Non-Constitutional
This proposal is a continuation of the directional proposal for an offsite which was voted in favour with 130mn ARB in Snapshot: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660
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.
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 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.
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:
Optional (see voting 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 (https://t.me/mrjackalop) so it can be taken into account before the final onchain proposal.
Option 1: IRL version next to a major event:
around $116k + 10k contingency
Option 2: IRL version separate from major event:
around $156k + 10k contingency
Option 3: Online Event:
around $35k + 5k contingency.
Detailed breakdown and comparison here
Notes on budget:
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.
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 (to be refined and prioritised after the format is defined):
Additional work to be done to define the agenda:
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).
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.
Non-Constitutional
This proposal is a continuation of the directional proposal for an offsite which was voted in favour with 130mn ARB in Snapshot: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660
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.
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 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.
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:
Optional (see voting 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 (https://t.me/mrjackalop) so it can be taken into account before the final onchain proposal.
Option 1: IRL version next to a major event:
around $116k + 10k contingency
Option 2: IRL version separate from major event:
around $156k + 10k contingency
Option 3: Online Event:
around $35k + 5k contingency.
Detailed breakdown and comparison here
Notes on budget:
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.
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 (to be refined and prioritised after the format is defined):
Additional work to be done to define the agenda:
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).
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.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/93?u=blockworksresearch
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/83?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/93?u=blockworksresearch
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/83?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/39?u=castlecapital
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-40: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-40
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-40: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-40
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/81
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/92?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/91?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/90?u=blueweb
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/89?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/seed-latam-delegate-communication-thread/13895/47?u=seedgov
Dont see the need for an online version. IRL are better and more impactful
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/41?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/85?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/73?u=winverse
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/40?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/72?u=ezr3al
Abstaining due to conflict of interest
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/36
See https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/78?u=0xdonpepe
I vote "for". However, I decide the proposal lacks detailed explanation on how the effectiveness of the workshops will be specifically measured. While NPS scores and participation rates are mentioned, more specific quantitative goals (such as progress on the implementation of priorities) and how to track and assess the execution of these priorities could be further elaborated.
Its a small amount to get the work done.
I shared my thoughts in the Snapshot vote and I’m glad the online format was approved. I think hosting the event in October makes more sense than in November or December, as it gives the DAO more time to identify key directions for development. I also like the idea of following up after the event to make sure everything moves forward smoothly.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/76?u=maxlomu
Glad to see these kinds of initiatives being taken, the social layer is usually neglected in DAOs
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/75?u=kuiclub
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/74?u=duokongcrypto
Consistently with my snapshot motivation, I'm against an online event. I don't think it would be useful. Would have supported a live event instead, especially with GovHack not happening.
In favor, I have never participated to governance events so far and I am excited to be part of this
This is a DAO and offsites are management consultant slop.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/44
Appreciate the streamlining of the event and reasonable cost.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/72?u=larva
online most preferably
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/66?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/52?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/53?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/41
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/51?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/49?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/48?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/seed-latam-delegate-communication-thread/13895/47?u=seedgov
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/42?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/40
Need to blend with holistic events policy
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/38?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/34
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/65?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/64?u=0xdonpepe
N/A
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/32?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/10?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/28?u=jojo
online Events Should be Fine For the Start
In favour of trying to solve the problem of fragmented DAO strategies and slow decision-making processes. Adheres to the principle of reason
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/26?u=pennblockchain
IRL events improve discussion quality and governance. next to a conference improves efficiency
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/46?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/45?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/37?u=winverse
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/44
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/43?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/42
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/seed-latam-delegate-communication-thread/13895/46?u=seedgov
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/22?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/39?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/38
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/32?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/27?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/26?u=jojo
involves decisions related to governance or resource allocation within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/24?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/23?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/20?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/19?u=ermia
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/17?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/39?u=castlecapital
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-40: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-40
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-40: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-40
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/81
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/92?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/91?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/90?u=blueweb
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/89?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/seed-latam-delegate-communication-thread/13895/47?u=seedgov
Dont see the need for an online version. IRL are better and more impactful
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/41?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/85?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/73?u=winverse
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/40?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/72?u=ezr3al
Abstaining due to conflict of interest
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/36
See https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/78?u=0xdonpepe
I vote "for". However, I decide the proposal lacks detailed explanation on how the effectiveness of the workshops will be specifically measured. While NPS scores and participation rates are mentioned, more specific quantitative goals (such as progress on the implementation of priorities) and how to track and assess the execution of these priorities could be further elaborated.
Its a small amount to get the work done.
I shared my thoughts in the Snapshot vote and I’m glad the online format was approved. I think hosting the event in October makes more sense than in November or December, as it gives the DAO more time to identify key directions for development. I also like the idea of following up after the event to make sure everything moves forward smoothly.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/76?u=maxlomu
Glad to see these kinds of initiatives being taken, the social layer is usually neglected in DAOs
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/75?u=kuiclub
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/74?u=duokongcrypto
Consistently with my snapshot motivation, I'm against an online event. I don't think it would be useful. Would have supported a live event instead, especially with GovHack not happening.
In favor, I have never participated to governance events so far and I am excited to be part of this
This is a DAO and offsites are management consultant slop.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/44
Appreciate the streamlining of the event and reasonable cost.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/72?u=larva
online most preferably
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/66?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/52?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/53?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/41
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/51?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/49?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/48?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/seed-latam-delegate-communication-thread/13895/47?u=seedgov
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/42?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/40
Need to blend with holistic events policy
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/38?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/34
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/65?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/64?u=0xdonpepe
N/A
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/32?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/10?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/28?u=jojo
online Events Should be Fine For the Start
In favour of trying to solve the problem of fragmented DAO strategies and slow decision-making processes. Adheres to the principle of reason
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/26?u=pennblockchain
IRL events improve discussion quality and governance. next to a conference improves efficiency
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/46?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/45?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/37?u=winverse
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/44
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/43?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/42
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/seed-latam-delegate-communication-thread/13895/46?u=seedgov
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/22?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/39?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/38
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/32?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/27?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/26?u=jojo
involves decisions related to governance or resource allocation within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/24?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/23?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/20?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/19?u=ermia
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/17?u=blockworksresearch
Offsite is a good initiative for engagement, I suggest it to be kept on dates which are not booked for events if you want to be productive and get benefit beyond just face to the name kind of thing.
Offsite is a good initiative for engagement, I suggest it to be kept on dates which are not booked for events if you want to be productive and get benefit beyond just face to the name kind of thing.
just host a side-event at a main conference, doesn't need to be too much more complicated than that
just host a side-event at a main conference, doesn't need to be too much more complicated than that
Gm, gm :sparkles:
The results are in for the ArbitrumDAO strategic “Off-site” (online) updated proposal on-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1394
Gm, gm :sparkles:
The results are in for the ArbitrumDAO strategic “Off-site” (online) updated proposal on-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1394
The results are in for the ArbitrumDAO Off-site off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1373
The results are in for the ArbitrumDAO Off-site off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1373
I like the idea of the off-site.
However, with three large conferences a year, plus GovHacks and additional in-person events, I often find there isn’t enough time dedicated to getting things done, analyzing outcomes, and iterating.
It feels like we’re rushing things.
I like the idea of the off-site.
However, with three large conferences a year, plus GovHacks and additional in-person events, I often find there isn’t enough time dedicated to getting things done, analyzing outcomes, and iterating.
It feels like we’re rushing things.
That said, I think it would be useful to first run an online version (between DevCon and EthDenver), even though I understand it’s not ideal.
We could assess the results and, based on that feedback, organize something IRL next time if necessary.
I like the idea of the off-site.
However, with three large conferences a year, plus GovHacks and additional in-person events, I often find there isn’t enough time dedicated to getting things done, analyzing outcomes, and iterating.
It feels like we’re rushing things.
I like the idea of the off-site.
However, with three large conferences a year, plus GovHacks and additional in-person events, I often find there isn’t enough time dedicated to getting things done, analyzing outcomes, and iterating.
It feels like we’re rushing things.
That said, I think it would be useful to first run an online version (between DevCon and EthDenver), even though I understand it’s not ideal.
We could assess the results and, based on that feedback, organize something IRL next time if necessary.
The results are in for the ArbitrumDAO Off-site offchain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/833
The results are in for the ArbitrumDAO Off-site offchain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/833
nice idea. Have you synced with Hack Humanity on this? @KlausBrave
nice idea. Have you synced with Hack Humanity on this? @KlausBrave
Tally vote: ended up Abstaining. Although supportive on the temp-check, value was unclear to move forward.
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
While we have some concerns about the quality of the executions and outcome from this initiative, we consider it worth a try to focus on aligning the DAO's key members with the strategic directions that the DAO needs to tackle going forward.
I’m voting FOR on Tally.
There are many reasons. Gov Hack is not happening anymore, and on the other hand, @danielo really took the time to implement all the feedback from the delegates. With his vast experience in the ecosystem and in coordination, I truly believe that an initiative like this is positive for the DAO.
I’m voting FOR on Tally.
There are many reasons. Gov Hack is not happening anymore, and on the other hand, @danielo really took the time to implement all the feedback from the delegates. With his vast experience in the ecosystem and in coordination, I truly believe that an initiative like this is positive for the DAO.
Not only that, but it also brings great leadership alongside participation. Additionally, the requested amount is more than reasonable.
We’re used to investing millions without expecting outputs, but when it comes to efforts that actually contribute to the long-term coordination of the DAO, we decide to step back :)
Seriously?
Blockworks Research will be voting AGAINST this proposal.
We’re not sure about the quality an online event could bring. Moreover, while we originally expressed support over any type of meeting for the DAO we do think that an offsite lends better to coordination and cooperation among delegates. Online meetings are difficult to measure for performance and easily subjected to delays.
The timeline proposed was conditional on delegates voting. As that hasn't happened the timeline is now pushed. We're addressing some concerns from a major delegate but otherwise the initiative is paused until we have aproval.
One more thing to add - although we voted against the proposal in its current form we'd like to make it clear that if it passes we commit to actively participate and we'll do our best to make it work.
This is looking even better! Doing it live with quick, real-time interaction will definitely make things more dynamic with synchronous (live). Hopefully, there'll be a chance for an in-person event down the road to bring the community even closer. I hope for a positive outcome for all the events, and that both have the space to reach the largest and best audience possible.
You can still participate without having to change the rules, all you need is 20mn ARB of endorsement so you can ask other delegates to endorse you until you reach the 20m. Same for any other stakeholders, service provider, etc. that enough ARB considers important to participate in the discussion.
Note that even outside of the workshops, there will be space for input, feedback, and discussion. the workshops are only part of it.
voting Against the current onchain proposal because the success of this format hinders on the skill and context of the facilitator(s) for the online format, and no facilitator(s) have been pitched to the DAO to execute on this. Therefore, I fear this money will be wasted.
We're voting AGAINST the offsite DAO event proposal. Online gatherings lack the unique benefits of in-person interactions. Virtual fatigue from existing calls and meetings risks diminishing this event's impact. While cost-effective, an online format may not justify the time investment or yield meaningful outcomes beyond current DAO activities.
Thanks for the updated proposal! It's great to see the process already started. As the first workshop is being planned last week of October, do you have a clear idea about the details of the workshop (which Top 50 delegates, OCL/Foundation members would attend, how is the workshop organized? 1 day? Multiple days? How can non-qualified members get involved in the process? etc) at this point and the outcome you are looking to produce before November? Seeing some top delegates voted against/abstain, we are worried about the success of the execution while acknowledging the importance of the concept.
Tally vote: ended up Abstaining. Although supportive on the temp-check, value was unclear to move forward.
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
While we have some concerns about the quality of the executions and outcome from this initiative, we consider it worth a try to focus on aligning the DAO's key members with the strategic directions that the DAO needs to tackle going forward.
I’m voting FOR on Tally.
There are many reasons. Gov Hack is not happening anymore, and on the other hand, @danielo really took the time to implement all the feedback from the delegates. With his vast experience in the ecosystem and in coordination, I truly believe that an initiative like this is positive for the DAO.
I’m voting FOR on Tally.
There are many reasons. Gov Hack is not happening anymore, and on the other hand, @danielo really took the time to implement all the feedback from the delegates. With his vast experience in the ecosystem and in coordination, I truly believe that an initiative like this is positive for the DAO.
Not only that, but it also brings great leadership alongside participation. Additionally, the requested amount is more than reasonable.
We’re used to investing millions without expecting outputs, but when it comes to efforts that actually contribute to the long-term coordination of the DAO, we decide to step back :)
Seriously?
Blockworks Research will be voting AGAINST this proposal.
We’re not sure about the quality an online event could bring. Moreover, while we originally expressed support over any type of meeting for the DAO we do think that an offsite lends better to coordination and cooperation among delegates. Online meetings are difficult to measure for performance and easily subjected to delays.
The timeline proposed was conditional on delegates voting. As that hasn't happened the timeline is now pushed. We're addressing some concerns from a major delegate but otherwise the initiative is paused until we have aproval.
One more thing to add - although we voted against the proposal in its current form we'd like to make it clear that if it passes we commit to actively participate and we'll do our best to make it work.
This is looking even better! Doing it live with quick, real-time interaction will definitely make things more dynamic with synchronous (live). Hopefully, there'll be a chance for an in-person event down the road to bring the community even closer. I hope for a positive outcome for all the events, and that both have the space to reach the largest and best audience possible.
You can still participate without having to change the rules, all you need is 20mn ARB of endorsement so you can ask other delegates to endorse you until you reach the 20m. Same for any other stakeholders, service provider, etc. that enough ARB considers important to participate in the discussion.
Note that even outside of the workshops, there will be space for input, feedback, and discussion. the workshops are only part of it.
voting Against the current onchain proposal because the success of this format hinders on the skill and context of the facilitator(s) for the online format, and no facilitator(s) have been pitched to the DAO to execute on this. Therefore, I fear this money will be wasted.
We're voting AGAINST the offsite DAO event proposal. Online gatherings lack the unique benefits of in-person interactions. Virtual fatigue from existing calls and meetings risks diminishing this event's impact. While cost-effective, an online format may not justify the time investment or yield meaningful outcomes beyond current DAO activities.
Thanks for the updated proposal! It's great to see the process already started. As the first workshop is being planned last week of October, do you have a clear idea about the details of the workshop (which Top 50 delegates, OCL/Foundation members would attend, how is the workshop organized? 1 day? Multiple days? How can non-qualified members get involved in the process? etc) at this point and the outcome you are looking to produce before November? Seeing some top delegates voted against/abstain, we are worried about the success of the execution while acknowledging the importance of the concept.
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 in Tally voting.
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 in Tally voting.
The perspective shared by us during the temp check remains unchanged, and support for this proposal continues. The idea of focusing the online event on defining the DAO’s priorities for the next six months is interesting and we’re open to trying it.
Additionally, this initiative could open new doors for more structured collaboration within the DAO, helping identify key focus areas that may have been overlooked. It also presents a valuable opportunity to engage a broader group of participants, fostering more inclusive and diverse discussions on the DAO's strategic direction.
Voting against on Tally. At the temp-check phase I voted for the IRL event as I think that in person off-sites can lead to better outcomes and results. Many pointed out that the cost isn’t that high and that even if it’s online, we can give it a try. However I agree with Jojo here. We already have many calls and meetings and I personally think that this off-site, if organized online, won’t be much impactful.
Voted For: I still think that we lack general and strategic discussion about the DAO. Many of us are present at multiple calls and meetings on a weekly basis but do we really take time a think about the big picture or think about general issues that we face in ArbitrumDAO? I don't think so. An event like this could help us to that. Also, let's not forget about new people joining the DAO. This type of project could be a good insight into the DAO and more general stuff. I think it's worth trying it out.
Is it possible to widen the attendee list? It seems overly restrictive if it's an online venue, which should facilitate higher attendance.
DAOplomats is voting in favor of this proposal on Tally.
We see our concerns regarding costs during the temp check were addressed as the budget has been reduced with a detailed breakdown added. Thus, we are happy to support during the onchain vote.
500 for note takers is for 20h of work...
And designing a DAO strategy process for less than $150h... let's just agree to disagree on paying low amounts for top needs.
Voted AGAINST the proposal.
While i was in favor of a physical meetup, I don't think a virtual format is going to deliver sufficient RoI for $20k. Especially since I don't see a plan for getting the major delegates to attend and be a part of it
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting AGAINST this proposal.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting AGAINST this proposal.
During temp-check, we voted in favor of the offsite, on condition that it takes an online format, while not committing to supporting the onchain vote before we saw a more detailed proposal. With the proposal having narrowed down since the original directional temp-check, we now have the necessary details to assess whether we want to support it or not, and as things are right now, we’re more inclined towards voting against it.
We have discussed the proposal with @Danielo extensively, and although we like the concept directionally, we’re not entirely convinced that it will have the intended outcomes. We do not believe that simply crowdsourcing priorities from the delegates will have the desired effect. There needs to be some informed, educated thinking process before that and we don’t see that in the process outlined above.
For the offsite to have any material impact, delegates must ‘buy-in’ and commit to participate in the event. From our discussions with other delegates, we have not seen such buy-in from them yet.
Well, we wouldn't make the cutoff, despite having enough votes to post a poll. There's probably other prominent delegates or stakeholders as well.
You know the GovHack event is no longer happening, right?
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Tally vote.
you can still ask delegates to endorse you if you think you have significant value to contribute. There will also be time for comments and open discussion outside of workshops, and there attendance is not capped
Could you share a bit your rationale and who you'd like to be included?
I voted FOR this proposal on Tally. I continue to hold the view I outlined when I voted FOR at the temp check stage. Focusing the online event on defining the DAO's priorities for the next six months is an interesting idea and one I would like to try. To be honest, it may simply be impossible to define the DAO's priorities over a meaningful period of time. However, the cost of this experiment is low, so I think it's worth giving it a shot.
I voted FOR this proposal. I think regular (perhaps semi-annual) in-person engagement between DAO stakeholders and contributors is valuable. I’d like to note that I will be biased towards implementations that are low-cost and focused. I don’t want the DAO to pay for luxurious travel or non-DAO focused travel expenses of any kind.
I voted FOR on Tally. It is important to have delegates focusing on thinking about Arbitrum's future.
Just voted FOR on Tally. Totally get where @JoJo is coming from about the online event being challenging: IRL does tend to have more impact, and async alignment can be a bit of a headache. However, imo the budget isn't crazy high, and for that amount, I think it's worth the shot. There’s potential for valuable outcomes from this initiative. I would've loved to participate too, but it seems I don’t meet the eligibility criteria for the top 50 ARB delegates.
Hey, have you seen the updated proposal here? https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/68
This proposal includes synchronous (live) and asynchronous phases. The core of the work happens async through the use of a collective intelligence tool, async deliberation across telegra+forum, and summaries created by our team.
We complement that process with synchronous deliberation during two workshops, but that's mostly to fast-track the discussion around pros/cons and root causes that will likely be happening in telegram and the forum already.
The FranklinDAO / Penn Blockchain Team voted AGAINST the proposal on Tally.
We pushed back on the Snapshot vote to drop the event, thinking that the GovHacks at conferences would suffice. We think that a set of virtual calls and events would be helpful in planning the DAO's priorities for the next 6 months. But looking at the cost breakdown, we don't believe some of the items are justified - like $150/hour for the planning/summary process or paying $500 for notetakers. For this reason, we voted against. Otherwise, we totally support scheduling medium-term alignment and planning sessions with the most important stakeholders in the DAO.
FOR Suggestion:
“I think it’s worth exploring an offsite. The current DAO decision-making process is a bit stuck, and we lack a platform for deeper communication. This could be a good opportunity to bring everyone together, either in person or online, to discuss the big picture and organizational design. No need to rush into the details yet—if people agree, we can refine things step by step. This vote is just to see if there’s interest, not a commitment to execute right away. If you think it’s a good idea, let’s chat and figure out how to make it happen.”
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 in Tally voting.
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 in Tally voting.
The perspective shared by us during the temp check remains unchanged, and support for this proposal continues. The idea of focusing the online event on defining the DAO’s priorities for the next six months is interesting and we’re open to trying it.
Additionally, this initiative could open new doors for more structured collaboration within the DAO, helping identify key focus areas that may have been overlooked. It also presents a valuable opportunity to engage a broader group of participants, fostering more inclusive and diverse discussions on the DAO's strategic direction.
Voting against on Tally. At the temp-check phase I voted for the IRL event as I think that in person off-sites can lead to better outcomes and results. Many pointed out that the cost isn’t that high and that even if it’s online, we can give it a try. However I agree with Jojo here. We already have many calls and meetings and I personally think that this off-site, if organized online, won’t be much impactful.
Voted For: I still think that we lack general and strategic discussion about the DAO. Many of us are present at multiple calls and meetings on a weekly basis but do we really take time a think about the big picture or think about general issues that we face in ArbitrumDAO? I don't think so. An event like this could help us to that. Also, let's not forget about new people joining the DAO. This type of project could be a good insight into the DAO and more general stuff. I think it's worth trying it out.
Is it possible to widen the attendee list? It seems overly restrictive if it's an online venue, which should facilitate higher attendance.
DAOplomats is voting in favor of this proposal on Tally.
We see our concerns regarding costs during the temp check were addressed as the budget has been reduced with a detailed breakdown added. Thus, we are happy to support during the onchain vote.
500 for note takers is for 20h of work...
And designing a DAO strategy process for less than $150h... let's just agree to disagree on paying low amounts for top needs.
Voted AGAINST the proposal.
While i was in favor of a physical meetup, I don't think a virtual format is going to deliver sufficient RoI for $20k. Especially since I don't see a plan for getting the major delegates to attend and be a part of it
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting AGAINST this proposal.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting AGAINST this proposal.
During temp-check, we voted in favor of the offsite, on condition that it takes an online format, while not committing to supporting the onchain vote before we saw a more detailed proposal. With the proposal having narrowed down since the original directional temp-check, we now have the necessary details to assess whether we want to support it or not, and as things are right now, we’re more inclined towards voting against it.
We have discussed the proposal with @Danielo extensively, and although we like the concept directionally, we’re not entirely convinced that it will have the intended outcomes. We do not believe that simply crowdsourcing priorities from the delegates will have the desired effect. There needs to be some informed, educated thinking process before that and we don’t see that in the process outlined above.
For the offsite to have any material impact, delegates must ‘buy-in’ and commit to participate in the event. From our discussions with other delegates, we have not seen such buy-in from them yet.
Well, we wouldn't make the cutoff, despite having enough votes to post a poll. There's probably other prominent delegates or stakeholders as well.
You know the GovHack event is no longer happening, right?
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Tally vote.
you can still ask delegates to endorse you if you think you have significant value to contribute. There will also be time for comments and open discussion outside of workshops, and there attendance is not capped
Could you share a bit your rationale and who you'd like to be included?
I voted FOR this proposal on Tally. I continue to hold the view I outlined when I voted FOR at the temp check stage. Focusing the online event on defining the DAO's priorities for the next six months is an interesting idea and one I would like to try. To be honest, it may simply be impossible to define the DAO's priorities over a meaningful period of time. However, the cost of this experiment is low, so I think it's worth giving it a shot.
I voted FOR this proposal. I think regular (perhaps semi-annual) in-person engagement between DAO stakeholders and contributors is valuable. I’d like to note that I will be biased towards implementations that are low-cost and focused. I don’t want the DAO to pay for luxurious travel or non-DAO focused travel expenses of any kind.
I voted FOR on Tally. It is important to have delegates focusing on thinking about Arbitrum's future.
Just voted FOR on Tally. Totally get where @JoJo is coming from about the online event being challenging: IRL does tend to have more impact, and async alignment can be a bit of a headache. However, imo the budget isn't crazy high, and for that amount, I think it's worth the shot. There’s potential for valuable outcomes from this initiative. I would've loved to participate too, but it seems I don’t meet the eligibility criteria for the top 50 ARB delegates.
Hey, have you seen the updated proposal here? https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/68
This proposal includes synchronous (live) and asynchronous phases. The core of the work happens async through the use of a collective intelligence tool, async deliberation across telegra+forum, and summaries created by our team.
We complement that process with synchronous deliberation during two workshops, but that's mostly to fast-track the discussion around pros/cons and root causes that will likely be happening in telegram and the forum already.
The FranklinDAO / Penn Blockchain Team voted AGAINST the proposal on Tally.
We pushed back on the Snapshot vote to drop the event, thinking that the GovHacks at conferences would suffice. We think that a set of virtual calls and events would be helpful in planning the DAO's priorities for the next 6 months. But looking at the cost breakdown, we don't believe some of the items are justified - like $150/hour for the planning/summary process or paying $500 for notetakers. For this reason, we voted against. Otherwise, we totally support scheduling medium-term alignment and planning sessions with the most important stakeholders in the DAO.
FOR Suggestion:
“I think it’s worth exploring an offsite. The current DAO decision-making process is a bit stuck, and we lack a platform for deeper communication. This could be a good opportunity to bring everyone together, either in person or online, to discuss the big picture and organizational design. No need to rush into the details yet—if people agree, we can refine things step by step. This vote is just to see if there’s interest, not a commitment to execute right away. If you think it’s a good idea, let’s chat and figure out how to make it happen.”
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Tally vote.
We would like to begin by clarifying that when voting for this proposal on Snapshot, we were initially not inclined to support the IRL option due to its overlap with GovHack. Based on this, our primary choices were Against or Abstain, with the Online Event being our third option. On the latter point, we agree with @JoJo that the current schedule of calls and Working Groups in Arbitrum is already quite busy, which could hinder the success of this initiative.
I voted FOR this proposal on Tally. I continue to hold the view I outlined when I voted FOR at the temp check stage. Focusing the online event on defining the DAO's priorities for the next six months is an interesting idea and one I would like to try. To be honest, it may simply be impossible to define the DAO's priorities over a meaningful period of time. However, the cost of this experiment is low, so I think it's worth giving it a shot.
I voted FOR this proposal. I think regular (perhaps semi-annual) in-person engagement between DAO stakeholders and contributors is valuable. I’d like to note that I will be biased towards implementations that are low-cost and focused. I don’t want the DAO to pay for luxurious travel or non-DAO focused travel expenses of any kind.
This proposal includes synchronous (live) and asynchronous phases. The core of the work happens async through the use of a collective intelligence tool, async deliberation across telegra+forum, and summaries created by our team.
We complement that process with synchronous deliberation during two workshops, but that's mostly to fast-track the discussion around pros/cons and root causes that will likely be happening in telegram and the forum already.
Here's a mapping of what that can look like (to be refined during planning phase if the proposal is approved):

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
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
Hard Work
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/govhack-devcon-in-bangkok-hack-humanity/26634/24?u=duokongcrypto
I didn't thought the online option would win, so I didn't craft a proper feedback for snapshot, and feel like I should add some here in Tally.
Voting against. I'll be really honest here, we all live in a series of infinite calls and meetings, both public (with the arb calendar) and private (talk to delegates, working groups etc). I don't think an online event with a 2 workshops of half day each, plus async alignment, will be successful, because presence is likely gonna be scattered and inconsistent.
I didn't thought the online option would win, so I didn't craft a proper feedback for snapshot, and feel like I should add some here in Tally.
Voting against. I'll be really honest here, we all live in a series of infinite calls and meetings, both public (with the arb calendar) and private (talk to delegates, working groups etc). I don't think an online event with a 2 workshops of half day each, plus async alignment, will be successful, because presence is likely gonna be scattered and inconsistent.
I would be REALLY HAPPY to be proven wrong here, and if it passes I hope it will be something extremely useful to which I will do my best to attend :smile:
voted yes for online on tally since its the only option, and an online event is better than no event, but would have preferred an IRL gathering, esp considering govhack is no longer doing an event.
seems like im the outlier here given the snapshot vote, but maybe that would have been different as well if it was known govhack would not do devcon.
voted yes for online on tally since its the only option, and an online event is better than no event, but would have preferred an IRL gathering, esp considering govhack is no longer doing an event.
seems like im the outlier here given the snapshot vote, but maybe that would have been different as well if it was known govhack would not do devcon.
Only request here is that there is some voting or flexibility on time zones, as we're currently not able to attend most ArbitrumDAO meetings due to US focused scheduling.
I voted for the online event as its crucial to take care of spending within the DAO. Everything else will just be a cashgrab.
Vote: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot --> ArbitrumDAO Off-site
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/23
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
I believe the ArbitrumDAO off-site event presents an opportunity to improve collaboration and decision-making within the DAO. Although there are some concerns about organizing in-person events, especially given the overlap with other initiatives like GovHack, I see value in starting with an online format to ensure maximum participation. In-person events can be beneficial, but this proposal, by suggesting an online event as a starting point, allows for broader involvement from delegates who might not be able to attend physical events.
Vote: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot --> ArbitrumDAO Off-site
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/23
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
I believe the ArbitrumDAO off-site event presents an opportunity to improve collaboration and decision-making within the DAO. Although there are some concerns about organizing in-person events, especially given the overlap with other initiatives like GovHack, I see value in starting with an online format to ensure maximum participation. In-person events can be beneficial, but this proposal, by suggesting an online event as a starting point, allows for broader involvement from delegates who might not be able to attend physical events.
It’s also important to carefully manage budgeting and logistics to avoid any overlaps or inefficiencies.
In the future I hope this proposal has more consistency to it and we add some consistency to these strategic initiatives.
Offcylce voting: this proposal was planned to be launched on Tally yesterday. Due to some unforeseen coordination around the MSS, we couldn't post until confirming the compliance procedure with the foundation. In the interest of being able to start this initiative in October and due to multiple constraints in November (DevCon, ThanksGiving), we're posting on Tuesday. Please accept our apologies for any disruption.
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 8
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 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.
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:
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 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.
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.
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.
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)
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).
*: tentative timeline to be adjusted during the planning phase in coordination with the different stakeholders.
Focused on high-context, expert, and senior participants. I.e. not an onboarding event. For rationale see the discussion here.
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
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.
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:
gm, voted FOR on Tally. As these are online workshops ( I voted for an IRL event on Snapshot), a basic success metric will be attendance as @JoJo mentioned. I'll do my best to participate as much as I can.
I like this proposal. Voted for at this stage so we can explore the possibility, seems interesting. I’m also supportive of recording these potential meetings.
Voted in favour of Online event!
My plan is only a small step. At the moment the DAO has A LOT of friction to advance proposals. One needs to be very acquainted with a lot of initiatives and people to be able to move something through, and even then it requires a lot of work. By claryfing the strategy, we reduce said friction. Strategy provides signposts for others to rally around without having to do all the sense making work. So my hope is that the more we clarify by focusing on effective discussions (with some tradeoffs needed short term), that enables a lot more engagement from newcomers.
Thank you for your response @danielo. I totally agree that focusing on efficiency and trusted token holders is important. And I hope newcomers should have a chance to participate to any events host by the DAO. So hopefully we can hold an online event in the future, as it would make it easier for more people to engage and build their reputation without the need to attend in person.
As someone who talks about DeFi and DAOs on X, I’d love to support the DAO by using my voice. I’m curious about how we can bring in newcomers while still keeping governance effective in your plan
This is how I voted on Snapshot:

I think it's a good idea to meet the team IRL on dates that don't interfere with most people's work/activities. It could be organized through a vote three months in advance to make it fair. I know you currently hold online calls, and I'd like to stay informed to learn more about the Arbitrum ecosystem and the people behind the projects. How can I stay updated on these online calls?
DAOplomats voted in favor of an Online Event on Snapshot.
We are generally supportive of an IRL version. However, we are just more interested in seeing how things develop progressively. First, we experiment with online events, gauge interest from delegates and stakeholders within Arbitrum, then we can shoot for a broader IRL event.
DAOplomats voted in favor of an Online Event on Snapshot.
We are generally supportive of an IRL version. However, we are just more interested in seeing how things develop progressively. First, we experiment with online events, gauge interest from delegates and stakeholders within Arbitrum, then we can shoot for a broader IRL event.
Finally, before supporting during the onchain vote, we would love to see the budget reworked. The proposed cost right now looks too much an ask for an online event.
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
seems like im the outlier here given the snapshot vote, but maybe that would have been different as well if it was known govhack would not do devcon.
Thank you, I have studied this type of voting and even made a table of results and calculated the correctness myself. However, apparently, the results should have been for 1 option, who won and others are displayed strangely. The question is precisely in the display - we need to think about how to present it more clearly for users and give a suggestion to Snapshot to implement it.
Excited to learn about the directions of our DAO and engaging with delegates and top projects. As a newcomer to Arbitrum's DAO, I am curious in learning from these discussions and learning more about our collective development potential.
However, I would like to suggest considering an online format for the event rather than hosting it alongside Devcon Thailand or as private event. Given that Devcon-related side events might overlap with ours, an online event could offer greater flexibility and accessibility. Moreover, hosting the event online would significantly reduce costs and enable participation from a global audience, allow more members to engage.
hey @cp0x this is a common confusion for this type of voting strategy. the voting strategy used for this snapshot proposal is "Ranked Choice Voting" or IRV (Instant Runoff Vote) and you can read more about it here and here.
I really don’t think this should have been the voting strategy chosen for this snapshot… it’s a sneaky voting strategy because it induces this kind of expectation that you just had and it has a bias for action, as in that it could perversely select an option when the desired outcome is no action. i think this snapshot should have been just a single choice vote and each voter would vote on their only 1st preference for what kind of event they would like to have.
Voted in FAVOR of this proposal with an IRL gathering as option 1 - I believe those are much more effective. Online sessions as a back up option.
Thanks for pushing the initiative forward!
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).
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Tally vote.
We would like to begin by clarifying that when voting for this proposal on Snapshot, we were initially not inclined to support the IRL option due to its overlap with GovHack. Based on this, our primary choices were Against or Abstain, with the Online Event being our third option. On the latter point, we agree with @JoJo that the current schedule of calls and Working Groups in Arbitrum is already quite busy, which could hinder the success of this initiative.
I voted FOR this proposal on Tally. I continue to hold the view I outlined when I voted FOR at the temp check stage. Focusing the online event on defining the DAO's priorities for the next six months is an interesting idea and one I would like to try. To be honest, it may simply be impossible to define the DAO's priorities over a meaningful period of time. However, the cost of this experiment is low, so I think it's worth giving it a shot.
I voted FOR this proposal. I think regular (perhaps semi-annual) in-person engagement between DAO stakeholders and contributors is valuable. I’d like to note that I will be biased towards implementations that are low-cost and focused. I don’t want the DAO to pay for luxurious travel or non-DAO focused travel expenses of any kind.
This proposal includes synchronous (live) and asynchronous phases. The core of the work happens async through the use of a collective intelligence tool, async deliberation across telegra+forum, and summaries created by our team.
We complement that process with synchronous deliberation during two workshops, but that's mostly to fast-track the discussion around pros/cons and root causes that will likely be happening in telegram and the forum already.
Here's a mapping of what that can look like (to be refined during planning phase if the proposal is approved):

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
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
Hard Work
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/govhack-devcon-in-bangkok-hack-humanity/26634/24?u=duokongcrypto
I didn't thought the online option would win, so I didn't craft a proper feedback for snapshot, and feel like I should add some here in Tally.
Voting against. I'll be really honest here, we all live in a series of infinite calls and meetings, both public (with the arb calendar) and private (talk to delegates, working groups etc). I don't think an online event with a 2 workshops of half day each, plus async alignment, will be successful, because presence is likely gonna be scattered and inconsistent.
I didn't thought the online option would win, so I didn't craft a proper feedback for snapshot, and feel like I should add some here in Tally.
Voting against. I'll be really honest here, we all live in a series of infinite calls and meetings, both public (with the arb calendar) and private (talk to delegates, working groups etc). I don't think an online event with a 2 workshops of half day each, plus async alignment, will be successful, because presence is likely gonna be scattered and inconsistent.
I would be REALLY HAPPY to be proven wrong here, and if it passes I hope it will be something extremely useful to which I will do my best to attend :smile:
voted yes for online on tally since its the only option, and an online event is better than no event, but would have preferred an IRL gathering, esp considering govhack is no longer doing an event.
seems like im the outlier here given the snapshot vote, but maybe that would have been different as well if it was known govhack would not do devcon.
voted yes for online on tally since its the only option, and an online event is better than no event, but would have preferred an IRL gathering, esp considering govhack is no longer doing an event.
seems like im the outlier here given the snapshot vote, but maybe that would have been different as well if it was known govhack would not do devcon.
Only request here is that there is some voting or flexibility on time zones, as we're currently not able to attend most ArbitrumDAO meetings due to US focused scheduling.
I voted for the online event as its crucial to take care of spending within the DAO. Everything else will just be a cashgrab.
Vote: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot --> ArbitrumDAO Off-site
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/23
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
I believe the ArbitrumDAO off-site event presents an opportunity to improve collaboration and decision-making within the DAO. Although there are some concerns about organizing in-person events, especially given the overlap with other initiatives like GovHack, I see value in starting with an online format to ensure maximum participation. In-person events can be beneficial, but this proposal, by suggesting an online event as a starting point, allows for broader involvement from delegates who might not be able to attend physical events.
Vote: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot --> ArbitrumDAO Off-site
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/23
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
I believe the ArbitrumDAO off-site event presents an opportunity to improve collaboration and decision-making within the DAO. Although there are some concerns about organizing in-person events, especially given the overlap with other initiatives like GovHack, I see value in starting with an online format to ensure maximum participation. In-person events can be beneficial, but this proposal, by suggesting an online event as a starting point, allows for broader involvement from delegates who might not be able to attend physical events.
It’s also important to carefully manage budgeting and logistics to avoid any overlaps or inefficiencies.
In the future I hope this proposal has more consistency to it and we add some consistency to these strategic initiatives.
Offcylce voting: this proposal was planned to be launched on Tally yesterday. Due to some unforeseen coordination around the MSS, we couldn't post until confirming the compliance procedure with the foundation. In the interest of being able to start this initiative in October and due to multiple constraints in November (DevCon, ThanksGiving), we're posting on Tuesday. Please accept our apologies for any disruption.
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 8
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 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.
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:
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 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.
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.
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.
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)
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).
*: tentative timeline to be adjusted during the planning phase in coordination with the different stakeholders.
Focused on high-context, expert, and senior participants. I.e. not an onboarding event. For rationale see the discussion here.
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
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.
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:
gm, voted FOR on Tally. As these are online workshops ( I voted for an IRL event on Snapshot), a basic success metric will be attendance as @JoJo mentioned. I'll do my best to participate as much as I can.
I like this proposal. Voted for at this stage so we can explore the possibility, seems interesting. I’m also supportive of recording these potential meetings.
Voted in favour of Online event!
My plan is only a small step. At the moment the DAO has A LOT of friction to advance proposals. One needs to be very acquainted with a lot of initiatives and people to be able to move something through, and even then it requires a lot of work. By claryfing the strategy, we reduce said friction. Strategy provides signposts for others to rally around without having to do all the sense making work. So my hope is that the more we clarify by focusing on effective discussions (with some tradeoffs needed short term), that enables a lot more engagement from newcomers.
Thank you for your response @danielo. I totally agree that focusing on efficiency and trusted token holders is important. And I hope newcomers should have a chance to participate to any events host by the DAO. So hopefully we can hold an online event in the future, as it would make it easier for more people to engage and build their reputation without the need to attend in person.
As someone who talks about DeFi and DAOs on X, I’d love to support the DAO by using my voice. I’m curious about how we can bring in newcomers while still keeping governance effective in your plan
This is how I voted on Snapshot:

I think it's a good idea to meet the team IRL on dates that don't interfere with most people's work/activities. It could be organized through a vote three months in advance to make it fair. I know you currently hold online calls, and I'd like to stay informed to learn more about the Arbitrum ecosystem and the people behind the projects. How can I stay updated on these online calls?
DAOplomats voted in favor of an Online Event on Snapshot.
We are generally supportive of an IRL version. However, we are just more interested in seeing how things develop progressively. First, we experiment with online events, gauge interest from delegates and stakeholders within Arbitrum, then we can shoot for a broader IRL event.
DAOplomats voted in favor of an Online Event on Snapshot.
We are generally supportive of an IRL version. However, we are just more interested in seeing how things develop progressively. First, we experiment with online events, gauge interest from delegates and stakeholders within Arbitrum, then we can shoot for a broader IRL event.
Finally, before supporting during the onchain vote, we would love to see the budget reworked. The proposed cost right now looks too much an ask for an online event.
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
seems like im the outlier here given the snapshot vote, but maybe that would have been different as well if it was known govhack would not do devcon.
Thank you, I have studied this type of voting and even made a table of results and calculated the correctness myself. However, apparently, the results should have been for 1 option, who won and others are displayed strangely. The question is precisely in the display - we need to think about how to present it more clearly for users and give a suggestion to Snapshot to implement it.
Excited to learn about the directions of our DAO and engaging with delegates and top projects. As a newcomer to Arbitrum's DAO, I am curious in learning from these discussions and learning more about our collective development potential.
However, I would like to suggest considering an online format for the event rather than hosting it alongside Devcon Thailand or as private event. Given that Devcon-related side events might overlap with ours, an online event could offer greater flexibility and accessibility. Moreover, hosting the event online would significantly reduce costs and enable participation from a global audience, allow more members to engage.
hey @cp0x this is a common confusion for this type of voting strategy. the voting strategy used for this snapshot proposal is "Ranked Choice Voting" or IRV (Instant Runoff Vote) and you can read more about it here and here.
I really don’t think this should have been the voting strategy chosen for this snapshot… it’s a sneaky voting strategy because it induces this kind of expectation that you just had and it has a bias for action, as in that it could perversely select an option when the desired outcome is no action. i think this snapshot should have been just a single choice vote and each voter would vote on their only 1st preference for what kind of event they would like to have.
Voted in FAVOR of this proposal with an IRL gathering as option 1 - I believe those are much more effective. Online sessions as a back up option.
Thanks for pushing the initiative forward!
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).
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.
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 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.
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:
Optional (see voting 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:
around $116k + 10k contingency
Option 2: IRL version separate from major event:
around $156k + 10k contingency
Option 3: Online Event:
around $35k + 5k contingency.
Detailed breakdown and comparison here
Notes on budget:
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.
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 (to be refined and prioritised after the format is defined):
Additional work to be done to define the agenda:
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).
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.
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
seems like im the outlier here given the snapshot vote, but maybe that would have been different as well if it was known govhack would not do devcon.
Govhacks proposal was posted after this one on snapshot, so i dont think its a material change.
I am interested to see what sort of attendance and facilitation we get from the online workshops. in my experience, having synchronous communication with all major delegates in the room is difficult and less efficient (esp when virtual) than asynchronous text based communication, but happy to be proved wrong.
Excited to learn about the directions of our DAO and engaging with delegates and top projects. As a newcomer to Arbitrum's DAO, I am curious in learning from these discussions and learning more about our collective development potential.
However, I would like to suggest considering an online format for the event rather than hosting it alongside Devcon Thailand or as private event. Given that Devcon-related side events might overlap with ours, an online event could offer greater flexibility and accessibility. Moreover, hosting the event online would significantly reduce costs and enable participation from a global audience, allow more members to engage.
I have a question regarding participation criteria. For newcomers like myself, the current requirements at least 20M ARB from endorsements or to be among the top 100 ARB holders may be challenging and time-consuming. Is there a possibility to lower these criteria or provide alternative pathways for participation? I believe that by making the event more inclusive, we can foster a broader range of contributions and perspectives, which would be valuable for our discussions and overall Arbitrum development.
Thank you for considering my suggestions, and I look forward to the opportunity to contribute and learn from the event.
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.
Given the context (2 IRL proposals for devcon), my first choice on this one was an online event. I think both initiatives have their merits, let's see how the online formtlat goes.
IRV indeed has limitations but only one choice woud provide an even more inaccurate representation because it fails to account for the fact that multiple options can work for someone.
Unfortunately, there's not an ideal tool available with token voting.
Given that there has already been a proposal for an offsite meeting, an online format would provide a more flexible and convenient option. It allows for greater accessibility and participation without the constraints of travel and logistics.
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.
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.
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:

Snapshot uses IRV rank choice algorithm, aka First Past The Post.
In this format, the option with the least votes gets rejected and those votes moved to people's second choice. And so on, in rounds the least favoured option keeps getting eliminated until one option has 50%+ of the votes (at which point it's the winner).
Snapshot uses IRV rank choice algorithm, aka First Past The Post.
In this format, the option with the least votes gets rejected and those votes moved to people's second choice. And so on, in rounds the least favoured option keeps getting eliminated until one option has 50%+ of the votes (at which point it's the winner).
It's not my favourite algorithm for rank choice and it would be amazing to have Condorcet which is more resilient to some anti patterns that can sometimes happen with IRV. But there's no tool that does Condorcet with token voting so we're working with what's available.

Can someone explain how this works?

We have votes for different options, but I see that it shows 0 ARB votes for them, like
We're voting FOR exploring an ArbitrumDAO off-site event, leaning towards the IRL option with scholarships.
Let's face it, nothing beats face-to-face interactions for building real connections and getting stuff done. I've seen it firsthand in tech - when people get together in person, ideas flow and problems get solved.
We're voting FOR exploring an ArbitrumDAO off-site event, leaning towards the IRL option with scholarships.
Let's face it, nothing beats face-to-face interactions for building real connections and getting stuff done. I've seen it firsthand in tech - when people get together in person, ideas flow and problems get solved.
Throwing in scholarships is a smart move. It'll bring in fresh perspectives and keep us from becoming an echo chamber for "delegates with big tires" only.
We like how we're not rushing into this. Getting everyone's input first shows we're serious about doing this right. It's a low-risk way to potentially supercharge our governance game.
Cross-posting my answer on divergent vs convergent as a distinction to differentiate the proposals is a false equivalence and not valid :
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/63?u=klausbrave
@Griff
I voted in the following order Drop idea and do nothing, Abstain, Online event, IRL/conference/no scholarships, IRL/conference/scholarships, IRL/separate/no scholarships, IRL/separate/scholarships because I believe the GovHack proposal to be a much better option for the DAO right now and also because the voting methodology chosen for this vote (Ranked Choice Voting / IRV) is not suitable for this type of decision.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “Drop idea and do nothing, Abstain, Online event, IRL/conference/no scholarships, IRL/conference/scholarships, IRL/separate/no scholarships, IRL/separate/scholarships” in that order on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Overall, I was very excited when I first heard about the new IRL offsite for the Arbitrum DAO. I think this type of event is super useful for both the existing gov team and introducing new members to Arbitrum DAO. My only concern (as expressed in the comments) was that the event would compete with the GovHack event by HackHumanty at the same time.
I will vote for the Online event. I still support the IRL event by Danielo and the team. I would love to see what a new format of IRL events would look like. I am excited to see what will be next from them.
I mean, it's not an event that I'm proposing, it's a strategic process. And whether as part of that an event happens at the same time of govhack or not... that's flexible.
I was originally suggesting Devcon as a good date, but after speaking with multiple delegates, I find online works best. Now, if people still prefer IRL (the vote is about finding that), I have concerns about Devcon being a good date as they have requested for most side events to happen before and after, so people will have a lot of conflicting agendas.
I mean, it's not an event that I'm proposing, it's a strategic process. And whether as part of that an event happens at the same time of govhack or not... that's flexible.
I was originally suggesting Devcon as a good date, but after speaking with multiple delegates, I find online works best. Now, if people still prefer IRL (the vote is about finding that), I have concerns about Devcon being a good date as they have requested for most side events to happen before and after, so people will have a lot of conflicting agendas.
We're talking about pretty big decisions and in-depth conversations here, and that's not viable when many key people can't commit full-time for at least one day (or a few 2-3h sessions online).
Uh, doesn’t this proposal overlap with GovHack?
I love the initiative, though, and I think these events are important for connecting and building relationships among us. In the past few weeks, I’ve been quite isolated from initiatives and have mostly taken a passive role after Brussels. I’d love to change that. I know I have control over it, and these activities make it much easier.
Uh, doesn’t this proposal overlap with GovHack?
I love the initiative, though, and I think these events are important for connecting and building relationships among us. In the past few weeks, I’ve been quite isolated from initiatives and have mostly taken a passive role after Brussels. I’d love to change that. I know I have control over it, and these activities make it much easier.
However, I feel like we’re already maxed out for this year, and an online version makes much more sense.
Now, I don’t want to sound rude, but isn’t $35,000 for running 4 sessions a bit much? I understand the experience and professionalism behind it, which I love, but when looking at Tally, I’d expect an adjustment.
With a team of people, we’ve been trying to run the onboarding working group, and it’s been challenging to secure even a portion of those funds for an effort that also aims to create impact within the DAO from a different perspective.
Lots to think about, but yes… for an online one, I’m in
We vote for the proposal as followed on Snapshot.

We believe the GovHack will cover what this program has to provide in part and the only possible format to differentiate from the other offline event form is online events, but they have to be clearly designed, focused, promoted and executed with a much lower budget, which is challenging.
For context, we had been planning the offsite before Klaus's proposal as we started discussing it since Brussels. Also, the offsite is simply a new format proposed for something we've been working on since January (when we started creating the strategy framework and then during the first GovHack we proposed a strategy assembly).
I see the objective of the GovHack and what we're doing as being very different. The GovHack is more of a community event, including many people, discussing many things.
I don't understand @danielo, the proposal is that we do an in person event at the same time as @KlausBrave's Gov Hack?
Or is it going to fund GovHack?
Or are the dates not set?
In general I would vote:

On behalf of the UADP: When evaluating the options for the Arbitrum offsite, we considered all the alternatives, and here's our current opinions/preference:
@danielo You missed my main question:
I don’t understand @danielo, the proposal is that we do an in person event at the same time as @KlausBrave’s Gov Hack? ... Or are the dates not set?
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.
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 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.
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:
Optional (see voting 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:
around $116k + 10k contingency
Option 2: IRL version separate from major event:
around $156k + 10k contingency
Option 3: Online Event:
around $35k + 5k contingency.
Detailed breakdown and comparison here
Notes on budget:
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.
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 (to be refined and prioritised after the format is defined):
Additional work to be done to define the agenda:
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).
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.
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
seems like im the outlier here given the snapshot vote, but maybe that would have been different as well if it was known govhack would not do devcon.
Govhacks proposal was posted after this one on snapshot, so i dont think its a material change.
I am interested to see what sort of attendance and facilitation we get from the online workshops. in my experience, having synchronous communication with all major delegates in the room is difficult and less efficient (esp when virtual) than asynchronous text based communication, but happy to be proved wrong.
Excited to learn about the directions of our DAO and engaging with delegates and top projects. As a newcomer to Arbitrum's DAO, I am curious in learning from these discussions and learning more about our collective development potential.
However, I would like to suggest considering an online format for the event rather than hosting it alongside Devcon Thailand or as private event. Given that Devcon-related side events might overlap with ours, an online event could offer greater flexibility and accessibility. Moreover, hosting the event online would significantly reduce costs and enable participation from a global audience, allow more members to engage.
I have a question regarding participation criteria. For newcomers like myself, the current requirements at least 20M ARB from endorsements or to be among the top 100 ARB holders may be challenging and time-consuming. Is there a possibility to lower these criteria or provide alternative pathways for participation? I believe that by making the event more inclusive, we can foster a broader range of contributions and perspectives, which would be valuable for our discussions and overall Arbitrum development.
Thank you for considering my suggestions, and I look forward to the opportunity to contribute and learn from the event.
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.
Given the context (2 IRL proposals for devcon), my first choice on this one was an online event. I think both initiatives have their merits, let's see how the online formtlat goes.
IRV indeed has limitations but only one choice woud provide an even more inaccurate representation because it fails to account for the fact that multiple options can work for someone.
Unfortunately, there's not an ideal tool available with token voting.
Given that there has already been a proposal for an offsite meeting, an online format would provide a more flexible and convenient option. It allows for greater accessibility and participation without the constraints of travel and logistics.
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.
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.
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:

Snapshot uses IRV rank choice algorithm, aka First Past The Post.
In this format, the option with the least votes gets rejected and those votes moved to people's second choice. And so on, in rounds the least favoured option keeps getting eliminated until one option has 50%+ of the votes (at which point it's the winner).
Snapshot uses IRV rank choice algorithm, aka First Past The Post.
In this format, the option with the least votes gets rejected and those votes moved to people's second choice. And so on, in rounds the least favoured option keeps getting eliminated until one option has 50%+ of the votes (at which point it's the winner).
It's not my favourite algorithm for rank choice and it would be amazing to have Condorcet which is more resilient to some anti patterns that can sometimes happen with IRV. But there's no tool that does Condorcet with token voting so we're working with what's available.

Can someone explain how this works?

We have votes for different options, but I see that it shows 0 ARB votes for them, like
We're voting FOR exploring an ArbitrumDAO off-site event, leaning towards the IRL option with scholarships.
Let's face it, nothing beats face-to-face interactions for building real connections and getting stuff done. I've seen it firsthand in tech - when people get together in person, ideas flow and problems get solved.
We're voting FOR exploring an ArbitrumDAO off-site event, leaning towards the IRL option with scholarships.
Let's face it, nothing beats face-to-face interactions for building real connections and getting stuff done. I've seen it firsthand in tech - when people get together in person, ideas flow and problems get solved.
Throwing in scholarships is a smart move. It'll bring in fresh perspectives and keep us from becoming an echo chamber for "delegates with big tires" only.
We like how we're not rushing into this. Getting everyone's input first shows we're serious about doing this right. It's a low-risk way to potentially supercharge our governance game.
Cross-posting my answer on divergent vs convergent as a distinction to differentiate the proposals is a false equivalence and not valid :
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site-directional-proposal/25660/63?u=klausbrave
@Griff
I voted in the following order Drop idea and do nothing, Abstain, Online event, IRL/conference/no scholarships, IRL/conference/scholarships, IRL/separate/no scholarships, IRL/separate/scholarships because I believe the GovHack proposal to be a much better option for the DAO right now and also because the voting methodology chosen for this vote (Ranked Choice Voting / IRV) is not suitable for this type of decision.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “Drop idea and do nothing, Abstain, Online event, IRL/conference/no scholarships, IRL/conference/scholarships, IRL/separate/no scholarships, IRL/separate/scholarships” in that order on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Overall, I was very excited when I first heard about the new IRL offsite for the Arbitrum DAO. I think this type of event is super useful for both the existing gov team and introducing new members to Arbitrum DAO. My only concern (as expressed in the comments) was that the event would compete with the GovHack event by HackHumanty at the same time.
I will vote for the Online event. I still support the IRL event by Danielo and the team. I would love to see what a new format of IRL events would look like. I am excited to see what will be next from them.
I mean, it's not an event that I'm proposing, it's a strategic process. And whether as part of that an event happens at the same time of govhack or not... that's flexible.
I was originally suggesting Devcon as a good date, but after speaking with multiple delegates, I find online works best. Now, if people still prefer IRL (the vote is about finding that), I have concerns about Devcon being a good date as they have requested for most side events to happen before and after, so people will have a lot of conflicting agendas.
I mean, it's not an event that I'm proposing, it's a strategic process. And whether as part of that an event happens at the same time of govhack or not... that's flexible.
I was originally suggesting Devcon as a good date, but after speaking with multiple delegates, I find online works best. Now, if people still prefer IRL (the vote is about finding that), I have concerns about Devcon being a good date as they have requested for most side events to happen before and after, so people will have a lot of conflicting agendas.
We're talking about pretty big decisions and in-depth conversations here, and that's not viable when many key people can't commit full-time for at least one day (or a few 2-3h sessions online).
Uh, doesn’t this proposal overlap with GovHack?
I love the initiative, though, and I think these events are important for connecting and building relationships among us. In the past few weeks, I’ve been quite isolated from initiatives and have mostly taken a passive role after Brussels. I’d love to change that. I know I have control over it, and these activities make it much easier.
Uh, doesn’t this proposal overlap with GovHack?
I love the initiative, though, and I think these events are important for connecting and building relationships among us. In the past few weeks, I’ve been quite isolated from initiatives and have mostly taken a passive role after Brussels. I’d love to change that. I know I have control over it, and these activities make it much easier.
However, I feel like we’re already maxed out for this year, and an online version makes much more sense.
Now, I don’t want to sound rude, but isn’t $35,000 for running 4 sessions a bit much? I understand the experience and professionalism behind it, which I love, but when looking at Tally, I’d expect an adjustment.
With a team of people, we’ve been trying to run the onboarding working group, and it’s been challenging to secure even a portion of those funds for an effort that also aims to create impact within the DAO from a different perspective.
Lots to think about, but yes… for an online one, I’m in
We vote for the proposal as followed on Snapshot.

We believe the GovHack will cover what this program has to provide in part and the only possible format to differentiate from the other offline event form is online events, but they have to be clearly designed, focused, promoted and executed with a much lower budget, which is challenging.
For context, we had been planning the offsite before Klaus's proposal as we started discussing it since Brussels. Also, the offsite is simply a new format proposed for something we've been working on since January (when we started creating the strategy framework and then during the first GovHack we proposed a strategy assembly).
I see the objective of the GovHack and what we're doing as being very different. The GovHack is more of a community event, including many people, discussing many things.
I don't understand @danielo, the proposal is that we do an in person event at the same time as @KlausBrave's Gov Hack?
Or is it going to fund GovHack?
Or are the dates not set?
In general I would vote:

On behalf of the UADP: When evaluating the options for the Arbitrum offsite, we considered all the alternatives, and here's our current opinions/preference:
@danielo You missed my main question:
I don’t understand @danielo, the proposal is that we do an in person event at the same time as @KlausBrave’s Gov Hack? ... Or are the dates not set?
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “Drop idea and do nothing, Abstain, Online event, IRL/conference/no scholarships, IRL/conference/scholarships, IRL/separate/no scholarships, IRL/separate/scholarships” in that order on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
While we normally support this kind of initiatives, in this particular case we believe that there is a considerable potential overlap with the GovHack Devcon in Bangkok - Hack Humanity proposal and if we had to choose between both options, we would opt for the latter given that there are already positive precedents such as Brussels or Denver.
Having said that, it is worth mentioning that the offsites are contemplated in the proposal Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025 so it would be interesting that for next year both alternatives are proposed in the framework of this program if it is approved.
For context, we had been planning the offsite before Klaus's proposal as we started discussing it since Brussels. Also, the offsite is simply a new format proposed for something we've been working on since January (when we started creating the strategy framework and then during the first GovHack we proposed a strategy assembly).
I see the objective of the GovHack and what we're doing as being very different. The GovHack is more of a community event, including many people, discussing many things.
The offsite is meant to be a more convergent process, so we can define priorities, and align around what to focus on. The event component itself is only a part of it. We've already been doing calls with delegates to understand priorities and we ran the survey to start to align on the agenda. There's significant work around follow up and ultimately it's all about reaching alignment.
I don't think advancing strategic prioritisation can be achieved with the current GovHack format. However, both events could be combined, having one day focused on 'offsite' during the GovHack. As I mentioned to @KlausBrave on telegram, we're happy with a setup where we can facilitate a day focused on the strategy work and they're doing everything else.
I don't understand @danielo, the proposal is that we do an in person event at the same time as @KlausBrave's Gov Hack?
Or is it going to fund GovHack?
Or are the dates not set?
In general I would vote:

But this proposal is really confusing, from what i can tell is that it would be competing with GovHack for the same dates and I don't think that makes sense, I think GovHack will be a great event (even though I will only be able to attend the last of 3 days) and I wouldn't want to support a second big gathering at devcon.
If my assumptions are correct, than I will vote:

We are in support of further exploring this initiative for an Arbitrum Offsite Event, recognizing the potential for it to drive collaboration and strategic growth within the community. However, we view this proposal as still in the exploratory stage and not yet near completion, especially in comparison to the more developed GovHack proposal currently live.
We are in support of further exploring this initiative for an Arbitrum Offsite Event, recognizing the potential for it to drive collaboration and strategic growth within the community. However, we view this proposal as still in the exploratory stage and not yet near completion, especially in comparison to the more developed GovHack proposal currently live.
Overall, while we support the initiative's continued exploration, our focus remains on supporting more fully developed proposals, such as the GovHack proposal, which is closer to execution.
We voted to abstain on this proposal because we support GovHack’s initiative for Devcon and would like to see the offsite event integrated with their efforts rather than as a competing one. Our preference is for an IRL event held alongside a major conference, but without scholarships. We believe that a collaborative approach with GovHack would foster stronger engagement and align governance activities with key community events, leading to more meaningful and productive outcomes.
We are in support of exploring this initiative, and believe that an in person event is the best situation for delegates moving forward. IRL events are infinitely more impactful. Anecdotally, I myself have had better experiences, thought exchanges, and just an overall better presence when attending an event IRL. Online events lose that touch, substantially.
On the note of scholarships, it makes sense to offer them, though there should be a control to offer them to small teams instead, maybe to those closest to the delegate rewards program (runner-ups?). Aside from this, we understand the reasoning to get rid of scholarships, though it makes delegate lock-in a more prominent issue. Otherwise, these are our rankings currently:
We are in support of exploring this initiative, and believe that an in person event is the best situation for delegates moving forward. IRL events are infinitely more impactful. Anecdotally, I myself have had better experiences, thought exchanges, and just an overall better presence when attending an event IRL. Online events lose that touch, substantially.
On the note of scholarships, it makes sense to offer them, though there should be a control to offer them to small teams instead, maybe to those closest to the delegate rewards program (runner-ups?). Aside from this, we understand the reasoning to get rid of scholarships, though it makes delegate lock-in a more prominent issue. Otherwise, these are our rankings currently:
Hey Danielo, thank you for coming up with some news about this proposal! I'm only re-entering the discussion at this stage, but I really appreciate the way you all made it more concrete. I will be voting in favor of the option "IRL/conference/scholarship". I think irl events have better outcomes and results, and the fact of organizing it next to major conferences will slim costs down and allow more delegates to be present.
I believe offsite events present a great opportunity for delegates to get to know each other and collaborate moving forward. Many top-performing companies conduct offsites, and these events have proven to enhance productivity and team cohesion. Additionally, offering some funding for certain delegates is acceptable, in my opinion, as we want to encourage participation from everyone, not just those who are well-funded.
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.
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.
100% agree. this is always the make or break of any facilitated workshop. at least from my experience doing this kind of thing for the last 15 years or so, in multiple tech industries. sometimes, not having a single person in the room undermines the whole effort, and sometimes having just 1 wrong person in the room is catastrophic. that’s why I believe this type of facilitation needs to be able to control the attendance to be effective, and it’s kind of an art form for a facilitator to be able to bring together the right types of peoples in the right amounts into a facilitated workshop, and then be able to facilitate their work in a productive way.
if the above is true, then the question becomes: is it palatable, for a DAO, to have a workshop where some people can attend and some don’t? and how do we decide that, as a DAO?
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.
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.
we certainly don’t think that there should be an overlap between this event and the proposed GovHack event
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 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.
As mentioned our budget will be revised based on the selected format, but second, your proposal includes many breakout rooms and community activities. It's by design something more divergent. While we're proposing something a lot more focused on converging on a key strategy/topic. In practice, I think the ideal situation is to have our Online proposal accepted first and then have something like GovHack after. So we can first converge on strategy and then go divergent with community proposals (hackathon-style).
Just cast my vote on Snapshot. I’m backing the IRL event with scholarships as my main choice because I’ve seen firsthand how powerful in-person governance gatherings can be. These events create a space to foster stronger relationships and drive real progress in ways that are hard to replicate online. Also, by offering scholarships, we ensure that a diverse group of voices is included.
Divergent vs convergent are steps in facilitation of a longer process that starts online and continues in person.
It is a false equivalence to attempt to differentiate the 2 proposals on this distinction as the final outputs for the Core track are convergent.
Divergent vs convergent are steps in facilitation of a longer process that starts online and continues in person.
It is a false equivalence to attempt to differentiate the 2 proposals on this distinction as the final outputs for the Core track are convergent.
The Core work starts in the online 4-week onramp, on the IRL day it starts with whole group work, breakout steps to avoid group think, then individual and small group work is assembled into whole group work with final convergent decisions together.
Facilitation methodologies such as the double diamond of design and 1-2-4-ALL from Liberating Structures allow for the best of divergent and convergent thinking, and individual, small group and whole group facilitation to be exercised across a series of activities:
https://artkai.io/blog/double-diamond-design-process

https://www.liberatingstructures.com/food-for-thought/post/2198512

We have voted to Abstain which is in line with our other votes regarding event sponsorships, as we are not 100% sold on these types of costs being fronted by the DAO's treasury.
All other votes are ranked accordingly:

I voted in the following order on the temp check proposal. My preference is to do an IRL event next to a major conference and provide limited scholarships for a small number of participants who would not otherwise have funding to attend. I voted Abstain first because I support GovHack's proposal for Devcon and would like to see this initiative as a collaborative effort with GovHack rather than a competing one.

