Betting on Builders: Infinite Launchpad Proposal

Proposals
1

Non-Constitutional

TL;DR

What this proposal does:

  • Comprehensive support to builders: tailored support at every stage, from idea inception to Series A and beyond.
  • Developer mobilization: Enhance builder onboarding, technical support, product feedback, and provide funding opportunities for mature projects.
  • Advance Arbitrum’s strategic priorities: Aligns with robust DevRel, governance optimization, future-proofing, and community growth.
  • Developer feedback: Gather feedback to improve the Arbitrum stack and ecosystem, and distribute insights to relevant stakeholders.
  • Visibility and credibility: Showcase participating teams and opportunities, promoting the Arbitrum ecosystem.
  • Collaborative research: Share research findings and insights to refine the ecosystem’s approach and reduce risks in capital allocation.

What this proposal does NOT do:

  • Does not provide immediate funding to all proposed programs: Funding will be distributed quarterly or bi-annually and adjusted based on performance and oversight.
  • Does not engage in unplanned or unchecked capital allocation: All fund movements and program executions will be under strict oversight and transparent reporting.

Abstract

The “Infinite Launchpad” pathway aims to work with established entities to provide builders with seamless support at every stage (research and conceptualization through later-stage). We aim to empower our developer base and secure Arbitrum as a leading force in innovation and growth within the Ethereum ecosystem.

Born out of the Betting on Builders proposal from GovHack at ETHDenver 2024, we are presenting a collaborative accelerator program strategy, expected to run from Q3FY2024 through Q4FY2025. This strategy acts as a proof-of-concept for a pathway that any accelerator initiative can participate in. To begin, EVM Capital, RnDAO and Outlier Ventures are partnering on this proposal to launch the initiative, collect data, and establish best practices.

The purpose of this document is to detail our understanding of the current landscape, present a vision for advancement, propose a practical strategy, and provide specific outcomes and KPIs.

Motivation

According to ThankARB, which gathered data from 15,000 respondents within the ecosystem:

“We have more developers than most chains, but we don’t currently know how to best mobilize them for the benefit of the ecosystem.”

We would like to try our hand at answering this question. Some opportunities for developer mobilization, which we intend to enhance with the “Infinite Launchpad” include the following:

  • Enhancing Builder Onboarding and Support: Offering highly-tailored support at all stages (Idea through Series A) will prepare projects for commercial success or investment.
  • Creating Positive Feedback Loops: As Arbitrum’s technological stack evolves, builders can leverage the technology and benefit from their own contributions to its advancement, ensuring a symbiotic progression for both the platform and the projects it supports.
  • Technical support and product feedback: Providing technical guidance and iterative feedback is invaluable during the transition from alpha/beta stages to full project launches.
  • Enterprise contracts and funding: Providing subsequent funding opportunities for mature projects. While initial grants facilitate early-stage development, there is a void in support for scaling projects to a level where they can attract significant enterprise interest and investment, crucial for long-term sustainability and impact.

Rationale

To address these needs, we are asking the DAO to allot $10m in ARB from Q3FY2024 through Q4FY2025 for a program to enhance the Arbitrum developer and startup ecosystem.

This initiative is designed to aid our ecosystem of developers, startups, and enterprises by providing a clear incubation track that propels innovations that include but are not limited to governance, process automation/ AI, financial infrastructure, and on-chain reputation through the help of direct collaborations with 100+ commercial partners.

As teams go through the Programs, we can onboard them as Arbitrum customers, integrate them with the software stack, platforms or protocols, and support them as they become adopted in the ecosystem. If the product has significant traction, we can assess bringing them deeper into the Arbitrum ecosystem.

How this fits into Arbitrums strategic priorities:

  • Robust DevRel: Establishing a custom-tiered DevRel program with robust, accessible, and responsive tools.
  • Governance optimization: Identifying and iteratively improving key capabilities to increase DAO performance and accountability.
  • Future-proofing: Strengthening our capacity to scale Arbitrum software adoption.
  • Growing the community: Awareness, participation, efficient inquiry handling, and bias reduction.

Additional key value opportunities for Arbitrum:

  • Developer feedback: As the incubated projects build on Arbitrum, we can collect direct and honest feedback to be distributed to Offchain labs, Arbitrum Foundation, and other stakeholders to refine their roadmap and improve Arbitrum.

  • Builder representation and visibility: Showcasing teams composed of individuals representing their given region, background and culture - building with Arbitrum DAO.

  • Mutual reputation building: Participating teams can enhance their credibility by claiming involvement in an Arbitrum-funded accelerator program, while also promoting the Arbitrum ecosystem.

  • Collaborative research and knowledge sharing: Research findings will be shared as insight reports, highlighting market opportunities and supporting ongoing learning and improvement for all DAO working groups (M&A, Arbitrum Ventures Initiative, Foundation Grants program, Questbook programs, etc). This can be used as a public good to refine the ecosystem’s approach and de-risk capital allocation.

Key Terms

  • Alpha: The early development stage of a product, typically for internal testing and refinement.
  • Beta: When a more advanced version of a product is released to a broader audience for testing and feedback before the official launch.
  • Series A: When startups begin to raise capital to scale their business after the initial seed stage.
  • GTM: “Got-to-Market” strategy and execution plan for launching a startup’s product and acquiring customers.
  • MVP: “Minimum viable product” the simplest version of a product to gather feedback for future development.
  • PoC: “Proof of Concept” stage where startups validate the feasibility and viability of their product or technology.
  • EiR: Entrepreneur in Residence” an experienced entrepreneur who provides mentorship, strategic guidance, and assistance in establishing valuable business connections.

