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

Proposals
,
102

We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.

While we haven’t received a clear answer to the compensation structure in our comment below, we agree with the general direction of the concept and this proposal should go for an onchain vote. We also believe the DAO should pay governance analysts and program contributors, but there should be a compensation structure that is aligned with what the program can achieve with clear goal that comes with the KPIs. While being challenging to set the right KPIs to monitor the ongoing impact from the governance fellows, it’s critical to design the program to dare to address the ultimate issues that the DAO has.

103

I’ve voted for this proposal. I think that at the very least it will give us quality data about onboarding on Arbitrum at a price that, when seeing the budget of the DAO, feels reasonable. Again, the value of this lies partly in the reporting so I hope this will be high quality and communicated broadly.

104

I voted FOR on this proposal. As improvements for Tally, it would be interesting to see more protocols to work with the Governance Fellows (so we have this locked in before the proposal passes the onchain vote)

105

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

Rationale

Due to our clear Conflict of Interest with respect to this proposal we have decided to abstain.

106

DAOplomats voted FOR on Snapshot.

We are aware more clarity is needed on some areas before this proposal goes to an onchain vote but we were okay supporting this at least during this temp check stage. We agree with @NathanVDH re reporting as this would indeed be crucial in determining the success of this initiative.

107

Thank you so much @RikaGoldberg for putting together this amazing proposal

As a newbie in governance, I am interested in joining this initiative and seeing the outcome after two months

The question is, how do we register and also what is the selection process going to be like
I am also interested in helping out fine tuning the onboarding process and helping with marketing and socials

I also do think we can do so much more with the marketing and even making this into a full time educational hub
I am very willing to assist with this and look forward to working with you

Thank you

2 Likes
108

Looking forward to this!

This is the most comprehensive onboarding with a purpose I have seen in a DAO, that’s not based on an external provider or platform.

109

hey @RikaGoldberg how is this going? is this going to onchain vote soon?

1 Like
110

hey @paulofonseca yes, we’re working towards that.

4 Likes
111

LFG! I recently joined DIP, and this will be helpful. Looking forward to it

112

Update: The Onboarding Working Group is planning to publish the onchain proposal on Monday (10th) for voting to start on Thursday (13th). The post has been updated to reflect changes made since the Snapshot vote passed.

Thank you to everyone who provided feedback and support. We are eager to move this initiative forward!

4 Likes
113

We believe that an onboarding program for the DAO can help deepen engagement within governance. However, in the updated proposal, despite its revision, the size and financial cost are still expensive relative to what is being offered.

The revised budget is $171,481 to train 20 participants for 8 weeks, and then 10 participants are paired with protocols. That is $8,475 / student taking the course, and an acquisition cost of $17,148 for 10 fellows to assist protocols. We should be aiming for significantly lower cost to onboard new participants and build programs that can target a much larger cohort size.

In the proposal’s current state, we believe it is overly priced and it should be significantly revised. We recommend the DAO to reject the proposal if it is put up for a vote.

It would also be helpful for the proposal author to clarify who will be conducting the interviews and filtering through the applications, as well as more concrete criteria in evaluating the applications.

Additionally, the proposal could consider the following:

  • Refreshing the proposed curriculum as it has been some time since it was drafted & there might be new interesting content to include. Strategic, important initiatives like the OpCo, GCP, STEP, and the Treasury Management v1.2 proposal are examples that should definitely be included in the curriculum.

  • Extending this to being an open, virtual course for anyone to attend, and for the top submissions to be paired with protocols.

  • Beyond protocols, the proposal could be significantly stronger if it were to be expanded to include organizations that have meaningful partnerships and/or capital deployed in the Arbitrum ecosystem. This could include names like Pendle, Proof of Play, Azuki, and Xai, all of which don’t currently have a governance presence within the DAO. Their success could be intricately linked to the broader success of the Arbitrum ecosystem, which would warrant greater participation in the governance of Arbitrum.

  • Distinguish between assisting protocols with governance, and a pathway for independent contributors to get started.

2 Likes
116

Thank you, @Arbitrum for your thoughtful feedback.

Budget
Since the Snapshot, we have reduced the budget by approximately 10% ($20,000). Additionally, a key consideration is that the budget includes a $4,500 stipend per Fellow, which is exclusively for their work assisting protocols and will not be used for team member compensation. Additionally, we are planning for up to 10 Fellows, with the final number determined by performance. As discussed with delegates during the RFC and Snapshot phases, successfully onboarding 3-5 high-performing governance contributors would be considered a win. Any unused funds will be returned to the DAO.

It’s also important to highlight that the Onboarding Working Group has spent many months preparing and designing this initiative, including engaging with protocols, conducting user research, designing a rubric and exercises, creating a project plan, and setting up a MSS, ensuring we can execute swiftly upon a successful vote. All of this work has been done without any compensation to date. Furthermore, the compensation presented in the budget is aligned with market rates from Glassdoor.

Interviews and Filtering Applications
The Onboarding Working Group—comprising Sandra, Bhaumik, and myself—will be responsible for conducting interviews and filtering applications. As outlined in the Snapshot proposal, we will prioritize candidates who demonstrate:

  • Positive mindset and ability to collaborate effectively
  • Strong aptitude for constructive debate and engagement
  • Eagerness to learn and contribute
  • High-level of familiarity with Ethereum and L2s
  • Self-starter qualities
  • Independent thinking

To ensure fairness and minimize bias, we will use a structured evaluation rubric throughout the selection process.

Additional Considerations
We are fully aligned to support both existing and new priorities from the DAO. We will refresh the curriculum to incorporate OpCo, GCP, STEP, and Treasury Management v1.2. Additionally, we will maintain a dynamic approach, updating the curriculum as new strategic initiatives are passed.

We plan to record all sessions for public access and make the exercises publicly available to allow future participants interested in contributing to Arbitrum access to course material.

We also support the idea of engaging organizations with meaningful partnerships and/or capital deployed in the Arbitrum ecosystem e.g., Pendle, Proof of Play, Azuki, and Xai, as well as Franklin Templeton and Robinhood. We would be eager to explore potential collaborations and would appreciate any introductions to facilitate those conversations.

Lastly, we are open to differentiating between governance assistance for protocols and establishing a structured pathway for independent contributors. However, this approach will require a clear commitment from working groups, similar to the commitments already made by protocols and service providers.

Thank you again for your thoughtful feedback! We’re happy to answer any additional questions and make improvements as needed.

2 Likes
117

Foundation, thanks a lot for this feedback. We need you to be more active and we are all seeing some great first steps here.

Just one thing: expressing this valuation a couple of days before the onchain vote, after the proposals has been in the forum for months, means that either the proposal changes it totally compared to snapshot with a big delay or just goes his own route. Maybe, next time, a more timely update could be more helpful. Thanks!

3 Likes
118

I will be voting FOR on Tally. My reasoning being the following: I became active in the forum around the time this was first pitched and have joined the DIP since then. Creating proper resources for those who want to somehow contribute or work on the DAO or Arbitrum as a whole would help a ton of people through this process, as opposed to having to figure everything out themselves.

Building an evergreen curriculum and reusable materials can help anyone get started way quicker, even outside the bootcamp.

Seeing as initial budget concerns have been -at least- partially addressed, I can definitely back this initiative.

119

I am voting “For” on Tally. Based on my own experiences trying to fully grasp how to effectively and productively imbibe the absolute torrent of relevant information as a new participant, as well as finding the right channels through which to collaborate and participate, I fully support the goals set forth here. It can be a challenge to navigate.

It is unfortunate that the number of participants is limited to 20, but there seems to be a commitment to make a great deal of the materials produced available to the public beyond just those 20 selected individuals so that will probably be of great use to future comers, even after the conclusion of the program.

120

LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal

LobbyFi perceives this proposal as benefiting a wider range of parties, potentially empowering some of the community members who could become a great return on the cost spent. Hence, we will activate the auction for this proposal.

The voting power for this proposal will be priced based on the body of the total amount being requested: $171,481 * 1% ≈ 1 ETH (we would approximate the price since it is relatively low anyway).

121

The Tally vote is live: Tally | Arbitrum | [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp

122

I really wanted to vote FOR, but after much thought, I decided to vote AGAINST.

Despite the fact that the initiative itself is good and I would like such training to be held regularly, there are several negative aspects:

  1. The number of participants is very small. A considerable budget is spent, from which a maximum of 10 delegates will emerge.
  2. New delegates will have zero voting power, which will not provide any advantages for the development of Arbitrum, unfortunately. And as far as I can see, the course does not provide training on increasing their voting power.
  3. The scholarship is too high for beginners in this business. The student scholarship in my region is 3 times less with a completely different workload. It was possible to increase the number of scholarship holders several times and this would attract more people.
123

After much consideration, I have decided to maintain my tempcheck vote and vote against the proposal.

The main reason is the one I pointed out when I shared my initial feedback:

In this regard, my concerns expressed when voting against it in the temp check remain unchanged.

It is true that, compared to the temp check proposal, some progress was made by integrating some projects. However, it is unclear to me what level of integration and commitment these projects will actually have. The proposal mentions matching the top 10 students, yet there are only 7 projects. Additionally, there is no clear commitment from these projects to integrate them, nor is there a signal of demand for fellows working with them.

Moreover, the KPIs or criteria for evaluating the program’s success have not been adjusted. As I mentioned before, the DIP metrics do not seem particularly useful for assessing the medium-term impact or effectiveness of this program.

Finally, I agree with AF’s comment:

I believe the budget for the program is somewhat high. This could have been mitigated if it were integrated with protocols that are genuinely interested in incorporating the fellows. I wonder if this is due to a lack of demand for these profiles within Arbitrum’s protocols.

I also don’t fully understand the role of the Advisor.

Many thanks to Rika and the team for all the work on this proposal.

1 Like