DAOplomats voted for Researching within Arbitrum only on Snapshot.
Conducting research is a net positive for the DAO and we voted for Arbitrum only because we are currently only interested in this data point and how we can build upon the findings.
We do agree with some of the other delegates that clear focus areas need to be dialed in but we wanted to show support during the temp check as we believe these other things could be fine-tuned before moving to the onchain vote.
Against this proposal. After reading, it remains unclear, at least to myself, who the final beneficiaries of a report like this are more concretely, other than the “Arbitrum DAO”. Though more information is usually positive, I don’t agree with this expense at this time and around that hypothesis
Hey Olimpio, for clarity, the beneficiaries would be the members of the stakeholder council who would have put their time into this initiative because they want to leverage the research.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, and consensus of various committee members.
The team have a strong research background, Daniel is a PHD, has experience in upwork user experience insights, studying at Stanford. Savvy Cofounder, Alex is also on the team for the stakeholder management and coordination. Andrea has a good amount of experience in User/UX experiences working for Google, Asana, and Aragon. This collective evidences the potentiality of their deliverables.
It’s very clear this proposal aims to develop insights from existing stakeholders (builders, entrepeneurs, and users) to build an archetype of users who would enable the DAO and foundation to generate insights. The incentive mechanisms can align users to generate positive insights that could be quantifiable and qualitative data translated for the success of Arbitrum.
Our hesistancy, is mostly leaned on the determination, the how and what information would be collected. Additionally it’s a very broad topic to challenge, usually to solve builder attraction and retention, communication strategies, and other peripheries of this research would require extensive insights, if done right there could be more insights at the forefront.
For this research to be fulfilling on the outset, there needs to be mention of which individuals/groups they’ve outreached (to ensure incentives are not abused), what topics to focus on (narrowing the subject), what the interviewee in the past have they determined in their genuine experience, as some of these questions can be referenced in the forums or information that’s already recognised.
Additionally in typical crypto fashion, many projects are often transparent with what they share on X, forums, or other mediums to showcase their tech stack or progress in Arbitrum.
Overall, we do respect the ambition and intent of the proposal, we generally a see a lack of utilisation and applicability with how it would reflect in Arbitrum.