# \[Non-Constitutional\] Arbitrum Airdrop 2 - Builder Appreciation Drop

**URL:** <https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-airdrop-2-builder-appreciation-drop/28428>\
**Category:** Archived Proposals\
**Tags:** proposal\
**Created:** [February 12, 2025, 5:36pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-airdrop-2-builder-appreciation-drop/28428 "2025-02-12T17:36:36Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 22

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jameskbh](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/jameskbh/32/2667_2.png) [@jameskbh](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/jameskbh)\
**Post date:** [February 17, 2025, 3:37pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-airdrop-2-builder-appreciation-drop/28428/22 "2025-02-17T15:37:08Z")

</div>

Hello! Thanks for your proposal.

I have a few questions, as some items looks contradicting each other.

> [@cupojoseph](#):
>
> Arbitrum must do more to attract builders and talent to the chain. Opening the possibility of future airdrops will be a solid move to do that, and bring users home.

In the previous statement, you mention that Arbitrum needs to attract more builders and talent (I agree with that). And then you proceed with “Opening the possibility of future airdrops will be a solid move to do that, and bring users home.” (here, we disagree, but this will come later).

A few lines below, you wrote this:

> [@cupojoseph](#):
>
> **Timeline & steps**
> 
> 1. Snapshot as of the block that the BoLD upgrade goes live later today or tomorrow.

Here, I have my questions:

- You proposed a date for the snapshot, so no new builders will benefit from the current proposal (if I got it right)?
- Is the first line meant to be read as the current airdrop will serve to attract new builders as they will hope that will receive a different airdrop that could happen in the future?

Regarding the execution:

> [@cupojoseph](#):
>
> **Overall Cost**  
> $100k USD in funding for a 6 person working group to create lists, present to recommendations to the DAO, and do all the data scraping and merkle root setup over the next 2-3 months.

I understand that framing such massive proposal is not a work to be done by one guy (as you mentioned in one of your replies). But in this proposal, you are already framing most of the relevant concepts for the incentives, leaving for this WG the execution of the strategy.

## Airdrop as an incentive mechanism

(now the part we disagree) As we are talking about an incentive program, what makes you not consider the other ideas already proposed, like:

- [Incentives WG](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-fund-an-incentives-working-group/26756)
- @Entropy DRIP framework:

> [@Entropy Advisors Monthly Update: January 2025](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/entropy-advisors-monthly-update-january-2025/28352/1):
>
> Matt presented the DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP) on the [12th call](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-incentives-detox-proposal/25849/81) of Liquidity Incentives Call. The DRIP is being finalized and although effectively ready for posting, given the sheer number of incentives proposals in the pipeline, the Entropy team is debating the best path forward.

- And others that were discussed in the [Detox period](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-incentives-detox-proposal/25849)?

It seems more reasonable to follow a structured program with other metrics besides gas fees, for instance.

Thanks in advance!

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-airdrop-2-builder-appreciation-drop/28428)._