Specifications

The “Betting on Builders” suite of programs work together to support projects at any stage of their journey, guiding them seamlessly from inception through Series A and beyond. Projects of any stage are welcome and will be integrated into the appropriate program.

1366×926 272 KB

Community Building Module (Support for Other Programs)

This program focuses on attracting talent into the Arbitrum ecosystem to nurture the whole pipeline with founders, projects, and skilled contributors. Additionally, this program provides opportunities for builders and projects throughout the pipeline to showcase their work and make connections.

Including:

  • Semesterly Hackathons
  • Quarterly Unconferences (IRL and online)
  • Weekly public workshops and talks related to building on Arbitrum and Entrepreneurship
    • Speed networking
    • AMAs with builders and domain experts
    • Pitch days
    • And more

Team: RnDAO

Market & Research Module (Problem Identification)

Significant developer attention is focused on overcrowded problems (group-think) and unsustainable ventures. This program provides a solution through focused research to map the landscape of problems and identify opportunities (market gaps) for further exploration and validation in the CollabTech space. Additionally, providing valuable intel for the Arbitrum ecosystem to de-risk capital allocation.

This program includes:

  • Interviews with industry stakeholders
  • Market research
  • Conceptual research

Team: RnDAO

Entrepreneur in Residence program (Ideation)

The EiR program supports early-stage builders in validating an opportunity fast and effectively, reducing risk and costs of entrepreneurship.

Capacity: 25 EiRs

This program includes:

  • User research & Customer development
  • Community building for EiRs (learning in public)
  • Pitch development
  • Paper prototyping and market testing

Team: RnDAO

Venture Builder (Minimum Viable Product)

The Venture Builder phase occurs during proof of concept and alpha/beta testing. The focus is on turning the conceptual groundwork from the ideation phase into tangible outcomes: an MVP that can be market-tested.

Capacity: 10 projects.

This program includes:

  • Team formation assistance
  • Strategy clinics
  • Rapid prototyping: MVP development, market testing and user feedback
  • Development of operational practices (eg. legal incorporation, governance, development processes, rewards & compensation, etc.)
  • Pitch development

Team: RnDAO

Pods Program (Pre-Accelerator)

The Pod pre-accelerator program aims to proliferate Arbitrum’s development by creating acceleration pods globally. These pods will engage local developers and stakeholders to translate and regionalize Arbitrum’s toolkit. The first pod will expand Arbitrum’s presence in Japan and the greater Asia region by partnering with AngelHack and Fracton Ventures.

We will achieve this goal through three program components:

Education:

  • 50+ technology partners for dev resources
  • Live sessions and async curricula:
    • Ensuring developers are proficient in leveraging Arbitrum’s technology to create innovative solutions
    • Providing guidance on business and legal structures, operations, product development, product-market fit, and go-to-market strategies, with insights from founders and thought leaders to ensure that graduating teams thrive in the next stage of their roadmap

Mentorship:

  • 250+ industry experts collaborating as mentors and advisors
  • providing tailored insights, feedback, and support to help developers refine their projects and accelerate their growth within the Arbitrum ecosystem

Capital Raising:

  • Intros to 100+ VCs, regional strategics, corporates, and other investors to not only provide capital but also strategic acceleration.
  • Pitch coaching and networking events to help startups secure the necessary funding to scale their innovations.

Team: EVM Capital
In partnership with: AngelHack and Fracton

Base Camp (Accelerator)

Outlier Ventures’ flagship 12-week accelerator program. Cohort participants (5-8 teams) are provided with support from Outlier Ventures’ in-house team of experts, partners, and mentors on their product roadmap, community building, entity structuring, token design, and more. The program also provides a grant stipend for each team to amplify their growth and success.

This program includes:

  • $100k grant per team in $ARB
  • 1:1 sessions with OV specialists and access to our external mentor network of web3 industry leaders
  • Token engineering support and business model testing to pinpoint product-market fit
  • Workshops and sessions with our in-house specialists across token, design, legal, product & engineering, marketing, fundraising and more
  • Virtual Demo Day - an opportunity for participants to showcase their product to the wider Outlier partner and investor network featuring over 200+ known names and 300+ alumni companies in Web3
  • Post Program support for two months from the OV Program Manager and Fundraising Advisor

Team: Outlier Ventures

Orbital (Growth Program for Series A and Later-Stage)

Orbital is a commercial accelerator designed to help Series A and later-stage companies align their product roadmaps with the needs of enterprise decision-makers. Building on the foundation established by our Pods program, which nurtures early-stage projects globally, Orbital will elevate these initiatives to ‘orbit’ and beyond. By leveraging our deep network of enterprise leaders and implementers, Orbital will guide companies in shaping their technology for successful enterprise adoption and integration, ensuring their innovations achieve widespread market impact.

We have consulted, worked with, and helped invest for enterprises such as:

LG, IBM, Goldman Sachs, Consensys, JP Morgan, Mastercard, Moonpay, Open AI, FedEx, Fujitsu, John Deere, Chipotle, Technicolor, SAP, AT&T, EY, Microsoft, Wells Fargo, Pepsico, Twitter, Adobe, Shopify, Nokia, Magic, Google, Sig Capital, and others.

