I voted FOR, no onchain mechanism.
I appreciate the idea of providing continuity for the hackathon participants (so they remain engaged within the ecosystem) and I believe this structure is something worth of trying.
Thanks for the comment @0x_ultra
The projects will have an investment contract with Arbitrum Foundation, so even if they moved to another chain that gave them a massive grant later and poached them, Arbiturm would still benefit as investors 
That being said, we’ll also be supporting them and working with them all the time, so at least for the duration of the program and for launching the MVP, that’s happening in Arbitrum.
The 2 projects are selected from the previous pool of projects by the RnDAO investment committee. As we’ll be working with all of them on a weekly basis before, we’ll have very deep context to pick the most promising ones.
Over, this presents a very interesting initiative to nurture post-hackathon projects within Arbitrum. By offering structured support, this program aims to transform innovative concepts into viable ventures.
Some things that we enjoy from this propsal:
- The emphasis on hands-on mentorship and operational assistance is particularly valuable; addresses s common challenges faced by early-stage projects.
- The way this is set up encourages ecosystem growth and fostering a collaborative environment.
Some concerns that are making us a bit apprehensive:
- The program’s budget allocation raises questions about funding efficiency and the potential for resource optimization.
– Implementing mechanisms to ensure that supported projects remain within the Arbitrum ecosystem is crucial to prevent talent attrition. - Clear evaluation criteria for transitioning between program phases are essential to maintain transparency and accountability.
- How this aligns with the Incentives Detox period is important, requiring careful consideration to avoid conflicts and ensure cohesive ecosystem development.
- Clarification on legal fees and the necessity for additional marketing funds would be nice.
Honestly, I don’t understand what this proposal is looking to do, so I have a few questions…
Is it looking for funding for the hackathon projects for $124,000? the amount of funding that they could independently apply and probably get, from a questbook track?
Is it looking to sell collabberry services for $30,000?
Is it looking to pay RnDAO for “supporting” the projects post hackathon for $60,780?
Is it looking to get a set of projects invested by the Arbitrum Foundation, and also RnDAO? and how much is the equity split between the Arbitrum Foundation and RnDAO, is it the same? So is it looking to fund the equity investment that RnDAO will get as well?
If this proposal doesn’t pass, will the projects give equity to RnDAO for RnDAO’s support? Will RnDAO stop support for the projects?
Is this proposal trying to do all of the above?
Also, there is a mistake in the calculations… if you add all of the parts, the big number here should be $214,780, not $213,780
I think this proposal is a great way to follow up projects from the hackathon and bring more value to Arbitrum. So voted In favour, but would like to share 2 concerns:
- What’s the plan to make sure these projects keep growing after the program ends, and don’t just rely on short-term support from Arbitrum and RnDAO?
- If a project doesn’t meet its goals or doesn’t deliver as expected, how will the DAO protect the funds given to them?
1 Like
Voting FOR this proposal but with no onchain mechanism
The program addresses a critical need - supporting promising projects beyond the hackathon stage. The two phased approach is great and focus on customer validation are solid. While the budget is significant, the potential return in ecosystem value could justify the investment if even 1-2 projects succeed long-term.
We voted for NO onchain mechanism because while collaberry seems interesting, it may add unnecesary overhead to the process of giving grants as its a new tool, which needs to be adapted to this purpose and also the teams need to learn to use. It would be better to have Collaberry as an option rather than to require its use and also potentially double fund it(if we’re wrong on this aspect please let us know)
Given that there is a operational spend of $87,000, there should be enough funds for the operations team to judge the progress of the teams (who should probably be required to give monthly reports)
If collabbery is used and funded, it may make sense to reduce operational spend, since it seems thats the purpose of the tool.
Finally, one question is how will project success be measured beyond “first 100 users”?
I voted “for” cuz i think this is a great proposal with tangible benefits to Arbitrum.
1 Like
After reading @danielo responses and discussing them with him at Devcon, I am voting in favor of this proposal on Snapshot.
I believe it is important to have a follow-up plan for the projects that emerge from hackathons. If the DAO is going to fund hackathons, it makes sense to support the most promising projects that arise from these initiatives. Moving forward, I would like the follow-up plan to be included in the hackathon proposal itself, as was done with Govhack.
Some considerations:
I think it’s crucial to address Abdullah’s question. I don’t see it answered in the thread (apologies if I missed it):
On another note, I would recommend cutting the Marketing budget. I don’t think the DAO should cover that at this stage. I encourage @danielo and the selected projects to leverage the DAO’s existing platforms (Twitter/Discord) and seek support from the Foundation to communicate their initiatives.
Lastly, since it has been clarified multiple times that this is an investment, I would like the proposal to clearly outline, before going to Tally, the expected return for the DAO from these investments and the commitments that funded projects will make to the DAO.
1 Like
Hey Pedro, thanks for the comments.
Answering @AbdullahUmar comment. We’re thinking the investment contract should be structured as a standard SAFE + Token Warrant. But the details of this would be reviewed with the Arbitrum Foundation’s legal team after the Snapshot.
