ArbitrumDAO Off-site - Directional proposal | proposals.app

posted 2 years ago

As a delegate, I support the GovHack Core Series proposal, which is actionable and on the ground, with offline meetings that deepen ecological cohesion. A thousand times online is better than one face-to-face chat, before having a beer and talking about something COOL.

Proposals are strategic and long-term, bringing key stakeholders together for in-depth discussion and decision-making helps drive high-impact proposals and improve governance efficiency. By organising regular face-to-face high impact events. I’m glad you’ve come up with this proposal. Of course I have some suggestions and questions

1. broader engagement opportunities: while this proposal focuses on engagement with existing stakeholders, I recommend considering pathways for emerging contributors and community members to participate. By adding more online events or open discussion sessions throughout the year, it may be possible to better identify potential newcomers without diminishing the depth of the core strategy discussions, and of course it may be more interesting to be able to fund some of the very promising developers and projects to participate.

Assessment of budget and activity effectiveness: The budget in the proposal is relatively large, especially as it relates to venues, logistics, and scholarships for each event. In order to ensure that the budget is reasonable, is it possible to provide a more detailed cost breakdown and performance evaluation mechanism? For example, through more specific cost-benefit analyses, it could be ensured that the use of resources for each event would achieve the intended strategic objectives and provide continuous support for the development of DAO.

Hard Work

https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/govhack-devcon-in-bangkok-hack-humanity/26634/24?u=duokongcrypto

danielo from mrjackalop.eth

0.00 TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

edited 2 years ago

ArbitrumDAO strategic "Off-site" (online) updated proposal

Non-Constitutional

Context

This proposal is a continuation of the directional proposal for an offsite which was voted in favour with 130mn ARB in Snapshot: ArbitrumDAO Off-site - Directional proposal 8

ArbitrumDAO strategic "Off-site" (online) updated proposal

Non-Constitutional

Context

This proposal is a continuation of the directional proposal for an offsite which was voted in favour with 130mn ARB in Snapshot: ArbitrumDAO Off-site - Directional proposal 8

And a following proposal where an Online format came on top https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x8f242363dbc69d640799b461b27ba7b957ab13af87389b699639ba335b8b5e91

The proposal has been streamlined based on feedback and is designed to be independent but compatible with related initiatives such as Alex's work on coordination and emergent conversations with Disruption Joe, etc. The proposal also stays clear of areas where Entropy is already working and builds upon previous work (e.g. mission and values draft).

There were concerns about potential overlap with GovHack and we have aligned this initiative so both could be complimentary. However, the HackHumanity team has announced they won't be organising an event for Devcon.

Abstract

This proposal aims to enhance the alignment, communication, and collaboration among token holders (including delegates). The DAO currently struggles with achieving cohesive strategies due to sporadic interactions and a lack of direct engagement among key participants. To address this, a structured process will be organized in October (before DevCon), focusing on strategic alignment sessions.

This proposal includes:

Stakeholder management (preparation and follow-up): delegates and key stakeholders outreach and sense-making process to scope and prepare the most important agenda items to be discussed during two online workshops (building upon the survey and analysis already carried out). And post-workshops follow-up on key action items, including snapshot vote to ratify decisions.
Facilitation: design and execution of a strategic process to advance alignment, convergence, and prioritization, ensuring clear next steps.
Coordination: with Entropy to build on top of the work on mission, vision, and values; and with with additional emergent initiatives (e.g. Joe and Disruption Joe proposal in the works and potential future proposals by HackHumanity and others).

The key deliverable is an online strategy process to define a shortlist of priorities for the DAO over the next 6 months. These priorities (if ratified) can then feed into GovHack as a "proposal accelerator" to turn the priorities into initiatives. (note that we have coordinated this and GovHack's proposals to be both complementary and independent, allowing the proposals to function together or in isolation).

The success of this initiative will be measured quantitatively by the NPS given by participants, and qualitatively by the outcomes and outputs from the sessions. The key outcome is a ratified decision on priorities via Snapshot vote.

The Problem

The DAO encounters multiple challenges, but a critical issue is the lack of effective communication and alignment among delegates and key stakeholders. There are many calls, but attendance is not concentrated and the calls are designed for context sharing and informal discussion, not designed for a strategic process. This results in a gap in aigment and clear and explicit strategy, causing slow decision-making.

Areas such as organizational design and strategic planning require not only well-crafted proposals but also thorough stakeholder engagement. Beyond what can be achieved in an event, these areas require multiple steps of aligment on frameworks and approaches, sense-making, structured deliberation, and ratifying decisions.

Proposed Solution

Output:

Draft of DAO priorities for the next 6 months that's put to a Snapshot vote.

Outcome:

The priorities provide alignment and enable the whole community to rally around key priorities, unblocking the DAO.

The proposal includes: *The exact format will be refined during phase 1 in coordination with other initiatives and delegates.

Agenda prioritisation (pre-event alignment) and sense-making.

Project manager to engage with token holders, delegates, and key stakeholders, distilling concerns and topic suggestions, and facilitating converging on the exact agenda and framework.
Careful planning of each session: aiming to share and agree on frameworks and approaches in advance, focusing IRL discussion on content and not format. This is a continuation of the work started in December with the pre-proposal for a strategy framework.

Strategy Sprint: 2 week process combining live and asynchronous components to integrate broad community input and feedback, deep dives by representative stakeholders, and converging towards a clear list.