This program includes:

  • $50k grants for projects building with 200+ corporate partners
  • Market access to enterprises in 40+ strategic locations
  • Direct access to Orbit, Stylus, Nova engineering teams
  • Feedback analysis with OffChain Labs to improve the program

Team: EVM Capital
In partnership with: AngelHack

Steps to Implement

The core of our strategy is to align stakeholders—delegates, developers, and builders—to ensure the program resonates with Arbitrum’s vision. With this in mind, the timeline would proceed as follows:

Preparation
  • Strategic Alignment: Ground zero for our strategy involves syncing with the Arbitrum Foundation, Offchain Labs, and key community actors to solidify shared goals and transform insights into actionable plans.
  • Committee Formation and Program Oversight: We’ll gather a committee of top-tier delegates and program-specific representatives to oversee program implementation, ensure alignment with the DAO’s goals, and set up a multisig for funding oversight.
  • Funding Installments and Oversight: To maintain the DAO’s objectives during the funding period, proposal funds will be distributed in quarterly or bi-annual installments through a multisig account the oversight committee creates. This enables the DAO to modify funding for individual programs or the entire suite if desired outcomes are not met or if a specific program surpasses expectations.
  • Program Activation: Bringing the pathways to life, we will establish clear criteria for attracting high-caliber talent to ensure that our programs are as competitive as it is rewarding.
  • Launch: No grandstanding, just a targeted go-to-market strategy aimed at cutting through noise to showcase the strategic growth opportunities within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Operation
  • Program Execution: We steer each cohort through a well-crafted curriculum in the appropriate program (see [Specifications]) for their projects’ current stage, which uses an operational model designed for agility—adapting, iterating, and moving forward relentlessly.
  • Transparent Reporting and Accountability: We will provide regular comprehensive reports and reviews to the assigned oversight committee on each program, to inform funding installments and oversight. These reports will cover the program’s status, key performance indicators (KPIs), milestones, and financials.
  • Community Engagement: Our marketing will aim to spark conversations, forge connections, and create a movement around our builders and their projects. We’ll ensure accessible feedback methods for ongoing community-led enhancements. Additionally, participating teams will be encouraged to use Arbitrum as a resource.
Post-Program
  • Platform Integration: Post-program, we’re not just patting backs and sending builders on their way. We’re embedding their successes into the very fabric of our ecosystem. With venture studios and portfolio companies cross-pollinating, we’re not just building projects—we’re weaving an infrastructure of mutual support and integrated growth.
  • Committee Feedback and Program Improvement: Post-program, we will collaborate with the assigned oversight committee to review its performance. Together, we will refine the program’s design and propose plans for phase 2 funding, based on the successes and shortcomings identified during the initial phase.

Timeline

EVM and Outlier programs (Pods, Base Camp, and Orbital) are cohorts, while RnDAO programs (Modules, EiR, and Venture Builder) operate on a rolling application basis.

1600×537 74.8 KB

2024:

  • Q3FY2024:
    • Finalization of the overall structure
    • Co-branding and marketing efforts to increase application inbound
    • Application period for Base Camp 1
    • Completion of design preparations for Pods and Orbital
    • Execution of Community Building Module (16 Months)
    • Execution of Market & Research Module (16 Months)
    • Execution of Entrepreneur in Residence program (16 Months)
    • Execution of Venture Builder (16 Months)
  • Q3FY2024 and Q4FY2024:
    • Execution of Pod 1 (12 Weeks)
    • Execution of Base Camp 1 (12 Weeks)
  • Q4FY2024:
    • Creation of a committee from the DAO to help evaluate Infinite Launchpad success
    • Alignment of program OKRs and revision of the Infinite Launchpad suite

2025:

  • Q1FY2025:
    • Finalizing preparation for all programs
    • Announcing & launching Orbital 1 (12 Weeks)
    • Announcing Pod 2
    • Execution of Base Camp 1 post-program support
    • Application period for Base Camp 2
  • Q2FY2025 and Q3FY2025:
    • Execution of Pod 2 (12 Weeks)
    • Execution of Base Camp 2 (12 Weeks)
    • Execution of Base Camp 2 post-program support
  • Q3FY2025:
    • Announcing Pod 3
  • Q3FY2025 and Q4FY2025:
    • Execution of Pod 3 (12 Weeks)
  • Q4FY2025:
    • Committee evaluation of Infinite Launchpad
    • Alignment of program OKRs and revision of the Infinite Launchpad suite

Expected Outcomes and KPIs

The Infinite Launch Pad aims to work with established entities to expand, support, and mobilize Arbitrum’s developer base and reinforce Arbitrum as a central influence of innovation and impact within the Ethereum ecosystem.

Additionally, we aim to onboard participants into the Arbitrum ecosystem and expand Arbitrum’s international influence.

Primary Expected Outcome:

Within the initial time-frame of our programs to establish Arbitrum as a premier platform for Web3 startups:

  • Gather 1600+ applications collectively
  • 30+ startups building with Arbitrum by end of 2024
  • 100+ startups building with Arbitrum by end of 2025
  • 10+ Orbit chain deployments by end of 2025
  • Participating projects from at least 20+ countries

By investing in the mentorship of over 100 startups, we position ourselves for high-reward outcomes, such as the potential of facilitating one or more massive start-up successes. Our North Star is to situate ourselves for the potential of at least one startup to reach unicorn status while leveraging the Arbitrum software stack and protocols.

Overall Cost

The projected total cost for implementing the Infinite Launchpad is $10 million USD. This budget will cover expenses from Q3FY2024 through Q4FY2025, enabling us to mobilize developers and support high-quality projects within the Arbitrum ecosystem. This support will facilitate their growth while also benefiting the Arbitrum ecosystem as a whole.

