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.

[DisruptionJoe]

@stonecoldpat Might want to look into this. I’m seeing a lot of these fake accounts on the forum putting in chatGPT replies.

I don’t know who this is, but they are pretending to respond as if they were on either Plurality Labs team or the Arbitrum Foundation.

[shawn16400]

@mfer

I want to take this as a joke but if it’s posted in this forum I guess you are serious AF. This is ABSURD. I’d feel ashamed just by asking for it, it’s a NONSENSE.

Damn. Such harsh.
I helped build this proposal and the mechanics of the admin costs are pretty in-line with compensating mid level NA based tech resources. If I wanted to make a pile of money I would go back to tradbiz, where I would not quite triple what I make in web3, have health insurance, a lower tax bill, paid travel, a reasonable expectation of having employment for more than 3 to 6 months, and get paid in a currency that does not lose 40 to 60% of its value.

And, no one would berate me for trying to build something that no one has ever done before.

I was talking to a web2 person today who asked “what kind of assurance is there that web3 grant money actually has any kind of impact?”

Well s@#t, I am glad you asked.

That is exactly the gap we see, and only part of what this proposal tries to do, build a systemic valuation of grant impact so that we can be more and more efficient with each successive grant.

It’s not about giving away money at the cheapest executional cost - that is a race to the bottom. Its about comparing grant platforms, improving outcomes, experimenting & comparing methodologies so that we can get more money into the hands of builders who will explode the Arbitrium ecosystem. And, once developed, build a pathway for the best projects to get ever greater VC funding.

News flash - there is fierce competition for L2 builders, and this proposal attempts to build a competitive advantage around incentivizing and compensating great builders. Not just distribute cash.

Thank you for engaging in this governance process. I think divergent opinions are what will lead us to breakthrough ideas and web3 needs more courageous people who will speak their mind. So thanks for that.

But fren, bear markets are tough on all of us. How about we try to be civil with each other and try not to make web3 any harder than it has to be?

[mfer]

My last post in this thread was removed by an admin. I don’t know the EXACT reason, just inappropriate in general. I assume is because of the colloquial language, so I’ll try to repost it in a more formal way.

Can I know in detail what are you gonna use the management allocation on? A breakdown of the costs and salaries. With all the prices in detail.

I wonder how can someone spend 3/4 of a million just to assign and distribute a round of grants. It shocked me to see such a huge numbers. I think the costs are ridiculous.

This job can be done by setting up a network of 10-15 people working from their homes with just a laptop and internet connection.
You just need to pay them for their time.

4k each for the full job (which is way more than the average salary in Europe for working 2 months, 40 hours a week).
If someone needs more than 320 hours to do this job it might be not the indicated person. Being efficient, 80-100 hours per person should be more than enough.

So you should manage with 60k.
60k spend to distribute 3M worth grants (that’s a 2%). This looks fair and efficient to me.

Other than that is just a MISUSE OF OUR MONEY in my opinion.

Absolutely AGAINST the proposal from my end.

I’d like to encourage everyone offering their services to manage grants programs to be sensitive with others money. For 99% of the people, money is hard to earn.

[404DAO]

After consideration, 404 DAO will be voting FOR this proposal given the following reasoning:

We support a pluralistic funding framework based on:

1. Its potential to compliment Questbook’s proposal
2. The created opportunity for experimentation and iteration
3. 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.

[Griff]

While I would prefer this proposal be split into smaller pieces to be voted on individually, I will vote FOR this proposal.

Managing complex web3 grant programs is a lot of work, a 19.7% overhead for a grant program is very high but just like the 20% overhead of the Questbook Proposal, I expect this is a start up cost and if the program continues I would hope the overhead can get to less than 10%.

One part that I love about this proposal is the effort to define the DAO’s Mission, Vision, Values and funding priorities with the community. This is very difficult, to execute on, but I think it will have a lot of positive second order effects beyond the grant proposal.