Onboarding participants into the framework and using a collective intelligence tool to generate and organise an initial list of priorities. (asynchronous, 1h)
Online workshops to review the initial list, carry a root cause analysis, and argue pros/cons of different priorities. (live, half day)
Sharing publicly for community feedback (forum) and our team synthesising feedback.
second survey (usign the collective intelligence tool) to collect, cluster, and prioritise a refined list of priorities. (asynchronous, 2x 1h)
second workshop to refine the definition of the priorities. (live, half day)

Post workshops follow up

Sharing a summary of the discussion & agreed action points.
Final collection of feedback and synthesis.
Snapshot vote to ratify the results of the workshops.
Follow up with participants a month after to track progress on action items and liaison with Entropy, Foundation, and other parties to suggest next steps as appropriate (e.g. aligment with HackHumanity if GovHack is approved).

Timeline*:

*: tentative timeline to be adjusted during the planning phase in coordination with the different stakeholders.

First two weeks of October: planning
Last week of October: hosting 1st workshop
Throughout November: async coordination period
Late November to early December: second workshop and snapshot proposal.

What Does Success Look Like?

Alignment on DAO priorities for the next 6 months.
Engagement from top delegates and key stakeholders.
Clarity provided to the broader communtiy enabling them to rally around priorities.
Positive feedback and a strong desire to continue similar initiatives.

KPIs:

Snapshot proposal: post-workshop to ratify results.
50%+ participation rate among engaged (35%+ on-chain voting rate 2) Top50 delegates, foundation, off-chain labs, and additional nominated participants.
NPS of 50 or more (-100 to 100 range, 0 considered average)
A similar initiative is organised again.

Attendees

Focused on high-context, expert, and senior participants. I.e. not an onboarding event. For rationale see the discussion here.

Open to Top-50 delegates, off-chain labs, foundation members, and top 100 ARB token holders (both in Arbitrum One and Ethereum).
Additional attendees based on at least 20 million ARB endorsements (holders/delegates can endorse as many participants as desired).

Budget

Fund sent to Multisig Signing Service.

50% in advance, 50% upon completion.

30% volatility buffer added in case of the ARB price falling. Any unspent buffer will be returned to the DAO. Arb price calculated based on date of posting on Tally.

Total cost: $14,900

Total in ARB including volatility buffer: 30,266 ARB Detailed breakdown

Additional 5k ARB bonus if snapshot proposal with priorities (proposal to ratify conclusion of the workshops) is approved (non-constitutional quorum met and 65%+ support from voters).

Maximum possible total in ARB: 35,266 ARB

Additional Notes

Facilitation

The opportunity cost of this process is easily 10x its budget, given the limited time availability of delegates and few occasions a year when they converge. As such, good facilitation makes a critical difference in ensuring the process is effective. The facilitation includes designing the workshops and moderating the conversation, AND engaging with the broader community to gather input and synthethise it.

Agenda

We’ve already started the process of setting the agenda. We ran a survey, answered by 29 delegates with 86mn+ ARB represented. And then ran SimScore (a collective intelligence algorithm) to cluster responses and identify the key topics. The results are presented below to encourage further discussion.

Pre-selection of topics in ranked order:

Defining strategic priorities for the DAO
DAO Budget (how much should the DAO be spending)
Org Design
ARB token utility
Conflict Of Interest
Grant programs (RPGF, what should be the focus, outcomes, etc.)

duokongcrypto from kuiqian.eth

107.4K TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

1. broader engagement opportunities: while this proposal focuses on engagement with existing stakeholders, I recommend considering pathways for emerging contributors and community members to participate. By adding more online events or open discussion sessions throughout the year, it may be possible to better identify potential newcomers without diminishing the depth of the core strategy discussions, and of course it may be more interesting to be able to fund some of the very promising developers and projects to participate.

Assessment of budget and activity effectiveness: The budget in the proposal is relatively large, especially as it relates to venues, logistics, and scholarships for each event. In order to ensure that the budget is reasonable, is it possible to provide a more detailed cost breakdown and performance evaluation mechanism? For example, through more specific cost-benefit analyses, it could be ensured that the use of resources for each event would achieve the intended strategic objectives and provide continuous support for the development of DAO.

Hard Work

https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/govhack-devcon-in-bangkok-hack-humanity/26634/24?u=duokongcrypto

danielo from mrjackalop.eth

0.00 TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

edited 2 years ago

ArbitrumDAO strategic "Off-site" (online) updated proposal

Non-Constitutional

Context

This proposal is a continuation of the directional proposal for an offsite which was voted in favour with 130mn ARB in Snapshot: ArbitrumDAO Off-site - Directional proposal 8

ArbitrumDAO strategic "Off-site" (online) updated proposal

Non-Constitutional

Context

This proposal is a continuation of the directional proposal for an offsite which was voted in favour with 130mn ARB in Snapshot: ArbitrumDAO Off-site - Directional proposal 8

And a following proposal where an Online format came on top https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x8f242363dbc69d640799b461b27ba7b957ab13af87389b699639ba335b8b5e91

Abstract

This proposal includes:

Stakeholder management (preparation and follow-up): delegates and key stakeholders outreach and sense-making process to scope and prepare the most important agenda items to be discussed during two online workshops (building upon the survey and analysis already carried out). And post-workshops follow-up on key action items, including snapshot vote to ratify decisions.
Facilitation: design and execution of a strategic process to advance alignment, convergence, and prioritization, ensuring clear next steps.
Coordination: with Entropy to build on top of the work on mission, vision, and values; and with with additional emergent initiatives (e.g. Joe and Disruption Joe proposal in the works and potential future proposals by HackHumanity and others).

