thanks for update waiting for more
We support this proposal and are excited to see the implementation of the QB DDA program to continue the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem. The QB tool allows for transparency, accountability, and ease of implementation to help the DAO get the program off the ground and running. This is necessary as the Arbitrum DAO still stands far behind Optimism’s governance in maturity. The integration of the QB DDA and the Pluralistic Grants Program will assist in taking steps toward the productive governance engine and model for protocol governance that should be expected of the Arbitrum DAO. We are excited to work with QB and the Plurality Labs @DisruptionJoe to see these programs succeed.
We also stand in agreement with @Bobbay in that exploring new versions of the program that allow for additional domain allocators or hybrid versions. Arbitrum is a flourishing ecosystem and this could allow for more perspectives and ensure an array of protocols receive the consideration they deserve. We stand with keeping this first iteration similar to CGP2.0 and adapting as needed after assessing the success of this program. We are in support and look forward to the implementation.
Thanks for the kind words and appreciate your support!
We will be adding Tally’s Zodiac Governor Module for extra security, and a Grants SAFE with 4/6 multi-sig will be set up between the program manager and 4 domain allocators. We will then have 4 SAFEs for each of the domains with a 3/3 multi-sig setup between the program manager, the specific domain allocator, and one member from the DAO.
I support this proposal from Questbook. I think the budget of $1M with 20% going to admin costs is an appropriate starting place for a grants program. I like the domain based approach, because it creates space for multiple community members/leaders to get involved in the grants program. I am also aligned with the proposed domains. I think gaming, Nova, decentralizing protocol development, and education are all high-priority focuses for Arbitrum going forward.
Thank you for sharing your perspective and expressing your support for the proposal. I appreciate that you are aligned with the proposed domains. Your input and support are valuable contributions to the discussion.
Excellent, rigourous and comprehensive proposal that conveys the wealth of experience the @Saurabh as inital Program Manager brings to the DAO.
I hope that DDA rubrics include both standard as well as domain specific scores. Items such as Team, Grant Size, Success could be equally applied to all grants, to establish points for comparison across different domains.
Recognise estimates are experience based but how does the program manager ensure workload is evenly distributed without limiting the number of proposals recieved under different domains?
I expect that some domains will attract more proposals than others, which is a foreseeable reason DDA workloads might be better shared, than undertaken by an individual. A minimum of three people would be my preference to ensure majority decision can be reached.
However happy to see the proposal progress as proposed and in collaboration with Plurality Labs
Hey, thank you for this great proposal. I’m currently seeing many grant program proposals going on. That’s so exciting to see. Could you please briefly clarify the difference between the AIP - 3 [Non-Constitutional] Fund the Arbitrum Grants Framework Proposal Milestone 1 and the one specified in this proposal? Are those the same or different programs, or is this one mainly about grants? Thanks
Hey Lee, thanks for the comment, and I appreciate your kind words. Yes, we would be open to including both standard and domain-specific scores.
The rubric evaluation will be decided by the domain allocators. We will have clear and transparent guidelines for proposal submissions, clearly stating the criteria and requirements for each domain. This ensures that all potential proposers have a fair understanding of what is expected and can prepare their proposals accordingly.
We will provide adequate training and support to reviewers to ensure a consistent understanding of the evaluation process and criteria. This helps maintain a high quality of evaluation and reduces variations in scoring between different domains. Additionally, we will regularly review and improve the evaluation process based on feedback and lessons learned. We encourage open communication and collaboration among the program manager, reviewers, and proposers to identify areas for improvement and address any concerns related to workload distribution.
We have shared our learnings from the experience of setting up the Polygon and Compound Grants Program to shed some more light on this aspect. In the context of single vs. multiple domain allocators, you can read more about this here.
Based on community feedback and to solve the accountability issue, this proposal is no longer part of the Plurality Labs proposal. You can read more about this here.
Hey, thanks for the kind words. Initially, we collaborated you can read about it here, but after considering the community feedback and in order to address the accountability issue, we thought of proposing to start the grants program independently.
thank you for explaining.
After incorporating valuable feedback from all community members and delegates, our proposal it’s live on Snapshot for a community vote on 29/6
We thank everyone for sharing their valuable comments on our proposal.
I have voted YES for this proposal on Snapshot. I think is important to signal the spirit of collaboration. Additionally, I think it is a well thought out and useful program and software suite that will provide good results.
It is complimentary to AIP - 3 [Non-Constitutional] Fund the Arbitrum Grants Framework Proposal Milestone 1 because Delegated Domain Authority (DDA) is one type of allocation method. Each method is great for some things, and less great for other. For example, DDA is great for making quick allocation decisions by experts in their field, but is less good at involving voters at the edges in the way Quadratic Funding does.
In my statement on the Plurality Labs proposal, I try to clarify the difference between these proposals and why they are complimentary. This proposal is one quick method for getting some funding out to the ecosystem. Plurality Labs proposal is what will save us from the known pattern of centralization discussed in Grants Funding Framework Discussion - How To Excel at Being a DAO
slow and steady. good period to run this over
Using a previously used and satisfied platform for budget allocation and operation can be good for both innovation and development. Thank you for such a clear and detailed proposal. I will be both in the selection of the allocators and in the follow-up of the grants.
The proposal is live for voting: Snapshot
Thank you Joe. I appreciate your support and constant help.
I fully support this proposal. I also am excited for Joe’s proposal. Having multiple smaller grant programs is a great strategy and will contrast us with other networks that really centralize their approach.
The budget of $1M / 6 Mo budget is a solid start and I hope the numbers can grow after a successful first 6 months.
20% for overhead is very high, but I hope that, if this approach is a success, the costs become much less of a % of the total budget. As in, if the next round we decide to allocate $3M then we have only 10% of overhead (which would be a 50% increase in $'s of overhead, but a small % of the budget).
I’m also missing a “Novel Applications” Domain, but I think that is fair.
Hey @Griff, thank you for expressing your support for the proposal and your enthusiasm for Joe’s proposal as well. It’s great to see that you appreciate the strategy of having multiple smaller grant programs, which sets us apart from other networks that tend to centralize their approach.
Regarding the budget, starting with $1 million for a 6-month period is indeed a solid start. As you mentioned, the hope is that the numbers can grow after a successful first 6 months, allowing for increased funding in subsequent rounds.
As for the absence of a “Novel Applications” domain, this could be included in the New protocol Dapps and Ideas.
Oh ok, so “New Protocol Ideas” includes dapps. I thought it was more about ways to improve the Arbitrum protocol itself.
Good to know! Thx @Saurabh