We voted against on this. We do see the potential value in a series of discussions/workshops like these but also believe we need to be conservative with the events budget and preserve it for something we find more substantial, especially given how the foundation is intending to use the funds they requested.
Voted Against: As my initial feedback, I still think this proposal is a ānice-to-have.ā I do support the idea of trying and experimenting with different approaches, but this idea seems quite basic and not innovative enough. Virtual workshops are known to be a lot less effective, and spending a budget of $67K seems quite excessive.
If this proposal moves to Tally, I would love to see a clear indicator from the community (builders) that they are interested in this type of event (maybe an interest list or pre-application form?). Also, I would love to see more detailed KPIs (how will we know if this proposal is successful or not?) and a more detailed budget breakdown.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot voting.
After reviewing the proposal and attending the office hour, we acknowledge the intent behind this initiative to support early-stage protocols and builders in the Arbitrum ecosystem. We believe providing mentorship, guidance, and structured peer discussions can benefit ecosystem growth.
As several delegates have pointed out, we echo with the point that this proposal does not align with the Events budget.
The proposal itself mentions this, suggesting that the initiative could have been better positioned as a follow-up to AVI rather than a standalone event. If that were the case, the value proposition of this proposal would be completely different today.
Additionally, we understand that this program is essential before ETHDenver; however, it should have been planned and proposed much earlier. The timing of the proposal raises concerns about execution readiness, especially with ETHDenver just under four days away.
Another concern that felt important to us in the proposal is the lack of a clear roadmap beyond the three-month program post-reporting. The proposal does not explain how the learnings, network, or participant engagement will continue beyond the Growth Circles.
We believe in the Farstar team and appreciate their efforts in proposing Arbitrum Growth Circles. However, we encourage them to incorporate the feedback from the delegates, refine the proposal with a clearer long-term plan, and see if the revised proposal fits in Questbook Season 3.
Thanks for the proposal, Still,
- the proposalās overall budget allocation appears overly generalized, lacking sufficient detail to ensure accountable resource distribution.
- the proposed KPIs lack specificity and quantifiable metrics, failing to establish clear benchmarks for success measurement.
Given the current market conditions, we should be more cautious in utilizing funds.
voting For on the current offchain vote because the monetary ask is not that big for the return this can have, the DAO needs regular events like this to attract good and honest founders into Arbitrum, the Farstar team is competent and has done this before at the highest level, and the timeline proposed seems doable. Also, I believe the Events Budget 2025 is exactly the avenue that should fund this type of proposal, and as a reminder for my fellow distinguished delegates that are worried about spending the Events Budget 2025, I would like to remind them that that budget and committee was funded through onchain vote more than 3 months ago, with $1.5M USD in total to be spend, and at the moment it has only spent $55,800 USD for ETH Bucharest 2025. Which means that, excluding the $400K USD that were already reserved for the Arbitrum Foundation this year and that are going to be used fully for ETH Denver in the next couple weeks, the DAO has only spent ~5% of this annual events budget, in the last 3 months ($1.5M in total - $400K for the AF = $1.1M remaining and therefore the $55.8K allocated to ETH Bucharest is 5.05% of 1.1M). And Iām not arguing that we should be voting For in every proposal that comes to the DAO trying to get funded through that budget, but I believe we should be more worried about the fact that almost no service provider comes forward and tries to propose an event or series of events that use that budget. That was the original intention of the 2025 Events Budget, and at this rate, is not being fulfilled at all.
2 Likes
Gauntlet intends to vote āAgainstā this proposal, due to similar feedback we have provided other events that the DAO and the Arbitrum Foundation have already allocated meaningful resources and capital to events. At this time, we prefer that events are managed via already-established channels.
The following reflects the views of L2BEATās governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas. Itās based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
Weāre voting AGAINST the proposal.
Weāve given our feedback and expressed our concerns to the AVI team directly, and in general, we share the concerns brought forward by other delegates in the comments above. We feel that itās a bit premature to discuss this initiative at this moment. Not only is the initiative built on the findings of AVI Pilot, which at this time are incomplete, but the justification for the requested budget, as well as the KPIs, feel lackluster.
While we appreciate Farstarās work in AVI Pilot so far and the effort put into this proposal, we cannot justify voting in favor of it in its current form and at this time. Once the AVI fully wraps up, we discuss its results and internalize the learnings, then we could revisit the topic.
1 Like
Iām voting AGAINST this proposal.
It doesnāt align with the cohesive marketing efforts that we are aiming for.
I voted FOR this proposal.
I completely side with @paulofonseca on this one, more so with the funds already allocated in the Events Budget for 2025. I was inclined to vote yes from the start given that this kind of event, if done right, can have a multiplying effect on the developer community. With a detailed description of the actions that this proposal includes and Farstar at its help, I see no reason to deny the possibilities that this might open.
Also, blocking this kind of proposal can spread apathy among other parties wishing to present similar activities to receive support, leaving Arbitrum at a disadvantage compared to other projects that allocate funding for these initiatives and consider them more relevant.
1 Like
Iām voting against this proposal.
I like the idea of a peer-led support network, but the proposalās too vague and probably too expensive. The budget needs to be more detailed, and the KPIs are weak. If there were hard metrics on outcomes and liquidity, or commitments from the āexpertsā that are supposed to be involved, I would be more likely to vote yes.
I agree with JoJo that we should do more outbound instead of letting people come to usā¦ but not sure I agree that we are perceived as a leech in the ecosystemā¦ that seems a bit harsh. LOL
As in @web3citizenxyz representation. Voting AGAINST. Below the rationale:
In three months, you plan to organize eight events, most of which are online meetings with a few offline sessions. Your budget is too high.
You mentioned expert groups introducing the Arbitrum network to others, which raises my concerns. It is unclear who these experts are. Perhaps it would be more beneficial if the Arbitrum founders themselves provid
ā Benefits of the Event to Arbitrum ā
Expanding access to market makers and liquidity providers? Are these just promises on paper, or are there concrete metrics to measure success? Additionally, if you hire inappropriate speakers to represent Arbitrum, I worry that it could lead to negative effects and create unfavorable sentiment among the public.
Against !ļ¼
gm, I voted AGAINST.
- Proposal feels reverse-engineered to justify a $50k budget
- Costs feel high for the type of events
- Structure needs refinement
Supporting buildersā GTM strategy is a critical gap in our ecosystem. We focus heavily on deployment but offer minimal structured support for what comes after - and thatās where most builders struggle.
I think we should, together with the SOS framework, create a positive flywheel where we help builders succeed post-deployment:
- They succeed ā we succeed
- Word spreads ā more builders choose Arbitrum
- Network effect compounds
I would be supportive of this initiative if it fell within a more comprehensive user journey for builders.
Suggestion: Rework this aligned with the upcoming SOS framework, with trimmed budget (online events donāt need this much) and clearer deliverables.
Thanks
I am voting FOR this proposal. My rationale aligns with my previous stance on ETH Bucharest. I believe that now is the opportune time for the Arbitrum DAO to invest and attract builders, given the intense competition in the Layer 2 space. Capitalizing on the network effect is crucial, and a dollar invested now is worth more than a dollar invested in 2 or 3 years.
I fully agree with @paulofonsecaās comment. A budget of $1.1M was voted on and should be utilized. In my opinion, this amount is not excessive. For context, an aggregator like 1inch spent $1.6M in 2024.
The Farstar team is competent and well-aligned with the Arbitrum ecosystem through the AVI initiative, which I believe can bring substantial value to Arbitrum. This event is well integrated in this strategic planning as one of its first steps, thatās also why I am supporting it.
1 Like
We vote FOR the proposal.
While acknowledging the concerns from other delegates, we value the insights and findings from the Farstar team, the reasonable budget amount compared to the whole budget allocated to the Events budget (where we agree with @paulofonseca) and any initiative to potentially accelerate the growth of the developers and protocols within the Arbitrum ecosystem. We believe the Farstar team who has been involved in the governance and the AVI initiative can provide proper support and potential value for Arbitrum.
2 Likes
I voted against this proposal at the temp check stage. I think itās a generally worthy idea and I appreciate the hard work of the Farstar team. However, I would prefer to concentrate the DAO event budget resources on larger investments. I anticipate logistical and comms challenges associated with generating awareness around and follow up from this event give its size and resourcing.
Blockworks Advisory will be voting against this proposal on Snapshot.
Weāve expressed our concern to the AVI team in outside communications and weāre happy with the direction the proposal moved; however, as others have pointed out this is a short term initiative and candidly we need more long-term but smaller scale solutions for a developer community. At the same time, there is the matter of the deliverables related to the AVI pilot that should be prioritized. Candidly, this proposal is also a bit last minute relative to the first event it proposes.
Furthermore, we think it would be helpful to have OCL or developer-oriented parties weigh in more hrere.
I will be voting āAgainstā this project. I agree with others that the events budget should be targeted towards larger events and I think that a project of this size can find funding from different programs in Arbitrum.