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

Proposals
,
145

Voting AGAINST on Tally

I wanted to follow up on our Snapshot vote, where we voted against the Arbitrum Onboarding V2 proposal. While I appreciate the effort to lower the budget to $171K and get seven protocols on board, I’m still not convinced this is the best way to go for the DAO.

The new workshops, like Governance Reports and DAO Relationship Management, seem more practical, and having protocols like Gitcoin and Uniswap Foundation interested in working with fellows is a step in the right direction. But we’re still looking at a $17K-per-fellow cost to train just 10 people.

What I’d love to see instead is a more decentralized approach that puts protocols in the driver’s seat. Why not give protocols small grants—say, $5K each—to onboard their own community members as delegates? Take a protocol like Gains Network, who’s already on board with this proposal. They could tap into their community, find people who are already passionate about their project, and train them to represent their interests in the DAO or manage their ARB treasury. With a $50K budget, we could support 10 protocols, each bringing in 1-2 delegates, which could mean 10-20 new contributors at a much lower cost than the current setup. It feels like a more organic way to grow governance participation, and it would align delegates with the protocols they’re representing from the get-go.

On top of that, I still think we’re missing a big opportunity with the educational materials. The recorded workshops and video tutorials sound great, but why limit them to a 20-person program? If we poured those resources into revamping the Onboarding Hub—making it a one-stop shop for all delegates with up-to-date guides on everything from writing proposals to understanding Arbitrum’s tech—we’d be helping way more people. Newcomers, current delegates, even protocol teams could dip in whenever they need to, without the overhead of a formal bootcamp. Plus, it’d be easier to keep that hub fresh as the DAO evolves, which is harder to do with a cohort-based program.

146

gm, I voted AGAINST on Tally following an analogous vote on Snapshot.

I agree with the recommendation from the Arbitrum Foundations and other delegates: it doesn’t seem the onboarding analysts would have a clear role in the DAO, and we risk training analysis for the sake of it.

The cost per fellow is still exorbitant and doesn’t feel a positive ROI can be achieved.

147

We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.

We would like to continue to support this program and express gratitude to @RikaGoldberg and the contributors to this proposal, especially on the additional efforts in reaching out potential partners and continuous updates to address feedback from delegates. We would also like to point out a couple of perspectives in this proposal as a critical direction that the DAO needs to consider:

Reasonable cost, real value

We believe ~$171k in ARB is a solid deal for what the DAO gets. It covers a few months of training, mentorship, stipends, and content; basically everything needed to bring new contributors up to speed. If we end up with 10 strong contributors, that’s about $17k each. Not bad for people who’ll be around long-term, actually doing the work and helping ecosystem partners along the way. Plus, the workshop content doesn’t go to waste. It can be reused, refined, and scaled for future cohorts.

Build the talent pipeline

We’ve often seen this; some long-time contributors dismiss the need for new voices. But we believe the DAO can’t grow without a clear way to bring in and level up fresh talent. Without it, we stay in the same loop with the same people. This program helps fix that. It trains motivated newcomers, gives them the tools to contribute, and gets them involved fast. That’s how we build resilience and avoid turning into a closed-off bubble.

Strengthen the ecosystem

We’re not just training people for the sake of it. We’re plugging them into real Arbitrum-aligned projects. That creates tighter bonds across the ecosystem. Over time, those connections help projects collaborate more, align on priorities, and move faster together. It’s a win-win for everyone involved.

1 Like
148

Voting AGAINST this proposal for the reasons outlined here

149

I’m voting against this proposal. As I said for the Snapshot I would love to see this submitted through questbook,OpCo or some other program, a DAO vote is just overkill for this sort of thing.

I also think in general we would be better served by one person, maybe @RikaGoldberg, taking on a part time role to just help the delegates when they need it on demand… a bootcamp might be overkill.

150

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

First of all, we would like to thank @RikaGoldberg and the entire team involved in this initiative. The proposal has been live for months now and we recognize the time, effort, and coordination it has taken from the working group to shape it into its current form. We truly appreciate the commitment shown.

We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting.

That said, we agree with some points already raised by other delegates. While the proposal’s intention is great, we think there is still room for improvement, especially around the budget and structure.

For example, the revised budget is still quite high. We feel the team could explore alternative models - for instance, instead of the DAO paying the fellows directly, maybe interested protocols who want governance support could offer stipends themselves. This might better align incentives and also reduce direct costs for the DAO.

On concerns raised by others about whether fellows might leave for other ecosystems after the program, our view is that every investment carries some risk. Some fellows may stay, and some may leave but that’s true for any open ecosystem. The key is to design a strong selection process, which the proposal already includes, and trust it will bring in people with a long-term interest in Arbitrum.

There are also smaller orgs and contributors who want to participate in governance and be part of the DAO but lack the time, knowledge, or expertise. These fellows can help fill that gap. And if they perform well, they may even get retained by teams or protocols later on, which would be a great outcome.

Looking at the curriculum, it seems like an all-round introduction to Arbitrum governance. If the program continues, we’d love to see modules added on OCL, OpCo, MVP, and the upcoming SOS as these are important areas for governance contributors to understand to contribute in the future.

We know our single vote may not change the outcome of this proposal looking at the current status, but we’re voting in favor because we support efforts that bring new talent into the Arbitrum DAO which is needed currently to increase governance participation and build long-term contributor pipelines.

We didn’t get a chance to be involved earlier in this initiative, but if the team plans to iterate on this in the future, we would be happy to participate and contribute in any way we can.

4 Likes
151

voting FOR on the current onchain proposal because despite feeling the protocols should also pay for this program, not just the DAO, right now we don’t have any onboarding effort in Arbitrum DAO and we should. So, this feels worthy to try it out.

4 Likes
152

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

We’re voting AGAINST the proposal.

As we commented during the temp-check vote on this initiative, we are supportive of the overall idea of bringing new contributors into the DAO. However, given the DAO’s current state and the unresolved pressing priorities, this initiative feels premature.

Without a well-defined vision and specific ways to contribute, we risk setting newcomers up for failure. Before allocating resources to onboarding, addressing the organizational gaps in the DAO is crucial so that future contributors can immediately step in and add value in a more streamlined way.

We remain supportive of exploring this path again once a more cohesive structure is in place. Until then, we see a stronger case for focusing on immediate DAO needs before bringing in additional contributors.

1 Like
153

While the initiative aims to enhance governance participation, the proposed budget of $193,138 USD may be considered excessive for a seven-month program, especially given the DAO’s need to prioritize resource allocation for core protocol development or other pressing ecosystem needs. Additionally, the program’s impact relies heavily on the assumption of high engagement and retention of Governance Fellows, which is not guaranteed, potentially limiting its long-term value relative to the cost.
For the aforementioned reasons, we’ll vote against it.

154

I am voting FOR this proposal on Tally.

I believe this initiative offers a pathway for newcomers that want to get involved and contribute. I also think it is the right time for this, as growing our contributor base is essential for addressing our current challenges.

I like that the structure of the program matches top performers with protocols that need governance help. I believe this bootcamp will help its participants gain skills to distinguish valuable contributions.

2 Likes
155

I’m voting FOR from a frame of Capability Building.

DAOs don’t just need code and capital - we need context-aware contributors who know how to navigate decentralized coordination, stakeholder tension, and governance nuance.

This proposal doesn’t need to solve every aspect of the contributor funnel up front, the delivery team and participants have 7-months and can co-evolve alongside the activation timeline of OpCo and SOS.
What this Bootcamp does offer is structured R&D into how we identify, train, and activate governance talent, a vital capability as Arbitrum matures and we can begin accruing that capability today.

The opportunity cost of not doing this today is talent goes and builds their context, alignment, loyalty elsewhere, we lose 3-6 months in setup of other structures when we could be priming the bench today.

I think of this as investing in human infrastructure. We fund developer tooling to improve the protocol layer. This is the equivalent for the people layer - not just for this cohort, but for what we learn in the process.

L&D (learning & development) is a standard spend in most organisations, DAOs that are forward thinking and fund this will stand out.

  • Rika and the team is also considering persisting the learning in an LMS (learning management system) for future cohorts - therefore it’s reductive to look at ROI as total spend / number of people. We are paying to gather all the information into a knowledge base and a curriculum that has long lasting and reusable value.

I appreciate the team’s responsiveness to feedback, the shift toward practical training, and the ecosystem collaborations already underway that shore-up the demand-side utilisation of the talent developed.

The current DAO wait-and-see approach i.e. lets wait till the OpCo, SOS, OCL/AF gets more hands isn’t the only way to play, that’s playing a sequential game to capability building when a parallel in-sync cohort of collaborative organisations and individual contributors could net net produce more value faster for the Arbitrum Ecosystem.

I see this as a strategic experiment that positions the DAO as a learning organization [1] that co-evolves a set of talent together, and that can start today.

1 - Peter Senge - Learning Organizations

4 Likes
156

Voting “Against” On Tally. While during the Snapshot phase I felt this was an interesting proposal and wanted to see where it was headed, I don’t believe my concerns about ‘stickiness’ of the Governance Analysts has been addressed.

157

Voted For: I do share some concerns from fellow candidates that voted against this proposal, but I do still think that opportunity costs are much higher to not do it. I see this program as a way to bring 20 highly invested, talented people to Arbitrum DAO.

From that 20 people, we might see some take up even more active roles in our DAO, like working on individual proposals, helping define strategy, or even offering services. There will always be more important stuff to focus on in the DAO than to bring new people to governance, but we must find a way to get a new flow of people in the DAO. And this bootcamp seemed like a good way to do it. I support the idea.

158

We will be voting AGAINST this proposal.

First, we want to thank the proposers for putting this forward—it’s clear that a lot of thought and effort went into crafting the proposal. We appreciate the overall idea and direction, and we believe that with a different approach, this initiative could return in a stronger form.

Our main concerns revolve around the high budget relative to the tangible value currently outlined. While the proposal has potential to create impact, demonstrating that impact in a measurable way is complex. Additionally, we feel it could be more connected with other ongoing Arbitrum initiatives.

The number of participants is very limited, and they would start with low or zero delegations. While we acknowledge the issue of echo chambers and agree that onboarding new members is essential to refresh the DAO’s dynamics, we worry that these new participants might not gain enough visibility or influence to shift the status quo.

As L2Beat pointed out, we are not against the idea of onboarding new contributors. However, at this stage, we believe the initiative is somewhat premature. It also lacks clear, tangible impact in terms of engagement, active participation, and deeper connectivity with the broader Arbitrum ecosystem. We want to ensure that new contributors are not just added to the DAO, but that they actively help drive it forward.

159

As in @web3citizenxyz representation. Voting ABSTAIN. Below the rationale:

160

Even if the proposal seems it won’t pass, I’m voting FOR. It seems preposterous that a proposal passed through snapshot gets blocked even when executing the changes proposed and applying budget reductions needed.

Investing in high-quality governance elements is a must: If this proposal fails to pass, I invite @RikaGoldberg to keep it up and present a similar proposal without the involvement of third parties, with the budget required for a less onerous approach to teaching new delegates about the DAO.

Nonetheless, I support this kind of proposal even if the investment seems high, as resources are already being spent for less impactful purposes.

6 Likes
161

I voted AGAINST on Tally. Initially, I was in favor of the proposal on temp-check because I considered its cost to be reasonable at the time and believed the Bootcamp could bring new and skilled delegates to the ARB DAO’s complex environment. However, I ended up voting against after reviewing other delegates’ comments -especially this one from the ARB FND- , which detailed the high cost per participant for a small group and its poor ROI. I also share L2BEAT’s view that this feels premature given the DAO’s current state. Additionally, as I noted in my previous comment, I view the analyst compensation to be unnecessary, reinforcing my decision to vote against it.

162

DAOplomats voted ABSTAIN on this proposal on Tally.

While we initially supported the proposal during the temperature check, we opted to abstain in the onchain vote. Our primary concerns align with those raised by other delegates regarding the budget (despite its revisions); however, our main reason for abstaining stems from dissatisfaction with the overall structure of the program.

We believe that onboarding should take a research-driven approach rather than simply matching participants to protocols. In essence, we advocate for a model where participants come in, learn about the community, research on pain points (which can then translate to proposals), and then we have these contributions rewarded.

Additionally, while some delegates have expressed concerns that the DAO is not currently in the right position to support such an initiative, we take a different stance. Sometimes it’s good to get thrown into turmoil. Challenges and uncertainty can often serve as catalysts for growth, fostering a deeper understanding of the complexities inherent in any org/community.

In summary, we remain supportive of the initiative’s broader goals but believe a more strategic, research-oriented approach to onboarding would be more effective than direct protocol matching