Arbitrum DAO Grants Domain Allocator Nominations

[Blueweb]

Sharing the observations about the Questbook Performance in the last quarter based on observation and interaction with builders. Thank you @krst for the review and encouragement.

I would like to make it clear that my intention in exploring the details of this program is solely to encourage potential enhancements through open discussion. I hold no negative feelings or animosity towards the Questbook team. I hope to witness them manage this program to the utmost standard.

Following are four pain points that if addressed can lead to better clarity and long-term success of the program.

1. No Rubrics developed for New Protocols & Ideas Domain.

If not using Rubric was mentioned anywhere is public, please ignore this point. I am currently not aware of that and expect it as part of the proposal says so.

@Saurabh

Each domain allocator is required to work alongside the program manager and come up with domain-specific rubrics similar to the following to evaluate the proposals. If the identified rubrics are not in line with the domain or Arbitrum’s roadmap, anyone from the community can openly suggest changes or question them on the forum

@Saurabh

As specified in our proposal, the elected domain allocators will run their domains independently in a transparent manner on Questbook. They will make independent decisions for their respective domains based on their evaluation rubric.

As mentioned in the proposals KPI & other discussions, rubrics were to be an important objective way of evaluating a project especially when approval is centralised.

These rubrics are missing for every project that got approved or rejected in the New Protocols & Ideas Domain.

Without using a rubric it is just a bureaucratic approach and not transparent.

2. Poor Turnaround Time(TAT) for two domains.

@Saurabh

Turnaround Time (TAT): We’ve maintained a communication TAT of less than 48 hours through the DDA model. Please find below some of the metrics related to CGP 2.0 which is being managed through the DDA model.

@Saurabh

In addition to maintaining a communication TAT of less than 48 hours, domain allocators assessed proposals using a domain-specific rubric in a transparent manner. This objective feedback provided builders with a clear understanding of the areas that needed improvement, allowing them to revise and resubmit their proposals based on actionable feedback.

Several projects have received their first comment from the domain allocator after a month.

PriceGuard

Domain:- Arbitrum New Protocols and Ideas

Submitted on:- 06 Nov, 2023

First Public Comment:- 06 Dec, 2023

TAT:- 30 days

Final Status:- Rejected

Let’s increase Arbitrum’s exposure to the LATAM dev community

Submitted on:- 03 Nov, 2023

First public comment:- 25 Nov, 2023

TAT:- 22 days

Final Status:- Approved

In the Arbitrum Education, Community Growth and Events domain the TAT was always 24-48 hours for the first public comment. In the Gaming Domain, the few proposals that I checked had a TAT of 1-5 days. No complaints about these domains.

In fact, how can this be achieved in all domains? Most Allocators have mentioned in their nomination form to be able to keep TAT by 48 hours but did not implement it. Even a TAT of 5-7 days should be fine.

Rationale:
First public comment can give a lot of confidence to new applicants that the process is agile. And most importantly, it was said to be done considering that the benefits are far better understood by QuestBook than anybody else.

3. Low Pay Out

The current total paid out is ~$150k.

Total Admin cost for the quarter is ~$90k.

Paid out ratio to admin cost looks very expensive. I understand these will be paid out in future but if the period of DDA’s is over how will the follow-up on milestones be ongoing?

@Saurabh

Program manager will share the status on milestone completion for each project

The above metric if provided will allow a better understanding of what needs to be addressed. For example, reaching out to the accepted teams to enable them to complete their milestone on time. Currently, there are no initiatives on those lines.

4. No Transparency

@Saurabh

Increased transparency: The Delegated Domain Allocator approach provides a clear and transparent process for allocating funds, ensuring stakeholders understand the decision-making process and building community confidence. Questbook, a decentralized grant management platform, provides a transparent space for teams to showcase their backgrounds and experience.

For most projects, the communication happens off the Questbook, which defeats the purpose of using a platform. In many proposals the Accepted reason is mentioned as the conversation happened over the call in the last few weeks/months.

This can be improved further by keeping most questions public(even sharing a recording of the conversation over call) or hosting an open office hour which can be attended by any community member to increase transparency.

Personal Opinion

With the performance in the last quarter in each domain, I agree with the suggestion earlier made of having at least two DDA or two DDA’s for two Domains and the rubric of both should be above a set benchmark for approval.

@Bobbay

The DAO can decide whether they want one or two DDA for each domain via a poll.

The counter provided earlier for not having a multi-domain allocator was not seen in action.

@Saurabh

The decision-making has to be quick while being decentralized. The concept of choosing one domain allocator for the community is to strike the balance between speed and decentralization Having more than one DA for the same domain, increases the TAT - the current process ensures 48 hours of TAT. We also feared a potential friction between the domain allocators during a disagreement, hence we have a very clear distinction of the scope of the domains and the decisions of the domain allocators.

Having presented my observations, I strongly believe addressing these issues and accountability the QuestBook program can remain a vital part of ArbitrumDAO in the long run.