On this, the marketing budget covers multiple things that ArbitrumDAO/foundation are not equipped to do:
- Supporting the projects on branding, messaging, community building, content creation, lead generation, etc.
- Coordination with Arbitrum Foundation and any other Arbitrum marketing entity so the projects can receive some amplification (without acting as a bridge, we would have multiple small teams trying to figure out on their own who to speak with and potentially wasting the time of the already strained foundation marketing team. Our marketing team was pivotal in coordinating with AF during the Hackathon so we want to continue this relationship)
- Preparing all the reports for the ArbitrumDAO about the Hackathon Continuation program. Without this we wouldn’t have the capacity to make updates, impact report, etc.
- Create all the messaging and content to promote this program to the wider ecosystem, positioning Arbitrum as a great home for builders. The AF can help us amplify (e.g. retweet), but they’re not positioned to be the ones writing the tweets about it. So without this budget, almost no one would know this program ever happened.
I’m thinking how to present the return as these being a very small sample of super early-stage ventures, the range of outcomes possible can vary massively (that’s why previously we proposed a $3million program but were asked to find a smaller pilot).
For context, VC funds can usually have a range to benchmark against (top-tier funds return 20-30% IRR over 10 years and mid-tier 10-20% IRR. So a common multiple on invested capital is 2-3X). However, the sample size here doesn’t give us enough to be statistically relevant (VC returns are highly skewed, with the best-performing companies driving the vast majority of the returns. In many cases, a small percentage of the portfolio companies will generate the majority of the fund’s returns).
Accelerators can target 15-25% IRR and 3-5x multiple on invested capital, but that’s based on having 20-100 companies in the portfolio across multiple cohorts.
So basically what I’m saying is that we won’t have enough data to answer your question convincingly for a while. However, we’ll have leading indicators based on the traction of the projects (customer usage, revenue, additional financing received, and to a lesser degree (social)media attention that boosts Arbitrum ecosystem). The leading indicators can inform the decision about continuing the program, but we can’t change the nature of venture being a long term game.
Please let me know if any questions remain.
1 Like
Thanks for the questions @Ignas
The program is oriented towards this outcome. We’re focusing on customer validation in Phase 1 to reduce the chances of the projects building something no one wants to pay for. After Phase 2, we’ll organise a demo day and help the projects connect with funders. The projects will also stay within the RnDAO Swarm and are incentivised to provide additional support to one another in finding customers and funding opportunities. Startups are hard but we’re already improving upon multiple common pitfalls of grant programs (lack of customer validation, no clear next steps, etc.).
Finally, and although outside the scope of this proposal, we’re also planning to propose the creation of an ArbitrumDAO investors network (something we discussed with Larva) with regular demo days for all Arbitrum-based projects (this would come in addition to the ongoing work of RnDAO to grow our investor network).
We’re dividing the program into two phases for this reason. Projects are not guaranteed a slot in Phase 2 but need to work hard for it, and the majority of the funding is deployed on Phase 2. We’re also exploring the idea of streaming the funding instead of delivering it upfront, which would give us further control to hold projects accountable.
Let me know if any doubts remain
1 Like
Thanks for the comments @PGov
The AF will hold an investment contract over the projects, so even if they were to migrate Arbitrum still benefits. We’ll also encourage the projects to use Stylus and generally provide as welcoming and supportive environment as we can, the idea here is to offer carrots and not sticks, because sticks can reduce the quality of projects that accept the deal.
We’re evaluating primarily the market gap (competitor landscape/opportunity), customer interest, and opportunity-team fit. Projects with advantages over distribution or moats will get boosted in the ranking too. Ultimately, it comes down to our investment committee being excited to work on the project and put our own skin in the game.
we have discussed with multiple top delegates about this and confirmed our understanding that this proposal is not considered an Incentives program i.e. we’re very different from LTIP/STIP in the stage of project maturity (very early stage vs incentives for mature protocols), the usage of funds (funds to build the product vs funds to incentivise adoption), the end recipient of the funds (the projects vs end users), the nature of the value for Arbitrum (investment contract and over time protocol fess vs only protocol fees or TVL growth) .
We’ll need to draft and agree an investment contract with the projects and carry due dilligence. Additionally, there is the regular overhead costs of running a program.
please let me know if any questions remain
The projects could theoretically get funding somewhere else (say via questbook if that proposal passes soon or in a competing ecosystem) but the point is a program that combines:
- specialised hands-on support: many projects fail not because of lack of funding but because they misuse the funds due to lack of methodologies (e.g. building without validation), or lack access to networks, talent, etc. We address that head-on.
- Stage gates and continuous assessment: the projects don’t automatically get the full amount of funding, rather they have to show traction through customer validation to get the rest.
- The funding is not a grant but an investment.
So we’re talking about something VERY different to regular grant programs.
No. It’s not about selling services but a grant to enable a mechanism to anchor the teams’ operation in Arbitrum. You can think about it as a sort of launchpad system that we are also proposing to test (optional in the snapshot).