RnDAO
  • Direct capital (EiR + Venture Programs): 800K USD
  • Direct support (EiR + Venture Programs): 498K USD
  • Development: 272K USD
  • Community Building Module: 300K USD
  • Market & Research Module: 325.5K USD
  • Admin (Operations and Overhead): 700k USD
  • Marketing (programs + incubated companies marketing): 124.5k USD
Outlier Ventures
  • Base Camp:
    • Base Camp Cohort 1:
      • Program Fee - Operations & Overhead: 700K USD
      • Team Grants: 800K USD
    • Base Camp Cohort 2:
      • Program Fee - Operations & Overhead: 700K USD
      • Team Grants: 800K USD
EVM Capital
  • Pods
    • Pods Cohort 1:
      • Program Fee - Operations & Overhead: 225K USD
      • EiR Team: 225K USD
      • Team Grants: 225K USD
    • Pods Cohort 2:
      • Program Fee - Operations & Overhead: 225K USD
      • EiR Team: 225K USD
      • Team Grants: 225K USD
    • Pods Cohort 3:
      • Program Fee - Operations & Overhead: 225K USD
      • EiR Team: 225K USD
      • Team Grants: 225K USD
  • Orbital:
    • Orbital Cohort 1:
      • Program Fee - Operations & Overhead: 775K USD
      • EiR Team: 500K USD
      • Team Grants: 1M USD
Summary
  • RnDAO: $3,020,000 USD
  • Outlier Ventures: $3,000,000 USD
  • EVM Capital: $4,250,000 USD
  • Cross-program Marketing: $200,000 USD

Total Ask: $10,470,000 USD

Numbers are shown in USD and will be converted to $ARB ahead of a Tally vote.

The requested grant funds will be distributed in quarterly or bi-annual funding tranches via a multisig account created by the assigned oversight committee. This is intended to allow funding flexibility and enable the DAO to adjust funding for individual programs or the entire suite based on performance. If desired outcomes are not met, or if a particular program exceeds expectations, funding can be modified accordingly.

Other Considerations:

This proposal was developed in consultation with the AVI team. Should such a vote pass, we will adopt any reasonable standards set by the DAO for KPIs, metrics, and ecosystem impact reporting, including financial, operational, and participant surveys on satisfaction with the experience and learning outcomes.

Furthermore, we want to emphasize our commitment to integrating our work into any larger legal framework or umbrella that the DAO decides upon.

Acknowledgements

We want to thank L2Beat (@krst and @Sinkas), @Pepperoni_Jo3, @coinflip, @dk3, Entropy (Matt Fiebeck and Sam Martin), @Djinn, @DisruptionJoe, @senad.eth, @AlexLumley, and @KlausBrave for their time, energy, and feedback during the development of this initiative.

We also thank all others who have engaged with us through the process of discussing our individual programs.

14 Likes
2

The “Infinite Launchpad” proposal presents a well-structured and comprehensive plan to mobilize and support developers within the Arbitrum ecosystem. It addresses key strategic priorities, offers diverse and tailored program offerings, and sets clear, ambitious outcomes and KPIs. The transparent budget and performance-based funding approach enhance credibility. Including risk management, detailed metrics, a continuous feedback mechanism, and a sustainability plan would further strengthen the proposal. Overall, it is a promising initiative with strong potential to drive innovation and growth within the Ethereum ecosystem.
Great job, @aminiman !

4 Likes
3

Thank you for this interesting initaitve @aminiman

  • Is it possible to learn more about the specific financial & strategic returns expected from this investment?
  • Are there any plans to address the risk of market saturation with similar projects? are there any strategies are in place to differentiate & prioritize unique high impact innovations?
  • Is this a one time ask or is there a roadmap for sustaining this initiative in the future?

General feedback:

  • While established partners provide stability, a balanced approach that includes support for lesser-known but promising entities would be beneficial in preventing over-centralization & encouraging diverse contributions

  • Some strategies to integrate & support existing developers, would go a long way to ensure that this initiative complements rather than competes with the current ecosystem

1 Like
4

Thank you @jengajojo for your questions and feedback. Below is our response on each line item that addresses each question and statement:

We see significant strategic value coming from developing Arbitrum as a resource for builders not only from a technical and developer community perspective but also from a fundraising and founder support perspective.

Additionally, Outlier Ventures has the longest proven track record out of our working group with 300+ investments and a 12x avg ROI per investment of which Arbitrum will have exposure to. These are the kinds of metrics we aim to achieve.

We’ve also attempted to cover some specific metrics we’ll aim to hit here:

  • 1600+ applications collectively
  • 30+ startups building with Arbitrum by end of 2024
  • 100+ startups building with Arbitrum by end of 2025
  • 10+ Orbit chain deployments by end of 2025
  • Participating projects from at least 20+ countries

We are also very aligned with enabling financial returns to Arbitrum following the decisions around GCP and AVI, so we can plug into the proper legal structures once that matures. Specifically, having a conversation around how grants given to teams could be convertible into equity, allowing the DAO to own a stake in these ventures. This way we can move fast to sustain Arbitrum’s leadership in the industry, while also developing a robust setup for long-term sustainability.

Yes, we have taken note of past accelerator programs that are chain/network specific, and we believe it’s an important time for teams to focus on growth to maintain a competitive edge in the ecosystem. As long as there are clear milestones and funding shut-off valves, the more programs that are funded and tested, the more we will find what is most effective (refine what needs improvement), and collaborate to set the Arbitrum ecosystem apart.

Furthermore, the Infinite Launchpad proposal is geared to having an advantage over other ecosystems’ approaches, which is the ability to seed new projects from scratch, thanks to being a complete pipeline starting with community attraction and research.

RnDAO’s programs start with research to identify and validate new market opportunities. EVM Capital will prioritize initiatives across four key “future of work” categories: governance, on-chain reputation, AI/process automation, and financial infrastructure. Meanwhile, Outlier Ventures will tailor their program specifically for Arbitrum. They will collaborate with the DAO to design and drive the thesis and designate the focus of the program.

