[NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp

Proposals
,
82

Castle agrees on the importance of facilitating governance onboarding. We are very well familiar with the intricacies of the DAO and this is surely a positive addition.

We have a few comments on this:

  • Is there more information on the demand for these analysts from protocols? and why do they need so much oversight?
  • are there any successes and findings from V1 that can be leveraged to refine the scope of this proposal?
  • Why has the sample been chosen as 20 analysts? we’d love to see a program open to a broader range of analysts, to maximize its impact, or at least learn more on this matter.

We’d also want to make sure that the proposal as it stands doesn’t end up after the two-month period: do you have any plans for what will happen between the protocols and the analysts?

Is there any plan to make sure the work done retains its impact beyond the timeline?

The last point concerns the budget. While it is in line with other programs, it is unclear how the dao will benefit from this program, given the protocols’ lack of clear demand for analysts. Of the proposed costs, only $30k will end up going to analysts, with the majority going to op expenses.

While we believe in principle in the need for strong governance participation, we will not be in favour of this proposal without these elements.

1 Like
83

After carefully reviewing all responses and considering other delegates’ feedback, I’ve decided to vote in favor. My reasons are:
1. This proposal builds on the V1 pilot and incorporates previous lessons and feedback to create a more refined V2 plan. This iterative improvement will help the Arbitrum DAO continually optimize the composition and quality of its governance participants.
2. Clear KPIs will measure the effectiveness of training Governance Analysts and Fellows, providing a basis for future evaluations and ongoing improvements.
3. A comprehensive selection and training process will enable promising newcomers to quickly integrate and receive guidance, continually injecting fresh talent into the DAO.

84

I voted in favor of this proposal.

I share some of the concerns expressed above: it’s a bit unclear the value that the initiative will have 1 year from now because we don’t know where these trained analyst will end up being, if in protocols, in our dao, in others etc.

At the same time, I want to be mindful of a trend we have been seeing lately and that few delegates shared privately with me, which is new contributors, in the DAO, entering with a decent amount of criticism in every initiative without necessarily providing solutions or alternatives (or, when that is done, is done through solutions that are quite superficial and don’t necessarily tackle the initial issue). This is partially due on how the DIP is structure, in which de facto commenting increases the amount of point, and part due to the human nature: sounding pessimism and being critic is the easiest way to sound smart to be blunt.
(note: nothing against seed here or anyone in particular. It is what it is, and is a byproduct of our dao growing more and more over time).

For the reason above, I hope this program will indeed elevate the quality of new contributors, and this is why I am voting in favor. I share the concern that of the 193k allocated only 30k goes to analysts: to me it means that the expectation, end of program, is to have 20 kickass black belt governance analysts, I am expecting no less with an opex of 160k.

I also think we should find a way for weaponize these new analysts, and right now one of the biggest gap we have is the protocols’ participations. We should find a way to advertise this pool of participants to protocols (a bit hard: every team tends to internalize people that they trust, not necessarily suggested by third party sources).
I also suggest to select people with also a technical background, that have experience in designing protocols, tokenomics and lst. We don’t need only people that know about governance, we also need people who are technically knowleageable, cause up to some degree we saw partially the limitation of knowledge of delegates during the working group for designing arb staking. I would really like to have more people that have been builders to be trained in governance.

Finally, i agree that DIP kpi are not the right one here. Success, to me, means that the trained analyst end up contributing to our dao, either through specific dao roles, or by being integrated in protocols as part of their personnel etc.

All in all I don’t have all the answers to the questions above, and I hope @RikaGoldberg and gang will iterate between this and tally to try and address some of these concerns.

3 Likes
85

I strongly support this proposal as it aligns with the DAO’s vision for improved governance and transparency. However, I suggest adding more details about the implementation steps, addressing potential risks, and incorporating community feedback at key stages to ensure the plan remains aligned with members’ expectations.

86

gm,

I’ve voted AGAINST this program.

I’m skeptical about its potential impact and think resources could be better spent on onboarding more Arbitrum protocols into governance, as others have suggested. Why aren’t these protocols involved already? If they lack analysts, we could focus on helping them recruit and train talent rather than using a top-down push approach.

As it stands, the proposal and its KPIs feel more like funding participation for participation’s sake, without a clear path to meaningful results.

The compensation structure for the working group also seems out of step with market standards, raising questions about its efficiency and sustainability.

I hope we can revisit and refine this before moving forward.

2 Likes
87

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR the proposal in the Snapshot voting.

