voting Against the current offchain proposal because the amounts on the proposal don’t add up, the $60,780 USD cost is not justified in detail, and in general it just feels like this proposal has too much “fat” since only ~58% of the amount Arbitrum would pay would go to the grantees and the remaining ~42% is basically “administrative” costs of this program.
@danielo
Could you please clarify the specific differences between the “on-chain mechanism” and “off-chain mechanism” voting options?
A clear explanation of these mechanisms will help us make a more informed decision in the snapshot vote.
Sorry if this has been asked earlier or if I’ve missed it in the previous comments.
I will be voting “For” the project as I think post-hackathon support is a natural and logical step to take. Having these events are great, but as noted in the proposal it can be tough to continue momentum if all the sudden support stops. So I think this will be a good thing to try for the DAO.
I also appreciate the willingness to take delegate feedback into consideration here, especially my prior comment about getting some type of return to the DAO. As I do believe we need to think about the treasury long-term.
As for on-chain support… I’ll vote for it. As quoted below, if Jojo has directly evaluated the project and supports it I trust their due diligence.
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”.
Edit: To save forum space, indicating that my opinion here has not changed from Snapshot to Tall and I will be voting “For” on Tally for this proposal.
2 Likes
There’s no offchain mechanism, only a yes/no vote on an onchain mechanism:
We’re giving the option of including a $30k budget for CollbBerry to expand its functionality so the community can contribute funds to the projects or contribute labour via bounties and be rewarded with non-transferrable ERC-20 “team points”.
The theory is that this further helps anchor the projects in Arbitrum.
We won’t include this part if the “no onchain mechanism” option is selected.
2 Likes
gTrade is voting in favor of this proposal as it aligns with many of our objectives/missions in supporting developers in tangible ways, particularly for early-stage project developers. Additionally, this is more than a grant; it’s an investment, meaning the DAO will benefit financially if these projects succeed.
2 Likes
Voted in favor, no on-chain mechanism: Timing in startups is important, and there hasn’t been a more perfect moment to build apps than now. I believe this program has some great startups (I checked them all) and would love to see them continue building on Arbitrum.
To be fair, at the moment, there are so many opportunities for builders out there, and there will be competition to attract the best ones. This proposal seems like a no-brainer to confirm and keep these startups in our ecosystem.
I agree that in the future, we should explore ways to get vested (like through our venture program, etc.) so we can see returns if startups are successful.
Also, the vote on the “on-chain vs. off-chain mechanism” is a bit confusing. I spent quite some time trying to understand the difference, and the terms here feel a bit misleading. I voted “no on-chain mechanism” to save the 30k budget. If this moves to Tally, please ensure these terms are clarified.
1 Like
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting “In Favour, yes on-chain mechanism” for this proposal on Snapshot Voting.
The on-chain mechanism will be a good experiment for the projects. We support this initiative because it will help Arbitrum attract and develop innovative builders and also provide a strategic approach to supporting projects with both funding and mentorship.
The program aims to generate early on-chain activity and retain promising builders within the Arbitrum ecosystem. By investing strategically in select projects, we’re creating a pathway for innovative teams to contribute meaningful solutions and grow the Arbitrum ecosystem.
1 Like
thank you for the comment. I’m thinking that we should probably make this a separate proposal to explain it properly as it’s a whole thing and here is likely just too much to take in… We’ll work on that after getting the vote results.
1 Like
I think it’s important for the DAO to back Arbitrum native projects, and this seems like a great way to do it. Can you specify if the funds you’re earmarking for Program Marketing are linked to the projects you’ll incubate or to RnDAO itself? I see in a response you’ve given this also includes reporting - I’m not sure that should be called marketing when this gets to a vote.
If anything, I think this shows we really need a pluralistic grant framework. There seem to be projects that clearly deserve some love that are not getting it and prolonged forum discussions are not the productive way to get where we need to go.
1 Like
Hey Nathan
thanks for the comments.
It’s a bit hard to untangle what is a small team that has to do pretty much everything Comms (execution and expertise) related, but roughly we have 4 buckets of activity handled by the same people in our team:
- creating impact reports and updates for Arbitrum (these are also shared through our channels+events)
- amplifying the projects through our channels+events
- coaching the projects on comms/growth/marketing
- talking about the programs we do through our channels+events
We’re still trying to understand what’s a good practice on the level of budget detail we give in a proposal. On one hand we’re revealing our own IP to competitors, sometimes more details lead to more questions and confusion than clarity, but also some delegates want to get really fine breakdowns. Maybe there should be some DAO-level guidelines on this?
Voted in favor, no on-chain mechanism:
So excited to see a program for micro investments into Hackathon builders in Arbitrum, this is well scoped pilot too.
Lots of details can be discussed and nit picked, but the opportunity for our DAO to make these kinds of small investments is incredible.
Great work and coordinating all this @danielo.
2 Likes
We vote In favour, no onchain mechanism.
We are resonated with the general direction for the DAO to maintain the support Hackathon builders within the Arbitrum ecosystem and assist them to grow from a “hackathon winner” to a protocol that makes impact in the ecosystem.
We also appreciate the approach that the RnDAO matches what the Arbitrum DAO funds by roughly 50-50 ratio and provides continuous support for the builders. The milestone-based reward design also makes sense.
We are a little skeptical that the actual projects awarded in the hackathon can make reasonable impact, but we are certain they are evaluated diligently on their business opportunities and MVP development strategy by the competent team and contributors. From the DAO perspective, we believe it’s worth a try and believe in what the chosen teams can offer with support.
Some onchain mechanism is ideal to be objectively evaluated for their product usage, but the proposed solution doesn’t feel appropriate, thus we chose the “no onchain mechanism”.
1 Like
There is a guideline @danielo it’s here: How to submit a DAO proposal | Arbitrum DAO - Governance docs
and I’ve asked you for a “really fine” breakdown of these costs above
I voted FOR with On-chain Mechanism. I watched the collabtech hackathon closely and was very impressed at how it was more than just a hackathon but guidance and support over a month period.
I know Danielo well and I really believe in the collabtech venture builder, his ability and how having better teams that know how to ensure development can help Arbitrum overall.
2 Likes
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting in favour, on chain mechanism in this proposal and bellow is our rationale.
1 Like
I’ve decided to vote in favor of the reasons I mentioned earlier.
However, regarding the options ‘no onchain’ and ‘yes onchain,’ I’ve chosen the first one for now. I believe the implications of the ‘yes, onchain mechanism’ option haven’t been fully explained, and I’d like to have a clearer understanding before making a decision in that direction. Perhaps it would be better to consider this as a separate proposal for further discussion.
1 Like
This is exactly what we need:
A program that takes builders by hand and guides them towards success.
It’s not only about getting funds, it’s expertise, it’s networking, it’s structure.
I wasn’t able to fully understand the benefits of the onchain option, so voting for a more conservative offchain one.
Looking forward to seeing the results 
2 Likes
We are in favour of this proposal, as we agree in principle with the need for such programs to effectively implement ideas from hackathons and stimulate innovation in the ecosystem.
We’d like to see this fit a more long-term view with the creation of a process/framework for such incubation programs—making them accessible to everyone and aligning the interests with the Arbitrum DAO’s long-term vision.
1 Like
This is a key initiative, Having been a past hackathon participant, I always thought why would protocols do a one time initiative and leave the builders. Actually we need such an initiative from the DAO to handle pushing hackathon projects to real world products. The extra cost invloved to push the products to startups or production i’m sure will have a huge ROI.
Thanks @danielo for this proposal!
We are voting for this proposal because it helps talented teams from the hackathon turn their ideas into real projects with users and growth. The program offers funding, hands-on support, and connections to make their projects successful on Arbitrum. This will grow the Arbitrum ecosystem with strong new ventures and keep builders engaged. It’s a smart plan to use resources wisely and support the best teams.