We vote FOR the proposal (without playbook) on Snapshot.
As DisruptionJoe described, this can work in collaboration with the Firestarters program in the form of a Questbook grant program that requires a domain allocator elected by the DAO to manage the fund. We would like plurality in this kind of problem areas and look forward to seeing more quality proposals on critical issues/problems created by the programs.
The following reflects the views of L2BEATās governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and itās based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
Weāre voting AGAINST the proposal.
While we appreciate the work @danielo has put into the DAO so far, we cannot support this proposal in its current form. Weāve discussed this proposal with @danielo in Brussels and expressed our concerns then, which we still feel are relevant.
The main reason why we cannot support the proposal is that we donāt know what kind of things weāll be funding, what kinds of proposals need to be written and who is going to be writing them. With the proposed open-ended approach we see a risk that this initiative will become a solution looking for a problem to solve, funding initiatives that wonāt be able to find support in the DAO. If we had a clearer understanding of the specific initiatives that would be funded through this proposal, weād be more inclined to support it.
Furthermore, Firestarters by Plurality Labs had a similar format in the past, and there was discussion and debate regarding which funded initiatives were deemed successful and which fell short of expectations. That makes us cautious about diving into a similar funding structure without more detailed information about the specific goals.
Overall, we appreciate Danielās effort in developing the proposal and recognize where heās coming from with its creation. We believe the initiative can be valuable in the future if such a need arises, and we remain open to reconsidering it at that time.
I voted AGAINST this proposal at the temp check stage, because it is duplicative of the Plurality Labs Firestarter grants program. At this stage of the DAOās journey, I donāt think itās reasonable to effectively run two such open-ended grants programs in parallel. We should be focusing on understanding and improving existing programs rather than duplicating them. Iām open to evolving Firestarter grants into something like this Jumpstart fund in the future, but would want to do so based on a comparative analysis of the programās relative potential effectiveness.
After discussing the latest proposal internally and reading the discussions on the forum, MUX contributors cast āAbstain.ā
The reason for the abstain vote is that we agree that DAO has problems that need fixing/improvements. However, instead of a program that aims to help identify problems with not enough certainty on the outcome, a program that funds solutions for DAO problems that community members and delegates have consensus on might be more reasonable and cost-effective.
This proposal seems unnecessary because the DAO already has established processes for funding proposals and addressing operational challenges. The added complexity of a pilot fund and problem-gathering exercise appears redundant. The existing mechanisms should be sufficient to identify and prioritize issues without the need for an additional layer of bureaucracy and funding allocation.
Gm Arbinauts!
The results are in for the Pilot for a Questbook Jumpstart fund for problem definition and DAO improvement proposal.
See how the community voted and view the detailed analytics on ā¬” Dhive.Io.
After consideration, Treasureās Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal
I voted against this proposal on the current form for the reasons stated above. My hope is that the OP will work on the feedback provided and come up with an enhanced iteration of this one.
I appreciate @danielo for bringing this to our attention and the effort and time invested to see this through.
I voted against this proposal, but I am supportive of the Firestarter-like initiative.
As others and in particular @Pepperoni_Jo3 mentioned, a unified framework that could still encourage new initiatives without creating duplicates would be an added value for the DAO.
@EzR3aL @cp0x @Larva @mcfly @ocandocrypto @pedrob @WintermuteGovernance @BlockworksResearch @JoJo @san
Thanks for your comments. Last week, I considered dropping this initiative altogether. I could make a comparison and rationalise the pros/cons of the assessment approach in Questbook vs using Thrivecoin, but thatās a lot of work and no one is paying us for it (we have no vested interest in neither Thrive nor Questbook being used. This being an ironic example of the issues of lack of funding for problem definition work).
Then it kept bothering me that to my knowledge, Firestraters is not essentially out of funds (or at least thatās what some colleagues understood when they inquired). So there was duplication but not anymore.
I understand from Disruption Joe that Thrive will likely propose a V3 assessment method for Firestarters (V1 was him doing it as a trusted person, V2 was a version of decentralisation, and V3 would be a different version).