As such, we’ve built-in mechanisms across all programs to ensure high-impact and differentiation.

The current proposal is a one-time ask. However, our aim is to sustain the initiative in the future, contingent upon continuous evaluation from the Oversight Committee. After completion, we will submit a Milestone 2 proposal where we will present the success metrics of each program, our learnings, and ways the pathway will improve for the next funding round.

Smaller projects are welcome to apply for future iterations of the program. We will never attempt to block the efforts of other entities or create comparisons between our programs and theirs. However, we would suggest smaller projects first utilize the resources of the DAO (e.g. firestarters) to establish a proof of success. That way all programs within this larger proposal have a verified track record.

Existing developers and projects within the Arbitrum ecosystem are strongly encouraged to apply, we’ll ensure the current Arbitrum community is made well aware of the opportunities and can easily find the right program for them to apply, taking them to the next phase of growth. Ultimately, acceptance into the different programs will be meritocratic, ensuring the best results for Arbitrum.

4 Likes
5

Question for the Outlier Ventures portion of this proposal:

What is up with this cost structure? It shouldn’t cost $1.4m to give out $1.6m in grants. Can you break down what some of the larger costs are? How can we get those down to a more manageable level?

1 Like
6

I like the idea, but how does this coexist with the current grant programs? I don’t think making every new developer on Arbitrum have to jump from grant program to accelerator to other grant program makes for a good onboarding experience. The $10M figure is also a massive ask to the DAO. I’d like to see a significantly cheaper pilot phase and a clearer idea on how this embeds in the current developer experience offering of Arbitrum.

2 Likes
7

We want to echo some of the prior points and questions. Overall we think this program is interesting and has its merits, however, there should be no reason that the costs are this high when running such a program.

Additionally, we are wondering if Thank ARB helped out financially in funding the creation of this program and how/what they were able to provide and do?

The $10m ask is quite massive and we think that it is not appropriate right now.

8

I spoke with Chris Cajoleas from Outlier Ventures, and in the interest of wanting to answer as soon as possible, I’m posting his response below on their behalf:

Thanks for your questions, @GFXlabs! I’ve done my best to address your questions below and have also included a link to a general partner deck that better communicates the value of our base camp and what the program fully entails.

The cost structure of each program is separated into two buckets - program operation costs and team stipends.

Program Fee

Outlier Ventures is requesting a total of $1.4mm USD in ARB for operations and overhead for both programs. This breaks down to $700,000 USD per program. Each program lasts roughly 6 months and includes a personnel team of 20+ OV employees. The OV team includes a dedicated program manager and program associate, a project recruiting and investment team, software engineering personnel, token engineering team, in-house legal advisory, go-to-market advisory, and a full marketing staff to promote and inform the public of the program along the way. The team also includes investor relations personnel who activate OV’s VC network and ensure participating teams are visible when they fundraise.

In addition to the above, we also incur expenses associated with the following areas:

  • Recruitment and preparation - sourcing projects from hackathons, conferences, demo days, forums, paid advertising funnels, etc. It takes time and money to source a pipeline of hundreds of quality teams for each program.
  • Accelerator - software and logistics of running a virtual twelve week global program that includes financial planning, product and engineering development, go to market assistance, tokenomics design, etc
  • Marketing - press releases around the program to help recruit teams as well as launch accelerated teams into fundraising mode, access to industry newsletters, our podcast and its network, X spaces, LinkedIn features, etc
  • Fundraising support - the program concludes with a virtual demo day and months of continued post program support in helping the teams raise money, connect with investors, etc

In summation, the $700k fee per program helps us accomplish all of the above. We do not profit from this fee and it only covers a portion of the money we spend to operate a program.

Project Stipend

Outlier Ventures is requesting a total of $1.6mm USD in ARB for supporting the selected teams in both programs. This breaks down to $800,000 USD per program and $100,000 USD per team.

This funding will be allocated directly to each chosen team as a $100k stipend, enabling them to fully dedicate their time, attention, and effort to the entire twelve-week program.

In exchange for the $100k stipend per team, ArbitrumDAO will have the opportunity to receive a portion of OV’s token and equity allocation, equal to approximately 1-1.5% of the total supply from each team. Exact equity and token provision could vary based on negotiations between OV and each team, and the DAO’s ability to hold equity/tokens is dependent upon pending legal structures and the outcome of the AVI initiative.

All in all, I think it’s important to note that the program consists of much more than just giving out grants. The DAO will be walking away from each base camp program with potential upside in the chosen accelerated teams, access to a pipeline of hundreds of teams and builders interested in the Arbitrum ecosystem, marketing exposure for the ecosystem as a whole, and exclusive program reports with actionable data sets and key insights.

1 Like
9

Thank you for the quick reply!

This sounds like it’s got very high fixed costs, but this proposal is for experimental-level funding. It doesn’t make sense in our mind to have a net outlay of $3m only to invest $1.6m. It would require ~87% return just to break even.

3 Likes
10

Thanks for your proposal!

Looks like we, as ArbitrumDAO, are going for the trifecta (VC, M&A, and Incubator/Accelerator), which is fine, IMO.

I have some questions regarding the structure & returns:

If I understood correctly, you mention that you are aligned to generate financial returns to Arbitrum, but this is not given in the current proposal. Is that correct?

You present this as a PoC. The duration of the program is the end of 2025, and the cost is above 10 million. Is it possible to have a PoC with a shorter duration and a lower cost? Both other investment proposals are starting with a Pilot phase. Is this not possible in this case?

While there is a mention of a Committee evaluation, and the suggestion of quarterly or other type of disbursement, it would be interesting to start with a smaller scale.

I would suggest updating this section, to leverage the MSS.

