[Non-Constitutional] Pilot Phase: Arbitrum Venture Initiative

I agree with initiating the pilot phase so we can evaluate the extent to which this project can progress and be beneficial for Arbitrum in the long term. By starting with a pilot, we can identify potential challenges and opportunities, allowing us to make informed decisions about the future direction of the initiative.

1 Like

really appreciate the clarification here

1 Like

@jengajojo, I think these are great question on the Infinite Launchpad thread.
I’m up to speed on some of the discussion there and am sure @aminiman will give great responses.

Still thought to connect the dots with what we’ve been discussing in the AVI topic.
Part of the the point of the market consultation in this pilot proposal is to be able to provide all the program managers with the same well researched and up to date information of what already exists as opportunities in the Aribitrum ecosystem and come up with guidance on what would be important strategically for the DAO.

Additionally there is already a discussion around aligning all impact metrics so the various programs can have benchmarkable with each other results. We’ve also been including in that thinking the accelerators that will come from the ThankArb RFP programs as well.

These are also great points which AVI is meant to be able to offer support over in the future. And in the mean time I know that the Betting on Builders group have put in quite a bit of thought into that.

@cp0x thank you for engaging with this topic across the board for several months now!
Both considerations you’re raising are embedded in the plan here.

I wish I did a better job at visualising a lot of this originally. Thank you for engaging and actually I’ve been trying reach you guys. Part of the AVI scope is related to enabling specific to Arbitrum talent and project pipelines via supporting university incubators. We’ve already looked into some institutional partnerships with tier one schools in the UK and it’s something we want to work on during GovHack. Would you be up for a call with me on that topic (DMd here)?


gm, I voted For [No IRL Event].

I also share the concerns of other delegates that there is a lot of overlapping with other initiatives, however I am in favor of doing additional research in this pilot phase, and as the other programs materialize and get structured, understand which ones make more sense for our goals.

I don’t think an additional physical event would make sense considering ETHCC is coming - so excluding this option for my vote.

1 Like

@maxlomu, thank you for the consideration and comment here. We appreciate the support!


We have scheduled office hours in the governance calendar for Monday at 2pm UTC to address the following concerns, among others, for anyone who might want to attend on short notice. I will also be available for short 1:1 calls before the vote ends and in the next few days.

  1. Approving this pilot now might create duplication of effort with the recently approved GCP and M&A pilot proposals.
  2. Approving this pilot may lead to more rapid capital deployment, which should wait until there’s a clear budget.
  3. This initiative appears to be one of several alternatives that need to be chosen among (including Betting on Builders and Startup Collective).

We’ve been collaborating with all the other groups for which AVI is meant as a framework solution. Regarding M&A, we had a call with @Bernard to discuss the potential overlap during the pilot phases. So far, it seems there isn’t much overlap, and from an AVI perspective, we can build on the deliverables around key Arbitrum focus areas. We plan to collaborate in Brussels before the market consultation is meant to starts and aim to ensure efficient and collaborative coordination.

This proposal leverages extensive community feedback and expert input to create a robust strategy for the Arbitrum Venture Initiative (AVI). It addresses key pain points in venture development, providing a pilot phase to refine investment strategies, engage stakeholders, and ensure thorough analysis. The proposed pilot ensures a well-informed, efficient launch, maximizing strategic value and long-term impact for the Arbitrum ecosystem.

1 Like

Thank you for coming up with the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative proposal. We appreciate the effort and vision behind this proposal. However, we are considering voting against it at this time because it seems to be overlapping with some ongoing initiatives such as the M&A pilot group and the upcoming GCP. Additionally, there are already IRL events like GovHack at ETH CC (Brussels) that ArbitrumDAO is funding. Given these existing commitments, we believe further discussion is needed to avoid redundancy and ensure efficient use of resources. We suggest waiting to see the results and challenges from these initiatives to improve and develop a better methodology for this initiative.

1 Like

Thanks for the proposal and prompt reply to all of us here.

In my opinion, it would significantly enhance the proposal if it were reshaped or rewritten to address the raised issues. This feedback should be clearly stated in the text, making it evident how it differs from other proposals.

I voted against it.

