After consideration, 404 DAO will be voting FOR this proposal given the following reasoning:
We support a pluralistic funding framework based on:
- Its potential to compliment Questbook’s proposal
- The created opportunity for experimentation and iteration
- The proven competence of the proposed team
We believe the fundamental question here is whether Arbitrum benefits more from a singular grants program or the flexibility and experimentation of a pluralistic approach. We agree with vision outlined by DisruptionJoe here and therefore support the latter.
With the Questbook (QB) Grant Program proposal being passed earlier this week (which 404 DAO also voted FOR), we’d like to first address why we see the 2 programs as complimentary, rather than alternatives. With Plurality Labs’ (PL) stated goal of establishing systems and procedures for visibility, evaluation, project-sourcing, and coordination, the QB program, if anything, would benefit from the execution and effectiveness of the PL proposal. In fact, if done effectively, we envision a future where QB would “opt-in” to being one of the pluralistic programs because it helps their own execution.
Additionally, while QB’s approach provides a straightforward, singular grants program, the pluralistic approach promotes experimentation and data-driven iteration. This paves a promising path towards a superior program—one that may not be immediately apparent but is unreachable through the singular approach. By funding this proposal the DAO will fosters a culture of testing and evaluation that allows us to produce the most effective grants program at scale.
Given the competitive landscape of other L2s and L1s, Arbitrum DAO needs a substantial grants framework to secure its future. While we support the QB program, we agree with the concern highlighted by L2Beats here and would argue that it is not substantial enough to be the sole grant program for Arbitrum. There does appear to be an upcoming grant program coming from the Foundation, but given the lack of current details, we feel it is best for the DAO to move forward on its own programs. A combination of the two programs will allow for effective distribution and allocation for grants in the short term and help set a foundation for future grants programs to begin iterating on.
DisruptionJoe has led conversations during monthly community calls and has spent ample timing vying for critiques and criticisms of their design. And while their proposal is not perfect, we believe the team is qualified to take on this endeavor. Their commitment to the longterm success of Arbitrum, coupled with their proven experience running large-scale grant programs for Gitcoin, makes us confident they have the ability to build out and execute on this program.
To the delegates that have voted against this proposal, we would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the general idea of a pluralistic funding framework. We believe such a discussion can help illuminate wether the reservations on this proposal stem from Plurality Lab’s design or the larger question of “one vs many” grant programs.