I would suggest updating this section, to leverage the MSS.

Is it possible to leverage the ARDC structure to execute this? Tagging @Sinkas for visibility

Thanks for your time!

1 Like
11

Posting on behalf of Outlier Ventures while they get their forum credentials approved

Thanks GFXlabs! I appreciate all of the open dialogue and feedback. It’s important for us to have clear communication and ensure aligned expectations.

The funding would be focused on identifying the best early stage / seed stage startups. We want to be early enough to have a real impact in guiding teams to a successful outcome on behalf of the ecosystem. Terms would be set with teams at a pre-accelerator valuation and we generally see an average 4-7x lift in valuation over the twelve week program - much higher than the mentioned 87%. We’ve developed a strong process for finding the right teams and our track record proves that. Please refer to the deck shared in the earlier response that highlights some hard data around our investment figures.

While this specific collaboration is experimental, Outlier’s program is not. We’ve invested in over 300+ startups, have run over 37 accelerator cohorts, and have a 93% founder satisfaction rate. We’ve spent nearly a decade learning how to run the best accelerator program for partners and founders - this expertise is part of what the DAO would be paying for.

3 Likes
12

Its broad approach could dilute focus and resources, leading to inefficient capital allocation. The lack of immediate funding for all programs and reliance on strict oversight might slow progress. Additionally, the ambitious scope risks overextending Arbitrum’s strategic priorities and could complicate execution.

13

@jengajojo @GFXlabs @NathanVDH @PGov @jameskbh thank you for your detailed questions and engagement. We have already provided some answers but given some repeating themes we have tried to consolidate them into an FAQ. Could I ask you to check your concerns against the relevant answers and let us know if you’re still unconvinced? We very much appreciate all the constructive criticism and ultimately are trying to find a logical, viable path to work with Arbitrum. So understanding whether you remain unconvinced and why is most appreciated!

FAQ

Overall framing: this proposal is about making Arbitrum the best chain for builders. We’re also building a pipeline of projects for Arbitrum to have long-term financial sustainability thanks to diversified revenue streams and commercially sustainable ventures.

Piloting - why make it this length/size?

Compared to the M&A or AVI Proposal where very significant conceptual development is needed and that’s primarily what’s being done in the Pilot phases, each of the programs in the Infinite Launchpad has already advanced very significant conceptual development and has been piloted or even run at full scale before. Outlier has run multiple accelerators, EVM Capital worked with Consensys, and RnDAO has been operating for over two years and already run a pilot in Arbitrum (funded by PluralityLabs).

It’s also important to understand that

  • we’re funding multiple programs by 3 different organisations. We have assembled this into a single proposal to ensure alignment between the programs and a better evaluation experience for delegates.
  • we’re dealing with startups and the time for them to mature and show results is significant. As such, a shorter program is unlikely to provide any meaningful data.
  • Smaller programs risk being statistically insignificant as typically only 1/10 startups succeed so say funding only 5 would leave us very much in the dark.
  • Accelerators, venture builders and incubators are already well-proven methods to deliver innovation, what we’re trying to validate here is also the ability to connect programs and provide an integrated developer experience. As such, we’ll need time for projects to mature and graduate from one stage to the other.

Anyhow, we still resonate with the importance of managing risk (especially operational risk) and we understand that $10 million is a significant ask. Here’s how we plan to address this concern:

  • Oversight Committee: we have included a committee that reports to the DAO and can stop or modify the funding for the programs.

  • Funding tranches system: not all the funding is committed at once, instead we’ll divide the budget in tranches, and the release of each subsequent one is conditional upon a review of the KPIs.

  • Embedding builder experience: we’ll systematise the collection of feedback from participants and include this in both our reports to the Oversight Committee as well as take it into account to continuously refine the programs.

  • Continuous refinement and improvement: the proposed timeline also allows us to refine and improve. Despite the team’s significant experience in this domain, we might not get everything right the first time but we’ve created a setup where we can quickly learn and refine.

Builder experience

Our ultimate goal is to enhance the overall builder experience on Arbitrum by providing a structured pathway from idea to market. The Infinite Launchpad is designed to:

  • Support All Stages: Whether a builder is just starting with an idea or looking to scale a Series A startup, our programs provide tailored support at every stage. This ensures that developers do not feel lost or unsupported at any point in their journey.

  • Holistic Support: By combining technical support, market research, community building, and funding opportunities, we offer a holistic approach that addresses both the technical and business challenges builders face.

  • Community Integration: We aim to build a strong community of developers, mentors, and industry experts within Arbitrum. This network will provide ongoing support and collaboration opportunities, encouraging Arbitrum to be the go-to ecosystem for Web3 innovation.

From an innovation management perspective, The Infinite Launchpad has been designed with a “best practice” in mind which is a stage-gated innovation program, where projects can progress if they’re showing the required traction/validation, thus doing effective risk management of the innovation process and capital deployment. The setup also ensures that we avoid self-confirmation bias in keeping on funding teams we’ve grown endeared to. Furthermore, the staged approach also allows programs to join at different points of maturity, thus enabling us to support both new and existing projects in a meritocratic way. Builders can also access the other resources of the DAO outside of the programs, so the experience can be tailored to the needs of each project.

We could consider the need to apply to the programs as an overhead for the projects, but it’s also discipline-inducing in the same way that talking to investors forces projects to do a deep analysis of their viability and receive feedback - not always comfortably but certainly value-adding to build viable projects.

