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

Proposals Finalized AIPs
76

gm @danielo, thank you for the proposal.

We think it’s valuable for the DAO to have its own research conducted in this area and to ensure we get the right kind of report.

On the proposal specifically we have the following feedback:

  1. We are unsure whether the focus should be on builders who have already selected Arbitrum because the report will likely be skewed toward survivorship bias. It’s not as essential for us to understand why builders have selected Arbitrum because OCL or AF should be able to provide a summary based on their interactions with builders on Arbitrum.

  2. We agree with @paulofonseca that the focus should be on builders who i) considered Arbitrum but decided on another chain and ii) builders who did not shortlist Arbitrum in the first place.

Concerning the recommended ecosystems above, we think the following should be considered instead.

  1. Optimism
  2. Optimism Superchain
  3. Solana
  4. Base
  5. Polygon
  6. Cosmos
  7. Berachain
  8. Monad
  9. Rollups-as-a-Service providers such as Nodekit

We prefer focusing on item 2 and less on 1 with this specific type of research. It would provide more actionable insights into how projects evaluate chains and the key factors of appeal outside Arbitrum.

Therefore, in its current form, we would like to see a new option that focuses a much larger proportion of the work outside of Arbitrum.

We believe that the work on Arbitrum should be a separate exercise with different questions and goals.

Overall we feel that the direction and goal of the proposal needs to be pitched more clearly as if responding to an RFQ. It needs to be better at selling the vision of the proposal to delegates. It might also help if examples of interviews and their positive impact on specific DAO stakeholders would also strengthen your proposal and its value.

In addition, we would also add, in agreement with @pedrob, that it felt premature to rush the proposal to snapshot and not give delegates sufficient time to respond. But thank you for taking the time to present a case for this, we appreciate it.

Due to the above reasons along with our running in the election for ARDC v2 Research member, we are voting to ABSTAIN.

1 Like