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’re voting FOR the proposal while opting OUT of the on-chain mechanism.
The idea of doubling down on projects that were successful during the hackathon and helping them develop their project further, not just with funding but also with venture support from RnDAO, is intriguing. We believe it can serve as a good experiment of what a follow-up approach could look like for projects created in hackathons or through grants.
Furthermore, the fact that the amount we’ll distribute to those projects won’t be in the form of grants but will instead be in the form of investments is something that we find interesting as it might, in the long run, bring returns back to the DAO and is a good precedent for the future.
The one thing we’re skeptical about and want to raise as a point of discussion and consideration is the operational cost relative to the capital investments we’ll be making in the projects. As things stand, we’ll be allocating $124,000 to projects while spending $87,030 on the operational cost — a 1/0.7 ratio seems pretty high. However, at this point we don’t necessarily request RnDAO to lower it but we plan on discussing it with them before the onchain vote to have a better understanding of what is the cost breakdown and what can expect delivered in it.
For the on-chain component, we’re not sure there’s enough justification to support it, especially since the project has already received a grant from Arbitrum through the DDA programme. If the project and RnDAO are confident of the value it will bring to Arbitrum and the hackathon continuation programme, we would encourage them to find a way to demonstrate that value first (covering the costs internally if needed), and then come back for a follow-up grant.