We understand that having different programs can be confusing for builders and that’s why we have added a marketing coordination budget. This budget will be used to ensure proper communication of the program offerings (Infinity Launchpad Programs and others in the DAO) and guide builders on how to best assess their needs, routing them to the appropriate program for them. Most of this work will happen after the proposal is confirmed but one concrete idea we’ve already started prototyping in this regard is an AI-powered triage and monitoring tool that can assess a project’s maturity and recommend which resources (programs, education hubs, etc) are appropriate for them, and also allow us to have a database of projects and deals that we can track.

Relationship with the existing grant programs

The Infinite Launchpad is designed to complement, not replace, the existing grant programs. Concretely, here’s how we plan to integrate and enhance the current developer experience:

  • Facilitated Transition: We’re coordinating and developing data infrastructure so that developers can easily move between the existing grant programs and our accelerator phases. For example, projects that receive initial funding through Arbitrum grants can enter our programs at the MVP stage to receive more specialized support and mentorship.

  • Additional Support: Our programs would provide extensive resources and mentorship that go beyond what traditional grants offer. This includes market research, user testing, and direct access to industry experts, which can significantly increase the chances of project success.

  • Continuous Alignment: We will work closely with the existing grant program administrators to ensure alignment of goals and smooth handoffs between programs. This will include regular communication and feedback loops to ensure that we are meeting the needs of developers and the broader Arbitrum ecosystem.

We believe that building a whole ecosystem requires a variety of projects and hence a variety of support methods and approaches. As long as we’re ensuring that each program is well designed and executed and we’re coordinating to enhance the builder experience, having multiple options makes Arbitrum more attractive for builders and accelerates the growth of the ecosystem at a time when L2 competition is very high.

Relationship with ARDC

We believe the ARDC and the Market & Research module are complementary:

  • The Market & Research module is designed primarily to identify problems (market gaps) that can ensure entrepreneurial talent is working on meaningful solutions and not building yet another NFT marketplace without differentiation. Meanwhile, the ARDC is designed with a broader scope of supporting delegates in decision making.
  • Identifying market gaps is time intensive and requires specific skills, practices, and incentives for which the ARDC is currently not structured. As such, a dedicated setup for the Market & Research module is proposed.
  • As a positive externality of its activity, the Market & research module will also generate valuable market intelligence. It’s already contemplated that the documentation of this intelligence will be distributed to the ARDC, AVI, and grant programs in the DAO, enhancing their ability to operate and derisk capital allocation.
Oversight & Multisig signing

We agree with the suggestion to use the multisig-signing service. Following the design advanced in the RnDAO proposal, we suggest a 5 seat Oversight Committee (that could then be consolidated inside the AVI strcuture) that acts as advisors, reviewing performance of the programs. The Multisig Signing Service executes on transactions leveraging the advis of the Oversight Committee.

Financial Returns to Arbitrum

The programs are designed in a way that they could generate financial returns for Arbitrum. However, Arbitrum doesn’t currently count with the legal and governance structure to receive said returns and it could even be illegal. We’ve been actively supporting AVI as an initiative that can advance the necessary mechanisms to receive and govern an equities portfolio and are all working to advance in this direction. However, setting this up properly takes time (we’re calculating 12 months). It’s dangerous for Arbitrum to just wait to have AVI setup, as such we’re proposing this two pronged approach following the recommendations of a few senior delegates, where we can get the programs up and running and in parallel develop the mechanism for medium and long term financial returns. This way we’re 1) creating network effects for Arbitrum (developer growth, refining the builder experience, populating the Arbitrum ecosystem with projects to collaborate and build on top of) to ensure we sustain its relevance and 2) build solid foundations for long term financial sustainability.

We’re committed to aligning with the best practices coming out of AVI and the Gamin Catalyst proposal (e.g. grants could convert to equity or tokens) and have the Oversight Committee as a mechanism to guarantee continuous alignment with the DAO best interests.

ThankARB involvement and previous funding

PluralityLabs (now acquired by Thank ARB) funded the now-completed pilot of the RnDAO program. Thank ARB is not directly involved in the current proposal but we look forward to working and coordinating with them to grow the Arbiturm ecosystem if this proposal is approved.

Costs & Use of Funds

To understand the costs, it’s key to differentiate venture building and acceleration programs from VC and grants. While grants and VCs allocate capital and offer very limited support, accelerators do a mix of capital and support (they allocate some capital but also offer mentorship, workshops, trainings, etc.) and venture builders go even further towards support, paying staff to work in the ventures alongside the founders. As such, the cost structure of the programs we propose will include a significantly higher management fee. The fee is not lining the pockets of the program managers but instead it’s used to coordinate and deliver comprehensive support to the projects, increasing their chances of success.

Comparison of Startup Studios (a.k.a. venture builders i.e. high support/capital ratio):

600×750 274 KB

Big Startup Studios Research 2023

When we benchmark the costs of our programs with other accelerators and venture builders, they’re not higher. Bear in mind that the OV program has been run across multiple ecosystems and the cost is the same. Also for the EVM Capital programs which ran in Consensys previously. In fact, we’re often paying contributors at below market rate and as such they only benefit significantly if the programs are both 1) successful in building valuable ventures 2) are renewed. This setup ensures incentive alignment between the project founders, program staff, and Arbitrum.

Importantly, we shouldn’t assess these programs in terms of their cost only, as they’re not expenses but investments. So the question is more whether we can generate enough value and for example the OV program (for which we have the most data available given their 10 year history) generally sees an average 4-7x lift in program participants’ valuation over the 12-week program, thus showing very significant value for money in creating a thriving ecosystem in Arbitrum.
There’s massive competition across L2s and there’s also massive potential (running the world’s economy on-chain), so we can ask, can Arbiturm afford to not invest heavily?
That being said, we do understand the need to manage risk and ensure the programs are well executed. Each of us has gathered strong teams with decades of experience in innovation management and venture and we have an oversight committee that can stop the flow of funds if this is not the case. Our incentives are designed to align with ensuring this outcome, leading to growing sequencer fees and sustaining the relevance of Arbitrum, and the investment is 0.0002 (0.2%) of the treasury (20 times smaller than the GCP), leading us to suggest that this is a rather viable investment for Arbitrum, with well managed risks, and high potential benefits.

