Non-Constitutional
Introduction
Opportunity to continue the momentum created
Proposed Support Program
Program Structure (Two Phases)
RnDAO Program’s Value
Implementation Plan - Budget
Funds Management
Reporting
Investment Agreement and Arbitrum benefits
Long-Term Vision
Conclusion
FAQs
A few months ago, Arbitrum funded the Arbitrum CollabTech Hackathon through Questbook. This month-long event has just come to an end, having gathered great talent and energy.
We’ve got
164 applications and 144 participants
20 projects submitted
15 finalist projects that are solving real problems with tech for governance, identity, reputation, and more. All are built on Arbitrum.
Contribo: matching talent to tasks is a foundational need in any collaboration. Contribo is tackling the right parts of this well, focusing on smooth UX and simplicity yet strong onchain components.
Signals: A much-needed tool for DAOs to easily define priorities and transform chat-group noise into meaningful proposals. It also provides additional utility for native tokens.
Separated Powers: A more flexible approach to role definition, well architected. Could advance automation in onchain organisations significantly and provide a system for reducing the overhead of checks and balances.
We’ve created a funnel for builders on Arbitrum and we want to sustain this momentum. However, without support, the teams will soon seek opportunities elsewhere. Questbook new protocols track is out of funding but, even if it had funding, the projects need not only capital but also network access and expertise.
RnDAO proposes to co-fund (roughly 50-50) a program in partnership with Arbitrum to invest in and support these teams.
This program is designed to take projects from a hackathon PoC to engage in systematic customer validation, iterate and develop an MVP, and get their first 100 users. As such, we're leveraging the raw talent and expecting the projects to evolve significantly as they engage and validate with customers, achieving traction at the end of the program.
Early-stage projects often stall or fail within a few months because they lack a deep understanding of their target audience and its needs. Systematic customer validation can significantly increase the likelihood of projects thriving beyond this initial stage.
This initiative, co-funded by RnDAO and Arbitrum, aims to build an ecosystem of unique Arbitrum-based projects that will continue to grow and attract new projects.
We’ve designed a 6-month, two-phase program to capture the best of the hackathon talent and energy.
Phase 1 focuses on validating ideas (customer development, lean startup, and design thinking methods) and understanding the competitive landscape.
Phase 2 supports projects to move from PoC to the development of a market-viable MVP and securing the first 100 users.
Here’s how:
We will select the 4 most promising hackathon teams to join the program (through due diligence by the RnDAO investment committee and signing of an investment contract).
Each project will receive an initial stipend ($12k over 3 months) in Phase 1.
Upon successful completion of user research, validation of interest, and presentation of a viable business case (solid pitch deck), the top 2 projects can move to Phase 2.
Phase 2 projects are awarded an additional $38k and receive hands-on support (sales strategy, biz dev, marketing amplification, intros to funders, team formation, setting up ops processes and legal, setting up agile product development processes, etc.).
Goals:
short-term (6 months): projects validate their concepts with customers (first 100 users) and generate traction to fundraise from investors or otherwise receive follow-on funding or generate revenue.
long-term: create a group of unique ventures that collaborate and integrate (business cluster), drawing in new projects like a magnet with less direct involvement from our team.
Program Structure (Two Phases)
By breaking funding and mentorship into two distinct phases, we derisk capital allocation. Only projects that successfully validate customer demand and can showcase a market gap in the first phase will advance to the second phase, ensuring that resources are focused on ventures with proven potential.
Phase 1: Entrepreneurs in Residence (EiR) - Customer Validation (3 Months)
Funding: Each project receives $2,000 per month per cofounder (max 2 cofounders receiving funding per project), totalling $12,000 per project for Phase 1.
Goal: Support validation with real users to confirm demand and solidify the project’s foundation.
Process: Most hackathon projects lack any customer validation and have a shallow understanding of the problem. As such, they fail to gain traction and die. In Phase 1 we focus on addressing these issues head-on by guiding projects through a structured customer validation process, with
weekly strategy and customer development mentoring sessions
shadowing user research calls and providing feedback
multiple hours of hands-on support per week (up to 8 hours per week directly with each project and extra cohort work) to refine their outreach campaigns (tactical support on copy, messaging, refining target user groups, introductions, implementing automation tools, etc.) and support on making the competitive landscape.
Transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2:
Assessment by RnDAO investment committee (we'll invest significant labour in the next phase and so will only approve teams we deem viable).
Assessment based on market viability (clearly understood customer problem, market gap, proposed solution based on customer insights, viable team).
Phase 2: Development and Scaling (3 Months)
Funding: Projects that successfully complete Phase 1 will receive an additional grant of $38,000 each, amounting to a total of $50,000 per venture across both phases (enough to build and market test a basic MVP plus 3 months runway for market testing and securing the next bit of funding).
Goal: This phase supports full product development, go-to-market strategy, and readiness for sustainable operation, whether through fundraising, revenue, or further grants.
Process: After initial customer validation, the key challenge for founders is being spread too thin, while needing to set up an effective, agile product development process to quickly validate hypotheses and accelerate product-market-fit, ensure financial sustainability (pitch development and fundraising), set up a fully functioning team (talent recruitment), and operate the organisation (admin and ops). We'll help teams with all of these challenges, operating as a fractional c-suite (down in the trenches with them, up to 10 hours per week with each project and extra cohort work) and fast-track their brand recognition and network with the support of our marketing team.
RnDAO Program’s Value and advantages over regular incubation programs
Swarm Collaboration: participants join an alliance of similar projects, encouraging integrations (good for project retention in Arbitrum), sharing best practices, co-marketing, cross-selling, and more. RnDAO facilitates this through a system of guilds, collaborative databases, cross-ownerhsip, and facilitating specific collaborations.
Not just advisory, hands-on operators: we get our hands dirty working directly in the projects, fast-tracking their development with world-class expertise, including Drea (led research for Google Suite, Asana, Aragon, etc. 50% time-commitment to the program), Gokhan (venture-building expert and 8x entrepreneur. Full-time commitment to the program), and Daniel (organisation designer, ex-Head of Gov Aragon, 4x founder, etc. full-time commitment to the program.). Additionally, we provide access to industry-leading mentors (e.g. mentors for the Hackathon included Kevin Owoki, Nader Dabit, Dennison Bertram, Reka Medvcz, David Phelps, etc.).
Network access:
Support in establishing customer relationships by leveraging the RnDAO vertically-specialized network and peers’ networks.
Assistance in securing additional funding and achieving self-sustainability.
Talent network and talent attraction support via RnDAO community and comms channels.
Combined, these strategies enable us to provide high-quality and hands-on support, customer access, market insights, and talent access, resulting in faster time to market and reduced failure rate for projects.
More on Swarm methodology and data-backed comparison with other types of programs: https://www.rndao.io/blog/post/startups-from-solo-to-multiplayer-from-ad-hoc-to-systematic
Overview of support offered:
https://docsend.com/view/jys5wqqg9vi8qknm
Program Outcome:
In six months, we aim for at least 2 of the projects to:
Get their first 100 users.
generate revenue (early validation), and/or
secure additional grants or successfully fundraise to continue growing.
The budget is divided in 4 categories:
Capital Investment into the projects: direct capital allocation to the teams.
Venture Support: hands-on support and mentorship given to the projects.
Program Ops: creation of monthly program reports to the DAO & delegates stakeholder management, program branding and promotion of Arbitrum as a great home for builders (including coordination with Arbitrum Foundation marketing team), program management and overhead (team mamangement and contracting)
Grants: an incentive for user interview participants in Phase 1.
As a nounance (we’ll clarify this before going onchain), the Comms costs are added within Ops but technically we can break these down with more sophisticated accounting into:
program reporting
amplifying projects through RnDAO channels and coordinating with Arbitrum Foundaton and others to amplify
coaching projects on comms/growth
So perhaps anoher 10-15k can be attributed to Venture Support.
Given our internal model of a small team that has to complete multiple tasks, the cost attribution can be broken down in multiple ways. Previously we opted for a simple rule of thumb to reduce confusion amongst delegates (unsuccesfully): Contributor A gets attributed 100% to Ops, Contributor B 100% to Venture Support. Now the system is more akin to Contributor A split between Ops and Venture Support as per their responsibilities, and same for Contributor B, etc. We can't share this data publicly without revealing sensitive details of our operation including the total earnings of each contributor. If delegates consider an audit essential, we can only offer access after singing an NDA. We encourage the DAO to develop standard guidelines as the level of granularity demanded across suppliers vary greatly and a privacy-preserving mechanism would be ideal.
How RnDAO cost are calculated: The RnDAO budget contribution is based on the provision of services valued at the cost of the staff contracted for this pilot (rates based on full-time equivalent, not on freelancer/consultant rates). The value is thus not calculated on the rate we could charge for these services but merely on our own internal cost. The fee structure means that RnDAO runs the program at a deficit (we invest significantly into the startups, generating a financial loss). The model is designed so RnDAO can recoup this loss over the long term IF the projects incubated become significantly valuable.
The funds provided by ArbitrumDAO will be transferred to the Arbitrum MSS.
The funds are then transferred from the MSS wallet in two phases and to two separate RnDAO controlled multisigs for easy auditing
Monthly reports for the duration of the program including
overall program progress (timeline, budget usage, execution challenges if any)
venture selected and rationale (at the start of phase 1 and phase 2)
venture status updates (stage of development, traction and news)
learnings (retrospective on last month and actions)
Report 3 months after project completion including
We'll provide the Arbitrum Foundation with a proposed template and agree on the exact format, clauses, and wording to be used.
The baseline template we envision is a contract that covers 3 scenarios: equity fundraising (SAFE) + protocolisation and token launch (Token Warrant) + a side letter covering the scenario of the projects not fundraising nor issuing a token. TBC with the foundation.
The contract shall stipulate the division of proceeds between RnDAO and the Foundation, which we envision to be 50-50 (pending confirmation from the foundation).
The contract shall enable the Foundation to transfer the contract to an Arbiturm-affiliated entity of their choosing (e.g. CapCo).
If no agreement with the foundation is reached on the contract, the program will be discontinued and the funds returned minus any spent legal fees (max $2,500).
we can run more hackathons and incubation programs, further growing the business cluster
Successful execution will create a self-sustaining business cluster - a magnet that attracts more projects without our active contribution.
With the Arbitrum CollabTech Hackathon, we've successfully launched 15 projects in Arbitrum. Now we have the opportunity to keep fueling this momentum and pioneer investments in Arbitrum DAO.
We’re open to questions and ready to bring this to a vote to gather your feedback. Based on the feedback received we'll refine the proposal before moving to an onchain vote.
Why not fund projects through the Foundation grants program or Questbook?
The foundation grants are aimed at growth-stage projects or strategic partnerships. Currently, the foundation doesn't have the operational setup to incubate and provide hands-on support to early-stage projects. Equally, Questbook is currently out of funds but even if it had funds, Quesbook grants lack the set-up to provide hands-on support for projects. Importantly, we're not providing grants but making investments in the projects, which means that even if the projects migrate, Arbitrum can receive value from this program.
How does this relate to the incentive detox?
The incentive detox focused on incentive programs like STIP or LTIP, while we're proposing an investment and incubation program. This is not just about naming convention but two different categories entirely. Incentives refers to user incentive programs for established projects to distribute Arbitrum tokens directly to users, while we're proposing a pilot investment and incubation program for early-stage builders to develop unique MVPs on Arbitrum. Different maturity stages, different beneficiaries (tokens to end-users vs builder grants), and very different mechanisms.
Why $50k per project?
This amount is sufficient to build an MVP and explore the next stage (forcing a narrow scope but also allowing up to 3 months after to explore a fundraise and/or generate some revenue). Additionally, it's important to have the funding lined up for projects as long as they do a good job. This allows founders to focus on validation and building instead of stressing over funding and thus submitting multiple grant applications across multiple chains. In our previous experience with the CoLab we lost 2 valuable projects to other chains (Optimism and Cardano) because we couldn't provide funding soon enough.
Is this an accelerator program?
No. Accelerators offer hands-OFF mentorship with significantly larger cohorts. The result is that many projects fail to validate with customers effectively or otherwise get bogged down by the myriad of challenges present in startups. We get our hands dirty, providing tough love and hands-ON operational support. Additionally, accelerators tend to keep a generalist approach, including a high diversity of projects in each cohort. We focus on a narrow vertical to compound expertise and also incentives collaboration between projects to improve outcomes further.
How are the projects assessed?
To enter phase 1, we focus mostly on the team. We're looking for raw talent who are passionate about solving a meaningful problem, have skills and are willing to put in the work. We'll assess teams in the order of the hackathon ranking until all slots are taken.
For Phase 2, the bar is significantly higher than regular grant programs. Teams need to demonstrate customer interest, a market gap, and a credible solution. Maximum two slots are provided meaning at least 50% of teams won't make it. No team has a guaranteed slot. if less than 2 teams are selected for phase 2, any unused funds will be returned to the ArbitrumDAO.
What are the expected outcomes of this program?
We aim to generate viable ventures so the costs incurred in the program are at least recouped via the investment contract and any ecosystem development and onchain transactions come as a profit. Our target Internal Rate of Return is 30% after 2 years (unrealised) and long-term (4-6 years) 3x. A surplus can come from:
Arbitrum doing follow-on investments in promising projects via an ecosystem fund (such as the one being scoped through AVI)
Onchain transaction fees and ecosystem development value
How will the investments be managed?
The Arbitrum Foundation will act as a counterparty in the agreements. Additionally, a clause enabling the transfer of the agreements to an Arbitrum-affiliated entity will be included. This enables us to align the Hackathon Continuation program with the outputs of initiatives such as AVI / CapCo and if appropriate, transfer the contracts for management under the new structure.
RnDAO ran a previous program (the Arbitrum CoLab), what were the outcomes and how is the proposed program different?
Breakdown of venture outcomes of the CoLab, out of 6 fellowships:
We couldn't provide the projects any funding to build an MVP and only very limited support because we were expected to get more funding from Plurality Labs milestone 2 which didn't happen. And largely forced us to discontinue the program.
The 3 projects from the CoLab that are still building:
The CoLab also had 50k ARB for an external project (separate from those coming from the fellowship). We signed the agreement with a promising project but for 7 weeks they didn't send us their wallet, then the team imploded (10-year cofounders falling apart). We were able to agree on a cancellation of the contract and had to start over. We have now confirmed an agreement with a new team 3 weeks ago (CommonGround). After the previous experience, we added a "trial period” when working with more mature ventures and CommonGround is effectively following this process after which we'll announce more publicly. We're excited for the partnership with CommonGround to solve DAO challenges in social and comms.
Program design: We learned valuable lessons from the CoLab Program. The CoLab had the problem research done in a single phase by the entrepreneurs (3-month research fellowship). The problem to be researched was proposed by the Founders in the application. Most applicants were discarded because not a lack of talent/skills but because the problem they proposed for research was deemed unviable in the current stage of maturity of the industry. We also learnt the founders struggled with broad problem research (many already had tunnel vision on an idea) and didn't have enough time left in the program for critical solution validation after the problem research. From these learnings, we've refined the program.
Our ideal vision includes 4 modules:
As such, the current proposal is not the ultimate ideal but we believe it is a significant improvement upon the previous CoLab program and also an improvement upong regular grants (capital deployment only, no support) and incubator programs (only hands-off support). We also have the Phase 2 (MVP) included in the proposal so the Plurality Labs scenario of being forced to discontinue the program halway doesn't happen again.
Non-Constitutional
Introduction
Opportunity to continue the momentum created
Proposed Support Program
Program Structure (Two Phases)
RnDAO Program’s Value
Implementation Plan - Budget
Funds Management
Reporting
Investment Agreement and Arbitrum benefits
Long-Term Vision
Conclusion
FAQs
A few months ago, Arbitrum funded the Arbitrum CollabTech Hackathon through Questbook. This month-long event has just come to an end, having gathered great talent and energy.
We’ve got
164 applications and 144 participants
20 projects submitted
15 finalist projects that are solving real problems with tech for governance, identity, reputation, and more. All are built on Arbitrum.
Contribo: matching talent to tasks is a foundational need in any collaboration. Contribo is tackling the right parts of this well, focusing on smooth UX and simplicity yet strong onchain components.
Signals: A much-needed tool for DAOs to easily define priorities and transform chat-group noise into meaningful proposals. It also provides additional utility for native tokens.
Separated Powers: A more flexible approach to role definition, well architected. Could advance automation in onchain organisations significantly and provide a system for reducing the overhead of checks and balances.
We’ve created a funnel for builders on Arbitrum and we want to sustain this momentum. However, without support, the teams will soon seek opportunities elsewhere. Questbook new protocols track is out of funding but, even if it had funding, the projects need not only capital but also network access and expertise.
RnDAO proposes to co-fund (roughly 50-50) a program in partnership with Arbitrum to invest in and support these teams.
This program is designed to take projects from a hackathon PoC to engage in systematic customer validation, iterate and develop an MVP, and get their first 100 users. As such, we're leveraging the raw talent and expecting the projects to evolve significantly as they engage and validate with customers, achieving traction at the end of the program.
Early-stage projects often stall or fail within a few months because they lack a deep understanding of their target audience and its needs. Systematic customer validation can significantly increase the likelihood of projects thriving beyond this initial stage.
This initiative, co-funded by RnDAO and Arbitrum, aims to build an ecosystem of unique Arbitrum-based projects that will continue to grow and attract new projects.
We’ve designed a 6-month, two-phase program to capture the best of the hackathon talent and energy.
Phase 1 focuses on validating ideas (customer development, lean startup, and design thinking methods) and understanding the competitive landscape.
Phase 2 supports projects to move from PoC to the development of a market-viable MVP and securing the first 100 users.
Here’s how:
We will select the 4 most promising hackathon teams to join the program (through due diligence by the RnDAO investment committee and signing of an investment contract).
Each project will receive an initial stipend ($12k over 3 months) in Phase 1.
Upon successful completion of user research, validation of interest, and presentation of a viable business case (solid pitch deck), the top 2 projects can move to Phase 2.
Phase 2 projects are awarded an additional $38k and receive hands-on support (sales strategy, biz dev, marketing amplification, intros to funders, team formation, setting up ops processes and legal, setting up agile product development processes, etc.).
Goals:
short-term (6 months): projects validate their concepts with customers (first 100 users) and generate traction to fundraise from investors or otherwise receive follow-on funding or generate revenue.
long-term: create a group of unique ventures that collaborate and integrate (business cluster), drawing in new projects like a magnet with less direct involvement from our team.
Program Structure (Two Phases)
By breaking funding and mentorship into two distinct phases, we derisk capital allocation. Only projects that successfully validate customer demand and can showcase a market gap in the first phase will advance to the second phase, ensuring that resources are focused on ventures with proven potential.
Phase 1: Entrepreneurs in Residence (EiR) - Customer Validation (3 Months)
Funding: Each project receives $2,000 per month per cofounder (max 2 cofounders receiving funding per project), totalling $12,000 per project for Phase 1.
Goal: Support validation with real users to confirm demand and solidify the project’s foundation.
Process: Most hackathon projects lack any customer validation and have a shallow understanding of the problem. As such, they fail to gain traction and die. In Phase 1 we focus on addressing these issues head-on by guiding projects through a structured customer validation process, with
weekly strategy and customer development mentoring sessions
shadowing user research calls and providing feedback
multiple hours of hands-on support per week (up to 8 hours per week directly with each project and extra cohort work) to refine their outreach campaigns (tactical support on copy, messaging, refining target user groups, introductions, implementing automation tools, etc.) and support on making the competitive landscape.
Transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2:
Assessment by RnDAO investment committee (we'll invest significant labour in the next phase and so will only approve teams we deem viable).
Assessment based on market viability (clearly understood customer problem, market gap, proposed solution based on customer insights, viable team).
Phase 2: Development and Scaling (3 Months)
Funding: Projects that successfully complete Phase 1 will receive an additional grant of $38,000 each, amounting to a total of $50,000 per venture across both phases (enough to build and market test a basic MVP plus 3 months runway for market testing and securing the next bit of funding).
Goal: This phase supports full product development, go-to-market strategy, and readiness for sustainable operation, whether through fundraising, revenue, or further grants.
Process: After initial customer validation, the key challenge for founders is being spread too thin, while needing to set up an effective, agile product development process to quickly validate hypotheses and accelerate product-market-fit, ensure financial sustainability (pitch development and fundraising), set up a fully functioning team (talent recruitment), and operate the organisation (admin and ops). We'll help teams with all of these challenges, operating as a fractional c-suite (down in the trenches with them, up to 10 hours per week with each project and extra cohort work) and fast-track their brand recognition and network with the support of our marketing team.
RnDAO Program’s Value and advantages over regular incubation programs
Swarm Collaboration: participants join an alliance of similar projects, encouraging integrations (good for project retention in Arbitrum), sharing best practices, co-marketing, cross-selling, and more. RnDAO facilitates this through a system of guilds, collaborative databases, cross-ownerhsip, and facilitating specific collaborations.
Not just advisory, hands-on operators: we get our hands dirty working directly in the projects, fast-tracking their development with world-class expertise, including Drea (led research for Google Suite, Asana, Aragon, etc. 50% time-commitment to the program), Gokhan (venture-building expert and 8x entrepreneur. Full-time commitment to the program), and Daniel (organisation designer, ex-Head of Gov Aragon, 4x founder, etc. full-time commitment to the program.). Additionally, we provide access to industry-leading mentors (e.g. mentors for the Hackathon included Kevin Owoki, Nader Dabit, Dennison Bertram, Reka Medvcz, David Phelps, etc.).
Network access:
Support in establishing customer relationships by leveraging the RnDAO vertically-specialized network and peers’ networks.
Assistance in securing additional funding and achieving self-sustainability.
Talent network and talent attraction support via RnDAO community and comms channels.
Combined, these strategies enable us to provide high-quality and hands-on support, customer access, market insights, and talent access, resulting in faster time to market and reduced failure rate for projects.
More on Swarm methodology and data-backed comparison with other types of programs: https://www.rndao.io/blog/post/startups-from-solo-to-multiplayer-from-ad-hoc-to-systematic
Overview of support offered:
https://docsend.com/view/jys5wqqg9vi8qknm
Program Outcome:
In six months, we aim for at least 2 of the projects to:
Get their first 100 users.
generate revenue (early validation), and/or
secure additional grants or successfully fundraise to continue growing.
The budget is divided in 4 categories:
Capital Investment into the projects: direct capital allocation to the teams.
Venture Support: hands-on support and mentorship given to the projects.
Program Ops: creation of monthly program reports to the DAO & delegates stakeholder management, program branding and promotion of Arbitrum as a great home for builders (including coordination with Arbitrum Foundation marketing team), program management and overhead (team mamangement and contracting)
Grants: an incentive for user interview participants in Phase 1.
As a nounance (we’ll clarify this before going onchain), the Comms costs are added within Ops but technically we can break these down with more sophisticated accounting into:
program reporting
amplifying projects through RnDAO channels and coordinating with Arbitrum Foundaton and others to amplify
coaching projects on comms/growth
So perhaps anoher 10-15k can be attributed to Venture Support.
Given our internal model of a small team that has to complete multiple tasks, the cost attribution can be broken down in multiple ways. Previously we opted for a simple rule of thumb to reduce confusion amongst delegates (unsuccesfully): Contributor A gets attributed 100% to Ops, Contributor B 100% to Venture Support. Now the system is more akin to Contributor A split between Ops and Venture Support as per their responsibilities, and same for Contributor B, etc. We can't share this data publicly without revealing sensitive details of our operation including the total earnings of each contributor. If delegates consider an audit essential, we can only offer access after singing an NDA. We encourage the DAO to develop standard guidelines as the level of granularity demanded across suppliers vary greatly and a privacy-preserving mechanism would be ideal.
How RnDAO cost are calculated: The RnDAO budget contribution is based on the provision of services valued at the cost of the staff contracted for this pilot (rates based on full-time equivalent, not on freelancer/consultant rates). The value is thus not calculated on the rate we could charge for these services but merely on our own internal cost. The fee structure means that RnDAO runs the program at a deficit (we invest significantly into the startups, generating a financial loss). The model is designed so RnDAO can recoup this loss over the long term IF the projects incubated become significantly valuable.
The funds provided by ArbitrumDAO will be transferred to the Arbitrum MSS.
The funds are then transferred from the MSS wallet in two phases and to two separate RnDAO controlled multisigs for easy auditing
Monthly reports for the duration of the program including
overall program progress (timeline, budget usage, execution challenges if any)
venture selected and rationale (at the start of phase 1 and phase 2)
venture status updates (stage of development, traction and news)
learnings (retrospective on last month and actions)
Report 3 months after project completion including
We'll provide the Arbitrum Foundation with a proposed template and agree on the exact format, clauses, and wording to be used.
The baseline template we envision is a contract that covers 3 scenarios: equity fundraising (SAFE) + protocolisation and token launch (Token Warrant) + a side letter covering the scenario of the projects not fundraising nor issuing a token. TBC with the foundation.
The contract shall stipulate the division of proceeds between RnDAO and the Foundation, which we envision to be 50-50 (pending confirmation from the foundation).
The contract shall enable the Foundation to transfer the contract to an Arbiturm-affiliated entity of their choosing (e.g. CapCo).
If no agreement with the foundation is reached on the contract, the program will be discontinued and the funds returned minus any spent legal fees (max $2,500).
we can run more hackathons and incubation programs, further growing the business cluster
Successful execution will create a self-sustaining business cluster - a magnet that attracts more projects without our active contribution.
With the Arbitrum CollabTech Hackathon, we've successfully launched 15 projects in Arbitrum. Now we have the opportunity to keep fueling this momentum and pioneer investments in Arbitrum DAO.
We’re open to questions and ready to bring this to a vote to gather your feedback. Based on the feedback received we'll refine the proposal before moving to an onchain vote.
Why not fund projects through the Foundation grants program or Questbook?
The foundation grants are aimed at growth-stage projects or strategic partnerships. Currently, the foundation doesn't have the operational setup to incubate and provide hands-on support to early-stage projects. Equally, Questbook is currently out of funds but even if it had funds, Quesbook grants lack the set-up to provide hands-on support for projects. Importantly, we're not providing grants but making investments in the projects, which means that even if the projects migrate, Arbitrum can receive value from this program.
How does this relate to the incentive detox?
The incentive detox focused on incentive programs like STIP or LTIP, while we're proposing an investment and incubation program. This is not just about naming convention but two different categories entirely. Incentives refers to user incentive programs for established projects to distribute Arbitrum tokens directly to users, while we're proposing a pilot investment and incubation program for early-stage builders to develop unique MVPs on Arbitrum. Different maturity stages, different beneficiaries (tokens to end-users vs builder grants), and very different mechanisms.
Why $50k per project?
This amount is sufficient to build an MVP and explore the next stage (forcing a narrow scope but also allowing up to 3 months after to explore a fundraise and/or generate some revenue). Additionally, it's important to have the funding lined up for projects as long as they do a good job. This allows founders to focus on validation and building instead of stressing over funding and thus submitting multiple grant applications across multiple chains. In our previous experience with the CoLab we lost 2 valuable projects to other chains (Optimism and Cardano) because we couldn't provide funding soon enough.
Is this an accelerator program?
No. Accelerators offer hands-OFF mentorship with significantly larger cohorts. The result is that many projects fail to validate with customers effectively or otherwise get bogged down by the myriad of challenges present in startups. We get our hands dirty, providing tough love and hands-ON operational support. Additionally, accelerators tend to keep a generalist approach, including a high diversity of projects in each cohort. We focus on a narrow vertical to compound expertise and also incentives collaboration between projects to improve outcomes further.
How are the projects assessed?
To enter phase 1, we focus mostly on the team. We're looking for raw talent who are passionate about solving a meaningful problem, have skills and are willing to put in the work. We'll assess teams in the order of the hackathon ranking until all slots are taken.
For Phase 2, the bar is significantly higher than regular grant programs. Teams need to demonstrate customer interest, a market gap, and a credible solution. Maximum two slots are provided meaning at least 50% of teams won't make it. No team has a guaranteed slot. if less than 2 teams are selected for phase 2, any unused funds will be returned to the ArbitrumDAO.
What are the expected outcomes of this program?
We aim to generate viable ventures so the costs incurred in the program are at least recouped via the investment contract and any ecosystem development and onchain transactions come as a profit. Our target Internal Rate of Return is 30% after 2 years (unrealised) and long-term (4-6 years) 3x. A surplus can come from:
Arbitrum doing follow-on investments in promising projects via an ecosystem fund (such as the one being scoped through AVI)
Onchain transaction fees and ecosystem development value
How will the investments be managed?
The Arbitrum Foundation will act as a counterparty in the agreements. Additionally, a clause enabling the transfer of the agreements to an Arbitrum-affiliated entity will be included. This enables us to align the Hackathon Continuation program with the outputs of initiatives such as AVI / CapCo and if appropriate, transfer the contracts for management under the new structure.
RnDAO ran a previous program (the Arbitrum CoLab), what were the outcomes and how is the proposed program different?
Breakdown of venture outcomes of the CoLab, out of 6 fellowships:
We couldn't provide the projects any funding to build an MVP and only very limited support because we were expected to get more funding from Plurality Labs milestone 2 which didn't happen. And largely forced us to discontinue the program.
The 3 projects from the CoLab that are still building:
The CoLab also had 50k ARB for an external project (separate from those coming from the fellowship). We signed the agreement with a promising project but for 7 weeks they didn't send us their wallet, then the team imploded (10-year cofounders falling apart). We were able to agree on a cancellation of the contract and had to start over. We have now confirmed an agreement with a new team 3 weeks ago (CommonGround). After the previous experience, we added a "trial period” when working with more mature ventures and CommonGround is effectively following this process after which we'll announce more publicly. We're excited for the partnership with CommonGround to solve DAO challenges in social and comms.
Program design: We learned valuable lessons from the CoLab Program. The CoLab had the problem research done in a single phase by the entrepreneurs (3-month research fellowship). The problem to be researched was proposed by the Founders in the application. Most applicants were discarded because not a lack of talent/skills but because the problem they proposed for research was deemed unviable in the current stage of maturity of the industry. We also learnt the founders struggled with broad problem research (many already had tunnel vision on an idea) and didn't have enough time left in the program for critical solution validation after the problem research. From these learnings, we've refined the program.
Our ideal vision includes 4 modules:
As such, the current proposal is not the ultimate ideal but we believe it is a significant improvement upon the previous CoLab program and also an improvement upong regular grants (capital deployment only, no support) and incubator programs (only hands-off support). We also have the Phase 2 (MVP) included in the proposal so the Plurality Labs scenario of being forced to discontinue the program halway doesn't happen again.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/140?u=mcfly
Abstaining due to conflict of interest
tbh Collabtech is underinvested in esp for web3, and some of the platforms I've used in the past recently shut down, so I'm supportive of a bite-sized exploration
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-59: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-59
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-59: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-59
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/138?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/136?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/132
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/131?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/4
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/127?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/125?u=yabirgb
As a former dev advocate, I think Hackathons and follow on support are very important for communities and builders.
This is a reasonable size, and the service provider (RnDAO) coordinating the program is investing alongside Arbitrum. We’re skeptical about this type of program being effective at retaining builders and projects, but are willing to let this modest experiment disprove our priors.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/49?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/61
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/65
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/123?u=blueweb
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/122?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/121?u=winverse
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/117?u=pedrob
I am voting for this proposal because it effectively supports talented builders in turning promising ideas into successful, long-term projects on Arbitrum. The program's two-phase approach ensures resources are used wisely, focusing on projects with proven potential. With hands-on mentorship, network access, and funding, this initiative strengthens the Arbitrum ecosystem and attracts more innovative projects.
I think the first program provided reasonable results and I'd like to see the follow up program funded.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/113?u=tempetechie
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/104?u=blockworksresearch
No, maybe you will succeed, but please create better projects and especially get financing. Instead of building a lot of junk DAPPs. Good luck.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/103?u=kuiclub
Voted yes, its great way to follow up projects from the hackathon and bring more value to Arbitrum.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/59?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/60?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/96?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/102?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/95?u=duokongcrypto
the $60,980 USD cost went up and is not justified in detail, and in general it just feels like this proposal has too much “fat” since only ~65% of the amount Arbitrum would pay would go to the grantees and the remaining ~35% is basically “administrative” costs of this program. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/94?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/41?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/93?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/86?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/84
Excited by this initiative, long term as we scale costs will reduce but its important to leverage, capital, knowledge and network effects
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/79?u=maxlomu
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/78?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/77?u=ocandocrypto
Continue things that work
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-56: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-56
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-56: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-56
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/74?u=tane
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/73?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-for-financial-restitution-for-arbitrumdao-grant-winners/27020/103?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/69?u=blueweb
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/68?u=tekr0x.eth
I am voting in favor because this program strategically extends the momentum of the Arbitrum CollabTech Hackathon
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/61
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/65
the amounts on the proposal don't add up, the $60,780 USD cost is not justified in detail, and in general it just feels like this proposal has too much "fat" since only ~58% of the amount Arbitrum would pay would go to the grantees and the remaining ~42% is basically "administrative" costs of this program. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/63?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/60?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/59?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/58?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/56?u=tempetechie
This enhances trust in the program and demonstrates a commitment to using decentralized tools to support ecosystem growth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/50?u=pedrob
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/49?u=gabriel
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/48?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/90?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/24?u=ezr3al
I don't know why this money is spent, is there a specific budget? For example, how much does it cost to deploy the project? Minimize unnecessary expenses and have a better future for ARB holders. A lot of wasteful spending, which I am very much against.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/40?u=0xdonpepe
N/A
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/juanrah-delegate-communication-thread/27395/9?u=juanrah
the structure is very clear, very well defined and valuable to support the proposal. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuat
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/38?u=duokongcrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/140?u=mcfly
Abstaining due to conflict of interest
tbh Collabtech is underinvested in esp for web3, and some of the platforms I've used in the past recently shut down, so I'm supportive of a bite-sized exploration
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-59: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-59
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-59: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-59
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/138?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/136?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/132
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/131?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/4
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/127?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/125?u=yabirgb
As a former dev advocate, I think Hackathons and follow on support are very important for communities and builders.
This is a reasonable size, and the service provider (RnDAO) coordinating the program is investing alongside Arbitrum. We’re skeptical about this type of program being effective at retaining builders and projects, but are willing to let this modest experiment disprove our priors.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/49?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/61
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/65
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/123?u=blueweb
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/122?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/121?u=winverse
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/117?u=pedrob
I am voting for this proposal because it effectively supports talented builders in turning promising ideas into successful, long-term projects on Arbitrum. The program's two-phase approach ensures resources are used wisely, focusing on projects with proven potential. With hands-on mentorship, network access, and funding, this initiative strengthens the Arbitrum ecosystem and attracts more innovative projects.
I think the first program provided reasonable results and I'd like to see the follow up program funded.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/113?u=tempetechie
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/104?u=blockworksresearch
No, maybe you will succeed, but please create better projects and especially get financing. Instead of building a lot of junk DAPPs. Good luck.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/103?u=kuiclub
Voted yes, its great way to follow up projects from the hackathon and bring more value to Arbitrum.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/59?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/60?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/96?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/102?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/95?u=duokongcrypto
the $60,980 USD cost went up and is not justified in detail, and in general it just feels like this proposal has too much “fat” since only ~65% of the amount Arbitrum would pay would go to the grantees and the remaining ~35% is basically “administrative” costs of this program. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/94?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/41?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/93?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/86?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/84
Excited by this initiative, long term as we scale costs will reduce but its important to leverage, capital, knowledge and network effects
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/79?u=maxlomu
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/78?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/77?u=ocandocrypto
Continue things that work
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-56: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-56
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-56: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-56
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/74?u=tane
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/73?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-for-financial-restitution-for-arbitrumdao-grant-winners/27020/103?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/69?u=blueweb
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/68?u=tekr0x.eth
I am voting in favor because this program strategically extends the momentum of the Arbitrum CollabTech Hackathon
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/61
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/65
the amounts on the proposal don't add up, the $60,780 USD cost is not justified in detail, and in general it just feels like this proposal has too much "fat" since only ~58% of the amount Arbitrum would pay would go to the grantees and the remaining ~42% is basically "administrative" costs of this program. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/63?u=paulofonseca
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/60?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/59?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/58?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/56?u=tempetechie
This enhances trust in the program and demonstrates a commitment to using decentralized tools to support ecosystem growth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/50?u=pedrob
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/49?u=gabriel
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/48?u=todayindefi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/larva-delegate-communication-thread/24476/90?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/24?u=ezr3al
I don't know why this money is spent, is there a specific budget? For example, how much does it cost to deploy the project? Minimize unnecessary expenses and have a better future for ARB holders. A lot of wasteful spending, which I am very much against.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/40?u=0xdonpepe
N/A
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/juanrah-delegate-communication-thread/27395/9?u=juanrah
the structure is very clear, very well defined and valuable to support the proposal. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuat
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/38?u=duokongcrypto
No one suggested that L2Beat is irresponsible simply because they had the opportunity to review information that you do not wish to share. The question posed to L2Beat was whether they felt it was fine to vote on a proposal where not everyone had access to the same level of information. The subsequent mention of "irresponsibility" refers to the idea that, in my view, it would not be appropriate to approve a proposal without first having access to such information.
Suggesting that hundreds of delegates (or thousands of voters) would need to meet with you individually to obtain additional details is unrealistic and does not align with Arbitrum DAO’s core value of transparency.
No one suggested that L2Beat is irresponsible simply because they had the opportunity to review information that you do not wish to share. The question posed to L2Beat was whether they felt it was fine to vote on a proposal where not everyone had access to the same level of information. The subsequent mention of "irresponsibility" refers to the idea that, in my view, it would not be appropriate to approve a proposal without first having access to such information.
Suggesting that hundreds of delegates (or thousands of voters) would need to meet with you individually to obtain additional details is unrealistic and does not align with Arbitrum DAO’s core value of transparency.
No one is asking you to provide detailed salary data for each member. However, we currently don’t even have an estimate of the hourly cost required to manage the program.
My point is that full disclosure of all information was not necessary to present a proper budget breakdown. In fact, we previously mentioned that the earlier version included more detailed information, and it seemed counterproductive to remove it instead of organizing it in a way that would "clarify rather than confuse".
Although we originally expressed concern about the amount of money going to operational expenses, @danielo addressed our comment and provided additional explanation in a private chat. Although we are still not fully convinced that this is the right approach, we feel it makes sense to try it, use this opportunity to send a signal to the ecosystem that Arbitrum is interested in supporting early stage builders, and use the lessons learned from this programme to come up with a better one in the future.
Although we originally expressed concern about the amount of money going to operational expenses, @danielo addressed our comment and provided additional explanation in a private chat. Although we are still not fully convinced that this is the right approach, we feel it makes sense to try it, use this opportunity to send a signal to the ecosystem that Arbitrum is interested in supporting early stage builders, and use the lessons learned from this programme to come up with a better one in the future.
Hi @krst
Don’t you think it sets a bad precedent to vote on a proposal where the proposer refuses to share information publicly? I find it difficult to understand the logic of some delegates voting based on pieces of information that are only accessible to a few. This could lead to a dangerous situation where a proposer might choose to share private information exclusively with certain delegates to secure their votes, which doesn’t seem aligned with the values of transparency and fairness that should guide our governance.
Additionally, I’d like to point out that a private message or a call is not binding when it comes to the proposal. Nothing ensures that the proposer will follow through with what they explain privately; the only binding element is what’s explicitly stated on Tally.
Let me clarify that this is my personal stance and does not represent SEEDGov’s delegation position. That said, I believe approving this proposal without even having a clear budget breakdown is, at the very least, irresponsible. Within the Domain we oversee at Questbook, where we demand much higher levels of detail and transparency, this proposal simply wouldn’t meet the necessary standards for approval.
winners at the head of the proposal also aren’t necessarily startups in sizable markets.
winners at the head of the proposal also aren’t necessarily startups in sizable markets.
We should keep in mind the best brands evolved into their position and I encourage any voter to check out more of the projects that were submitted, like the one that got 4th (Station) 😉
It's inspired by Trello/Notion (great TAM) and enables automated task compensation.
Here's the complete list of finalists' pitches if any wish to review: https://x.com/RnDAO__/status/1854246689554776121.
Voting ends in 7 days: https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/108658450973990931334575713480652794742647878863726354508911679874665321261959?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4.
No one suggested that L2Beat is irresponsible simply because they had the opportunity to review information that you do not wish to share. The question posed to L2Beat was whether they felt it was fine to vote on a proposal where not everyone had access to the same level of information. The subsequent mention of "irresponsibility" refers to the idea that, in my view, it would not be appropriate to approve a proposal without first having access to such information.
Suggesting that hundreds of delegates (or thousands of voters) would need to meet with you individually to obtain additional details is unrealistic and does not align with Arbitrum DAO’s core value of transparency.
No one suggested that L2Beat is irresponsible simply because they had the opportunity to review information that you do not wish to share. The question posed to L2Beat was whether they felt it was fine to vote on a proposal where not everyone had access to the same level of information. The subsequent mention of "irresponsibility" refers to the idea that, in my view, it would not be appropriate to approve a proposal without first having access to such information.
Suggesting that hundreds of delegates (or thousands of voters) would need to meet with you individually to obtain additional details is unrealistic and does not align with Arbitrum DAO’s core value of transparency.
No one is asking you to provide detailed salary data for each member. However, we currently don’t even have an estimate of the hourly cost required to manage the program.
My point is that full disclosure of all information was not necessary to present a proper budget breakdown. In fact, we previously mentioned that the earlier version included more detailed information, and it seemed counterproductive to remove it instead of organizing it in a way that would "clarify rather than confuse".
Although we originally expressed concern about the amount of money going to operational expenses, @danielo addressed our comment and provided additional explanation in a private chat. Although we are still not fully convinced that this is the right approach, we feel it makes sense to try it, use this opportunity to send a signal to the ecosystem that Arbitrum is interested in supporting early stage builders, and use the lessons learned from this programme to come up with a better one in the future.
Although we originally expressed concern about the amount of money going to operational expenses, @danielo addressed our comment and provided additional explanation in a private chat. Although we are still not fully convinced that this is the right approach, we feel it makes sense to try it, use this opportunity to send a signal to the ecosystem that Arbitrum is interested in supporting early stage builders, and use the lessons learned from this programme to come up with a better one in the future.
Hi @krst
Don’t you think it sets a bad precedent to vote on a proposal where the proposer refuses to share information publicly? I find it difficult to understand the logic of some delegates voting based on pieces of information that are only accessible to a few. This could lead to a dangerous situation where a proposer might choose to share private information exclusively with certain delegates to secure their votes, which doesn’t seem aligned with the values of transparency and fairness that should guide our governance.
Additionally, I’d like to point out that a private message or a call is not binding when it comes to the proposal. Nothing ensures that the proposer will follow through with what they explain privately; the only binding element is what’s explicitly stated on Tally.
Let me clarify that this is my personal stance and does not represent SEEDGov’s delegation position. That said, I believe approving this proposal without even having a clear budget breakdown is, at the very least, irresponsible. Within the Domain we oversee at Questbook, where we demand much higher levels of detail and transparency, this proposal simply wouldn’t meet the necessary standards for approval.
winners at the head of the proposal also aren’t necessarily startups in sizable markets.
winners at the head of the proposal also aren’t necessarily startups in sizable markets.
We should keep in mind the best brands evolved into their position and I encourage any voter to check out more of the projects that were submitted, like the one that got 4th (Station) 😉
It's inspired by Trello/Notion (great TAM) and enables automated task compensation.
Here's the complete list of finalists' pitches if any wish to review: https://x.com/RnDAO__/status/1854246689554776121.
Voting ends in 7 days: https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/108658450973990931334575713480652794742647878863726354508911679874665321261959?govId=eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4.
gTrade is voting in favor of this proposal as it aligns with many of our objectives/missions in supporting developers in tangible ways, particularly for early-stage project developers. Additionally, this is more than a grant; it's an investment, meaning the DAO will benefit financially if these projects succeed.
gTrade is voting in favor of this proposal as it aligns with many of our objectives/missions in supporting developers in tangible ways, particularly for early-stage project developers. Additionally, this is more than a grant; it's an investment, meaning the DAO will benefit financially if these projects succeed.
Thank you @danielo - this is an interesting proposal and I agree with the value of creating a program to support early stage startups/teams and increase retention of projects within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
While this is a good start, I have a few suggestions that I believe could help improve the program:
Thank you @danielo - this is an interesting proposal and I agree with the value of creating a program to support early stage startups/teams and increase retention of projects within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
While this is a good start, I have a few suggestions that I believe could help improve the program:
Finally, I have a question:
Thank you @danielo - this is an interesting proposal and I agree with the value of creating a program to support early stage startups/teams and increase retention of projects within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
While this is a good start, I have a few suggestions that I believe could help improve the program:
Thank you @danielo - this is an interesting proposal and I agree with the value of creating a program to support early stage startups/teams and increase retention of projects within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
While this is a good start, I have a few suggestions that I believe could help improve the program:
Finally, I have a question:
The AF has converted the 251,930 ARB received from the MSS on January 24th, into $86,600 USDC (at an average price of $0.34 per ARB). This amount is enough for Phase 1 of this proposal and has been sent back to the MSS.
We were unable to convert the ARB received into the full $187,980 USDC required for this proposal, because upon receiving the funds from the MSS, market conditions meant that the requirement could not be met. At that time, there was a hope that the market might soon recover to achieve the desired conversion. Unfortunately, this has not yet happened and the Hackathon Continuation Program requires the funds for Phase 1 ASAP.
The AF has converted the 251,930 ARB received from the MSS on January 24th, into $86,600 USDC (at an average price of $0.34 per ARB). This amount is enough for Phase 1 of this proposal and has been sent back to the MSS.
We were unable to convert the ARB received into the full $187,980 USDC required for this proposal, because upon receiving the funds from the MSS, market conditions meant that the requirement could not be met. At that time, there was a hope that the market might soon recover to achieve the desired conversion. Unfortunately, this has not yet happened and the Hackathon Continuation Program requires the funds for Phase 1 ASAP.
We hope that the remaining portion of funds for Phase 2 of this proposal can be sourced from the TMC's ‘checking account’. We are aware that @danielo, @entropy and @krst are working on how this can be made possible. However, it is worth noting that the TMC still needs to define how to withdraw stablecoins from that allocation once converted, which might take some time.
The AF has converted the 251,930 ARB received from the MSS on January 24th, into $86,600 USDC (at an average price of $0.34 per ARB). This amount is enough for Phase 1 of this proposal and has been sent back to the MSS.
We were unable to convert the ARB received into the full $187,980 USDC required for this proposal, because upon receiving the funds from the MSS, market conditions meant that the requirement could not be met. At that time, there was a hope that the market might soon recover to achieve the desired conversion. Unfortunately, this has not yet happened and the Hackathon Continuation Program requires the funds for Phase 1 ASAP.
The AF has converted the 251,930 ARB received from the MSS on January 24th, into $86,600 USDC (at an average price of $0.34 per ARB). This amount is enough for Phase 1 of this proposal and has been sent back to the MSS.
We were unable to convert the ARB received into the full $187,980 USDC required for this proposal, because upon receiving the funds from the MSS, market conditions meant that the requirement could not be met. At that time, there was a hope that the market might soon recover to achieve the desired conversion. Unfortunately, this has not yet happened and the Hackathon Continuation Program requires the funds for Phase 1 ASAP.
We hope that the remaining portion of funds for Phase 2 of this proposal can be sourced from the TMC's ‘checking account’. We are aware that @danielo, @entropy and @krst are working on how this can be made possible. However, it is worth noting that the TMC still needs to define how to withdraw stablecoins from that allocation once converted, which might take some time.
Hi @danielo, thank you for your detailed proposal.
I have a few questions regarding this proposal that resonate with some of the comments already raised on this thread:
Hi @danielo, thank you for your detailed proposal.
I have a few questions regarding this proposal that resonate with some of the comments already raised on this thread:
This is a key initiative, Having been a past hackathon participant, I always thought why would protocols do a one time initiative and leave the builders. Actually we need such an initiative from the DAO to handle pushing hackathon projects to real world products. The extra cost invloved to push the products to startups or production i'm sure will have a huge ROI.
Hi @danielo, thank you for your detailed proposal.
I have a few questions regarding this proposal that resonate with some of the comments already raised on this thread:
Hi @danielo, thank you for your detailed proposal.
I have a few questions regarding this proposal that resonate with some of the comments already raised on this thread:
This is a key initiative, Having been a past hackathon participant, I always thought why would protocols do a one time initiative and leave the builders. Actually we need such an initiative from the DAO to handle pushing hackathon projects to real world products. The extra cost invloved to push the products to startups or production i'm sure will have a huge ROI.
Copying here the record of the transaction fo the funds sent to the MSS by the AF
With $86,600 USDC
@danielo any news on this program? 2 months have passed since the onchain proposal was executed.
We are happy to confirm the first payment has been received by RnDAO and we have begun the program.
Further communication will happen through our updates thread in the https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/c/dao-grant-programs/16/none category (first post pending moderator approval)
Copying here the record of the transaction fo the funds sent to the MSS by the AF
With $86,600 USDC
@danielo any news on this program? 2 months have passed since the onchain proposal was executed.
We are happy to confirm the first payment has been received by RnDAO and we have begun the program.
Further communication will happen through our updates thread in the https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/c/dao-grant-programs/16/none category (first post pending moderator approval)
I oppose it. I think this proposal cannot bring satisfactory results. It cannot bring more users to the arbitrum ecosystem, and it cannot bring more income to the ecosystem.
If the project that received the funds stops development, should you withdraw the funds, or is it out of control?
I oppose it. I think this proposal cannot bring satisfactory results. It cannot bring more users to the arbitrum ecosystem, and it cannot bring more income to the ecosystem.
If the project that received the funds stops development, should you withdraw the funds, or is it out of control?
If you cannot get users and cannot get satisfactory results, will you ask for arbitrum DAO funding support again? How to evaluate the beneficial growth brought to the arbitrum ecosystem?
urious how you’ll facilitate integrations between these new projects and existing Arbitrum protocols? We could probably help there.
Thanks for raising these concerns.
We could frame this decision as one of assessing the project. However, there are two reasons why that framing can be problematic. I'll unpack the three reasons why we disagree with the framing below before and then aim provide an answer to your questions:
Thanks for raising these concerns.
We could frame this decision as one of assessing the project. However, there are two reasons why that framing can be problematic. I'll unpack the three reasons why we disagree with the framing below before and then aim provide an answer to your questions:
As per the original proposal, out of the 4 projects that started phase 1, 2 will be selected for Phase 2. You can see more details about them here https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program-hcp-updates/28782
I believe this question comes from a misunderstanding of the program, as we're talking about idea stage projects that have contracted equity/tokens to Arbitrum Foundation via a SAFE+Token Warrant. Arbitrum would fail to deliver on the totality of this contract if the program stops. The SAFE+TW can be valuable only if the projects build a product (Phase 2) and gain traction (after Phase 2), so stopping the program halfway through leads to a net loss of the investment already deployed.
How their continued development aligns with ecosystem priorities
What measurable outcomes we should expect from additional funding
*Note: in some cases, the projects might generate revenue and hence not fundraise. This is also a desirable outcome and one we can quantify to assess the program's success or not.
The way we suggest assessing success here is about operational execution and viability of the type of programs. A bit like how startups first validate demand at the Seed stage, and only for Series A they can validate unit economics. Assessing ROI for venture investments requires a larger-scale experiment (new funds can sometimes raise $5-50mn for the first fund before performance can be assessed and LPs decide whether to invest in Fund 2. This can take 3-4 years). The reason why such large experiments are required is because startups are often a power-law game (most fail but the ones that succeed can deliver 1000x) and early stage companies take years to mature. So it's impossible to know in a matter of a month and a half and with only 4 ventures what the ROI will be. What we do know is whether all the components of the program are working (talent funnel, incubation methodology, etc.) So we're able to validate operationally but not yet the outcomes.
Having startups generate traction (fundraise, revenue, or significant user growth) are useful interim metrics. The program has been designed to take this into account and present them to the DAO (that's the checkpoint after Phase 2)
I hope the above can clarify why we believe it's essential that the program is continued, so we actually know whether the experiment had any success or not. And stopping the experiment halfway through would mean we just don't know.
review information that you do not wish to share
I wish to share it, just not in a fully ungated forum. Every delegate has access to this level of information.
I wish to share it, just not in a fully ungated forum. Every delegate has access to this level of information.
They do not need to meet me, I can share via private text too (that's how we did most of it with L2Beat).
Sharing individual salaries is not "transparency", it's an abuse of personal privacy. I understand you'd like a more detailed breakdown, it's just not really possible to provide that without revealing such data in this case, or at least not possible without creating more confusion.
Would you like an average of the hourly costs of the program? all you have to do is ask :slight_smile: $44
that's for 7 team members. (3 full time, 4 at 50%)
On top of this team, we're also adding a tech lead to the team now which is not even included in the proposal (adding him would increase the value that RnDAO is investing)
I think this proposal cannot bring satisfactory results. It cannot bring more users to the arbitrum ecosystem, and it cannot bring more income to the ecosystem.
I think this proposal cannot bring satisfactory results. It cannot bring more users to the arbitrum ecosystem, and it cannot bring more income to the ecosystem.
If the project that received the funds stops development, should you withdraw the funds, or is it out of control?
If you cannot get users and cannot get satisfactory results, will you ask for Arbitrum DAO funding support again?
How to evaluate the beneficial growth brought to the arbitrum ecosystem?
So here's how we're thinking about it:
Framework (borrowing from @DisruptionJoe ):
Output:
Outcome:
Impact:
Looking at this proposal more critically, I have concerns about the underlying value proposition.
While I understand the intention to support builders, ARB's downward price movement appears correlated with sell pressure from our various funding initiatives. Before approving additional top-ups, we should address this fundamental issue.
Looking at this proposal more critically, I have concerns about the underlying value proposition.
While I understand the intention to support builders, ARB's downward price movement appears correlated with sell pressure from our various funding initiatives. Before approving additional top-ups, we should address this fundamental issue.
What's missing from this proposal is essential context - which specific projects from the previous round are actually bringing demonstrable value to the ecosystem? The proposal assumes delegates have all these details, but to make an informed vote, we need a comprehensive breakdown of:
Without this clear accounting of potential projects and expected returns, it's difficult to justify additional treasury expenditure. I'd appreciate a detailed breakdown of these elements to facilitate more informed voting decisions.
As stewards of the treasury, we need to ensure funding flows to initiatives that create sustainable value.
We have succesfully negotiated the Term Sheet with the Arb Foundation, have selected the projects and are in the process of signing contracts with them.
We'll soon make a formal update once KYC and Contract Signing are completed. This update will include the rationale for selecting each project.
We have succesfully negotiated the Term Sheet with the Arb Foundation, have selected the projects and are in the process of signing contracts with them.
We'll soon make a formal update once KYC and Contract Signing are completed. This update will include the rationale for selecting each project.
The program has also started, although note we're doing all this at our own risk as we have yet to receive the Kick-off funding... This is in part due to a token price drop and we were hoping for a price rebund before the AF exchanged the funds, alas not the case but this is a widespread problem across the DAO.
@danielo any news on this program? has Phase 1 already started and are the founders receiving the $2k a month already in January? if so, what teams are actually participating in this hackathon continuation program?
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
We maintain our vote and reasoning at the Snapshot stage and continue to support the initiative while being a little skeptical about the success of the projects itself.
We're voting FOR this proposal. The two-phase structure brilliantly manages risk while keeping builders motivated. And the RnDAO's 50% match is a nice deal sweetener.
We're eager to see other program building a sustainable model for attracting and retaining talent on Arbitrum. This feels like a natural evolution of our hackathon strategy.
We're voting FOR this proposal. The two-phase structure brilliantly manages risk while keeping builders motivated. And the RnDAO's 50% match is a nice deal sweetener.
We're eager to see other program building a sustainable model for attracting and retaining talent on Arbitrum. This feels like a natural evolution of our hackathon strategy.
@danielo - curious how you'll facilitate integrations between these new projects and existing Arbitrum protocols? We could probably help there.
We have further reviewed the feedback of other delegates since our earlier response and have an update to our earlier position to ABSTAIN on the proposal.
While we are still in favour of the proposed program in principle, we have concerns in the following areas:
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 for the same reasons we supported the proposal during the temp check.
No. We haven't received the funds yet. Negotiations with the AF about the Term Sheet are ongoing and due to delays in swapping the tokens there are some hurdles to work on.
We're projecting a start around mid feb now but this depends in good part on the AF so I can't speak for them. We'll anounce when ready.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting FOR in this proposal. Below the rationale:
Thanks @danielo for a very clear answer, so I voted "For" on Tally too.
oting based on pieces of information that are only accessible to a few.
I've decided to vote in favor of this proposal on Tally. As I mentioned earlier, I believe this program has the potential to deliver highly valuable results. The expected outcomes are promising and align closely with our strategic objectives, potentially driving significant advancements in innovation. I appreciate the collaborative nature of the program, which could open up new opportunities for the DAO.
After consideration and internal discussion, Entropy decided to vote AGAINST on Tally. Please find our full rationale in our delegate communication thread: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/entropy-advisors-delegate-communication-thread/26636/11?u=entropy
I oppose it. I think this proposal cannot bring satisfactory results. It cannot bring more users to the arbitrum ecosystem, and it cannot bring more income to the ecosystem.
If the project that received the funds stops development, should you withdraw the funds, or is it out of control?
I oppose it. I think this proposal cannot bring satisfactory results. It cannot bring more users to the arbitrum ecosystem, and it cannot bring more income to the ecosystem.
If the project that received the funds stops development, should you withdraw the funds, or is it out of control?
If you cannot get users and cannot get satisfactory results, will you ask for arbitrum DAO funding support again? How to evaluate the beneficial growth brought to the arbitrum ecosystem?
urious how you’ll facilitate integrations between these new projects and existing Arbitrum protocols? We could probably help there.
Thanks for raising these concerns.
We could frame this decision as one of assessing the project. However, there are two reasons why that framing can be problematic. I'll unpack the three reasons why we disagree with the framing below before and then aim provide an answer to your questions:
Thanks for raising these concerns.
We could frame this decision as one of assessing the project. However, there are two reasons why that framing can be problematic. I'll unpack the three reasons why we disagree with the framing below before and then aim provide an answer to your questions:
As per the original proposal, out of the 4 projects that started phase 1, 2 will be selected for Phase 2. You can see more details about them here https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program-hcp-updates/28782
I believe this question comes from a misunderstanding of the program, as we're talking about idea stage projects that have contracted equity/tokens to Arbitrum Foundation via a SAFE+Token Warrant. Arbitrum would fail to deliver on the totality of this contract if the program stops. The SAFE+TW can be valuable only if the projects build a product (Phase 2) and gain traction (after Phase 2), so stopping the program halfway through leads to a net loss of the investment already deployed.
How their continued development aligns with ecosystem priorities
What measurable outcomes we should expect from additional funding
*Note: in some cases, the projects might generate revenue and hence not fundraise. This is also a desirable outcome and one we can quantify to assess the program's success or not.
The way we suggest assessing success here is about operational execution and viability of the type of programs. A bit like how startups first validate demand at the Seed stage, and only for Series A they can validate unit economics. Assessing ROI for venture investments requires a larger-scale experiment (new funds can sometimes raise $5-50mn for the first fund before performance can be assessed and LPs decide whether to invest in Fund 2. This can take 3-4 years). The reason why such large experiments are required is because startups are often a power-law game (most fail but the ones that succeed can deliver 1000x) and early stage companies take years to mature. So it's impossible to know in a matter of a month and a half and with only 4 ventures what the ROI will be. What we do know is whether all the components of the program are working (talent funnel, incubation methodology, etc.) So we're able to validate operationally but not yet the outcomes.
Having startups generate traction (fundraise, revenue, or significant user growth) are useful interim metrics. The program has been designed to take this into account and present them to the DAO (that's the checkpoint after Phase 2)
I hope the above can clarify why we believe it's essential that the program is continued, so we actually know whether the experiment had any success or not. And stopping the experiment halfway through would mean we just don't know.
review information that you do not wish to share
I wish to share it, just not in a fully ungated forum. Every delegate has access to this level of information.
I wish to share it, just not in a fully ungated forum. Every delegate has access to this level of information.
They do not need to meet me, I can share via private text too (that's how we did most of it with L2Beat).
Sharing individual salaries is not "transparency", it's an abuse of personal privacy. I understand you'd like a more detailed breakdown, it's just not really possible to provide that without revealing such data in this case, or at least not possible without creating more confusion.
Would you like an average of the hourly costs of the program? all you have to do is ask :slight_smile: $44
that's for 7 team members. (3 full time, 4 at 50%)
On top of this team, we're also adding a tech lead to the team now which is not even included in the proposal (adding him would increase the value that RnDAO is investing)
I think this proposal cannot bring satisfactory results. It cannot bring more users to the arbitrum ecosystem, and it cannot bring more income to the ecosystem.
I think this proposal cannot bring satisfactory results. It cannot bring more users to the arbitrum ecosystem, and it cannot bring more income to the ecosystem.
If the project that received the funds stops development, should you withdraw the funds, or is it out of control?
If you cannot get users and cannot get satisfactory results, will you ask for Arbitrum DAO funding support again?
How to evaluate the beneficial growth brought to the arbitrum ecosystem?
So here's how we're thinking about it:
Framework (borrowing from @DisruptionJoe ):
Output:
Outcome:
Impact:
Looking at this proposal more critically, I have concerns about the underlying value proposition.
While I understand the intention to support builders, ARB's downward price movement appears correlated with sell pressure from our various funding initiatives. Before approving additional top-ups, we should address this fundamental issue.
Looking at this proposal more critically, I have concerns about the underlying value proposition.
While I understand the intention to support builders, ARB's downward price movement appears correlated with sell pressure from our various funding initiatives. Before approving additional top-ups, we should address this fundamental issue.
What's missing from this proposal is essential context - which specific projects from the previous round are actually bringing demonstrable value to the ecosystem? The proposal assumes delegates have all these details, but to make an informed vote, we need a comprehensive breakdown of:
Without this clear accounting of potential projects and expected returns, it's difficult to justify additional treasury expenditure. I'd appreciate a detailed breakdown of these elements to facilitate more informed voting decisions.
As stewards of the treasury, we need to ensure funding flows to initiatives that create sustainable value.
We have succesfully negotiated the Term Sheet with the Arb Foundation, have selected the projects and are in the process of signing contracts with them.
We'll soon make a formal update once KYC and Contract Signing are completed. This update will include the rationale for selecting each project.
We have succesfully negotiated the Term Sheet with the Arb Foundation, have selected the projects and are in the process of signing contracts with them.
We'll soon make a formal update once KYC and Contract Signing are completed. This update will include the rationale for selecting each project.
The program has also started, although note we're doing all this at our own risk as we have yet to receive the Kick-off funding... This is in part due to a token price drop and we were hoping for a price rebund before the AF exchanged the funds, alas not the case but this is a widespread problem across the DAO.
@danielo any news on this program? has Phase 1 already started and are the founders receiving the $2k a month already in January? if so, what teams are actually participating in this hackathon continuation program?
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
We maintain our vote and reasoning at the Snapshot stage and continue to support the initiative while being a little skeptical about the success of the projects itself.
We're voting FOR this proposal. The two-phase structure brilliantly manages risk while keeping builders motivated. And the RnDAO's 50% match is a nice deal sweetener.
We're eager to see other program building a sustainable model for attracting and retaining talent on Arbitrum. This feels like a natural evolution of our hackathon strategy.
We're voting FOR this proposal. The two-phase structure brilliantly manages risk while keeping builders motivated. And the RnDAO's 50% match is a nice deal sweetener.
We're eager to see other program building a sustainable model for attracting and retaining talent on Arbitrum. This feels like a natural evolution of our hackathon strategy.
@danielo - curious how you'll facilitate integrations between these new projects and existing Arbitrum protocols? We could probably help there.
We have further reviewed the feedback of other delegates since our earlier response and have an update to our earlier position to ABSTAIN on the proposal.
While we are still in favour of the proposed program in principle, we have concerns in the following areas:
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 for the same reasons we supported the proposal during the temp check.
No. We haven't received the funds yet. Negotiations with the AF about the Term Sheet are ongoing and due to delays in swapping the tokens there are some hurdles to work on.
We're projecting a start around mid feb now but this depends in good part on the AF so I can't speak for them. We'll anounce when ready.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting FOR in this proposal. Below the rationale:
Thanks @danielo for a very clear answer, so I voted "For" on Tally too.
oting based on pieces of information that are only accessible to a few.
I've decided to vote in favor of this proposal on Tally. As I mentioned earlier, I believe this program has the potential to deliver highly valuable results. The expected outcomes are promising and align closely with our strategic objectives, potentially driving significant advancements in innovation. I appreciate the collaborative nature of the program, which could open up new opportunities for the DAO.
After consideration and internal discussion, Entropy decided to vote AGAINST on Tally. Please find our full rationale in our delegate communication thread: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/entropy-advisors-delegate-communication-thread/26636/11?u=entropy
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
We maintain our vote and reasoning at the Snapshot stage and continue to support the initiative while being a little skeptical about the success of the projects itself.
Regarding the details of the capital commitment, we believe they could have been clarified and communicated better, but we appreciate the fact that the RnDAO team has committed their effort to the success of the builders for the Arbitrum ecosystem and consider it acceptable.
We hope the team learnt from the failure of the previous experiment described in the Entropy's rationale and will support the selected teams to further grow within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We have further reviewed the feedback of other delegates since our earlier response and have an update to our earlier position to ABSTAIN on the proposal.
While we are still in favour of the proposed program in principle, we have concerns in the following areas:
The proposal positions RnDAO as co-funding this proposal alongside ArbitrumDAO but responses on this front have been unclear at best. The initial proposal seemed to suggest that RnDAO and Arbitrum DAO would both be putting capital into the program, which has since been dismissed and corrected in the comments that RnDAO’s portion is ‘sweat equity’ or ‘human capital’.
Due to this misunderstanding on our part, we would like a breakdown of the planned utilization of funds allocated from Arbitrum’s budget and the recipients, along with the allotted hours and rates of RnDAO’s allocated ‘human capital’.
With regards to the equity provided by the projects participating in this program, what is the proposed split between Arbitrum DAO and RnDAO? This information is essential for delegates to ensure that Arbitrum DAO is getting a fair deal.
In your experience, what is the average success rate of Accelerator-funded projects within crypto?
The issue with the proposal is not on the actual program itself but on how important details of the working relationship between Arbitrum DAO and RnDAO in this program have not been outlined as clearly as possible for delegates’ consideration and required questions raised to bring them to light.
We still think the program outlined holds potential value and as such we will vote ABSTAIN on Tally and expect the above to be clarified in detail for proper review by delegates before any distribution of funds to RnDAO.
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 for the same reasons we supported the proposal during the temp check.
Although we originally expressed concern about the amount of money going to operational expenses, @danielo addressed our comment and provided additional explanation in a private chat. Although we are still not fully convinced that this is the right approach, we feel it makes sense to try it, use this opportunity to send a signal to the ecosystem that Arbitrum is interested in supporting early stage builders, and use the lessons learned from this programme to come up with a better one in the future.
oting based on pieces of information that are only accessible to a few.
The information disclosed in the call is the breakdown of what's shared publicly, and would the totals be wrong (i.e. less work is delivered than promised), that would still be binding. There's no need to share publicly that 2k went to person A and 3k to person B to hold us accountable wen there's a 5k public commitment.
Forcing every supplier to disclose the salaries of each team member is not only a rather extreme position but also not common practice in Arbitrum e.g. Entropy does not share such breakdown.
The information we have shown any delegate who engages with us in private also includes a detailed breakdown of activities which is a more effective mechanism for accountability.
The current process in Questbook as run by SeedLatam is rigorous in reviewing line item by line item but there's still no financial auditing, so we're in good part adding bureaucracy and barriers for suppliers to participate without solving the key point around accountability. (note that adding auditing for small amounts would increase costs unnecessarily and end up being counterproductive).
This bureaucracy also has an important cost for the DAO as the granularity creates rigidity (there's no process for changing the plan), so programs end up being delivered without the possibility for optimisation within the budget e.g. reallocating cost from something low impact to a higher impact item. That's why management has largely shifted away from micromanaging budgets and more towards management by objective while allowing local self-organisation.
I invite you to review our detailed planning in private to see why a delegate as rigorous as L2Beat has voted in favour. No need to suggest they're being irresponsible before looking at the details :slight_smile:
I'll abstain in my tally vote. The reasons:
I'll abstain in my tally vote. The reasons:
Voted For: For the same reason as my comment on the Snapshot vote. Timing here is important, and we need to keep up with the support of the selected startups.
I maintain my reasoning and voted FOR in the tally.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Tally Vote.
As mentioned in our rationale for the temp-check, we decided to abstain due to our Conflict of Interest.
We have said from the beginning that we're covering about half the cost, and that we're basically deploying the support program and part of the ops costs. We never said we'll deploy cash from RnDAO’s treasury to the venturess.
i’m just against the potential misconception that RnDAO will put money, aka, monetary funds, in this program… because it won’t.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally Voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally Voting.
As outlined in our Snapshot voting rationale, the program is designed to stimulate early on-chain activity and retain promising builders within the Arbitrum ecosystem. By strategically investing in select projects, we aim to create opportunities for innovative teams to deliver impactful solutions and expand the ecosystem.
Overall, we support the program and look forward to seeing how the selected projects contribute to the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem in the future.
voting FOR this proposal for the reasons mentioned previous for the snapshot vote: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/48?u=todayindefi
Appreciate that this tally vote has excluded the onchain mechanism which incorporates feedback from the delegates.
I have voted against this proposal in Tally. Following forum comments from delegates and proposal creators, some of the criticisms and points raised make a lot of sense, from @raam from the Arbitrum Foundation, @BlockworksResearch, @paulofonseca and @Entropy.
We can’t share this data publicly without revealing sensitive details of our operation including the total earnings of each contributor. If delegates consider an audit essential, we can only offer access after singing an NDA.
I have voted against this proposal in Tally. Following forum comments from delegates and proposal creators, some of the criticisms and points raised make a lot of sense, from @raam from the Arbitrum Foundation, @BlockworksResearch, @paulofonseca and @Entropy.
We can’t share this data publicly without revealing sensitive details of our operation including the total earnings of each contributor. If delegates consider an audit essential, we can only offer access after singing an NDA.
How RnDAO cost are calculated: The RnDAO budget contribution is based on the provision of services valued at the cost of the staff contracted for this pilot (rates based on full-time equivalent, not on freelancer/consultant rates). The value is thus not calculated on the rate we could charge for these services but merely on our own internal cost. The fee structure means that RnDAO runs the program at a deficit (we invest significantly into the startups, generating a financial loss). The model is designed so RnDAO can recoup this loss over the long term IF the projects incubated become significantly valuable.
Would you be able to share a further breakdown of costs across ArbitrumDAO and RNDAO
Mostly, communications regarding monetary commitment from RnDAO being or not being cash was not too transparent from the get go, wording didn't help delegates to understand how is the 200K monetary contribution being calculated exactly, how many hours estimated to be spent, etc. Cost for deployed capital also seems excessive ($-deployed/expenses).
Not supporting the proposal at this stage.
DAOplomats is voting in favor of this proposal on Tally.
We do agree the move to onchain voting seems rushed but we are confident in the team to execute on deliverables. Thus, we are maintaining our stance from the temp check.
I'm voting FOR on Tally for the same reasons stated in my Snapshot vote.
Why is your criteria whether it comes from the treasury or from the contributors that compose rndao what defines whether it's monetary?
If you're against community-led funding that's your decision, but trying to pretend that a community funding a program is not funding is absurd.
I’m going to vote in favor on Tally.
As I mentioned before, I’m strongly aligned with investing in builders and supporting the promising projects that emerge from hackathons.
I’m going to vote in favor on Tally.
As I mentioned before, I’m strongly aligned with investing in builders and supporting the promising projects that emerge from hackathons.
While I understand many of the raised concerns about the program, I believe the experiment is worthwhile. Viewing this venture as a pilot could pave the way for a larger investment mechanism in the future. I trust that RnDAO will fully capitalize on this opportunity, delivering value by supporting projects and generating key learnings that could help scale such initiatives down the line.
Additionally, I see this as a great opportunity for the DAO to signal that it invests in builders. This message will motivate more projects to build on Arbitrum and participate in the initiatives proposed by the DAO.
It is. We are using our capital to fund it.
And as stated, this is costing us $200k
I dont understand your insistence on the contrary. We're investing into this program. It would be imposible to deliver it for the 60k that Arbitrum is putting towards program management and venture support (we have a team of 7 on this working for 6+ months).
It is. We are using our capital to fund it.
And as stated, this is costing us $200k
I dont understand your insistence on the contrary. We're investing into this program. It would be imposible to deliver it for the 60k that Arbitrum is putting towards program management and venture support (we have a team of 7 on this working for 6+ months).
Maybe you value institutional investors more than community-led investments? I don’t know but it's honstly bizarre.
gm, in support of the proposal for the reasons previously mentioned.
Full confidence the team can deliver on results with efficacy and efficiency.
I'm confirming my snapshot vote on tally. Would like to add few things for @danielo
yeah... but the RnDAO co-funding is not monetary funding.
It's in the proposal
hummm... are you sure? how much exactly is RnDAO going to commit, monetarily?
We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.
We maintain our vote and reasoning at the Snapshot stage and continue to support the initiative while being a little skeptical about the success of the projects itself.
Regarding the details of the capital commitment, we believe they could have been clarified and communicated better, but we appreciate the fact that the RnDAO team has committed their effort to the success of the builders for the Arbitrum ecosystem and consider it acceptable.
We hope the team learnt from the failure of the previous experiment described in the Entropy's rationale and will support the selected teams to further grow within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We have further reviewed the feedback of other delegates since our earlier response and have an update to our earlier position to ABSTAIN on the proposal.
While we are still in favour of the proposed program in principle, we have concerns in the following areas:
The proposal positions RnDAO as co-funding this proposal alongside ArbitrumDAO but responses on this front have been unclear at best. The initial proposal seemed to suggest that RnDAO and Arbitrum DAO would both be putting capital into the program, which has since been dismissed and corrected in the comments that RnDAO’s portion is ‘sweat equity’ or ‘human capital’.
Due to this misunderstanding on our part, we would like a breakdown of the planned utilization of funds allocated from Arbitrum’s budget and the recipients, along with the allotted hours and rates of RnDAO’s allocated ‘human capital’.
With regards to the equity provided by the projects participating in this program, what is the proposed split between Arbitrum DAO and RnDAO? This information is essential for delegates to ensure that Arbitrum DAO is getting a fair deal.
In your experience, what is the average success rate of Accelerator-funded projects within crypto?
The issue with the proposal is not on the actual program itself but on how important details of the working relationship between Arbitrum DAO and RnDAO in this program have not been outlined as clearly as possible for delegates’ consideration and required questions raised to bring them to light.
We still think the program outlined holds potential value and as such we will vote ABSTAIN on Tally and expect the above to be clarified in detail for proper review by delegates before any distribution of funds to RnDAO.
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 for the same reasons we supported the proposal during the temp check.
Although we originally expressed concern about the amount of money going to operational expenses, @danielo addressed our comment and provided additional explanation in a private chat. Although we are still not fully convinced that this is the right approach, we feel it makes sense to try it, use this opportunity to send a signal to the ecosystem that Arbitrum is interested in supporting early stage builders, and use the lessons learned from this programme to come up with a better one in the future.
oting based on pieces of information that are only accessible to a few.
The information disclosed in the call is the breakdown of what's shared publicly, and would the totals be wrong (i.e. less work is delivered than promised), that would still be binding. There's no need to share publicly that 2k went to person A and 3k to person B to hold us accountable wen there's a 5k public commitment.
Forcing every supplier to disclose the salaries of each team member is not only a rather extreme position but also not common practice in Arbitrum e.g. Entropy does not share such breakdown.
The information we have shown any delegate who engages with us in private also includes a detailed breakdown of activities which is a more effective mechanism for accountability.
The current process in Questbook as run by SeedLatam is rigorous in reviewing line item by line item but there's still no financial auditing, so we're in good part adding bureaucracy and barriers for suppliers to participate without solving the key point around accountability. (note that adding auditing for small amounts would increase costs unnecessarily and end up being counterproductive).
This bureaucracy also has an important cost for the DAO as the granularity creates rigidity (there's no process for changing the plan), so programs end up being delivered without the possibility for optimisation within the budget e.g. reallocating cost from something low impact to a higher impact item. That's why management has largely shifted away from micromanaging budgets and more towards management by objective while allowing local self-organisation.
I invite you to review our detailed planning in private to see why a delegate as rigorous as L2Beat has voted in favour. No need to suggest they're being irresponsible before looking at the details :slight_smile:
I'll abstain in my tally vote. The reasons:
I'll abstain in my tally vote. The reasons:
Voted For: For the same reason as my comment on the Snapshot vote. Timing here is important, and we need to keep up with the support of the selected startups.
I maintain my reasoning and voted FOR in the tally.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Tally Vote.
As mentioned in our rationale for the temp-check, we decided to abstain due to our Conflict of Interest.
We have said from the beginning that we're covering about half the cost, and that we're basically deploying the support program and part of the ops costs. We never said we'll deploy cash from RnDAO’s treasury to the venturess.
i’m just against the potential misconception that RnDAO will put money, aka, monetary funds, in this program… because it won’t.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally Voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally Voting.
As outlined in our Snapshot voting rationale, the program is designed to stimulate early on-chain activity and retain promising builders within the Arbitrum ecosystem. By strategically investing in select projects, we aim to create opportunities for innovative teams to deliver impactful solutions and expand the ecosystem.
Overall, we support the program and look forward to seeing how the selected projects contribute to the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem in the future.
voting FOR this proposal for the reasons mentioned previous for the snapshot vote: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/48?u=todayindefi
Appreciate that this tally vote has excluded the onchain mechanism which incorporates feedback from the delegates.
I have voted against this proposal in Tally. Following forum comments from delegates and proposal creators, some of the criticisms and points raised make a lot of sense, from @raam from the Arbitrum Foundation, @BlockworksResearch, @paulofonseca and @Entropy.
We can’t share this data publicly without revealing sensitive details of our operation including the total earnings of each contributor. If delegates consider an audit essential, we can only offer access after singing an NDA.
I have voted against this proposal in Tally. Following forum comments from delegates and proposal creators, some of the criticisms and points raised make a lot of sense, from @raam from the Arbitrum Foundation, @BlockworksResearch, @paulofonseca and @Entropy.
We can’t share this data publicly without revealing sensitive details of our operation including the total earnings of each contributor. If delegates consider an audit essential, we can only offer access after singing an NDA.
How RnDAO cost are calculated: The RnDAO budget contribution is based on the provision of services valued at the cost of the staff contracted for this pilot (rates based on full-time equivalent, not on freelancer/consultant rates). The value is thus not calculated on the rate we could charge for these services but merely on our own internal cost. The fee structure means that RnDAO runs the program at a deficit (we invest significantly into the startups, generating a financial loss). The model is designed so RnDAO can recoup this loss over the long term IF the projects incubated become significantly valuable.
Would you be able to share a further breakdown of costs across ArbitrumDAO and RNDAO
Mostly, communications regarding monetary commitment from RnDAO being or not being cash was not too transparent from the get go, wording didn't help delegates to understand how is the 200K monetary contribution being calculated exactly, how many hours estimated to be spent, etc. Cost for deployed capital also seems excessive ($-deployed/expenses).
Not supporting the proposal at this stage.
DAOplomats is voting in favor of this proposal on Tally.
We do agree the move to onchain voting seems rushed but we are confident in the team to execute on deliverables. Thus, we are maintaining our stance from the temp check.
I'm voting FOR on Tally for the same reasons stated in my Snapshot vote.
Why is your criteria whether it comes from the treasury or from the contributors that compose rndao what defines whether it's monetary?
If you're against community-led funding that's your decision, but trying to pretend that a community funding a program is not funding is absurd.
I’m going to vote in favor on Tally.
As I mentioned before, I’m strongly aligned with investing in builders and supporting the promising projects that emerge from hackathons.
I’m going to vote in favor on Tally.
As I mentioned before, I’m strongly aligned with investing in builders and supporting the promising projects that emerge from hackathons.
While I understand many of the raised concerns about the program, I believe the experiment is worthwhile. Viewing this venture as a pilot could pave the way for a larger investment mechanism in the future. I trust that RnDAO will fully capitalize on this opportunity, delivering value by supporting projects and generating key learnings that could help scale such initiatives down the line.
Additionally, I see this as a great opportunity for the DAO to signal that it invests in builders. This message will motivate more projects to build on Arbitrum and participate in the initiatives proposed by the DAO.
It is. We are using our capital to fund it.
And as stated, this is costing us $200k
I dont understand your insistence on the contrary. We're investing into this program. It would be imposible to deliver it for the 60k that Arbitrum is putting towards program management and venture support (we have a team of 7 on this working for 6+ months).
It is. We are using our capital to fund it.
And as stated, this is costing us $200k
I dont understand your insistence on the contrary. We're investing into this program. It would be imposible to deliver it for the 60k that Arbitrum is putting towards program management and venture support (we have a team of 7 on this working for 6+ months).
Maybe you value institutional investors more than community-led investments? I don’t know but it's honstly bizarre.
gm, in support of the proposal for the reasons previously mentioned.
Full confidence the team can deliver on results with efficacy and efficiency.
I'm confirming my snapshot vote on tally. Would like to add few things for @danielo
yeah... but the RnDAO co-funding is not monetary funding.
It's in the proposal
hummm... are you sure? how much exactly is RnDAO going to commit, monetarily?
when you say, "this is costing us $200k", do you mean that there will be outgoing transactions worth $200,000 USD from RnDAO's treasury to RnDAO contributors, mentors, advisors, and everybody involved in executing this program?
Of course not.
This proposal is looking for Arbitrum DAO to spend $187,900 USD of its treasury, and for RnDAO to spend $0 USD of its treasury.
This is not monetary co-funding.
so... the best projects will receive up to $50k in cold hard cash, for giving out 8 to 10% of their ownership?
that's cold.
Y Combinator does $500k for 7%.
when you say 15%, you mean the $25,980 USD that Arbitrum DAO would pay for Program Ops + the $3,000 USD for user interviews, are the only administrative costs?
when you say 15%, you mean the $25,980 USD that Arbitrum DAO would pay for Program Ops + the $3,000 USD for user interviews, are the only administrative costs?
Program OPs total: $60,380 (15.5%) Grant total cost: $387,980 (100%)
See screenshot from proposal:
For clarity, The 3k for interviewees is directly cash deployed into the projects' success (they would have to spend it if we didn't provide it or would waste a lot of time sourcing people for free), so same as direct capital deployment and services-based Venture Support, we don't account it as Admin.
The RnDAO community does invest in the program. $200k to be exact. Without Arbitrum putting in capital to cover some costs too, the program is unviable. And for reference, these are better terms than what is traditionally offered by accelerators. Without experience in the topic it can be hard to assess these things but I invite you to review the Betting on Builders proposal and the terms offered there by Outlier Ventures for reference.
Also, roughly how much equity % will these projects give to Arbitrum Foundation and RnDAO
It could happen that if this gets approved, and the DAO invests in the worst projects from the hackathon
Voting aside, it's important to understand that this program is part of a cohesive pipeline. The projects have already received support from the RnDAO team during the hackathon (with reviews like "best organised hackathon") so they already got a taste of the value RnDAO can provide them. It's a common mistake to assess based on costs, instead of value generation / ROI. That's precisely why we're proposing to move away from programs that deploy capital alone and in favour of more comprehensive support. This approach increases costs vs just giving cash, but that is more than paid for in value creation. I invite you to learn more on the topic by reading HBR's seminal article The Founder's Dilemma or more recent research on Venture Studios by Max Pong.
Agreed. The reason for moving so fast is not the break but the impact the break would have on the hackahton projects (1.5months extra delay to what's already almost 2 months proposal cycle).
We'll aim to avoid this in the future. And although we can't edit the proposal, we're still very open to feedback and ideas for improvement. The idea here is to pilot this approach after all :slight_smile:
This is a nonsensical comparison. You're arbitrarily taking away 50% of the investment we're making into these companies, and also value everything we do at cost instead of value which is assuming Venture Studios as a norm don't make sense while the data shows it's the opposite.
Additionally, the YC thesis is constructed very differently. Their talent attraction funnel is #1 in the world by a large margin, and it's not possible for Arbitrum to replicate that right now (maybe ever). Additionally YC is based on a very mature support ecosystem in terms of networks, talent, etc. that knows how to operate all kind of functions to deploy $500k fast and effectively
This is a nonsensical comparison. You're arbitrarily taking away 50% of the investment we're making into these companies, and also value everything we do at cost instead of value which is assuming Venture Studios as a norm don't make sense while the data shows it's the opposite.
Additionally, the YC thesis is constructed very differently. Their talent attraction funnel is #1 in the world by a large margin, and it's not possible for Arbitrum to replicate that right now (maybe ever). Additionally YC is based on a very mature support ecosystem in terms of networks, talent, etc. that knows how to operate all kind of functions to deploy $500k fast and effectively
So we can't invest with the same thesis. If we put $500k into blockchain Hackathon projects, I don't think that's going to work as our ecosystem doesn't have the level of clarity on methodologies, pathways, talent available, etc. So applying that would likely lead to $0 as projects burn money.
Finally, it's about the stage of the venture. We're starting here at a pre-pitchdeck level and working with the projects to refine that. So again, this is a misguided comparison.
Blockworks Advisory will be voting AGAINST this proposal on Tally.
We acknowledge the considerable effort and thought that have gone into designing a program intended to support post-hackathon projects. Originally, we were under the impression that this proposal was to be iterated upon heavily post-Snapshot, but instead it seemed rushed into Tally. While we appreciate the intent to support ecosystem growth and align with DAO initiatives, this proposal lacks the necessary detail and refinement to give us confidence in its execution and ROI.
Blockworks Advisory will be voting AGAINST this proposal on Tally.
We acknowledge the considerable effort and thought that have gone into designing a program intended to support post-hackathon projects. Originally, we were under the impression that this proposal was to be iterated upon heavily post-Snapshot, but instead it seemed rushed into Tally. While we appreciate the intent to support ecosystem growth and align with DAO initiatives, this proposal lacks the necessary detail and refinement to give us confidence in its execution and ROI.
We were supportive of the original proposal under the idea that this would see more detail and planning. Specifically, we found the Fund Management and Investment Agreement sections to be especially underdeveloped. We're left with many questions and criticisms:
Systematic customer validation can significantly increase the likelihood of projects thriving beyond this initial stage.
What exactly is meant by customer validation? What does systematic customer validation look like for RnDAO? There is a statement to achieve customer validation, but there is no clear definition of validation here. There are no explicit targets or metrics given for phase 1 to be targeted, nor is there a suggested number of user interviews for completion, conversion metrics, milestone validation, etc. The methodology for Phase 1 also appears nondescript, the DAO should have insight into what the structured customer validation and thinking methods look like to add critique there. The mention of weekly sessions and user research is helpful, but doesn't clarify the frameworks, tools, etc that a team should follow or expect (problem/solution interviews, survey criteria, etc).
Also, the funding amounts at each stage need more justification. Why specifically $2,000 per month per cofounder?
There is a list of possible operators here, but who should we expect to lead what? And more importantly, where is the DAO’s own point of contact in this?
What’s the pipeline for these projects to gain support from the DAO, what does mentorship look like under this model?
There’s no mention of a pipeline for this, as Hackathon winners do not necessarily mean good investments instantly. For example, some of the projects highlighted as Hackathon winners, while impressive from a hackathon standpoint which focuses on developer and product building skill, may not be the most investable. Some of the projects listed are also more so developer/DAO tooling rather than something with sizable TAM. The listed project winners at the head of the proposal also aren’t necessarily startups in sizable markets.
This proposal reads more like an outline than a complete plan. There is a “6-month, two-phase program” which you describe, but..
As many others have mentioned, what is the due diligence process for this Hackathon to investment pipeline? What criteria are we to expect them to be evaluated on?
Phase 1 doesn’t specify fund distribution, management, or give a detailed reporting framework/schedule for these projects.
Assessment by RnDAO investment committee (we’ll invest significant labour in the next phase and so will only approve teams we deem viable).
What does this investment committee look like? Where is the DAO's involvement here? What are the labor costs (we are aware that your salaries are private, but some metric should be provided here). It appears RnDAO does not currently have an investment committee and would need to form one. This could be acceptable with more time and elaboration; otherwise, it's just a promise.
The transition phase between Phase 1 and Phase 2 needs significant elaboration. Is there to be a milestone here where RnDAO loops back in with the DAO?
Funding: Projects that successfully complete Phase 1 will receive an additional grant of $38,000 each, amounting to a total of $50,000 per venture across both phases
There does not seem to be a timeline implemented either, and so it seems as though it could use much more planning before any DAO funds should be transferred.
Supporting hackathon projects and fostering innovative ventures are admirable goals, but the scale of the proposed grant and the lack of definition concern about the feasibility of this continuation. The lack of a demonstrated track record in venture support, investment success, and the push to Tally without further iterations add further hesitation from our end. Building a robust venture program is a complex and resource-intensive endeavor, as evidenced by similar initiatives within the DAO. We appreciate the intent behind this proposal, as supporting early-stage teams and nurturing innovation within the Arbitrum ecosystem is a valuable goal; however, without stronger assurances of operations and a clearer roadmap with provided frameworks and definitions, we are unable to support this proposal at this time, but would like to see it return with more careful planning.
Kuiclub has decided to vote “Against” on this proposal on Tally.
Key Points:
The proposal is well-articulated with detailed viewpoints. If executed properly, this program could lay the groundwork for the ecosystem’s long-term development, delivering value beyond the initial investment. This aligns with Arbitrum’s overarching mission of fostering innovation and attracting developers.
Kuiclub has decided to vote “Against” on this proposal on Tally.
Key Points:
The proposal is well-articulated with detailed viewpoints. If executed properly, this program could lay the groundwork for the ecosystem’s long-term development, delivering value beyond the initial investment. This aligns with Arbitrum’s overarching mission of fostering innovation and attracting developers.
However, I personally believe that in critical early stages such as customer validation and achieving product-market fit, relying solely on RnDAO may not yield the desired results. Additionally, concerns about cost management and the potential for fund misuse remain significant.
What you call fat is a misframing of the venture studio model and relate to precisely 1 out of two key changes we're proposing to make vs traditional grant programs.
Giving cash alone to projects leads to poor outcomes because:
What you call fat is a misframing of the venture studio model and relate to precisely 1 out of two key changes we're proposing to make vs traditional grant programs.
Giving cash alone to projects leads to poor outcomes because:
As a result of this, Web2 evolved accelerators where a large portion of the support deployed is in mentorship (hands-off support aka advisory) and then, over the last 10 years, Venture Studios (that provide hands-on support, so even higher % as services) are growing fast in numbers and showing to provide better ROI.
So, in our proposal, only 15% of the costs are administrative (and we could lower this to below 10% with a larger-scale program, but this is a pilot).
I'd like to reaffirm my vote on Tally in favor because of what I mention before:
I think it offers a good structure that will help ensure hackathon projects turn into real solutions that benefit Arbitrum ecosystem. Dividing the program into developing and validating, increases the chances of success because you only allocate more resources to the projects that will address the actual needs. This design encourages the use of funds wisely over a lengthy period of time. Also, RnDAO and Arbitrum working together helps to combine efforts and gives everyone guidance, stuff, and connections apart from the money.
I'd like to reaffirm my vote on Tally in favor because of what I mention before:
I think it offers a good structure that will help ensure hackathon projects turn into real solutions that benefit Arbitrum ecosystem. Dividing the program into developing and validating, increases the chances of success because you only allocate more resources to the projects that will address the actual needs. This design encourages the use of funds wisely over a lengthy period of time. Also, RnDAO and Arbitrum working together helps to combine efforts and gives everyone guidance, stuff, and connections apart from the money.
I voted “FOR” on-chain via Tallyy]
The proposal aims to incubate hackathon projects, attract more developers and innovative initiatives, and inject vitality into the Arbitrum ecosystem, aligning with its long-term development goals. The proposer has explicitly addressed the questions and suggestions raised by various stakeholders. Most concerns are centered around the high costs allocated to projects and administrative expenses. However, maintaining this mechanism does require higher short-term expenditures. That said, creating a sustainable business cluster to attract more projects offers significant network effects, which I believe is worth considering for its long-term value.
I voted “FOR” on-chain via Tallyy]
The proposal aims to incubate hackathon projects, attract more developers and innovative initiatives, and inject vitality into the Arbitrum ecosystem, aligning with its long-term development goals. The proposer has explicitly addressed the questions and suggestions raised by various stakeholders. Most concerns are centered around the high costs allocated to projects and administrative expenses. However, maintaining this mechanism does require higher short-term expenditures. That said, creating a sustainable business cluster to attract more projects offers significant network effects, which I believe is worth considering for its long-term value.
At the same time, I suggest adding a mid-term review of the proposal’s implementation to ensure that the plan progresses as expected. Additionally, I recommend establishing an independent risk mitigation mechanism, such as introducing more external evaluations for projects entering the second phase. The proposer has also clarified these aspects in the response.
only 15% of the costs are administrative
when you say 15%, you mean the $25,980 USD that Arbitrum DAO would pay for Program Ops + the $3,000 USD for user interviews, are the only administrative costs?
when you say 15%, you mean the $25,980 USD that Arbitrum DAO would pay for Program Ops + the $3,000 USD for user interviews, are the only administrative costs?
then what is the Venture Support amount of $35,000 USD that the Arbitrum DAO would pay for? I believe that since RnDAO will not invest any capital, RnDAO should "pay" for the whole sum of the Venture Support ($200,600). And maybe even for the whole sum of the Program Ops ($60,380), to be honest, because RnDAO will be paid in equity already.
Also, roughly how much equity % will these projects give to Arbitrum Foundation and RnDAO in total (since it's 50/50 between AF and RnDAO), for this program? I know you're probably going to say this is secret information... but just roughly, how much?
I ask this because it would be much better to see which are the projects that actually agree to give up their equity, and roughly how much, before the DAO votes on this proposal.
It could happen that if this gets approved, and the DAO invests in the worst projects from the hackathon, because those are the only ones desperate enough to give up such amount of their ownership %.
@BlockworksResearch while we appreciate the extended comment, we have open channels of communication and can easily jump on a call or reply to your concerns in the forum, there's no need to rush to a negative vote simply because you have open questions.
I invite any delegate with concerns to first ask us, as any complex program has a myriad of details that would be impractical to fully explain in a proposal. We're available to address those quickly over a call, telegram DMs, or here in the forum.
Thanks for the comments
Would you be able to share a further breakdown of costs across ArbitrumDAO and RNDAO
I voted abstain to this proposal due to a lack of time to properly review it as I needed to vote, as I was OOO.
The proposal has been updated with the feedback. Thank you all for the valuable questions and comments
DAOplomats voted In favor, no onchain mechanism on Snapshot.
Establishing a framework for ongoing hackathons is great as it helps foster long-term support for successful projects. However, we supported no onchain mechanism because implementing one might overcomplicate program execution, introducing inefficiencies and delays in distributing funds or assessing outcomes.
voting Against the current onchain proposal because the $60,980 USD cost went up and is not justified in detail, and in general it just feels like this proposal has too much “fat” since only ~65% of the amount Arbitrum would pay would go to the grantees and the remaining ~35% is basically “administrative” costs of this program.
I voted FOR on Tally. The reasoning remains the same.
Thanks for letting us know. If you have any questions or concerns please do share and we'll do our best to address them
As things stand, we’ll be allocating $124,000 to projects while spending $87,030 on the operational cost — a 1/0.7 ratio seems pretty high.
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 while opting OUT of the on-chain mechanism.
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 while opting OUT of the on-chain mechanism.
The idea of doubling down on projects that were successful during the hackathon and helping them develop their project further, not just with funding but also with venture support from RnDAO, is intriguing. We believe it can serve as a good experiment of what a follow-up approach could look like for projects created in hackathons or through grants.
Furthermore, the fact that the amount we’ll distribute to those projects won’t be in the form of grants but will instead be in the form of investments is something that we find interesting as it might, in the long run, bring returns back to the DAO and is a good precedent for the future.
The one thing we’re skeptical about and want to raise as a point of discussion and consideration is the operational cost relative to the capital investments we’ll be making in the projects. As things stand, we’ll be allocating $124,000 to projects while spending $87,030 on the operational cost — a 1/0.7 ratio seems pretty high. However, at this point we don’t necessarily request RnDAO to lower it but we plan on discussing it with them before the onchain vote to have a better understanding of what is the cost breakdown and what can expect delivered in it.
For the on-chain component, we're not sure there's enough justification to support it, especially since the project has already received a grant from Arbitrum through the DDA programme. If the project and RnDAO are confident of the value it will bring to Arbitrum and the hackathon continuation programme, we would encourage them to find a way to demonstrate that value first (covering the costs internally if needed), and then come back for a follow-up grant.
when you say, "this is costing us $200k", do you mean that there will be outgoing transactions worth $200,000 USD from RnDAO's treasury to RnDAO contributors, mentors, advisors, and everybody involved in executing this program?
Of course not.
This proposal is looking for Arbitrum DAO to spend $187,900 USD of its treasury, and for RnDAO to spend $0 USD of its treasury.
This is not monetary co-funding.
so... the best projects will receive up to $50k in cold hard cash, for giving out 8 to 10% of their ownership?
that's cold.
Y Combinator does $500k for 7%.
when you say 15%, you mean the $25,980 USD that Arbitrum DAO would pay for Program Ops + the $3,000 USD for user interviews, are the only administrative costs?
when you say 15%, you mean the $25,980 USD that Arbitrum DAO would pay for Program Ops + the $3,000 USD for user interviews, are the only administrative costs?
Program OPs total: $60,380 (15.5%) Grant total cost: $387,980 (100%)
See screenshot from proposal:
For clarity, The 3k for interviewees is directly cash deployed into the projects' success (they would have to spend it if we didn't provide it or would waste a lot of time sourcing people for free), so same as direct capital deployment and services-based Venture Support, we don't account it as Admin.
The RnDAO community does invest in the program. $200k to be exact. Without Arbitrum putting in capital to cover some costs too, the program is unviable. And for reference, these are better terms than what is traditionally offered by accelerators. Without experience in the topic it can be hard to assess these things but I invite you to review the Betting on Builders proposal and the terms offered there by Outlier Ventures for reference.
Also, roughly how much equity % will these projects give to Arbitrum Foundation and RnDAO
It could happen that if this gets approved, and the DAO invests in the worst projects from the hackathon
Voting aside, it's important to understand that this program is part of a cohesive pipeline. The projects have already received support from the RnDAO team during the hackathon (with reviews like "best organised hackathon") so they already got a taste of the value RnDAO can provide them. It's a common mistake to assess based on costs, instead of value generation / ROI. That's precisely why we're proposing to move away from programs that deploy capital alone and in favour of more comprehensive support. This approach increases costs vs just giving cash, but that is more than paid for in value creation. I invite you to learn more on the topic by reading HBR's seminal article The Founder's Dilemma or more recent research on Venture Studios by Max Pong.
Agreed. The reason for moving so fast is not the break but the impact the break would have on the hackahton projects (1.5months extra delay to what's already almost 2 months proposal cycle).
We'll aim to avoid this in the future. And although we can't edit the proposal, we're still very open to feedback and ideas for improvement. The idea here is to pilot this approach after all :slight_smile:
This is a nonsensical comparison. You're arbitrarily taking away 50% of the investment we're making into these companies, and also value everything we do at cost instead of value which is assuming Venture Studios as a norm don't make sense while the data shows it's the opposite.
Additionally, the YC thesis is constructed very differently. Their talent attraction funnel is #1 in the world by a large margin, and it's not possible for Arbitrum to replicate that right now (maybe ever). Additionally YC is based on a very mature support ecosystem in terms of networks, talent, etc. that knows how to operate all kind of functions to deploy $500k fast and effectively
This is a nonsensical comparison. You're arbitrarily taking away 50% of the investment we're making into these companies, and also value everything we do at cost instead of value which is assuming Venture Studios as a norm don't make sense while the data shows it's the opposite.
Additionally, the YC thesis is constructed very differently. Their talent attraction funnel is #1 in the world by a large margin, and it's not possible for Arbitrum to replicate that right now (maybe ever). Additionally YC is based on a very mature support ecosystem in terms of networks, talent, etc. that knows how to operate all kind of functions to deploy $500k fast and effectively
So we can't invest with the same thesis. If we put $500k into blockchain Hackathon projects, I don't think that's going to work as our ecosystem doesn't have the level of clarity on methodologies, pathways, talent available, etc. So applying that would likely lead to $0 as projects burn money.
Finally, it's about the stage of the venture. We're starting here at a pre-pitchdeck level and working with the projects to refine that. So again, this is a misguided comparison.
Blockworks Advisory will be voting AGAINST this proposal on Tally.
We acknowledge the considerable effort and thought that have gone into designing a program intended to support post-hackathon projects. Originally, we were under the impression that this proposal was to be iterated upon heavily post-Snapshot, but instead it seemed rushed into Tally. While we appreciate the intent to support ecosystem growth and align with DAO initiatives, this proposal lacks the necessary detail and refinement to give us confidence in its execution and ROI.
Blockworks Advisory will be voting AGAINST this proposal on Tally.
We acknowledge the considerable effort and thought that have gone into designing a program intended to support post-hackathon projects. Originally, we were under the impression that this proposal was to be iterated upon heavily post-Snapshot, but instead it seemed rushed into Tally. While we appreciate the intent to support ecosystem growth and align with DAO initiatives, this proposal lacks the necessary detail and refinement to give us confidence in its execution and ROI.
We were supportive of the original proposal under the idea that this would see more detail and planning. Specifically, we found the Fund Management and Investment Agreement sections to be especially underdeveloped. We're left with many questions and criticisms:
Systematic customer validation can significantly increase the likelihood of projects thriving beyond this initial stage.
What exactly is meant by customer validation? What does systematic customer validation look like for RnDAO? There is a statement to achieve customer validation, but there is no clear definition of validation here. There are no explicit targets or metrics given for phase 1 to be targeted, nor is there a suggested number of user interviews for completion, conversion metrics, milestone validation, etc. The methodology for Phase 1 also appears nondescript, the DAO should have insight into what the structured customer validation and thinking methods look like to add critique there. The mention of weekly sessions and user research is helpful, but doesn't clarify the frameworks, tools, etc that a team should follow or expect (problem/solution interviews, survey criteria, etc).
Also, the funding amounts at each stage need more justification. Why specifically $2,000 per month per cofounder?
There is a list of possible operators here, but who should we expect to lead what? And more importantly, where is the DAO’s own point of contact in this?
What’s the pipeline for these projects to gain support from the DAO, what does mentorship look like under this model?
There’s no mention of a pipeline for this, as Hackathon winners do not necessarily mean good investments instantly. For example, some of the projects highlighted as Hackathon winners, while impressive from a hackathon standpoint which focuses on developer and product building skill, may not be the most investable. Some of the projects listed are also more so developer/DAO tooling rather than something with sizable TAM. The listed project winners at the head of the proposal also aren’t necessarily startups in sizable markets.
This proposal reads more like an outline than a complete plan. There is a “6-month, two-phase program” which you describe, but..
As many others have mentioned, what is the due diligence process for this Hackathon to investment pipeline? What criteria are we to expect them to be evaluated on?
Phase 1 doesn’t specify fund distribution, management, or give a detailed reporting framework/schedule for these projects.
Assessment by RnDAO investment committee (we’ll invest significant labour in the next phase and so will only approve teams we deem viable).
What does this investment committee look like? Where is the DAO's involvement here? What are the labor costs (we are aware that your salaries are private, but some metric should be provided here). It appears RnDAO does not currently have an investment committee and would need to form one. This could be acceptable with more time and elaboration; otherwise, it's just a promise.
The transition phase between Phase 1 and Phase 2 needs significant elaboration. Is there to be a milestone here where RnDAO loops back in with the DAO?
Funding: Projects that successfully complete Phase 1 will receive an additional grant of $38,000 each, amounting to a total of $50,000 per venture across both phases
There does not seem to be a timeline implemented either, and so it seems as though it could use much more planning before any DAO funds should be transferred.
Supporting hackathon projects and fostering innovative ventures are admirable goals, but the scale of the proposed grant and the lack of definition concern about the feasibility of this continuation. The lack of a demonstrated track record in venture support, investment success, and the push to Tally without further iterations add further hesitation from our end. Building a robust venture program is a complex and resource-intensive endeavor, as evidenced by similar initiatives within the DAO. We appreciate the intent behind this proposal, as supporting early-stage teams and nurturing innovation within the Arbitrum ecosystem is a valuable goal; however, without stronger assurances of operations and a clearer roadmap with provided frameworks and definitions, we are unable to support this proposal at this time, but would like to see it return with more careful planning.
Kuiclub has decided to vote “Against” on this proposal on Tally.
Key Points:
The proposal is well-articulated with detailed viewpoints. If executed properly, this program could lay the groundwork for the ecosystem’s long-term development, delivering value beyond the initial investment. This aligns with Arbitrum’s overarching mission of fostering innovation and attracting developers.
Kuiclub has decided to vote “Against” on this proposal on Tally.
Key Points:
The proposal is well-articulated with detailed viewpoints. If executed properly, this program could lay the groundwork for the ecosystem’s long-term development, delivering value beyond the initial investment. This aligns with Arbitrum’s overarching mission of fostering innovation and attracting developers.
However, I personally believe that in critical early stages such as customer validation and achieving product-market fit, relying solely on RnDAO may not yield the desired results. Additionally, concerns about cost management and the potential for fund misuse remain significant.
What you call fat is a misframing of the venture studio model and relate to precisely 1 out of two key changes we're proposing to make vs traditional grant programs.
Giving cash alone to projects leads to poor outcomes because:
What you call fat is a misframing of the venture studio model and relate to precisely 1 out of two key changes we're proposing to make vs traditional grant programs.
Giving cash alone to projects leads to poor outcomes because:
As a result of this, Web2 evolved accelerators where a large portion of the support deployed is in mentorship (hands-off support aka advisory) and then, over the last 10 years, Venture Studios (that provide hands-on support, so even higher % as services) are growing fast in numbers and showing to provide better ROI.
So, in our proposal, only 15% of the costs are administrative (and we could lower this to below 10% with a larger-scale program, but this is a pilot).
I'd like to reaffirm my vote on Tally in favor because of what I mention before:
I think it offers a good structure that will help ensure hackathon projects turn into real solutions that benefit Arbitrum ecosystem. Dividing the program into developing and validating, increases the chances of success because you only allocate more resources to the projects that will address the actual needs. This design encourages the use of funds wisely over a lengthy period of time. Also, RnDAO and Arbitrum working together helps to combine efforts and gives everyone guidance, stuff, and connections apart from the money.
I'd like to reaffirm my vote on Tally in favor because of what I mention before:
I think it offers a good structure that will help ensure hackathon projects turn into real solutions that benefit Arbitrum ecosystem. Dividing the program into developing and validating, increases the chances of success because you only allocate more resources to the projects that will address the actual needs. This design encourages the use of funds wisely over a lengthy period of time. Also, RnDAO and Arbitrum working together helps to combine efforts and gives everyone guidance, stuff, and connections apart from the money.
I voted “FOR” on-chain via Tallyy]
The proposal aims to incubate hackathon projects, attract more developers and innovative initiatives, and inject vitality into the Arbitrum ecosystem, aligning with its long-term development goals. The proposer has explicitly addressed the questions and suggestions raised by various stakeholders. Most concerns are centered around the high costs allocated to projects and administrative expenses. However, maintaining this mechanism does require higher short-term expenditures. That said, creating a sustainable business cluster to attract more projects offers significant network effects, which I believe is worth considering for its long-term value.
I voted “FOR” on-chain via Tallyy]
The proposal aims to incubate hackathon projects, attract more developers and innovative initiatives, and inject vitality into the Arbitrum ecosystem, aligning with its long-term development goals. The proposer has explicitly addressed the questions and suggestions raised by various stakeholders. Most concerns are centered around the high costs allocated to projects and administrative expenses. However, maintaining this mechanism does require higher short-term expenditures. That said, creating a sustainable business cluster to attract more projects offers significant network effects, which I believe is worth considering for its long-term value.
At the same time, I suggest adding a mid-term review of the proposal’s implementation to ensure that the plan progresses as expected. Additionally, I recommend establishing an independent risk mitigation mechanism, such as introducing more external evaluations for projects entering the second phase. The proposer has also clarified these aspects in the response.
only 15% of the costs are administrative
when you say 15%, you mean the $25,980 USD that Arbitrum DAO would pay for Program Ops + the $3,000 USD for user interviews, are the only administrative costs?
when you say 15%, you mean the $25,980 USD that Arbitrum DAO would pay for Program Ops + the $3,000 USD for user interviews, are the only administrative costs?
then what is the Venture Support amount of $35,000 USD that the Arbitrum DAO would pay for? I believe that since RnDAO will not invest any capital, RnDAO should "pay" for the whole sum of the Venture Support ($200,600). And maybe even for the whole sum of the Program Ops ($60,380), to be honest, because RnDAO will be paid in equity already.
Also, roughly how much equity % will these projects give to Arbitrum Foundation and RnDAO in total (since it's 50/50 between AF and RnDAO), for this program? I know you're probably going to say this is secret information... but just roughly, how much?
I ask this because it would be much better to see which are the projects that actually agree to give up their equity, and roughly how much, before the DAO votes on this proposal.
It could happen that if this gets approved, and the DAO invests in the worst projects from the hackathon, because those are the only ones desperate enough to give up such amount of their ownership %.
@BlockworksResearch while we appreciate the extended comment, we have open channels of communication and can easily jump on a call or reply to your concerns in the forum, there's no need to rush to a negative vote simply because you have open questions.
I invite any delegate with concerns to first ask us, as any complex program has a myriad of details that would be impractical to fully explain in a proposal. We're available to address those quickly over a call, telegram DMs, or here in the forum.
Thanks for the comments
Would you be able to share a further breakdown of costs across ArbitrumDAO and RNDAO
I voted abstain to this proposal due to a lack of time to properly review it as I needed to vote, as I was OOO.
The proposal has been updated with the feedback. Thank you all for the valuable questions and comments
DAOplomats voted In favor, no onchain mechanism on Snapshot.
Establishing a framework for ongoing hackathons is great as it helps foster long-term support for successful projects. However, we supported no onchain mechanism because implementing one might overcomplicate program execution, introducing inefficiencies and delays in distributing funds or assessing outcomes.
voting Against the current onchain proposal because the $60,980 USD cost went up and is not justified in detail, and in general it just feels like this proposal has too much “fat” since only ~65% of the amount Arbitrum would pay would go to the grantees and the remaining ~35% is basically “administrative” costs of this program.
I voted FOR on Tally. The reasoning remains the same.
Thanks for letting us know. If you have any questions or concerns please do share and we'll do our best to address them
As things stand, we’ll be allocating $124,000 to projects while spending $87,030 on the operational cost — a 1/0.7 ratio seems pretty high.
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 while opting OUT of the on-chain mechanism.
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 while opting OUT of the on-chain mechanism.
The idea of doubling down on projects that were successful during the hackathon and helping them develop their project further, not just with funding but also with venture support from RnDAO, is intriguing. We believe it can serve as a good experiment of what a follow-up approach could look like for projects created in hackathons or through grants.
Furthermore, the fact that the amount we’ll distribute to those projects won’t be in the form of grants but will instead be in the form of investments is something that we find interesting as it might, in the long run, bring returns back to the DAO and is a good precedent for the future.
The one thing we’re skeptical about and want to raise as a point of discussion and consideration is the operational cost relative to the capital investments we’ll be making in the projects. As things stand, we’ll be allocating $124,000 to projects while spending $87,030 on the operational cost — a 1/0.7 ratio seems pretty high. However, at this point we don’t necessarily request RnDAO to lower it but we plan on discussing it with them before the onchain vote to have a better understanding of what is the cost breakdown and what can expect delivered in it.
For the on-chain component, we're not sure there's enough justification to support it, especially since the project has already received a grant from Arbitrum through the DDA programme. If the project and RnDAO are confident of the value it will bring to Arbitrum and the hackathon continuation programme, we would encourage them to find a way to demonstrate that value first (covering the costs internally if needed), and then come back for a follow-up grant.
@BlockworksResearch while we appreciate the extended comment, we have open channels of communication and can easily jump on a call or reply to your concerns in the forum, there's no need to rush to a negative vote simply because you have open questions.
I invite any delegate with concerns to first ask us, as any complex program has a myriad of details that would be impractical to fully explain in a proposal. We're available to address those quickly over a call, telegram DMs, or here in the forum.
Pre-purchase, letters of intent, or strong indication of interest (only the later would require more significant numbers). This varies with the ticket size and nature of every product, hence why we don't use a one size fits all approach but instead rely on expertise. Our research lead has been doing this for 20 years+ with products like Google Suite, Asana, as Innovation Catalyst at Inuit (Quickbooks), etc.
What does systematic customer validation look like for RnDAO?
We engage with builders daily from across the globe and often have finance-related conversations. $2,000 works for a majority of them to unlock the focus needed for the program. We already tested this with the CoLab and have continued to receive validation.
should we expect to lead what? And more importantly, where is the DAO’s own point of contact in this?
I'm available as a general point of contact.
What’s the pipeline for these projects to gain support from the DAO, what does mentorship look like under this model?
There’s no mention of a pipeline for this, as Hackathon winners do not necessarily mean good investments instantly
what is the due diligence process for this Hackathon to investment pipeline
the hackathon winners will not automatically qualify for Phase 1, would you be able to share more light on the assessment criteria for teams to enter Phase 1?
We’ll interview each of the teams (1-3 interviews to our satisfaction) and review their submission which includes the Hackathon submission plus additional information about their motivations, CV/LinkedIn, website and pitch deck. We’re primarily looking for founder-problem fit, drive, and skills + ability to learn. We’re roughly following the order of the Hackathon winners for the assessment (some overlap might happen based on delays around call scheduling).
Phase 1 doesn’t specify fund distribution, management, or give a detailed reporting framework/schedule for these projects.
What does this investment committee look like? Where is the DAO’s involvement here? What are the labor costs (we are aware that your salaries are private, but some metric should be provided here). It appears RnDAO does not currently have an investment committee and would need to form one. This could be acceptable with more time and elaboration; otherwise, it’s just a promise.
This has already been explained and is not based on 'indicators to improve' but on an assessment about the viability of the project at that point in time. For added clarity, it's akin to how angel investors evaluate a project and follows the standard template of the areas that are reflected on a pitchdeck for the business thesis: clear problem, credible solution, market size, why now, usp/competition, team. Adding quantitative KPIs that are fixed for all projects would be very counterproductive.
If advisors/mentors hold large roles at other startups, how much time can they realistically dedicate to the applicant pool?
While it is listed in the Docusend backgrounds, we would like to see participation in prior hackathons, success stories, and given RnDAO’s small size and commitments elsewhere, is there sufficient bandwidth to execute effectively?
Importantly, how is this program to evolve once post-program reporting has been accomplished?
There does not seem to be a timeline implemented either, and so it seems as though it could use much more planning before any DAO funds should be transferred
Thanks for the comments
Would you be able to share a further breakdown of costs across ArbitrumDAO and RNDAO
And as I already mentioned in both the proposal and 1-1 conversation, we can share such details in private. Feel free to book a call with me if you want to proceed.
any of ArbitrumDAO’s portion of venture support/program ops will count towards RnDAO’s SWEAT investment
For clarity, the program is offered to projects only as a whole, not as a menu of components. As such, the investment amounts from a project investment agreement perspective, should not be broken down per components. It would be impossible to deliver the capital investment and venture support without the program ops, and the program ops themselves are not divisible because the program would then become unviable.
So, we're not accounting Arbitrum funds in favour of RnDAO, but Arbitrum funds are part of enabling the whole program.
Could you share more light on how the hackathon finalists were selected
Please see here a screenshot from the Hackathon Impact Report
For clarity, the community vote counted for 25% of the voting power as part of an experiment using Jokerace for judging hackathons. No COI policy was determined beforehand and we didn't apply additional COI terms retroactively. In the future, we will include a COI policy (although enforceability remains a challenge in most settings unless we see progress on CollabTech solutions for Sybil detection).
Each project had to pitch live and present a GitHub repo with the code and submission. Additionally, most projects worked in an open channel in the Hackthon server, so our team had significant contact with all of them. The assessment was based on the live pitch and GitHub repo content but not on the observations during the month (our community manager is not part of the Judges but was free to raise red flags should there have been any). In all, we're confident the projects were selected for their merit despite the lack of a pre-determined COI policy.
the hackathon winners will not automatically qualify for Phase 1, would you be able to share more light on the assessment criteria for teams to enter Phase 1?
As things stand, we’ll be allocating $124,000 to projects while spending $87,030 on the operational cost — a 1/0.7 ratio seems pretty high.
I agree with the sentiment that it's far from an ideal ratio (as @SEEDGov and others have noted). However, it's an issue of economices of scale and at this stage we're unable to lower the operational costs without affecting the viability of the program. The alternative is to increase the size of the program i.e. fund more temas which would only marginally increase the Operational costs. We're thus proposing this as a pilot and hoping we can demonstrate its merit to then be scaled up as a recurring (and more cost effective) program.
Importantly, the ration should also include Venture Support as based on the venture studio model the thesis is that it's more cost effective to have some experts work with the projects than letting each project try to hire everything in house. The Venture Support costs are thus part of what's deployed into the projects. Making the ratio 3.5 / 1 Ops
As a nounance (we'll clarify this before going onchain), the Comms costs are added within Ops but technically we can break these down with more sophisticated accounting into:
So perhaps anoher 10-15k can be attributed to Venture Support.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
After analyzing the proposal, we believe it is well-articulated and addresses a real issue: winners of hackathons or top projects often lack the resources or time to continue development. We also appreciate that part of the budget will be co-funded with RnDAO.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
After analyzing the proposal, we believe it is well-articulated and addresses a real issue: winners of hackathons or top projects often lack the resources or time to continue development. We also appreciate that part of the budget will be co-funded with RnDAO.
That said, there are some aspects we disagree with or that require further clarification:
Despite the above points, we want to highlight that SEEDGov has decided to abstain because we were involved in the process of granting the Hackathon in question through the Questbook domain for Education, Community Growth, and Events.
Thank you for the detailed analysis.
We'll provide the suggested details when scheduling the Tally proposal on Monday.
Thank you for the detailed analysis.
We'll provide the suggested details when scheduling the Tally proposal on Monday.
Unfortunately, the whole initiative would likely become unviable if we move slower as the end-of-year break would push the start of the support program to mid-February (January for tally vote and then 1-2 weeks to get started), making it 3 months after the end of the Hackathon and thus we wouldn't be able to offer a pipeline for the Hackathon projects.
After consideration and internal discussion, Entropy decided to vote AGAINST. Please find our full rationale and the additional details we'd like to see included in this proposal before it moves to Tally on our delegate communication thread: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/entropy-advisors-delegate-communication-thread/26636/10?u=entropy
I’m reaffirming my support for this proposal by voting in favor on Tally, as outlined in my earlier comments:
I support this proposal as it addresses a critical need in the lifecycle of hackathon projects: consistent follow-up to ensure these innovative ideas become tangible, impactful ventures rather than fading out post-hackathon. Hackathons are fantastic for sparking ideas and gathering talent, but without structured support, these projects often struggle to sustain momentum, validate their concepts, and reach market viability.
I’m reaffirming my support for this proposal by voting in favor on Tally, as outlined in my earlier comments:
I support this proposal as it addresses a critical need in the lifecycle of hackathon projects: consistent follow-up to ensure these innovative ideas become tangible, impactful ventures rather than fading out post-hackathon. Hackathons are fantastic for sparking ideas and gathering talent, but without structured support, these projects often struggle to sustain momentum, validate their concepts, and reach market viability.
Additionally, danielo has proven his expertise with RnDAO. His commitment to this space and track record of successful project support are further reasons I believe this program will thrive and help establish a self-sustaining ecosystem within Arbitrum.
I’ve decided to vote in favor of the reasons I mentioned earlier.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/42
I’ve decided to vote in favor of the reasons I mentioned earlier.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/42
However, regarding the options ‘no onchain’ and ‘yes onchain,’ I’ve chosen the first one for now. I believe the implications of the ‘yes, onchain mechanism’ option haven’t been fully explained, and I’d like to have a clearer understanding before making a decision in that direction. Perhaps it would be better to consider this as a separate proposal for further discussion.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting in favour, on chain mechanism in this proposal and below is our rationale.
Thanks @danielo for this proposal!
We are voting for this proposal because it helps talented teams from the hackathon turn their ideas into real projects with users and growth. The program offers funding, hands-on support, and connections to make their projects successful on Arbitrum. This will grow the Arbitrum ecosystem with strong new ventures and keep builders engaged. It’s a smart plan to use resources wisely and support the best teams.
We are in favour of this proposal, as we agree in principle with the need for such programs to effectively implement ideas from hackathons and stimulate innovation in the ecosystem.
We’d like to see this fit a more long-term view with the creation of a process/framework for such incubation programs—making them accessible to everyone and aligning the interests with the Arbitrum DAO's long-term vision.
Blockworks Advisory will be voting FOR this proposal and opting out of the onchain mechanism on Snapshot.
Investing in hackathon finalists and providing aid aligns with the DAO's needs and responsibilities for its ecosystem. Candidly, Arbitrum DAO should explore more investment opportunities in its ecosystem, and so we are happy to see initiatives like this come about.
Blockworks Advisory will be voting FOR this proposal and opting out of the onchain mechanism on Snapshot.
Investing in hackathon finalists and providing aid aligns with the DAO's needs and responsibilities for its ecosystem. Candidly, Arbitrum DAO should explore more investment opportunities in its ecosystem, and so we are happy to see initiatives like this come about.
We would like to clarify that for this proposal to proceed to an onchain vote, we would like to see the following added:
This is exactly what we need: A program that takes builders by hand and guides them towards success. It's not only about getting funds, it's expertise, it's networking, it's structure.
I wasn't able to fully understand the benefits of the onchain option, so voting for a more conservative offchain one.
Looking forward to seeing the results :saluting_face:
I voted FOR with On-chain Mechanism. I watched the collabtech hackathon closely and was very impressed at how it was more than just a hackathon but guidance and support over a month period.
I know Danielo well and I really believe in the collabtech venture builder, his ability and how having better teams that know how to ensure development can help Arbitrum overall.
There is a guideline @danielo it's here: https://docs.arbitrum.foundation/how-tos/create-submit-dao-proposal
and I've asked you for a "really fine" breakdown of these costs above
and can you please break down what’s included in those $60,780?
We vote In favour, no onchain mechanism.
We are resonated with the general direction for the DAO to maintain the support Hackathon builders within the Arbitrum ecosystem and assist them to grow from a "hackathon winner" to a protocol that makes impact in the ecosystem.
We vote In favour, no onchain mechanism.
We are resonated with the general direction for the DAO to maintain the support Hackathon builders within the Arbitrum ecosystem and assist them to grow from a "hackathon winner" to a protocol that makes impact in the ecosystem.
We also appreciate the approach that the RnDAO matches what the Arbitrum DAO funds by roughly 50-50 ratio and provides continuous support for the builders. The milestone-based reward design also makes sense.
We are a little skeptical that the actual projects awarded in the hackathon can make reasonable impact, but we are certain they are evaluated diligently on their business opportunities and MVP development strategy by the competent team and contributors. From the DAO perspective, we believe it's worth a try and believe in what the chosen teams can offer with support.
Some onchain mechanism is ideal to be objectively evaluated for their product usage, but the proposed solution doesn't feel appropriate, thus we chose the "no onchain mechanism".
Voted in favor, no on-chain mechanism:
So excited to see a program for micro investments into Hackathon builders in Arbitrum, this is well scoped pilot too.
Lots of details can be discussed and nit picked, but the opportunity for our DAO to make these kinds of small investments is incredible.
Great work and coordinating all this @danielo.
Hey Nathan
thanks for the comments.
Can you specify if the funds you’re earmarking for Program Marketing are linked to the projects you’ll incubate or to RnDAO itself?
@danielo Could you please clarify the specific differences between the "on-chain mechanism" and "off-chain mechanism" voting options?
A clear explanation of these mechanisms will help us make a more informed decision in the snapshot vote.
Sorry if this has been asked earlier or if I've missed it in the previous comments.
I think it's important for the DAO to back Arbitrum native projects, and this seems like a great way to do it. Can you specify if the funds you're earmarking for Program Marketing are linked to the projects you'll incubate or to RnDAO itself? I see in a response you've given this also includes reporting - I'm not sure that should be called marketing when this gets to a vote.
If anything, I think this shows we really need a pluralistic grant framework. There seem to be projects that clearly deserve some love that are not getting it and prolonged forum discussions are not the productive way to get where we need to go.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting "In Favour, yes on-chain mechanism" for this proposal on Snapshot Voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting "In Favour, yes on-chain mechanism" for this proposal on Snapshot Voting.
The on-chain mechanism will be a good experiment for the projects. We support this initiative because it will help Arbitrum attract and develop innovative builders and also provide a strategic approach to supporting projects with both funding and mentorship.
The program aims to generate early on-chain activity and retain promising builders within the Arbitrum ecosystem. By investing strategically in select projects, we're creating a pathway for innovative teams to contribute meaningful solutions and grow the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Voted in favor, no on-chain mechanism: Timing in startups is important, and there hasn't been a more perfect moment to build apps than now. I believe this program has some great startups (I checked them all) and would love to see them continue building on Arbitrum.
To be fair, at the moment, there are so many opportunities for builders out there, and there will be competition to attract the best ones. This proposal seems like a no-brainer to confirm and keep these startups in our ecosystem.
Could you please clarify the specific differences between the “on-chain mechanism” and “off-chain mechanism” voting options?
@BlockworksResearch while we appreciate the extended comment, we have open channels of communication and can easily jump on a call or reply to your concerns in the forum, there's no need to rush to a negative vote simply because you have open questions.
I invite any delegate with concerns to first ask us, as any complex program has a myriad of details that would be impractical to fully explain in a proposal. We're available to address those quickly over a call, telegram DMs, or here in the forum.
Pre-purchase, letters of intent, or strong indication of interest (only the later would require more significant numbers). This varies with the ticket size and nature of every product, hence why we don't use a one size fits all approach but instead rely on expertise. Our research lead has been doing this for 20 years+ with products like Google Suite, Asana, as Innovation Catalyst at Inuit (Quickbooks), etc.
What does systematic customer validation look like for RnDAO?
We engage with builders daily from across the globe and often have finance-related conversations. $2,000 works for a majority of them to unlock the focus needed for the program. We already tested this with the CoLab and have continued to receive validation.
should we expect to lead what? And more importantly, where is the DAO’s own point of contact in this?
I'm available as a general point of contact.
What’s the pipeline for these projects to gain support from the DAO, what does mentorship look like under this model?
There’s no mention of a pipeline for this, as Hackathon winners do not necessarily mean good investments instantly
what is the due diligence process for this Hackathon to investment pipeline
the hackathon winners will not automatically qualify for Phase 1, would you be able to share more light on the assessment criteria for teams to enter Phase 1?
We’ll interview each of the teams (1-3 interviews to our satisfaction) and review their submission which includes the Hackathon submission plus additional information about their motivations, CV/LinkedIn, website and pitch deck. We’re primarily looking for founder-problem fit, drive, and skills + ability to learn. We’re roughly following the order of the Hackathon winners for the assessment (some overlap might happen based on delays around call scheduling).
Phase 1 doesn’t specify fund distribution, management, or give a detailed reporting framework/schedule for these projects.
What does this investment committee look like? Where is the DAO’s involvement here? What are the labor costs (we are aware that your salaries are private, but some metric should be provided here). It appears RnDAO does not currently have an investment committee and would need to form one. This could be acceptable with more time and elaboration; otherwise, it’s just a promise.
This has already been explained and is not based on 'indicators to improve' but on an assessment about the viability of the project at that point in time. For added clarity, it's akin to how angel investors evaluate a project and follows the standard template of the areas that are reflected on a pitchdeck for the business thesis: clear problem, credible solution, market size, why now, usp/competition, team. Adding quantitative KPIs that are fixed for all projects would be very counterproductive.
If advisors/mentors hold large roles at other startups, how much time can they realistically dedicate to the applicant pool?
While it is listed in the Docusend backgrounds, we would like to see participation in prior hackathons, success stories, and given RnDAO’s small size and commitments elsewhere, is there sufficient bandwidth to execute effectively?
Importantly, how is this program to evolve once post-program reporting has been accomplished?
There does not seem to be a timeline implemented either, and so it seems as though it could use much more planning before any DAO funds should be transferred
Thanks for the comments
Would you be able to share a further breakdown of costs across ArbitrumDAO and RNDAO
And as I already mentioned in both the proposal and 1-1 conversation, we can share such details in private. Feel free to book a call with me if you want to proceed.
any of ArbitrumDAO’s portion of venture support/program ops will count towards RnDAO’s SWEAT investment
For clarity, the program is offered to projects only as a whole, not as a menu of components. As such, the investment amounts from a project investment agreement perspective, should not be broken down per components. It would be impossible to deliver the capital investment and venture support without the program ops, and the program ops themselves are not divisible because the program would then become unviable.
So, we're not accounting Arbitrum funds in favour of RnDAO, but Arbitrum funds are part of enabling the whole program.
Could you share more light on how the hackathon finalists were selected
Please see here a screenshot from the Hackathon Impact Report
For clarity, the community vote counted for 25% of the voting power as part of an experiment using Jokerace for judging hackathons. No COI policy was determined beforehand and we didn't apply additional COI terms retroactively. In the future, we will include a COI policy (although enforceability remains a challenge in most settings unless we see progress on CollabTech solutions for Sybil detection).
Each project had to pitch live and present a GitHub repo with the code and submission. Additionally, most projects worked in an open channel in the Hackthon server, so our team had significant contact with all of them. The assessment was based on the live pitch and GitHub repo content but not on the observations during the month (our community manager is not part of the Judges but was free to raise red flags should there have been any). In all, we're confident the projects were selected for their merit despite the lack of a pre-determined COI policy.
the hackathon winners will not automatically qualify for Phase 1, would you be able to share more light on the assessment criteria for teams to enter Phase 1?
As things stand, we’ll be allocating $124,000 to projects while spending $87,030 on the operational cost — a 1/0.7 ratio seems pretty high.
I agree with the sentiment that it's far from an ideal ratio (as @SEEDGov and others have noted). However, it's an issue of economices of scale and at this stage we're unable to lower the operational costs without affecting the viability of the program. The alternative is to increase the size of the program i.e. fund more temas which would only marginally increase the Operational costs. We're thus proposing this as a pilot and hoping we can demonstrate its merit to then be scaled up as a recurring (and more cost effective) program.
Importantly, the ration should also include Venture Support as based on the venture studio model the thesis is that it's more cost effective to have some experts work with the projects than letting each project try to hire everything in house. The Venture Support costs are thus part of what's deployed into the projects. Making the ratio 3.5 / 1 Ops
As a nounance (we'll clarify this before going onchain), the Comms costs are added within Ops but technically we can break these down with more sophisticated accounting into:
So perhaps anoher 10-15k can be attributed to Venture Support.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
After analyzing the proposal, we believe it is well-articulated and addresses a real issue: winners of hackathons or top projects often lack the resources or time to continue development. We also appreciate that part of the budget will be co-funded with RnDAO.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
After analyzing the proposal, we believe it is well-articulated and addresses a real issue: winners of hackathons or top projects often lack the resources or time to continue development. We also appreciate that part of the budget will be co-funded with RnDAO.
That said, there are some aspects we disagree with or that require further clarification:
Despite the above points, we want to highlight that SEEDGov has decided to abstain because we were involved in the process of granting the Hackathon in question through the Questbook domain for Education, Community Growth, and Events.
Thank you for the detailed analysis.
We'll provide the suggested details when scheduling the Tally proposal on Monday.
Thank you for the detailed analysis.
We'll provide the suggested details when scheduling the Tally proposal on Monday.
Unfortunately, the whole initiative would likely become unviable if we move slower as the end-of-year break would push the start of the support program to mid-February (January for tally vote and then 1-2 weeks to get started), making it 3 months after the end of the Hackathon and thus we wouldn't be able to offer a pipeline for the Hackathon projects.
After consideration and internal discussion, Entropy decided to vote AGAINST. Please find our full rationale and the additional details we'd like to see included in this proposal before it moves to Tally on our delegate communication thread: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/entropy-advisors-delegate-communication-thread/26636/10?u=entropy
I’m reaffirming my support for this proposal by voting in favor on Tally, as outlined in my earlier comments:
I support this proposal as it addresses a critical need in the lifecycle of hackathon projects: consistent follow-up to ensure these innovative ideas become tangible, impactful ventures rather than fading out post-hackathon. Hackathons are fantastic for sparking ideas and gathering talent, but without structured support, these projects often struggle to sustain momentum, validate their concepts, and reach market viability.
I’m reaffirming my support for this proposal by voting in favor on Tally, as outlined in my earlier comments:
I support this proposal as it addresses a critical need in the lifecycle of hackathon projects: consistent follow-up to ensure these innovative ideas become tangible, impactful ventures rather than fading out post-hackathon. Hackathons are fantastic for sparking ideas and gathering talent, but without structured support, these projects often struggle to sustain momentum, validate their concepts, and reach market viability.
Additionally, danielo has proven his expertise with RnDAO. His commitment to this space and track record of successful project support are further reasons I believe this program will thrive and help establish a self-sustaining ecosystem within Arbitrum.
I’ve decided to vote in favor of the reasons I mentioned earlier.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/42
I’ve decided to vote in favor of the reasons I mentioned earlier.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/42
However, regarding the options ‘no onchain’ and ‘yes onchain,’ I’ve chosen the first one for now. I believe the implications of the ‘yes, onchain mechanism’ option haven’t been fully explained, and I’d like to have a clearer understanding before making a decision in that direction. Perhaps it would be better to consider this as a separate proposal for further discussion.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting in favour, on chain mechanism in this proposal and below is our rationale.
Thanks @danielo for this proposal!
We are voting for this proposal because it helps talented teams from the hackathon turn their ideas into real projects with users and growth. The program offers funding, hands-on support, and connections to make their projects successful on Arbitrum. This will grow the Arbitrum ecosystem with strong new ventures and keep builders engaged. It’s a smart plan to use resources wisely and support the best teams.
We are in favour of this proposal, as we agree in principle with the need for such programs to effectively implement ideas from hackathons and stimulate innovation in the ecosystem.
We’d like to see this fit a more long-term view with the creation of a process/framework for such incubation programs—making them accessible to everyone and aligning the interests with the Arbitrum DAO's long-term vision.
Blockworks Advisory will be voting FOR this proposal and opting out of the onchain mechanism on Snapshot.
Investing in hackathon finalists and providing aid aligns with the DAO's needs and responsibilities for its ecosystem. Candidly, Arbitrum DAO should explore more investment opportunities in its ecosystem, and so we are happy to see initiatives like this come about.
Blockworks Advisory will be voting FOR this proposal and opting out of the onchain mechanism on Snapshot.
Investing in hackathon finalists and providing aid aligns with the DAO's needs and responsibilities for its ecosystem. Candidly, Arbitrum DAO should explore more investment opportunities in its ecosystem, and so we are happy to see initiatives like this come about.
We would like to clarify that for this proposal to proceed to an onchain vote, we would like to see the following added:
This is exactly what we need: A program that takes builders by hand and guides them towards success. It's not only about getting funds, it's expertise, it's networking, it's structure.
I wasn't able to fully understand the benefits of the onchain option, so voting for a more conservative offchain one.
Looking forward to seeing the results :saluting_face:
I voted FOR with On-chain Mechanism. I watched the collabtech hackathon closely and was very impressed at how it was more than just a hackathon but guidance and support over a month period.
I know Danielo well and I really believe in the collabtech venture builder, his ability and how having better teams that know how to ensure development can help Arbitrum overall.
There is a guideline @danielo it's here: https://docs.arbitrum.foundation/how-tos/create-submit-dao-proposal
and I've asked you for a "really fine" breakdown of these costs above
and can you please break down what’s included in those $60,780?
We vote In favour, no onchain mechanism.
We are resonated with the general direction for the DAO to maintain the support Hackathon builders within the Arbitrum ecosystem and assist them to grow from a "hackathon winner" to a protocol that makes impact in the ecosystem.
We vote In favour, no onchain mechanism.
We are resonated with the general direction for the DAO to maintain the support Hackathon builders within the Arbitrum ecosystem and assist them to grow from a "hackathon winner" to a protocol that makes impact in the ecosystem.
We also appreciate the approach that the RnDAO matches what the Arbitrum DAO funds by roughly 50-50 ratio and provides continuous support for the builders. The milestone-based reward design also makes sense.
We are a little skeptical that the actual projects awarded in the hackathon can make reasonable impact, but we are certain they are evaluated diligently on their business opportunities and MVP development strategy by the competent team and contributors. From the DAO perspective, we believe it's worth a try and believe in what the chosen teams can offer with support.
Some onchain mechanism is ideal to be objectively evaluated for their product usage, but the proposed solution doesn't feel appropriate, thus we chose the "no onchain mechanism".
Voted in favor, no on-chain mechanism:
So excited to see a program for micro investments into Hackathon builders in Arbitrum, this is well scoped pilot too.
Lots of details can be discussed and nit picked, but the opportunity for our DAO to make these kinds of small investments is incredible.
Great work and coordinating all this @danielo.
Hey Nathan
thanks for the comments.
Can you specify if the funds you’re earmarking for Program Marketing are linked to the projects you’ll incubate or to RnDAO itself?
@danielo Could you please clarify the specific differences between the "on-chain mechanism" and "off-chain mechanism" voting options?
A clear explanation of these mechanisms will help us make a more informed decision in the snapshot vote.
Sorry if this has been asked earlier or if I've missed it in the previous comments.
I think it's important for the DAO to back Arbitrum native projects, and this seems like a great way to do it. Can you specify if the funds you're earmarking for Program Marketing are linked to the projects you'll incubate or to RnDAO itself? I see in a response you've given this also includes reporting - I'm not sure that should be called marketing when this gets to a vote.
If anything, I think this shows we really need a pluralistic grant framework. There seem to be projects that clearly deserve some love that are not getting it and prolonged forum discussions are not the productive way to get where we need to go.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting "In Favour, yes on-chain mechanism" for this proposal on Snapshot Voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting "In Favour, yes on-chain mechanism" for this proposal on Snapshot Voting.
The on-chain mechanism will be a good experiment for the projects. We support this initiative because it will help Arbitrum attract and develop innovative builders and also provide a strategic approach to supporting projects with both funding and mentorship.
The program aims to generate early on-chain activity and retain promising builders within the Arbitrum ecosystem. By investing strategically in select projects, we're creating a pathway for innovative teams to contribute meaningful solutions and grow the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Voted in favor, no on-chain mechanism: Timing in startups is important, and there hasn't been a more perfect moment to build apps than now. I believe this program has some great startups (I checked them all) and would love to see them continue building on Arbitrum.
To be fair, at the moment, there are so many opportunities for builders out there, and there will be competition to attract the best ones. This proposal seems like a no-brainer to confirm and keep these startups in our ecosystem.
Could you please clarify the specific differences between the “on-chain mechanism” and “off-chain mechanism” voting options?
There is a guideline @danielo it's here: https://docs.arbitrum.foundation/how-tos/create-submit-dao-proposal
and I've asked you for a "really fine" breakdown of these costs above
and can you please break down what’s included in those $60,780?
Hey Nathan
thanks for the comments.
Can you specify if the funds you’re earmarking for Program Marketing are linked to the projects you’ll incubate or to RnDAO itself?
We're still trying to understand what's a good practice on the level of budget detail we give in a proposal. On one hand we're revealing our own IP to competitors, sometimes more details lead to more questions and confusion than clarity, but also some delegates want to get really fine breakdowns. Maybe there should be some DAO-level guidelines on this?
Voted in favor, no on-chain mechanism: Timing in startups is important, and there hasn't been a more perfect moment to build apps than now. I believe this program has some great startups (I checked them all) and would love to see them continue building on Arbitrum.
To be fair, at the moment, there are so many opportunities for builders out there, and there will be competition to attract the best ones. This proposal seems like a no-brainer to confirm and keep these startups in our ecosystem.
I agree that in the future, we should explore ways to get vested (like through our venture program, etc.) so we can see returns if startups are successful.
Also, the vote on the "on-chain vs. off-chain mechanism" is a bit confusing. I spent quite some time trying to understand the difference, and the terms here feel a bit misleading. I voted "no on-chain mechanism" to save the 30k budget. If this moves to Tally, please ensure these terms are clarified.
Also, the vote on the “on-chain vs. off-chain mechanism” is a bit confusing. I spent quite some time trying to understand the difference, and the terms here feel a bit misleading. I voted “no on-chain mechanism” to save the 30k budget. If this moves to Tally, please ensure these terms are clarified.
Also, the vote on the “on-chain vs. off-chain mechanism” is a bit confusing. I spent quite some time trying to understand the difference, and the terms here feel a bit misleading. I voted “no on-chain mechanism” to save the 30k budget. If this moves to Tally, please ensure these terms are clarified.
thank you for the comment. I'm thinking that we should probably make this a separate proposal to explain it properly as it's a whole thing and here is likely just too much to take in... We'll work on that after getting the vote results.
I voted 'In favor, yes on-chain mechanism' because I believe it is crucial for ArbitrumDAO to capitalize on hackathons by investing in the most promising projects. Thank you, @danielo, for this excellent proposal and for addressing the delegates' questions. I think the collaboration with RnDAO will be advantageous, as they have demonstrated significant expertise in collabtech.
Before the Tally vote, I would like more details about the reporting that will be conducted for Arbitrum DAO, especially since the committee deciding on this will consist solely of RnDAO members. What specific information will these reports include? I would appreciate understanding the committee’s rationale for selecting or not selecting a project, the scale of opportunity each project addresses, and the committee’s assessment of the project’s feasibility.
voting Against the current offchain proposal because the amounts on the proposal don't add up, the $60,780 USD cost is not justified in detail, and in general it just feels like this proposal has too much "fat" since only ~58% of the amount Arbitrum would pay would go to the grantees and the remaining ~42% is basically "administrative" costs of this program.
Voting in favor, with the option of onchain.
First, the structure is quite interesting. I have chatted privately with Daniel on this proposal, the mentorship part is something that inheretly comes in grant programs for some teams (young founders, founders with extremely good ideas but no experience, founders that got rejected but that have a bright future) but this happens on a spot basis, and is tied to the skill and will of the comimttee/person who evaluate it. And definitely we would need more, so is interesting to see a program structured to incorporate it.
Voting in favor, with the option of onchain.
First, the structure is quite interesting. I have chatted privately with Daniel on this proposal, the mentorship part is something that inheretly comes in grant programs for some teams (young founders, founders with extremely good ideas but no experience, founders that got rejected but that have a bright future) but this happens on a spot basis, and is tied to the skill and will of the comimttee/person who evaluate it. And definitely we would need more, so is interesting to see a program structured to incorporate it.
I added the yes to the onchain vote cause i personally evaluated collaberry for a grant in questbook season 2, and I am looking forward to see them showing off their tool in the "real life".
We are in favor of this proposal. We understand how challenging it is for new projects to gain support and secure funding, especially at an early stage. Without access to experienced individuals and proper guidance, it’s difficult for potential projects to grow and thrive. Hackathons often spark incredible initiatives and ideas, and we believe having an accelerator program to bootstrap these projects will greatly benefit the Arbitrum ecosystem in the long term.
Is it looking for funding for the hackathon projects for $124,000? the amount of funding that they could independently apply and probably get, from a questbook track
Is it looking for funding for the hackathon projects for $124,000? the amount of funding that they could independently apply and probably get, from a questbook track
So we're talking about something VERY different to regular grant programs.
No. It's not about selling services but a grant to enable a mechanism to anchor the teams' operation in Arbitrum. You can think about it as a sort of launchpad system that we are also proposing to test (optional in the snapshot).
Is it looking to pay RnDAO for “supporting” the projects post hackathon for $60,780?
the equity split between the Arbitrum Foundation and RnDAO, is it the same
So is it looking to fund the equity investment that RnDAO will get as well?
If this proposal doesn’t pass, will the projects give equity to RnDAO for RnDAO’s support? Will RnDAO stop support for the projects?
I will be voting "For" the project as I think post-hackathon support is a natural and logical step to take. Having these events are great, but as noted in the proposal it can be tough to continue momentum if all the sudden support stops. So I think this will be a good thing to try for the DAO.
I also appreciate the willingness to take delegate feedback into consideration here, especially my prior comment about getting some type of return to the DAO. As I do believe we need to think about the treasury long-term.
I will be voting "For" the project as I think post-hackathon support is a natural and logical step to take. Having these events are great, but as noted in the proposal it can be tough to continue momentum if all the sudden support stops. So I think this will be a good thing to try for the DAO.
I also appreciate the willingness to take delegate feedback into consideration here, especially my prior comment about getting some type of return to the DAO. As I do believe we need to think about the treasury long-term.
As for on-chain support... I'll vote for it. As quoted below, if Jojo has directly evaluated the project and supports it I trust their due diligence.
I added the yes to the onchain vote cause i personally evaluated collaberry for a grant in questbook season 2, and I am looking forward to see them showing off their tool in the “real life”.
Edit: To save forum space, indicating that my opinion here has not changed from Snapshot to Tall and I will be voting "For" on Tally for this proposal.
please correct these numbers in the proposal text... they are not adding up and are advertising an incorrect (less) amount for people to vote on.
please correct these numbers in the proposal text... they are not adding up and are advertising an incorrect (less) amount for people to vote on.
to be more specific: $416,530 should be $421,030 $213,780 should be $214,780
also, I'm pretty sure the $60,780 has an extra "k" at the end.
and can you please break down what's included in those $60,780?
and if RnDAO invests $180,000 equivalent and Arbitrum invests $124,000 USD does it really make sense for the ownership to be the same amount?
