# Betting on Builders: Infinite Launchpad Proposal

**URL:** <https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665>\
**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:** 37

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JoJo](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/jojo/32/2666_2.png) [@JoJo](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/JoJo)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2024, 10:43pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665/37 "2024-06-19T22:43:50Z")

</div>

I voted against the proposal.

I am getting familiar over time to what @danielo is doing with RnDao.

What I like about him is that he is taking a path I would never take, with an approach I would never had. And at this point I am old enough to understand that even if I don’t agree with something or with a specific mission doesn’t mean there is no value behind, or that it can’t be pursued in ways outside my personal framework.  
What is he after, and how, is something I support. And I am also trying to give him a bit of a hand in this sense, starting with the questbook grant for collabberry.

But the current proposal imho just doesn’t properly work. I echo the opinions of, generally, too much overhead costs. This solves either through cost cutting, or increase the amount of capital requested to distributed, and I am not sure what is the right way here.  
I am also a bit conflicted on the merge of the initiatives of RnDao, EVM capital and Outlier Venture, that in my understanding initially were separated. I understand how joining forces could be seen as a winning strategy, also how a joint force can be “easier” to manage for the dao in term of voting, but I am not sold on this, sorry. We have different teams, different personalities, and different scopes.

I also want to highlight that my vote, is not a vote against the matter per se; i am willing to support the proposal the moment in which is reworked (because, I think it can be reworked), and be addressed for the following

- overhead costs → either we lower the costs directly, or we start with an initial smaller phase and a second phase, larger than the one proposed, so overhead is not that big if phase 1 is succesfull
- clear scope between the 3 ventures, and properly understand if they have to run in tandem vs solo
- (in general) clear scope on targets, what we want to accomplish etc.

@danielo keep working on this, I think you are onto something valuable.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/betting-on-builders-infinite-launchpad-proposal/24665)._