Quadratic Funding is an amazing funding technique with with a natural virality to it, while also multiplying the impact of the ARB being used to to reward builders. This will be a huge benefit to the Arbitrum Ecosystem, in onboarding new users, and making every project that is fundraising for their work on Arbitrum also a promoter of the arbitrum ecosystem.

I also think there are novel patterns for grant programs emerging like RetroPGF and likely others that can easily be integrated here, and Plurality labs has their finger on the pulse of the ecosystem to bring in these cool techniques.

It is hard to find a team that has more experience with grants in the web3 space than this one, which is why I very much trust them to execute on this proposal.

My biggest worry/concern is how the legal framework of Arbitrum will work… If there are going to be strict KYC requirements imposed by the foundation on regranting (as is done with Optimism) I don’t think that it makes sense for this program to really exist, as it’s opportunity to include novel forms of fundraising would have a lot of extra friction that doesn’t mesh well with web3’s permissionless nature and the large anon builder community on Arbitrum.

I am assuming that there would be very light KYC requirements imposed on regranting, like, only on projects that receive over $10k USD value from the matching pool as was done with Gitcoin Grants.

[DisruptionJoe]

@Griff

I expect this is a start up cost and if the program continues I would hope the overhead can get to less than 10%.

I think this is a good goal. The Red Cross is generally seen as a most efficient grant giving organization and it tries to stay under 10%. Thank you for recognizing the extra needs of bootstrapping from the start and innovating.

@Griff

One part that I love about this proposal is the effort to define the DAO’s Mission, Vision, Values and funding priorities with the community. This is very difficult, to execute on, but I think it will have a lot of positive second order effects beyond the grant proposal.

I do think this is underrated. When workshopping with many experienced DAO experts at MetaCamp, we split into two groups. One looked at the biggest problems we have with DAO grants systems. One looked at best potential solutions. Both groups came up with the same three high-level categories.

1. Mission Alignment - Lack of clarity on the Mission, Vision, Values & Priorities
2. Accountability Data - Reputation, Trust, & Communication data is missing
3. Decision Making - Voice does not “flow” to output great collective decisions

@Griff

My biggest worry/concern is how the legal framework of Arbitrum will work… If there are going to be strict KYC requirements imposed by the foundation on regranting (as is done with Optimism) I don’t think that it makes sense for this program to really exist, as it’s opportunity to include novel forms of fundraising would have a lot of extra friction that doesn’t mesh well with web3’s permissionless nature and the large anon builder community on Arbitrum.

This is a very prescient call out. From my experience with Gitcoin, I am familiar with the Risk & Compliance needs of organizations as large as Unicef & Shell. We have models that satisfied their levels of scrutiny which we can work with the foundation to ensure they pass muster & are properly implemented. These can be applied to both grantees and voters if & when necessary.

Additionally, I’d like to address on concern from @thedevanshmehta where he suggests that the 6 month time limit may incentivize allocating poorly to say we accomplished a goal. We will commit to rolling over or returning funds that can’t be used wisely. The funds would be in the grants safety multisig which would offer an additional layer of protection.

[jacksanyoda]

Great work Joe. Throughout this process I’ve appreciated your passion and the thoughtfulness and level of detail in which you respond to posts. This gives me great confidence in you and your teams ability to execute.

[Michigan_Blockchain]

Michigan Blockchain will be voting FOR on Plurality’s grant program. We thank @DisruptionJoe for his continued communication and willingness to respond to all concerns and feedback. Plurality Lab’s proposal provides an additional outlet for the Arbitrum DAO to allocate grants to its increasingly expanding ecosystem. There are reasonable concerns with the overlap with Questbook’s program, but as we initiate a grants program on Arbitrum, it is important to allow for a diverse set of grant allocators and frameworks. Questbook’s program, which we support, gives the ability to allocate the designated capital to only 4 Domain Allocators and the Program Manager, providing a narrow set of viewpoints. Plurality’s proposal will enable a wider breadth of perspectives, expertise, and allocation methods. By further supporting the growth of the community and Arbitrum ecosystem with an additional effective grants program and the initiation of a Gitcoin Grants round, this proposal furthers the DAOs mission of supporting the Arbitrum protocol and the application and developers building on top of it.

