While we appreciate the discussion on this matter, we believe this opens Pandora’s box beyond a single proposal and should be discussed within the context of establishing a broader framework.
Yes, Arbitrum’s marketing indeed lacks a coherent vision and execution strategy compared to its competitors, affecting how the tech stack is perceived and performs.
We believe this has several causes:
-
Lack of comprehensive marketing strategy: this extends to a long-term vision, KPIs, content pipeline and a defined execution. Currently, the Arbitrum marketing machine has the handbrakes on and many smaller processes are not in alignment or reinforcing each other.
-
Information asymmetry between the Foundation and the DAO: as very active and involved contributors in the DAO, even we are in the dark. There is a massive lack of clarity around; who is in charge of what when it comes to marketing, when and under what circumstances will the Foundation support the DAO’s activities, and why no one from the DAO has any access to the @arbitrum X account.
-
Lack of coordination among existing social Arbitrum accounts: we have now 5 different accounts on X (@arbitrum, @arbitrumcore, @arbitrumdevs, @arbitrumdao_gov, @DAO_Arbitrum, with 2 having just a few hundred followers, mostly DAO folks), and 1 inactive warpcast. This creates confusion and drastically reduces the visibility and impact of initiatives across both the DAO and the Foundation. This lack of consistency extends into longer-form content as well, where Arbitrum has both a Medium blog and a hosted blog, each publishing content, some different, some the same.
-
Lack of established processes, entities, and workflows: there has been virtually no movement or clarity in how we are expected to work together, and the Foundation hasn’t exactly been leading by example. We want to start a conversation with the Foundation and core DAO representatives about this.
-
Arbitrum’s development is left to the DAO, but it lacks the required instruments to execute marketing: we all know the ****Foundation adopts a laissez-faire approach, leaving the direction and development up to the DAO. This is great and makes Arbitrum very unique, but to enable the DAO to do its job properly, it needs to be empowered with ownership and responsibility to get the job done.
Looking at our competitors, they are much more structured and agile in their content, branding and campaigns, while it takes us a long time to just agree on the need for these structures.
Marketing working groups have been proposed in the past, with limited effectiveness, spurred by the fact that many in the DAO were not convinced of the need for formal frameworks.
But where does this leave us?
We need to start a dialogue with the Arbitrum Foundation to define a broader framework and ensure the DAO has full ownership and power to co-lead marketing for Arbitrum.
This requires a comprehensive framework as discussed, and not just grants. Otherwise, this will be another smaller self-referential program which does not solve the biggest issue (although undoubtedly more positive than what we have today).
We know the DAO is waiting for the MVP (Mission, Vision, Purpose) to be ratified and formalized, and in the future Strategic Objectives for the DAO will be set and marketing budgets drawn up. But just like Entropy was appointed in the absence of a DAO OpCo, there should be a marketing team working on Arbitrum and interfacing with the DAO in the interim.
This also extends into OpCo, in which marketing will need to play a central role.
We would welcome a comment from the @Arbitrum Foundation here in the forum stating their position with respect to the X account, their marketing team’s focus, how they see the DAO working together with Foundation marketing (now and in a post-OpCo world), etc.
We would also call on @Entropy to facilitate this as an urgent matter to be prioritized. We have seen Entropy do a fantastic job in improving the DAO across several areas and hiring internal expertise in many verticals - but has marketing been overlooked?