I voted FOR the proposal. I think it's good to experiment with a program that helps the best hackathon projects grow and succeed even after the hackathon is over.
If this program proves to be successful, it would make sense to do a v2 of the program, but this time perhaps including finalists from past ETHGlobal hackathons. This would create a larger pool of high-quality projects and bring promising teams and developers to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We're voting for this proposal because it takes a thoughtful, practical approach to supporting innovation on Arbitrum. By helping hackathon projects turn their ideas into real products with users, it ensures effective use of resources while providing teams with essential mentorship and connections. It’s not just about these individual projects—it’s about building a stronger, more sustainable, and decentralized ecosystem, which fits perfectly with our vision for Arbitrum’s future.
I fully support this proposal and I am in favor of onchain mechanism. The proposal is well-structured and goal-oriented, covering a comprehensive process from user validation to MVP development and market testing. By providing funding in two stages and intensive guidance, it reduces the risk of project failure while promoting the continuous growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Thanks for the comments @PGov
Implementing mechanisms to ensure that supported projects remain within the Arbitrum ecosystem is crucial to prevent talent attrition.
Thanks for the questions @Ignas
What’s the plan to make sure these projects keep growing after the program ends, and don’t just rely on short-term support from Arbitrum and RnDAO?
I have given my support on Snapshot to this proposal because of what I mention before...
I think it offers a good structure that will help ensure hackathon projects turn into real solutions that benefit Arbitrum ecosystem. When you divide the program into developing and validating, you increase the chances of success because you only allocate more resources to the projects that will address the actual needs. This design encourages the use of funds wisely over a lengthy period of time. Also, RnDAO and Arbitrum working together helps to combine efforts and gives everyone guidance, stuff, and connections apart from the money.
After reading @danielo responses and discussing them with him at Devcon, I am voting in favor of this proposal on Snapshot.
I believe it is important to have a follow-up plan for the projects that emerge from hackathons. If the DAO is going to fund hackathons, it makes sense to support the most promising projects that arise from these initiatives. Moving forward, I would like the follow-up plan to be included in the hackathon proposal itself, as was done with Govhack.
Over, this presents a very interesting initiative to nurture post-hackathon projects within Arbitrum. By offering structured support, this program aims to transform innovative concepts into viable ventures.
Some things that we enjoy from this propsal:
Over, this presents a very interesting initiative to nurture post-hackathon projects within Arbitrum. By offering structured support, this program aims to transform innovative concepts into viable ventures.
Some things that we enjoy from this propsal:
Some concerns that are making us a bit apprehensive:
I think it would be great if we could find a way to tie the funds in a way that they can be clawed back if the project moves away from Arbitrum.
Voting FOR this proposal but with no onchain mechanism
The program addresses a critical need - supporting promising projects beyond the hackathon stage. The two phased approach is great and focus on customer validation are solid. While the budget is significant, the potential return in ecosystem value could justify the investment if even 1-2 projects succeed long-term.
Voting FOR this proposal but with no onchain mechanism
The program addresses a critical need - supporting promising projects beyond the hackathon stage. The two phased approach is great and focus on customer validation are solid. While the budget is significant, the potential return in ecosystem value could justify the investment if even 1-2 projects succeed long-term.
We voted for NO onchain mechanism because while collaberry seems interesting, it may add unnecesary overhead to the process of giving grants as its a new tool, which needs to be adapted to this purpose and also the teams need to learn to use. It would be better to have Collaberry as an option rather than to require its use and also potentially double fund it(if we're wrong on this aspect please let us know)
Given that there is a operational spend of $87,000, there should be enough funds for the operations team to judge the progress of the teams (who should probably be required to give monthly reports)
If collabbery is used and funded, it may make sense to reduce operational spend, since it seems thats the purpose of the tool.
Finally, one question is how will project success be measured beyond "first 100 users"?
I think this proposal is a great way to follow up projects from the hackathon and bring more value to Arbitrum. So voted In favour, but would like to share 2 concerns:
Honestly, I don't understand what this proposal is looking to do, so I have a few questions...
Is it looking for funding for the hackathon projects for $124,000? the amount of funding that they could independently apply and probably get, from a questbook track? Is it looking to sell collabberry services for $30,000? Is it looking to pay RnDAO for "supporting" the projects post hackathon for $60,780? Is it looking to get a set of projects invested by the Arbitrum Foundation, and also RnDAO? and how much is the equity split between the Arbitrum Foundation and RnDAO, is it the same? So is it looking to fund the equity investment that RnDAO will get as well? If this proposal doesn't pass, will the projects give equity to RnDAO for RnDAO's support? Will RnDAO stop support for the projects? Is this proposal trying to do all of the above?
There is a guideline @danielo it's here: https://docs.arbitrum.foundation/how-tos/create-submit-dao-proposal
and I've asked you for a "really fine" breakdown of these costs above
and can you please break down what’s included in those $60,780?
Hey Nathan
thanks for the comments.
Can you specify if the funds you’re earmarking for Program Marketing are linked to the projects you’ll incubate or to RnDAO itself?
We're still trying to understand what's a good practice on the level of budget detail we give in a proposal. On one hand we're revealing our own IP to competitors, sometimes more details lead to more questions and confusion than clarity, but also some delegates want to get really fine breakdowns. Maybe there should be some DAO-level guidelines on this?
Voted in favor, no on-chain mechanism: Timing in startups is important, and there hasn't been a more perfect moment to build apps than now. I believe this program has some great startups (I checked them all) and would love to see them continue building on Arbitrum.
To be fair, at the moment, there are so many opportunities for builders out there, and there will be competition to attract the best ones. This proposal seems like a no-brainer to confirm and keep these startups in our ecosystem.
I agree that in the future, we should explore ways to get vested (like through our venture program, etc.) so we can see returns if startups are successful.
Also, the vote on the "on-chain vs. off-chain mechanism" is a bit confusing. I spent quite some time trying to understand the difference, and the terms here feel a bit misleading. I voted "no on-chain mechanism" to save the 30k budget. If this moves to Tally, please ensure these terms are clarified.
Also, the vote on the “on-chain vs. off-chain mechanism” is a bit confusing. I spent quite some time trying to understand the difference, and the terms here feel a bit misleading. I voted “no on-chain mechanism” to save the 30k budget. If this moves to Tally, please ensure these terms are clarified.
Also, the vote on the “on-chain vs. off-chain mechanism” is a bit confusing. I spent quite some time trying to understand the difference, and the terms here feel a bit misleading. I voted “no on-chain mechanism” to save the 30k budget. If this moves to Tally, please ensure these terms are clarified.
thank you for the comment. I'm thinking that we should probably make this a separate proposal to explain it properly as it's a whole thing and here is likely just too much to take in... We'll work on that after getting the vote results.
I voted 'In favor, yes on-chain mechanism' because I believe it is crucial for ArbitrumDAO to capitalize on hackathons by investing in the most promising projects. Thank you, @danielo, for this excellent proposal and for addressing the delegates' questions. I think the collaboration with RnDAO will be advantageous, as they have demonstrated significant expertise in collabtech.
Before the Tally vote, I would like more details about the reporting that will be conducted for Arbitrum DAO, especially since the committee deciding on this will consist solely of RnDAO members. What specific information will these reports include? I would appreciate understanding the committee’s rationale for selecting or not selecting a project, the scale of opportunity each project addresses, and the committee’s assessment of the project’s feasibility.
voting Against the current offchain proposal because the amounts on the proposal don't add up, the $60,780 USD cost is not justified in detail, and in general it just feels like this proposal has too much "fat" since only ~58% of the amount Arbitrum would pay would go to the grantees and the remaining ~42% is basically "administrative" costs of this program.
Voting in favor, with the option of onchain.
First, the structure is quite interesting. I have chatted privately with Daniel on this proposal, the mentorship part is something that inheretly comes in grant programs for some teams (young founders, founders with extremely good ideas but no experience, founders that got rejected but that have a bright future) but this happens on a spot basis, and is tied to the skill and will of the comimttee/person who evaluate it. And definitely we would need more, so is interesting to see a program structured to incorporate it.
Voting in favor, with the option of onchain.
First, the structure is quite interesting. I have chatted privately with Daniel on this proposal, the mentorship part is something that inheretly comes in grant programs for some teams (young founders, founders with extremely good ideas but no experience, founders that got rejected but that have a bright future) but this happens on a spot basis, and is tied to the skill and will of the comimttee/person who evaluate it. And definitely we would need more, so is interesting to see a program structured to incorporate it.
I added the yes to the onchain vote cause i personally evaluated collaberry for a grant in questbook season 2, and I am looking forward to see them showing off their tool in the "real life".
We are in favor of this proposal. We understand how challenging it is for new projects to gain support and secure funding, especially at an early stage. Without access to experienced individuals and proper guidance, it’s difficult for potential projects to grow and thrive. Hackathons often spark incredible initiatives and ideas, and we believe having an accelerator program to bootstrap these projects will greatly benefit the Arbitrum ecosystem in the long term.
Is it looking for funding for the hackathon projects for $124,000? the amount of funding that they could independently apply and probably get, from a questbook track
Is it looking for funding for the hackathon projects for $124,000? the amount of funding that they could independently apply and probably get, from a questbook track
So we're talking about something VERY different to regular grant programs.
No. It's not about selling services but a grant to enable a mechanism to anchor the teams' operation in Arbitrum. You can think about it as a sort of launchpad system that we are also proposing to test (optional in the snapshot).
Is it looking to pay RnDAO for “supporting” the projects post hackathon for $60,780?
the equity split between the Arbitrum Foundation and RnDAO, is it the same
So is it looking to fund the equity investment that RnDAO will get as well?
If this proposal doesn’t pass, will the projects give equity to RnDAO for RnDAO’s support? Will RnDAO stop support for the projects?
I will be voting "For" the project as I think post-hackathon support is a natural and logical step to take. Having these events are great, but as noted in the proposal it can be tough to continue momentum if all the sudden support stops. So I think this will be a good thing to try for the DAO.
I also appreciate the willingness to take delegate feedback into consideration here, especially my prior comment about getting some type of return to the DAO. As I do believe we need to think about the treasury long-term.
I will be voting "For" the project as I think post-hackathon support is a natural and logical step to take. Having these events are great, but as noted in the proposal it can be tough to continue momentum if all the sudden support stops. So I think this will be a good thing to try for the DAO.
I also appreciate the willingness to take delegate feedback into consideration here, especially my prior comment about getting some type of return to the DAO. As I do believe we need to think about the treasury long-term.
As for on-chain support... I'll vote for it. As quoted below, if Jojo has directly evaluated the project and supports it I trust their due diligence.
I added the yes to the onchain vote cause i personally evaluated collaberry for a grant in questbook season 2, and I am looking forward to see them showing off their tool in the “real life”.
Edit: To save forum space, indicating that my opinion here has not changed from Snapshot to Tall and I will be voting "For" on Tally for this proposal.
please correct these numbers in the proposal text... they are not adding up and are advertising an incorrect (less) amount for people to vote on.
please correct these numbers in the proposal text... they are not adding up and are advertising an incorrect (less) amount for people to vote on.
to be more specific: $416,530 should be $421,030 $213,780 should be $214,780
also, I'm pretty sure the $60,780 has an extra "k" at the end.
and can you please break down what's included in those $60,780?
and if RnDAO invests $180,000 equivalent and Arbitrum invests $124,000 USD does it really make sense for the ownership to be the same amount?
I voted FOR the proposal. I think it's good to experiment with a program that helps the best hackathon projects grow and succeed even after the hackathon is over.
If this program proves to be successful, it would make sense to do a v2 of the program, but this time perhaps including finalists from past ETHGlobal hackathons. This would create a larger pool of high-quality projects and bring promising teams and developers to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We're voting for this proposal because it takes a thoughtful, practical approach to supporting innovation on Arbitrum. By helping hackathon projects turn their ideas into real products with users, it ensures effective use of resources while providing teams with essential mentorship and connections. It’s not just about these individual projects—it’s about building a stronger, more sustainable, and decentralized ecosystem, which fits perfectly with our vision for Arbitrum’s future.
I fully support this proposal and I am in favor of onchain mechanism. The proposal is well-structured and goal-oriented, covering a comprehensive process from user validation to MVP development and market testing. By providing funding in two stages and intensive guidance, it reduces the risk of project failure while promoting the continuous growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Thanks for the comments @PGov
Implementing mechanisms to ensure that supported projects remain within the Arbitrum ecosystem is crucial to prevent talent attrition.
Thanks for the questions @Ignas
What’s the plan to make sure these projects keep growing after the program ends, and don’t just rely on short-term support from Arbitrum and RnDAO?
I have given my support on Snapshot to this proposal because of what I mention before...
I think it offers a good structure that will help ensure hackathon projects turn into real solutions that benefit Arbitrum ecosystem. When you divide the program into developing and validating, you increase the chances of success because you only allocate more resources to the projects that will address the actual needs. This design encourages the use of funds wisely over a lengthy period of time. Also, RnDAO and Arbitrum working together helps to combine efforts and gives everyone guidance, stuff, and connections apart from the money.
After reading @danielo responses and discussing them with him at Devcon, I am voting in favor of this proposal on Snapshot.
I believe it is important to have a follow-up plan for the projects that emerge from hackathons. If the DAO is going to fund hackathons, it makes sense to support the most promising projects that arise from these initiatives. Moving forward, I would like the follow-up plan to be included in the hackathon proposal itself, as was done with Govhack.
Over, this presents a very interesting initiative to nurture post-hackathon projects within Arbitrum. By offering structured support, this program aims to transform innovative concepts into viable ventures.
Some things that we enjoy from this propsal:
Over, this presents a very interesting initiative to nurture post-hackathon projects within Arbitrum. By offering structured support, this program aims to transform innovative concepts into viable ventures.
Some things that we enjoy from this propsal:
Some concerns that are making us a bit apprehensive:
I think it would be great if we could find a way to tie the funds in a way that they can be clawed back if the project moves away from Arbitrum.
Voting FOR this proposal but with no onchain mechanism
The program addresses a critical need - supporting promising projects beyond the hackathon stage. The two phased approach is great and focus on customer validation are solid. While the budget is significant, the potential return in ecosystem value could justify the investment if even 1-2 projects succeed long-term.
Voting FOR this proposal but with no onchain mechanism
The program addresses a critical need - supporting promising projects beyond the hackathon stage. The two phased approach is great and focus on customer validation are solid. While the budget is significant, the potential return in ecosystem value could justify the investment if even 1-2 projects succeed long-term.
We voted for NO onchain mechanism because while collaberry seems interesting, it may add unnecesary overhead to the process of giving grants as its a new tool, which needs to be adapted to this purpose and also the teams need to learn to use. It would be better to have Collaberry as an option rather than to require its use and also potentially double fund it(if we're wrong on this aspect please let us know)
Given that there is a operational spend of $87,000, there should be enough funds for the operations team to judge the progress of the teams (who should probably be required to give monthly reports)
If collabbery is used and funded, it may make sense to reduce operational spend, since it seems thats the purpose of the tool.
Finally, one question is how will project success be measured beyond "first 100 users"?
I think this proposal is a great way to follow up projects from the hackathon and bring more value to Arbitrum. So voted In favour, but would like to share 2 concerns:
Honestly, I don't understand what this proposal is looking to do, so I have a few questions...
Is it looking for funding for the hackathon projects for $124,000? the amount of funding that they could independently apply and probably get, from a questbook track? Is it looking to sell collabberry services for $30,000? Is it looking to pay RnDAO for "supporting" the projects post hackathon for $60,780? Is it looking to get a set of projects invested by the Arbitrum Foundation, and also RnDAO? and how much is the equity split between the Arbitrum Foundation and RnDAO, is it the same? So is it looking to fund the equity investment that RnDAO will get as well? If this proposal doesn't pass, will the projects give equity to RnDAO for RnDAO's support? Will RnDAO stop support for the projects? Is this proposal trying to do all of the above?
I fully support this proposal and I am in favor of onchain mechanism. The proposal is well-structured and goal-oriented, covering a comprehensive process from user validation to MVP development and market testing. By providing funding in two stages and intensive guidance, it reduces the risk of project failure while promoting the continuous growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Establish a mechanism for resource recovery (e.g., codebase sharing, team member reallocation) for projects that fail to pass the second stage evaluation or are terminated. This would help minimize wasted funds and effort while allowing other potential projects to benefit from prior work.
Thanks for the comments @PGov
Implementing mechanisms to ensure that supported projects remain within the Arbitrum ecosystem is crucial to prevent talent attrition.
Clear evaluation criteria for transitioning between program phases are essential to maintain transparency and accountability.
we have discussed with multiple top delegates about this and confirmed our understanding that this proposal is not considered an Incentives program i.e. we're very different from LTIP/STIP in the stage of project maturity (very early stage vs incentives for mature protocols), the usage of funds (funds to build the product vs funds to incentivise adoption), the end recipient of the funds (the projects vs end users), the nature of the value for Arbitrum (investment contract and over time protocol fess vs only protocol fees or TVL growth) .
We'll need to draft and agree an investment contract with the projects and carry due dilligence. Additionally, there is the regular overhead costs of running a program.
please let me know if any questions remain
Thanks for the questions @Ignas
What’s the plan to make sure these projects keep growing after the program ends, and don’t just rely on short-term support from Arbitrum and RnDAO?
If a project doesn’t meet its goals or doesn’t deliver as expected, how will the DAO protect the funds given to them?
Let me know if any doubts remain
After reading @danielo responses and discussing them with him at Devcon, I am voting in favor of this proposal on Snapshot.
I believe it is important to have a follow-up plan for the projects that emerge from hackathons. If the DAO is going to fund hackathons, it makes sense to support the most promising projects that arise from these initiatives. Moving forward, I would like the follow-up plan to be included in the hackathon proposal itself, as was done with Govhack.
Some considerations:
I think it's crucial to address Abdullah's question. I don't see it answered in the thread (apologies if I missed it):
On that note, if a project does turn out to be successful and ends up launching a token, we’re assuming that a portion will go to RnDAO—would Arb DAO also be eligible for either a token share or rev share component? What if a project does not want to launch a token—would there be an equity component? The latter would be tougher for Arb DAO to partake in, so it may not be advisable from our perspective.
On another note, I would recommend cutting the Marketing budget. I don't think the DAO should cover that at this stage. I encourage @danielo and the selected projects to leverage the DAO's existing platforms (Twitter/Discord) and seek support from the Foundation to communicate their initiatives.
Lastly, since it has been clarified multiple times that this is an investment, I would like the proposal to clearly outline, before going to Tally, the expected return for the DAO from these investments and the commitments that funded projects will make to the DAO.
I think it would be great if we could find a way to tie the funds in a way that they can be clawed back if the project moves away from Arbitrum.
Thanks for the work you’re doing, @danielo.
I voted "for" cuz i think this is a great proposal with tangible benefits to Arbitrum.
Honestly, I don't understand what this proposal is looking to do, so I have a few questions...
Is it looking for funding for the hackathon projects for $124,000? the amount of funding that they could independently apply and probably get, from a questbook track? Is it looking to sell collabberry services for $30,000? Is it looking to pay RnDAO for "supporting" the projects post hackathon for $60,780? Is it looking to get a set of projects invested by the Arbitrum Foundation, and also RnDAO? and how much is the equity split between the Arbitrum Foundation and RnDAO, is it the same? So is it looking to fund the equity investment that RnDAO will get as well? If this proposal doesn't pass, will the projects give equity to RnDAO for RnDAO's support? Will RnDAO stop support for the projects? Is this proposal trying to do all of the above?
Also, there is a mistake in the calculations... if you add all of the parts, the big number here should be $214,780, not $213,780
Thanks for the comments!
I'll check the Uni programs.
We've already been in close contact with JoJo who manages the new protocol and dapps track for questbook and have a precedent of collaborating. I'm hoping to continue this if and when it makes sense. And indeed we have the security audit subsidies in mind as something to refer program participants too when the time is right.
Thanks for the comments!
I'll check the Uni programs.
We've already been in close contact with JoJo who manages the new protocol and dapps track for questbook and have a precedent of collaborating. I'm hoping to continue this if and when it makes sense. And indeed we have the security audit subsidies in mind as something to refer program participants too when the time is right.
The committee is the RnDAO investment committee which exists precisely to satisfy this need. We have members with VC and accelerator experience (ex head of investments at outlier ventures and another member having setup 20+ accelerator programs), and importantly everyone has knowledge on the specific vertical.
Hey Pedro, thanks for the comments.
Answering @AbdullahUmar comment. We're thinking the investment contract should be structured as a standard SAFE + Token Warrant. But the details of this would be reviewed with the Arbitrum Foundation's legal team after the Snapshot.
Marketing budge
Hey Pedro, thanks for the comments.
Answering @AbdullahUmar comment. We're thinking the investment contract should be structured as a standard SAFE + Token Warrant. But the details of this would be reviewed with the Arbitrum Foundation's legal team after the Snapshot.
On this, the marketing budget covers multiple things that ArbitrumDAO/foundation are not equipped to do:
I'm thinking how to present the return as these being a very small sample of super early-stage ventures, the range of outcomes possible can vary massively (that's why previously we proposed a $3million program but were asked to find a smaller pilot). For context, VC funds can usually have a range to benchmark against (top-tier funds return 20-30% IRR over 10 years and mid-tier 10-20% IRR. So a common multiple on invested capital is 2-3X). However, the sample size here doesn't give us enough to be statistically relevant (VC returns are highly skewed, with the best-performing companies driving the vast majority of the returns. In many cases, a small percentage of the portfolio companies will generate the majority of the fund’s returns). Accelerators can target 15-25% IRR and 3-5x multiple on invested capital, but that's based on having 20-100 companies in the portfolio across multiple cohorts. So basically what I'm saying is that we won't have enough data to answer your question convincingly for a while. However, we'll have leading indicators based on the traction of the projects (customer usage, revenue, additional financing received, and to a lesser degree (social)media attention that boosts Arbitrum ecosystem). The leading indicators can inform the decision about continuing the program, but we can't change the nature of venture being a long term game.
Please let me know if any questions remain.
Im going to vote Abstain. The reason is although some good comments were made on this im not sure about the outcome.
Blockquote https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/24?u=ezr3al
Hey @danielo, thank you for this proposal! It truly aligns with the direction I’ve been advocating for in our discussions on Unifying Arbitrum’s Mission, Vision, and Purpose (MVP) (https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/32). I firmly believe that fostering innovation and experimentation is crucial for Arbitrum to differentiate itself from other L2 solutions and generate tangible value for the ecosystem.
However, I have a question: who will be responsible for selecting the two most promising projects for this program? I couldn’t find this information in the proposal, so I’d appreciate it if you could clarify.
Hey @danielo, thank you for this proposal! It truly aligns with the direction I’ve been advocating for in our discussions on Unifying Arbitrum’s Mission, Vision, and Purpose (MVP) (https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/32). I firmly believe that fostering innovation and experimentation is crucial for Arbitrum to differentiate itself from other L2 solutions and generate tangible value for the ecosystem.
However, I have a question: who will be responsible for selecting the two most promising projects for this program? I couldn’t find this information in the proposal, so I’d appreciate it if you could clarify.
I support this initiative, but it must deliver tangible benefits to the DAO. I agree with the points made earlier about retention, and I think we should ensure that the selected projects maintain chain exclusivity for a specific period (at least a year, perhaps?). The objective should be to avoid turning this into a program similar to the mini-grants initiative, where the focus is too broad, judging is not taken seriously, and no long-term value is created. If we can guarantee exclusivity and maintain high quality, I believe this initiative could be a significant asset for the DAO.
I’m reaffirming my support for this proposal by voting in favor (yes, on chain mechanism) on Snapshot, as outlined in my earlier comments:
I support this proposal as it addresses a critical need in the lifecycle of hackathon projects: consistent follow-up to ensure these innovative ideas become tangible, impactful ventures rather than fading out post-hackathon. Hackathons are fantastic for sparking ideas and gathering talent, but without structured support, these projects often struggle to sustain momentum, validate their concepts, and reach market viability.
I’m reaffirming my support for this proposal by voting in favor (yes, on chain mechanism) on Snapshot, as outlined in my earlier comments:
I support this proposal as it addresses a critical need in the lifecycle of hackathon projects: consistent follow-up to ensure these innovative ideas become tangible, impactful ventures rather than fading out post-hackathon. Hackathons are fantastic for sparking ideas and gathering talent, but without structured support, these projects often struggle to sustain momentum, validate their concepts, and reach market viability.
Additionally, @danielo has proven his expertise with RnDAO. His commitment to this space and track record of successful project support are further reasons I believe this program will thrive and help establish a self-sustaining ecosystem within Arbitrum.
Thanks Gabriel
So throughout the program the projects need to continue building in Arbitrum. After the program, if they move to another chain we still hold the investment contract in them so if they're successful Arbiturm still wins :slight_smile:
Thanks Gabriel
So throughout the program the projects need to continue building in Arbitrum. After the program, if they move to another chain we still hold the investment contract in them so if they're successful Arbiturm still wins :slight_smile:
I'm still hoping that after this pilot we can scale up this program and create a Swarm with powerful network effects through integrations and collaboration between the projects, making it a bad idea to migrate even if other chains were to give you significant money. This is just the beginning!
Thanks for the comment @0x_ultra
The projects will have an investment contract with Arbitrum Foundation, so even if they moved to another chain that gave them a massive grant later and poached them, Arbiturm would still benefit as investors :slight_smile:
Thanks for the comment @0x_ultra
The projects will have an investment contract with Arbitrum Foundation, so even if they moved to another chain that gave them a massive grant later and poached them, Arbiturm would still benefit as investors :slight_smile:
That being said, we'll also be supporting them and working with them all the time, so at least for the duration of the program and for launching the MVP, that's happening in Arbitrum.
The 2 projects are selected from the previous pool of projects by the RnDAO investment committee. As we'll be working with all of them on a weekly basis before, we'll have very deep context to pick the most promising ones.
I voted FOR, no onchain mechanism.
I appreciate the idea of providing continuity for the hackathon participants (so they remain engaged within the ecosystem) and I believe this structure is something worth of trying.
Indeed the agreement with the projects would be an investment and not a grant.
This proposal is not related with M&A (as M&A targets late stage, mature projects with potential high value but high risk deals. While this proposal focuses on early stage projects with low risk deals). And the proposal is aligned with the objectives of AVI to the best of my knowledge (and based on a conversation this week with the AVI team), as they have been looking for pilot deals. Importantly AVI / CapCo is not set up yet so the counterparty who will sign the investments in this case is the Arbitrum Foundation. We'll add a clause to the investment agreement that stipulates the Foundation can transfer the agreement to any Arbitrum Affiliated entity. So when/if we get a CapCo or related structure setup, the agreements can easily be transferred to said new entity to be governed there.
Indeed the agreement with the projects would be an investment and not a grant.
This proposal is not related with M&A (as M&A targets late stage, mature projects with potential high value but high risk deals. While this proposal focuses on early stage projects with low risk deals). And the proposal is aligned with the objectives of AVI to the best of my knowledge (and based on a conversation this week with the AVI team), as they have been looking for pilot deals. Importantly AVI / CapCo is not set up yet so the counterparty who will sign the investments in this case is the Arbitrum Foundation. We'll add a clause to the investment agreement that stipulates the Foundation can transfer the agreement to any Arbitrum Affiliated entity. So when/if we get a CapCo or related structure setup, the agreements can easily be transferred to said new entity to be governed there.
Importantly, this proposal offers something somewhat similar to an accelerator but not the same format as we've seen mediocre results with traditional accelerators (3 months, hands-off, little support after, sourcing ideas from the outside). So we've made multiple improvements to the format, most notably a deeper focus on supporting the projects with methodologies and expertise for customer validation (phase 1) and a staged program (so we work with projects for 3 months before committing extra funds and efforts). This also means the projects we take are somewhat earlier stage but we believe this approach will be advantageous in ensuring they're built upon solid foundations.
Thank you, @danielo, for the spirited proposal. We believe this is an interesting proposal to continue supporting hackathon winners. If we understand correctly, this is a matching program in which RnDAO will provide ~50% of the upfront capital, with Arbitrum covering the other half?
This is a difficult one to gauge, as while the proposal's mission is very much aligned in that we don't want to see hackathon projects fall to the wayside, we are still talking about a quarter of a million-dollar investment. The hackathon winners are inspiring, but it's unclear whether they are aligned to fix critical needs for the DAO. One important distinction delegates have been trying to draw recently is the line between grants as charity and strategic grants that provide some value back to the ecosystem and DAO.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you for presenting this thoughtful proposal. We really like RnDAO's approach to supporting Arbitrum builders through hands-on mentorship alongside funding.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you for presenting this thoughtful proposal. We really like RnDAO's approach to supporting Arbitrum builders through hands-on mentorship alongside funding.
Not just advisory, hands-on operators: We're not just providing advice, we get our hands dirty and work directly in the projects, fast-tracking their development with world-class expertise,
$3000 total for participant incentives for customer validation interviews: Up to $50 per interview for 15 participants per venture
Support in establishing customer relationships by leveraging the RnDAO network and peers' networks.
We believe that additional clarity on the following questions will provide us with a better understanding and support this program.
We will select the four most promising hackathon projects to join the program.
The short-term goal (6 months) is for projects to validate their concepts with customers (first 100 users) and generate traction to fundraise from investors or otherwise receive follow-on funding.
Could you share more about how you'll help projects find team members?
Thank you, @danielo. This proposal essentially suggests building an Arbitrum-specific accelerator program that supports projects beyond the hackathon phase.
We see the value in supporting projects in their initial phases and agree an accelerator program would bring value to the ecosystem. However, this proposal explicitly refers to an "investment" rather than a "grant". Does this imply that Arbitrum DAO would get equity/tokens in return for the investment? If so, how does this proposal relate to the M&A and AVI initiatives?
Hi @danielo, I have to emphasize that if we want great startups to stay in the Arbitrum ecosystem, we must avoid getting their devs into bureaucratic traps. I mean, we must be fast and furious in this matter of funding them and not waste their their time and energy on all kinds of validations and appraisals.
From my experience of dealing with various startups over the past three years or so, the really good ones, and their devs, can easily get some funding from the market.
thanks for the comments
moved to other chains (Optimism and Cardano), could you provide us the information of what projects are you talking about here
I really like this proposal, and I think it is critical to continue supporting the hackathon, so I will be voting in favor.
I think it would be great if we could find a way to tie the funds in a way that they can be clawed back if the project moves away from Arbitrum.
Thanks for the work you're doing, @danielo.
Thank you for your comment.
For clarification, this proposal would NOT be based on grants. The proposal pilots ArbitrumDAO making investments into early-stage projects together with RnDAO. The foundation would act as counterparty and a clause allowing to transfer the contract later to an Arbiturm-affiliated entity such as CapCo).
As such, the value here comes from multiple fronts:
Thank you for your comment.
For clarification, this proposal would NOT be based on grants. The proposal pilots ArbitrumDAO making investments into early-stage projects together with RnDAO. The foundation would act as counterparty and a clause allowing to transfer the contract later to an Arbiturm-affiliated entity such as CapCo).
As such, the value here comes from multiple fronts:
Now, an important disclaimer is that we're taking Hackathon projects. As such they typically haven't done customer validation nor proper market research before. Because of this, many fail. We're addressing this head-on by selecting the teams for talent and drive. The proposed program thus starts with validating the problem with customers (lean startup, customer development, and design thinking methods) and the Arbiturm investment is only 12k per project at this stage. Only projects that can showcase customer interest and a market gap will then move to Phase 2 and get extra funding. This setup provides the opportunity to capture data from the ArbitrumDAO and existing Arbitrum projects about what painpoints are significant (although we'll focus on solving larger needs that go beyond web3 so to grow the onchain economy and not be only stuck with the current web3 market size. the sweet spot includes current DAO needs that also address larger societal issues). As a result of the work in Phase 1, we expect the projects to evolve significantly. Basically, please don't assess the raw materials as if they were the finished product :slight_smile:
Also, we're not asking the delegates to evaluate the projects as we believe most delegates are ill-equipped to do so given this is not their focus. The RnDAO team is specialised in this area with decades of experience in the specific vertical (e.g. Drea has been working on it since Web1, including leading research at a team that became Google Suite and then leading Research at Asana and Aragon before joining RnDAO). We will carry out due diligence on the projects and select the teams.
We're suggesting to do this outside the existing grants programs because:
In the Snapshot vote: In favour
Support the proposal. This program aligns with Arbitrum’s long-term development strategy, focusing on turning the short-term success of hackathons into long-term value. The necessity and unique value of supporting early-stage projects are well demonstrated. If executed effectively, it will bring lasting value and contributions to the Arbitrum ecosystem. Thank you for your proposal.
thanks for your comments and questions.
While the proposal mentions selecting ‘the most promising’ projects, it would be valuable to understand the specific selection criteria.
I fully support this proposal and I am in favor of onchain mechanism. The proposal is well-structured and goal-oriented, covering a comprehensive process from user validation to MVP development and market testing. By providing funding in two stages and intensive guidance, it reduces the risk of project failure while promoting the continuous growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Establish a mechanism for resource recovery (e.g., codebase sharing, team member reallocation) for projects that fail to pass the second stage evaluation or are terminated. This would help minimize wasted funds and effort while allowing other potential projects to benefit from prior work.
Thanks for the comments @PGov
Implementing mechanisms to ensure that supported projects remain within the Arbitrum ecosystem is crucial to prevent talent attrition.
Clear evaluation criteria for transitioning between program phases are essential to maintain transparency and accountability.
we have discussed with multiple top delegates about this and confirmed our understanding that this proposal is not considered an Incentives program i.e. we're very different from LTIP/STIP in the stage of project maturity (very early stage vs incentives for mature protocols), the usage of funds (funds to build the product vs funds to incentivise adoption), the end recipient of the funds (the projects vs end users), the nature of the value for Arbitrum (investment contract and over time protocol fess vs only protocol fees or TVL growth) .
We'll need to draft and agree an investment contract with the projects and carry due dilligence. Additionally, there is the regular overhead costs of running a program.
please let me know if any questions remain
Thanks for the questions @Ignas
What’s the plan to make sure these projects keep growing after the program ends, and don’t just rely on short-term support from Arbitrum and RnDAO?
If a project doesn’t meet its goals or doesn’t deliver as expected, how will the DAO protect the funds given to them?
Let me know if any doubts remain
After reading @danielo responses and discussing them with him at Devcon, I am voting in favor of this proposal on Snapshot.
I believe it is important to have a follow-up plan for the projects that emerge from hackathons. If the DAO is going to fund hackathons, it makes sense to support the most promising projects that arise from these initiatives. Moving forward, I would like the follow-up plan to be included in the hackathon proposal itself, as was done with Govhack.
Some considerations:
I think it's crucial to address Abdullah's question. I don't see it answered in the thread (apologies if I missed it):
On that note, if a project does turn out to be successful and ends up launching a token, we’re assuming that a portion will go to RnDAO—would Arb DAO also be eligible for either a token share or rev share component? What if a project does not want to launch a token—would there be an equity component? The latter would be tougher for Arb DAO to partake in, so it may not be advisable from our perspective.
On another note, I would recommend cutting the Marketing budget. I don't think the DAO should cover that at this stage. I encourage @danielo and the selected projects to leverage the DAO's existing platforms (Twitter/Discord) and seek support from the Foundation to communicate their initiatives.
Lastly, since it has been clarified multiple times that this is an investment, I would like the proposal to clearly outline, before going to Tally, the expected return for the DAO from these investments and the commitments that funded projects will make to the DAO.
I think it would be great if we could find a way to tie the funds in a way that they can be clawed back if the project moves away from Arbitrum.
Thanks for the work you’re doing, @danielo.
I voted "for" cuz i think this is a great proposal with tangible benefits to Arbitrum.
Honestly, I don't understand what this proposal is looking to do, so I have a few questions...
Is it looking for funding for the hackathon projects for $124,000? the amount of funding that they could independently apply and probably get, from a questbook track? Is it looking to sell collabberry services for $30,000? Is it looking to pay RnDAO for "supporting" the projects post hackathon for $60,780? Is it looking to get a set of projects invested by the Arbitrum Foundation, and also RnDAO? and how much is the equity split between the Arbitrum Foundation and RnDAO, is it the same? So is it looking to fund the equity investment that RnDAO will get as well? If this proposal doesn't pass, will the projects give equity to RnDAO for RnDAO's support? Will RnDAO stop support for the projects? Is this proposal trying to do all of the above?
Also, there is a mistake in the calculations... if you add all of the parts, the big number here should be $214,780, not $213,780
Thanks for the comments!
I'll check the Uni programs.
We've already been in close contact with JoJo who manages the new protocol and dapps track for questbook and have a precedent of collaborating. I'm hoping to continue this if and when it makes sense. And indeed we have the security audit subsidies in mind as something to refer program participants too when the time is right.
Thanks for the comments!
I'll check the Uni programs.
We've already been in close contact with JoJo who manages the new protocol and dapps track for questbook and have a precedent of collaborating. I'm hoping to continue this if and when it makes sense. And indeed we have the security audit subsidies in mind as something to refer program participants too when the time is right.
The committee is the RnDAO investment committee which exists precisely to satisfy this need. We have members with VC and accelerator experience (ex head of investments at outlier ventures and another member having setup 20+ accelerator programs), and importantly everyone has knowledge on the specific vertical.
Hey Pedro, thanks for the comments.
Answering @AbdullahUmar comment. We're thinking the investment contract should be structured as a standard SAFE + Token Warrant. But the details of this would be reviewed with the Arbitrum Foundation's legal team after the Snapshot.
Marketing budge
Hey Pedro, thanks for the comments.
Answering @AbdullahUmar comment. We're thinking the investment contract should be structured as a standard SAFE + Token Warrant. But the details of this would be reviewed with the Arbitrum Foundation's legal team after the Snapshot.
On this, the marketing budget covers multiple things that ArbitrumDAO/foundation are not equipped to do:
I'm thinking how to present the return as these being a very small sample of super early-stage ventures, the range of outcomes possible can vary massively (that's why previously we proposed a $3million program but were asked to find a smaller pilot). For context, VC funds can usually have a range to benchmark against (top-tier funds return 20-30% IRR over 10 years and mid-tier 10-20% IRR. So a common multiple on invested capital is 2-3X). However, the sample size here doesn't give us enough to be statistically relevant (VC returns are highly skewed, with the best-performing companies driving the vast majority of the returns. In many cases, a small percentage of the portfolio companies will generate the majority of the fund’s returns). Accelerators can target 15-25% IRR and 3-5x multiple on invested capital, but that's based on having 20-100 companies in the portfolio across multiple cohorts. So basically what I'm saying is that we won't have enough data to answer your question convincingly for a while. However, we'll have leading indicators based on the traction of the projects (customer usage, revenue, additional financing received, and to a lesser degree (social)media attention that boosts Arbitrum ecosystem). The leading indicators can inform the decision about continuing the program, but we can't change the nature of venture being a long term game.
Please let me know if any questions remain.
Im going to vote Abstain. The reason is although some good comments were made on this im not sure about the outcome.
Blockquote https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/24?u=ezr3al
Hey @danielo, thank you for this proposal! It truly aligns with the direction I’ve been advocating for in our discussions on Unifying Arbitrum’s Mission, Vision, and Purpose (MVP) (https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/32). I firmly believe that fostering innovation and experimentation is crucial for Arbitrum to differentiate itself from other L2 solutions and generate tangible value for the ecosystem.
However, I have a question: who will be responsible for selecting the two most promising projects for this program? I couldn’t find this information in the proposal, so I’d appreciate it if you could clarify.
Hey @danielo, thank you for this proposal! It truly aligns with the direction I’ve been advocating for in our discussions on Unifying Arbitrum’s Mission, Vision, and Purpose (MVP) (https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/unifying-arbitrum-s-mission-vision-purpose-mvp/27275/32). I firmly believe that fostering innovation and experimentation is crucial for Arbitrum to differentiate itself from other L2 solutions and generate tangible value for the ecosystem.
However, I have a question: who will be responsible for selecting the two most promising projects for this program? I couldn’t find this information in the proposal, so I’d appreciate it if you could clarify.
I support this initiative, but it must deliver tangible benefits to the DAO. I agree with the points made earlier about retention, and I think we should ensure that the selected projects maintain chain exclusivity for a specific period (at least a year, perhaps?). The objective should be to avoid turning this into a program similar to the mini-grants initiative, where the focus is too broad, judging is not taken seriously, and no long-term value is created. If we can guarantee exclusivity and maintain high quality, I believe this initiative could be a significant asset for the DAO.
I’m reaffirming my support for this proposal by voting in favor (yes, on chain mechanism) on Snapshot, as outlined in my earlier comments:
I support this proposal as it addresses a critical need in the lifecycle of hackathon projects: consistent follow-up to ensure these innovative ideas become tangible, impactful ventures rather than fading out post-hackathon. Hackathons are fantastic for sparking ideas and gathering talent, but without structured support, these projects often struggle to sustain momentum, validate their concepts, and reach market viability.
I’m reaffirming my support for this proposal by voting in favor (yes, on chain mechanism) on Snapshot, as outlined in my earlier comments:
I support this proposal as it addresses a critical need in the lifecycle of hackathon projects: consistent follow-up to ensure these innovative ideas become tangible, impactful ventures rather than fading out post-hackathon. Hackathons are fantastic for sparking ideas and gathering talent, but without structured support, these projects often struggle to sustain momentum, validate their concepts, and reach market viability.
Additionally, @danielo has proven his expertise with RnDAO. His commitment to this space and track record of successful project support are further reasons I believe this program will thrive and help establish a self-sustaining ecosystem within Arbitrum.
Thanks Gabriel
So throughout the program the projects need to continue building in Arbitrum. After the program, if they move to another chain we still hold the investment contract in them so if they're successful Arbiturm still wins :slight_smile:
Thanks Gabriel
So throughout the program the projects need to continue building in Arbitrum. After the program, if they move to another chain we still hold the investment contract in them so if they're successful Arbiturm still wins :slight_smile:
I'm still hoping that after this pilot we can scale up this program and create a Swarm with powerful network effects through integrations and collaboration between the projects, making it a bad idea to migrate even if other chains were to give you significant money. This is just the beginning!
Thanks for the comment @0x_ultra
The projects will have an investment contract with Arbitrum Foundation, so even if they moved to another chain that gave them a massive grant later and poached them, Arbiturm would still benefit as investors :slight_smile:
Thanks for the comment @0x_ultra
The projects will have an investment contract with Arbitrum Foundation, so even if they moved to another chain that gave them a massive grant later and poached them, Arbiturm would still benefit as investors :slight_smile:
That being said, we'll also be supporting them and working with them all the time, so at least for the duration of the program and for launching the MVP, that's happening in Arbitrum.
The 2 projects are selected from the previous pool of projects by the RnDAO investment committee. As we'll be working with all of them on a weekly basis before, we'll have very deep context to pick the most promising ones.
I voted FOR, no onchain mechanism.
I appreciate the idea of providing continuity for the hackathon participants (so they remain engaged within the ecosystem) and I believe this structure is something worth of trying.
Indeed the agreement with the projects would be an investment and not a grant.
This proposal is not related with M&A (as M&A targets late stage, mature projects with potential high value but high risk deals. While this proposal focuses on early stage projects with low risk deals). And the proposal is aligned with the objectives of AVI to the best of my knowledge (and based on a conversation this week with the AVI team), as they have been looking for pilot deals. Importantly AVI / CapCo is not set up yet so the counterparty who will sign the investments in this case is the Arbitrum Foundation. We'll add a clause to the investment agreement that stipulates the Foundation can transfer the agreement to any Arbitrum Affiliated entity. So when/if we get a CapCo or related structure setup, the agreements can easily be transferred to said new entity to be governed there.
Indeed the agreement with the projects would be an investment and not a grant.
This proposal is not related with M&A (as M&A targets late stage, mature projects with potential high value but high risk deals. While this proposal focuses on early stage projects with low risk deals). And the proposal is aligned with the objectives of AVI to the best of my knowledge (and based on a conversation this week with the AVI team), as they have been looking for pilot deals. Importantly AVI / CapCo is not set up yet so the counterparty who will sign the investments in this case is the Arbitrum Foundation. We'll add a clause to the investment agreement that stipulates the Foundation can transfer the agreement to any Arbitrum Affiliated entity. So when/if we get a CapCo or related structure setup, the agreements can easily be transferred to said new entity to be governed there.
Importantly, this proposal offers something somewhat similar to an accelerator but not the same format as we've seen mediocre results with traditional accelerators (3 months, hands-off, little support after, sourcing ideas from the outside). So we've made multiple improvements to the format, most notably a deeper focus on supporting the projects with methodologies and expertise for customer validation (phase 1) and a staged program (so we work with projects for 3 months before committing extra funds and efforts). This also means the projects we take are somewhat earlier stage but we believe this approach will be advantageous in ensuring they're built upon solid foundations.
Thank you, @danielo, for the spirited proposal. We believe this is an interesting proposal to continue supporting hackathon winners. If we understand correctly, this is a matching program in which RnDAO will provide ~50% of the upfront capital, with Arbitrum covering the other half?
This is a difficult one to gauge, as while the proposal's mission is very much aligned in that we don't want to see hackathon projects fall to the wayside, we are still talking about a quarter of a million-dollar investment. The hackathon winners are inspiring, but it's unclear whether they are aligned to fix critical needs for the DAO. One important distinction delegates have been trying to draw recently is the line between grants as charity and strategic grants that provide some value back to the ecosystem and DAO.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you for presenting this thoughtful proposal. We really like RnDAO's approach to supporting Arbitrum builders through hands-on mentorship alongside funding.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you for presenting this thoughtful proposal. We really like RnDAO's approach to supporting Arbitrum builders through hands-on mentorship alongside funding.
Not just advisory, hands-on operators: We're not just providing advice, we get our hands dirty and work directly in the projects, fast-tracking their development with world-class expertise,
$3000 total for participant incentives for customer validation interviews: Up to $50 per interview for 15 participants per venture
Support in establishing customer relationships by leveraging the RnDAO network and peers' networks.
We believe that additional clarity on the following questions will provide us with a better understanding and support this program.
We will select the four most promising hackathon projects to join the program.
The short-term goal (6 months) is for projects to validate their concepts with customers (first 100 users) and generate traction to fundraise from investors or otherwise receive follow-on funding.
Could you share more about how you'll help projects find team members?
Thank you, @danielo. This proposal essentially suggests building an Arbitrum-specific accelerator program that supports projects beyond the hackathon phase.
We see the value in supporting projects in their initial phases and agree an accelerator program would bring value to the ecosystem. However, this proposal explicitly refers to an "investment" rather than a "grant". Does this imply that Arbitrum DAO would get equity/tokens in return for the investment? If so, how does this proposal relate to the M&A and AVI initiatives?
Hi @danielo, I have to emphasize that if we want great startups to stay in the Arbitrum ecosystem, we must avoid getting their devs into bureaucratic traps. I mean, we must be fast and furious in this matter of funding them and not waste their their time and energy on all kinds of validations and appraisals.
From my experience of dealing with various startups over the past three years or so, the really good ones, and their devs, can easily get some funding from the market.
thanks for the comments
moved to other chains (Optimism and Cardano), could you provide us the information of what projects are you talking about here
I really like this proposal, and I think it is critical to continue supporting the hackathon, so I will be voting in favor.
I think it would be great if we could find a way to tie the funds in a way that they can be clawed back if the project moves away from Arbitrum.
Thanks for the work you're doing, @danielo.
Thank you for your comment.
For clarification, this proposal would NOT be based on grants. The proposal pilots ArbitrumDAO making investments into early-stage projects together with RnDAO. The foundation would act as counterparty and a clause allowing to transfer the contract later to an Arbiturm-affiliated entity such as CapCo).
As such, the value here comes from multiple fronts:
Thank you for your comment.
For clarification, this proposal would NOT be based on grants. The proposal pilots ArbitrumDAO making investments into early-stage projects together with RnDAO. The foundation would act as counterparty and a clause allowing to transfer the contract later to an Arbiturm-affiliated entity such as CapCo).
As such, the value here comes from multiple fronts:
Now, an important disclaimer is that we're taking Hackathon projects. As such they typically haven't done customer validation nor proper market research before. Because of this, many fail. We're addressing this head-on by selecting the teams for talent and drive. The proposed program thus starts with validating the problem with customers (lean startup, customer development, and design thinking methods) and the Arbiturm investment is only 12k per project at this stage. Only projects that can showcase customer interest and a market gap will then move to Phase 2 and get extra funding. This setup provides the opportunity to capture data from the ArbitrumDAO and existing Arbitrum projects about what painpoints are significant (although we'll focus on solving larger needs that go beyond web3 so to grow the onchain economy and not be only stuck with the current web3 market size. the sweet spot includes current DAO needs that also address larger societal issues). As a result of the work in Phase 1, we expect the projects to evolve significantly. Basically, please don't assess the raw materials as if they were the finished product :slight_smile:
Also, we're not asking the delegates to evaluate the projects as we believe most delegates are ill-equipped to do so given this is not their focus. The RnDAO team is specialised in this area with decades of experience in the specific vertical (e.g. Drea has been working on it since Web1, including leading research at a team that became Google Suite and then leading Research at Asana and Aragon before joining RnDAO). We will carry out due diligence on the projects and select the teams.
We're suggesting to do this outside the existing grants programs because:
In the Snapshot vote: In favour
Support the proposal. This program aligns with Arbitrum’s long-term development strategy, focusing on turning the short-term success of hackathons into long-term value. The necessity and unique value of supporting early-stage projects are well demonstrated. If executed effectively, it will bring lasting value and contributions to the Arbitrum ecosystem. Thank you for your proposal.
thanks for your comments and questions.
While the proposal mentions selecting ‘the most promising’ projects, it would be valuable to understand the specific selection criteria.
Thank you, @danielo, for the spirited proposal. We believe this is an interesting proposal to continue supporting hackathon winners. If we understand correctly, this is a matching program in which RnDAO will provide ~50% of the upfront capital, with Arbitrum covering the other half?
This is a difficult one to gauge, as while the proposal's mission is very much aligned in that we don't want to see hackathon projects fall to the wayside, we are still talking about a quarter of a million-dollar investment. The hackathon winners are inspiring, but it's unclear whether they are aligned to fix critical needs for the DAO. One important distinction delegates have been trying to draw recently is the line between grants as charity and strategic grants that provide some value back to the ecosystem and DAO.
We're currently undecided, but generally, we'd prefer to have these smaller grants delegated to a key decision-maker w/in a larger grants program who can value a project's potential and the ability of their developers rather than having each delegate review all three projects and rnDAO's operational budget and come to a decision on this one program. Ideally, these projects apply to Questbook or the Foundation grant programs.
Hi @danielo, I have to emphasize that if we want great startups to stay in the Arbitrum ecosystem, we must avoid getting their devs into bureaucratic traps. I mean, we must be fast and furious in this matter of funding them and not waste their their time and energy on all kinds of validations and appraisals.
From my experience of dealing with various startups over the past three years or so, the really good ones, and their devs, can easily get some funding from the market.
I know that there are various process norms that must be met to use DAO funds. But given that the maximum match is $50,000 per program, I don't think that's a lot of money, so I'm suggesting keeping things simple and letting Devs focus on innovation building rather than building to meet Grants conditions.
thanks for the comments
moved to other chains (Optimism and Cardano), could you provide us the information of what projects are you talking about here
imply because giving a grant to someone doesn’t have a positive impact, at least not from the very beginning
t grants need to be checked very well, they need to communicate on their progress and need to benefit the ecosystem somehow.
thanks for your comments and questions.
While the proposal mentions selecting ‘the most promising’ projects, it would be valuable to understand the specific selection criteria.
While user acquisition targets are mentioned, can we establish more specific KPIs for measuring the program’s success? For example - TVL targets or Transaction volume expectations, etc
Could you share more about how you’ll help projects find team members?
Hi! Thanks for your proposal. I think that a follow-up for hackathon winners makes sense. I support the idea.
I have some questions.
Hi! Thanks for your proposal. I think that a follow-up for hackathon winners makes sense. I support the idea.
I have some questions.
Does this mean the hackathon mentors have already committed to working closely with projects?
To incentivise retention of the projects in the Arbitrum ecosystem, generate early onchain activity, and provide opportunities for project contributors to gain ownership in the projects, the program will support projects in implementing an onchain system to track contributions with points (non-transferable ERC-20s).
I think that if as a DAO we are going to invest directly in projects bootstraping, we need to require binding agreements to at least try to generate onchain activity. Not by tracking their contributions, but by making contributions mandatory.
What are the legal fees cost for operations?
Program Marketing: $21,800 for program branding, outreach, and reporting.
In my opinion, I'd be in favor of the DAO funding the 3 Months development and scaling and then when the projects have tested their product they can get funding through the DAO / Foundation grants programs.
Thank you!
Got it, thank you for your response.
Regarding the success criteria for the validation phase: The proposal mentions validating the requirements before moving on to phase 2, but what are the specific validation metrics? For example, number of users, feedback ratings, or something else? The clearer this criterion is, the more efficient the resource placement will be.
Regarding the success criteria for the validation phase: The proposal mentions validating the requirements before moving on to phase 2, but what are the specific validation metrics? For example, number of users, feedback ratings, or something else? The clearer this criterion is, the more efficient the resource placement will be.
It’s a committee assessment as in such an early stage quantitative metrics are widely unreliable and just not really useful in most cases. That being said, I added some details on the assessment criteria (above in the proposal section “transition from phase 1 to phase 2”)
CollabBerry’s role is that it is interestingly positioned for on-chain points tracking, but could this portion of the budget ($30,000) be detailed, such as specific feature development or long-term support plans?
It is mentioned that self-driven business clusters will be formed in the future, but does this require a clear target node, such as how many active projects or total users will be achieved in how long?
1, increase the quarterly review mechanism, regularly update the project progress and feedback, so that community members can see the incubation effect in real time, to further enhance everyone’s confidence 2、Propose to provide monthly one-on-one guidance or regular workshops for the project team to ensure that they get enough support at the key points, which needs to be specifically detailed here.
3、It is recommended to publish a public summary report or project highlights promotion after each stage is completed, to accumulate materials and cases for the subsequent ecological activities, and also to enhance the influence of Arbitrum
4、About the budget is too rough, need to have a more detailed report, for example, I see that the surveyed enterprises only have 50 dollars.
As others have also indicated, having a sort of tool or program aimed at following-up this hackathon projects is a smart move that prevent us from losing these winner projects and with them the investment done on them and the energy of the Hackathon as you indicated, but we would like to recall on an important point you made when you indicated that 2 valuable projects moved to other chains (Optimism and Cardano), could you provide us the information of what projects are you talking about here? If you say they were valuable we would like to have these projects named as to truly appreciate and dimension the lost value you are talking about. If possible and since you are bringing this idea forward, we would also like to watch a list of others projects that have previously failed after Hackathons were carried away as to get a better idea of this central point of this proposal.
All in all we really believe that what you are bringing to the table while addressing this issue is a very good idea and useful for the development of projects into the DAO, but from our POV examples of the kind are needed as to fully support this.
In my opinion grants shouldn't exceed the amount of 50k. Why is that? Well simply because giving a grant to someone doesn't have a positive impact, at least not from the very beginning. A grant is more or less a cost factor without knowing the outcome. For example, there was a project DAO XY (dont want to name anyone) funded a few years ago. This project barely finished their work. But shortly before they did, someone else bought their company and they left the space without a proper product. So what happened? The DAO paid 50k to basically bootstrap their business and they left the space with a ton of money and the DAO was left without any prodcut or benefit.
What I want to say is, that grants need to be checked very well, they need to communicate on their progress and need to benefit the ecosystem somehow. That being said, a great project will show its benefit straight from the beginning because in the end its important for the Arbitrum DAO to attract great developer and protocols but also keep the financials aspect in mind. @danielo this is something what should be kept in mind, how to really track down everything and create the most and best benefit for Arbitrum and potential projects.
Six months is too long, and it is recommended to set up a mid-term check-in time every 1-2 months to assess the progress of the program and ensure that resources are being used. Like a 2 month check in?
Six months is too long, and it is recommended to set up a mid-term check-in time every 1-2 months to assess the progress of the program and ensure that resources are being used. Like a 2 month check in?
the program funding disbursement is based on two phases, so this is already in place.
we've looked into multiple options here and I'd argue that 50k is on the low but viable side. We have projects in our ecosystem that have received $25k grants and that's often insufficient to allow a bit of iteration and then have enough runway to fundraise, generate some revenue from the product, or find the next grant. On the other hand, multiple accelerators offer 100k-150k investment which is closer to what we're offering here when we account that the projects are in an earlier stage, we can leverage global arbitrage for talent costs, and RnDAO is putting in a lot of work in the form of services reducing the costs of projects.
Personally, I suggest lowering the threshold to attract more projects, many innovative projects are in the exploratory stage, good ideas and teams with project mentors, full-time support and operational resources may not have the same effect.
Does this mean the hackathon mentors have already committed to working closely with projects?
Does this mean the hackathon mentors have already committed to working closely with projects?
No. We confirmed the Hackathon mentors only after the hackathon was approved and same here, we would confirm mentors only when relevant/needed. Equally, not all mentors might make sense so this depends on the needs of the projects as they mature. that being said, the approach we're using is more hands-on support instead of mentorship as we've seen in the data that it gives better results, so we have a core team already confirmed to work on regular basis (multiple times a week) with the projects.
I think that if as a DAO we are going to invest directly in projects bootstraping, we need to require binding agreements to at least try to generate onchain activity. Not by tracking their contributions, but by making contributions mandatory.
legal wrapper yearly fees
it's part of promoting Arbitrum as a home for builders and promoting the projects. The marketing team will do a bit of work to promote the program but the majority of the budget here is for work that is done with the projects themselves (including outreach to potential customers, storytelling coaching, amplification), and the other significant body of work is that of program reporting (which in our case is handled by the marketing team).
In my opinion, I’d be in favor of the DAO funding the 3 Months development and scaling and then when the projects have tested their product they can get funding through the DAO / Foundation grants programs.
There's also a question about monitoring implementation, because I've seen your proposal in the voter ecology of the zksync network as well.
What are the metrics to consider that a project was successful on Phase 1
What are the metrics to consider that a project was successful on Phase 1
From the Detox proposal, we are on a 3 months break to fund incentive/grants programs. Do you think that doesn’t apply to this proposal?
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
The need to follow-on with hackathon winners is key for taking something from a side project and making it into a viable business. This should honestly be a part of the initial proposals to construct grant programs generally. Even in the investing world, doubling down on promising entrepreneurs is a commonplace practice. Not doing so is often leaving money on the table.
it’d be great to have clear ROI metrics/milestones in place to make sure that the projects moving forward are really adding value to the ecosystem and not wasting any funds
Good suggestion, thanks.
I have a suggestion. To improve interaction with Arbitrum, maybe make a condition that all projects will be implemented on Stylus?
Due to the fact that this is a continuation of the Hackathon practice, I would like to see what the results were in the past: how many participants there were, how much they received, how many projects appeared and exist at the moment. In general, all the parameters that we need to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. And I understand that the results in this updated program may be better due to other working conditions and financing, but for comparison this is necessary.
Will ArbitrumDAO be the beneficiary of new projects, or will the projects not owe anything to Arbitrum after a successful launch?
I think this proposal is a good answer to making sure that projects that do well in hackathons turn out to be useful things in Arbitrum. This setup of splitting the program into a validation phase and a development phase improves the success probability of each project. Only those projects that show real needs will receive further funding and capacity. The way they designed it helps fund use to be more efficient for long-term sustainability. Also, the partnership between RnDAO and Arbitrum helps in more cooperation as well as sustainability on the platform, which helps participants not just with money but with mentors, resources, and networks.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
The program's funding will be managed by the MSS and is divided between two phases, requiring us to report to the DAO and offering the ability to clawback funding if the DAO so desires.
And indeed we're discussing with multiple ecosystems but the proposal here is unique to Arbitrum (no other ecosystem has run a collabtech hackathon...)
Thanks for your proposal!
I have a few questions:
Funding: Projects that successfully complete Phase 1 will receive an additional grant of $38,000 each, amounting to a total of $50,000 per venture across both phases.
I support this proposal as it addresses a critical need in the lifecycle of hackathon projects: consistent follow-up to ensure these innovative ideas become tangible, impactful ventures rather than fading out post-hackathon. Hackathons are fantastic for sparking ideas and gathering talent, but without structured support, these projects often struggle to sustain momentum, validate their concepts, and reach market viability.
I recommend considering a clause that requires program participants to commit to building and remaining in the Arbitrum ecosystem for a defined period, given the significant resources, mentorship, and funding they will receive. This commitment would help ensure that the projects contribute to Arbitrum's growth and network effects over the long term, rather than moving to other ecosystems once they gain traction.
Thank you, @danielo, for the spirited proposal. We believe this is an interesting proposal to continue supporting hackathon winners. If we understand correctly, this is a matching program in which RnDAO will provide ~50% of the upfront capital, with Arbitrum covering the other half?
This is a difficult one to gauge, as while the proposal's mission is very much aligned in that we don't want to see hackathon projects fall to the wayside, we are still talking about a quarter of a million-dollar investment. The hackathon winners are inspiring, but it's unclear whether they are aligned to fix critical needs for the DAO. One important distinction delegates have been trying to draw recently is the line between grants as charity and strategic grants that provide some value back to the ecosystem and DAO.
We're currently undecided, but generally, we'd prefer to have these smaller grants delegated to a key decision-maker w/in a larger grants program who can value a project's potential and the ability of their developers rather than having each delegate review all three projects and rnDAO's operational budget and come to a decision on this one program. Ideally, these projects apply to Questbook or the Foundation grant programs.
Hi @danielo, I have to emphasize that if we want great startups to stay in the Arbitrum ecosystem, we must avoid getting their devs into bureaucratic traps. I mean, we must be fast and furious in this matter of funding them and not waste their their time and energy on all kinds of validations and appraisals.
From my experience of dealing with various startups over the past three years or so, the really good ones, and their devs, can easily get some funding from the market.
I know that there are various process norms that must be met to use DAO funds. But given that the maximum match is $50,000 per program, I don't think that's a lot of money, so I'm suggesting keeping things simple and letting Devs focus on innovation building rather than building to meet Grants conditions.
thanks for the comments
moved to other chains (Optimism and Cardano), could you provide us the information of what projects are you talking about here
imply because giving a grant to someone doesn’t have a positive impact, at least not from the very beginning
t grants need to be checked very well, they need to communicate on their progress and need to benefit the ecosystem somehow.
thanks for your comments and questions.
While the proposal mentions selecting ‘the most promising’ projects, it would be valuable to understand the specific selection criteria.
While user acquisition targets are mentioned, can we establish more specific KPIs for measuring the program’s success? For example - TVL targets or Transaction volume expectations, etc
Could you share more about how you’ll help projects find team members?
Hi! Thanks for your proposal. I think that a follow-up for hackathon winners makes sense. I support the idea.
I have some questions.
Hi! Thanks for your proposal. I think that a follow-up for hackathon winners makes sense. I support the idea.
I have some questions.
Does this mean the hackathon mentors have already committed to working closely with projects?
To incentivise retention of the projects in the Arbitrum ecosystem, generate early onchain activity, and provide opportunities for project contributors to gain ownership in the projects, the program will support projects in implementing an onchain system to track contributions with points (non-transferable ERC-20s).
I think that if as a DAO we are going to invest directly in projects bootstraping, we need to require binding agreements to at least try to generate onchain activity. Not by tracking their contributions, but by making contributions mandatory.
What are the legal fees cost for operations?
Program Marketing: $21,800 for program branding, outreach, and reporting.
In my opinion, I'd be in favor of the DAO funding the 3 Months development and scaling and then when the projects have tested their product they can get funding through the DAO / Foundation grants programs.
Thank you!
Got it, thank you for your response.
Regarding the success criteria for the validation phase: The proposal mentions validating the requirements before moving on to phase 2, but what are the specific validation metrics? For example, number of users, feedback ratings, or something else? The clearer this criterion is, the more efficient the resource placement will be.
Regarding the success criteria for the validation phase: The proposal mentions validating the requirements before moving on to phase 2, but what are the specific validation metrics? For example, number of users, feedback ratings, or something else? The clearer this criterion is, the more efficient the resource placement will be.
It’s a committee assessment as in such an early stage quantitative metrics are widely unreliable and just not really useful in most cases. That being said, I added some details on the assessment criteria (above in the proposal section “transition from phase 1 to phase 2”)
CollabBerry’s role is that it is interestingly positioned for on-chain points tracking, but could this portion of the budget ($30,000) be detailed, such as specific feature development or long-term support plans?
It is mentioned that self-driven business clusters will be formed in the future, but does this require a clear target node, such as how many active projects or total users will be achieved in how long?
1, increase the quarterly review mechanism, regularly update the project progress and feedback, so that community members can see the incubation effect in real time, to further enhance everyone’s confidence 2、Propose to provide monthly one-on-one guidance or regular workshops for the project team to ensure that they get enough support at the key points, which needs to be specifically detailed here.
3、It is recommended to publish a public summary report or project highlights promotion after each stage is completed, to accumulate materials and cases for the subsequent ecological activities, and also to enhance the influence of Arbitrum
4、About the budget is too rough, need to have a more detailed report, for example, I see that the surveyed enterprises only have 50 dollars.
As others have also indicated, having a sort of tool or program aimed at following-up this hackathon projects is a smart move that prevent us from losing these winner projects and with them the investment done on them and the energy of the Hackathon as you indicated, but we would like to recall on an important point you made when you indicated that 2 valuable projects moved to other chains (Optimism and Cardano), could you provide us the information of what projects are you talking about here? If you say they were valuable we would like to have these projects named as to truly appreciate and dimension the lost value you are talking about. If possible and since you are bringing this idea forward, we would also like to watch a list of others projects that have previously failed after Hackathons were carried away as to get a better idea of this central point of this proposal.
All in all we really believe that what you are bringing to the table while addressing this issue is a very good idea and useful for the development of projects into the DAO, but from our POV examples of the kind are needed as to fully support this.
In my opinion grants shouldn't exceed the amount of 50k. Why is that? Well simply because giving a grant to someone doesn't have a positive impact, at least not from the very beginning. A grant is more or less a cost factor without knowing the outcome. For example, there was a project DAO XY (dont want to name anyone) funded a few years ago. This project barely finished their work. But shortly before they did, someone else bought their company and they left the space without a proper product. So what happened? The DAO paid 50k to basically bootstrap their business and they left the space with a ton of money and the DAO was left without any prodcut or benefit.
What I want to say is, that grants need to be checked very well, they need to communicate on their progress and need to benefit the ecosystem somehow. That being said, a great project will show its benefit straight from the beginning because in the end its important for the Arbitrum DAO to attract great developer and protocols but also keep the financials aspect in mind. @danielo this is something what should be kept in mind, how to really track down everything and create the most and best benefit for Arbitrum and potential projects.
Six months is too long, and it is recommended to set up a mid-term check-in time every 1-2 months to assess the progress of the program and ensure that resources are being used. Like a 2 month check in?
Six months is too long, and it is recommended to set up a mid-term check-in time every 1-2 months to assess the progress of the program and ensure that resources are being used. Like a 2 month check in?
the program funding disbursement is based on two phases, so this is already in place.
we've looked into multiple options here and I'd argue that 50k is on the low but viable side. We have projects in our ecosystem that have received $25k grants and that's often insufficient to allow a bit of iteration and then have enough runway to fundraise, generate some revenue from the product, or find the next grant. On the other hand, multiple accelerators offer 100k-150k investment which is closer to what we're offering here when we account that the projects are in an earlier stage, we can leverage global arbitrage for talent costs, and RnDAO is putting in a lot of work in the form of services reducing the costs of projects.
Personally, I suggest lowering the threshold to attract more projects, many innovative projects are in the exploratory stage, good ideas and teams with project mentors, full-time support and operational resources may not have the same effect.
Does this mean the hackathon mentors have already committed to working closely with projects?
Does this mean the hackathon mentors have already committed to working closely with projects?
No. We confirmed the Hackathon mentors only after the hackathon was approved and same here, we would confirm mentors only when relevant/needed. Equally, not all mentors might make sense so this depends on the needs of the projects as they mature. that being said, the approach we're using is more hands-on support instead of mentorship as we've seen in the data that it gives better results, so we have a core team already confirmed to work on regular basis (multiple times a week) with the projects.
I think that if as a DAO we are going to invest directly in projects bootstraping, we need to require binding agreements to at least try to generate onchain activity. Not by tracking their contributions, but by making contributions mandatory.
legal wrapper yearly fees
it's part of promoting Arbitrum as a home for builders and promoting the projects. The marketing team will do a bit of work to promote the program but the majority of the budget here is for work that is done with the projects themselves (including outreach to potential customers, storytelling coaching, amplification), and the other significant body of work is that of program reporting (which in our case is handled by the marketing team).
In my opinion, I’d be in favor of the DAO funding the 3 Months development and scaling and then when the projects have tested their product they can get funding through the DAO / Foundation grants programs.
There's also a question about monitoring implementation, because I've seen your proposal in the voter ecology of the zksync network as well.
What are the metrics to consider that a project was successful on Phase 1
What are the metrics to consider that a project was successful on Phase 1
From the Detox proposal, we are on a 3 months break to fund incentive/grants programs. Do you think that doesn’t apply to this proposal?
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
The need to follow-on with hackathon winners is key for taking something from a side project and making it into a viable business. This should honestly be a part of the initial proposals to construct grant programs generally. Even in the investing world, doubling down on promising entrepreneurs is a commonplace practice. Not doing so is often leaving money on the table.
it’d be great to have clear ROI metrics/milestones in place to make sure that the projects moving forward are really adding value to the ecosystem and not wasting any funds
Good suggestion, thanks.
I have a suggestion. To improve interaction with Arbitrum, maybe make a condition that all projects will be implemented on Stylus?
Due to the fact that this is a continuation of the Hackathon practice, I would like to see what the results were in the past: how many participants there were, how much they received, how many projects appeared and exist at the moment. In general, all the parameters that we need to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. And I understand that the results in this updated program may be better due to other working conditions and financing, but for comparison this is necessary.
Will ArbitrumDAO be the beneficiary of new projects, or will the projects not owe anything to Arbitrum after a successful launch?
I think this proposal is a good answer to making sure that projects that do well in hackathons turn out to be useful things in Arbitrum. This setup of splitting the program into a validation phase and a development phase improves the success probability of each project. Only those projects that show real needs will receive further funding and capacity. The way they designed it helps fund use to be more efficient for long-term sustainability. Also, the partnership between RnDAO and Arbitrum helps in more cooperation as well as sustainability on the platform, which helps participants not just with money but with mentors, resources, and networks.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
The program's funding will be managed by the MSS and is divided between two phases, requiring us to report to the DAO and offering the ability to clawback funding if the DAO so desires.
And indeed we're discussing with multiple ecosystems but the proposal here is unique to Arbitrum (no other ecosystem has run a collabtech hackathon...)
Thanks for your proposal!
I have a few questions:
Funding: Projects that successfully complete Phase 1 will receive an additional grant of $38,000 each, amounting to a total of $50,000 per venture across both phases.
I support this proposal as it addresses a critical need in the lifecycle of hackathon projects: consistent follow-up to ensure these innovative ideas become tangible, impactful ventures rather than fading out post-hackathon. Hackathons are fantastic for sparking ideas and gathering talent, but without structured support, these projects often struggle to sustain momentum, validate their concepts, and reach market viability.
I recommend considering a clause that requires program participants to commit to building and remaining in the Arbitrum ecosystem for a defined period, given the significant resources, mentorship, and funding they will receive. This commitment would help ensure that the projects contribute to Arbitrum's growth and network effects over the long term, rather than moving to other ecosystems once they gain traction.
Six months is too long, and it is recommended to set up a mid-term check-in time every 1-2 months to assess the progress of the program and ensure that resources are being used. Like a 2 month check in?
In six months, we aim for at least 3 out of 4 projects to:
Personally, I suggest lowering the threshold to attract more projects, many innovative projects are in the exploratory stage, good ideas and teams with project mentors, full-time support and operational resources may not have the same effect.
The direction of the proposal is good, whether the resources landed are real or not, I think this is very important
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
The need to follow-on with hackathon winners is key for taking something from a side project and making it into a viable business. This should honestly be a part of the initial proposals to construct grant programs generally. Even in the investing world, doubling down on promising entrepreneurs is a commonplace practice. Not doing so is often leaving money on the table.
The costs of this program seems quite reasonable, considering half of it will be matched by RnDAO. It would also be nice if RnDAO can take the promising projects and connect them with other investors. On that note, if a project does turn out to be successful and ends up launching a token, we’re assuming that a portion will go to RnDAO—would Arb DAO also be eligible for either a token share or rev share component? What if a project does not want to launch a token—would there be an equity component? The latter would be tougher for Arb DAO to partake in, so it may not be advisable from our perspective.
it’d be great to have clear ROI metrics/milestones in place to make sure that the projects moving forward are really adding value to the ecosystem and not wasting any funds
Thanks for highlighting this. We have something in this direction already in place with two phases, where founders only get $2k per month (max $12k/project) in phase 1 and need to show traction to get phase 2 grants ($38k/project).
The projects are early stage and we don't want to incentivise building the wrong thing over finding product-market fit, so we're leaving room for case-by-case assessment by our venture support team for moving from one phase to the next. We'll also work with the projects on a daily basis, and if funds are being misused, we'll suspend payments.
To incentivise retention of the projects in the Arbitrum ecosystem, generate early onchain activity, and provide opportunities for project contributors to gain ownership in the projects, the program will support projects in implementing an onchain system to track contributions with points (non-transferable ERC-20s).
The proposal is quite good, and the overall direction is clear, that is, it is centered around the incubation and growth of projects after the hackathon, especially on Arbitrum to form a long-term stable developer ecology. If the energy of the hackathon is not caught in time, it is really easy to be sucked away by other ecosystems. Now this program cuts in from two stages, focusing on early validation as well as supporting subsequent development, with a clear logic.
Suggestion 1, increase the quarterly review mechanism, regularly update the project progress and feedback, so that community members can see the incubation effect in real time, to further enhance everyone's confidence 2、Propose to provide monthly one-on-one guidance or regular workshops for the project team to ensure that they get enough support at the key points, which needs to be specifically detailed here. 3、It is recommended to publish a public summary report or project highlights promotion after each stage is completed, to accumulate materials and cases for the subsequent ecological activities, and also to enhance the influence of Arbitrum. 4、About the budget is too rough, need to have a more detailed report, for example, I see that the surveyed enterprises only have 50 dollars.
Thanks for your proposal!
I have a few questions:
Funding: Projects that successfully complete Phase 1 will receive an additional grant of $38,000 each, amounting to a total of $50,000 per venture across both phases.
Program Marketing: $21,800 for program branding, outreach, and reporting.
There should be a commitment from delegates not to vote for any program that might be proposed before the 3-month period concludes so we can utilize the full extent of that time frame on iterations and improvements.
I support this proposal as it addresses a critical need in the lifecycle of hackathon projects: consistent follow-up to ensure these innovative ideas become tangible, impactful ventures rather than fading out post-hackathon. Hackathons are fantastic for sparking ideas and gathering talent, but without structured support, these projects often struggle to sustain momentum, validate their concepts, and reach market viability.
I recommend considering a clause that requires program participants to commit to building and remaining in the Arbitrum ecosystem for a defined period, given the significant resources, mentorship, and funding they will receive. This commitment would help ensure that the projects contribute to Arbitrum's growth and network effects over the long term, rather than moving to other ecosystems once they gain traction.
Additionally, @danielo has proven his expertise with RnDAO. His commitment to this space and track record of successful project support are further reasons I believe this program will thrive and help establish a self-sustaining ecosystem within Arbitrum.
Would it be beneficial to establish such a clause or perhaps include incentives that encourage participants to maintain their projects on Arbitrum beyond the program’s completion? This could help solidify Arbitrum as a thriving hub for these ventures.
My idea is like to establish a core group within the Arbitrum DAO to connect high-quality hackathon projects with VCs, helping them gain visibility in the investment community. I believe there are quite a few project founders and other influential individuals within the Arbitrum DAO who have extensive VC connections.
I think it's important that the DAO backs new projects like this. This is a significant action in order to continue growth in the ecosystem. This program is key to keeping the hackathon teams going strong and staying within Arbitrum.
As a suggestion, it’d be great to have clear ROI metrics/milestones in place to make sure that the projects moving forward are really adding value to the ecosystem and not wasting any funds.
I think it's important that the DAO backs new projects like this. This is a significant action in order to continue growth in the ecosystem. This program is key to keeping the hackathon teams going strong and staying within Arbitrum.
As a suggestion, it’d be great to have clear ROI metrics/milestones in place to make sure that the projects moving forward are really adding value to the ecosystem and not wasting any funds.
That being said, since I was a participant in this hackathon, I’ll be abstaining from voting and further commenting on this proposal.
Cheers to all.
Thank you for this excellent proposal. Many great projects on Ethereum were born in hackathons. Supporting startup projects has always been something I've been involved in, and I believe it has long-term significance for the Arbitrum ecosystem.
In fact, I have an idea to take it a step further—besides providing grants, could the Arbitrum DAO potentially help these outstanding projects connect with some VCs?
Thank you for this excellent proposal. Many great projects on Ethereum were born in hackathons. Supporting startup projects has always been something I've been involved in, and I believe it has long-term significance for the Arbitrum ecosystem.
In fact, I have an idea to take it a step further—besides providing grants, could the Arbitrum DAO potentially help these outstanding projects connect with some VCs?
Grant funding is always quite limited, and introducing VCs might enable these new projects in the Arbitrum ecosystem to grow faster and better, ultimately giving back to the ecosystem in the future.
Happy to discuss more!
I recommend considering a clause that requires program participants to commit to building and remaining in the Arbitrum ecosystem for a defined period
I recommend considering a clause that requires program participants to commit to building and remaining in the Arbitrum ecosystem for a defined period
Carrot one: Projects often migrate because they need extra capital to keep operating after they exhaust a grant in one ecosystem. With access to investor networks, we could help solve this. I'll coordinate with Larva and others interested as I think we could propose something here to bring our current investor network, connect with others, and create some sort of periodic Arbiturm demo days for investors.
The second carrot is that the RnDAO model relies on facilitating and incentivising collaboration between the projects (cross-sales, integrations, sharing market research, etc.), this is what we call the Swarm approach. Any project that migrates to another ecosystem will lose some of the value of the collaborations in the Swarm, so this approach creates network effects for projects to stay in Arbitrum. The more projects we incubate together, the stronger the network effects.
The third carrot we got is the mechanism briefly described in "4. Anchoring in Abritrum through early onchain activity". This is about helping projects set up their contributor payment operations and cap table onchain in Arbitrum, also reducing friction to collect and track early capital contributions. This solves operational problems for the projects and also helps solve point 1 about the need for capital, while increasing the friction for migrating.
None of these is a silver bullet (although combined it's a good start) and I'd love to hear what other ideas people have to make this work in the best possible way.
Also, there's clearly a path over the medium term to structure the grants as investments so if projects migrate Arbiturm still benefits. I'm hoping the Gamig Catalyst structure provides a template we can use here once ready. In the meantime, my thinking has been to propose this so we don't let down projects already building here.
In six months, we aim for at least 3 out of 4 projects to:
In six months, we aim for at least 3 out of 4 projects to:
I've noted this in other proposals, but something I'd like to see more of is revenue sharing. My concern is long term the DAO keeps giving away funds to entice builders to the network, but eventually we have to get some type of income back to sustain the DAO.
If these projects are expected to produce revenue, I don't think it's unfair to ask for a percentage of returns. It's also something I noted in a prior proposal (https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-non-constitutional-proposal-integrating-zktls-powered-oracle-solution-zkfetch-for-arbitrum/27012/17?u=bob-rossi)... I'll note here as it's still relevant to the discussion.
As a delegate, I essentially have two concerns:
- We are ultimately still within the grant detox period
- I’m not sure why we as a DAO gave the Foundation another 250m ARB from the treasury if we have to continue to be asked to fund projects like this without the prospect of earning revenue on the backend to keep the treasury stable long term.
Six months is too long, and it is recommended to set up a mid-term check-in time every 1-2 months to assess the progress of the program and ensure that resources are being used. Like a 2 month check in?
In six months, we aim for at least 3 out of 4 projects to:
Personally, I suggest lowering the threshold to attract more projects, many innovative projects are in the exploratory stage, good ideas and teams with project mentors, full-time support and operational resources may not have the same effect.
The direction of the proposal is good, whether the resources landed are real or not, I think this is very important
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
The need to follow-on with hackathon winners is key for taking something from a side project and making it into a viable business. This should honestly be a part of the initial proposals to construct grant programs generally. Even in the investing world, doubling down on promising entrepreneurs is a commonplace practice. Not doing so is often leaving money on the table.
The costs of this program seems quite reasonable, considering half of it will be matched by RnDAO. It would also be nice if RnDAO can take the promising projects and connect them with other investors. On that note, if a project does turn out to be successful and ends up launching a token, we’re assuming that a portion will go to RnDAO—would Arb DAO also be eligible for either a token share or rev share component? What if a project does not want to launch a token—would there be an equity component? The latter would be tougher for Arb DAO to partake in, so it may not be advisable from our perspective.
it’d be great to have clear ROI metrics/milestones in place to make sure that the projects moving forward are really adding value to the ecosystem and not wasting any funds
Thanks for highlighting this. We have something in this direction already in place with two phases, where founders only get $2k per month (max $12k/project) in phase 1 and need to show traction to get phase 2 grants ($38k/project).
The projects are early stage and we don't want to incentivise building the wrong thing over finding product-market fit, so we're leaving room for case-by-case assessment by our venture support team for moving from one phase to the next. We'll also work with the projects on a daily basis, and if funds are being misused, we'll suspend payments.
To incentivise retention of the projects in the Arbitrum ecosystem, generate early onchain activity, and provide opportunities for project contributors to gain ownership in the projects, the program will support projects in implementing an onchain system to track contributions with points (non-transferable ERC-20s).
The proposal is quite good, and the overall direction is clear, that is, it is centered around the incubation and growth of projects after the hackathon, especially on Arbitrum to form a long-term stable developer ecology. If the energy of the hackathon is not caught in time, it is really easy to be sucked away by other ecosystems. Now this program cuts in from two stages, focusing on early validation as well as supporting subsequent development, with a clear logic.
Suggestion 1, increase the quarterly review mechanism, regularly update the project progress and feedback, so that community members can see the incubation effect in real time, to further enhance everyone's confidence 2、Propose to provide monthly one-on-one guidance or regular workshops for the project team to ensure that they get enough support at the key points, which needs to be specifically detailed here. 3、It is recommended to publish a public summary report or project highlights promotion after each stage is completed, to accumulate materials and cases for the subsequent ecological activities, and also to enhance the influence of Arbitrum. 4、About the budget is too rough, need to have a more detailed report, for example, I see that the surveyed enterprises only have 50 dollars.
Thanks for your proposal!
I have a few questions:
Funding: Projects that successfully complete Phase 1 will receive an additional grant of $38,000 each, amounting to a total of $50,000 per venture across both phases.
Program Marketing: $21,800 for program branding, outreach, and reporting.
There should be a commitment from delegates not to vote for any program that might be proposed before the 3-month period concludes so we can utilize the full extent of that time frame on iterations and improvements.
I support this proposal as it addresses a critical need in the lifecycle of hackathon projects: consistent follow-up to ensure these innovative ideas become tangible, impactful ventures rather than fading out post-hackathon. Hackathons are fantastic for sparking ideas and gathering talent, but without structured support, these projects often struggle to sustain momentum, validate their concepts, and reach market viability.
I recommend considering a clause that requires program participants to commit to building and remaining in the Arbitrum ecosystem for a defined period, given the significant resources, mentorship, and funding they will receive. This commitment would help ensure that the projects contribute to Arbitrum's growth and network effects over the long term, rather than moving to other ecosystems once they gain traction.
Additionally, @danielo has proven his expertise with RnDAO. His commitment to this space and track record of successful project support are further reasons I believe this program will thrive and help establish a self-sustaining ecosystem within Arbitrum.
Would it be beneficial to establish such a clause or perhaps include incentives that encourage participants to maintain their projects on Arbitrum beyond the program’s completion? This could help solidify Arbitrum as a thriving hub for these ventures.
My idea is like to establish a core group within the Arbitrum DAO to connect high-quality hackathon projects with VCs, helping them gain visibility in the investment community. I believe there are quite a few project founders and other influential individuals within the Arbitrum DAO who have extensive VC connections.
I think it's important that the DAO backs new projects like this. This is a significant action in order to continue growth in the ecosystem. This program is key to keeping the hackathon teams going strong and staying within Arbitrum.
As a suggestion, it’d be great to have clear ROI metrics/milestones in place to make sure that the projects moving forward are really adding value to the ecosystem and not wasting any funds.
I think it's important that the DAO backs new projects like this. This is a significant action in order to continue growth in the ecosystem. This program is key to keeping the hackathon teams going strong and staying within Arbitrum.
As a suggestion, it’d be great to have clear ROI metrics/milestones in place to make sure that the projects moving forward are really adding value to the ecosystem and not wasting any funds.
That being said, since I was a participant in this hackathon, I’ll be abstaining from voting and further commenting on this proposal.
Cheers to all.
Thank you for this excellent proposal. Many great projects on Ethereum were born in hackathons. Supporting startup projects has always been something I've been involved in, and I believe it has long-term significance for the Arbitrum ecosystem.
In fact, I have an idea to take it a step further—besides providing grants, could the Arbitrum DAO potentially help these outstanding projects connect with some VCs?
Thank you for this excellent proposal. Many great projects on Ethereum were born in hackathons. Supporting startup projects has always been something I've been involved in, and I believe it has long-term significance for the Arbitrum ecosystem.
In fact, I have an idea to take it a step further—besides providing grants, could the Arbitrum DAO potentially help these outstanding projects connect with some VCs?
Grant funding is always quite limited, and introducing VCs might enable these new projects in the Arbitrum ecosystem to grow faster and better, ultimately giving back to the ecosystem in the future.
Happy to discuss more!
I recommend considering a clause that requires program participants to commit to building and remaining in the Arbitrum ecosystem for a defined period
I recommend considering a clause that requires program participants to commit to building and remaining in the Arbitrum ecosystem for a defined period
Carrot one: Projects often migrate because they need extra capital to keep operating after they exhaust a grant in one ecosystem. With access to investor networks, we could help solve this. I'll coordinate with Larva and others interested as I think we could propose something here to bring our current investor network, connect with others, and create some sort of periodic Arbiturm demo days for investors.
The second carrot is that the RnDAO model relies on facilitating and incentivising collaboration between the projects (cross-sales, integrations, sharing market research, etc.), this is what we call the Swarm approach. Any project that migrates to another ecosystem will lose some of the value of the collaborations in the Swarm, so this approach creates network effects for projects to stay in Arbitrum. The more projects we incubate together, the stronger the network effects.
The third carrot we got is the mechanism briefly described in "4. Anchoring in Abritrum through early onchain activity". This is about helping projects set up their contributor payment operations and cap table onchain in Arbitrum, also reducing friction to collect and track early capital contributions. This solves operational problems for the projects and also helps solve point 1 about the need for capital, while increasing the friction for migrating.
None of these is a silver bullet (although combined it's a good start) and I'd love to hear what other ideas people have to make this work in the best possible way.
Also, there's clearly a path over the medium term to structure the grants as investments so if projects migrate Arbiturm still benefits. I'm hoping the Gamig Catalyst structure provides a template we can use here once ready. In the meantime, my thinking has been to propose this so we don't let down projects already building here.
In six months, we aim for at least 3 out of 4 projects to:
