Betting on Builders: Infinite Launchpad Proposal

Proposals
41

The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.

We are voting AGAINST the proposal, although we would like to stress out that we appreciate the work and effort that has gone into this and we hope that something good will come out of it eventually.

One of our concerns is that as things are structured, there’s too much dilution of responsibility. There are three entities involved, each being responsible for its own program. However, there is a lack of clarity as to who will be overseeing, and will be accountable for, the outcome of the proposal as a whole.

Right now we do not see a benefit of combining the separate entities and their programs into one proposal. While the different programs are indeed complementary and have coherency, there is no formal reason that binds them together, apart from the proposal itself.

This proposal is evidently a venture initiative aimed at building a startup ecosystem. Currently, Arbitrum DAO appears to be the primary source of funding, but the potential upside will, in fact, go to investors following this program and not the DAO. We believe a more equitable approach should be adopted. Instead of providing grants, we should consider making investments, or we should require investors who will be benefiting from investing in these projects to contribute to the funding of this program. This is an area that still needs to be explored and discussed.

We are also concerned about the many variables in this proposal, to which we are expected to commit for an entire year, despite the highly experimental nature of the project. The current structure of the project does not provide for contingencies if the initial milestones do not have the expected impact. If the first phases do not meet our expectations, do we continue with the subsequent phases even if it makes little sense to do so? How will we even gauge that impact in the first place?

Lastly, we echo the sentiments of other delegates who have pointed out that the overall operational costs of this project appear to be very high.

That being said, we do see value in this proposal and acknowledge the considerable amount of work that has been invested into it. We appreciate the authors for their efforts, and we look forward to seeing them continue to refine and improve their proposal based on the feedback they have received so far.

2 Likes
42

I’d like to add something on a personal note. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the various venture-related initiatives we’re discussing in the DAO right now, as well as the discussions we’re having about budget management. I feel that right now we as a DAO lack the capacity to handle these initiatives from an operational point of view.

Because of that, there is a lot of burden placed on the proposer to not only have a worthy initiative, but also to figure out how to execute that initiative within the DAO so that the DAO maintains control and practical oversight of those initiatives. The proposer is acting in a way as both a seller and a buyer, trying to address both points of view. This makes the proposal process very cumbersome and costly for the proposer and the end result is commonly not optimal for the DAO.

Perhaps we should revisit the OpCo proposal initiated by @dk3 some time ago, as I think it could help alleviate many of the problems we have now.

8 Likes
43

Below are the opinions of the UADP:

We abstained from this proposal. We are in support of this type of idea. A supplement to grant programs is important especially if the DAO wishes to begin focusing more on ROI. That’s what the AVI proposal also aims to facilitate. However, the overhead cost of this proposal is too large for our liking. This aspect makes up a disproportionately large percentage of the total ask. For the sake of using capital more efficiently, we believe that the group should aim to be as lean as possible, or simply start out with a smaller scope. A pilot program would help show that DAO that progress is being made, and it would further clarify the specific costs needed to run this program at a larger scale. As we have mentioned in the AVI proposal, a step-by-step approach tends to fare better with delegates. Continually showing the DAO progress with empirical data is helpful in justifying the expenditure of millions of ARB.

If this proposal can be broken down into more distinct steps and milestones–and perhaps even reduce the number of entities involved as that should decrease the opex–then we’d be willing to revisit it. Again, the idea is good, but the roadmap needs further clarity. A piecemeal approach with continual display of deliverables will give us further confidence in this group’s ability to execute.

44

DAOplomats voted Against this proposal.

Generally, we are in favor of funding this initiative. However, there were some contradictions here and there.

Under the FAQ section, answering the question on the program length, you made us understand the intricacies associated with dealing with startups and how smaller programs run the risk of being statistically insignificant. However, in your response to jenga, you plan on hitting 30+ startups by EOY ‘24 (six months). We believe this could potentially have been a good timeframe for experimentation and this would have in turn reduced the operational overhead significantly.

That said, we strongly resonate with the intentions behind this proposal and believe that if measures are taken to significantly cut down on timeframe and op cost, this should fly.

45

First, we want to express our sincere gratitude for the thoughtful feedback on our "Betting on Builders: Infinite Launchpad” proposal. We deeply appreciate the time and effort you’ve invested in reviewing our post.

After reading through the comments, we have recognized several key areas where we can improve our proposal to better align with the DAO’s expectations and needs. If we have missed or misrepresented any, please let us know!

  1. Budget and Operational Costs: We are exploring ways to reduce operational costs, as well as better showcase the portion allocated to overhead vs supporting builders. In addition, we’re also exploring discussions towards a smaller pilot program.