We are in favor of the onboarding program as it represents a strategic approach to growing our governance ecosystem with fresh talent and diverse perspectives.

We support this initiative because it creates a structured pathway for new contributors to learn and engage with Arbitrum DAO. The program’s focus on diversity, skill development, and providing opportunities for participants to become governance fellows with monetary stipends makes it a key catalyst for expanding our ecosystem and bringing fresh perspectives into our governance process.

We believe the outcome of this initiative will be on the positive side and the program will be a success.

88

Thanks @RikaGoldberg for this proposal.

We have voted for the Arbitrum Onboarding V2 proposal. We think it helps new people learn how to join and work in the DAO. The program teaches important skills and makes it easier for everyone to understand and take part in governance. It will bring fresh ideas and more voices to the Arbitrum community. And it’s great.

89

Voting AGAINST this proposal

We think there are some positive aspects of the onboarding program/proposal:
-onboarding materials creation (v1 created the onboarding hub)
-recognizing protocols need good delegates and trying to help them do so.

but the questions and negatives in our opinion outweigh it:
-this thread has 86 replies. is the DAO in desperate need of more delegates and activity?
-does seeking and training random people and assigning them to protocols make sense?

in our opinion the key things highlighted are:
Governance needs education.
in our opinion this is absolutely true. it took us a while to get up to speed on both logistics, tech, and background.

But in our opinion a workshop, homework and calls for a select group of people is not the best way.

Educational material, perhaps produced by Manu, made availalbe online for all delegates, or wannabe delegates, would be amazing and beneficial for all delegates here.

Expanding/revamping the onboarding hub into a general onboarding hub for arbitrum delegates, and keeping it up to date, would be an amazing use of arbitrum resources that woudl help the DAO

protocols need good delegates
protocol teams are often busy building and may not be able to govern well. but they often have communities of people who may be interested in doing so.

If there is a training program, it may make sense to to do so through a grant, fellowship, or training program that is directed towards protocols to hire or onboard community members to represent their interests in the DAO or help them govern their ARB treasuries.

In our opinion the current version of this proposal targeting general onboarding to the DAO doesnt make a ton of sense, but

  1. DAO onboarding education material
  2. Fellowships, training, or small grants for protocols to hire/onboard governers

may make sense, and would be much easier to run.

Happy to jam on either of these in the delegate tg chat or DMs.

90

I voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot. V1 was a pilot project, so it makes sense to do a V2 based on everything that the proposal team learned from V1. After V2 is completed and evaluation done, we’ll have a better picture whether such program works and perhaps repeat it in the future.

91

We voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot.

We do appreciate the work @RikaGoldberg with 404 and the rest of the contributors do a lot, and see the willingness to get this right. We are mindful this is not an easy task to get right / this is still somewhat experimental. Saying that, we’d like to see more tangible success outcomes of the program this time (i.e., how do we ensure high quality of participants and turn them into value for the DAO). I believe the ideas of this iteration are a reasonably good approach and the involved parties are capable.

To support the program, we’d be considering working with a fellow to support the initiative. We’ll take the decision whenever there is more certainty around next step and intakes.

3 Likes
92

As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting abstain in this proposal and bellow is our rationale.

93

Voted For: DAO governance is such a new industry, and experimentation is much needed. I agree with feedback from fellow delegates that we should take a more strategic approach with clear KPIs attached to this proposal. However, at this point, I would like to see this move forward to Tally. The proposal is not too expensive, and the experiment could bring us new ideas on how to tackle the lack of participation in governance. This is why I decided to support this proposal.

94

Erin here from the Uniswap Foundation - would be down to see how we could work with a Governance Fellow. Great initiative here!

10 Likes
95

We align with the measured experimentation in this proposal. Continued trials for expanding DAO participation and onboarding effective members of the Arbitrum Community is worth exploring. We believe the budget is acceptable and look forward to working with @RikaGoldberg and the team to assist in making this program a success.

1 Like
96

Voting for, as stated above I think the proposal is well thought out and creates a unique idea to try and attract talent that ultimately doesn’t cost the DAO that much. I still maintain a concern about ‘stickiness’, but at the end of the day that can’t be answered unless we try it. I think this is something worth pursuing as a test, if it fails so be it… but it’s worth trying out.

I’ll re-ask my initial question as I don’t thin kit was directly addressed and would like to see before a possibly Tally vote.

