Arbitrum Offsite format: online vs IRL

Proposals
1

ArbitrumDAO Off-site

Non-Constitutional

This proposal is a continuation of the directional proposal for an offsite which was voted in favour with 130mn ARB in Snapshot: ArbitrumDAO Off-site - Directional proposal

IMPORTANT:
Please vote based on the format selection. If you have concerns about the mechanism to define attendees or specific budget items (e.g. travel scholarships), please use a comment. Feel free to explain that any Tally approval vote would be conditional on XYZ. The vote I’m trying to focus it on the format selection.

Abstract

This proposal aims to enhance the alignment, communication, and collaboration among token holders (including delegates) and key stakeholders by organizing a dedicated off-site event. The DAO currently struggles with achieving cohesive strategies due to sporadic interactions and a lack of direct engagement among key participants. To address this, a structured event will be organized in Q4, focusing on strategic alignment and problem-solving sessions.

This proposal includes a delegates and key stakeholders outreach and sense-making process to prioritise the most important agenda items to be discussed at the evente, ensuring the meeting time is focused on discussing the topic and not on discussing what to discuss or how to approach it. The event will then include professional facilitation to advance alignment, remove blockers, ensure proper note-taking, and generate clear action items on the selected topics.

The success of this initiative will be measured quantitatively by the NPS given by participants, and qualitatively by the outcomes and outputs from the sessions.

The Problem

The DAO encounters multiple challenges, but a critical issue is the lack of effective communication and alignment among delegates and key stakeholders. This results in fragmented strategies and slow decision-making processes. Important decisions and proposals often suffer due to inadequate collaboration and understanding among the members.

Areas such as organizational design and strategic planning require not only well-crafted proposals but also thorough stakeholder engagement. We’re missing structured platforms for delegates and key stakeholders to engage deeply and collaboratively, leading to bottlenecks and slow and painful decision-making.

This proposal seeks to test a format for deliberation between key stakeholders with a clearly defined agenda. If successful, the format can be replicated to continuously address agenda items.

Proposed Solution

Recent initiatives like the Delegates Day by Entropy and GovHack in Brussels highlight the potential for focused events to catalyse progress. We want to build on these learnings to advance the ArbitrumDAO. The proposal includes:

  1. Agenda prioritisation (pre-event strategic aligment)
  • Project manager to engage with token holders, delegates, and key stakeholders, distilling concerns and topic suggestions, and facilitating converging on the agenda. Including snapshot vote for agenda and format.
  • Careful planning of each session: aiming to share and agree on frameworks and approaches in advance, focusing IRL discussion on content and not format.
  • Defining criteria for attendees in consultation with key stakeholders to ensure both a successful event and capture resistance for the DAO.
  1. Facilitation & Workshop Organization:
  • Either IRL event or Online workshops (to be decided by this vote)
  • Structured facilitation process to ensure effective discussion, note-taking, and converging to action items.
  1. Post workshop follow up
  • Sharing a summary of the discussion & agreed action points
  • Follow up with participants a month after the workshop to track progress on action items and liaison with Entropy, Foundation, and other parties to suggest next steps as appropriate.

Optional (see voting options):

  • Travel and Accommodation:
    • Accommodation and catering for attendees and organisers.
    • Travel expenses for attendees not already funded by the DAO for travel expenses and not otherwise in the region (e.g. not attending DevCon nor DevCon side events).
    • Travel expenses “scholarship” available for attendees upon request and subject to approval by the event coordinator.

Timeline:

  • September: proposal approval and then logistics planning and preparation.
  • Event to take place during Q4, exact date depending on the snapshot vote (see below)
  • Before end of Q4: Post-event reporting and follow-up.

What Does Success Look Like?

  • High-quality outcomes and actionable strategies from workshops.
  • Increased engagement and satisfaction among participants.
  • Positive feedback and a strong desire to continue similar initiatives.

KPIs:

  • 50%+ participation rate among engaged (35%+ on-chain voting rate) Top50 delegates, foundation, and off-chain labs.
  • NPS of 50 or more (-100 to 100 range, 0 considered average)
  • A similar initiative is organised again.

