# AIP - 3 \[Non-Constitutional\] Fund the Arbitrum Grants Framework Proposal Milestone 1 **URL:** \ **Category:** Finalized AIPs\ **Tags:** active, aip, snapshot, proposal, governance\ **Created:** [June 20, 2023, 4:22pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-3-non-constitutional-fund-the-arbitrum-grants-framework-proposal-milestone-1/14976 "2023-06-20T16:22:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 46
**Author:** ![DisruptionJoe](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/disruptionjoe/32/1084_2.png) [@DisruptionJoe](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/DisruptionJoe)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2023, 2:41am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-3-non-constitutional-fund-the-arbitrum-grants-framework-proposal-milestone-1/14976/46 "2023-07-18T02:41:45Z")
# Replies to @seedlatam in their awesome delegate comms thread. ### Total Proposal Amount & Lack of Details > [@SEED Latam Delegate Communication Thread](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/seed-latam-delegate-communication-thread/13895/9): > > Plurality Labs proposed an open grant framework requiring 3.971M ARB. The Seedlatam community voted against it because we believe that the proposal lacks more detail regarding the percentages of the funds allocated, and we think that the metrics need to be clarified in order to make the grant program as optimal as possible. Our final version will lower this around 600k ARB. However, your comment discusses the relationship of the amount to the clarity of what will be funded. We are doing a discovery phase to truly understand what the community wants AND where the most impact potential exists. In my past work in data-driven growth, we look at every touchpoint and suggest how much potential each has for creating growth. Many startups will assume a specific area, but without going through this exercise, they are often developing in areas that are suboptimal for their stated goal. We want to do the same for grants allocation. During discovery, we will find what the community is most interested in seeing advanced AND create hypothesis driven experiments to prove (or disprove) the potential. It would be nice if we could say exactly what would be funded, but imagine we chose four domains, then realized that we are completely missing an untapped market in Latin America. Watching for biases and untapped potential is a strength of what our framework will provide the community. ### Potential Conflicts of Interest with Gitcoin > [@SEED Latam Delegate Communication Thread](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/seed-latam-delegate-communication-thread/13895/9): > > Our community is a big fan of Gitcoin, we recognize and admire the team and all their work on web3. But we are aware that it is important to make clear the position of Plurality Labs in a conflict of interest scenario because we see that Plurality Labs has several members who belong or belonged to Gitcoin. I have fully stepped back from my role as a workstream lead as of 4/28/23 when we [dissolved the FDD workstream](https://gov.gitcoin.co/). Shawn Grubb has been the steward relations & DAO governance person there for a while. In Season 17 which ended in April of '23, the workstream he reported to, DAOops, was voted down for an extension. His work was valued and he posted a proposal to pay him for half-time work continuing his governance relations work through 7/25. He also joined a group running the “Gitcoin Citizens” round. This engagement still has some time, but is minimal. I asked Shawn to join Plurality Labs because he is phenomenal both as a communicator understanding different stakeholder roles AND as an executor getting shit done. I am trying to assemble the best possible team of passionate missionaries to execute a herculean task. We have discussed his current obligations and he is opening up space for this opportunity should it pass. I do not see a conflict of interest. I should put on the table that I hold GTC which I was granted being an early team member. (I also hold other tokens.) I still believe in their mission and plan to continue holding their governance token. I am a fan, supporter, and do see collaborative opportunities. This community is poised to elevate governance capabilities to another level. I voluntarily closed down the FDD workstream because their protocol is launched. The work I was doing is now a service to be offered to their program managers. I believe the opportunity to improve grants & governance is more directly applicable and useful to the Ethereum ecosystem as a whole with Arbitrum. This ecosystem has shown a willingness to prioritize decentralization, unstoppable code, and lead the pack as an innovator. ### Breakdown of Funds Usage > [@SEED Latam Delegate Communication Thread](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/seed-latam-delegate-communication-thread/13895/9): > > Our community expressed strong concerns about these percentages: Unfortunately, these were pulled from the “Request for Comment” proposal we did to get community feedback on our first draft of a proposal. Our final proposal was listed [here](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-3-non-constitutional-fund-the-arbitrum-grants-framework-proposal-milestone-1/14976) and was listed as follows. > [@DisruptionJoe](#): > > Milestone 1 is the start of this journey with a funding request that breaks down as follows: > > 1. 2.6 million ARB (72%): Funding Arbitrum ecosystem development > 2. 450k ARB (12.5%): Plurality Labs Services > 3. 260k ARB (7.2%): Grant Program Managers > 4. 300k ARB (8.3%): Matching Gitcoin funding pools using Arbitrum > 5. 361k ARB project buffer\* As mentioned above, we are planning on reducing the total ask by 600k ARB before moving to Tally. ### How Funds Will Be Distributed > [@SEED Latam Delegate Communication Thread](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/seed-latam-delegate-communication-thread/13895/9): > > Additionally, metrics are missing regarding how the funds will be distributed and the scope of the funds once they are received. The community believes that these aspects should be reinforced to increase the value of this proposal. Along with the discover mentioned above, there may be a concern about how the funds would be released. Our update for Tally will include the following: - We created a Zodiac module for the DAO to clawback funds from the Grants Safety Multisig which would receive the funds - The Grants Safety Multisig is an extra layer of protection to ensure we aren’t self dealing. - The Grants Safety Multisig will pay Plurality Labs 30% upfront, then stream the rest of our funds. This way the DAO could clawback our payment as well as the grant allocation amount. - We will rollover or return any of the unspent allocation funds and commit to not expediting poor allocation to say we spent it all. ### Project Metrics > [@SEED Latam Delegate Communication Thread](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/seed-latam-delegate-communication-thread/13895/9): > > Additionally, metrics are missing regarding how the funds will be distributed and the scope of the funds once they are received. The community believes that these aspects should be reinforced to increase the value of this proposal. During Milestone 1, we will baseline many of these metrics. Our core promise is to have these three metrics as a sign of success for the overall program including all three milestones: > [@DisruptionJoe](#): > > - The number of active developers building on Arbitrum is growing at an **increasing rate** > - Voter participation is increasing > - DAO delegates’ satisfaction with Plurality Labs service is improving as measured by NPS Because we must innovate and baseline these metrics during milestone 1, we put ourselves completely at the mercy of the community. It is up to the DAO to approve our milestone 2. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-3-non-constitutional-fund-the-arbitrum-grants-framework-proposal-milestone-1/14976)._