DAOplomats voted in favor of an Online Event on Snapshot.
We are generally supportive of an IRL version. However, we are just more interested in seeing how things develop progressively. First, we experiment with online events, gauge interest from delegates and stakeholders within Arbitrum, then we can shoot for a broader IRL event.
Finally, before supporting during the onchain vote, we would love to see the budget reworked. The proposed cost right now looks too much an ask for an online event.
This is how I voted on Snapshot:
I think itās a good idea to meet the team IRL on dates that donāt interfere with most peopleās work/activities. It could be organized through a vote three months in advance to make it fair. I know you currently hold online calls, and Iād like to stay informed to learn more about the Arbitrum ecosystem and the people behind the projects. How can I stay updated on these online calls?
Thank you for your response @danielo. I totally agree that focusing on efficiency and trusted token holders is important. And I hope newcomers should have a chance to participate to any events host by the DAO. So hopefully we can hold an online event in the future, as it would make it easier for more people to engage and build their reputation without the need to attend in person.
As someone who talks about DeFi and DAOs on X, Iād love to support the DAO by using my voice. Iām curious about how we can bring in newcomers while still keeping governance effective in your plan
My plan is only a small step. At the moment the DAO has A LOT of friction to advance proposals. One needs to be very acquainted with a lot of initiatives and people to be able to move something through, and even then it requires a lot of work.
By claryfing the strategy, we reduce said friction. Strategy provides signposts for others to rally around without having to do all the sense making work.
So my hope is that the more we clarify by focusing on effective discussions (with some tradeoffs needed short term), that enables a lot more engagement from newcomers.
We are in favor of this proposal. With regard to costs and cooperation, I feel that a more detailed planning report is needed.
In the meantime, I would personally recommend
1. clear criteria for selection of participants: the proposal should detail the criteria for selection of participants and publicize the list to ensure transparency and trust.
2. budget refinement: before finalizing the proposal, further refine the budget, especially the audit criteria for travel scholarships, to ensure the reasonable use of funds.
3. technical support: online participation requires technical support, it is recommended to test and provide technical guidelines in advance to ensure seamless communication between online and offline.
4. Follow-up and Evaluation: Set up a clear tracking mechanism to regularly evaluate the implementation of the action items and ensure that the results of the activities are effectively implemented.
5. Responding to Community Feedback: Set up a feedback team to handle and respond to community opinions to ensure that community voices are taken seriously.
6. Online Activity Options: Add interactive links to online activities and analyze the comparison of online and offline results to make more informed choices.
7. offline travel risk and safety tips
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 8
And a following proposal where an Online format came on top Snapshot
The proposal has been streamlined based on feedback and is designed to be independent but compatible with related initiatives such as Alexās work on coordination and emergent conversations with Disruption Joe, etc. The proposal also stays clear of areas where Entropy is already working and builds upon previous work (e.g. mission and values draft).
There were concerns about potential overlap with GovHack and we have aligned this initiative so both could be complimentary. However, the HackHumanity team has announced they wonāt be organising an event for Devcon.
This proposal aims to enhance the alignment, communication, and collaboration among token holders (including delegates). 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 process will be organized in October (before DevCon), focusing on strategic alignment sessions.
This proposal includes:
The key deliverable is an online strategy process to define a shortlist of priorities for the DAO over the next 6 months. These priorities (if ratified) can then feed into GovHack as a āproposal acceleratorā to turn the priorities into initiatives. (note that we have coordinated this and GovHackās proposals to be both complementary and independent, allowing the proposals to function together or in isolation).
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 key outcome is a ratified decision on priorities via Snapshot vote.
The DAO encounters multiple challenges, but a critical issue is the lack of effective communication and alignment among delegates and key stakeholders. There are many calls, but attendance is not concentrated and the calls are designed for context sharing and informal discussion, not designed for a strategic process. This results in a gap in aigment and clear and explicit strategy, causing slow decision-making.
Areas such as organizational design and strategic planning require not only well-crafted proposals but also thorough stakeholder engagement. Beyond what can be achieved in an event, these areas require multiple steps of aligment on frameworks and approaches, sense-making, structured deliberation, and ratifying decisions.