Options

3 options are proposed. Please vote for the preferred one.

IMPORTANT: the costs are not finalised but are here as an indicative so the best option can e selected. Once an option is selected we’ll review the costs before moving to Tally. If you have any feedback on the costs, please share it with Daniel (Telegram: Contact @mrjackalop) so it can be taken into account before the final onchain proposal.

Option 1: IRL version next to a major event:

  • Next to DevCon Thailand, November 8th-10th.
  • 2-day event: day 1 arrival and facilitated dinner light discussion. Day 2 workshops. Day 3 breakfast and departure.
  • Including setup for hybrid participation (online participants supported with 360 cameras, moderator, and tech support)
  • Includes 20k travel scholarships for those not already in the region

around $116k + 10k contingency

Option 2: IRL version separate from major event:

  • In the most travel-friendly location for participants
  • During December 2024
  • 2-day event (same as above)
  • Including setup for hybrid participation (same as above)
  • Includes $50k travel for those not already in the region

around $156k + 10k contingency

Option 3: Online Event:

  • 3-4 online sessions (half-day sessions) over 1-2 months. With the possibility of input and feedback before/after event to ensure even those not attending can participate effectively.
  • During October-December 2024 (November likely skipped)

around $35k + 5k contingency.

Detailed breakdown and comparison here

Notes on budget:

  • high-level calculations. The budget will be revised in more detail (by requesting a quote from providers, etc.) after a successful Snapshot vote.
  • Any funds unspent will be returned to the DAO.
  • Funds will be denominated in ARB for tally vote

Additional Notes

Facilitation

The opportunity cost of this meeting is easily 10x its budget, given the limited time availability of delegates and few occasions a year when they converge. As such, good facilitation makes a critical difference in ensuring the meeting is effective. The facilitation includes designing the workshops and moderating the conversation, AND thinking through how to create a strategic process for a DAO.
Costs of Online facilitation might be lower than IRL. We’ll confirm this before the onchain proposal, for now costs are indicative to select a direction.

Agenda

We’ve already started the process of setting the agenda. We ran a survey, answered by 29 delegates with 86mn+ ARB represented. And then ran SimScore (a collective intelligence algorithm) to cluster responses and identify the key topics. The results are presented below to encourage further discussion.

Pre-selection of topics (to be refined and prioritised after the format is defined):

  • Defining strategic priorities for the DAO (vision and strategy)
  • DAO Budget (how much should the DAO be spending)
  • Org Design
  • ARB token utility
  • Conflict Of Interest
  • Grant programs (RPGF, what should be the focus, outcomes, etc.)

Additional work to be done to define the agenda:

  • 2 workshops and async discussion to identify root causes (root topics) and prioritise.
  • The final agenda will be defined via a subsequent Snapshot vote facilitated by the project manager.

Hybrid Participation for IRL events

We’ve successfully run a company retreat with hybrid participation (online+IRL). The setup works through using 360 cameras (equipped with a special mic, they cost about $600) and having an assistant with a laptop who can also support online participants in being heard (getting a turn to speak) and managing technical difficulties. The online setup is of course less good than being IRL but it is still viable to contribute to sessions (anyone leading a session does need to be IRL but, for input in the discussion, online works).

Attendees

  • Focused on high-context, expert, and senior participants. I.e. not an onboarding event.
  • Open to Top-50 delegates, off-chain labs, foundation members, and top 100 ARB token holders (both in Arbitrum One and Ethereum).
  • Additional attendees based on at least 20 million ARB endorsements (holders/delegates can endorse as many participants as desired).

Cost Benchmarks

The costs will be reviewed before the onchain proposal. If you have any feedback on the costs, please see the breakdown here and share your comments with Daniel so they can be taken into account before the onchain vote.

  • A base yearly salary for strategy could be well above 120k. But assuming 120k, that’s $57/hour for full-time employment, and a usual markup for freelance/consulting is 3-4. Leaving us in the $150-$250/h range. More senior consultants are likely to charge $300-$500/h or more.
  • No profit margin has been added (often 20%-50% for consulting)
  • Some price references:
  • As a facilitator, my last day rate (2018) was GBP2,500 (Oxford University rate) or about $3.2k USD at the time.
  • we’re planning to hire a professional facilitator as the event is projected in the range of 30-50 attendees. Together with the project manager that gives us just about enough resources to facilitate.
  • Professional facilitators have quoted $25k-$30k for this event over a high level description. Currently, only $15k is budgeted, but we’re confident that with more research we can still find someone highly capable without blowing the budget (also as the project manager (i.e. me) has facilitation experience and high context on the DAO so we can fast track a lot).

Roadmap

  1. directional proposal - completed
  2. survey, calls, and analysis (agenda topics, format considerations, concerns) - completed
  3. draft with key decision fork - week of 2nd September
  4. snapshot to define on format - week of 9th September
  5. Tally proposal draft, feedback, and refinement - 16th-29th (depending on engagement)
  6. Onchain Vote - Week of the 30th Sept - 19th Oct (roughly)
3 Likes
2

Thanks for the question @jameskbh

I think in essence both proposals are rather different, but it might not make sense to fund them both at this point in time.

Where I see the difference:

Objective:

  • Hack Humanity requests funding for delivering events and a yearly salary for Klaus, where the focus is on the IRL component.
  • RnDAO’s proposal focuses on a strategic process of alignment (which could be piloted fully online or mixed online and IRL, as per the delegates’ choice). In that sense, the deliverables of our proposal are about strategic alignment. The event part is a tool to achieve strategic alignment, not the core deliverable.

Scope:

  • Hack Humanity is proposing multiple events, and each event with the same recurring format of 3 days that include Panels, AMAs, Tracks, etc. In that sense it’s more of a series of hackathons following what they did for GovHack. Also, the GovHack Core is planned for events of 3 full days.
  • RnDAO is focused on a single initiative with a narrower focus on strategic alignment. In that sense, we offer a shorter-term engagement that can then be renewed or not, iterated, etc. The format is flexible and will be decided via a snapshot vote this coming week. If IRL is selected, we’ve also focused on shorter events to ensure delegates can more easily accommodate them.

Budget:
Hard to compare as we’re talking about different things

I hope this helps the discussion

1 Like
3

Why does both option 1 & 2 have travel scholarships included?

I will vote against solely on this basis, if someone is already travelling to devcon they can attend but we shouldn’t be in the business of flying anyone over during major events

4

I agree that we should not sponsor anyone to travel to major events.
But let’s also consider the options:

  1. Give a scholarships for a trip to a random place.
  2. Give a scholarships for a trip to the location of a major event.

In terms of finances - the costs are the same.
In terms of attracting attention - an additional major event will attract more delegates.

What I mean is that you shouldn’t make IRL less attractive just because of possible abuse.

5

Have we considered exploring alternative funding options or partnerships that could help offset some of the expenses associated with the in-person events?

6

That’s precisely the reason why option 1 and 2 have different budgets. The scholarships are just for those not already in the region, so the option to do it next to a major event has a much smaller travel budget as many people will be in the region. Conversely, a separate event will require most people to travel specifically for this, in which case it should be subsidised.

So basically your suggestion is already incorporated in the proposal

7

alternative funding options? what do you have in mind?

8

It’s not incorporated, option 1 has $20k in travel scholarships while option 2 has $50k. I want an option with $0 in travel support

9

So if I understand correctly, what you want is that unless people pay for the trip themselves, they can’t join? (irrespective of whether they were already in the region or not)

Could you explain your rationale, please?

10

The credibility damage for a delegate could be really high. If a delegate were to request a travel budget and then be hanging out in all the local events unrelated to Arbitrum, the chances of them running into someone are VERY high.

Furocombo was banned for misuse of funds. It wasn’t pretty. (I’m not suggesting we need to define upfront a policy for people abusign a scholarship, I think that’s absolute overkill of overdesigning. But the DAO could take action after the fact if some ugly behaviour was spotted. Generally, I think we can expect the delegates to ethically as this is not a black box situation).

But also, let’s take into perspective the potential value and cost of opportunity here. We keep saying the DAO could really use some strategy, we’re talking about 100x or more in value vs a budget of 20-50k. And if said budget increases the chances of this succeeding (getting strong buy-in and alignment) by say 20%, that’s huge ROI.

We already incentivise people to vote, why not cover travel when they put in 20+h between travel and workshops to align on the strategy or another key topic?

1 Like
11

@danielo
I don’t see a problem with making the option with the trip with 0$ support.
I think it’s a failed option, but we want to hear all opinions and it would be easy for us to add this option for consideration.

1 Like
12

We believe it would be wise to start with the online event and evaluate its outcomes, as it would be simpler to organize. Based on the results of this online gathering, we could then consider the feasibility of organizing a hybrid event.

If we opt for an online event, we suggest adjusting the KPIs since attendance is typically higher for virtual gatherings. Specifically, we propose increasing the success threshold by 20% to accurately reflect the ease of online participation if the third option is selected.

2 Likes
13

It’s hard for me to judge an appropriate threshold as we lack any precedent on such events, so there’s no benchmark. The 50% was thus set a bit arbitrarily.

That being said, as the IRL event option also includes remote participation, do you think it still makes sense to make the purely online one have a higher attendance target?

1 Like
14

yeah fair. I have added it as a voting option.

And please allow me to clarify that the scholarships are NOT “travel for delegates”. They’re travel for attendees who’d otherwise not be in the region (which might include or not delegates).

In the same way that a community member might be given a complimentary lunch at an event, the travel scholarships are a way to simplify attendance for those who’d otherwise have no obligation to be there and thus increase community engagement with the initiative.

16

I think this initiative is interesting because promoting collaboration through either an on-site (IRL) or online format should be helpful for the development of DAOs, two optimisation suggestions and a reminder:

    1. Hybrid model: While there are advantages to both formats, I recommend exploring a hybrid model that combines the strengths of both the on-site and online formats. This approach would allow delegates to participate virtually, with the option of IRL gatherings. This would help cater for a range of preferences while maintaining engagement.
    1. Small Regional IRL Gatherings: For those who support IRL, holding regional off-site events prior to the global gathering can make in-person participation more feasible. Smaller, geographically dispersed IRL events can still foster community development without the high logistical costs and travel time of larger events, while allowing for more educational programmes to be disseminated.

Reminder: does delegate participation in meetings pose a security risk. How to secure more active participation.

17

yeah sure, if the offsite is around a major event (eth denver, eth cc or devcon/devconnect) we would have enough high context people joining anyways that we don’t need to separately pay for attendance.

it also introduces a favors game, where if i know daniel or RN DAO well i can get a fully funded trip to a major conference, which im not comfortable with.

basically $0 in scholarships and coinciding with a major event to ensure attendance would be the most cost effective option imo

18

We understand that this is not an easy number to estimate, but we maintain our idea of raising the success threshold, as online participation allows for much higher engagement.

19

I’m not the one defining the attendees. You’d need to convince at least 20m ARB to get an endorsement as per the current format. I’m open to hearing other ideas.
So it’s still ultimately the token holders who decide who can get a scholarship (either by being a delegate or being endorsed by token holders/delegates).

Then anyhow, the upcoming snapshot vote will decide on the format (online, IRL next to event or separate) and the scholarships.

1 Like
20

ok, once a format is selected based on the upcoming snapshot vote, we’ll review the KPIs in more detail.

1 Like
21

I strongly support the IRL meetings. For me, being new to the DAO and governance I saw great benefit when I attended GovHack at ETH Brussels and met many people from governance in person. This is why I think more IRL events like this make sense and benefit DAO very much.

Danielo, my only concern is that the topics and discussion (formal and informal) will be the same at GovHack and this Arbitrum Offsite event. Do we need both events at one place (Devcon Bangkok)? What is the significant difference between these two events? Is it possible to combine them?

1 Like