Probably my only concern would be ‘stickiness’ of the Governance Analysts to be able to remain employed by the Ten Protocols. A lot of that is beyond our control, but has there been any discussion on ensuring these analysts have a long-term impact? Whether that is front-end stuff (deciding which 10 protocols to pick) or the back-end (if there is analyst that just loses their job 2 months in there are backup protocols or a pool or potential protocols to rotate to?).

97

We support this proposal as it builds on the successful Pilot Program, refining the onboarding process with a structured curriculum, measurable KPIs, and a focus on diversity. With a clear plan to enhance governance participation, this initiative is worth pursuing to strengthen Arbitrum DAO’s governance ecosystem.

98

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 Arbitrum Onboarding V2: Governance Bootcamp has the potential to address key challenges within the DAO, such as improving contributor pipelines and governance participation. However, there are areas where further clarity and justification are needed to ensure the program delivers measurable value to the ecosystem.

While we appreciate the continuation of efforts from V1, we believe a thorough evaluation of the pilot program’s outcomes is critical. A detailed V1 post-mortem should outline its successes, shortcomings, and how they inform V2. Without this, it is difficult to gauge the necessity and expected impact of scaling up the initiative.

Success metrics remain unclear in the proposal. If V2 is to achieve its goals, the DAO should define what success looks like—be it employment of contributors, measurable impact on governance, or broader engagement in DAO activities. This will not only provide accountability but also align expectations for the program’s outcomes.

The budget may appear reasonable for a six-month program of this scope, but we would question the level of oversight required for such an initiative and add that the lack of clarity around demand raises concerns. It is uncertain whether there is sufficient interest from protocols in onboarding governance analysts. This should have been explored more thoroughly to validate the program’s purpose and ensure it meets actual ecosystem needs.

Finally, long-term integration of contributors is a critical aspect. Sustaining engagement beyond the program’s duration requires more defined pathways, ensuring participants continue to add value to the DAO and its protocols.

While GMX supports initiatives to build capacity and foster inclusivity within the DAO, this proposal requires greater clarity around past outcomes, success metrics, and demand validation. We encourage the Working Group to address these concerns and provide a stronger foundation for scaling this initiative.

1 Like
99

I voted in favour. The cost is reasonable given the time frame of 7 months, and in a competitive and usually extremely scattered environment (this is especially true in the ARB DAO) projects like this can contribute to having a structure and order. All comments from @pedrob @Atomist above also make a lot of sense, to consider before the Tally vote.

They should not be paid. In fact, one could argue that they should be the ones paying, though in this case of course that doesn’t make sense from an demand/supply POV

1 Like
100

Blockworks Advisory will be voting in favor of this proposal on Snapshot.

The cost is reasonable given the length of the program and the required overhead, and the onboarding working group has completed decent work with good reporting from the last effort. We still believe that the DAO should pay governance analyst during their training, and have a possible path toward working within the DAO. Arbitrum DAO actively needs more participants that can represent its own interests distinctly from others. There is a cost to having representation of your interests, both an individuals time and value they can generate in that time represent that cost. Moving forward, we would genuinely like to see the co-op program be built out in the next version of this proposal, either with analysts working in-DAO or out at the conclusion of the program.

Is there the possibility that the Arbitrum Deep Dives could be condensed and the time could be put into more exercises for the DAO analysts? Of course, more KPI development would need to be done here. Furthermore, we find that the onboarding final report was a decent insight into the original program’s performance; though, we would like to see improved milestone reporting moving forward. The milestone reports were relatively less descript.

We agree with GMX insofar as that this proposal needs more details on KPIs for these governance analysts moving forward; however, we think this proposal should pass at the temperature check level, but perhaps requires further iteration prior to Tally.

101

The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.

We’re voting AGAINST the proposal.

Although we are not against the concept of onboarding new contributors to the DAO -if anything, we’re in favor of it, as proven by the fact that we facilitated the creation of the onboarding working group- we’re not confident in the timing of the proposal.

As things are in the DAO right now, even seasoned participants have a hard time making meaningful contributions due to the lack of overarching vision and direction, and the fact that many things are still being figured out would make it hard for a new participant to participate.

The onboarding working group we facilitated clearly showed that as a DAO we struggle to define meaningful ways for new contributors to add value to the ecosystem. We think it’s solvable, and hopefully we’ll soon have enough open opportunities for newcomers to fill. But for now, we think this initiative is a bit premature.

That said, we believe the overall direction of the proposal to be worthwhile to explore—maybe with some amendments—down the line when there are actually areas in which new contributors will be able to contribute.