[Non-Constitutional] Invest in Builders & Ignite ARB Demand with q/acc

Proposals
, ,
39

Thank you for putting this up, @Griff.

We’ve reviewed the proposal and appreciate the intention and vision behind it. The early outcomes from Season 1 at Polygon look promising, and the featured projects reflect thoughtful curation.

That said, as we consider bringing this initiative to Arbitrum, there are several key concerns we’d like to highlight, particularly around operational structure and the timeline.

Lack of a Dedicated Program Manager

We strongly agree with the ARDC’s recommendation for DAO grant programs to include a dedicated, DAO-appointed Program Manager. The q/acc team is designed as an accelerator, but this role is currently missing from the structure.

This gap becomes especially relevant given how Polygon-centric the current q/acc material is, particularly the Protocol Knowledge Hub, where Polygon and its builder ecosystem are mentioned severally. For a program stewarded by the Arbitrum DAO, we must ensure:

  • Continuous alignment with Arbitrum’s unique ecosystem and builder base.

  • Robust feedback loops between the DAO, the program team, and participating projects.

  • Transparent communication that extends beyond the SOS objectives.

Community participation via quadratic funding is valuable, but it’s not sufficient as a substitute for proper DAO oversight and stewardship.

Ambiguity Around Oversight

Involving the Foundation in a multisig is a good step, but if they would eventually serve as the dedicated Program Manager, this needs to be clearly stated and their scope of responsibilities must be fully fleshed out.

Without this, the current oversight structure appears too passive for a program of this magnitude, particularly given its ambitions and funding request.

Insufficient Time for Season 1 Impact Evaluation

The Detox proposal happened because the DAO spent a lot of money, saw little ROI, and thus needed some time to properly analyze all of these efforts to come up with a better structure for grants.

From the timing of the S1 impact report release, we can say the cohort likely wrapped up around late March or early April. Six weeks is not ample time for analysis of the results, especially after stating this as a KPI:

What happens after the one year?

There’s no clear plan for what happens after the one-year mark or how teams are expected to continue delivering after vesting ends.

Recommendation: Defer by Six Months

We recommend this proposal be pushed back by at least six months (September 2025), to:

  • Allow for proper analysis of the Season 1 cohort’s outcomes and sustainability.

  • Ensure alignment with the final outcomes of SOS.

  • Give room to design a more robust oversight structure with DAO-integrated governance roles.

This time buffer would enable more informed decision-making and better community alignment.

Thanks again for putting forward this proposal. We see the potential here, but believe a slightly more cautious and structured approach will yield significantly better results for the Arbitrum DAO.

4 Likes