The Problem

Proposed Solution

Output:

Draft of DAO priorities for the next 6 months that's put to a Snapshot vote.

Outcome:

The priorities provide alignment and enable the whole community to rally around key priorities, unblocking the DAO.

The proposal includes: *The exact format will be refined during phase 1 in coordination with other initiatives and delegates.

Agenda prioritisation (pre-event alignment) and sense-making.

Project manager to engage with token holders, delegates, and key stakeholders, distilling concerns and topic suggestions, and facilitating converging on the exact agenda and framework.
Careful planning of each session: aiming to share and agree on frameworks and approaches in advance, focusing IRL discussion on content and not format. This is a continuation of the work started in December with the pre-proposal for a strategy framework.

Strategy Sprint: 2 week process combining live and asynchronous components to integrate broad community input and feedback, deep dives by representative stakeholders, and converging towards a clear list.

Onboarding participants into the framework and using a collective intelligence tool to generate and organise an initial list of priorities. (asynchronous, 1h)
Online workshops to review the initial list, carry a root cause analysis, and argue pros/cons of different priorities. (live, half day)
Sharing publicly for community feedback (forum) and our team synthesising feedback.
second survey (usign the collective intelligence tool) to collect, cluster, and prioritise a refined list of priorities. (asynchronous, 2x 1h)
second workshop to refine the definition of the priorities. (live, half day)

Post workshops follow up

Sharing a summary of the discussion & agreed action points.
Final collection of feedback and synthesis.
Snapshot vote to ratify the results of the workshops.
Follow up with participants a month after to track progress on action items and liaison with Entropy, Foundation, and other parties to suggest next steps as appropriate (e.g. aligment with HackHumanity if GovHack is approved).

Timeline*:

*: tentative timeline to be adjusted during the planning phase in coordination with the different stakeholders.

First two weeks of October: planning
Last week of October: hosting 1st workshop
Throughout November: async coordination period
Late November to early December: second workshop and snapshot proposal.

What Does Success Look Like?

Alignment on DAO priorities for the next 6 months.
Engagement from top delegates and key stakeholders.
Clarity provided to the broader communtiy enabling them to rally around priorities.
Positive feedback and a strong desire to continue similar initiatives.

KPIs:

Snapshot proposal: post-workshop to ratify results.
50%+ participation rate among engaged (35%+ on-chain voting rate 2) Top50 delegates, foundation, off-chain labs, and additional nominated participants.
NPS of 50 or more (-100 to 100 range, 0 considered average)
A similar initiative is organised again.

Attendees

Focused on high-context, expert, and senior participants. I.e. not an onboarding event. For rationale see the discussion here.

Open to Top-50 delegates, off-chain labs, foundation members, and top 100 ARB token holders (both in Arbitrum One and Ethereum).
Additional attendees based on at least 20 million ARB endorsements (holders/delegates can endorse as many participants as desired).

Budget

Fund sent to Multisig Signing Service.

50% in advance, 50% upon completion.

30% volatility buffer added in case of the ARB price falling. Any unspent buffer will be returned to the DAO. Arb price calculated based on date of posting on Tally.

Total cost: $14,900

Total in ARB including volatility buffer: 30,266 ARB Detailed breakdown

Additional 5k ARB bonus if snapshot proposal with priorities (proposal to ratify conclusion of the workshops) is approved (non-constitutional quorum met and 65%+ support from voters).

Maximum possible total in ARB: 35,266 ARB

Additional Notes

Facilitation

Agenda

Pre-selection of topics in ranked order:

Defining strategic priorities for the DAO
DAO Budget (how much should the DAO be spending)
Org Design
ARB token utility
Conflict Of Interest
Grant programs (RPGF, what should be the focus, outcomes, etc.)

Quoted from danielo

ArbitrumDAO Off-site

Non-Constitutional

This proposal is a continuation of the directional proposal for an offsite which was voted in favour with 130mn ARB in Snapshot: ArbitrumDAO Off-site - Directional proposal

IMPORTANT: Please vote based on the format selection. If you have concerns about the mechanism to define attendees or specific budget items (e.g. travel scholarships), please use a comment. Feel free to explain that any Tally approval vote would be conditional on XYZ. The vote I’m trying to focus it on the format selection.

Abstract

This proposal aims to enhance the alignment, communication, and collaboration among token holders (including delegates) and key stakeholders by organizing a dedicated off-site event. The DAO currently struggles with achieving cohesive strategies due to sporadic interactions and a lack of direct engagement among key participants. To address this, a structured event will be organized in Q4, focusing on strategic alignment and problem-solving sessions.

This proposal includes a delegates and key stakeholders outreach and sense-making process to prioritise the most important agenda items to be discussed at the evente, ensuring the meeting time is focused on discussing the topic and not on discussing what to discuss or how to approach it. The event will then include professional facilitation to advance alignment, remove blockers, ensure proper note-taking, and generate clear action items on the selected topics.

The success of this initiative will be measured quantitatively by the NPS given by participants, and qualitatively by the outcomes and outputs from the sessions.

The Problem

The DAO encounters multiple challenges, but a critical issue is the lack of effective communication and alignment among delegates and key stakeholders. This results in fragmented strategies and slow decision-making processes. Important decisions and proposals often suffer due to inadequate collaboration and understanding among the members.

Areas such as organizational design and strategic planning require not only well-crafted proposals but also thorough stakeholder engagement. We’re missing structured platforms for delegates and key stakeholders to engage deeply and collaboratively, leading to bottlenecks and slow and painful decision-making.

This proposal seeks to test a format for deliberation between key stakeholders with a clearly defined agenda. If successful, the format can be replicated to continuously address agenda items.

Proposed Solution

Recent initiatives like the Delegates Day by Entropy and GovHack in Brussels highlight the potential for focused events to catalyse progress. We want to build on these learnings to advance the ArbitrumDAO. The proposal includes:

Agenda prioritisation (pre-event strategic aligment)

Project manager to engage with token holders, delegates, and key stakeholders, distilling concerns and topic suggestions, and facilitating converging on the agenda. Including snapshot vote for agenda and format.
Careful planning of each session: aiming to share and agree on frameworks and approaches in advance, focusing IRL discussion on content and not format.
Defining criteria for attendees in consultation with key stakeholders to ensure both a successful event and capture resistance for the DAO.

Facilitation & Workshop Organization:

Either IRL event or Online workshops (to be decided by this vote)
Structured facilitation process to ensure effective discussion, note-taking, and converging to action items.

Post workshop follow up

Sharing a summary of the discussion & agreed action points
Follow up with participants a month after the workshop to track progress on action items and liaison with Entropy, Foundation, and other parties to suggest next steps as appropriate.

Optional (see voting options):

Travel and Accommodation:
- Accommodation and catering for attendees and organisers.
- Travel expenses for attendees not already funded by the DAO for travel expenses and not otherwise in the region (e.g. not attending DevCon nor DevCon side events).
- Travel expenses “scholarship” available for attendees upon request and subject to approval by the event coordinator.

Timeline:

September: proposal approval and then logistics planning and preparation.
Event to take place during Q4, exact date depending on the snapshot vote (see below)
Before end of Q4: Post-event reporting and follow-up.

What Does Success Look Like?

High-quality outcomes and actionable strategies from workshops.
Increased engagement and satisfaction among participants.
Positive feedback and a strong desire to continue similar initiatives.

KPIs:

50%+ participation rate among engaged (35%+ on-chain voting rate ) Top50 delegates, foundation, and off-chain labs.
NPS of 50 or more (-100 to 100 range, 0 considered average)
A similar initiative is organised again.

Options

3 options are proposed. Please vote for the preferred one.

IMPORTANT: the costs are not finalised but are here as an indicative so the best option can e selected. Once an option is selected we’ll review the costs before moving to Tally. If you have any feedback on the costs, please share it with Daniel (Telegram: Contact @mrjackalop ) so it can be taken into account before the final onchain proposal.

Option 1: IRL version next to a major event:

Next to DevCon Thailand, November 8th-10th.
2-day event: day 1 arrival and facilitated dinner light discussion. Day 2 workshops. Day 3 breakfast and departure.
Including setup for hybrid participation (online participants supported with 360 cameras, moderator, and tech support)
Includes 20k travel scholarships for those not already in the region

around $116k + 10k contingency

Option 2: IRL version separate from major event:

In the most travel-friendly location for participants
During December 2024
2-day event (same as above)
Including setup for hybrid participation (same as above)
Includes $50k travel for those not already in the region

around $156k + 10k contingency

Option 3: Online Event:

3-4 online sessions (half-day sessions) over 1-2 months. With the possibility of input and feedback before/after event to ensure even those not attending can participate effectively.
During October-December 2024 (November likely skipped)

around $35k + 5k contingency.

Detailed breakdown and comparison here

Notes on budget:

high-level calculations. The budget will be revised in more detail (by requesting a quote from providers, etc.) after a successful Snapshot vote.
Any funds unspent will be returned to the DAO.
Funds will be denominated in ARB for tally vote

Additional Notes

Facilitation

The opportunity cost of this meeting is easily 10x its budget, given the limited time availability of delegates and few occasions a year when they converge. As such, good facilitation makes a critical difference in ensuring the meeting is effective. The facilitation includes designing the workshops and moderating the conversation, AND thinking through how to create a strategic process for a DAO. Costs of Online facilitation might be lower than IRL. We’ll confirm this before the onchain proposal, for now costs are indicative to select a direction.

Agenda

Pre-selection of topics (to be refined and prioritised after the format is defined):

Defining strategic priorities for the DAO (vision and strategy)
DAO Budget (how much should the DAO be spending)
Org Design
ARB token utility
Conflict Of Interest
Grant programs (RPGF, what should be the focus, outcomes, etc.)

Additional work to be done to define the agenda:

2 workshops and async discussion to identify root causes (root topics) and prioritise.
The final agenda will be defined via a subsequent Snapshot vote facilitated by the project manager.

Hybrid Participation for IRL events

We’ve successfully run a company retreat with hybrid participation (online+IRL). The setup works through using 360 cameras (equipped with a special mic, they cost about $600) and having an assistant with a laptop who can also support online participants in being heard (getting a turn to speak) and managing technical difficulties. The online setup is of course less good than being IRL but it is still viable to contribute to sessions (anyone leading a session does need to be IRL but, for input in the discussion, online works).

Attendees

Focused on high-context, expert, and senior participants. I.e. not an onboarding event.
Open to Top-50 delegates , off-chain labs, foundation members, and top 100 ARB token holders (both in Arbitrum One and Ethereum).
Additional attendees based on at least 20 million ARB endorsements (holders/delegates can endorse as many participants as desired).

Cost Benchmarks

The costs will be reviewed before the onchain proposal. If you have any feedback on the costs, please see the breakdown here and share your comments with Daniel so they can be taken into account before the onchain vote.

A base yearly salary for strategy could be well above 120k. But assuming 120k, that’s $57/hour for full-time employment, and a usual markup for freelance/consulting is 3-4. Leaving us in the $150-$250/h range. More senior consultants are likely to charge $300-$500/h or more.
No profit margin has been added (often 20%-50% for consulting)
Some price references:
As a facilitator, my last day rate (2018) was GBP2,500 (Oxford University rate) or about $3.2k USD at the time.
we’re planning to hire a professional facilitator as the event is projected in the range of 30-50 attendees. Together with the project manager that gives us just about enough resources to facilitate.
Professional facilitators have quoted $25k-$30k for this event over a high level description. Currently, only $15k is budgeted, but we’re confident that with more research we can still find someone highly capable without blowing the budget (also as the project manager (i.e. me) has facilitation experience and high context on the DAO so we can fast track a lot).

Roadmap

directional proposal - completed
survey, calls, and analysis (agenda topics, format considerations, concerns) - completed
draft with key decision fork - week of 2nd September
snapshot to define on format - week of 9th September
Tally proposal draft, feedback, and refinement - 16th-29th (depending on engagement)
Onchain Vote - Week of the 30th Sept - 19th Oct (roughly)

We are in favor of this proposal. With regard to costs and cooperation, I feel that a more detailed planning report is needed. In the meantime, I would personally recommend 1. clear criteria for selection of participants: the proposal should detail the criteria for selection of participants and publicize the list to ensure transparency and trust. 2. budget refinement: before finalizing the proposal, further refine the budget, especially the audit criteria for travel scholarships, to ensure the reasonable use of funds. 3. technical support: online participation requires technical support, it is recommended to test and provide technical guidelines in advance to ensure seamless communication between online and offline. 4. Follow-up and Evaluation: Set up a clear tracking mechanism to regularly evaluate the implementation of the action items and ensure that the results of the activities are effectively implemented. 5. Responding to Community Feedback: Set up a feedback team to handle and respond to community opinions to ensure that community voices are taken seriously. 6. Online Activity Options: Add interactive links to online activities and analyze the comparison of online and offline results to make more informed choices. 7. offline travel risk and safety tips

Ignas, thanks for your comment.

I would generally want to include as many voices as possible (we're working on tooling to enable this in DAO's btw, so I do mean it). That being said, here the objective is to define priorities and be able to make those explicit so the DAO can rally and focus on things that do stand a chance of getting approved in governance. (we saw how previous GovHack winners haven't been approved on governance, and most proposals fail, so we're trying to address that).

The risk of including more voices (especially those who are new, have less context, and are less trusted by the delegates) is that the extra people make it harder for the group to converge, and can have very valid opinions but ultimately those without token delegation are not the ones who decide. It's a lot easier to agree on something in a group of 3 than in a group of 9, and A LOT easier than in a group of 60+. So keeping a smaller group makes it easier to find agreement.

So the idea here has been more about leveraging those who the token holders have entrusted to decide on their behalf (i.e. the delegates), and a few key people who have been very engaged and are by now well known by the delegates, so we can quickly make some decisions and unstuck the DAO.

Having a clear strategy will then enable many others to get more involved in concrete initiatives, and for the next cycle, we can include more people who by then have a lot more context, trust, etc.

That being said, the process can also be made to include mechanisms to collect broader input and feedback. (and I do plan to include those), but the core discussion group is not designed to be as big as possible but to be as effective as possible (while still being very legitimately a representation of the chose governance model i.e. decisions by delegates).

Note that the gov model could be changed in the future if delegates is not what is desired (I have often mentioned the issues with the current gov model). However, the offsite is not meant to be a constitutional proposal, that's a way bigger scope and not one I'm tackling right now but those who feel called to are welcome to open up that conversation.

And if you feel you can significantly contribute to the discussion, I do invite you to share why and I'll do my best to put this in front of the delegates so they can decide.

Euphoria from lamprosdao.eth

218.3K TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

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

We are voting FOR this proposal with a focus on an online event this time.

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

We are voting FOR this proposal with a focus on an online event this time.

If the DAO is collaborating online and remotely, meeting offline once or several times a year for strategizing makes little sense. In-person events tend to become more exclusive, and this is a time to include rather than exclude people, especially for critical discussions like strategy.

The term ‘high-context’ participants is unclear and feel exclusive. A DAO that is still in the process of strategizing doesn’t necessarily have participants with more context than others. Anyone with the right intent can get up to speed quickly.

Similarly, focusing only on the Top 50 delegates based on monetary value is also limiting. There are individuals with equal, if not more, interest and skills who may not have high voting power but are equally valuable contributors.

Quoted from krst

With all that in mind, we still believe that the requested budget, even for the facilitation of an online event, is too high relative to the value we believe we’ll be able to get from it. We can’t afford to spend ~$10k per online workshop. While we understand there’s a cost for planning and facilitating, it should be way lower than what is asked right now.

Furthermore, we’d like to note that the success of this meeting depends largely not only on the organizer putting enough effort to make the event successful but also on the participants - even the best-facilitated event will not be fruitful if not enough right people attend it or if those people are not prepared enough to use this time efficiently.

jump to post →

We agree with L2Beat on both points. While the event itself has been the focus, there's not enough attention on getting the right people involved.

We are voting for the proposal in the following order:

image|690x452, 75%

Quoted from danielo

ArbitrumDAO Off-site

Non-Constitutional

This proposal is a continuation of the directional proposal for an offsite which was voted in favour with 130mn ARB in Snapshot: ArbitrumDAO Off-site - Directional proposal

Abstract

The success of this initiative will be measured quantitatively by the NPS given by participants, and qualitatively by the outcomes and outputs from the sessions.

The Problem

This proposal seeks to test a format for deliberation between key stakeholders with a clearly defined agenda. If successful, the format can be replicated to continuously address agenda items.

Proposed Solution

Agenda prioritisation (pre-event strategic aligment)

Project manager to engage with token holders, delegates, and key stakeholders, distilling concerns and topic suggestions, and facilitating converging on the agenda. Including snapshot vote for agenda and format.
Careful planning of each session: aiming to share and agree on frameworks and approaches in advance, focusing IRL discussion on content and not format.
Defining criteria for attendees in consultation with key stakeholders to ensure both a successful event and capture resistance for the DAO.

Facilitation & Workshop Organization:

Either IRL event or Online workshops (to be decided by this vote)
Structured facilitation process to ensure effective discussion, note-taking, and converging to action items.

Post workshop follow up

Sharing a summary of the discussion & agreed action points
Follow up with participants a month after the workshop to track progress on action items and liaison with Entropy, Foundation, and other parties to suggest next steps as appropriate.

Optional (see voting options):

Travel and Accommodation:
- Accommodation and catering for attendees and organisers.
- Travel expenses for attendees not already funded by the DAO for travel expenses and not otherwise in the region (e.g. not attending DevCon nor DevCon side events).
- Travel expenses “scholarship” available for attendees upon request and subject to approval by the event coordinator.

Timeline:

September: proposal approval and then logistics planning and preparation.
Event to take place during Q4, exact date depending on the snapshot vote (see below)
Before end of Q4: Post-event reporting and follow-up.

What Does Success Look Like?

High-quality outcomes and actionable strategies from workshops.
Increased engagement and satisfaction among participants.
Positive feedback and a strong desire to continue similar initiatives.

KPIs:

50%+ participation rate among engaged (35%+ on-chain voting rate ) Top50 delegates, foundation, and off-chain labs.
NPS of 50 or more (-100 to 100 range, 0 considered average)
A similar initiative is organised again.

Options

3 options are proposed. Please vote for the preferred one.

Option 1: IRL version next to a major event:

Next to DevCon Thailand, November 8th-10th.
2-day event: day 1 arrival and facilitated dinner light discussion. Day 2 workshops. Day 3 breakfast and departure.
Including setup for hybrid participation (online participants supported with 360 cameras, moderator, and tech support)
Includes 20k travel scholarships for those not already in the region

around $116k + 10k contingency

Option 2: IRL version separate from major event:

In the most travel-friendly location for participants
During December 2024
2-day event (same as above)
Including setup for hybrid participation (same as above)
Includes $50k travel for those not already in the region

around $156k + 10k contingency

Option 3: Online Event:

3-4 online sessions (half-day sessions) over 1-2 months. With the possibility of input and feedback before/after event to ensure even those not attending can participate effectively.
During October-December 2024 (November likely skipped)

around $35k + 5k contingency.

Detailed breakdown and comparison here

Notes on budget:

high-level calculations. The budget will be revised in more detail (by requesting a quote from providers, etc.) after a successful Snapshot vote.
Any funds unspent will be returned to the DAO.
Funds will be denominated in ARB for tally vote

Additional Notes

Facilitation

Agenda

Pre-selection of topics (to be refined and prioritised after the format is defined):

Defining strategic priorities for the DAO (vision and strategy)
DAO Budget (how much should the DAO be spending)
Org Design
ARB token utility
Conflict Of Interest
Grant programs (RPGF, what should be the focus, outcomes, etc.)

Additional work to be done to define the agenda:

2 workshops and async discussion to identify root causes (root topics) and prioritise.
The final agenda will be defined via a subsequent Snapshot vote facilitated by the project manager.

Hybrid Participation for IRL events

Attendees

Focused on high-context, expert, and senior participants. I.e. not an onboarding event.
Open to Top-50 delegates , off-chain labs, foundation members, and top 100 ARB token holders (both in Arbitrum One and Ethereum).
Additional attendees based on at least 20 million ARB endorsements (holders/delegates can endorse as many participants as desired).

Cost Benchmarks

A base yearly salary for strategy could be well above 120k. But assuming 120k, that’s $57/hour for full-time employment, and a usual markup for freelance/consulting is 3-4. Leaving us in the $150-$250/h range. More senior consultants are likely to charge $300-$500/h or more.
No profit margin has been added (often 20%-50% for consulting)
Some price references:
As a facilitator, my last day rate (2018) was GBP2,500 (Oxford University rate) or about $3.2k USD at the time.
we’re planning to hire a professional facilitator as the event is projected in the range of 30-50 attendees. Together with the project manager that gives us just about enough resources to facilitate.
Professional facilitators have quoted $25k-$30k for this event over a high level description. Currently, only $15k is budgeted, but we’re confident that with more research we can still find someone highly capable without blowing the budget (also as the project manager (i.e. me) has facilitation experience and high context on the DAO so we can fast track a lot).

Roadmap

directional proposal - completed
survey, calls, and analysis (agenda topics, format considerations, concerns) - completed
draft with key decision fork - week of 2nd September
snapshot to define on format - week of 9th September
Tally proposal draft, feedback, and refinement - 16th-29th (depending on engagement)
Onchain Vote - Week of the 30th Sept - 19th Oct (roughly)

Ignas, thanks for your comment.

Having a clear strategy will then enable many others to get more involved in concrete initiatives, and for the next cycle, we can include more people who by then have a lot more context, trust, etc.

And if you feel you can significantly contribute to the discussion, I do invite you to share why and I'll do my best to put this in front of the delegates so they can decide.

Euphoria from lamprosdao.eth

218.3K TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

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

We are voting FOR this proposal with a focus on an online event this time.

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

We are voting FOR this proposal with a focus on an online event this time.

Quoted from krst

jump to post →

We agree with L2Beat on both points. While the event itself has been the focus, there's not enough attention on getting the right people involved.

We are voting for the proposal in the following order:

image|690x452, 75%

krst from delegate.l2beat.eth

10.0M TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.

We are voting FOR this proposal, but our support is conditional and limited only to an online event.

The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.

We are voting FOR this proposal, but our support is conditional and limited only to an online event.

To begin with, we want to clarify that for us, the most important factor of this whole discussion is the value that we might be able to get from hosting a DAO offsite as the one described rather than the cost associated with hosting one. That said, we also want to note that although we’ve had several meetings in the past that could be considered successful, they were nowhere near a point that would justify spending as much as it’s budgeted in this proposal for them.

That isn’t necessarily just a function of the meetings or the people facilitating them. Instead, we might not be in a position as an organization where the DAO can capture the full extent of the value such a meeting could bring.

Ultimately, the goal isn’t to have an event just for the sake of having an event. The goal is to have an event that can push the needle forward and deliver value that would be hard, if not impossible, for us to get differently. Although not directly comparable to an IRL meeting, an online event could help us test the waters in the sense of what we get from it.

PGov from pgov.eth

301.00 TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

We strongly support the idea of hosting the off-site event in-person alongside a major conference, with sponsorships to fund travel scholarships for attendees. Holding the event around an established conference, like DevCon, offers logistical and strategic advantages by ensuring the presence of key delegates, stakeholders, and contributors already in the region. This reduces overall costs while maximizing engagement and turnout.

Sponsoring travel for those not already attending ensures that valuable perspectives from diverse stakeholders are included, especially individuals who might otherwise be excluded due to financial constraints. In-person events foster deeper collaboration, trust-building, and stronger alignment on key issues—critical elements often lacking in online-only interactions.

We think there could be something set up around including members that don't receive delegate incentives as they are already being compensated in some ways by the DAO, and instead preferring those that aren't for the first sponsorships. Combining both an IRL event and hybrid options (for virtual participation) also allows for broad participation while prioritizing high-quality discussions and outcomes.

krst from delegate.l2beat.eth

10.0M TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.

We are voting FOR this proposal, but our support is conditional and limited only to an online event.

The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.

We are voting FOR this proposal, but our support is conditional and limited only to an online event.

PGov from pgov.eth

301.00 TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

danielo from mrjackalop.eth

0.00 TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

The point is that precisely it's not just the "event". Which btw could be online or offline. The point is to ensure that the "process" (which includes an event but is not only an event) delivers on the objective of advancing strategic alignment and thus unblocks multiple key initatives.

We already had meetings in person, we already tested the govhack format, we've had sense making processes (like the one PluralityLabs, now Thrive, did). These were good exercises but how much progress did we get after? non of the proposals initiated in govhack got approved, the plurality labs process didn't lead to a DAO-wide agreed strategy, etc. We're learning from those previous experiences so that the focus is not on having an event but an output.

What I see as critical for ensuring a quality output is facilitating the process end to end. That includes:

aligning on the agenda, which means ensuring all key stakeholders have bought in and understand exactly what and why. There's a lot of work that goes here as the DAO is fairly distributed with the foundation, offchain labs, service providers, many different delegates, etc. They can agree to have an event but that's not the same as ensuring everyone is aligned on the critical discussion and all the context is shared.
then discussing the topic (online or IRL) in a way that is designed purposely for said topic and not generic. So we avoid conflicting objectives like broader community activation, or fitting around a specific number of days, or a type of venue, or anything else. Here we have the focus to design the format fully around the objective of getting the best output for strategy (other initiatives can focus on community onboarding, etc.).
finally, follow up on priorities and if needed draft a proposal with the discussed strategic priorities/agreements and pass it through a vote to ratify. That means there are likely calls, workshops, discussions, etc. both before and after the main workshop. That includes the snapshot vote going live this Thursday which is part of the process of collectively agreeing on the details so there's buy-in and people show up.

danielo from mrjackalop.eth

0.00 TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

What I see as critical for ensuring a quality output is facilitating the process end to end. That includes:

aligning on the agenda, which means ensuring all key stakeholders have bought in and understand exactly what and why. There's a lot of work that goes here as the DAO is fairly distributed with the foundation, offchain labs, service providers, many different delegates, etc. They can agree to have an event but that's not the same as ensuring everyone is aligned on the critical discussion and all the context is shared.
then discussing the topic (online or IRL) in a way that is designed purposely for said topic and not generic. So we avoid conflicting objectives like broader community activation, or fitting around a specific number of days, or a type of venue, or anything else. Here we have the focus to design the format fully around the objective of getting the best output for strategy (other initiatives can focus on community onboarding, etc.).
finally, follow up on priorities and if needed draft a proposal with the discussed strategic priorities/agreements and pass it through a vote to ratify. That means there are likely calls, workshops, discussions, etc. both before and after the main workshop. That includes the snapshot vote going live this Thursday which is part of the process of collectively agreeing on the details so there's buy-in and people show up.

Quoted from jameskbh

I think IRL events are necessary to better coordinate actions and planning of any DAO. I’m making these questions on both posts, to get a better understanding:

What are the main differences (in terms of the event itself) between this proposal and the GovHack? - specially the “Core Series”

Both initiatives are targeting DevCon. Does it make sense to have both events?

Is there a way to merge both initiatives if they are complementary?

Thanks for the proposal!

jump to post →

Thanks for the question @jameskbh

I think in essence both proposals are rather different, but it might not make sense to fund them both at this point in time.

Where I see the difference:

Objective:

Hack Humanity requests funding for delivering events and a yearly salary for Klaus, where the focus is on the IRL component.
RnDAO's proposal focuses on a strategic process of alignment (which could be piloted fully online or mixed online and IRL, as per the delegates' choice). In that sense, the deliverables of our proposal are about strategic alignment. The event part is a tool to achieve strategic alignment, not the core deliverable.

Scope:

Hack Humanity is proposing multiple events, and each event with the same recurring format of 3 days that include Panels, AMAs, Tracks, etc. In that sense it's more of a series of hackathons following what they did for GovHack. Also, the GovHack Core is planned for events of 3 full days.
RnDAO is focused on a single initiative with a narrower focus on strategic alignment. In that sense, we offer a shorter-term engagement that can then be renewed or not, iterated, etc. The format is flexible and will be decided via a snapshot vote this coming week. If IRL is selected, we've also focused on shorter events to ensure delegates can more easily accommodate them.

Budget: Hard to compare as we're talking about different things

HackHumanity: 3 IRL events
RnDAO: a strategic process with (optional) an IRL event component I tried to create a budget comparison table here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19IFqa58A-bTKGpN6hymyGTqE4uI2BIf2lHejzLEFmAg/edit?usp=sharing

I hope this helps the discussion

Quoted from jameskbh

I think IRL events are necessary to better coordinate actions and planning of any DAO. I’m making these questions on both posts, to get a better understanding:

What are the main differences (in terms of the event itself) between this proposal and the GovHack? - specially the “Core Series”

Both initiatives are targeting DevCon. Does it make sense to have both events?

Is there a way to merge both initiatives if they are complementary?

Thanks for the proposal!

jump to post →

Thanks for the question @jameskbh

I think in essence both proposals are rather different, but it might not make sense to fund them both at this point in time.

Where I see the difference:

Objective:

Hack Humanity requests funding for delivering events and a yearly salary for Klaus, where the focus is on the IRL component.
RnDAO's proposal focuses on a strategic process of alignment (which could be piloted fully online or mixed online and IRL, as per the delegates' choice). In that sense, the deliverables of our proposal are about strategic alignment. The event part is a tool to achieve strategic alignment, not the core deliverable.

Scope:

Hack Humanity is proposing multiple events, and each event with the same recurring format of 3 days that include Panels, AMAs, Tracks, etc. In that sense it's more of a series of hackathons following what they did for GovHack. Also, the GovHack Core is planned for events of 3 full days.
RnDAO is focused on a single initiative with a narrower focus on strategic alignment. In that sense, we offer a shorter-term engagement that can then be renewed or not, iterated, etc. The format is flexible and will be decided via a snapshot vote this coming week. If IRL is selected, we've also focused on shorter events to ensure delegates can more easily accommodate them.

Budget: Hard to compare as we're talking about different things

HackHumanity: 3 IRL events
RnDAO: a strategic process with (optional) an IRL event component I tried to create a budget comparison table here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19IFqa58A-bTKGpN6hymyGTqE4uI2BIf2lHejzLEFmAg/edit?usp=sharing

I hope this helps the discussion

ArbitrumDAO Off-site - Directional proposal

ArbitrumDAO Off-site - Directional proposal

ArbitrumDAO Off-site - Directional proposal

ArbitrumDAO Off-site

Abstract

The Problem

Proposed Solution

Timeline:

What Does Success Look Like?

KPIs:

Options

Additional Notes

Facilitation

Agenda

Hybrid Participation for IRL events

Attendees

Cost Benchmarks

Roadmap

ArbitrumDAO Off-site - Directional proposal

ArbitrumDAO Off-site - Directional proposal

ArbitrumDAO Off-site - Directional proposal

ArbitrumDAO Off-site

Abstract

The Problem

Proposed Solution

Timeline:

What Does Success Look Like?

KPIs:

Options

Additional Notes

Facilitation

Agenda

Hybrid Participation for IRL events

Attendees

Cost Benchmarks

Roadmap

ArbitrumDAO Off-site

Abstract

The Problem

Proposed Solution

Timeline:

What Does Success Look Like?

KPIs:

Options

Additional Notes

Facilitation

Agenda

Hybrid Participation for IRL events

Attendees

Cost Benchmarks

Roadmap

ArbitrumDAO Off-site

Abstract

The Problem

Proposed Solution

Timeline:

What Does Success Look Like?

KPIs:

Options

Additional Notes

Facilitation

Agenda

Hybrid Participation for IRL events

Attendees

Cost Benchmarks

Roadmap

ArbitrumDAO Off-site - Directional proposal

ArbitrumDAO Off-site - Directional proposal

ArbitrumDAO Off-site - Directional proposal

ArbitrumDAO Off-site - Directional proposal

ArbitrumDAO Off-site - Directional proposal

ArbitrumDAO Off-site - Directional proposal

Rationale

Rationale

Rationale

ArbitrumDAO strategic "Off-site" (online) updated proposal

Context

ArbitrumDAO strategic "Off-site" (online) updated proposal

Context

Abstract