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

[Griff]

@Euphoria

We agree with @0xDonPepe’s reflection that this is one of the first proposals to treat sell pressure and grant-farming not as inevitabilities, but as design challenges. That’s a key strength of q/acc, it doesn’t just fund projects, it attempts to create structured alignment between builders, token holders, and the ecosystem at large. The combination of bonding curves, fair-launch rounds, and locked token economies makes this a unique approach to ecosystem funding.

Thank you! I’ve been in the web3 grant game as long as anyone and have seen the horrors… we want to do something different.

@Euphoria

While it’s good to see the DAO included in the token distribution, we think the proposal would benefit from greater clarity around how the DAO’s token share will be managed. Will it be held passively in a multisig? Will it be delegated, staked, or used to participate in the governance of the supported protocols? A simple policy framework, even if non-binding, could help prevent downstream uncertainty and establish best practices for DAO involvement beyond being a passive recipient of tokens.

Behind the scenes, there is an Arbitrum Treasury Management proposal brewing, we hope to just send the tokens there and let that group make the calls.

My recommendation would be to mirror the team’s moves. If they sell, we sell, if they hold we hold. We have the same lock up schedule as they do, so it makes sense and I’m sure an automation could be easily vibecoded by the time the 1 year unlock begins.

@Euphoria

That said, market cap and supply metrics can be gameable in short windows, especially with hype-driven liquidity. We’d recommend that we also consider metrics around liquidity quality, such as slippage on mid-size trades, source of LP volume (organic vs incentives), or wash trading detection.

I 100% agree, while our goal is to automate the graduation process, for the first few cohorts, we will have to make the graduation have some subjectivity componant, because these onchain metrics are just so gameable.

@Euphoria

Additionally, introducing softer KPIs around ecosystem contribution, integrations, governance activity, and retention of first-time users could move graduation from just a financial milestone to a broader signal of long-term ecosystem fit.

I think these are nice to have’s but IMO most projects shouldn’t have to care about our high level goals.They should just focus on making their project a success. The incentive alignment is set such that their success is tied to our success because of the token design bakes it in.

They will care greatly about the ARB price as their token is effectively pegged to it. This bias can’t be stronger.

@Euphoria

If possible, along with the monthly reporting, we can add a public-facing dashboard with live metrics such as ARB demand ratio, liquidity distribution, user conversions, token velocity, etc. This would increase transparency, enable better cross-program coordination, and let everyone monitor progress in real time.

We appreciate the thoughtful structure this proposal brings and the experimentation it enables within Arbitrum’s grant landscape. q/acc stands out by proposing a mechanism-first model that directly addresses recurring inefficiencies in ecosystem funding.

We’re looking forward to seeing this cohort go live and looking at the results as outcomes unfold.

Yes absolutely. We have Dune dashboards for every team and a global dune dashboard for our current deployment viewable here: https://dune.com/discover/content/relevant?q=author:qaccteam&resource-type=dashboards

It covers some of those metrics, but I would LOVE to add the metrics that are missing… do you have any dune dashboards you especially love, that we can review to include even more better metrics?