# Hackathon Continuation Program **URL:** \ **Category:** Finalized AIPs\ **Created:** [November 10, 2024, 9:35am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492 "2024-11-10T09:35:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 10
**Author:** ![Bob-Rossi](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/bob-rossi/32/873_2.png) [@Bob-Rossi](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Bob-Rossi)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2024, 2:19pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492/10 "2024-11-11T14:19:25Z")
> [@danielo](#): > > Program Outcome: > > In six months, we aim for at least 3 out of 4 projects to: > > 1. generate revenue (early validation), and/or > 2. secure additional grants or successfully fundraise to continue growing. I’ve noted this in other proposals, but something I’d like to see more of is revenue sharing. My concern is long term the DAO keeps giving away funds to entice builders to the network, but eventually we have to get some type of income back to sustain the DAO. If these projects are expected to produce revenue, I don’t think it’s unfair to ask for a percentage of returns. It’s also something I noted in a prior proposal ([[RFC](Non-Constitutional) Proposal: Integrating zkTLS-Powered Oracle Solution (zkFetch) for Arbitrum - #17 by Bob-Rossi](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-non-constitutional-proposal-integrating-zktls-powered-oracle-solution-zkfetch-for-arbitrum/27012/17))… I’ll note here as it’s still relevant to the discussion. > As a delegate, I essentially have two concerns: > > 1. We are ultimately still within the grant detox period > 2. I’m not sure why we as a DAO gave the Foundation another 250m ARB from the treasury if we have to continue to be asked to fund projects like this without the prospect of earning revenue on the backend to keep the treasury stable long term. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/hackathon-continuation-program/27492)._