As the grant programs reach the end of their terms, a mechanism should be in place to analyze the effectiveness of each program and develop an optimal grants framework to be presented to the DAO before providing additional funding. This mechanism may come in the form of a 3rd party or a committee formed to assess each grant program. This would allow for continual assessment of the effectiveness of the programs and enable iteration based on relevant feedback.

It is clear that the model for the multi-sig and grant funds management needs to be further discussed and involve the DAO. However, it is also apparent that Arbitrum has found itself far behind the competition on grants funding and others such as Optimism have seen a fair amount of success with their programs. Supporting these grant frameworks takes the ArbitrumDAO one step closer to developing a standard for sustainable governance and community participation.

[limes]

I’ll be voting yes on this proposal because I think the pluralistic grants program allocator initiative is positioned to create a fair, impactful, and supportive grant program to foster the growth and success of the ecosystem.

[olimpio]

I have been following this discussion for the last weeks and after consideration decided to vote in opposition to it.

I would like to state that I am a delegate in Optimism as well as in Arbitrum.

The idea of having different Grant frameworks for the Arbitrum Ecosystem to thrive is something I am all up for.

Congratulations to Plurality Labs team members and Joe for putting a notable effort into this proposal, it shows and it can be seen.

Reasons for voting in opposition to this proposal and in favour of Questbook’s proposal:

• Questbook’s proposal posed a smaller risk in terms of funding. You are both charging 20% of management fees (which I believe it is high relative to the amount being distributed in the grant and could be better optimized) however the risk is higher with Plurality Labs as the amount is also higher. Regardless, when compared to Optimism, the difference in funds distributed is significant, and it’s also something to consider - if we cap the potential funds distributed too much, then there’s also a limitation in potential ecosystem growth.

• It’s also important to not fall behind in terms of fast action and innovation, we have Optimism’s great initiatives to learn from, and I believe a balance should be met when deciding when/how to allocate DAO funds (value for money? are costs optimized?). We need to find this equilibrium

• I don’t believe the 361,000 ARB for “Project Buffer” are needed. It’s best to request less funds if there is no specific clarity on usage and then ask for more down the road if they are needed, and have the community decide to allocate them again, instead of having a buffer that could potentially not be used and returned to the DAO. I would strive as a DAO to be flexible and open to recognize when funds are not needed, and to recognize when funds are, to effectively be able to allocate them.

• Most importantly, given that the Arbitrum Foundation is starting its own Grants Management Programme very soon, it is of my opinion that it’s prudent to have one community-led initiative at the same time to evaluate results and adjust moving forward before making a commitment to invest more DAO funds (in this first phaze and as the DAO adjusts)

I also don’t think charging a percentage fee for distributed/managed/allocated funds is a good incentive structure. I lean more towards a fixed flat reasonable fee but not directly related (percentage-wise) to the grant funds. I would also suggest the possibility of revising the fee to see if it can be improved.

I look forward to seeing how the DAO can work together towards creating a structure for Grants. We have clearly seen a very good impact in Optimism, so there is a lot of potential.

[DisruptionJoe]

Thank you for posting your reasoning. Here are a few considerations.

@olimpio

voting in opposition to this proposal and in favour of Questbook’s proposal

We split our proposal from Questbook because we are asking to be held accountable for a different goalset. Questbook is a cool software which has found a model for executing grants funding which is successful at one type of ecosystem funding. They will move on to sell their software to other ecosystems. We are attempting to solve an unsolved problem in DAOs - Capture-resistance. Questbook is looking to show their software works to find more customers for their software. Plurality Labs is looking to solve this one problem, which is core to the future decentralization of the Arbitrum chain upgrade contract as well as providing legitimacy and credible neutrality to our grants framework.

