Great initiative, @krst! Even though you mentioned this is a personal initiative, I appreciate both your and @Sinkas involvement in initiatives like this and the SOS calls during what I consider a critical moment for the DAO.
I’m a co-founder of proposals.app. I’ve been building DAO tooling together with @paulofonseca for the past couple of years, and right now proposals.app is our baby. It was ideated over a very long time, born during the GovHack, initially funded through Questbook, and launched during ETH Bucharest. We chose to do it on Arbitrum because it is the biggest credibly decentralized DAO with real stakes, real control over the protocol, and real governance both technically and socially. Personally, I also consider Arbitrum the most technologically advanced L2 and probably the only one that scales Ethereum properly, and I love the innovation the WASM VM and Stylus bring. Proposals.app is Arbitrum-only and it was Arbitrum-first from the moment we decided to build it because we consider Arbitrum the most fertile ground for developing DAO tooling; since we consider it to be the biggest real DAO out there, it is the best one to iterate with and get feedback from. We consider proposals.app a public good for decentralized governance, and we might decide to support other DAOs in the future because the entire decentralized governance space needs better tools, but that will not change our primary user base, which will probably always be Arbitrum delegates. It is more likely that we will bring the value coming from Arbitrum delegates’ needs and feedback to other DAOs instead of shifting focus away. Arbitrum will always be a first-class citizen of proposals.app, and Arbitrum delegates will always be the users we care about the most.
- What is one thing where ArbitrumDAO could support your project’s success in Arbitrum?
In short, funding. But I feel the need to elaborate.
Not all projects are the same and not all builders have the same needs. If I were to boil it down in the most condensed way I can, projects fit into two categories: growth and public goods.
I think ArbitrumDAO can do better in helping both of them.
As I see it, the current state of funding is something like this:
Project type |
Idea (days/weeks) |
MVP (months) |
Short term (1-2 years) |
Long term (2+ years) |
Growth |
Hackathon prizes |
Questbook |
VC investment |
PMF, should have some sort of revenue |
Public good |
Hackathon prizes |
Questbook |
??? |
maybe find some revenue stream to maintain a very, very lean team??? |
It is sometimes controversial and referred to as wasted money, but I think Arbitrum is doing great with funding hackathons right now; maybe it should do it even more. Hackathons are in part for onboarding new builders to Arbitrum, but where I think they shine is prototyping. Many projects the industry relies on started as hackathon projects, and I think that’s not a coincidence; hackathons are an amazing place for ideating and prototyping. I think it would make more sense strategically to market them as such instead of just a hook for building on Arbitrum. I think it would also make more sense to focus on experienced builders instead of trying to attract as many new builders as possible. Either way, these are minor changes. In the grand scheme of things, I think Arbitrum is doing very well covering this for both growth projects and public goods projects; at this stage, there is no real distinction between them.
The Questbook grants were an amazing idea and it was executed exceptionally in our case, and I wholeheartedly say that as a grant recipient. Seeing first-hand the value the program can bring made me decide to run for the elections. Not a lot of feedback here; I think it is well structured to make the hackathon prototypes start to look like real products. We should not lie to ourselves and expect insanely successful PMF products coming out of Questbook, so there’s still a lot of building needed after it.
This is where it gets tricky.
If you’re building a growth-type project, after going through Questbook and building an MVP, if you really believe in your idea and you’re seeing even a hint of good feedback, it’s a good time to raise money. I’m perhaps not familiar enough with the DAO, but I don’t think there’s any space where you can get help with that right now. There are many people with VC connections in here, many angel investors, and many people who even run funds, but there is no structured way to connect all that with builders. A structured way to connect is just one thing the DAO could help with. Public endorsement, for example, or helping the project pick up traction, would probably be very helpful at this stage as well.
If you’re building a public-good-type project, it’s even trickier because you maybe don’t want to raise money (as is our case), or even if you want, you can’t really. Imagine pitching things like revoke.cash to investors; it makes no sense for them to invest unless you start thinking about things like paywalling it, which might go very much against the philosophy of the whole thing. You could come with a proposal to the DAO to continue funding, but that’s not easy at this stage either. You’re still, at most, a very polished MVP; you did not have the time and funds to build a real, proper project, so delegates will have a hard time voting for it unless they can clearly see your vision and strongly align with it. I’m not sure what a good solution to this would look like, but I’m raising the flag that the problem exists.
- What does success for the Arbitrum ecosystem look like to you in 1-2 years?
Given all the context above, I think the overarching theme for success is that Arbitrum and ArbitrumDAO should act more like an incubator and less like a startup trying to scale. I see this tendency of creating “departments” that “have ownership” over “running things efficiently.” This, to me, a public goods builder, looks like closing a lot of doors. Most of the latest initiatives like GCP, OpCo, and the new vision have the same strategy: form a team of a few very experienced people and they will fix all our problems. In the near future, there doesn’t seem to be any place for experimentation, for grass-roots growth and connection, all in the name of efficiency.
As I see it, a successful future for Arbitrum creates connections instead of closed silos. It recklessly supports and funds ideas that “feel right.” It’s bold, messy, unafraid to own the chaos and messiness decentralized organizations create, and loudly celebrates the successes only it can create. It is the biggest L2 not because it is the most efficiently run organization, but because it is a thriving, dynamic ecosystem buzzing with enthusiasm and ideas. That cannot be replicated easily, and because of that, it is, I think, the only way to be and remain the biggest L2. Arbitrum already has the philosophical roots to do it, as the first L2 that really gave up control to the DAO. It must double down on that vision, not shift away from it.
It’s messy, unclear, and not actionable, I know, but this is the best I can describe the future I would like to see.
- What does success in Arbitrum look like specifically for your project in 1-2 years?
I have a very specific vision for this.
Success would be if proposals.app is the main governance tool of Arbitrum, we maintain a close relationship with as many delegates as possible - big and small, and there is a continuous feedback loop between their needs and our solutions. Then, one day (as happened a few days ago), proposals.app goes down for some technical reason and we can’t fix it immediately, let’s assume we’re on a long flight. Someone from the DAO is able to spin up their own instance of proposals.app in under an hour, post the link in the delegate chat, and anyone can continue using it.
This specific type of collaboration, coordination, and resilience is what would make me feel like we did a good job.
- What’s one critical improvement needed in the Arbitrum ecosystem to achieve this success?
I mentioned many initiatives I don’t like, and even if I don’t personally like them and don’t think that’s the way to go, I can see where they are coming from.
Arbitrum, ArbitrumDAO, and Offchain Labs need revenue. The token needs to go up and to the right.
It feels like all these initiatives are trying to make the DAO a revenue stream or, at least, make it spend less. I think that’s picking the wrong battle, and even if everything is executed exceptionally well, it has slim chances. L2s, when it comes to revenue, are racing to the bottom by design, and if they are not breaking outside the L2 bubble, they are doomed.
I think Arbitrum should explore better, bolder, and juicier areas to solve that.
Arbitrum should have its own stablecoins.
Arbitrum should have its own on/off-ramp.
Arbitrum should have its own CEX.
Arbitrum should have its own debit card to pay with crypto.