  2. Financial Returns for Arbitrum DAO: We are investigating structures to enable Arbitrum to capture and manage upside from investments made through this initiative, ensuring the DAO benefits directly from successful outcomes.

  3. Program Structure and Accountability: We will provide more clarity on accountability and oversight by providing an evidence-based, detailed framework for overall governance and responsibility.

  4. Metrics and Impact Measurement: We are developing more specific, measurable metrics for evaluating the success of the program and demonstrating its value to the Arbitrum ecosystem.

  5. Timeline and Milestones: We will revise our timeline to include clearer milestones and decision points, allowing for adjustments based on initial results.

  6. Differentiation from Existing Initiatives: We will provide more information about how this proposal complements (rather than overlaps) existing programs like AVI and other grant initiatives.

  7. Bundling of proposals and synergies: merging EVM Capital, Outlier Ventures, and RnDAO programs into one proposal made it hard to assess our proposal, while we also received feedback that more could be done to ensure synergies between the programs.

Our next steps will be to rework the proposal and present a revised version addressing these key points. We remain committed to the core goal of supporting and expanding Arbitrum’s developer and startup ecosystems. Furthermore, we believe this initiative has the potential to significantly benefit Arbitrum, and we’re eager to refine it based on your feedback.
We appreciate any additional thoughts or suggestions as we work on these revisions. Thank you again for your engagement and support in making this initiative the best it can be for Arbitrum.

5 Likes
46

@danielM @jengajojo @GFXlabs @JoJo @BlockworksResearch @cp0x @jameskbh @NathanVDH @PGov @0x_Buidler

4 Likes
47

@Bruce @Larva @Englandzz_Curia @karpatkey @AranaDigital @WintermuteGovernance @limes @Griff @Curia @Frisson

2 Likes
48

@Bob-Rossi @ocandocrypto @tane @0x_ultra @krst @AbdullahUmar @WinVerse

4 Likes
49

Thanks @danielo for being responsive to the feedback and outlining the next steps.

I would like to emphasize your points 6 and 7, which were key for my voting.

It still feels like many of these initiatives are quite disjointed from each other while centered on a common objective for Arbitrum: attracting new builders and launch great, innovative products.

Would be very useful if you could outline how each program is focused on a specific phase/target/process and how you guys can increase their impact.

4 Likes
50

Savvy DAO Feedback on proposal
@SEEDGov Note that we have been in constant communication with the Betting on Builders team since GovHack EthDenver and were even there the first night they discussed it! We were also thanked in the proposal. =)

Savvy DAO supported this proposal for its strategic vision to mobilize Arbitrum’s developer base and strengthen ecosystem partnerships.

We support this proposal and expect to see an improved version that works with AVI.
Future iterations should focus on optimizing financial returns, improving operational efficiency, and maximizing benefits for Arbitrum DAO through clearer deliverables and strategic alignment with legal frameworks.

See voting rationale: Savvy DAO - Delegate Communication Thread - #51 by SavvyDAO

1 Like
51

To the Arbitrum DAO Community,

We hope this message finds you well. We wanted to provide an update on the status of the "Betting on Builders: Infinite Launchpad” Proposal.

First and foremost, we want to express our sincere gratitude for all the thoughtful feedback and engagement we’ve received from the community. Your insights have been invaluable in helping us refine our thinking and approach.

After careful consideration and extensive discussions within our group, we’ve decided to put our proposal on hold for the time being. This decision wasn’t made lightly, but we believe it’s the best course of action given the current environment and the feedback we’ve received.

Key points we’d like to share:

  1. We’ve thoroughly reviewed all the feedback and recognize there are some structural challenges within the Arbitrum ecosystem that need to mature before our proposal can be fully realized.

  2. Rather than rush to revise the proposal, we believe it’s prudent to allow time for these ecosystem structures to evolve. This patience will ultimately lead to a stronger, more impactful program.

  3. We remain committed to the core ideas behind our proposal, and believe in its potential to significantly benefit the Arbitrum ecosystem.

  4. We anticipate that over the foreseeable future, many of the current blockers will be addressed as the DAO and its processes continue to mature.

  5. We’re not abandoning this initiative, but rather pausing to ensure we can come back with a proposal that’s fully aligned with the DAO’s capabilities and needs.

Moving forward, we plan to:

  • Continue refining our ideas based on the valuable feedback we’ve received
  • Stay engaged with the community and monitor developments in the Arbitrum ecosystem
  • Be ready to reintroduce an improved version of our proposal when the timing is right

Thank you again for your engagement and support. We’re excited about the future of Arbitrum, and we look forward to contributing to its growth and success in meaningful ways.

We welcome any thoughts or questions you might have about this decision. Please feel free to reach out or comment below.

Best,
EVM Capital
RnDAO
Outlier Ventures

2 Likes