Using one model for allocation is like using one club for an entire golf game. Its like using one utensil while cooking a meal. Its like using only a car to get everywhere.

Imagine how we could compliment a Questbook campaign. The allocation method they use is great for agility in funding, but less great for sourcing good projects. Here are some ways Plurality Labs could help:

• We could run a Quadratic Funding round which is great at sourcing projects for each domain they have selected.
• We could validate community interest in their selected domains.
• We could run an evaluation of bias in their system helping both us and them address it better in the future
• We could learn how to run their program and software for future seasons

These proposals are not redundant. They are complimentary.

@olimpio

You are both charging 20% of management fees (which I believe it is high relative to the amount being distributed in the grant and could be better optimized) however the risk is higher with Plurality Labs as the amount is also higher

We would hope to bring this down over the three milestones while massively increasing the amount the DAO feels comfortable allocating to compete with not only Optimism, but Polygon’s $500 million allocated in the last couple years.

Additionally, we are aiming to work ourselves out of a job. If successful (or not), the Plurality Labs fee goes to $0 after milestone 3. This would enable the DAO to hire for a manager for a flat fee. At this point, we are asking the DAO to pay a reasonable premium for expertise and innovation, then fill the roles at market rate for admin & management. And we are offering WAY more than just program management for the equal 20% fee!

This new post shows what goes into a framework above and beyond the program. Grants Frameworks vs Programs vs Allocation Methods

@olimpio

however the risk is higher with Plurality Labs as the amount is also higher. Regardless, when compared to Optimism

The risk of our proposal is higher, but the opportunity cost of not taking these actions is MUCH higher. The upside potential our proposal provides is WAY higher and should be considered as well.

If you believe that our proposal can improve the efficacy and outcomes of how grant funding is used by even 1%, that indicates a potential $35 million upside to our work. A 15% improvement would be near half a billion in increased efficacy in the Arbitrum grants funding outcomes over time.

@olimpio

It’s also important to not fall behind in terms of fast action and innovation, we have Optimism’s great initiatives to learn from, and I believe a balance should be met when deciding when/how to allocate DAO funds (value for money? are costs optimized?). We need to find this equilibrium

Who is the “we” that will action this research and development cycle? Their needs to be someone who is hired to do this work. That is what we are asking to do!

We have already mapped out the processes of multiple other grants programs and some of our early workshops will be designed to find out what is working great and what isn’t working so well with each type. Because the results of our work will be an open-source public good, it will benefit everyone.

@olimpio

I don’t believe the 361,000 ARB for “Project Buffer” are needed.

We would be happy to take it out before this goes to Tally if it became the deciding factor on if you are willing to change your vote on Snapshot. Our reasoning for including it was that this would be held by the grants safety multisig and not sent to Plurality Labs, so it shouldn’t be an issue. One larger delegate suggested that we should have it available in case of a significant price drop so we can pay our team to finish the job and we agreed this could be important.

@olimpio

Most importantly, given that the Arbitrum Foundation is starting its own Grants Management Programme very soon, it is of my opinion that it’s prudent to have one community-led initiative at the same time to evaluate results and adjust moving forward before making a commitment to invest more DAO funds (in this first phaze and as the DAO adjusts)

They explicitly stated that they won’t be sharing details of what they are doing in advance, only in the transparency reports afterwards. Questbook’s proposal isn’t designed to manage a relationship with the foundation program. Ours is!

I’ve spoken to multiple people at the foundation who clearly understand the purpose of our proposal and do not see it as a conflict with either Questbook or the foundation program. The foundation wants to compliment what we do as a DAO.

@olimpio

I look forward to seeing how the DAO can work together towards creating a structure for Grants. We have clearly seen a very good impact in Optimism, so there is a lot of potential.

