# Betting on Builders: Infinite Launchpad Proposal **URL:** \ **Category:** Archived Proposals\ **Created:** [June 2, 2024, 12:02am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665 "2024-06-02T00:02:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 10
**Author:** ![jameskbh](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/jameskbh/32/2667_2.png) [@jameskbh](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/jameskbh)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2024, 8:47pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665/10 "2024-06-13T20:47:40Z")
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: > [@aminiman](#): > > 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. 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? > [@aminiman](#): > > This strategy acts as a proof-of-concept for a pathway that any accelerator initiative can participate in. To begin, [EVM Capital](https://www.evmcapital.com/), [RnDAO](https://www.rndao.io/) and [Outlier Ventures](https://outlierventures.io/) 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. 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. > [@aminiman](#): > > **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. I would suggest updating this section, to leverage the MSS. > [@aminiman](#): > > #### 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_ Is it possible to leverage the ARDC structure to execute this? Tagging @Sinkas for visibility Thanks for your time! --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665)._