If any of you would be open to have a call with us, I’d very much appreciate a chance to better understand your concerns and explore potential solutions. Thank you again
My calendar in case

3 Likes
14

This is definitely going in the right direction. I really like that this proposal is a clear blend of resources, multiple teams, and various entities collaborating and leading the initiative.

Since the DAO doesn’t have a centralized team to manage such efforts and relies on community-led initiatives, this is a significant step that can add a lot of value to the DAO.

I can’t wait to see it in action.

Thanks

2 Likes
15

Tagging in here! Thanks for relaying on my behalf @danielo, and thanks for all of the feedback and great questions so far @GFXlabs.

@GFXlabs - we posted a general FAQ, but I also want to make sure I’m responding to your request fully. Please let me know if your concerns aren’t addressed after reading through. Of course, I’m available for a call if that’s easier - I want to make sure we have clear communication and that I’m understanding your concerns correctly. Feel free to grab some time here.

16

Thank you for your effort @aminiman, here is some thoughts form me.

Positive Aspects

I believe the proposal has several strong points:

  1. Comprehensive Developer Support: I think the proposal offers a holistic approach to supporting developers, including community building, market research, ideation support, venture building, pre-accelerator, and accelerator programs.
  2. Strategic Alignment: It seems to align well with Arbitrum’s strategic priorities, such as robust DevRel, governance optimization, future-proofing, and community growth.
  3. Experienced Partners: Partnering with reputable entities like Outlier Ventures, RnDAO, and EVM Capital adds credibility and increases the likelihood of successful implementation.
  4. Clear Metrics and Accountability: The proposal outlines clear expected outcomes and key performance indicators (KPIs), such as the number of applications, startups, and deployments. Additionally, it includes transparent reporting and accountability mechanisms.
  5. Diverse Program Offerings: The variety of programs, including Entrepreneur in Residence, Venture Builder, and Base Camp, provides tailored support for different stages of development.

Constructive Criticisms

However, I feel there are areas for improvement:

  1. High Cost: The total cost of $10 million is substantial. While the proposal details the use of funds, the high cost may raise concerns about the return on investment.
  2. Risk of Over-Saturation: Running multiple programs simultaneously could lead to resource dilution and overlap. Clear distinction and coordination between the different programs are necessary.
  3. Need for More Specific Impact Metrics: Although the proposal includes general KPIs, I believe more specific impact metrics, such as ecosystem growth, user engagement, and long-term sustainability, would make the proposal more compelling.
  4. Implementation Timeline: The timeline spans from Q3-2024 to Q4-2025, which is relatively long. Interim milestones and regular evaluations would help assess progress and make necessary adjustments.
  5. Dependence on Market Conditions: The success of the program partly depends on favorable market conditions. Including contingency plans for adverse market scenarios would strengthen the proposal.

Voting Decision: Abstain

While I believe the “Infinite Launchpad” proposal has many promising elements and aligns well with strategic goals, the high cost, potential resource overlap, and need for more specific impact metrics make me cautious at this stage. I support the concept and see its potential, but I recommend further detailed planning and clear differentiation of program phases. Therefore, at this point, I choose to abstain, awaiting further refinements and assurances on these issues.

17

A good initiative, but there are controversial issues regarding the budget:

  1. Community Building Module: 300k
    It seems to me that this is too much money for the formation of a module. I propose to either lower this value for Tally, or specifically explain where this amount comes from.
  2. Admin (Operations and Overhead): 700k
    This amount is generally unclear where it came from; everyone would like to receive 700k in six months, but this is an inadequate amount for an administrator’s salary.
  3. Operational overhead costs are up to 50% of grants. This is a very significant part of the cost.
  • for example, in terms of EVM capital - 1.5 million such expenses out of 4.25 million
  • in the Outlier Ventures part, overhead costs are 1.4 million out of 3 million
    Combined, the overhead costs for these two programs is nearly $3 million. I am sure that this is too much money for such expenses and would not mind if it went to the developers.

I propose to lower the costs for servicing the initiative to vote in Tally.

18

I would against the proposal because:

  1. $10 million is a significant amount, and there is a risk of misallocation or inefficiency.

  2. Heavy reliance on established partners might overshadow smaller, innovative contributors.

  3. Lack of detailed sustainability plans post-Q4 2025 could pose risks to ongoing support and development.

19

Hi, @aminiman , thanks for the proposal. Could you please explain why this initiative is presented as a bundled package instead of having each organization submit individual proposals?

20

Thank you for bringing forward this proposal.

Considering the growing competition in the Layer2 landscape, the proposition of this proposal is interesting. The strategy of directing resources towards attracting more builders has proven successful for a number of protocols (L2s and otherwise).

However, we agree with the concerns other community members raised about the operation’s set-up costs. This goes beyond Outlier Ventures and it’s a strong concern across the various initiatives. Of the $10.47M overall initiative investment, approx. $3.95M are needed to cover operating costs. In other words, approx. 37% of the funding would be used for running the operation. While we understand the initial overhead, this seems too high a barrier for a first experiment.

We value this proposal covering builders retention along with builders acquisition. And, it seems complementary to the AVI Pilot recently approved.

For the initiative to move forward, would it be possible to propose a leaner version that relies on lower initial set-up costs?

1 Like