This is exactly what we are asking to do. Someone needs to drive the work to get done. We will be neutral. We will seek out differing opinions. We will run controlled experimentation, conduct data analysis, and systemically iterate to create a best in class framework.

If this alleviates your concerns or opens up any new perspectives you had not previously considered, we hope you might consider updating your temp check vote. Thanks for engaging.

[DisruptionJoe]

To anyone who thinks this proposal is in conflict with Questbook, please give this post a quick read.

Grants Frameworks vs Programs vs Allocation Methods

This is an article I was gonna post on Mirror once we got Plurality Labs rolling, but I think it could help now with the vote for AIP - 3 [Non-Constitutional] Fund the Arbitrum Grants Framework Proposal Milestone 1 Understanding Grants Frameworks Design at MetaCamp [image] Costa Rica is a perfect place to ride the waves, watch the sunset, and workshop DAO grants frameworks. At MetaCamp, a gathering sprung out of MetaCartel, this is exactly what we did. Magic happens between cooking korean fo…

[Curia]

We are supporting and will vote FOR this proposal brought forward by Plurality Labs. The initiative to fund the Arbitrum Grants Framework is a positive step towards the decentralization and growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem. @DisruptionJoe and the Plurality Labs team reflects a keen understanding of the current challenges faced by DAOs and the solutions offered are both thoughtful and innovative.

We see great potential in a pluralistic funding framework. It’s not only a compliment of previously passed QB grant programs but also pave the way for innovation and experimentation on pluralistic grant program which we’d like to support. By establishing systems for visibility, evaluation, project-sourcing, and coordination, it can provide tangible benefits to the ecosystem.

In addition, the broader perspective, expertise, and diverse allocation methods that this proposal enables will contribute to the richness of the Arbitrum ecosystem. We believe that upon the completion of grant programs, there should be a mechanism in place to analyze their effectiveness and form an optimal grants framework. This will act as a feedback mechanism that enhances the future growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem.

However, while we do support this proposal, we do have some issue that we would like to hear:

Progressive Decentralization Plan: The proposal’s reliance on Plurality Labs in the selection and execution of grant programs in the beginning is understandable, but we would appreciate a more detailed roadmap for the gradual decentralization process of decision-making in this program.

Accountability: The proposal mentions accountability from the Plurality Lab team, but it is not clear what these are throughout all the milestones and how they will be measured. Concrete metrics and KPIs would be helpful in tracking the progress of the team.

In conclusion, while we support the proposal and see its potential in propelling Arbitrum’s growth, these concerns need to be addressed to ensure that the execution is as effective as its concept. Addressing these points will significantly contribute to this end. We look forward this pluralistic funding framework in action!

[DisruptionJoe]

Thank you for your support.

@Curia

Progressive Decentralization Plan: The proposal’s reliance on Plurality Labs in the selection and execution of grant programs in the beginning is understandable, but we would appreciate a more detailed roadmap for the gradual decentralization process of decision-making in this program.

The current plan would be that during milestone 1 we experiment with a few models and evaluate what works. During milestone 2 we would have set deliverables to test the effects of scaling the best solution(s). Milestone 3 would be a final test primarily driven through the decentralized top-level allocation mechanism. After that, we would be done. The DAO could hire a manager to maintain the program, but hopefully, the innovation would be done.

@Curia

Accountability: The proposal mentions accountability from the Plurality Lab team, but it is not clear what these are throughout all the milestones and how they will be measured. Concrete metrics and KPIs would be helpful in tracking the progress of the team.

Concise metrics and KPIs are good for measuring incremental growth of known process patterns. We are innovating in a way that the KPI would be the execution of deliverables. Accountability is created by breaking it into 3 milestones. The DAO can see our progress, that we deliver what we committed to during the time period. They choose whether or not to fund the next milestone.

A lot of our work is to discover what KPIs make the most sense. Overall, we will baseline our key metric goals during the first milestone so that we can see if we hit the goals in the third milestone. From there, the DAO can track these metrics over time.

