[Non-consitutional] User Research: Why do people even build on Arbitrum, anyway?

After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.

Rationale

We would like to start by mentioning that the proposed research is highly interesting, and we believe it makes sense to establish comparison points with other ecosystems such as Solana and Optimism. If we were to vote in favor, it would be for the option that includes both, with the caveat that within Optimism, Base should also be covered at the very least.

That said, while reviewing this proposal, we asked ourselves, “Why shouldn’t the ARDC handle this?”

We came across this explanation from the proposer:

This explanation contains a claim (already mentioned by @JamesKBH in his rationale) justifying funding this initiative because “most of the candidates for the research position don’t have significant User Research expertise.” When we inquired about this in the ARDC’s channel within the Delegate Group, we found that several of the applicants provided a different perspective (e.g., @PYOR, Ryan from DL (joint application with @CastleCapital), and @Alice1123 from The Block).
Being 100% honest, if the applicants for the position believe they have the necessary expertise to carry out this initiative, we would prefer it to be one of many that will go on-demand under the new structure approved for ARDCv2. This preference can be justified for several reasons:

  • We have already funded ARDCv2 to have a structure (both Service Providers and Human Resources) that facilitates both the research and the operational/management aspects involved. This way, the ARDC would be perfectly capable of conducting the research, avoiding double spending on tasks related to project management and coordination (again, ARDC will already have a structure for this). The point is to avoid creating repetitive structures that lead to unnecessary expenses.
  • If it is an on-demand research requested by the DAO, subcontractors could be incorporated as needed. Since payments in this case are milestone-based, we see no issue as long as the DAO approves it in Snapshot.
  • We prefer not to set a precedent of funding proposals that the ARDC could handle. Instead, the approach should be reversed: funding such proposals externally only when the ARDC explicitly declines to handle them due to a lack of expertise or resources.
  • As a “minor” consideration, handling it through the ARDC implies one less multisig for the MSS to manage. While this should not dictate our decisions, it is important to manage resources efficiently and avoid overburdening them with unnecessary operational requirements.

There are other factors do not convince us either:

  • The proposal seems rushed. As other delegates have mentioned, while there is no strict minimum discussion period, seven days of discussion is on the edge of what is “socially accepted.” In this case, we see no need for such a short discussion period, despite the justification provided by the proposer.
  • We struggle to understand why a Council is being incorporated. It has been assigned a series of tasks, but as we understand, no compensation has been planned for its members. Additionally, it is unclear who the members will be, as only a “preliminary” composition has been provided without specific names.

In summary, we would be happy to help push this research within the ARDC’s scope, following the process already established for on-demand work:

5 Likes