The AVI team extends our sincere gratitude for all the great engagement, feedback, and suggestions!
This proposal has passed on Snapshot with a quorum of approximately 153 million votes, of which 92.21% were in support.
We are currently reviewing all the input, conducting individual follow-ups to better understand some of the suggestions, and refining our approach accordingly.
Please stay tuned for updates next week as we progress towards a Tally vote. In the meantime, we remain available and welcome anyone to reach out for any relevant discussions.
After consideration Treasureās Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal
TreasureDAOās ARC will vote in favor (FOR) of this proposal in the Snapshot phase, choosing the ā[No IRL Event]ā option.
The reasoning of there being overlap between M&A and the AVI is definitely true, but there is also a difference in that the M&A mainly seems to focus on strengthening the Arbitrum tech stack through M&A while AVIs main focus is having a native investment arm to more generally grow the Arbitrum economy through the addition of new protocols and ventures. For this reason, having both the M&A and the AVI could make sense. This also means that, we donāt necessarily agree with some of the statements made envisioning the AVI to be the overarching investment arm within ArbitrumDAO. Given the need for more comprehensive spending of ecosystem funds besides simple incentives and grants we are supportive of these types of initiatives and think that a research phase is a good way to give the DAO an early governance temperature check, before fleshing the program out further. With that, there was also some discussion on how best to move forward with research and programs like this, given the unsolicited nature of this proposal.
A concern in regards to the initial proposal is the lack of operational structure envisioned for the AVI. We understand the need to dynamically adjust and incorporate operational structures from other similar programs, but do think having a bit more structure as to what the AVI would preferably look like based on the knowledge and expertise there is now would be a good idea.
Another concern is the focus for key themes preferably being ādata-drivenā, without a clear indication what data it is driven by. Of course figuring out what data should be used to identify these key themes is also the main goal of the pilot, but the initial thesis development mentioning āIdentification of key sectors (e.g. within DeFi, Social, Consumer, DeSci, DePIN, etc) and their relevance to Arbitrumā, among the rationale also noting certain sectors of perceived strength, hints towards some sectors already being given an inclination before going into the research phase (which also inherently complicates the next phase because that āonlyā consults around 30 founders and 15 funds). It would be good to know where this inclination stems from, i.e. if there already is some data/research to support the inclination towards these sectors.
The proposal is not entirely clear on the time required of team members, and the composition of the events budget. Given the size of the budget, we would advise on a more comprehensive budget breakdown (including time and resource allocation) before proceeding to Tally.
I voted Against this proposal at the temp check stage because I think the scope of the research project is too vague and broad. It doesnāt seem like the team made significant progress on defining the Arbitrum Ventures opportunity in the months leading up to this pilot initiative proposal. I donāt want to set a precedent that anyone can come to the DAO for 100k in funding to research an opportunity. I would like to see a proposal that has more specificity at this stage.
Mux Protocol Voted for the version without an IRL event.
Thanks for the team that put efforts in the proposal.
We can see the differentiation with other on-going programs like M&A and GCP. DAO does need an investment arm to boost the the Arbitrum economy. However, we suggest that before moving to the Tally, the team could elaborate more on 1. budget break down 2. more detailed deliverables that can define the next phase of the AVI.
First of all, we absolutely support this program. We are sure it will be productive to create a market consultancy department for Arbitrum and to prepare an investment thesis for this purpose. Regarding the issue of whether an IRL event should be organized or not, we support such activities and find them fruitful. We believe the budget is appropriate for this kind of activity. Therefore, our vote is in favor of full scope support.
I voted for this proposal as Iām really excited about the idea of the DAO being able to use this as a new tool, especially for bigger projects and investment. I share the concern of other delegates around what the role of this pilot phase is, but as it isnāt too expensive to the DAO Iām happy to support it. Iād advise to get this running ASAP though as deals like the Kwenta incentive one could have certainly been part of this program. Attracting these bigger projects through incentive schemes that are more beneficial to the DAO makes a lot of sense right now!
I voted for this proposal (without the event) and am excited to see what it will bring to the DAO. We are very long on spending possibilities and short on general frameworks to guide decisions about that spending. This proposal has the potential to start to address this gap and also requires a limited commitment from the DAO for this pilot stage.
I take othersā points about overlap with other programs, but I see AVI as complementary to the M&A initiative given that one focuses on non-controlling investments and the other on M&A. Itās also encouraging that the two proposing teams have been in contact and I hope that leads to a more integrated approach.
We voted in favour of the Pilot Phase. However, we want to signal concerns about the initial large amount required for the Arbitrum Ventures Initiative. This is a slippery slope; while we are supporting the limited-scope of the AVI Pilot Phase, we will be mindful of supporting further proposals.
Our team is generally in favor of the recent expansions that the DAO has made into more traditional styles of investment and ecosystem development. While most DAOās are still relegated to grant programs, profit-driven initiatives like this are a good exploitative path for the DAO to take. We do, however, voice a degree of caution to the DAO with approving too many programs too quickly without enough inspection of the efficacy of these initiatives. Yes, it takes time for multi-month programs to materialize, but itās important to deliberately approach utilization of the treasury. The recent investment into gaming is the most salient case of this.
The Areta team has already been pushing forward with their research on the M&A front as well, which as many have mentioned, could involve some overlap in responsibilities. Since this proposal seems to be passing the Snapshot, weād like to highlight that Areta has also done a great job of aggregating community feedback over the past couple of months, all done prior to their official proposal asking for funding from the DAO. This care for the opinions and perspectives of the DAO is vital for pushing forward a novel initiative such as this oneāwe would like the AVI to adopt a similar communication standard.
The reason why we are abstaining on this proposal is largely because our team wants to see what the M&A groupās research yields over the next couple of weeks/months. Since there is a degree of overlap in terms of scope, a finalized deliverable from the M&A teamās research will help us understand how the AVI should function. This seems like a more complementary approach between the various initiatives.
I am FOR this proposal. I appreciate the amount of time and effort put into getting to this point and feel that the budget and goals are reasonable and aligned.
We are pleased with the rationale behind this proposal and excited to see the results of this pilot phase as it would bring clarity to some initiatives already in motion and future venture initiatives.
However, we were against the IRL event as we were not confident in the exact value it would yield. If it were integrated with the ETH CC, it would have been an easy yes for us.
I voted āFORā. This proposal is a well-structured approach to developing a comprehensive investment strategy for the Arbitrum ecosystem. The two-month pilot sprint is designed to gather critical insights and data through market consultations, workshops, and an IRL event, culminating in the creation of an Arbitrum Ecosystem Investment Thesis. This thesis will identify key sectors for investment, analyze market trends, and provide strategic recommendations, ensuring informed and effective fund deployment. The experienced AVI team and their detailed operational plan demonstrate a clear roadmap for success, emphasizing stakeholder engagement and iterative learning. This pilot phase is essential for minimizing risks, refining strategies, and fostering robust community involvement, setting a solid foundation for future phases of the AVI.
As DSPYT, weāre voting FOR on this proposal. The AVIās initiative to establish an Ecosystem Fund within the Arbitrum DAO is a crucial step towards enhancing sustainability and fostering innovation in the ecosystem.
The structured approach outlined, including market consultations and the development of an Investment Thesis, promises to provide actionable insights and strategic recommendations vital for effective fund deployment.
We appreciate AVIās emphasis on transparency and community engagement. The proposed governance framework, with elected roles and community sessions, aligns well with our values of inclusivity and accountability in decentralized ecosystems.
Dspyt team believes this pilot phase is pivotal in laying a robust foundation for future growth and development. It sets a precedent for DAO-led investment strategies in Web3 that align with our mission of fostering informed and collaborative governance practices within blockchain communities.
Hi everyone! Thank you for all the engagement and really sorry I couldnāt meet many of you in person in Brussels.
Ended up spending almost 3 weeks in a hospital and still being treated at home after a nasty food poisoning. Should be back in form next week and looking forward to kick-off the AVI pilot with the team if we remain receiving your gracious support.
We actually started doing doing some work on the project in the interest of time, based on the validation from the community so far.
Please attend the first of a series of open events engaging the community on key topics relevant for the work ahead. Namely the session on evergreen funds led by Paul from our team:
The Tally vote is live now, please vote early to support us staying on top of timelines: here
The complexity of executing this project is high, but the teamās determination in explaining it to delegates during Brussels, along with their openness to validating, understanding, and reviewing how to make this a viable way to deliver results and ROI for the DAO while supporting the broader ecosystem, makes it 100% valid as a pilot program. Additionally, the teamās maturity and experience were key factors that influenced my decision.
Weāre voting FOR this proposal. We backed it at snapshot and still do. The team listened and cut the IRL workshop - smart move. This pilot is a solid first step for Arbitrumās ecosystem investments. Itās timely and practical, giving delegates the tools we need without overdoing it. The community engagement piece is key - itāll keep things transparent and accountable. Overall, itās a balanced approach that should set us up well for whatās ahead.
I voted FOR this proposal on Tally. I changed my mind after the Snapshot phase, in which I voted AGAINST for the reasons below. I changed my mind because I spent time with the team in Brussels and they helped me understand the complexity of setting up this program and why it is important to invest in this pilot phase. I also have come to really like the model of DAO spending that is focused on ROI for the DAO. With that said, one concern I have with venture specifically is that it will take too long to evaluate if the team is effective, leading to a situation where the money is invested before changes can be made. Looking forward to following the progress of the pilot!
The following comment represent the views of @SavvyDAO as Iām part of their team as Governance Analyst:
Savvy DAO voted for this proposal in the Snapshot phase and did the same on Tally because it will strengthen the ecosystem by promoting well-informed investments and fostering a thriving community of builders and investors.
We are looking forward to see the first reports of this pilot, having detailed metrics for success and periodic progress reports will be beneficial to track the value and impact of this initiative in the Arbitrum ecosystem.