And we could enter into the assessment method discussion, but what I see as particularly valuable that RnDAO could contribute and common for both the Jumpstart Fund and Firestarters - an area where RnDAO has particularly deep expertise - is the sense-making part. Weāve been researching the challenges of DAO Governance for over two years (work partially funded via the pilot program that PluralityLabs/Thrive funded RnDAO for). Out of that research, we have a couple of sense-making methodology experiments we want to run that I believe could alleviate a lot of the pains. So the question is, would you be open to those experiments?
Directionally, would you support a proposal for some form of sense making excercise (to be ratified by the DAO) to prioritise key problems/challenges?
please see post above 
@Vertex_Protocol @0x_ultra @Bob-Rossi @jameskbh @PGov @Retar_Dalio @thedevanshmehta @DisruptionJoe @Tane @Curia
please see post above
@krst @Frisson @realdumbird @0xTALVO.ETH_MTY @snowdot @Pepperoni_Jo3
We voted against this proposal on the snapshot, agreeing with many of the points @WintermuteGovernance made. One of the main issues was that we believed this would provide misaligned incentives for people to put forward ideas. Could lead to minimum effort in order to receive compensation, reducing quality of work and personal investment in proposals. Also we do not fundamentally agree with the notion that only āinsidersā know what to propose. There are lots of avenues to learn about what is going on and interact with those more involved in the DAO to create/iterate on proposals. We appreciate you for taking the time to put this initiative forward and think that the areas including strategy and spending plan are very important. This may not be the way to go about it.
DAOplomats voted against this proposal.
It is definitely a well thought-out proposal but we werenāt supportive of it majorly because of the overlap with DisruptionJoeās Firestarters. We understand there is a gap to be filled with those programs and we believe this is where sense-making will play a major role when they roll out milestone 2.
In essence, what we are trying to say is we believe a sense-making exercise is valuable to explore but we would still love to see how that could be embedded in the Firestarters M2.
Hi Daniel, you know I have always been supportive, and appreciate understanding and prioritising key problems/challenges is important for the DAO. However, given the nature of this feedback and the 107M ARB votes against, I struggle to see how a solo proposal from RnDAO on sensemaking will be supported.
My recommendation is to collaborate with Plurality Labs, Entropy, or a similar organization. This approach ensures that the DAO receives a unified source of truth regarding its challenges, avoiding conflicting perspectives and efforts from multiple service providers.
Below are the perspectives of the UADP:
We understand the desire for there to be a more effective process behind incentivizing groups to create proposals. Itās unfortunate when an idea is put forth, that took numerous weeks or even months to iterate, and ends up being rejected, leading to no monetary compensation for such efforts. But compensating people to work on proposals without a clear way to measure success is a tricky task. Typically, the success metric is if the proposal passes or fails a vote. This also presents an additional adverse incentive for people to work on projects without having an explicit goal of seeing it through all the way to a successful onchain vote.
Itās often the case that the rejection of a proposal is emblematic of other issues. For instance, a proposal may be proposed at the wrong timeāthe DAO may not be mature enough to handle a given task. A proposal may simply not be unrealistic or overly ambitious. For example, the M&A initiative couldāve failed a vote even though it took months of effort to curate. Therefore, @Bernard & co. proposed to conduct a research initiative as a precursor to deploying funds. They overcame the funding issue by narrowing the scope from implementation to research. They also worked with the community, conducting numerous calls and reports. Same goes for the ventures initiative. In other words, if a proposal fails, itās usually because the prosper presented something that is not right for the DAO, or the proposer simply didnāt work intimately enough with the community. If these aspects arenāt completed, then there shouldnāt be compensation.
All this being said, we do think some sort of bounty system could be present for accomplishing certain tasks. Therefore, we are voting abstain for this proposal. There is likely a better way of addressing the given problem statement. The DAO consistently has aspects that need to be developed, and much of the talent faces the cold start problem of even starting the research. Optimism is perhaps a decent DAO to look at regarding smaller scope missions.
Abstained as it seems obvious more in-depth discussion about the scope, execution need to be discussed.
Generally do agree this is something that could provide value for the DAO through a support system for proposal builders.