While I understand that this work has been ongoing for several months and that we must explore the possibilities mentioned here, as delegates, we need to view the whole set of proposals that are in place right now (accepted and on vote) and ensure that they make sense in this broader context.

1 Like

Hi all,

By way of a disclaimer prior to entering into the merits of the proposal (in short), I am a proposed member of this pilot program.

A lot of delegates/contributors are inquiring as to whether this might be overlapping with other initiatives within the DAO or rather, that such an initiative is actually overlapping with other initiatives such as the Gaming Catalyst Program.

The answer here is a simple [no] for the reason I shall delve into below.

At the current moment in time, we are seeing an upramp in venture-oriented initiatives that involve deploying capital (GCP, Elixir Capital’s Proposal, M&A etc.). These proposals, albeit being substantively of good quality and (potentially) providing a good ROI for the ArbitrumDAO are piece-meal in nature.

The AVI would have ideally come before these initiatves were put into play, however, this was not possible due to certain time constraints and also with the GCP being deemed higher priority by various delegates.

The AVI’s value-add lies in its proposition of providing the DAO with a tangible, data-driven and market-based prospective investment thesis that could then be utilised to prop proposals on therefrom. As of now, proposals are drafted in a piece-meal fashion (as stated above) without aligning to any form of thesis, strategy or venture-oriented due diligence approach re. the aforementioned thesis and strategy.

There is quite a bit of appetite to embark on a venture-arm for the Arbitrum DAO as can be seen by the GCP and other initiatives. However, if we are to do so, we need to have a market-standard approach to these initiatives so as to be able to compete with other Venture Capital firms - developing a thesis in line with the AVI proposal is a pivotal part of this process. The thesis is beneficial so as to ensure that venture decisions/proposals are sensical in nature and are not made at a point in time (either re. the market dynamics or re. the particular vertical’s growth pattern) where it wouldn’t provide the desired value-add.

Thanks for reading my boring brief!


I am supportive of this venture. Personally I don’t see overlappoing as a bad thing, I would much rather see us experiment in a few ways to invest in the projects in our ecosystems than get stuck in one way of doing things… Competition is good, and so is moving towards investments with return rather than just grants and incentive programs.

Oh and I don’t see the big win in the IRL event, it just seems extra and not worth it, maybe if it was at ETHCC it would make more sense, but I also think remote coordinating will work just fine.

So I voted For [No IRL Event]


Blockworks Research will be voting FOR [No IRL Event] this proposal on Snapshot.

Firstly, thank you @lino et al for authoring this proposal and the related work performed.

As it has become clear that the DAO wants to venture further into becoming a capital allocator, we see any initiatives striving to develop operational structures and overarching investment theses further as highly beneficial. However, based on the key deliverables, it seems to us as though the planned output here is mostly concentrated on analyzing market opportunities in isolation. We think it would be highly beneficial for the community to already at this stage see further research into how the AVI would play into Arbitrum’s other current investment-related projects, what the possible overarching structure would look like, if any of the structures need to/can be consolidated, how the DAO should approach LPing into funds with different mandates focusing on various parts of the investment lifecycle, and if any of the discovered market opportunities warrant changes to the current initiatives.

We also decided to vote against holding an IRL event as we think similar results can be achieved through the already confirmed and possibly upcoming Arbitrum-related events.

1 Like

I’m voting FOR the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative (AVI) proposal, but without the IRL event.

Focusing our resources on the core activities rather than costly IRL events ensures better allocation and impact. By avoiding the operational complexities of organizing IRL events, we can keep our focus on delivering tangible benefits and ROI to the DAO. The primary goal of this initiative is to support projects building on Arbitrum, and a streamlined approach will help achieve this more effectively.

1 Like

@Griff, thank you for the support! We have carefully considered this work to ensure it does not overlap with any approved initiatives.

More importantly, we share the view that, especially with smaller bets, it’s crucial to allow autonomous groups to experiment in different ways, compete, and enable us to double down and generalize on whatever shows results. These results should be measured in a mature and fit-for-purpose manner, which is part of the scope we are proposing as part of AVI.

@BlockworksResearch, thank you for supporting the initiate and engaging in the preliminary discussion!

Figuring out how we can fund the best of all the proposed initiatives and integrate them with an informed underlying strategy and oversight, as well as including other players from the market, which might not have organically come about, is exactly what we are planning to do.

We appreciate that in the communications thus far, especially for those who didn’t participate in the working group sessions, could have been a lot better. We are working on it and will post updates in the coming days.

Michigan Blockchain is voting FOR [No IRL Event]. We see the fundamental difference from other comparable programs (GCP, M&A) and think that the AVI contributes to the long term growth of the Arbitrum DAO. There is a new set of incentives that are vastly different from those of the GCP where now we’re looking to preserve the DAO treasury through larger deployments of capital in investments.

1 Like

The AVI pilot proposal outlines a thoughtful approach to developing an investment strategy for the DAO. We strongly support this iterative process to manage risk while still driving progress.

However, we believe the IRL workshop component, while potentially valuable, is not essential at this stage and adds significant expense. We also feel tighter coordination with other DAO investment-related initiatives is necessary to ensure no overlaps.

Therefore, on behalf of the ARB token holders who delegated their voting power to us, we vote FOR [No IRL Event].

1 Like

We vote FOR [NO IRL Event].

We appreciate the AVI team’s effort and approach to address feedback from the delegates. While we still believe potential overlap would be found through the course and as DAO, we need to evaluate if this initiative should be prioritized and funded in a big scale after the pilot phase, the budget ask is reasonable enough for a capable and passionate team to start the pilot phase to explore the opportunities.

1 Like

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

We’re voting FOR the proposal, but deciding to opt out of the IRL event.

While the bigger picture of establishing a venture arm for the DAO seems ambitious and challenging, the proposed pilot could provide the necessary foundation to make an informed decision, if not to use it as a stepping stone to further develop the initiative.

We are a bit skeptical of the IRL ‘thesis development’ event and its actual impact on thesis development in the scope of the pilot. However, we want to understand how the rest of the deliverables outlined in the proposal will help inform an actionable investment strategy that can be funded by the DAO’s treasury.

With that said, we’re keen to support the pilot proposal as an experiment that can perhaps lead to a bigger, more structured initiative over a longer time horizon that can potentially greatly benefit the DAO.


I have voted “For [No IRL Event]” on this proposal. As a general concept, I think this is a pretty low cost, low risk proposal that aims to enhance the DAO and how it functions. The team seems to be built with people of quality backgrounds relevant to the task, and the proposal has already taken into consideration a lot of delegate feedback which makes me feel confident they will use this pilot opportunity well.

Overlap concerns seem to be the largest thing brought up by other delegates. I can see why, as we have funded a lot of similar projects, however I don’t think in this case it’s that big of a deal. For starters, given this is a pilot program the ask is small and as such the risk is small. I also think Lino has put in a lot of discussions & explanation on this issue that makes sense and ease some of the concerns. But perhaps most importantly, the overlap is on something that isn’t even really ‘solved’ (i.e., I think if this was a study into say a Multi Sig Service it would make less sense since that’s already being worked out). So I don’t think it hurts to continue to explore these types of ventures.

As for the IRL event, I see the value in it in general but do not think it makes sense to do it at this stage of the project. However, would support funding IRL events as the AVI moves forward if the findings are that they are useful. A suggestion would be to see if there are ways to integrate into already existing crypto events to possibly save costs, versus the overhead of hosting your own projects.

1 Like

The below response portrays the views of the @AranaDigital governance team, represented by @farfel.eth.

We will be voting FOR [No IRL Event] this proposal on Snapshot. We appreciate @lino and the other contributors for delivering this proposal and for the constant communication with the community throughout this process. Through many grants and incentive programs, the DAO has continued to explore and experiment with various mechanisms of capital allocation. We support the continued development of new frameworks that innovate on Arbitrum’s investment initiatives, and we are keen to work with the AVI during this pilot program to analyze the opportunity and engage the community to advance the Arbitrum ecosystem. We initially had concerns regarding the timing of such a program, similar to points raised by @swmartin and @PGov, but we found the responses and overall initiative to warrant the support of this pilot program. We also agree with @Griff and @BlockworksResearch that the IRL even seemed to be unnecessary with the prominence of numerous other IRL events that the ArbitrumDAO is funding. We look forward to continued discussions on this program and the DAO framework for such an initiative.