Given that Hack Humanity recently put up a forum discussion on setting up 3 annual GovHack events at major conferences, we voted against this proposal. We believe having 3 major in person events a year is more than sufficient given that we all live in different places in the world. I believe there should be more coordination between these 2 organizing parties, rather than aim to solve the same problem of coming up with proposals and strategic plans.
Voted in favor of this proposal, with devcon w/scholarships being the top choice
in person events are a great idea, and doing them in conjunction with major events is an obvious plus as its much more efficient and easy since everyone's already there.
Travel scholarships should be very conservatively given in our view. 20k per person is probably way too much, but could make sense for teams.
For clarity, the travel scholarship budget is 20k or 50k in total, not per person. And would only include economy-class tickets.
It seems to me that ArbitrumDAO Off-site and GovHack events are both planned at the same time, November 8th-10th during DevCon in Bangkok. So, we have two competing events, both planned for delegates.
We will soon have both events on Snapshot. We need to vote for one or the other it seems. It doesn't make sense to fund both events at the same time.
GovHack has an updated proposal for Devcon only Nov 8-10. We believe this to be the best format to fulfil multiple needs of the DAO in a single IRL event + online facilitation before and after.
This proposal starts with a Core/Offsite day, then the Open Hackathon and Community Days. This redesign can achieve all outcomes we have received feedback on from delegates and new talent alike. It also includes a dedicated online programme of 4-week OnRamp activity and 4-week post-GovHack support programme which addresses a common refrain; how do keep all this amazing energy activated IRL and have people stay with Arbitrum.
Voting as per the below

Voting as per the below

I'm in favour of meeting people, but with a series of caveat. IF we have to do it, to me would be key to have it on major conferences: despite all the fun and giggles, this event or conferences are de facto job travels, and would like to keep it at minimum if possible. I am also not a fan of scholarships in a case like this one, so it was not my first choice. As a final note, I think online would not be meaningful nor different from the calls we do on a day to day basis.
Would also like to add that while i can generally support the idea, a potential tally vote to me is dependent on the initiatives that will be moved forward by the GovHack team, that I would favour over this one due to the previous track record.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “Drop idea and do nothing, Abstain, Online event, IRL/conference/no scholarships, IRL/conference/scholarships, IRL/separate/no scholarships, IRL/separate/scholarships” in that order on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
While we normally support this kind of initiatives, in this particular case we believe that there is a considerable potential overlap with the GovHack Devcon in Bangkok - Hack Humanity proposal and if we had to choose between both options, we would opt for the latter given that there are already positive precedents such as Brussels or Denver.
Having said that, it is worth mentioning that the offsites are contemplated in the proposal Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025 so it would be interesting that for next year both alternatives are proposed in the framework of this program if it is approved.
For context, we had been planning the offsite before Klaus's proposal as we started discussing it since Brussels. Also, the offsite is simply a new format proposed for something we've been working on since January (when we started creating the strategy framework and then during the first GovHack we proposed a strategy assembly).
I see the objective of the GovHack and what we're doing as being very different. The GovHack is more of a community event, including many people, discussing many things.
The offsite is meant to be a more convergent process, so we can define priorities, and align around what to focus on. The event component itself is only a part of it. We've already been doing calls with delegates to understand priorities and we ran the survey to start to align on the agenda. There's significant work around follow up and ultimately it's all about reaching alignment.
I don't think advancing strategic prioritisation can be achieved with the current GovHack format. However, both events could be combined, having one day focused on 'offsite' during the GovHack. As I mentioned to @KlausBrave on telegram, we're happy with a setup where we can facilitate a day focused on the strategy work and they're doing everything else.
I don't understand @danielo, the proposal is that we do an in person event at the same time as @KlausBrave's Gov Hack?
Or is it going to fund GovHack?
Or are the dates not set?
In general I would vote:

But this proposal is really confusing, from what i can tell is that it would be competing with GovHack for the same dates and I don't think that makes sense, I think GovHack will be a great event (even though I will only be able to attend the last of 3 days) and I wouldn't want to support a second big gathering at devcon.
If my assumptions are correct, than I will vote:

We are in support of further exploring this initiative for an Arbitrum Offsite Event, recognizing the potential for it to drive collaboration and strategic growth within the community. However, we view this proposal as still in the exploratory stage and not yet near completion, especially in comparison to the more developed GovHack proposal currently live.
We are in support of further exploring this initiative for an Arbitrum Offsite Event, recognizing the potential for it to drive collaboration and strategic growth within the community. However, we view this proposal as still in the exploratory stage and not yet near completion, especially in comparison to the more developed GovHack proposal currently live.
Overall, while we support the initiative's continued exploration, our focus remains on supporting more fully developed proposals, such as the GovHack proposal, which is closer to execution.
We voted to abstain on this proposal because we support GovHack’s initiative for Devcon and would like to see the offsite event integrated with their efforts rather than as a competing one. Our preference is for an IRL event held alongside a major conference, but without scholarships. We believe that a collaborative approach with GovHack would foster stronger engagement and align governance activities with key community events, leading to more meaningful and productive outcomes.
We are in support of exploring this initiative, and believe that an in person event is the best situation for delegates moving forward. IRL events are infinitely more impactful. Anecdotally, I myself have had better experiences, thought exchanges, and just an overall better presence when attending an event IRL. Online events lose that touch, substantially.
On the note of scholarships, it makes sense to offer them, though there should be a control to offer them to small teams instead, maybe to those closest to the delegate rewards program (runner-ups?). Aside from this, we understand the reasoning to get rid of scholarships, though it makes delegate lock-in a more prominent issue. Otherwise, these are our rankings currently:
We are in support of exploring this initiative, and believe that an in person event is the best situation for delegates moving forward. IRL events are infinitely more impactful. Anecdotally, I myself have had better experiences, thought exchanges, and just an overall better presence when attending an event IRL. Online events lose that touch, substantially.
On the note of scholarships, it makes sense to offer them, though there should be a control to offer them to small teams instead, maybe to those closest to the delegate rewards program (runner-ups?). Aside from this, we understand the reasoning to get rid of scholarships, though it makes delegate lock-in a more prominent issue. Otherwise, these are our rankings currently:
Hey Danielo, thank you for coming up with some news about this proposal! I'm only re-entering the discussion at this stage, but I really appreciate the way you all made it more concrete. I will be voting in favor of the option "IRL/conference/scholarship". I think irl events have better outcomes and results, and the fact of organizing it next to major conferences will slim costs down and allow more delegates to be present.
I believe offsite events present a great opportunity for delegates to get to know each other and collaborate moving forward. Many top-performing companies conduct offsites, and these events have proven to enhance productivity and team cohesion. Additionally, offering some funding for certain delegates is acceptable, in my opinion, as we want to encourage participation from everyone, not just those who are well-funded.
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.
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.
100% agree. this is always the make or break of any facilitated workshop. at least from my experience doing this kind of thing for the last 15 years or so, in multiple tech industries. sometimes, not having a single person in the room undermines the whole effort, and sometimes having just 1 wrong person in the room is catastrophic. that’s why I believe this type of facilitation needs to be able to control the attendance to be effective, and it’s kind of an art form for a facilitator to be able to bring together the right types of peoples in the right amounts into a facilitated workshop, and then be able to facilitate their work in a productive way.
if the above is true, then the question becomes: is it palatable, for a DAO, to have a workshop where some people can attend and some don’t? and how do we decide that, as a DAO?
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.
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.
we certainly don’t think that there should be an overlap between this event and the proposed GovHack event
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 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.
As mentioned our budget will be revised based on the selected format, but second, your proposal includes many breakout rooms and community activities. It's by design something more divergent. While we're proposing something a lot more focused on converging on a key strategy/topic. In practice, I think the ideal situation is to have our Online proposal accepted first and then have something like GovHack after. So we can first converge on strategy and then go divergent with community proposals (hackathon-style).
Just cast my vote on Snapshot. I’m backing the IRL event with scholarships as my main choice because I’ve seen firsthand how powerful in-person governance gatherings can be. These events create a space to foster stronger relationships and drive real progress in ways that are hard to replicate online. Also, by offering scholarships, we ensure that a diverse group of voices is included.
Divergent vs convergent are steps in facilitation of a longer process that starts online and continues in person.
It is a false equivalence to attempt to differentiate the 2 proposals on this distinction as the final outputs for the Core track are convergent.
Divergent vs convergent are steps in facilitation of a longer process that starts online and continues in person.
It is a false equivalence to attempt to differentiate the 2 proposals on this distinction as the final outputs for the Core track are convergent.
The Core work starts in the online 4-week onramp, on the IRL day it starts with whole group work, breakout steps to avoid group think, then individual and small group work is assembled into whole group work with final convergent decisions together.
Facilitation methodologies such as the double diamond of design and 1-2-4-ALL from Liberating Structures allow for the best of divergent and convergent thinking, and individual, small group and whole group facilitation to be exercised across a series of activities:
https://artkai.io/blog/double-diamond-design-process

https://www.liberatingstructures.com/food-for-thought/post/2198512

We have voted to Abstain which is in line with our other votes regarding event sponsorships, as we are not 100% sold on these types of costs being fronted by the DAO's treasury.
All other votes are ranked accordingly:

I voted in the following order on the temp check proposal. My preference is to do an IRL event next to a major conference and provide limited scholarships for a small number of participants who would not otherwise have funding to attend. I voted Abstain first because I support GovHack's proposal for Devcon and would like to see this initiative as a collaborative effort with GovHack rather than a competing one.

Given that Hack Humanity recently put up a forum discussion on setting up 3 annual GovHack events at major conferences, we voted against this proposal. We believe having 3 major in person events a year is more than sufficient given that we all live in different places in the world. I believe there should be more coordination between these 2 organizing parties, rather than aim to solve the same problem of coming up with proposals and strategic plans.
Voted in favor of this proposal, with devcon w/scholarships being the top choice
in person events are a great idea, and doing them in conjunction with major events is an obvious plus as its much more efficient and easy since everyone's already there.
Travel scholarships should be very conservatively given in our view. 20k per person is probably way too much, but could make sense for teams.
For clarity, the travel scholarship budget is 20k or 50k in total, not per person. And would only include economy-class tickets.
It seems to me that ArbitrumDAO Off-site and GovHack events are both planned at the same time, November 8th-10th during DevCon in Bangkok. So, we have two competing events, both planned for delegates.
We will soon have both events on Snapshot. We need to vote for one or the other it seems. It doesn't make sense to fund both events at the same time.
GovHack has an updated proposal for Devcon only Nov 8-10. We believe this to be the best format to fulfil multiple needs of the DAO in a single IRL event + online facilitation before and after.
This proposal starts with a Core/Offsite day, then the Open Hackathon and Community Days. This redesign can achieve all outcomes we have received feedback on from delegates and new talent alike. It also includes a dedicated online programme of 4-week OnRamp activity and 4-week post-GovHack support programme which addresses a common refrain; how do keep all this amazing energy activated IRL and have people stay with Arbitrum.
Voting as per the below

Voting as per the below

I'm in favour of meeting people, but with a series of caveat. IF we have to do it, to me would be key to have it on major conferences: despite all the fun and giggles, this event or conferences are de facto job travels, and would like to keep it at minimum if possible. I am also not a fan of scholarships in a case like this one, so it was not my first choice. As a final note, I think online would not be meaningful nor different from the calls we do on a day to day basis.
Would also like to add that while i can generally support the idea, a potential tally vote to me is dependent on the initiatives that will be moved forward by the GovHack team, that I would favour over this one due to the previous track record.
We have voted to Abstain which is in line with our other votes regarding event sponsorships, as we are not 100% sold on these types of costs being fronted by the DAO's treasury.
All other votes are ranked accordingly:

Nonetheless, it certainly makes a lot of sense to host something like this alongside major conferences where you'd expect a lot more attendees. We also agree with others that sponsoring scholarships has inherent issues about who gets selected and whether or not that person would already be attending the major conference. If the DAO approves scholarships, a more fair approach would be to offer a flat rebate to all scholarships to make it cheaper for them to attend and not cover the full amount of their travels given obvious differences in costs based on a scholar's location.
Lastly, we certainly don't think that there should be an overlap between this event and the proposed GovHack event.
Voted in favor of this proposal, with devcon w/scholarships being the top choice
in person events are a great idea, and doing them in conjunction with major events is an obvious plus as its much more efficient and easy since everyone's already there.
Travel scholarships should be very conservatively given in our view. 20k per person is probably way too much, but could make sense for teams.
One last concern is that there's ovelap with Govhack. If govhack devcon is happening it may be good to coordinate with them to either combine events or compliment them.
GovHack has an updated proposal for Devcon only Nov 8-10. We believe this to be the best format to fulfil multiple needs of the DAO in a single IRL event + online facilitation before and after.
This proposal starts with a Core/Offsite day, then the Open Hackathon and Community Days. This redesign can achieve all outcomes we have received feedback on from delegates and new talent alike. It also includes a dedicated online programme of 4-week OnRamp activity and 4-week post-GovHack support programme which addresses a common refrain; how do keep all this amazing energy activated IRL and have people stay with Arbitrum.
Lastly it's much cheaper, we have just completed real budgeting with suppliers here in Bangkok.
Check it out, Snapshot voting incoming...
Cross-posting here to the latest version of the proposal focus on Devcon in Bangkok Nov 8-10 only for now (longer-term plans will be handled in a separate proposal):
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/govhack-devcon-in-bangkok-hack-humanity/26634?u=klausbrave Let us know what you think.


Cross-posting here as GovHack has an updated proposal for Devcon only Nov 8-10, the proposal includes starting with a Core/Offsite day, then the Open Hackathon and Community Day.
We believe this to be the best format to fulfil multiple needs of the DAO in a single IRL event + online facilitation before and after.
Cross-posting here as GovHack has an updated proposal for Devcon only Nov 8-10, the proposal includes starting with a Core/Offsite day, then the Open Hackathon and Community Day.
We believe this to be the best format to fulfil multiple needs of the DAO in a single IRL event + online facilitation before and after.
This redesign can achieve all outcomes we have received feedback on from delegates and new talent alike. It also includes a dedicated online programme of 4-weeks OnRamp activity and 4-weeks post-GovHack support programme which addresses a common refrain; how do keep all this amazing energy activated IRL and have people stay with Arbitrum.
Lastly it's much cheaper, we have just completed real budgeting with suppliers here in Bangkok.
Check it out, Snapshot voting incoming...
Here is the latest version of the proposal focused on Devcon in Bangkok Nov 8-10 only for now (longer-term plans will be handled in a separate proposal):
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/govhack-devcon-in-bangkok-hack-humanity/26634?u=klausbrave Let us know what you think.


ok, once a format is selected based on the upcoming snapshot vote, we'll review the KPIs in more detail.
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.
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:
I read this reply several times and still don't understand it. It seems like a very general comparison. You mentioned that RnDAO focuses on a 'strategic process of alignment.' What does this mean? What exactly will we be doing at this event besides meeting in person? Could you please be a bit more specific?
Please see my comparison between govhack and this proposal here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/2
I strongly support the IRL meetings. For me, being new to the DAO and governance I saw great benefit when I attended GovHack at ETH Brussels and met many people from governance in person. This is why I think more IRL events like this make sense and benefit DAO very much.
Danielo, my only concern is that the topics and discussion (formal and informal) will be the same at GovHack and this Arbitrum Offsite event. Do we need both events at one place (Devcon Bangkok)? What is the significant difference between these two events? Is it possible to combine them?
It's hard for me to judge an appropriate threshold as we lack any precedent on such events, so there's no benchmark. The 50% was thus set a bit arbitrarily.
That being said, as the IRL event option also includes remote participation, do you think it still makes sense to make the purely online one have a higher attendance target?
We believe it would be wise to start with the online event and evaluate its outcomes, as it would be simpler to organize. Based on the results of this online gathering, we could then consider the feasibility of organizing a hybrid event.
If we opt for an online event, we suggest adjusting the KPIs since attendance is typically higher for virtual gatherings. Specifically, we propose increasing the success threshold by 20% to accurately reflect the ease of online participation if the third option is selected.
I'm not the one defining the attendees. You'd need to convince at least 20m ARB to get an endorsement as per the current format. I'm open to hearing other ideas. So it's still ultimately the token holders who decide who can get a scholarship (either by being a delegate or being endorsed by token holders/delegates).
Then anyhow, the upcoming snapshot vote will decide on the format (online, IRL next to event or separate) and the scholarships.
yeah sure, if the offsite is around a major event (eth denver, eth cc or devcon/devconnect) we would have enough high context people joining anyways that we don't need to separately pay for attendance.
it also introduces a favors game, where if i know daniel or RN DAO well i can get a fully funded trip to a major conference, which im not comfortable with.
yeah sure, if the offsite is around a major event (eth denver, eth cc or devcon/devconnect) we would have enough high context people joining anyways that we don't need to separately pay for attendance.
it also introduces a favors game, where if i know daniel or RN DAO well i can get a fully funded trip to a major conference, which im not comfortable with.
basically $0 in scholarships and coinciding with a major event to ensure attendance would be the most cost effective option imo
I think this initiative is interesting because promoting collaboration through either an on-site (IRL) or online format should be helpful for the development of DAOs, two optimisation suggestions and a reminder:
yeah fair. I have added it as a voting option.
And please allow me to clarify that the scholarships are NOT "travel for delegates". They're travel for attendees who'd otherwise not be in the region (which might include or not delegates).
yeah fair. I have added it as a voting option.
And please allow me to clarify that the scholarships are NOT "travel for delegates". They're travel for attendees who'd otherwise not be in the region (which might include or not delegates).
In the same way that a community member might be given a complimentary lunch at an event, the travel scholarships are a way to simplify attendance for those who'd otherwise have no obligation to be there and thus increase community engagement with the initiative.
alternative funding options? what do you have in mind?
That's precisely the reason why option 1 and 2 have different budgets. The scholarships are just for those not already in the region, so the option to do it next to a major event has a much smaller travel budget as many people will be in the region. Conversely, a separate event will require most people to travel specifically for this, in which case it should be subsidised.
So basically your suggestion is already incorporated in the proposal
@danielo I don't see a problem with making the option with the trip with 0$ support. I think it's a failed option, but we want to hear all opinions and it would be easy for us to add this option for consideration.
The credibility damage for a delegate could be really high. If a delegate were to request a travel budget and then be hanging out in all the local events unrelated to Arbitrum, the chances of them running into someone are VERY high.
Furocombo was banned for misuse of funds. It wasn't pretty. (I'm not suggesting we need to define upfront a policy for people abusign a scholarship, I think that's absolute overkill of overdesigning. But the DAO could take action after the fact if some ugly behaviour was spotted. Generally, I think we can expect the delegates to ethically as this is not a black box situation).
So if I understand correctly, what you want is that unless people pay for the trip themselves, they can't join? (irrespective of whether they were already in the region or not)
Could you explain your rationale, please?
We understand that this is not an easy number to estimate, but we maintain our idea of raising the success threshold, as online participation allows for much higher engagement.
What are the main differences (in terms of the event itself) between this proposal and the GovHack? - specially the “Core Series”
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?
We have voted to Abstain which is in line with our other votes regarding event sponsorships, as we are not 100% sold on these types of costs being fronted by the DAO's treasury.
All other votes are ranked accordingly:

Nonetheless, it certainly makes a lot of sense to host something like this alongside major conferences where you'd expect a lot more attendees. We also agree with others that sponsoring scholarships has inherent issues about who gets selected and whether or not that person would already be attending the major conference. If the DAO approves scholarships, a more fair approach would be to offer a flat rebate to all scholarships to make it cheaper for them to attend and not cover the full amount of their travels given obvious differences in costs based on a scholar's location.
Lastly, we certainly don't think that there should be an overlap between this event and the proposed GovHack event.
Voted in favor of this proposal, with devcon w/scholarships being the top choice
in person events are a great idea, and doing them in conjunction with major events is an obvious plus as its much more efficient and easy since everyone's already there.
Travel scholarships should be very conservatively given in our view. 20k per person is probably way too much, but could make sense for teams.
One last concern is that there's ovelap with Govhack. If govhack devcon is happening it may be good to coordinate with them to either combine events or compliment them.
GovHack has an updated proposal for Devcon only Nov 8-10. We believe this to be the best format to fulfil multiple needs of the DAO in a single IRL event + online facilitation before and after.
This proposal starts with a Core/Offsite day, then the Open Hackathon and Community Days. This redesign can achieve all outcomes we have received feedback on from delegates and new talent alike. It also includes a dedicated online programme of 4-week OnRamp activity and 4-week post-GovHack support programme which addresses a common refrain; how do keep all this amazing energy activated IRL and have people stay with Arbitrum.
Lastly it's much cheaper, we have just completed real budgeting with suppliers here in Bangkok.
Check it out, Snapshot voting incoming...
Cross-posting here to the latest version of the proposal focus on Devcon in Bangkok Nov 8-10 only for now (longer-term plans will be handled in a separate proposal):
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/govhack-devcon-in-bangkok-hack-humanity/26634?u=klausbrave Let us know what you think.


Cross-posting here as GovHack has an updated proposal for Devcon only Nov 8-10, the proposal includes starting with a Core/Offsite day, then the Open Hackathon and Community Day.
We believe this to be the best format to fulfil multiple needs of the DAO in a single IRL event + online facilitation before and after.
Cross-posting here as GovHack has an updated proposal for Devcon only Nov 8-10, the proposal includes starting with a Core/Offsite day, then the Open Hackathon and Community Day.
We believe this to be the best format to fulfil multiple needs of the DAO in a single IRL event + online facilitation before and after.
This redesign can achieve all outcomes we have received feedback on from delegates and new talent alike. It also includes a dedicated online programme of 4-weeks OnRamp activity and 4-weeks post-GovHack support programme which addresses a common refrain; how do keep all this amazing energy activated IRL and have people stay with Arbitrum.
Lastly it's much cheaper, we have just completed real budgeting with suppliers here in Bangkok.
Check it out, Snapshot voting incoming...
Here is the latest version of the proposal focused on Devcon in Bangkok Nov 8-10 only for now (longer-term plans will be handled in a separate proposal):
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/govhack-devcon-in-bangkok-hack-humanity/26634?u=klausbrave Let us know what you think.


ok, once a format is selected based on the upcoming snapshot vote, we'll review the KPIs in more detail.
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.
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:
I read this reply several times and still don't understand it. It seems like a very general comparison. You mentioned that RnDAO focuses on a 'strategic process of alignment.' What does this mean? What exactly will we be doing at this event besides meeting in person? Could you please be a bit more specific?
Please see my comparison between govhack and this proposal here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/2
I strongly support the IRL meetings. For me, being new to the DAO and governance I saw great benefit when I attended GovHack at ETH Brussels and met many people from governance in person. This is why I think more IRL events like this make sense and benefit DAO very much.
Danielo, my only concern is that the topics and discussion (formal and informal) will be the same at GovHack and this Arbitrum Offsite event. Do we need both events at one place (Devcon Bangkok)? What is the significant difference between these two events? Is it possible to combine them?
It's hard for me to judge an appropriate threshold as we lack any precedent on such events, so there's no benchmark. The 50% was thus set a bit arbitrarily.
That being said, as the IRL event option also includes remote participation, do you think it still makes sense to make the purely online one have a higher attendance target?
We believe it would be wise to start with the online event and evaluate its outcomes, as it would be simpler to organize. Based on the results of this online gathering, we could then consider the feasibility of organizing a hybrid event.
If we opt for an online event, we suggest adjusting the KPIs since attendance is typically higher for virtual gatherings. Specifically, we propose increasing the success threshold by 20% to accurately reflect the ease of online participation if the third option is selected.
I'm not the one defining the attendees. You'd need to convince at least 20m ARB to get an endorsement as per the current format. I'm open to hearing other ideas. So it's still ultimately the token holders who decide who can get a scholarship (either by being a delegate or being endorsed by token holders/delegates).
Then anyhow, the upcoming snapshot vote will decide on the format (online, IRL next to event or separate) and the scholarships.
yeah sure, if the offsite is around a major event (eth denver, eth cc or devcon/devconnect) we would have enough high context people joining anyways that we don't need to separately pay for attendance.
it also introduces a favors game, where if i know daniel or RN DAO well i can get a fully funded trip to a major conference, which im not comfortable with.
yeah sure, if the offsite is around a major event (eth denver, eth cc or devcon/devconnect) we would have enough high context people joining anyways that we don't need to separately pay for attendance.
it also introduces a favors game, where if i know daniel or RN DAO well i can get a fully funded trip to a major conference, which im not comfortable with.
basically $0 in scholarships and coinciding with a major event to ensure attendance would be the most cost effective option imo
I think this initiative is interesting because promoting collaboration through either an on-site (IRL) or online format should be helpful for the development of DAOs, two optimisation suggestions and a reminder:
yeah fair. I have added it as a voting option.
And please allow me to clarify that the scholarships are NOT "travel for delegates". They're travel for attendees who'd otherwise not be in the region (which might include or not delegates).
yeah fair. I have added it as a voting option.
And please allow me to clarify that the scholarships are NOT "travel for delegates". They're travel for attendees who'd otherwise not be in the region (which might include or not delegates).
In the same way that a community member might be given a complimentary lunch at an event, the travel scholarships are a way to simplify attendance for those who'd otherwise have no obligation to be there and thus increase community engagement with the initiative.
alternative funding options? what do you have in mind?
That's precisely the reason why option 1 and 2 have different budgets. The scholarships are just for those not already in the region, so the option to do it next to a major event has a much smaller travel budget as many people will be in the region. Conversely, a separate event will require most people to travel specifically for this, in which case it should be subsidised.
So basically your suggestion is already incorporated in the proposal
@danielo I don't see a problem with making the option with the trip with 0$ support. I think it's a failed option, but we want to hear all opinions and it would be easy for us to add this option for consideration.
The credibility damage for a delegate could be really high. If a delegate were to request a travel budget and then be hanging out in all the local events unrelated to Arbitrum, the chances of them running into someone are VERY high.
Furocombo was banned for misuse of funds. It wasn't pretty. (I'm not suggesting we need to define upfront a policy for people abusign a scholarship, I think that's absolute overkill of overdesigning. But the DAO could take action after the fact if some ugly behaviour was spotted. Generally, I think we can expect the delegates to ethically as this is not a black box situation).
So if I understand correctly, what you want is that unless people pay for the trip themselves, they can't join? (irrespective of whether they were already in the region or not)
Could you explain your rationale, please?
We understand that this is not an easy number to estimate, but we maintain our idea of raising the success threshold, as online participation allows for much higher engagement.
What are the main differences (in terms of the event itself) between this proposal and the GovHack? - specially the “Core Series”
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?
I think this initiative is interesting because promoting collaboration through either an on-site (IRL) or online format should be helpful for the development of DAOs, two optimisation suggestions and a reminder:
Reminder: does delegate participation in meetings pose a security risk. How to secure more active participation.
The credibility damage for a delegate could be really high. If a delegate were to request a travel budget and then be hanging out in all the local events unrelated to Arbitrum, the chances of them running into someone are VERY high.
Furocombo was banned for misuse of funds. It wasn't pretty. (I'm not suggesting we need to define upfront a policy for people abusign a scholarship, I think that's absolute overkill of overdesigning. But the DAO could take action after the fact if some ugly behaviour was spotted. Generally, I think we can expect the delegates to ethically as this is not a black box situation).
But also, let's take into perspective the potential value and cost of opportunity here. We keep saying the DAO could really use some strategy, we're talking about 100x or more in value vs a budget of 20-50k. And if said budget increases the chances of this succeeding (getting strong buy-in and alignment) by say 20%, that's huge ROI.
We already incentivise people to vote, why not cover travel when they put in 20+h between travel and workshops to align on the strategy or another key topic?
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!
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.
Objective:
Scope:
Budget: Hard to compare as we're talking about different things
I hope this helps the discussion
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!
Have we considered exploring alternative funding options or partnerships that could help offset some of the expenses associated with the in-person events?
I agree that we should not sponsor anyone to travel to major events. But let's also consider the options:
In terms of finances - the costs are the same. In terms of attracting attention - an additional major event will attract more delegates.
I agree that we should not sponsor anyone to travel to major events. But let's also consider the options:
In terms of finances - the costs are the same. In terms of attracting attention - an additional major event will attract more delegates.
What I mean is that you shouldn't make IRL less attractive just because of possible abuse.
Why does both option 1 & 2 have travel scholarships included?
I will vote against solely on this basis, if someone is already travelling to devcon they can attend but we shouldn't be in the business of flying anyone over during major events
Answered here :slight_smile:
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/2
@realdumbird @dk3 @IronBoots @mihal @yoavw @Soby @ChainLinkGod @cattin @PrincetonBlockchain @0x_ultra a reminder to fill the offsite form please
Hey all, the offsite poll has passed with 130mn in favour, so we're starting to explore the design. We've created this form that will be used as a first to gather requirements to inform the design of the offsite. Please all delegates and key stakeholders (foundation, OCL, etc.) take 5 minutes to answer this so your voice is taken into account
Voted FOR. In-person collaboration has driven clear results for DAO initiatives. We need more of these and not less.
It's not incorporated, option 1 has $20k in travel scholarships while option 2 has $50k. I want an option with $0 in travel support
Below are the reflections of the UADP:
We are in favor of exploring an off-site for delegates to discuss topics more intricately. This can be a nice supplement to the GovHacks that occurred during Eth conferences. It would be nice to collaborate with Hack Humanity to lay out a schedule to see which topics should be covered–along with discussions around if there should be communities or councils that separately pop up in different geographic locations, discuss topics, and then converge online.
@Bob-Rossi @DaiDai8800 @coltron.eth @Galxe @limes @WintermuteGovernance @Camelot @Cornell_Blockchain see above please
We're voting FOR exploring the ArbitrumDAO offsite concept. This initiative could unlock collaborative problem-solving and accelerate decision-making within the DAO. While execution details need ironing out, the potential benefits warrant further investigation. Starting with a virtual format could maximize delegate participation and prove the concept's value before committing to an in-person event. Our "for" vote signals willingness to contribute time to refine this idea, not blanket approval for implementation.
I am voting "For" to signal support for the idea as any time we can increase collaboration among the DAO members I believe that is a good thing. And at this stage I would like to at least see the discussion move forward.
That said, while I think this is a good idea I personally would not be attending any Offsite ventures solely due to personal reasons. While I don't want to detract from the value in-person meetups bring to something like this, I would suggest including some type of way for people who cannot attend in-person events to at least either be still involved in some capacity or have a way to stay updated to avoid falling out of the loop.
Firstly, we definitely think this is a great and fun idea. There's no doubt that when organizing in-person events, it's crucial to be clear and careful with both budgeting and logistics. For instance, Govhack is a great example of this – it was such a fun and productive process, and seeing more initiatives like this would really excite us. You might want to get in touch with @KlausBrave about this, as he is truly passionate and dedicated to organizing great events. Additionally, we fully support @krst’s idea of organizing online events first. This approach allows delegates to connect and chat beforehand, while also helping to shape their ideas for an in-person event.
gm, directionally in favor of having an offsite. Even if I couldn't participate in the previous gatherings, they are a much more effective way to plan and strategize on the next steps for the DAO.
DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot for our reasons here:
This is a great experiment and generally IRL gatherings offer much greater returns in terms of interpersonal relationships people are able to form because of such occasions. In the end it is these interpersonal relationships which build and thrive culture in any org, hence we are in favor of this proposal.
@danielo I understand what you mean but I don't see the point of voting for something that is so vague for the moment. I get that it's a temperature check and not even a proposal, but based on how the poll is structured I feel like my doubts were justified. In your previous comment I read that the voting options were meant to be different, so now I understand better. But allow me to say that before your explanation, it was not so clear, or at least not for me. I still want to thank you for your time and clarifications, I appreciate it. I will vote "abstain" as I don't have a specific opinion on the topic at this current stage.
We are voting for this proposal as we recognize the potential benefits of bringing delegates together for an offsite.
However, we would like to note that this current process—of voting to research and then writing a proposal—might be more drawn out than necessary.
We are voting for this proposal as we recognize the potential benefits of bringing delegates together for an offsite.
However, we would like to note that this current process—of voting to research and then writing a proposal—might be more drawn out than necessary.
Instead of temperature-checking an idea that has already been informally discussed with delegates, we believe it would be more efficient to start with a structured brainstorming session. This approach would allow to refine and develop the concept collaboratively before moving to a formal vote, ensuring that the final proposal is well-considered and fully aligned with the needs of the DAO.
We support efforts to enhance delegate collaboration and look forward to seeing the results of this research. However, streamlining our process in the future could save time and resources, enabling us to focus on implementing impactful initiatives more swiftly.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
Overall, having an event focused on delegates and facilitated so that crucial issues at the DAO are addressed and worked on could be a significant value-add.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
I decided to vote FOR.
These kinds of events typically bring great benefits, and it would be valuable to see how they work for the DAO. While virtual meetings are effective, in-person events often foster stronger relationships.
I also appreciate that part of the budget is dedicated to grants, allowing people to apply for financial assistance to attend.
I think this initiative is interesting because promoting collaboration through either an on-site (IRL) or online format should be helpful for the development of DAOs, two optimisation suggestions and a reminder:
Reminder: does delegate participation in meetings pose a security risk. How to secure more active participation.
The credibility damage for a delegate could be really high. If a delegate were to request a travel budget and then be hanging out in all the local events unrelated to Arbitrum, the chances of them running into someone are VERY high.
Furocombo was banned for misuse of funds. It wasn't pretty. (I'm not suggesting we need to define upfront a policy for people abusign a scholarship, I think that's absolute overkill of overdesigning. But the DAO could take action after the fact if some ugly behaviour was spotted. Generally, I think we can expect the delegates to ethically as this is not a black box situation).
But also, let's take into perspective the potential value and cost of opportunity here. We keep saying the DAO could really use some strategy, we're talking about 100x or more in value vs a budget of 20-50k. And if said budget increases the chances of this succeeding (getting strong buy-in and alignment) by say 20%, that's huge ROI.
We already incentivise people to vote, why not cover travel when they put in 20+h between travel and workshops to align on the strategy or another key topic?
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!
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.
Objective:
Scope:
Budget: Hard to compare as we're talking about different things
I hope this helps the discussion
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!
Have we considered exploring alternative funding options or partnerships that could help offset some of the expenses associated with the in-person events?
I agree that we should not sponsor anyone to travel to major events. But let's also consider the options:
In terms of finances - the costs are the same. In terms of attracting attention - an additional major event will attract more delegates.
I agree that we should not sponsor anyone to travel to major events. But let's also consider the options:
In terms of finances - the costs are the same. In terms of attracting attention - an additional major event will attract more delegates.
What I mean is that you shouldn't make IRL less attractive just because of possible abuse.
Why does both option 1 & 2 have travel scholarships included?
I will vote against solely on this basis, if someone is already travelling to devcon they can attend but we shouldn't be in the business of flying anyone over during major events
Answered here :slight_smile:
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-offsite-format-online-vs-irl/26629/2
@realdumbird @dk3 @IronBoots @mihal @yoavw @Soby @ChainLinkGod @cattin @PrincetonBlockchain @0x_ultra a reminder to fill the offsite form please
Hey all, the offsite poll has passed with 130mn in favour, so we're starting to explore the design. We've created this form that will be used as a first to gather requirements to inform the design of the offsite. Please all delegates and key stakeholders (foundation, OCL, etc.) take 5 minutes to answer this so your voice is taken into account
Voted FOR. In-person collaboration has driven clear results for DAO initiatives. We need more of these and not less.
It's not incorporated, option 1 has $20k in travel scholarships while option 2 has $50k. I want an option with $0 in travel support
Below are the reflections of the UADP:
We are in favor of exploring an off-site for delegates to discuss topics more intricately. This can be a nice supplement to the GovHacks that occurred during Eth conferences. It would be nice to collaborate with Hack Humanity to lay out a schedule to see which topics should be covered–along with discussions around if there should be communities or councils that separately pop up in different geographic locations, discuss topics, and then converge online.
@Bob-Rossi @DaiDai8800 @coltron.eth @Galxe @limes @WintermuteGovernance @Camelot @Cornell_Blockchain see above please
We're voting FOR exploring the ArbitrumDAO offsite concept. This initiative could unlock collaborative problem-solving and accelerate decision-making within the DAO. While execution details need ironing out, the potential benefits warrant further investigation. Starting with a virtual format could maximize delegate participation and prove the concept's value before committing to an in-person event. Our "for" vote signals willingness to contribute time to refine this idea, not blanket approval for implementation.
I am voting "For" to signal support for the idea as any time we can increase collaboration among the DAO members I believe that is a good thing. And at this stage I would like to at least see the discussion move forward.
That said, while I think this is a good idea I personally would not be attending any Offsite ventures solely due to personal reasons. While I don't want to detract from the value in-person meetups bring to something like this, I would suggest including some type of way for people who cannot attend in-person events to at least either be still involved in some capacity or have a way to stay updated to avoid falling out of the loop.
Firstly, we definitely think this is a great and fun idea. There's no doubt that when organizing in-person events, it's crucial to be clear and careful with both budgeting and logistics. For instance, Govhack is a great example of this – it was such a fun and productive process, and seeing more initiatives like this would really excite us. You might want to get in touch with @KlausBrave about this, as he is truly passionate and dedicated to organizing great events. Additionally, we fully support @krst’s idea of organizing online events first. This approach allows delegates to connect and chat beforehand, while also helping to shape their ideas for an in-person event.
gm, directionally in favor of having an offsite. Even if I couldn't participate in the previous gatherings, they are a much more effective way to plan and strategize on the next steps for the DAO.
DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot for our reasons here:
This is a great experiment and generally IRL gatherings offer much greater returns in terms of interpersonal relationships people are able to form because of such occasions. In the end it is these interpersonal relationships which build and thrive culture in any org, hence we are in favor of this proposal.
@danielo I understand what you mean but I don't see the point of voting for something that is so vague for the moment. I get that it's a temperature check and not even a proposal, but based on how the poll is structured I feel like my doubts were justified. In your previous comment I read that the voting options were meant to be different, so now I understand better. But allow me to say that before your explanation, it was not so clear, or at least not for me. I still want to thank you for your time and clarifications, I appreciate it. I will vote "abstain" as I don't have a specific opinion on the topic at this current stage.
We are voting for this proposal as we recognize the potential benefits of bringing delegates together for an offsite.
However, we would like to note that this current process—of voting to research and then writing a proposal—might be more drawn out than necessary.
We are voting for this proposal as we recognize the potential benefits of bringing delegates together for an offsite.
However, we would like to note that this current process—of voting to research and then writing a proposal—might be more drawn out than necessary.
Instead of temperature-checking an idea that has already been informally discussed with delegates, we believe it would be more efficient to start with a structured brainstorming session. This approach would allow to refine and develop the concept collaboratively before moving to a formal vote, ensuring that the final proposal is well-considered and fully aligned with the needs of the DAO.
We support efforts to enhance delegate collaboration and look forward to seeing the results of this research. However, streamlining our process in the future could save time and resources, enabling us to focus on implementing impactful initiatives more swiftly.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
Overall, having an event focused on delegates and facilitated so that crucial issues at the DAO are addressed and worked on could be a significant value-add.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
I decided to vote FOR.
These kinds of events typically bring great benefits, and it would be valuable to see how they work for the DAO. While virtual meetings are effective, in-person events often foster stronger relationships.
I also appreciate that part of the budget is dedicated to grants, allowing people to apply for financial assistance to attend.
I am voting "For" to signal support for the idea as any time we can increase collaboration among the DAO members I believe that is a good thing. And at this stage I would like to at least see the discussion move forward.
That said, while I think this is a good idea I personally would not be attending any Offsite ventures solely due to personal reasons. While I don't want to detract from the value in-person meetups bring to something like this, I would suggest including some type of way for people who cannot attend in-person events to at least either be still involved in some capacity or have a way to stay updated to avoid falling out of the loop.
Edit: In order to save forum space, I am editing this post to indicate my vote will remain "For" on tally. I appreciate the efforts to make this accessible to online delegates and look forward to what this collaboration can bring.
DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot for our reasons here:
This is a great experiment and generally IRL gatherings offer much greater returns in terms of interpersonal relationships people are able to form because of such occasions. In the end it is these interpersonal relationships which build and thrive culture in any org, hence we are in favor of this proposal.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
Overall, having an event focused on delegates and facilitated so that crucial issues at the DAO are addressed and worked on could be a significant value-add.
However, we believe that there are many challenges to making such an event productive and valuable (such as - getting enough delegates in the room, having the right agenda and prep work done beforehand so that either some decisions can be made or the next steps can be approved, etc.). Therefore, we believe that the event doesn't necessarily have to be in person; we could start with an online event to lower the barrier for delegates to get involved, and if we see that such a formula works and helps us move things forward, we can decide to have an in-person offsite.
As outlined by Daniel, above, our “For” vote is meant to reflect our commitment to spending the necessary time to explore the creation of a DAO Offsite. However, we want to clarify that we’re voting for the proposal as a directional signal. Should a proposal go to an on-chain vote, we’ll assess the details and vote accordingly based on its merit.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
At SEEDGov, we have observed that in-person work instances, such as EthCC, have had a positive impact on governance by fostering proposal generation and discussions. We believe that organizing an off-site event presents a valuable opportunity to replicate this kind of productive experience. We appreciate that the proposer has chosen to first gauge the DAO's sentiment on this initiative before proceeding with the original proposal
I decided to vote FOR.
These kinds of events typically bring great benefits, and it would be valuable to see how they work for the DAO. While virtual meetings are effective, in-person events often foster stronger relationships.
I also appreciate that part of the budget is dedicated to grants, allowing people to apply for financial assistance to attend.
And of course, this FOR comes with my commitment to dedicating time each week to contribute and support the development of this proposal.
I voted FOR this proposal. I think regular (perhaps semi-annual) in-person engagement between DAO stakeholders and contributors is valuable. I'd like to note that I will be biased towards implementations that are low-cost and focused. I don't want the DAO to pay for luxurious travel or non-DAO focused travel expenses of any kind.
I am voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot
Since the proposal states that
A vote in favour only means an offsite should be EXPLORED through conversations with top delegates and key stakeholders.
I am voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot
Since the proposal states that
A vote in favour only means an offsite should be EXPLORED through conversations with top delegates and key stakeholders.
I see no reason to vote against exploring a concept. I recognize there are valid arguments against it, but none strong enough to deny the opportunity for discussion.
We vote FOR this temp-check on Snapshot.
We are in favor of exploring an opportunity for delegates to effectively work on important matters in an offline environment during a big conference like DevCon. The details and execution plan should be definitely sorted out, though.
This is a great experiment and generally IRL gatherings offer much greater returns in terms of interpersonal relationships people are able to form because of such occasions. In the end it is these interpersonal relationships which build and thrive culture in any org, hence we are in favor of this proposal.
We are voting in favor of the ArbitrumDAO Offsite on Snapshot, as it has the potential to enhance community collaboration. However, we suggest providing a more detailed budget breakdown to ensure all costs are adequately covered, considering hybrid participation options like summaries or recordings for those unable to attend in person, and prioritizing security measures to ensure the safety of all delegates traveling to an unfamiliar area.
I voted "FOR" because the reasons stated above, but I don't like the idea of having a snapshot to check if the author should proceed with the topic or not.
There's no reason t vote now on this we think as it's stated many times this is purely a initial discussion. Overall, we think something like this would be great, just to have a lot of the delegates meet is a huge plus in this virtual space.
We think budgets for this should be pretty low, if not only enough to host venue spaces. Travel and transportation grants maybe? But for the delegates that already receive delegate incentives, this doesn't make the most sense to us.
I like this proposal. Voted for at this stage so we can explore the possibility, seems interesting. I'm also supportive of recording these potential meetings.
Although I'm personally more of an online enthusiast and rarely participate in offline activities, I have to admit that occasional offline events indeed help strengthen community cohesion and advance Arbitrum's mass adoption. So I fully support this proposal.
@KlausBrave The history of edits is available for everyone to see in Discord. Just click on the pencil icon.
The poll was indeed deleted as it was a failed strategy (couldn't get enough eyeballs on it and also hard to match votes with token representation. Ultimately I found it to be confusing despite showing support which is what I want, so preferred to have a clean start with Snapshot). So hence moving to an improved approach of a Snapshot poll (delegates incentives and karma metrics help here).
@KlausBrave The history of edits is available for everyone to see in Discord. Just click on the pencil icon.
The poll was indeed deleted as it was a failed strategy (couldn't get enough eyeballs on it and also hard to match votes with token representation. Ultimately I found it to be confusing despite showing support which is what I want, so preferred to have a clean start with Snapshot). So hence moving to an improved approach of a Snapshot poll (delegates incentives and karma metrics help here).
without the calls and collaborative stage of conversations happening
I won't commit dozens of hours to plan a thing for which enough top delegates won't even show up. It would be a waste of everyone's time. So hence the Snapshot poll as a temp check before deciding to do any further planning/discussion.
I love the idea of exploring this. Off sites offer a unique opportunity to connect and enhance collaboration.
It's a nice idea if it's not gonna impose a huge cost on the DAO by sponsoring delegates' trip to the event. Maybe a small side event at DevCon with a carefully curated agenda that excludes designing governance strategy. Also we need to think how we can get both anon and absent delegates involved or updated with the discussions.
I'm generally against off-site gatherings in web3 but DevCon side events are different. Cost effective for curators and accessible for participants.
@danielo you had a comment in this post a week ago with a Poll asking who would engage in a series of calls about this as the next step @DisruptionJoe, @raam, @Blueweb 14 or so people including myself replied yes.
I now see this poll/comment has been deleted, the original proposal that was the first post that had proposal specifics has been substantially altered (removing that history) and this new version has gone up to snapshot, more using snapshot as a means to gain visibility as an extended poll without the calls and collaborative stage of conversations happening. Can you explain?
Smart move . Creating a dedicated space for delegates and key stakeholders to engage deeply on strategic and organizational topics could address existing bottlenecks and improve decision-making processes. This proposal offers a valuable opportunity to collaborate more effectively, and I believe it's worth investigating further. I hope this move can involve the greatest number of users to address the current problems of DAO.
@danielo thank you for the proposal. This is really interesting but I have doubts concerning its execution and logistics. I think that it would be really expensive to create independent off-site events to gather delegates together, given that we all live in different places. I think that it would be easier and more practical to organize them as side events at other conferences. Would it make a big difference in your opinion?
Voted "FOR" because who doesn't love a good offsite? Let's explore this idea during a major event like Devcon or ETHDenver—where better to brainstorm DAO strategy than surrounded by crypto enthusiasts? Plus, it’s a great excuse to mix business with some much-needed networking.
This should be an IRL event. I suggest doing it during some bigger events, like Devcon which will take place in Bangkok in November.
I voted FOR on the Snapshot vote.
I like the idea, but just worried about execution. In my opinion this has to be done online, because delegates are spread all over the world and there could be huge costs attached to it (travel expenses, etc.).
Draft updated to refine on the core question for polling and see whether there's buy in and further work scoping an exact proposal is justified
I am voting "For" to signal support for the idea as any time we can increase collaboration among the DAO members I believe that is a good thing. And at this stage I would like to at least see the discussion move forward.
That said, while I think this is a good idea I personally would not be attending any Offsite ventures solely due to personal reasons. While I don't want to detract from the value in-person meetups bring to something like this, I would suggest including some type of way for people who cannot attend in-person events to at least either be still involved in some capacity or have a way to stay updated to avoid falling out of the loop.
Edit: In order to save forum space, I am editing this post to indicate my vote will remain "For" on tally. I appreciate the efforts to make this accessible to online delegates and look forward to what this collaboration can bring.
DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot for our reasons here:
This is a great experiment and generally IRL gatherings offer much greater returns in terms of interpersonal relationships people are able to form because of such occasions. In the end it is these interpersonal relationships which build and thrive culture in any org, hence we are in favor of this proposal.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
Overall, having an event focused on delegates and facilitated so that crucial issues at the DAO are addressed and worked on could be a significant value-add.
However, we believe that there are many challenges to making such an event productive and valuable (such as - getting enough delegates in the room, having the right agenda and prep work done beforehand so that either some decisions can be made or the next steps can be approved, etc.). Therefore, we believe that the event doesn't necessarily have to be in person; we could start with an online event to lower the barrier for delegates to get involved, and if we see that such a formula works and helps us move things forward, we can decide to have an in-person offsite.
As outlined by Daniel, above, our “For” vote is meant to reflect our commitment to spending the necessary time to explore the creation of a DAO Offsite. However, we want to clarify that we’re voting for the proposal as a directional signal. Should a proposal go to an on-chain vote, we’ll assess the details and vote accordingly based on its merit.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
At SEEDGov, we have observed that in-person work instances, such as EthCC, have had a positive impact on governance by fostering proposal generation and discussions. We believe that organizing an off-site event presents a valuable opportunity to replicate this kind of productive experience. We appreciate that the proposer has chosen to first gauge the DAO's sentiment on this initiative before proceeding with the original proposal
I decided to vote FOR.
These kinds of events typically bring great benefits, and it would be valuable to see how they work for the DAO. While virtual meetings are effective, in-person events often foster stronger relationships.
I also appreciate that part of the budget is dedicated to grants, allowing people to apply for financial assistance to attend.
And of course, this FOR comes with my commitment to dedicating time each week to contribute and support the development of this proposal.
I voted FOR this proposal. I think regular (perhaps semi-annual) in-person engagement between DAO stakeholders and contributors is valuable. I'd like to note that I will be biased towards implementations that are low-cost and focused. I don't want the DAO to pay for luxurious travel or non-DAO focused travel expenses of any kind.
I am voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot
Since the proposal states that
A vote in favour only means an offsite should be EXPLORED through conversations with top delegates and key stakeholders.
I am voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot
Since the proposal states that
A vote in favour only means an offsite should be EXPLORED through conversations with top delegates and key stakeholders.
I see no reason to vote against exploring a concept. I recognize there are valid arguments against it, but none strong enough to deny the opportunity for discussion.
We vote FOR this temp-check on Snapshot.
We are in favor of exploring an opportunity for delegates to effectively work on important matters in an offline environment during a big conference like DevCon. The details and execution plan should be definitely sorted out, though.
This is a great experiment and generally IRL gatherings offer much greater returns in terms of interpersonal relationships people are able to form because of such occasions. In the end it is these interpersonal relationships which build and thrive culture in any org, hence we are in favor of this proposal.
We are voting in favor of the ArbitrumDAO Offsite on Snapshot, as it has the potential to enhance community collaboration. However, we suggest providing a more detailed budget breakdown to ensure all costs are adequately covered, considering hybrid participation options like summaries or recordings for those unable to attend in person, and prioritizing security measures to ensure the safety of all delegates traveling to an unfamiliar area.
I voted "FOR" because the reasons stated above, but I don't like the idea of having a snapshot to check if the author should proceed with the topic or not.
There's no reason t vote now on this we think as it's stated many times this is purely a initial discussion. Overall, we think something like this would be great, just to have a lot of the delegates meet is a huge plus in this virtual space.
We think budgets for this should be pretty low, if not only enough to host venue spaces. Travel and transportation grants maybe? But for the delegates that already receive delegate incentives, this doesn't make the most sense to us.
I like this proposal. Voted for at this stage so we can explore the possibility, seems interesting. I'm also supportive of recording these potential meetings.
Although I'm personally more of an online enthusiast and rarely participate in offline activities, I have to admit that occasional offline events indeed help strengthen community cohesion and advance Arbitrum's mass adoption. So I fully support this proposal.
@KlausBrave The history of edits is available for everyone to see in Discord. Just click on the pencil icon.
The poll was indeed deleted as it was a failed strategy (couldn't get enough eyeballs on it and also hard to match votes with token representation. Ultimately I found it to be confusing despite showing support which is what I want, so preferred to have a clean start with Snapshot). So hence moving to an improved approach of a Snapshot poll (delegates incentives and karma metrics help here).
@KlausBrave The history of edits is available for everyone to see in Discord. Just click on the pencil icon.
The poll was indeed deleted as it was a failed strategy (couldn't get enough eyeballs on it and also hard to match votes with token representation. Ultimately I found it to be confusing despite showing support which is what I want, so preferred to have a clean start with Snapshot). So hence moving to an improved approach of a Snapshot poll (delegates incentives and karma metrics help here).
without the calls and collaborative stage of conversations happening
I won't commit dozens of hours to plan a thing for which enough top delegates won't even show up. It would be a waste of everyone's time. So hence the Snapshot poll as a temp check before deciding to do any further planning/discussion.
I love the idea of exploring this. Off sites offer a unique opportunity to connect and enhance collaboration.
It's a nice idea if it's not gonna impose a huge cost on the DAO by sponsoring delegates' trip to the event. Maybe a small side event at DevCon with a carefully curated agenda that excludes designing governance strategy. Also we need to think how we can get both anon and absent delegates involved or updated with the discussions.
I'm generally against off-site gatherings in web3 but DevCon side events are different. Cost effective for curators and accessible for participants.
@danielo you had a comment in this post a week ago with a Poll asking who would engage in a series of calls about this as the next step @DisruptionJoe, @raam, @Blueweb 14 or so people including myself replied yes.
I now see this poll/comment has been deleted, the original proposal that was the first post that had proposal specifics has been substantially altered (removing that history) and this new version has gone up to snapshot, more using snapshot as a means to gain visibility as an extended poll without the calls and collaborative stage of conversations happening. Can you explain?
Smart move . Creating a dedicated space for delegates and key stakeholders to engage deeply on strategic and organizational topics could address existing bottlenecks and improve decision-making processes. This proposal offers a valuable opportunity to collaborate more effectively, and I believe it's worth investigating further. I hope this move can involve the greatest number of users to address the current problems of DAO.
@danielo thank you for the proposal. This is really interesting but I have doubts concerning its execution and logistics. I think that it would be really expensive to create independent off-site events to gather delegates together, given that we all live in different places. I think that it would be easier and more practical to organize them as side events at other conferences. Would it make a big difference in your opinion?
Voted "FOR" because who doesn't love a good offsite? Let's explore this idea during a major event like Devcon or ETHDenver—where better to brainstorm DAO strategy than surrounded by crypto enthusiasts? Plus, it’s a great excuse to mix business with some much-needed networking.
This should be an IRL event. I suggest doing it during some bigger events, like Devcon which will take place in Bangkok in November.
I voted FOR on the Snapshot vote.
I like the idea, but just worried about execution. In my opinion this has to be done online, because delegates are spread all over the world and there could be huge costs attached to it (travel expenses, etc.).
Draft updated to refine on the core question for polling and see whether there's buy in and further work scoping an exact proposal is justified
Delegates have different opinions here (I've heard at least 4 different options). I can't commit dozens of hours to explore a project where the delegates won't at least commit 30min to explore it - as explained in the Jumpstart Fund proposal, it's very risky (low probability of success and hence low probability to get paid anything) and time-consuming to make the work to propose anything. So hence this vote to check whether I'm not going to waste my time and de-risk this by ensuring minimum buy-in at least for a discussion.
@JoJo I understand your posture. So let's agree to disagree :) IMO as long as we're using attention effectively (e.g. short proposal that takes little time to decide upon), I see a staged process of buy-in as valuable and ultimately something that optimises attention usage.
I have just realised that the suggested voting options were accidentally missed by Frisson when making the poll... they were planned to be
lacking those options changes the nature of the poll :upside_down_face:
Hi Daniel, I have recognised and been talking about the need for a DAO offsite for a while now and been planning to run one when the timing is right, an offsite is a natural complementary pairing with GovHack. Let's speak about this and collaborate.
Blockworks Research will be voting IN FAVOR of the ArbitrumDAO Offsite on Snapshot.
We would like to again highlight our concerns should this conversation continue:
Blockworks Research will be voting IN FAVOR of the ArbitrumDAO Offsite on Snapshot.
We would like to again highlight our concerns should this conversation continue:
Cost Justification: The budget is good, but almost too good. There is a good chance we risk underspending with this budget, there should also be an itemized list for these things. Additionally, we need to start prioritizing venue booking, etc, sooner rather than later.
Hybrid Participation: In the prior ETHCC Govhack, there was a requirement for one IRL person per team to attend. Apart from likely continuing this policy, we would like to request that off-site summaries and recordings be available (if they are relevant to DAO progress).
Security: Security, either in the form of bouncers or otherwise should be priority as DAO members travel to an unfamiliar region.
Adding my feedback on the DAO off-site - will update
I am voting "abstain" on this proposal. While I understand is about exploring the possibility, I think we are going a bit outside the general scope of sentiment check, which should be about more scoped an detailed proposals, while in here we are doing the sentiment check of the sentiment check.
For example, if this was a proposal about having a 1 day event at devcon/ethcc/denver as side event, with a venue specifically for all delegates, some specific rooms for top X delegates, and a specific agenda, I would have voted yes. On an event that it outside any major one, I would vote against (i started larping as a cow to avoid flying all over the world, so I personally prefer going in another continent and do more stuff at once) etcetera.
Hey,
I'm confused, travel expenses are included (see travel scholarships). It's a small budget because many delegates will already be traveling there for devcon for their own purposes. But then the budget can be refined after a snapshot vote.
So I understand your point correctly, do you believe the DAO should not do strategy/planning proactively and should only gather/discuss when there are contentious issues?
We like this proposal and think that it is a good time to get ahead of this early so that we prevent any last-second bookings/planning like what was seen for ETHCC. However, we have some suggestions to further improve the proposal:
Cost Justification: The proposed budget is good, but we are concerned about the possibility of underspending. We would like to know what items should be prioritized in funding. There's a certain chronology to booking, sponsorships, etc., that we should think about for the cost.
Hybrid Participation: In the prior ETHCC Govhack, there was a requirement for one IRL person per team to attend. Apart from likely continuing this policy, we would like to request that off-site summaries and recordings be available (if they are relevant to DAO progress).
Security: We would like some security guarantees for DAO participants as delegates will be in an unfamiliar area during an extremely crowded event. Even a slight amount of security would go a long way.
Can this be open for those who do not qualify in Top100 but are active in the DAO in some energy & are fine bearing their own expense?
we can discuss many options, but first need directionally some support of the idea. Hence the poll :slight_smile:
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/9
I support this proposal as it aims to enhance communication and collaboration among DAO delegates through a dedicated off-site event. By focusing on strategic alignment and problem-solving, it addresses current inefficiencies, leading to cohesive strategies and faster decision-making. The structured agenda and professional facilitation ensure effective use of time, generating actionable outcomes and increased participant engagement.
Perhaps I have not expressed my thoughts correctly, but
After a successful snapshot vote, we could run an RSPV survey and then based on that better estimate the cost before the onchain vote.
This seems a good idea.
A suggestion: We had 2 GovHacks generating new inputs/ideas and would be nice to have part of this Off-site to discuss proposals that are active or about to go to the forum by the time of the event - that would help to enrich the discussion about those, and generate a better alignment.
Hi @danielo this is a very good proposal, but I would love to learn more about the size of the event. How many people do you expect to join? I'm based in Thailand, so maybe I could help optimize the cost of this event.
I like this proposal. I would love to participate. Our issues can be resolved much faster this way live. However, there are several important points:
Delegates have different opinions here (I've heard at least 4 different options). I can't commit dozens of hours to explore a project where the delegates won't at least commit 30min to explore it - as explained in the Jumpstart Fund proposal, it's very risky (low probability of success and hence low probability to get paid anything) and time-consuming to make the work to propose anything. So hence this vote to check whether I'm not going to waste my time and de-risk this by ensuring minimum buy-in at least for a discussion.
@JoJo I understand your posture. So let's agree to disagree :) IMO as long as we're using attention effectively (e.g. short proposal that takes little time to decide upon), I see a staged process of buy-in as valuable and ultimately something that optimises attention usage.
I have just realised that the suggested voting options were accidentally missed by Frisson when making the poll... they were planned to be
lacking those options changes the nature of the poll :upside_down_face:
Hi Daniel, I have recognised and been talking about the need for a DAO offsite for a while now and been planning to run one when the timing is right, an offsite is a natural complementary pairing with GovHack. Let's speak about this and collaborate.
Blockworks Research will be voting IN FAVOR of the ArbitrumDAO Offsite on Snapshot.
We would like to again highlight our concerns should this conversation continue:
Blockworks Research will be voting IN FAVOR of the ArbitrumDAO Offsite on Snapshot.
We would like to again highlight our concerns should this conversation continue:
Cost Justification: The budget is good, but almost too good. There is a good chance we risk underspending with this budget, there should also be an itemized list for these things. Additionally, we need to start prioritizing venue booking, etc, sooner rather than later.
Hybrid Participation: In the prior ETHCC Govhack, there was a requirement for one IRL person per team to attend. Apart from likely continuing this policy, we would like to request that off-site summaries and recordings be available (if they are relevant to DAO progress).
Security: Security, either in the form of bouncers or otherwise should be priority as DAO members travel to an unfamiliar region.
Adding my feedback on the DAO off-site - will update
I am voting "abstain" on this proposal. While I understand is about exploring the possibility, I think we are going a bit outside the general scope of sentiment check, which should be about more scoped an detailed proposals, while in here we are doing the sentiment check of the sentiment check.
For example, if this was a proposal about having a 1 day event at devcon/ethcc/denver as side event, with a venue specifically for all delegates, some specific rooms for top X delegates, and a specific agenda, I would have voted yes. On an event that it outside any major one, I would vote against (i started larping as a cow to avoid flying all over the world, so I personally prefer going in another continent and do more stuff at once) etcetera.
Hey,
I'm confused, travel expenses are included (see travel scholarships). It's a small budget because many delegates will already be traveling there for devcon for their own purposes. But then the budget can be refined after a snapshot vote.
So I understand your point correctly, do you believe the DAO should not do strategy/planning proactively and should only gather/discuss when there are contentious issues?
We like this proposal and think that it is a good time to get ahead of this early so that we prevent any last-second bookings/planning like what was seen for ETHCC. However, we have some suggestions to further improve the proposal:
Cost Justification: The proposed budget is good, but we are concerned about the possibility of underspending. We would like to know what items should be prioritized in funding. There's a certain chronology to booking, sponsorships, etc., that we should think about for the cost.
Hybrid Participation: In the prior ETHCC Govhack, there was a requirement for one IRL person per team to attend. Apart from likely continuing this policy, we would like to request that off-site summaries and recordings be available (if they are relevant to DAO progress).
Security: We would like some security guarantees for DAO participants as delegates will be in an unfamiliar area during an extremely crowded event. Even a slight amount of security would go a long way.
Can this be open for those who do not qualify in Top100 but are active in the DAO in some energy & are fine bearing their own expense?
we can discuss many options, but first need directionally some support of the idea. Hence the poll :slight_smile:
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrumdao-off-site/25660/9
I support this proposal as it aims to enhance communication and collaboration among DAO delegates through a dedicated off-site event. By focusing on strategic alignment and problem-solving, it addresses current inefficiencies, leading to cohesive strategies and faster decision-making. The structured agenda and professional facilitation ensure effective use of time, generating actionable outcomes and increased participant engagement.
Perhaps I have not expressed my thoughts correctly, but
After a successful snapshot vote, we could run an RSPV survey and then based on that better estimate the cost before the onchain vote.
This seems a good idea.
A suggestion: We had 2 GovHacks generating new inputs/ideas and would be nice to have part of this Off-site to discuss proposals that are active or about to go to the forum by the time of the event - that would help to enrich the discussion about those, and generate a better alignment.
Hi @danielo this is a very good proposal, but I would love to learn more about the size of the event. How many people do you expect to join? I'm based in Thailand, so maybe I could help optimize the cost of this event.
I like this proposal. I would love to participate. Our issues can be resolved much faster this way live. However, there are several important points: