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

Proposals
,
124

We recognize the extensive effort that the authors have put into this proposal and appreciate the reframing of its focus since passing on Snapshot into a program that attempts to meet the governance needs of certain protocols and service providers. However, there are a few aspects of this program, and supply-based onboarding programs in general, that have led us to vote AGAINST on Tally.

Through previous attempts at onboarding, both through GovHack and version 1 of the onboarding program, we have seen that providing individuals with basic governance knowledge is insufficient and generally falls short when it comes to positioning those individuals in a manner that provides value to the DAO. As was brought up on Tuesday’s proposal discussion call, if the DAO does not have clear responsibilities and a need for these analysts post-program, then we are simply paying individuals to learn about Arbitrum for the sake of learning about Arbitrum. While the authors have made revisions to the program in an attempt to address this concern by matching high-performing individuals with the listed service providers/protocols, we still have concerns that there is a lack of clarity surrounding the actual responsibilities and roles of these analysts.

Furthermore, the current structure has no mechanisms to ensure that these analysts stay fully aligned with Arbitrum, and there is a risk that the best talent is pulled into other DAOs in the industry. It appears to our team that the DAO would essentially be paying the onboarding costs and, as such, take on the initial risk for other organizations to eventually hire an analyst into their own ecosystem.

Lastly, and speaking generally, a problem that plagues both DAOs and organizations is that as the number of initiatives increases, eventually, an overwhelming amount of context and time is necessary to navigate the bureaucracy. It has now been evident for some time that Arbitrum DAO has fallen victim to this phenomenon, as reflected in the fact that many key stakeholders do not actively participate in governance due to the enormous barriers to entry and time-consuming administrative work. While this proposal seeks to remedy the symptoms of this issue, and this is in no way the fault of the authors, it fails to address the underlying core issue facing the Arbitrum DAO. In our opinion, the goal should be to reduce the burden of a delegate to the point where key stakeholders find it appealing to engage as opposed to continuing down this path of increasingly complex activities to the point that the DAO has to pay for specialized analysts on behalf of these parties.

1 Like
125

I have voted to ABSTAIN rationale provided under my delegate communication channel: DonOfDAOs Delegate Communication Thread - #3 by DonOfDAOs

1 Like
126

I voted in favor due to the quality and the long time frame of the program, along with the comprehensive approach covering a wide range of topics. This is why I reiterate my vote as I did on snapshot. I also appreciate the budget reduction and I insist on how this proposal can bring new users in the ecosystem and give them the possibility to fully integrate it.

1 Like
127

For me this was a though decision but I ended up voting against.

What spoke in favor

  • the DAO needs more skilled delegates
  • the Arbitrum DAO is complex in nature
  • in light of the amount requested, the proposal is very thorough
  • the team set-up would invite some diversity into the DAO (and you can say all you want pro/con, end of the story is that 49.7% of the world’s population is female, and if we want to move the financial system on-chain we need to be creating products not only attracting male degens - I am exaggerating on purpose - but also other demographics; and hence we need these demographics to be represented otherwise we will never create products that are being liked and used)

What spoke against

  • poor ROI; ~200k USD for 10 delegates is simply too high; at current ARB prices this could fund 11 DIPs
  • the reality of DAOs and Web3 in a broader sense is that to succeed you need to be able to (at least at some level) self-teach yourself some concepts. Even by attending a governance bootcamp, applicants might face hurdles when certain topics are up for voting - if they have not been able to teach themselves concepts before, they wont be able to educate themselves on new topics/hence bringing low value

What could be explored in the future

  • taking the funding DIPs idea, there could some sort of competition to win 5 DIPs for new delegates. E.g., need to join the DAO and show that they can provide value over 4 months. Top 5 get voted on, receive 50k ARB and can apply for DIP
  • broadening the funnel: I am a big fan of SheFi (COI: I was part of cohort 11 and think Maggie is very inspiring) and believe something similar could be helpful to generally onboard non-crypto natives into Web3 (no matter their sex). E.g., something like a Arbitrum University (going through the same lectures as SheFi) that introduces people into crypto generally (and by onboarding them to Arbitrum/providing them value expecting them to stick to the ecosystem → lower hanging fruit vs chasing yield seekers). A nice side effect is that a curriculum (such as Arbitrum University) can be marketed on Meta/TikTok etc (while crypto is mostly banned).
    From such a funnel, where we educate ppl about crypto, also potential contributors could come from/but even if there are just a few/none, at least we “Arbitrum pilled” them.

As I have also commented to other marketing intiatives/incentives etc.: I am missing the whole picture which could be the following:

  • through incentives (which are xyz) we target yield seekers
  • through Arbitrum University we target non native crypto users
  • through DIP scholarship we compete for the most promising DAO contributors
  • etc
3 Likes
128

I do not see this as a concern in its own right, as we cannot hope to fully “lay claim” to individuals time and attention going forward. If the program produces talented participants, I think a broadening of their horizons to include some engagement in other DAOs would be a natural next step, and in fact a good way to achieve a positive networking effect for their influence, and for Arbitrum’s.

Would you perhaps agree that this concern could be largely addressed or at least ameliorated by increasing the number of candidates being trained in one go, and reducing the cost per candidate? I think that would be the natural progression of consecutive iterations of a program like this, and it could make the loss of individual trainees/graduates less painful.

1 Like
129

I voted in favor during the Snapshot vote, but I’ll vote against onchain. Well I still think this proposal could help improve DAO participation in the long run.

That said, over the past three months, we’ve already seen a increase in both the quality and number of delegates. The DIP program is running well, with stricter rules but still encouraging new and existing delegates to engage.

And even with the reduced budget, the breakdown still doesn’t feel right to me tbh. 73.5% of the funds go to salaries, with some positions getting above market rates. Advisor making total $20K for just 5 hours a week is hard to justify.

1 Like
130

If other DAOs are more appealing for analysts that have specifically been trained on Arbitrum DAO, this signals a problem with the DAO, not with the program.

2 Likes
131

We echo other sentiment here in saying that the principle is one we support as governance onboarding is useful and it can be hard to develop the skills and connections required to succeed in this.

However, we believe the budget is too high for the benefit delivered to the DAO. In light of this we will be voting AGAINST this proposal. We encourage the authors to continue to explore ways of increasing high quality governance participation and would support future proposals in this area if the cost is in line with the benefit delivered to the DAO.

132

In my view, proposals like this are excellent pathways toward establishing very important programs that improve with each iteration over time. Although many may currently struggle to see the immediate benefits, I believe this reflects a shortsighted view regarding the long-term governance needs of our community.

I will maintain my “For” vote and would also emphasize that the proposed cost is relatively modest, especially when considering that we already allocate more substantial amounts on a monthly basis for delegate compensation. Investing now positions us strategically for stronger, more effective governance structures in the future.

2 Likes
134

We continue to vote in favor, using the same rationale as on Snapshot.

1 Like
135

As a graduate of the Onboarding Pilot program (V1) on the Social Media Fellowship team, I wanted to provide my own personal experiences from V1, and how I believe that V2 will enhance the experience of applicants to become valued contributors to the DAO, regardless if they are selected to become Fellows or not.

In V1, as a participant it felt (other than our own group who had an awesome Gandalf; @zer8) that we were very much on our own - we didn’t have a lot of interaction as individuals with the onboarding team. We had to figure it out, what were the goals and how to accomplish them. Sink or swim, basically.

As already stated in comments by delegates above, you recognize that it’s very difficult to navigate and actively engage with the DAO to become a valued contributor. Impossible, from a newer person’s experience without understanding how to navigate through-out the DAO, getting real hands-on experience and interacting with delegates to build relationships.

In this proposal, the team has really focused on a curriculum that has real meat to it, and with clear KPI’s and goals for the participants to strive for. The high valued personalized of the pre and post interviews, very defined goals of the participating delegates and service providers needs from the participants, I feel will not only create a positive experience with the DAO for these applicants, but also provide them with a roadmap to become long-term contributors.

3 Likes
136

The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, and consensus of various committee members.

As referenced in our previous comments, we have voted AGAINST this proposal.

137

Still voting “FOR” in Tally. There is a line-up of protocols willing to engange with this program and having them active in the governance process is a win for the DAO.

1 Like
138

We believe the Governance Bootcamp is an effective initiative to onboard people into Arbitrum DAO, which will then grow into direct DAO contributors, delegates or governance analysts for organisations involved in the Arbitrum ecosystem. For this reason, we voted IN FAVOUR.

The DAO has struggled to foster genuine engagement. Discussions around the DIP have revealed several inefficiencies, such as delegates repeatedly making the same points, proposals stalling for months before moving forward, and well-funded initiatives ultimately failing to deliver value. We need initiatives that attract and develop top talent for the Arbitrum DAO—people who actively contribute to the ecosystem. The Governance Bootcamp is one such initiative.

Cross-posted our reasoning for further visibility.

3 Likes
139

I did vote in favor in snapshot and i am confirming my vote here, but for reasons that are slightly different that I want to explore.

The premise: ongoing changes in Arbitrum sentiment

The landscape of Arbitrum DAO has changed a lot in the last quarter, both due to the new political landscape, the market dynamics and an higher involvement of AF/OCL. This is leading us, chaotically sometimes, toward new sentiment tied to exclusivity of contributors, quality of works, cutting spending that is not deemed necessary. Nothing wrong with any of this.

But, has also created a concerning byproduct in my view: is becoming complex to work and contribute in the DAO.

The problem: keep valuable entities/people engaged in the ecosystem

We can talk a lot about what contributing to this DAO means, we have a degree of flavours that go from being a small delegate in DIP (deemed, by several, as something net negative, bringing noise at a high monetary cost and also indirect reputational damage outside of our sphere) to being a service provider for ARDC, with all that happens in between. The common denominator is: is becoming harder and harder to be part of programs, regardless if you are “aligned”, want to do a good job, want to bring value to both your team and the ecosystem. We have seen this first hand:

  • some established service providers, that did a great job in the dao (previous ardc, adpc, grant programs) have turned down a lot their contributions in our dao
  • single meaningful member and contributors can’t find a way to properly be here (one can “use” dip, and the importance of arbitrum, up to some degree to justify the amount of time spent here)
  • even introducing new people is extremely hard because there is an amount of time spent to pass proposals, with no certainty of the outcome, that drives these new forces away despite a handshake agreement (saw this first hand in the D.A.O. program).

This is, useless to say, my personal opinion. But also the opinion of someone that engaged, directly or indirectly, with most delegates and participated to several programs. You really need a thick skin to work in Arbitrum.

Governance bootcamp as experiment not for junior hiring, but for methodology of junior hiring

So, why all of this introduction? Because while

  • is true what @krst said (i don’t remember when): we are potentially training people for jobs that we don’t know what they will be
  • is true what others said: we don’t have any guarantee that these people will be retained by the DAO, and they might just move in other ecosystem
  • is true also what @Arbitrum said: costs are high, is not necessary

I think we have to be more proactive and less miopic and think a few quarters ahead.

This, to me, is an experiment to understand if in-house training can partially be a solution to find new workforces. And honestly it could be: when you hire junior people in a company, you hire them based on previous experience and competence, but also you train them to the culture, framework and modus operandi of your company, and you train them to know the intricacy of the people working in there, the overall goals etc.

I think this is a very expensive experiment. But knowing the outcome of this 200k initiative, knowing what things will and won’t work from it, can probably be more valuable than the base cost if the collective goal is to think about our DAO more as a company moving forward. It can help us find our “corporate” identity, and specifically help us try to understand if in this way we can facilitate to have valuable new people in Arbitrum.

6 Likes
140

I’m voting in favor of this proposal on Tally. It’s true that the cost is in the high end, but as a new member of the community, I’d love to have someone who can share the history of Arbitrum—why we are here and where we came from—so I can have better context when making decisions. I not new to DAOs and am comfortable reading and figuring things out on my own, but I also value the comfort of having a place where I can ask “dumb” questions and have someone take the time to answer. Getting people fully onboarded will be beneficial.

3 Likes
141

Voted FOR on Tally, my position remains the same: [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp - #88 by danielM

142

On behalf of Gains Network (gTrade) – Voting FOR on Tally

We appreciate the effort put into this proposal and wanted to provide context on why we have voted FOR on Tally.

As Arbitrum continues to grow, so does the governance activity within the DAO. Keeping up with discussions, proposals, and developments can be challenging for teams. That’s why we see real value in being matched with a Fellow who can help us stay informed and engaged. If this program successfully connects Fellows to core protocols in Arbitrum that hold $ARB (or could become delegates) but are not yet frequent participants, it could serve as a meaningful step toward broader governance involvement.

While we acknowledge concerns around the budget, even after reductions, we believe that (governance) education is a worthwhile investment for the DAO. The second-order effects of this program — such as improving participation from protocols — make it a compelling initiative.

That said, we do believe that targeting only 10 graduates is too low and would like to see this number increased in future iterations of the program. Expanding the reach of this initiative would enhance its overall impact.

We look forward to seeing how this program evolves and contributes to stronger governance participation across the Arbitrum ecosystem.

1 Like
143

I maintain my position and have decided to vote in favor of Tally for what I mentioned above:

144

Our opinion has not changed and we have decided to vote against on tally.