No. Those funds are for program operation. RnDAO is covering its own costs for project support (so RnDAO is investing alongside ArbitrumDAO to make the program possible). And the support indeed continues after the program ends but in a different format (More about enabling p2p collaboration in the Swarm and less about the RnDAO core team providing hands-on support, but there is still an element of that, just less intensive).
Basically yes but the investment contract might never lead to equity. We’re suggesting a SAFE+token warrant but that’s to be discussed with the Arbitrum Foundation.
No. RnDAO invests in the program too.
Most likely we won’t support the projects. However, that decision could be revised if another ecosystem decided to fund such a program.
1 Like
We’re voting for this proposal because it takes a thoughtful, practical approach to supporting innovation on Arbitrum. By helping hackathon projects turn their ideas into real products with users, it ensures effective use of resources while providing teams with essential mentorship and connections. It’s not just about these individual projects—it’s about building a stronger, more sustainable, and decentralized ecosystem, which fits perfectly with our vision for Arbitrum’s future.
1 Like
I voted FOR the proposal. I think it’s good to experiment with a program that helps the best hackathon projects grow and succeed even after the hackathon is over.
If this program proves to be successful, it would make sense to do a v2 of the program, but this time perhaps including finalists from past ETHGlobal hackathons. This would create a larger pool of high-quality projects and bring promising teams and developers to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
1 Like
please correct these numbers in the proposal text… they are not adding up and are advertising an incorrect (less) amount for people to vote on.
to be more specific:
$416,530 should be $421,030
$213,780 should be $214,780
also, I’m pretty sure the $60,780 has an extra “k” at the end.
and can you please break down what’s included in those $60,780?
and if RnDAO invests $180,000 equivalent and Arbitrum invests $124,000 USD does it really make sense for the ownership to be the same amount?
1 Like
I have given my support on Snapshot to this proposal because of what I mention before…
I think it offers a good structure that will help ensure hackathon projects turn into real solutions that benefit Arbitrum ecosystem. When you divide the program into developing and validating, you increase the chances of success because you only allocate more resources to the projects that will address the actual needs. This design encourages the use of funds wisely over a lengthy period of time. Also, RnDAO and Arbitrum working together helps to combine efforts and gives everyone guidance, stuff, and connections apart from the money.
2 Likes
I fully support this proposal and I am in favor of onchain mechanism.
The proposal is well-structured and goal-oriented, covering a comprehensive process from user validation to MVP development and market testing. By providing funding in two stages and intensive guidance, it reduces the risk of project failure while promoting the continuous growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Pros:
- Phased Funding: Ensures efficient resource allocation by supporting only teams with market potential.
- Deep Engagement: Offers not only funding but also hands-on guidance from industry experts, significantly increasing project success rates.
- Ecosystem Building: Supports projects to stay within the Arbitrum ecosystem, boosting on-chain activity and long-term value.
Cons:
- Large Budget Allocation: While the return on investment is primarily based on long-term benefits, the short-term impact is hard to measure.
- Risk Mitigation: Lacks detailed measures to address the risks associated with project failures, potentially leading to resource waste.
Suggestion:
Establish a mechanism for resource recovery (e.g., codebase sharing, team member reallocation) for projects that fail to pass the second stage evaluation or are terminated. This would help minimize wasted funds and effort while allowing other potential projects to benefit from prior work.
1 Like
I voted ‘In favor, yes on-chain mechanism’ because I believe it is crucial for ArbitrumDAO to capitalize on hackathons by investing in the most promising projects. Thank you, @danielo, for this excellent proposal and for addressing the delegates’ questions. I think the collaboration with RnDAO will be advantageous, as they have demonstrated significant expertise in collabtech.
Before the Tally vote, I would like more details about the reporting that will be conducted for Arbitrum DAO, especially since the committee deciding on this will consist solely of RnDAO members. What specific information will these reports include? I would appreciate understanding the committee’s rationale for selecting or not selecting a project, the scale of opportunity each project addresses, and the committee’s assessment of the project’s feasibility.
1 Like
We are in favor of this proposal. We understand how challenging it is for new projects to gain support and secure funding, especially at an early stage. Without access to experienced individuals and proper guidance, it’s difficult for potential projects to grow and thrive. Hackathons often spark incredible initiatives and ideas, and we believe having an accelerator program to bootstrap these projects will greatly benefit the Arbitrum ecosystem in the long term.
1 Like
Voting in favor, with the option of onchain.
First, the structure is quite interesting. I have chatted privately with Daniel on this proposal, the mentorship part is something that inheretly comes in grant programs for some teams (young founders, founders with extremely good ideas but no experience, founders that got rejected but that have a bright future) but this happens on a spot basis, and is tied to the skill and will of the comimttee/person who evaluate it. And definitely we would need more, so is interesting to see a program structured to incorporate it.
I added the yes to the onchain vote cause i personally evaluated collaberry for a grant in questbook season 2, and I am looking forward to see them showing off their tool in the “real life”.
1 Like