My two cents as an active participant in governance and operations across various initiatives.
In the early years of Arbitrum governance, the DAO was often treated as something independent from the organizations actually executing the work of growing the ecosystem. This led to well-intentioned initiatives being launched without sufficient context, creating silos managed by contributors (myself included) who were active on the forum but disconnected from the broader ecosystem.
This dynamic led to the implementation of contributor reward programs where results were evaluated based on the limited information available in the forum. While this had positive outcomes, such as attracting valuable contributors who later joined Arbitrum in different capacities (even full-time, which is great), it also incurred a non-trivial cost in terms of inefficiently allocated resources, time, friction, and drama.
I believe there is a significant opportunity to learn from the dynamics of the first two years of Arbitrum governance.
The Arbitrum DAO is not limited to delegates or forum participants. The DAO is the technological layer that defines the governance structure of Arbitrum’s technology and treasury. Upon this layer, several stakeholders (companies, delegates, tokenholders, builders, etc) form a group aligned toward a single vision: Arbitrum Everywhere.
Arbitrum’s success is (or should be) the primary motivation for everyone in this broad ecosystem, whether they are employees, consultants, or freelancers, as Paddy described. This is the premise from which we must approach this discussion: How can those who want Arbitrum to win dedicate quality, rewarded time to that mission?
I think that if we approach this as a “DAO program,” we will simply build another silo.
Today, there are already multiple contribution pathways across the ecosystem: full-time roles at Offchain Labs, the Arbitrum Foundation, and the OpCo Foundation, as well as flexible and freelance-style opportunities through existing programs and initiatives (such as Firestarters and the Domain Allocator Program, as well as those managed by the Foundation, such as Marketing Initiatives, Open House & Ambassadors Program). These channels allow contributors to apply their skills where they can generate the most impact.
In short: Do I believe we should reward contributors who help Arbitrum win? Absolutely. Do I believe we should create a specific initiative for it? I am skeptical of programs designed to steer and reward specific behaviors; they are prone to being gamed, risk becoming self-contained silos and creating a structure that doesn’t add value. Perhaps a retroactive compensation mechanism for exceptional contributions is worth exploring, since those mechanisms naturally select for impact over signaling.
What I think we must work on (and I know the OpCo team is already doing so) is making the existing opportunities easier to navigate and access. People have different skills, and their talent is better utilized in concrete initiatives where their value is maximized, rather than in a generic “catch-all” program.
Under the current setup, the OpCo is equipped to function as a bridge and talent catalyst, preventing current or new independent contributors from feeling disconnected or lacking access to the formal structures in place. We need to ensure that when a contributor spends 20 hours a week on Arbitrum, those hours are connected to a real need where they can see the impact.
In this regard, in case we decide to move forward with a contributor’s program, I agree with the following:
Independent talent is one of Arbitrum’s greatest assets. We should aim for an ecosystem where decentralization is harnessed for impact, not for isolation. By leveraging the existing pathways, we ensure that independent talent is not just present in the forum but actively driving Arbitrum’s growth with the full support of its operational infrastructure.
*This opinion is my own as an independent contributor and do not represent the OAT nor the views of any of its members