi-decent amount, overall opex, which I am not sure this is what the DAO wants. Again, on this I am open to any suggestion. All the data above comes from a mix of objective data point, and also having the pulse and experience of day to day operation on my side.
I must say I find it missing a category for DeFi that mirrors the one for Gaming with the proposed expanded scope. We saw a few times DeFi protocols requesting help/resources from the DAO regarding content/marketing creation & amplification to expand beyond the current audience. It seems that the “New Protocols and Ideas” bucket does not cover it, neither the " Education, Community Growth and Events".
Effectively the whole DeFi part is covered in the "New Protocols and Ideas". If you look at the Season 2 report for New Protocols and Ideas you will see that there has been a certain amount of DeFi protocols approved. Likely, this % is higher depending on the definition that you give to DeFi. On the marketing/incentives: a lot of grantee ask, in their milestones, a part of funds to be used for this purpose. On a general note, we have tend to cut these milestones, either to reallocate to others or just save on the proposal, for 2 main reasons: the program always been oversubscribed means that trimming the nice-to-have compared to the must-have has allowed for more accepted grantees, and also sometimes is quite difficult to evaluate how a team can be effective on marketing, especially if they are bootstrapping a project. This is also one of the reasons why we have created this secondary tunnel (for a subset of proposals) in the AF/GCP/whatever other program we will have: collaborating with them might translate in marketing from these entities that have skillset and capacity of reach that single teams don't usually have. Let me know if i answered your question, or if i misunderstood it.
As told to @raam, open to any change here as well :) But while I am not a marketing person, the choice was made to give a better brand identity to the program.
I am pretty sure we will see proposals and sinergies materialize in relation to the DAO event budget, like side events attached to the main ones through this program for example. Excited tbh to see what will happen. On the Security Service Subsidy Fund, we can for sure try to work and see what type of cointegration can happen. Top of my head, I'll be honest, I don't see it right away due to their scope being extremely more narrow (audit) and larger (capital), but I also see how a program that has been approved in Season 3 here being directed in future to the SSSF, or even viceversa.
.In Season 2, 127 projects got the green light, but 67% of them haven’t hit their targets yet, and 47% of the milestones are still up in the air. As we look to reallocate unused funds, how can we make sure that new grantees have a better chance of success?
Have you thought about monitoring projects for longer than three months?
Have you thought about monitoring projects for longer than three months? This would help ensure that projects evolve and become fully integrated into the Arbitrum ecosystem.
The push into Web2 gaming is an interesting strategic move, but it looks like there’s a mismatch between the goal and the resources being used. we all know that the current budget of $50,000 per project isn’t enough to attract web2 developers. you mention possible KPIs like reach and impressions, but you haven’t set any concrete targets or defined the metrics.
There is a misunderstanding here. Is pretty clear that a 50k budget won't suffice for developers, at all. The goal is mainly on what we can achieve with this budget: KOL, streams, newsletter, advocacy, and in general involvement of web2 users through web2 personas that should be funneled in the program through a strong person/team that has enough connection to bridge this gap (and we are working behind the scene to source strong candidates for this).
how do you plan to get the community excited about actively participating in their review? It’s not uncommon for lengthy reports to be overlooked. Have you considered creating an interactive or visual executive summary that’s accessible to the general community?
We will do our best to create reports that will be appealing. However, to be extremely honest, we are talking about report such as amount of proposals, budget, milestones, % of completion, specific notes etc. Something that by nature, I am afraid, is a bit boring.
Well everything including the name is negotiable I guess :sweat_smile:
Hi! Thanks for the proposal.
The DDA model has been working well, and I think it makes a lot of sense to renew it for another year. Overall, I strongly agree with the proposal in all aspects. Congratulations for the great work during seasons 1 & 2.
I just have a few questions.
Hi! Thanks for the proposal.
The DDA model has been working well, and I think it makes a lot of sense to renew it for another year. Overall, I strongly agree with the proposal in all aspects. Congratulations for the great work during seasons 1 & 2.
I just have a few questions.
Regarding Season 1, is there any data or report showing the continuity of the projects that were funded? Excluding events and community-related initiatives, the other funded domains focused on tooling or development for deploying on Arbitrum. Is there any kind of follow-up on these?
As for Orbit, I fully agree with incorporating the domain. Not only that, but I also support allocating the same budget to this domain as the others. L2s and L3s built with Orbit technology will start to gain traction and momentum, so it's better to have a well-funded domain capable of providing grants. In any case, if there is no demand, the funds will always return to the DAO.
Regarding the following
In recognition that one year is a relatively long period for a DAO’s program, procedures must be established for cases where team members cannot complete their tenure.
As I’ve seen mentioned on a few occasions, I believe that for roles with longer terms (not as short as six months), the compensation model should include a fixed payment in USD plus vested ARB tied to the completion of a 12-month term. This would incentivize full commitment and discourage resignations (although they can still happen—no one is exempt from new opportunities).
I propose slightly reducing the monthly amount and reallocating that reduction into ARB vested upon completing the 12 months.
First, I want to extend my gratitude to the team for the incredible work done so far with the program. The work done by the domain allocators has been remarkable and unbiased. Thank you for your continued effort and commitment. It's also evident how much thought has gone into this initiative.
I’ve personally witnessed the tangible benefits this program has brought to individuals I know. It has empowered them to bring their ideas to life, which speaks volumes about its impact. Programs like this are vital for boosting innovation and creativity within our ecosystem.
Thank you @JoJo - we are supportive of the Grant Program and believe this is a great way to continue growing the ecosystem, without burdening small teams with the requirement of going through the longer DAO process.
One question - we noticed a significant drop in project completion rates from Season 1 (73%) to Season 2 (33%). Is this because Season 2 is still ongoing or what is the reason for this? Understanding this could help ensure better outcomes and higher success rates in the upcoming season.
ne question - we noticed a significant drop in project completion rates from Season 1 (73%) to Season 2 (33%). Is this because Season 2 is still ongoing or what is the reason for this?
Changelog:
27/11/2024: changed timeline. Unfortunately, with the code of conduct stating that candidacy window should be at least 2 weeks and all voting having to be wrapped up by the 19th of December, there was no material way to have DAs elections before that date. For these reasons:
