Non-Constitutional
This proposal is put forward by RnDAO as a critical need we have identified and not as a service provider bid. We don't have a direct financial interest. As such, we invite the DAO to rally around this cause and offer not just feedback but also solutions and leadership.
This proposal aims to make Arbitrum an ideal home for onchain AI Agents. We'll set up an Agile team to identify, build, and communicate key enablers (developer tooling, documentation, and other resources as needed). This team can act as a key point of contact for AI builders, continuously identifying and rapidly delivering on what's needed, thanks to continuous prioritisation and agile development (fast sprints).
AI Agents are reshaping the internet as we know it. All kinds of interfaces, workflows, and processes are being disintermediated and a significant portion of the tools and ways of working we know will soon be replaced by swarms of AI agents coordinating. Said coordination can best be enabled onchain, and the race for where said coordination will happen is on. Blockchain ecosystems compete not only among themselves but also with Microsoft, OpenAI, etc.
If Arbitrum is going to have a chance, we need to act fast.
Speed should not be an excuse for doing things haphazardly and wasting money building the wrong thing. Onchain AI is a rapidly evolving space, and what's needed will change frequently. A large program with many fixed milestones and detailed deliverables is likely to take a long time to negotiate and ultimately miss the mark as the landscape changes. So instead of committing upfront to a large build (waterfall approach), we're proposing to set up a team that can work on fast sprints, experiment, and iterate (Agile approach).
To compensate for the lack of upfront visibility, we're also proposing an oversight structure to ensure the team performs and remains Arbitrum-aligned.
We already have fund deployment systems like Questbook track for dev tooling. However, this system relies on builders proposing to create their own infra instead of building a project. And although service providers cover some gaps, there's no systematic way to gather insights about what's most needed. Also, the Questbook system is not currently creating RFPs and as such has to wait for proposals by 3rd parties. As such, this program is designed to work together with Questbook track managers (especially Dev Tooling but also making warm introductions to other tracks and Arbitrum entities as needed).
In essence, we're proposing a public interface for AI builders where we'll have the team at hand to deliver what's needed and coordinate with other entities to avoid duplication of efforts and still mobilise all the resources at hand effectively.
The base structure is that of a delivery team, a multisig for small expenses, and the MSS directly paying contributors and replenishing the expenses multisig as needed.
The exact mix of team members is not fixed, but rather used to provide a starting point for the initiative. The Program Manager will make hiring decisions and can restructure the team as needed.
The program manager is elected via a DAO vote (snapshot vote with majority) and can be replaced via the same mechanism.
With the Program manager, technical lead and DevRel as signers (⅔). The multisig is meant to reimburse small expenses such as SaaS subscriptions or conference travel if needed but can also be used for additional costs such as design and other unplanned needs.
Reporting requirement for the program manager to the DAO:
KPIs:
There's A LOT of work to do, but as a starting point this is a good inspiration: https://www.coinbase.com/en-gb/developer-platform/discover/launches/introducing-agentkit
Budget
500k USD
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M5RfGlf6Vba25kvdLA2z4RWEb5fUoc8CSU8mIxk-GTM/edit?usp=sharing
Rough timeline: with parallel election and onchain vote to accelerate the launch and avoid missing the AI train
Proposal to gather sentiment and complete the team Feb 7 - 21
Snapshot for sentiment check Feb 21-28
Election: candidate submissions for program manager: March 3rd to 9th Program Manager candidates are encouraged but not required to disclose their team (DevRel and Tech Lead)
Election: candidate election vote: March 10 -17th
Onchain Vote: March 3rd to 25th
Contracting: March 26th to April 12th
Program kick-off: April 13th
Non-Constitutional
This proposal is put forward by RnDAO as a critical need we have identified and not as a service provider bid. We don't have a direct financial interest. As such, we invite the DAO to rally around this cause and offer not just feedback but also solutions and leadership.
This proposal aims to make Arbitrum an ideal home for onchain AI Agents. We'll set up an Agile team to identify, build, and communicate key enablers (developer tooling, documentation, and other resources as needed). This team can act as a key point of contact for AI builders, continuously identifying and rapidly delivering on what's needed, thanks to continuous prioritisation and agile development (fast sprints).
AI Agents are reshaping the internet as we know it. All kinds of interfaces, workflows, and processes are being disintermediated and a significant portion of the tools and ways of working we know will soon be replaced by swarms of AI agents coordinating. Said coordination can best be enabled onchain, and the race for where said coordination will happen is on. Blockchain ecosystems compete not only among themselves but also with Microsoft, OpenAI, etc.
If Arbitrum is going to have a chance, we need to act fast.
Speed should not be an excuse for doing things haphazardly and wasting money building the wrong thing. Onchain AI is a rapidly evolving space, and what's needed will change frequently. A large program with many fixed milestones and detailed deliverables is likely to take a long time to negotiate and ultimately miss the mark as the landscape changes. So instead of committing upfront to a large build (waterfall approach), we're proposing to set up a team that can work on fast sprints, experiment, and iterate (Agile approach).
To compensate for the lack of upfront visibility, we're also proposing an oversight structure to ensure the team performs and remains Arbitrum-aligned.
We already have fund deployment systems like Questbook track for dev tooling. However, this system relies on builders proposing to create their own infra instead of building a project. And although service providers cover some gaps, there's no systematic way to gather insights about what's most needed. Also, the Questbook system is not currently creating RFPs and as such has to wait for proposals by 3rd parties. As such, this program is designed to work together with Questbook track managers (especially Dev Tooling but also making warm introductions to other tracks and Arbitrum entities as needed).
In essence, we're proposing a public interface for AI builders where we'll have the team at hand to deliver what's needed and coordinate with other entities to avoid duplication of efforts and still mobilise all the resources at hand effectively.
The base structure is that of a delivery team, a multisig for small expenses, and the MSS directly paying contributors and replenishing the expenses multisig as needed.
The exact mix of team members is not fixed, but rather used to provide a starting point for the initiative. The Program Manager will make hiring decisions and can restructure the team as needed.
The program manager is elected via a DAO vote (snapshot vote with majority) and can be replaced via the same mechanism.
With the Program manager, technical lead and DevRel as signers (⅔). The multisig is meant to reimburse small expenses such as SaaS subscriptions or conference travel if needed but can also be used for additional costs such as design and other unplanned needs.
Reporting requirement for the program manager to the DAO:
KPIs:
There's A LOT of work to do, but as a starting point this is a good inspiration: https://www.coinbase.com/en-gb/developer-platform/discover/launches/introducing-agentkit
Budget
500k USD
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M5RfGlf6Vba25kvdLA2z4RWEb5fUoc8CSU8mIxk-GTM/edit?usp=sharing
Rough timeline: with parallel election and onchain vote to accelerate the launch and avoid missing the AI train
Proposal to gather sentiment and complete the team Feb 7 - 21
Snapshot for sentiment check Feb 21-28
Election: candidate submissions for program manager: March 3rd to 9th Program Manager candidates are encouraged but not required to disclose their team (DevRel and Tech Lead)
Election: candidate election vote: March 10 -17th
Onchain Vote: March 3rd to 25th
Contracting: March 26th to April 12th
Program kick-off: April 13th
This discussion around the 'Not Missing the AI Train' proposal has been insightful, and I appreciate the proactive decision to pause in light of Offchain Labs' existing efforts. This reflects a key strength of decentralized governance, adaptive decision-making based on community feedback and alignment with ongoing initiatives.
I am a little worried however that such a large chain/project has solutions being modelled out for such a large industry by only one team, I think there is still room for a project like this, perhaps on a smaller scale with key deliverables such as 'collaborate to launch an AI Agent launch pad' create a weekly or monthly demo show on youtube, monthly hackathon collaboration with prizes.
This discussion around the 'Not Missing the AI Train' proposal has been insightful, and I appreciate the proactive decision to pause in light of Offchain Labs' existing efforts. This reflects a key strength of decentralized governance, adaptive decision-making based on community feedback and alignment with ongoing initiatives.
I am a little worried however that such a large chain/project has solutions being modelled out for such a large industry by only one team, I think there is still room for a project like this, perhaps on a smaller scale with key deliverables such as 'collaborate to launch an AI Agent launch pad' create a weekly or monthly demo show on youtube, monthly hackathon collaboration with prizes.
Smaller team, smaller budget. AI is not a flash in the pan, every single one of the top tech companies has almost dropped everything they're doing to also 'jump on the bandwagon', we need to not only jump, but LEAP!
I'm really looking forward to seeing how this progresses.
This discussion around the 'Not Missing the AI Train' proposal has been insightful, and I appreciate the proactive decision to pause in light of Offchain Labs' existing efforts. This reflects a key strength of decentralized governance, adaptive decision-making based on community feedback and alignment with ongoing initiatives.
I am a little worried however that such a large chain/project has solutions being modelled out for such a large industry by only one team, I think there is still room for a project like this, perhaps on a smaller scale with key deliverables such as 'collaborate to launch an AI Agent launch pad' create a weekly or monthly demo show on youtube, monthly hackathon collaboration with prizes.
This discussion around the 'Not Missing the AI Train' proposal has been insightful, and I appreciate the proactive decision to pause in light of Offchain Labs' existing efforts. This reflects a key strength of decentralized governance, adaptive decision-making based on community feedback and alignment with ongoing initiatives.
I am a little worried however that such a large chain/project has solutions being modelled out for such a large industry by only one team, I think there is still room for a project like this, perhaps on a smaller scale with key deliverables such as 'collaborate to launch an AI Agent launch pad' create a weekly or monthly demo show on youtube, monthly hackathon collaboration with prizes.
Smaller team, smaller budget. AI is not a flash in the pan, every single one of the top tech companies has almost dropped everything they're doing to also 'jump on the bandwagon', we need to not only jump, but LEAP!
I'm really looking forward to seeing how this progresses.
Great to see this proposal @danielo! I think that Stylus certainly offers some really unique possibilities for on-chain AI agents. I am no longer at the Arbitrum Foundation, but recently developed a demo and workshop specifically on this topic:
https://github.com/hammertoe/ArbitrumOnchainAgent
https://x.com/HammerToe/status/1887966250191532218
Which got a lot of great response:
Great to see this proposal @danielo! I think that Stylus certainly offers some really unique possibilities for on-chain AI agents. I am no longer at the Arbitrum Foundation, but recently developed a demo and workshop specifically on this topic:
https://github.com/hammertoe/ArbitrumOnchainAgent
https://x.com/HammerToe/status/1887966250191532218
Which got a lot of great response:
https://x.com/diopfode/status/1886774429306511361
And also a very good route to bring devs over to Arbitrum from other ecosystems e.g.:
https://x.com/ajwarner90/status/1886775697911304215
I actually was coming here to the forum to propose something very similar to what you have proposed -- some kind of AI-agent focussed team that can move more rapidly than the Foundation can. It would be great to join efforts. I understand the concerns put forth here by people on the details of the proposal, but as you have pointed out, part of the reason for that is it is such a rapidly developing topic.
@karpatkey I understand your concerns about risk of overlapping with the Foundation. Whilst they have dedicated teams for ecosystem growth and BD, they don't really have much/any DevRel capacity and certainly no-one focussing on this specific topic of AI.
Great to see this proposal @danielo! I think that Stylus certainly offers some really unique possibilities for on-chain AI agents. I am no longer at the Arbitrum Foundation, but recently developed a demo and workshop specifically on this topic:
https://github.com/hammertoe/ArbitrumOnchainAgent
https://x.com/HammerToe/status/1887966250191532218
Which got a lot of great response:
Great to see this proposal @danielo! I think that Stylus certainly offers some really unique possibilities for on-chain AI agents. I am no longer at the Arbitrum Foundation, but recently developed a demo and workshop specifically on this topic:
https://github.com/hammertoe/ArbitrumOnchainAgent
https://x.com/HammerToe/status/1887966250191532218
Which got a lot of great response:
https://x.com/diopfode/status/1886774429306511361
And also a very good route to bring devs over to Arbitrum from other ecosystems e.g.:
https://x.com/ajwarner90/status/1886775697911304215
I actually was coming here to the forum to propose something very similar to what you have proposed -- some kind of AI-agent focussed team that can move more rapidly than the Foundation can. It would be great to join efforts. I understand the concerns put forth here by people on the details of the proposal, but as you have pointed out, part of the reason for that is it is such a rapidly developing topic.
@karpatkey I understand your concerns about risk of overlapping with the Foundation. Whilst they have dedicated teams for ecosystem growth and BD, they don't really have much/any DevRel capacity and certainly no-one focussing on this specific topic of AI.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
We support exploring AI within Arbitrum but believe this proposal needs a clearer framework before moving forward.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
We support exploring AI within Arbitrum but believe this proposal needs a clearer framework before moving forward.
We encourage further refinement to ensure this initiative is well-structured, strategically aligned, and properly resourced.
We find the underlying premise of this proposal to be strategically compelling - positioning Arbitrum as a key infrastructure layer for AI agent coordination represents a meaningful opportunity that warrants focused attention and resources.
However, while the proposal effectively identifies the strategic importance of this initiative, in our view, its execution framework requires further refinement and solidification.
We find the underlying premise of this proposal to be strategically compelling - positioning Arbitrum as a key infrastructure layer for AI agent coordination represents a meaningful opportunity that warrants focused attention and resources.
However, while the proposal effectively identifies the strategic importance of this initiative, in our view, its execution framework requires further refinement and solidification.
The core challenge lies in the proposal's lack of concrete implementation specifics:
The agile approach to development makes sense given the rapidly evolving nature of AI technology. However, this shouldn't preclude establishing clear initial priorities and concrete success metrics.
We believe this proposal addresses a crucial strategic opportunity but would benefit significantly from a more detailed implementation roadmap, specific initial focus areas and deliverables, clear success metrics and KPIs and explicit coordination mechanisms with existing Arbitrum entities.
We would be happy to support a refined version of this proposal that addresses these elements, as ensuring Arbitrum's positioning in the AI infrastructure space represents a meaningful opportunity.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
We support exploring AI within Arbitrum but believe this proposal needs a clearer framework before moving forward.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
We support exploring AI within Arbitrum but believe this proposal needs a clearer framework before moving forward.
We encourage further refinement to ensure this initiative is well-structured, strategically aligned, and properly resourced.
We find the underlying premise of this proposal to be strategically compelling - positioning Arbitrum as a key infrastructure layer for AI agent coordination represents a meaningful opportunity that warrants focused attention and resources.
However, while the proposal effectively identifies the strategic importance of this initiative, in our view, its execution framework requires further refinement and solidification.
We find the underlying premise of this proposal to be strategically compelling - positioning Arbitrum as a key infrastructure layer for AI agent coordination represents a meaningful opportunity that warrants focused attention and resources.
However, while the proposal effectively identifies the strategic importance of this initiative, in our view, its execution framework requires further refinement and solidification.
The core challenge lies in the proposal's lack of concrete implementation specifics:
The agile approach to development makes sense given the rapidly evolving nature of AI technology. However, this shouldn't preclude establishing clear initial priorities and concrete success metrics.
We believe this proposal addresses a crucial strategic opportunity but would benefit significantly from a more detailed implementation roadmap, specific initial focus areas and deliverables, clear success metrics and KPIs and explicit coordination mechanisms with existing Arbitrum entities.
We would be happy to support a refined version of this proposal that addresses these elements, as ensuring Arbitrum's positioning in the AI infrastructure space represents a meaningful opportunity.
@TodayInDeFi @Atomist @chamadao @Federico @danielM @CryptoSI please read this
@TodayInDeFi @Atomist @chamadao @Federico @danielM @CryptoSI please read this
OCL is already working on enabling an AI framework and has some capabilities to serve as a point fo contact (PoC) for AI builders. Our view is that this PoC service is poorly advertised across Arbitrum digital properties and we invite OCL and the Foundation to coordinate in improving access to OCL customer support services by making them more prominent and known across the DAO too. Some ideas:
Generally, we see similar activities have been tried already, but are in our view not enough. Our hunch is that a more relational component is needed (it’s not about having the documentation, infra, and resources, but about having someone to talk to and feel hand held). We share this view simply as feedback with the caveat that we haven’t researched the merits/gaps of the customer support offered (such initiative could be carried by the ARDC).
We have also realised how communication between the delegates, @Arbitrum Foundation, and @offchainlabs about ecosystem development initiatives could be improved and have proposed to the AF and OCL to organise a monthly call to share with delegates what they’re working on in this areas.
cc @raam
Although the proposal has already been paused, but since I just got to it, I also want to add a couple of my thoughts.
I often use chatgpt and the grok and other AI tools, but I almost never use AIagents, although I have been in crypto for a very long time(maybe i'm too old for this :joy:). I remember how in 2021 everyone was talking about how Metaverses are the future and everyone urgently needs to make their own metaverses. And where are all these projects now? The trend has passed and it's all over. What do I want to convey with this?
Although the proposal has already been paused, but since I just got to it, I also want to add a couple of my thoughts.
I often use chatgpt and the grok and other AI tools, but I almost never use AIagents, although I have been in crypto for a very long time(maybe i'm too old for this :joy:). I remember how in 2021 everyone was talking about how Metaverses are the future and everyone urgently needs to make their own metaverses. And where are all these projects now? The trend has passed and it's all over. What do I want to convey with this?
Firstly, Arbitrum has already missed this trend, so to speak, the train has left. Secondly, the trend itself has also seemingly ended. Maybe we don't need to single out a separate group for AI trends. We have wonderful programs, for example, Stylus: the project could receive a grant for development if it is useful for the ecosystem. But it seems that there are none now as far as I know(or am I wrong and we have one or a couple?), since there is no demand, the trend is fading.
But for the future, as an option, simply allocate a quota for AIagents in programs such as Stylus, for example. I think this will be a good solution, than to create a separate group and allocate a separate budget.
You mention the idea of this program is to help AI builders by providing dev tooling, documentation, and a more direct point of contact, but it would be great to clarify what exactly you mean by that. More specifically, what kind of support do you think AI-focused projects require that's different from what Arbitrum already offers to builders in general?
Let's set aside the question of whether AI agents should be a priority for Arbitrum in the first place. Before funding a new program, it would help to have a clearer picture of what’s missing and why. Saying “we need dev tooling, documentation, and points of contact” is a bit vague.
The proposal makes a good point—AI is moving fast, and Arbitrum has a real shot at becoming a major player. The idea of a public interface for AI builders and a flexible team to fill infrastructure gaps sounds solid, especially since current grant programs focus more on funding than actual support. Plus, I believe the team has the experience and technical skills to pull this off.
That said, there are some concerns. The proposal is pretty vague on what the team would actually do and how success would be measured, especially with a $500K budget. Picking a Program Manager through a DAO vote might not guarantee the right expertise, and it’s unclear how this fits in with existing AI initiatives like Trailblazer and ETHGlobal’s hackathon. Some people also feel it’s too early to form a team without a clearer roadmap, and without a solid business plan, justifying the budget is tricky.
@TodayInDeFi @Atomist @chamadao @Federico @danielM @CryptoSI please read this
@TodayInDeFi @Atomist @chamadao @Federico @danielM @CryptoSI please read this
OCL is already working on enabling an AI framework and has some capabilities to serve as a point fo contact (PoC) for AI builders. Our view is that this PoC service is poorly advertised across Arbitrum digital properties and we invite OCL and the Foundation to coordinate in improving access to OCL customer support services by making them more prominent and known across the DAO too. Some ideas:
Generally, we see similar activities have been tried already, but are in our view not enough. Our hunch is that a more relational component is needed (it’s not about having the documentation, infra, and resources, but about having someone to talk to and feel hand held). We share this view simply as feedback with the caveat that we haven’t researched the merits/gaps of the customer support offered (such initiative could be carried by the ARDC).
We have also realised how communication between the delegates, @Arbitrum Foundation, and @offchainlabs about ecosystem development initiatives could be improved and have proposed to the AF and OCL to organise a monthly call to share with delegates what they’re working on in this areas.
cc @raam
Although the proposal has already been paused, but since I just got to it, I also want to add a couple of my thoughts.
I often use chatgpt and the grok and other AI tools, but I almost never use AIagents, although I have been in crypto for a very long time(maybe i'm too old for this :joy:). I remember how in 2021 everyone was talking about how Metaverses are the future and everyone urgently needs to make their own metaverses. And where are all these projects now? The trend has passed and it's all over. What do I want to convey with this?
Although the proposal has already been paused, but since I just got to it, I also want to add a couple of my thoughts.
I often use chatgpt and the grok and other AI tools, but I almost never use AIagents, although I have been in crypto for a very long time(maybe i'm too old for this :joy:). I remember how in 2021 everyone was talking about how Metaverses are the future and everyone urgently needs to make their own metaverses. And where are all these projects now? The trend has passed and it's all over. What do I want to convey with this?
Firstly, Arbitrum has already missed this trend, so to speak, the train has left. Secondly, the trend itself has also seemingly ended. Maybe we don't need to single out a separate group for AI trends. We have wonderful programs, for example, Stylus: the project could receive a grant for development if it is useful for the ecosystem. But it seems that there are none now as far as I know(or am I wrong and we have one or a couple?), since there is no demand, the trend is fading.
But for the future, as an option, simply allocate a quota for AIagents in programs such as Stylus, for example. I think this will be a good solution, than to create a separate group and allocate a separate budget.
You mention the idea of this program is to help AI builders by providing dev tooling, documentation, and a more direct point of contact, but it would be great to clarify what exactly you mean by that. More specifically, what kind of support do you think AI-focused projects require that's different from what Arbitrum already offers to builders in general?
Let's set aside the question of whether AI agents should be a priority for Arbitrum in the first place. Before funding a new program, it would help to have a clearer picture of what’s missing and why. Saying “we need dev tooling, documentation, and points of contact” is a bit vague.
The proposal makes a good point—AI is moving fast, and Arbitrum has a real shot at becoming a major player. The idea of a public interface for AI builders and a flexible team to fill infrastructure gaps sounds solid, especially since current grant programs focus more on funding than actual support. Plus, I believe the team has the experience and technical skills to pull this off.
That said, there are some concerns. The proposal is pretty vague on what the team would actually do and how success would be measured, especially with a $500K budget. Picking a Program Manager through a DAO vote might not guarantee the right expertise, and it’s unclear how this fits in with existing AI initiatives like Trailblazer and ETHGlobal’s hackathon. Some people also feel it’s too early to form a team without a clearer roadmap, and without a solid business plan, justifying the budget is tricky.
You mention the idea of this program is to help AI builders by providing dev tooling, documentation, and a more direct point of contact, but it would be great to clarify what exactly you mean by that. More specifically, what kind of support do you think AI-focused projects require that's different from what Arbitrum already offers to builders in general?
Let's set aside the question of whether AI agents should be a priority for Arbitrum in the first place. Before funding a new program, it would help to have a clearer picture of what’s missing and why. Saying “we need dev tooling, documentation, and points of contact” is a bit vague.
It might be more effective to 1) identify a few well-established AI builders in the space, 2) ask them about what they need and why Arbitrum might not currently meet those needs, and 3) use these insights to create a more detailed plan for how to fill the gaps.
As others have mentioned, there's a program that has already been set up to support AI-driven projects on Arbitrum, so it’s worth exploring whether the existing team can gather and address these insights instead of hiring a whole new group. That way, we make sure we’re not duplicating work or using extra resources on problems that can be solved with existing ones.
The proposal makes a good point—AI is moving fast, and Arbitrum has a real shot at becoming a major player. The idea of a public interface for AI builders and a flexible team to fill infrastructure gaps sounds solid, especially since current grant programs focus more on funding than actual support. Plus, I believe the team has the experience and technical skills to pull this off.
That said, there are some concerns. The proposal is pretty vague on what the team would actually do and how success would be measured, especially with a $500K budget. Picking a Program Manager through a DAO vote might not guarantee the right expertise, and it’s unclear how this fits in with existing AI initiatives like Trailblazer and ETHGlobal’s hackathon. Some people also feel it’s too early to form a team without a clearer roadmap, and without a solid business plan, justifying the budget is tricky.
Overall, I think this has potential, but it needs more details. A clearer plan, specific goals, and a way to avoid overlapping with other programs would make it way more convincing.
For proposals that propose such high spend, there needs to be much clearer goals and success criteria. How will we determine if this program is a success? How will the return-on-investment for such a high spending proposal be evaluated?
We think there is benefit in promoting activity like AI agents on the network, but without clear goals and success criteria it doesn't make sense to spend such large amounts.
For proposals that propose such high spend, there needs to be much clearer goals and success criteria. How will we determine if this program is a success? How will the return-on-investment for such a high spending proposal be evaluated?
We think there is benefit in promoting activity like AI agents on the network, but without clear goals and success criteria it doesn't make sense to spend such large amounts.
The proposal should include at least some KPIs. Some options could be focsued on AI agent market share, AI deployments that generate revenue for the DAO through various methods, or similar KPIs that are focused on the ROI to the DAO.
Even with these additions, we think that the $500,000 budget is extremely high. There is little reason that the DAO should be adding service provider budgets that far exceed other DAO service provider budgets that clearly deliver value for their DAOs.
As it stands we would be voting AGAINST this proposal.
After a discussion with OCL, we're pausing this proposal.
OCL is already working on enabling an AI framework and has some capabilities to serve as a point fo contact (PoC) for AI builders. Our view is that this PoC service is poorly advertised across Arbitrum digital properties and we invite OCL and the Foundation to coordinate in improving access to OCL customer support services by making them more prominent and known across the DAO too. Some ideas:
After a discussion with OCL, we're pausing this proposal.
OCL is already working on enabling an AI framework and has some capabilities to serve as a point fo contact (PoC) for AI builders. Our view is that this PoC service is poorly advertised across Arbitrum digital properties and we invite OCL and the Foundation to coordinate in improving access to OCL customer support services by making them more prominent and known across the DAO too. Some ideas:
Generally, we see similar activities have been tried already, but are in our view not enough. Our hunch is that a more relational component is needed (it's not about having the documentation, infra, and resources, but about having someone to talk to and feel hand held). We share this view simply as feedback with the caveat that we haven't researched the merits/gaps of the customer support offered (such initiative could be carried by the ARDC).
We have also realised how communication between the delegates, @Arbitrum Foundation, and @offchainlabs about ecosystem development initiatives could be improved and have proposed to the AF and OCL to organise a monthly call to share with delegates what they're working on in this areas.
cc @raam
not yet commenting on the theme of this proposal but commenting on the shape of it, I think it is paternalistic to try to pass a proposal that enforces a methodology (agile) to be followed by a team that will get elected afterwards and might not agree with that methodology that at that point was already approved by a DAO vote. so I would recommend for this proposal to be much much less opinionated about the methodology to be followed, and focus on solely approving the budget for a team to form around it and drive it in the way they see fit.
You mention the idea of this program is to help AI builders by providing dev tooling, documentation, and a more direct point of contact, but it would be great to clarify what exactly you mean by that. More specifically, what kind of support do you think AI-focused projects require that's different from what Arbitrum already offers to builders in general?
Let's set aside the question of whether AI agents should be a priority for Arbitrum in the first place. Before funding a new program, it would help to have a clearer picture of what’s missing and why. Saying “we need dev tooling, documentation, and points of contact” is a bit vague.
It might be more effective to 1) identify a few well-established AI builders in the space, 2) ask them about what they need and why Arbitrum might not currently meet those needs, and 3) use these insights to create a more detailed plan for how to fill the gaps.
As others have mentioned, there's a program that has already been set up to support AI-driven projects on Arbitrum, so it’s worth exploring whether the existing team can gather and address these insights instead of hiring a whole new group. That way, we make sure we’re not duplicating work or using extra resources on problems that can be solved with existing ones.
The proposal makes a good point—AI is moving fast, and Arbitrum has a real shot at becoming a major player. The idea of a public interface for AI builders and a flexible team to fill infrastructure gaps sounds solid, especially since current grant programs focus more on funding than actual support. Plus, I believe the team has the experience and technical skills to pull this off.
That said, there are some concerns. The proposal is pretty vague on what the team would actually do and how success would be measured, especially with a $500K budget. Picking a Program Manager through a DAO vote might not guarantee the right expertise, and it’s unclear how this fits in with existing AI initiatives like Trailblazer and ETHGlobal’s hackathon. Some people also feel it’s too early to form a team without a clearer roadmap, and without a solid business plan, justifying the budget is tricky.
Overall, I think this has potential, but it needs more details. A clearer plan, specific goals, and a way to avoid overlapping with other programs would make it way more convincing.
For proposals that propose such high spend, there needs to be much clearer goals and success criteria. How will we determine if this program is a success? How will the return-on-investment for such a high spending proposal be evaluated?
We think there is benefit in promoting activity like AI agents on the network, but without clear goals and success criteria it doesn't make sense to spend such large amounts.
For proposals that propose such high spend, there needs to be much clearer goals and success criteria. How will we determine if this program is a success? How will the return-on-investment for such a high spending proposal be evaluated?
We think there is benefit in promoting activity like AI agents on the network, but without clear goals and success criteria it doesn't make sense to spend such large amounts.
The proposal should include at least some KPIs. Some options could be focsued on AI agent market share, AI deployments that generate revenue for the DAO through various methods, or similar KPIs that are focused on the ROI to the DAO.
Even with these additions, we think that the $500,000 budget is extremely high. There is little reason that the DAO should be adding service provider budgets that far exceed other DAO service provider budgets that clearly deliver value for their DAOs.
As it stands we would be voting AGAINST this proposal.
After a discussion with OCL, we're pausing this proposal.
OCL is already working on enabling an AI framework and has some capabilities to serve as a point fo contact (PoC) for AI builders. Our view is that this PoC service is poorly advertised across Arbitrum digital properties and we invite OCL and the Foundation to coordinate in improving access to OCL customer support services by making them more prominent and known across the DAO too. Some ideas:
After a discussion with OCL, we're pausing this proposal.
OCL is already working on enabling an AI framework and has some capabilities to serve as a point fo contact (PoC) for AI builders. Our view is that this PoC service is poorly advertised across Arbitrum digital properties and we invite OCL and the Foundation to coordinate in improving access to OCL customer support services by making them more prominent and known across the DAO too. Some ideas:
Generally, we see similar activities have been tried already, but are in our view not enough. Our hunch is that a more relational component is needed (it's not about having the documentation, infra, and resources, but about having someone to talk to and feel hand held). We share this view simply as feedback with the caveat that we haven't researched the merits/gaps of the customer support offered (such initiative could be carried by the ARDC).
We have also realised how communication between the delegates, @Arbitrum Foundation, and @offchainlabs about ecosystem development initiatives could be improved and have proposed to the AF and OCL to organise a monthly call to share with delegates what they're working on in this areas.
cc @raam
not yet commenting on the theme of this proposal but commenting on the shape of it, I think it is paternalistic to try to pass a proposal that enforces a methodology (agile) to be followed by a team that will get elected afterwards and might not agree with that methodology that at that point was already approved by a DAO vote. so I would recommend for this proposal to be much much less opinionated about the methodology to be followed, and focus on solely approving the budget for a team to form around it and drive it in the way they see fit.
Thank you, @danielo, for sharing this proposal. While we support the idea of fostering on-chain AI innovation on Arbitrum, we have some concerns regarding the proposed implementation, similar to those expressed by other delegates.
The proposal lacks clarity on how the team will achieve its goals. While the context and team roles are explained, there is little detail on what the team will actually do in practice. For instance, how will DevRel identify and engage AI builders? Will they rely on hackathons, partnerships, or direct outreach? Without specifying clear strategies, there is a risk of overlapping efforts with the Arbitrum Foundation, which already has dedicated teams for ecosystem growth. Similarly, the Technical Lead’s responsibilities—such as scoping tasks and RFPs—are vague, without specifying concrete deliverables or priorities.
Thank you, @danielo, for sharing this proposal. While we support the idea of fostering on-chain AI innovation on Arbitrum, we have some concerns regarding the proposed implementation, similar to those expressed by other delegates.
The proposal lacks clarity on how the team will achieve its goals. While the context and team roles are explained, there is little detail on what the team will actually do in practice. For instance, how will DevRel identify and engage AI builders? Will they rely on hackathons, partnerships, or direct outreach? Without specifying clear strategies, there is a risk of overlapping efforts with the Arbitrum Foundation, which already has dedicated teams for ecosystem growth. Similarly, the Technical Lead’s responsibilities—such as scoping tasks and RFPs—are vague, without specifying concrete deliverables or priorities.
The absence of a defined roadmap or KPIs further complicates assessing the feasibility of this initiative. Without these critical elements, seeing how this program will deliver a meaningful impact or avoid resource duplication is difficult.
We believe this proposal could be valuable if refined to include a more structured implementation plan with clear objectives, milestones, and differentiation from existing initiatives.
I like the idea of making the Arbitrum a home for AI agents.
However, as other delegates have rightly written, this proposal is too abstract. I will not repeat their arguments (I fully agree with them), but I would like to see this proposal not completely stalled due to high resistance. It seems to me that in order to concretize this proposal, we first need to formulate the tasks that the Arbitrum will perform.
I like the idea of making the Arbitrum a home for AI agents.
However, as other delegates have rightly written, this proposal is too abstract. I will not repeat their arguments (I fully agree with them), but I would like to see this proposal not completely stalled due to high resistance. It seems to me that in order to concretize this proposal, we first need to formulate the tasks that the Arbitrum will perform.
Actually, the proposal should be divided into 2 parts, and you have outlined the second part (but which will require adjustment when/if we implement the first) The first part is to formulate the tasks that users need. How to do this is an open question, but I assume that there are many AI agent specialists who can formulate such tasks and themselves be participants in the second phase as coordinators or managers.
After all, we want to make what users need. And also understand what competitive advantage our product will have compared to those already on the market.
Finally, given the emphasis on avoiding wasted resources and “building the wrong thing,” has there been any analysis of the projects already funded by the Trailblazer program? It seems like that would provide useful insights before launching another initiative.
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.
While this proposal is more of an idea than a fully developed plan, we appreciate the initiative to explore how AI could be more systematically integrated into the Arbitrum ecosystem and supported by the DAO. We understand where the need for agility comes from, and even though we support creating an agile team, we need to ensure that we are not just throwing money chasing rabbits.
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.
While this proposal is more of an idea than a fully developed plan, we appreciate the initiative to explore how AI could be more systematically integrated into the Arbitrum ecosystem and supported by the DAO. We understand where the need for agility comes from, and even though we support creating an agile team, we need to ensure that we are not just throwing money chasing rabbits.
We do not see a plan for how this initiative will move from an idea to an executable strategy. Funding a team is a step, but the first step should be a high-level plan of what we want to achieve. Although we could discuss KPIs and details for months, this goes against the very spirit of the proposal. In our mind, a better approach to ensuring that we will not be spending money without seeing any meaningful impact is to have clear-set red flags that urge us to wind down the initiative if needed. In that way, even if we are to fund a team without any specific goal ahead of time, and even if there are no KPIs set given the ever-changing landscape of AI x Blockchain, we will have some concrete signal that things aren’t working, and we can pull the plug.
@Bobbay and @dragonawr the call is precisely for delegates to collaborate in building up this proposal together. I'd love to hear what you'd add/improve so it's a go rather than just suggesting it needs more work. We're just one of multiple delegates and this is an ecosystem need, not something that only benefits us...
Hi @danielo, this looks like an interesting proposal but has some gaps.
While the goal behind the proposal is applaudable, we believe that the overall goal of the proposal was unclear, but we’ve seen that you mentioned the goal was for the proposed team to work on the items below.
Hi @danielo, this looks like an interesting proposal but has some gaps.
While the goal behind the proposal is applaudable, we believe that the overall goal of the proposal was unclear, but we’ve seen that you mentioned the goal was for the proposed team to work on the items below.
the team will do everything they can to support builders. That includes creating, documentation, developer tooling, infra, etc. Hence why contemplating up to 3 devs focused here
We believe the proposal needs more alignment with AF and OCL for better clarity: e.g. how does it fit within the Trailblazer AI Grant program? What other resources are already available to support teams? Are there other plans for future grant programs?
The goal of this proposal needs to be made clearer, whether its to support and accelerate available tooling or provide devrel support for AI teams building on Arbitrum. At the moment its not very clear what the goal is but we agree its an area of opportunity for Arbitrum. @JoJo's feedback was very on point, especially on his assessment below.
All in all as of now i think this proposal at the current stage does not make sense, not really for the capital but for the mindshare we need to collectively spend on top of this.
Last but not least, we believe that it would be better to avoid sharing these in proposal format, and more as temperature checks to gauge interest beforehand.
Agree heavily with JoJO here. I don't think its the right time or team for this proposal. It needs to be a lot more structured, organized and led by the right orgs to have the effect desired.
I do think arb can do a much better job here but I rather have a more organized plan here
The proposal's overall title is literally jumping on the bandwagon. As others have said, there are no KPIs nor clear objectives, and the lack of concrete goals only justification appears to be that it will all be done under an Agile methodology.
I am not an AI buff, and though I understand the FOMO for Arbitrum as a whole, I am sure there are far better ways to pitch this to garner support.
Apologies for the late response. So my number 1 gripe with the proposal is the "Motivation" part. I particularly don't feel too inclined to commit funds on AI for the sake of AI, and even if I try to do away with those reservations I can see why others wouldn't.
I don't think it's clear enough for users and delegates that we NEED an AI track, and the proposal doesn't seem to have convinced many others that this the case or how it translates into a W. If I try to think neutrally, that should probably be your main concern ahead of putting it up for a vote.
I am not technical but have been following AI developments and it seems there is a lot of frameworks already available. The idea of AI Agents seems to be largely chain-agnostic, with the blockchain layer abstracted away. Have you considered this aspect? It might be worth exploring collaborations with other prominent infrastructure providers, such as Virtuals or the Aliza team, to see how Arbitrum can best position itself in this evolving landscape. Maybe what’s needed isn’t just developer tooling but also a plugin for Arbitrum—something that enables AI agents to have wallets and interact on-chain seamlessly.
I’d love to hear more about the core of this proposal and what kind of deliverables you have in mind. If there’s anyone in this community already working on AI agents, it would be great to get your perspective on this as well.
If I understood the proposal correctly, the first six months are focused on:
We’ll set up an Agile team to identify, build, and communicate key enablers (developer tooling, documentation, and other resources as needed).
Thanks a lot for your proposal Danielo.
I think it has its merit & I have seen the products in action that you and your team have built.
This being said, given some feedback is around trying to figure out whether there is some space for AI agents in Arbitrum/where this space should be: wouldn’t it make sense for the first SOS to be completed?
Thanks a lot for your proposal Danielo.
I think it has its merit & I have seen the products in action that you and your team have built.
This being said, given some feedback is around trying to figure out whether there is some space for AI agents in Arbitrum/where this space should be: wouldn’t it make sense for the first SOS to be completed?
This would give this proposal a North Star to attach itself to.
This would give this proposal a North Star to attach itself to.
not yet commenting on the theme of this proposal but commenting on the shape of it, I think it is paternalistic to try to pass a proposal that enforces a methodology (agile) to be followed by a team that will get elected afterwards and might not agree with that methodology that at that point was already approved by a DAO vote. so I would recommend for this proposal to be much much less opinionated about the methodology to be followed, and focus on solely approving the budget for a team to form around it and drive it in the way they see fit.
Reading this proposal I'm unsure what is actually being proposed here. It is a high cost and a large team given the unclear or undefined output. It seems to rely on the premise that AI agents are not being built on Arbitrum because there is a lack of support yet it presents no argument or evidence for this and no definition of what support is needed. If you've identified it as a critical need as stated in the introduction could you expand on what exactly was identified as a critical need and how this was identified? Was there research or data analysis carried out that supports this claim?
I am a bit puzzled by this proposal. I understand is fishing for feedbacks to make it more concrete but it seems like it still lacks the business plan behind.
You present the idea: don't miss the AI train. We could probably say that we already did miss the bulk of the first wave but more waves are to come, and advocate how this second wave is currently being build in the same place in which first wave was born (base, solana). Ok, so the proposal is about "creating a team that can guide AI teams".
Asides the budget, is it really okay to put together a team before knowing what exactly they would be working on/coordinating? We suggest we start discussions on possible tangents we could take with AI agents before considering teams and funding.
Thank you, @danielo, for sharing this proposal. While we support the idea of fostering on-chain AI innovation on Arbitrum, we have some concerns regarding the proposed implementation, similar to those expressed by other delegates.
The proposal lacks clarity on how the team will achieve its goals. While the context and team roles are explained, there is little detail on what the team will actually do in practice. For instance, how will DevRel identify and engage AI builders? Will they rely on hackathons, partnerships, or direct outreach? Without specifying clear strategies, there is a risk of overlapping efforts with the Arbitrum Foundation, which already has dedicated teams for ecosystem growth. Similarly, the Technical Lead’s responsibilities—such as scoping tasks and RFPs—are vague, without specifying concrete deliverables or priorities.
Thank you, @danielo, for sharing this proposal. While we support the idea of fostering on-chain AI innovation on Arbitrum, we have some concerns regarding the proposed implementation, similar to those expressed by other delegates.
The proposal lacks clarity on how the team will achieve its goals. While the context and team roles are explained, there is little detail on what the team will actually do in practice. For instance, how will DevRel identify and engage AI builders? Will they rely on hackathons, partnerships, or direct outreach? Without specifying clear strategies, there is a risk of overlapping efforts with the Arbitrum Foundation, which already has dedicated teams for ecosystem growth. Similarly, the Technical Lead’s responsibilities—such as scoping tasks and RFPs—are vague, without specifying concrete deliverables or priorities.
The absence of a defined roadmap or KPIs further complicates assessing the feasibility of this initiative. Without these critical elements, seeing how this program will deliver a meaningful impact or avoid resource duplication is difficult.
We believe this proposal could be valuable if refined to include a more structured implementation plan with clear objectives, milestones, and differentiation from existing initiatives.
I like the idea of making the Arbitrum a home for AI agents.
However, as other delegates have rightly written, this proposal is too abstract. I will not repeat their arguments (I fully agree with them), but I would like to see this proposal not completely stalled due to high resistance. It seems to me that in order to concretize this proposal, we first need to formulate the tasks that the Arbitrum will perform.
I like the idea of making the Arbitrum a home for AI agents.
However, as other delegates have rightly written, this proposal is too abstract. I will not repeat their arguments (I fully agree with them), but I would like to see this proposal not completely stalled due to high resistance. It seems to me that in order to concretize this proposal, we first need to formulate the tasks that the Arbitrum will perform.
Actually, the proposal should be divided into 2 parts, and you have outlined the second part (but which will require adjustment when/if we implement the first) The first part is to formulate the tasks that users need. How to do this is an open question, but I assume that there are many AI agent specialists who can formulate such tasks and themselves be participants in the second phase as coordinators or managers.
After all, we want to make what users need. And also understand what competitive advantage our product will have compared to those already on the market.
Finally, given the emphasis on avoiding wasted resources and “building the wrong thing,” has there been any analysis of the projects already funded by the Trailblazer program? It seems like that would provide useful insights before launching another initiative.
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.
While this proposal is more of an idea than a fully developed plan, we appreciate the initiative to explore how AI could be more systematically integrated into the Arbitrum ecosystem and supported by the DAO. We understand where the need for agility comes from, and even though we support creating an agile team, we need to ensure that we are not just throwing money chasing rabbits.
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.
While this proposal is more of an idea than a fully developed plan, we appreciate the initiative to explore how AI could be more systematically integrated into the Arbitrum ecosystem and supported by the DAO. We understand where the need for agility comes from, and even though we support creating an agile team, we need to ensure that we are not just throwing money chasing rabbits.
We do not see a plan for how this initiative will move from an idea to an executable strategy. Funding a team is a step, but the first step should be a high-level plan of what we want to achieve. Although we could discuss KPIs and details for months, this goes against the very spirit of the proposal. In our mind, a better approach to ensuring that we will not be spending money without seeing any meaningful impact is to have clear-set red flags that urge us to wind down the initiative if needed. In that way, even if we are to fund a team without any specific goal ahead of time, and even if there are no KPIs set given the ever-changing landscape of AI x Blockchain, we will have some concrete signal that things aren’t working, and we can pull the plug.
@Bobbay and @dragonawr the call is precisely for delegates to collaborate in building up this proposal together. I'd love to hear what you'd add/improve so it's a go rather than just suggesting it needs more work. We're just one of multiple delegates and this is an ecosystem need, not something that only benefits us...
Hi @danielo, this looks like an interesting proposal but has some gaps.
While the goal behind the proposal is applaudable, we believe that the overall goal of the proposal was unclear, but we’ve seen that you mentioned the goal was for the proposed team to work on the items below.
Hi @danielo, this looks like an interesting proposal but has some gaps.
While the goal behind the proposal is applaudable, we believe that the overall goal of the proposal was unclear, but we’ve seen that you mentioned the goal was for the proposed team to work on the items below.
the team will do everything they can to support builders. That includes creating, documentation, developer tooling, infra, etc. Hence why contemplating up to 3 devs focused here
We believe the proposal needs more alignment with AF and OCL for better clarity: e.g. how does it fit within the Trailblazer AI Grant program? What other resources are already available to support teams? Are there other plans for future grant programs?
The goal of this proposal needs to be made clearer, whether its to support and accelerate available tooling or provide devrel support for AI teams building on Arbitrum. At the moment its not very clear what the goal is but we agree its an area of opportunity for Arbitrum. @JoJo's feedback was very on point, especially on his assessment below.
All in all as of now i think this proposal at the current stage does not make sense, not really for the capital but for the mindshare we need to collectively spend on top of this.
Last but not least, we believe that it would be better to avoid sharing these in proposal format, and more as temperature checks to gauge interest beforehand.
Agree heavily with JoJO here. I don't think its the right time or team for this proposal. It needs to be a lot more structured, organized and led by the right orgs to have the effect desired.
I do think arb can do a much better job here but I rather have a more organized plan here
The proposal's overall title is literally jumping on the bandwagon. As others have said, there are no KPIs nor clear objectives, and the lack of concrete goals only justification appears to be that it will all be done under an Agile methodology.
I am not an AI buff, and though I understand the FOMO for Arbitrum as a whole, I am sure there are far better ways to pitch this to garner support.
Apologies for the late response. So my number 1 gripe with the proposal is the "Motivation" part. I particularly don't feel too inclined to commit funds on AI for the sake of AI, and even if I try to do away with those reservations I can see why others wouldn't.
I don't think it's clear enough for users and delegates that we NEED an AI track, and the proposal doesn't seem to have convinced many others that this the case or how it translates into a W. If I try to think neutrally, that should probably be your main concern ahead of putting it up for a vote.
I am not technical but have been following AI developments and it seems there is a lot of frameworks already available. The idea of AI Agents seems to be largely chain-agnostic, with the blockchain layer abstracted away. Have you considered this aspect? It might be worth exploring collaborations with other prominent infrastructure providers, such as Virtuals or the Aliza team, to see how Arbitrum can best position itself in this evolving landscape. Maybe what’s needed isn’t just developer tooling but also a plugin for Arbitrum—something that enables AI agents to have wallets and interact on-chain seamlessly.
I’d love to hear more about the core of this proposal and what kind of deliverables you have in mind. If there’s anyone in this community already working on AI agents, it would be great to get your perspective on this as well.
If I understood the proposal correctly, the first six months are focused on:
We’ll set up an Agile team to identify, build, and communicate key enablers (developer tooling, documentation, and other resources as needed).
Thanks a lot for your proposal Danielo.
I think it has its merit & I have seen the products in action that you and your team have built.
This being said, given some feedback is around trying to figure out whether there is some space for AI agents in Arbitrum/where this space should be: wouldn’t it make sense for the first SOS to be completed?
Thanks a lot for your proposal Danielo.
I think it has its merit & I have seen the products in action that you and your team have built.
This being said, given some feedback is around trying to figure out whether there is some space for AI agents in Arbitrum/where this space should be: wouldn’t it make sense for the first SOS to be completed?
This would give this proposal a North Star to attach itself to.
This would give this proposal a North Star to attach itself to.
not yet commenting on the theme of this proposal but commenting on the shape of it, I think it is paternalistic to try to pass a proposal that enforces a methodology (agile) to be followed by a team that will get elected afterwards and might not agree with that methodology that at that point was already approved by a DAO vote. so I would recommend for this proposal to be much much less opinionated about the methodology to be followed, and focus on solely approving the budget for a team to form around it and drive it in the way they see fit.
Reading this proposal I'm unsure what is actually being proposed here. It is a high cost and a large team given the unclear or undefined output. It seems to rely on the premise that AI agents are not being built on Arbitrum because there is a lack of support yet it presents no argument or evidence for this and no definition of what support is needed. If you've identified it as a critical need as stated in the introduction could you expand on what exactly was identified as a critical need and how this was identified? Was there research or data analysis carried out that supports this claim?
I am a bit puzzled by this proposal. I understand is fishing for feedbacks to make it more concrete but it seems like it still lacks the business plan behind.
You present the idea: don't miss the AI train. We could probably say that we already did miss the bulk of the first wave but more waves are to come, and advocate how this second wave is currently being build in the same place in which first wave was born (base, solana). Ok, so the proposal is about "creating a team that can guide AI teams".
Asides the budget, is it really okay to put together a team before knowing what exactly they would be working on/coordinating? We suggest we start discussions on possible tangents we could take with AI agents before considering teams and funding.
If I understood the proposal correctly, the first six months are focused on:
We’ll set up an Agile team to identify, build, and communicate key enablers (developer tooling, documentation, and other resources as needed).
Some ideas for KPIs and success criterias:
• KPI: Full team formed and operational within X weeks. • KPI: First deliverables available in the first X weeks.
• KPI: X Epics/Stories defined and delivered within X timeframe.
• KPI: Number of engagements (e.g., partnerships, community discussions, event participation).
• KPI: X AI builders actively testing the framework.
• KPI: Onboarding strategic AI partner - who use the framework • KPI: X collaborations initiated and feedback cycles completed.
I am a bit puzzled by this proposal. I understand is fishing for feedbacks to make it more concrete but it seems like it still lacks the business plan behind.
You present the idea: don't miss the AI train. We could probably say that we already did miss the bulk of the first wave but more waves are to come, and advocate how this second wave is currently being build in the same place in which first wave was born (base, solana). Ok, so the proposal is about "creating a team that can guide AI teams".
we’re proposing a public interface for AI builders where we’ll have the team at hand to deliver what’s needed and coordinate with other entities to avoid duplication of efforts and still mobilise all the resources at hand effectively.
The Program Manager will make hiring decisions and can restructure the team as needed.
So, the PM and the devrel are the key figures here. But i see an issue.
The program manager is elected via a DAO vote (snapshot vote with majority) and can be replaced via the same mechanism.
I don't want to go over a dao vote to choose a pm for this. We need a person that is highly knowledgeable on the field. We won't get it through an election we will have to externally source it.
Same for devrel. Especially in a moment in which we don't have a devrel figure in the foundation, feels utopistic to find a good one for the dao.
The multisig is meant to reimburse small expenses such as SaaS subscriptions or conference travel if needed but can also be used for additional costs such as design and other unplanned needs.
I don't get this, nor I get in general what funds are for. My guess would be: to pay for people in this team and attached costs. But seems a bit too generic.
This is where the proposal falls short imho. Is too vague as goals, and is too vague in the deliverables. I get that you want to crowdsource a big part of it but feels like a meaningful part of the vision should come from you, the proposer, here. I don't see it yet.
All in all as of now i think this proposal at the current stage does not make sense, not really for the capital but for the mindshare we need to collectively spend on top of this.
Arbitrum is behind in the AI. To even have a remotly chance to catch up, a structure like the one in stylus program in which OCL was able to have the technical lead being highly opinionated on what they think the dev environment might need 1 year from now is probably a more constructive way. We need someone that has hands in the dirt already, both in AI and in Arbitrum. This figure is the PM but I think we have very low chances to find a figure matching this skillset.
budget is planned? I’m assuming it’s for 6 months, but I’d appreciate some insight into why this specific timeframe was chosen.
budget is planned? I’m assuming it’s for 6 months, but I’d appreciate some insight into why this specific timeframe was chosen.
Please see here
feels like enough to give it a try and then check if renewal/continuation makes sense. Maybe 12 is better with a snapshot vote at 6 months to check for continuation. This way the team can focus on delivering and less on politics during their second quarter…, but it’s very hard to pass stuff… so not sure 1mn instead of 500k will make this viable to start
In addition, I’d also appreciate more clarity on the success criteria for this initiative. It would be helpful to understand the vision for the team and as you already said KPIs (which I expect will be defined).
as mentioned, this needs to be co-created. Which success criteria do you think it should have?
I’d love to hear more about the core of this proposal and what kind of deliverables you have in mind. If there’s anyone in this community already working on AI agents, it would be great to get your perspective on this as well.
Hi @danielo thank you for preparing the proposal. I’m fully on board with the idea of positioning Arbitrum to be ready for the upcoming AI innovations.
I do have one question regarding the $500k budget. Could you clarify the period for which this budget is planned? I’m assuming it’s for 6 months, but I’d appreciate some insight into why this specific timeframe was chosen.
I’m curious to understand how this proposal fits in with existing initiatives by the Arbitrum Foundation, like the Trailblazer AI Grant Program and the broader efforts to onboard builders into the Arbitrum ecosystem.
The Trailblazer AI Grant Program is already allocating $1M to support AI-driven projects on Arbitrum. You've answered a question about differences with it saying:
I’m curious to understand how this proposal fits in with existing initiatives by the Arbitrum Foundation, like the Trailblazer AI Grant Program and the broader efforts to onboard builders into the Arbitrum ecosystem.
The Trailblazer AI Grant Program is already allocating $1M to support AI-driven projects on Arbitrum. You've answered a question about differences with it saying:
The difference is those grants are about funding AI builders but we’re lacking the DevRel (infra, tools, documentation, customer support) component of supporting those teams.
However, there are already efforts in that direction as well. For example, Arbitrum is sponsoring ETHGlobal’s Agentic Ethereum hackathon, which is all about AI agents on Ethereum. This initiative seems to overlap with that—are we duplicating efforts here, or is there a clear distinction in approach?
Also, you mention:
the team will do everything they can to support builders. That includes creating, documentation, developer tooling, infra, etc. Hence why contemplating up to 3 devs focused here
It's unclear how you plan on these resources be used to onboard AI builders to Arbitrum. Is it via a coordinated effort with the Arbitrum Foundation and other programs like Questbook?
Finally, given the emphasis on avoiding wasted resources and “building the wrong thing,” has there been any analysis of the projects already funded by the Trailblazer program? It seems like that would provide useful insights before launching another initiative.

I mean this, how am i suppose to say thats a good investment or not with that information?
Edit: And TBD KPI
Hello, we appreciate the proposal.
In essence, we’re proposing a public interface for AI builders where we’ll have the team at hand to deliver what’s needed and coordinate with other entities to avoid duplication of efforts and still mobilise all the resources at hand effectively.
Hello, we appreciate the proposal.
In essence, we’re proposing a public interface for AI builders where we’ll have the team at hand to deliver what’s needed and coordinate with other entities to avoid duplication of efforts and still mobilise all the resources at hand effectively.
We are not sure we understand, will the team only be responsible for providing information, or will they assist the projects in other ways?
Do you know if there are any interested candidates for the team positions you mentioned?
We see that the budget calculation is based on six months of work. Was this timeframe chosen for any specific reason?
@danielo Will builders also be able to apply with their AI project ideas and get funding from this program?
you mention the concept of a “public interface for AI builders”. What might that look like in practice? Is it a hub where AI agents could feed information from? ie. somewhere developers can easily access the tools, documentation, and resources they need to build and deploy AI agents on-chain or do you have another model in mind?
you mention the concept of a “public interface for AI builders”. What might that look like in practice? Is it a hub where AI agents could feed information from? ie. somewhere developers can easily access the tools, documentation, and resources they need to build and deploy AI agents on-chain or do you have another model in mind?
I imagine that primarily as a point of contact. Having a human to talk to is critical to build trust. That could look like a telegram chat with the DevRel person there doing Q&A (supported by an AI to avoid repetitive questions like TogetherCrew has built for example).
There should likely be some sort of docs/wiki, and where that is built and how it looks like would be decided by the team in collaboration with AF and others. The key here is the manpower to do it. I'm specifically not suggesting we fund some documentation hub because there are already interfaces and maybe the easiest is adding a new page in the existing website or so. But all that requires a lot of user journey work and is the type of things the team would be doing anyway.
It would also be helpful to hear about some examples of AI-related projects that could benefit today from something like this being built. This could provide a clearer picture of how a dedicated team might add value/help these AI builders/projects make their work easier.
he proposal requests a $500K budget, with $372K allocated to team salaries, but there are no specific KPIs outlined yet. I understand that an agile approach is valuable in fast-evolving fields, but given the size of the proposal, it would be nice to see more details on how progress will be measured and how the proposal will deliver tangible results, before it moves to snapshot/temp-check.
Finally, I recall that the foundation previously had a $1M grant fund aimed at “powering AI innovation on Arbitrum”. Do we have any updates on that program? Is it still active, and are there any exciting projects emerging from it that might relate to or benefit this proposal?
There’s a huge opportunity for Arbitrum here. Moving fast with an agile approach makes sense.
Potential projects I’d be really exited about:
There’s a huge opportunity for Arbitrum here. Moving fast with an agile approach makes sense.
Potential projects I’d be really exited about:
A budget of 500K or any amount can’t be properly evaluated at this stage, as there are still many unknowns. But I’m excited about this one!
In addition, I’d also appreciate more clarity on the success criteria for this initiative. It would be helpful to understand the vision for the team and as you already said KPIs (which I expect will be defined).
Thanks for putting this up, Danielo.
This proposal feels vague. AI agents are making waves; this we are fully aware of. However, we are unsure of how this proposal benefits the DAO in its current form.
Thanks for putting this up, Danielo.
This proposal feels vague. AI agents are making waves; this we are fully aware of. However, we are unsure of how this proposal benefits the DAO in its current form.
We’ll set up an Agile team to identify, build, and communicate key enablers (developer tooling, documentation, and other resources as needed). This team can act as a key point of contact for AI builders, continuously identifying and rapidly delivering on what’s needed, thanks to continuous prioritisation and agile development (fast sprints).
Asides the budget, is it really okay to put together a team before knowing what exactly they would be working on/coordinating? We suggest we start discussions on possible tangents we could take with AI agents before considering teams and funding.
will the team only be responsible for providing information, or will they assist the projects in other ways?
A budget of 500K or any amount can’t be properly evaluated at this stage, as there are still many unknowns. But I’m excited about this one!
@danielo Will builders also be able to apply with their AI project ideas and get funding from this program?
Hey Daniel, thanks for your enthusiasm in keeping Arbitrum at the forefront of emerging trends. I have a few questions to help clarify the vision behind this proposal and ensure we’re aligning our strategic efforts with proven demand.
In the proposal, you mention the concept of a "public interface for AI builders". What might that look like in practice? Is it a hub where AI agents could feed information from? ie. somewhere developers can easily access the tools, documentation, and resources they need to build and deploy AI agents on-chain or do you have another model in mind?
If I understood the proposal correctly, the first six months are focused on:
We’ll set up an Agile team to identify, build, and communicate key enablers (developer tooling, documentation, and other resources as needed).
Some ideas for KPIs and success criterias:
• KPI: Full team formed and operational within X weeks. • KPI: First deliverables available in the first X weeks.
• KPI: X Epics/Stories defined and delivered within X timeframe.
• KPI: Number of engagements (e.g., partnerships, community discussions, event participation).
• KPI: X AI builders actively testing the framework.
• KPI: Onboarding strategic AI partner - who use the framework • KPI: X collaborations initiated and feedback cycles completed.
I am a bit puzzled by this proposal. I understand is fishing for feedbacks to make it more concrete but it seems like it still lacks the business plan behind.
You present the idea: don't miss the AI train. We could probably say that we already did miss the bulk of the first wave but more waves are to come, and advocate how this second wave is currently being build in the same place in which first wave was born (base, solana). Ok, so the proposal is about "creating a team that can guide AI teams".
we’re proposing a public interface for AI builders where we’ll have the team at hand to deliver what’s needed and coordinate with other entities to avoid duplication of efforts and still mobilise all the resources at hand effectively.
The Program Manager will make hiring decisions and can restructure the team as needed.
So, the PM and the devrel are the key figures here. But i see an issue.
The program manager is elected via a DAO vote (snapshot vote with majority) and can be replaced via the same mechanism.
I don't want to go over a dao vote to choose a pm for this. We need a person that is highly knowledgeable on the field. We won't get it through an election we will have to externally source it.
Same for devrel. Especially in a moment in which we don't have a devrel figure in the foundation, feels utopistic to find a good one for the dao.
The multisig is meant to reimburse small expenses such as SaaS subscriptions or conference travel if needed but can also be used for additional costs such as design and other unplanned needs.
I don't get this, nor I get in general what funds are for. My guess would be: to pay for people in this team and attached costs. But seems a bit too generic.
This is where the proposal falls short imho. Is too vague as goals, and is too vague in the deliverables. I get that you want to crowdsource a big part of it but feels like a meaningful part of the vision should come from you, the proposer, here. I don't see it yet.
All in all as of now i think this proposal at the current stage does not make sense, not really for the capital but for the mindshare we need to collectively spend on top of this.
Arbitrum is behind in the AI. To even have a remotly chance to catch up, a structure like the one in stylus program in which OCL was able to have the technical lead being highly opinionated on what they think the dev environment might need 1 year from now is probably a more constructive way. We need someone that has hands in the dirt already, both in AI and in Arbitrum. This figure is the PM but I think we have very low chances to find a figure matching this skillset.
budget is planned? I’m assuming it’s for 6 months, but I’d appreciate some insight into why this specific timeframe was chosen.
budget is planned? I’m assuming it’s for 6 months, but I’d appreciate some insight into why this specific timeframe was chosen.
Please see here
feels like enough to give it a try and then check if renewal/continuation makes sense. Maybe 12 is better with a snapshot vote at 6 months to check for continuation. This way the team can focus on delivering and less on politics during their second quarter…, but it’s very hard to pass stuff… so not sure 1mn instead of 500k will make this viable to start
In addition, I’d also appreciate more clarity on the success criteria for this initiative. It would be helpful to understand the vision for the team and as you already said KPIs (which I expect will be defined).
as mentioned, this needs to be co-created. Which success criteria do you think it should have?
I’d love to hear more about the core of this proposal and what kind of deliverables you have in mind. If there’s anyone in this community already working on AI agents, it would be great to get your perspective on this as well.
Hi @danielo thank you for preparing the proposal. I’m fully on board with the idea of positioning Arbitrum to be ready for the upcoming AI innovations.
I do have one question regarding the $500k budget. Could you clarify the period for which this budget is planned? I’m assuming it’s for 6 months, but I’d appreciate some insight into why this specific timeframe was chosen.
I’m curious to understand how this proposal fits in with existing initiatives by the Arbitrum Foundation, like the Trailblazer AI Grant Program and the broader efforts to onboard builders into the Arbitrum ecosystem.
The Trailblazer AI Grant Program is already allocating $1M to support AI-driven projects on Arbitrum. You've answered a question about differences with it saying:
I’m curious to understand how this proposal fits in with existing initiatives by the Arbitrum Foundation, like the Trailblazer AI Grant Program and the broader efforts to onboard builders into the Arbitrum ecosystem.
The Trailblazer AI Grant Program is already allocating $1M to support AI-driven projects on Arbitrum. You've answered a question about differences with it saying:
The difference is those grants are about funding AI builders but we’re lacking the DevRel (infra, tools, documentation, customer support) component of supporting those teams.
However, there are already efforts in that direction as well. For example, Arbitrum is sponsoring ETHGlobal’s Agentic Ethereum hackathon, which is all about AI agents on Ethereum. This initiative seems to overlap with that—are we duplicating efforts here, or is there a clear distinction in approach?
Also, you mention:
the team will do everything they can to support builders. That includes creating, documentation, developer tooling, infra, etc. Hence why contemplating up to 3 devs focused here
It's unclear how you plan on these resources be used to onboard AI builders to Arbitrum. Is it via a coordinated effort with the Arbitrum Foundation and other programs like Questbook?
Finally, given the emphasis on avoiding wasted resources and “building the wrong thing,” has there been any analysis of the projects already funded by the Trailblazer program? It seems like that would provide useful insights before launching another initiative.

I mean this, how am i suppose to say thats a good investment or not with that information?
Edit: And TBD KPI
Hello, we appreciate the proposal.
In essence, we’re proposing a public interface for AI builders where we’ll have the team at hand to deliver what’s needed and coordinate with other entities to avoid duplication of efforts and still mobilise all the resources at hand effectively.
Hello, we appreciate the proposal.
In essence, we’re proposing a public interface for AI builders where we’ll have the team at hand to deliver what’s needed and coordinate with other entities to avoid duplication of efforts and still mobilise all the resources at hand effectively.
We are not sure we understand, will the team only be responsible for providing information, or will they assist the projects in other ways?
Do you know if there are any interested candidates for the team positions you mentioned?
We see that the budget calculation is based on six months of work. Was this timeframe chosen for any specific reason?
@danielo Will builders also be able to apply with their AI project ideas and get funding from this program?
you mention the concept of a “public interface for AI builders”. What might that look like in practice? Is it a hub where AI agents could feed information from? ie. somewhere developers can easily access the tools, documentation, and resources they need to build and deploy AI agents on-chain or do you have another model in mind?
you mention the concept of a “public interface for AI builders”. What might that look like in practice? Is it a hub where AI agents could feed information from? ie. somewhere developers can easily access the tools, documentation, and resources they need to build and deploy AI agents on-chain or do you have another model in mind?
I imagine that primarily as a point of contact. Having a human to talk to is critical to build trust. That could look like a telegram chat with the DevRel person there doing Q&A (supported by an AI to avoid repetitive questions like TogetherCrew has built for example).
There should likely be some sort of docs/wiki, and where that is built and how it looks like would be decided by the team in collaboration with AF and others. The key here is the manpower to do it. I'm specifically not suggesting we fund some documentation hub because there are already interfaces and maybe the easiest is adding a new page in the existing website or so. But all that requires a lot of user journey work and is the type of things the team would be doing anyway.
It would also be helpful to hear about some examples of AI-related projects that could benefit today from something like this being built. This could provide a clearer picture of how a dedicated team might add value/help these AI builders/projects make their work easier.
he proposal requests a $500K budget, with $372K allocated to team salaries, but there are no specific KPIs outlined yet. I understand that an agile approach is valuable in fast-evolving fields, but given the size of the proposal, it would be nice to see more details on how progress will be measured and how the proposal will deliver tangible results, before it moves to snapshot/temp-check.
Finally, I recall that the foundation previously had a $1M grant fund aimed at “powering AI innovation on Arbitrum”. Do we have any updates on that program? Is it still active, and are there any exciting projects emerging from it that might relate to or benefit this proposal?
There’s a huge opportunity for Arbitrum here. Moving fast with an agile approach makes sense.
Potential projects I’d be really exited about:
There’s a huge opportunity for Arbitrum here. Moving fast with an agile approach makes sense.
Potential projects I’d be really exited about:
A budget of 500K or any amount can’t be properly evaluated at this stage, as there are still many unknowns. But I’m excited about this one!
In addition, I’d also appreciate more clarity on the success criteria for this initiative. It would be helpful to understand the vision for the team and as you already said KPIs (which I expect will be defined).
Thanks for putting this up, Danielo.
This proposal feels vague. AI agents are making waves; this we are fully aware of. However, we are unsure of how this proposal benefits the DAO in its current form.
Thanks for putting this up, Danielo.
This proposal feels vague. AI agents are making waves; this we are fully aware of. However, we are unsure of how this proposal benefits the DAO in its current form.
We’ll set up an Agile team to identify, build, and communicate key enablers (developer tooling, documentation, and other resources as needed). This team can act as a key point of contact for AI builders, continuously identifying and rapidly delivering on what’s needed, thanks to continuous prioritisation and agile development (fast sprints).
Asides the budget, is it really okay to put together a team before knowing what exactly they would be working on/coordinating? We suggest we start discussions on possible tangents we could take with AI agents before considering teams and funding.
will the team only be responsible for providing information, or will they assist the projects in other ways?
A budget of 500K or any amount can’t be properly evaluated at this stage, as there are still many unknowns. But I’m excited about this one!
@danielo Will builders also be able to apply with their AI project ideas and get funding from this program?
Hey Daniel, thanks for your enthusiasm in keeping Arbitrum at the forefront of emerging trends. I have a few questions to help clarify the vision behind this proposal and ensure we’re aligning our strategic efforts with proven demand.
In the proposal, you mention the concept of a "public interface for AI builders". What might that look like in practice? Is it a hub where AI agents could feed information from? ie. somewhere developers can easily access the tools, documentation, and resources they need to build and deploy AI agents on-chain or do you have another model in mind?
will the team only be responsible for providing information, or will they assist the projects in other ways?
We see that the budget calculation is based on six months of work. Was this timeframe chosen for any specific reason?
Hey Daniel, thanks for your enthusiasm in keeping Arbitrum at the forefront of emerging trends. I have a few questions to help clarify the vision behind this proposal and ensure we’re aligning our strategic efforts with proven demand.
In the proposal, you mention the concept of a "public interface for AI builders". What might that look like in practice? Is it a hub where AI agents could feed information from? ie. somewhere developers can easily access the tools, documentation, and resources they need to build and deploy AI agents on-chain or do you have another model in mind?
It would also be helpful to hear about some examples of AI-related projects that could benefit today from something like this being built. This could provide a clearer picture of how a dedicated team might add value/help these AI builders/projects make their work easier.
Additionally, the proposal requests a $500K budget, with $372K allocated to team salaries, but there are no specific KPIs outlined yet. I understand that an agile approach is valuable in fast-evolving fields, but given the size of the proposal, it would be nice to see more details on how progress will be measured and how the proposal will deliver tangible results, before it moves to snapshot/temp-check.
Finally, I recall that the foundation previously had a $1M grant fund aimed at "powering AI innovation on Arbitrum". Do we have any updates on that program? Is it still active, and are there any exciting projects emerging from it that might relate to or benefit this proposal?
will the team only be responsible for providing information, or will they assist the projects in other ways?
We see that the budget calculation is based on six months of work. Was this timeframe chosen for any specific reason?
Hey Daniel, thanks for your enthusiasm in keeping Arbitrum at the forefront of emerging trends. I have a few questions to help clarify the vision behind this proposal and ensure we’re aligning our strategic efforts with proven demand.
In the proposal, you mention the concept of a "public interface for AI builders". What might that look like in practice? Is it a hub where AI agents could feed information from? ie. somewhere developers can easily access the tools, documentation, and resources they need to build and deploy AI agents on-chain or do you have another model in mind?
It would also be helpful to hear about some examples of AI-related projects that could benefit today from something like this being built. This could provide a clearer picture of how a dedicated team might add value/help these AI builders/projects make their work easier.
Additionally, the proposal requests a $500K budget, with $372K allocated to team salaries, but there are no specific KPIs outlined yet. I understand that an agile approach is valuable in fast-evolving fields, but given the size of the proposal, it would be nice to see more details on how progress will be measured and how the proposal will deliver tangible results, before it moves to snapshot/temp-check.
Finally, I recall that the foundation previously had a $1M grant fund aimed at "powering AI innovation on Arbitrum". Do we have any updates on that program? Is it still active, and are there any exciting projects emerging from it that might relate to or benefit this proposal?