These metrics are:

1. The number of active developers building on Arbitrum is growing at an increasing rate
2. Voter participation is increasing
3. DAO delegates’ satisfaction with Plurality Labs service is improving as measured by NPS

[Oxytocin]

After reading all sides of the discussion in this thread, I will be voting FOR this proposal on snapshot. While I still believe some additional details into the budget breakdown will be needed to receive a DAO-wide social consensus, the core idea of this pluralistic grants framework is something I personally have not seen done before, and would be interested to see how it plays out.

As the original post metions, I’ve seen time and time again grants programmes suffer from either the excessive bottlenecking of everything going to a one-size-fits all grants framework or the inefficiency of a proposal-by-proposal discussion. Usually, DAOs only handle a single protocol or project, so a single grants programme is more than enough. The closest example we have is that of Optimism, but I don’t think this approach could work on the Arbitrum DAO as so far the involvement of the Foundation here is very different compared to OP.

This approach of having multiple grants frameworks being all trialled at once with oversight from a Grants Programme allocator would allow Arbitrum to be able to approach different types of grants with completely different methods, which I believe is essential because of the scale of projects that Arbitrum DAO might address.

[krst]

We are voting FOR this proposal in the temperature check.

I’ve been discussing different approaches to the Grants Framework for Arbitrum with various parties for several weeks, and I’ve participated in workshops organized by Plurasistic Labs. I have also analyzed other available proposals and I am also a reviewer in the Grants Council in Optimism.

I think it would be beneficial for the Arbitrum ecosystem to test and methodically compare different approaches in order to scale them in the future to better compete with other ecosystems and develop a healthy, fertile developer environment in Arbitrum. I appreciate the team’s passion for the topic and their willingness to focus on this particular issue. Proper grant framework design isn’t easy, and I’d like to see some experimentation in this area while adding value to Arbitrum. I believe that all technical concerns like multisig design can (and need to) be figured out before the final onchain vote.

[shawn16400]

If you have not had a chance to vote on this proposal yet, you still have a few hours to do so. This vote will close on 7/13 at 2pm EST / 18:00 UTC

https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xa0e14b85197d73e825ac30f72b7d895d644ed06159a32a578f4efe47a2739b2f

And thank you for participating in Arbitrum governance.

[mihal]

Though I agree with the goals of establishing a grants program to foster the growth of ecosystem, there are a few concerns with the outlined proposal. One major issue is the lack of specific details and clarity. In addition, the allocation of a significant portion of the requested funds (20%) to program management fees. Given these concerns, I would recommend providing further clarification. While the goals of the proposal are commendable, the lack of specificity and allocation of a significant fund raise valid concerns.

[DisruptionJoe]

Hey Mihal!

Maybe we can connect to discuss some of your concerns before this would move to Tally.

@mihal

One major issue is the lack of specific details and clarity.

The exact deliverables are listed in the section called “Deliverables”. Perhaps you’re looking for details like “We will be putting $xxx towards gaming”?

This is difficult to do because we are doing a discovery and design process. What if we learn that the community is much more interested in gaming and we were under-allocating? What if we learn that there are high-impact infrastructure opportunities which should be prioritized? It would be hypocritical of us to state some details when we are committing to getting community input to drive those decisions.

@mihal

the allocation of a significant portion of the requested funds (20%) to program management fees

We are requesting the same amount as Questbook while providing a framework and a team that is fully committed with no other clients. We are also promising to execute multiple rounds, ours using multiple different allocation methods. In addition to this, we will be doing all the work of framework design including vision & mission finding, setting short and long term goals, and data analysis across all funds granted!

We will be sending out surveys to the delegates who voted no to make sure we hear your issues and adjust before going to a Tally vote. You are also invited to join our bi-weekly Arbitrum grants workshop on Tuesday at 2pm UTC.