gmgm! Given that the proposal indicates plans to upload it to Snapshot tomorrow, I wanted to share some extensive thoughts I had and ask a few questions or raise concerns that might already have answers.
Firstly, I think the idea of running a marketing campaign is very good and necessary. This will help create awareness and attract more users to the chain. There is no point in distributing incentives if no one knows they are being distributed. So I fully support the idea and appreciate the proposal.
However, before launching the marketing campaign hastily (I understand the reasons, as the incentive distribution timeline is tight), I need to understand if there is clarity in the objectives.
From what I read in the proposal, the research conducted was on Arbitrum DAO participants (Arbitrum Foundation, Offchain Labs (OCL), STIP participants, LTIPP applicants, delegates, and marketing leaders within the Arbitrum ecosystem).
Their input is indeed very valuable and necessary, but:
From what I understand from the identified core pain points, the marketing campaign is not directed to them. Nor is it directed to Arbitrum users, although it would be beneficial if it were.
Do we have data on why users from other chains are not coming to Arbitrum? Is it because they don’t know what’s going on? Is it because they’re not interested? Is it because they prefer another technology? Is it because they’re afraid? Is it because they don’t trust the bridges?
Knowing the reasons why users who aren’t coming to Arbitrum are not coming will make the campaign more successful by having clear objectives and more easily measurable results.
If it’s because they don’t know? The objective is for them to know, not necessarily for them to come (at a first iteration of the program). So it won’t be necessary to measure if DAU/MAU increased, but if awareness did.
If it’s because they’re not interested? We’ll know we need to do something different to attract them. (ie. focus marketing campaigns in gaming? memecoins? whatever)
If it’s because they prefer another technology? Maybe that user is not reachable.
If it’s because they’re afraid? Probably campaigns offering APRs and complex financial products are not the best way to attract them.
On the other hand, I have some questions about the roles and their responsibilities.
Advisory Council.
The proposal mentions the formation of an Advisory Council to:
My initial reaction to reading about this Council was that it is a bad idea because I saw a potential conflict of interest, as the Council members are part of protocols that will receive incentives. Can we ensure that they will pursue the best interests of the DAO? Or will they pursue the interests of their own protocols? Let me be clear that I am not accusing anyone of anything, and I highly value the contributions of each member to the DAO. I would say the same about anyone.
Secondly, there is no way to measure the performance of this Council. After all, the marketing actions will be carried out by the agency. I find it difficult to see how there could be any accountability to the DAO for the work being done.
Something I understood after talking with @JoJo is that the intention of this program is not exclusively to market LTIPP / B.STIPP but to promote Arbitrum in general, which wasn’t entirely clear to me when reading the proposal due to its focus and the timing coinciding with the distribution of incentives.
Therefore, I understand that having Advisors who understand Arbitrum culture makes sense. I would like to see a member from the foundation / OCL in one of these positions. Synergy with these teams is crucial.
Now, I would like two things regarding this role:
-
KPIs should be set to understand if their contribution is effective. There should be a way to measure their performance.
-
The PM should commit to making efforts to avoid situations where there may be a conflict of interest regarding the advice being given.
Additionally, I suggest extending the timeline (I will elaborate on this later).
Marketing Agency - Rouge House
I have nothing against Rouge House, but I can’t support them either if no information is provided. Not even a website or social media presence. It would be great to understand who they are and what their background is.
Do they have any experience with web 3 marketing campaigns? Can they demonstrate results from previous campaigns?
Program Manager - 404 DAO.
I believe this role is necessary and crucial.
Something I don’t understand is the commitment to preparing performance reports. Isn’t that part of the marketing agency responsibilities? From what I understand, agencies execute marketing actions and are responsible for providing reports with the results.
The multisig
I think it’s a good idea not to create another multisig, especially since the creation of a new one for all programs is being discussed. Also because I find unnecessary to create more costs given that you have others in place you could take advantage of. It would be ideal to use the LTIPP or BSTIP multisig instead.
Regarding the program in general
I think the initiative is very good and important, so I appreciate all the effort and work that 404 DAO has put into preparing it.
However, I have concerns about the timeline and objectives.
The proposed three-month timeline for the marketing campaign will coincide with the distribution of incentives from the LTIPP / B.STIP. This will obviously boost metrics such as social media interactions, user numbers, volume, TVL, etc.
How will it be possible to measure the results of the campaign if such a large incentive program is running simultaneously? How will the success of the campaign be distinguished from the success of the incentive program?
Regarding the objectives:
The objectives outlined are more about establishing communication channels where Arbitrum and other chain users can obtain information about what’s going on. They are not so much about measuring whether those channels were effective in addressing the three core pain points identified in the proposal.
This makes sense to me because it is very difficult to measure the success of a marketing campaign if we are starting from scratch and there is no concrete data for comparison.
Therefore, I believe this proposal should be designed for a longer term than just three months and should be planned as a series of campaigns. An initial three-month iteration could lay the foundations for the communication channels and metrics can be gathered to improve and iterate on future campaigns, especially to measure results when there are no incentives involved.
Hence, I think the timeline of the proposal should be extended to a minimum of six months and up to a year.
Last but not least, was there any study or analysis of the legal consequences of launching marketing or communication campaigns about financial products? There are laws regarding how this should be done to avoid violating US or other countries’ laws. By communicating in English, you will be targeting an audience from many countries that have advertising regulations.
Again, thank you, and I hope my feedback, though lengthy, is useful for the proposal 