AIP - 3 [Non-Constitutional] Fund the Arbitrum Grants Framework Proposal Milestone 1

[DisruptionJoe]

@NathanVDH

I’ve been giving considerable thought to the existing grants program and, based on my understanding, I am obliged to vote against its current implementation.

I’m not sure what this means because there isn’t a current Grants program. I and Plurality Labs prospective team have been investing our time to do some pre-work to putting up the proposal. Hopefully, this proposal helps solve these issues. For example:

@NathanVDH

• Accountability: Often, we find that a project’s success is hindered not due to a lack of potential in the idea, but rather a deficiency in the team’s ability to execute it. As delegates, it’s challenging to evaluate and mitigate such risks when awarding grants.
• Bias: The crypto space unfortunately appears to function much like an ‘old boys club’, with grants often awarded based on who you know rather than your demonstrable capabilities. This biases the grant allocation process, since we lack comprehensive data on applicants’ performance and skills.
• Efficiency: The current process demands a disproportionate amount of delegates’ time for the minimal impact it has. Furthermore, it does not sufficiently address the critical issues DAOs face.

Accountability

Plurality Labs is only being paid 450k ARB if this proposal passes. This is expected to last 6 months. We broke a larger proposal into Milestones to give the DAO the option to hold us accountable to milestone 1.

Bias

This article discusses how bias and centralization are known problems which are not solved: Grants Funding Framework Discussion - How To Excel at Being a DAO

This is exactly the problem we are aiming to solve through this program. I understand intentional and unintentional bias.

At Gitcoin, we chose to use semi-supervised reinforcement learning which would align the machine learning implementation to the bias of the community rather than having unknown levels of algorithmic bias. Unfortunately, the DAO decided to defund that work an accept higher levels of bias due to bear market constraints. There are multiple projects which were designed to protect the integrity of the grant funding “regulatory” system which were not funded. Some of these are low hanging fruit which would benefit the entire ecosystem as open source software. Some would allow for us to decentralize more components of the process.

Efficiency

When we say “DAO native” we are referring to this. We don’t want to take more of the delegates time! This program would mean less delegate time to yield better aligned results. Imagine you could log into your ARB governance council and see what is relevant to you. What if you could signal that you are more interested in app chain funding than MEV research and simply leave that signal on so we could derive the DAO preferences?

If you think the delegates have too much work now, imagine what it will be like without any team helping to organize and provide signal to noise clarity!

@NathanVDH

I think the Arbitrum DAO should look at a tender market model which, in my opinion, addresses these three issues effectively:

1. Role Clarity: The Foundation or the DAO proposes the ideas, while teams are chosen based on their track record and prior engagement, ensuring that the selection is capability-based rather than idea-based.
2. Transparency: This model discourages proactive solicitation by the teams. Instead, they respond to requests, making the process transparent and eliminating bias.
3. Simplified Decision-Making: Delegates vote on broad ideas instead of specific implementations proposed by a particular team, streamlining their decision-making process.

This is a great suggestion. If fact, we have already been thinking about this. We described it as “unbundling the grant sourcing pipeline”.

How are there so many builders looking for funds while grants programs are having trouble sourcing great projects? Our discovery phase will find the highest leverage things the DAO can fund. Then, it will use the best mechanisms to match builders with reputation to the work. We would proactively find what is most needed and get a teams to execute it.

At the same time we would be growing our pipelines.

Pipeline of great builders

We can host a contest to create a best DevRel submission. We can algorithmically score individual builders Github. We announce a retroactive round which would reward 100k in total to be split between the top 5 contributors in the month from each of our target domains.

Pipeline of known and prioritized work to be done

Our team will talk to domain experts and figure out what is the most impactful work that can be done. We would then emphasize funding the highest value projects. Think of infrastructure and dev tooling which is a true public good that private companies wouldn’t fund. By knowing what all these leverage points are, following that understanding with forecasting of which has the most potential impact, then doubling down on those projects which do show promise.

Maybe even have a pathway from Grants to Investments!

Pipeline of momentum keeping the community involved

We need regular checkpoints and monitored comms channels. We need rituals and cadences that get the community fired up. We need those conversations which spark new and great ideas.

Our proposal would create this, and not in a one-size-fits-all solution. We’d have small grant contests. Paid participation in workshops, Regional funding rounds which help the world recognize great projects in latin america or africa and give those projects a shot at moving to the next level.

This work won’t get done without approving it

The other grant program proposals are one program or one allocation method. Maybe 2. That is too blunt of an instrument to do the job well. Hiring Plurality Labs through this proposal will enhance the outcomes of any other grants program or grant that is directly approved by the DAO.

In reading your response, I kept thinking that you are asking for all the things that we are looking to provide!

I very humbly am asking that you consider changing your vote.