Output:
Draft of DAO priorities for the next 6 months thatās put to a Snapshot vote.
Outcome:
The priorities provide alignment and enable the whole community to rally around key priorities, unblocking the DAO.
The proposal includes:
*The exact format will be refined during phase 1 in coordination with other initiatives and delegates.
Project manager to engage with token holders, delegates, and key stakeholders, distilling concerns and topic suggestions, and facilitating converging on the exact agenda and framework.
Careful planning of each session: aiming to share and agree on frameworks and approaches in advance, focusing IRL discussion on content and not format. This is a continuation of the work started in December with the pre-proposal for a strategy framework.
Onboarding participants into the framework and using a collective intelligence tool to generate and organise an initial list of priorities. (asynchronous, 1h)
Online workshops to review the initial list, carry a root cause analysis, and argue pros/cons of different priorities. (live, half day)
Sharing publicly for community feedback (forum) and our team synthesising feedback.
second survey (usign the collective intelligence tool) to collect, cluster, and prioritise a refined list of priorities. (asynchronous, 2x 1h)
second workshop to refine the definition of the priorities. (live, half day)
Sharing a summary of the discussion & agreed action points.
Final collection of feedback and synthesis.
Snapshot vote to ratify the results of the workshops.
Follow up with participants a month after to track progress on action items and liaison with Entropy, Foundation, and other parties to suggest next steps as appropriate (e.g. aligment with HackHumanity if GovHack is approved).
*: tentative timeline to be adjusted during the planning phase in coordination with the different stakeholders.
Focused on high-context, expert, and senior participants. I.e. not an onboarding event. For rationale see the discussion here.
Fund sent to Multisig Signing Service.
50% in advance, 50% upon completion.
30% volatility buffer added in case of the ARB price falling. Any unspent buffer will be returned to the DAO. Arb price calculated based on date of posting on Tally.
Total cost: $14,900
Total in ARB including volatility buffer: 30,266 ARB
Detailed breakdown
Additional 5k ARB bonus if snapshot proposal with priorities (proposal to ratify conclusion of the workshops) is approved (non-constitutional quorum met and 65%+ support from voters).
Maximum possible total in ARB: 35,266 ARB
The opportunity cost of this process 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 process is effective. The facilitation includes designing the workshops and moderating the conversation, AND engaging with the broader community to gather input and synthethise it.
Weāve 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 in ranked order:
Offcylce voting: this proposal was planned to be launched on Tally yesterday. Due to some unforeseen coordination around the MSS, we couldnāt post until confirming the compliance procedure with the foundation. In the interest of being able to start this initiative in October and due to multiple constraints in November (DevCon, ThanksGiving), weāre posting on Tuesday. Please accept our apologies for any disruption.
voted yes for online on tally since its the only option, and an online event is better than no event, but would have preferred an IRL gathering, esp considering govhack is no longer doing an event.
seems like im the outlier here given the snapshot vote, but maybe that would have been different as well if it was known govhack would not do devcon.
Only request here is that there is some voting or flexibility on time zones, as weāre currently not able to attend most ArbitrumDAO meetings due to US focused scheduling.
Govhacks proposal was posted after this one on snapshot, so i dont think its a material change.
I am interested to see what sort of attendance and facilitation we get from the online workshops. in my experience, having synchronous communication with all major delegates in the room is difficult and less efficient (esp when virtual) than asynchronous text based communication, but happy to be proved wrong.
This proposal includes synchronous (live) and asynchronous phases. The core of the work happens async through the use of a collective intelligence tool, async deliberation across telegra+forum, and summaries created by our team.
We complement that process with synchronous deliberation during two workshops, but thatās mostly to fast-track the discussion around pros/cons and root causes that will likely be happening in telegram and the forum already.
Hereās a mapping of what that can look like (to be refined during planning phase if the proposal is approved):
DAOplomats is voting in favor of this proposal on Tally.
We see our concerns regarding costs during the temp check were addressed as the budget has been reduced with a detailed breakdown added. Thus, we are happy to support during the onchain vote.
Is it possible to widen the attendee list? It seems overly restrictive if itās an online venue, which should facilitate higher attendance.
