Thank you for the effort of listening to the community and bringing this version to the table. I’ve navigated the page and noticed a few areas for improvement.
Arbitrum.hub The blank space for newsletter sign-ups is confusing as the characters, being white (instead of black), blend in with the background. This could reduce the number of sign-ups and, consequently, decrease the weekly newsletter’s reach. As a suggestion, the page could have a pop-up for immediate sign-ups. Also, a login on the page could help build a more comprehensive database.
Another suggestion is to have a “night mode” option to reduce eye strain. Adding a night mode can subtly enhance the page without losing Arbitrum’s identity as the colors would remain cohesive.
The differentiation between “Arbitrum Hub” and “Arbitrum Foundation” is clear and solid. I’m interested in supporting this proposal and could contribute by sharing photos/videos of events we’ve had in Mexico, communicating initiatives, and distributing various content within the page for the community.
Regarding the breakdown of roles and associated costs, I consider this an improvement in the proposal. However, I find the cost of the Community Manager (copywriting) to be quite excessive.
For now, I support this initiative. I believe the changes that could be made are minimal for the platform to function optimally.
It’s unfortunate you’re separating both initiatives as I think merging them would have provided for a significanty more compelling business case around transparency and information dissemination in the DAO.
Thanks again, @danielo. We will meet with @AlexLumley again to explore what can be done. Even if we are unable to merge the proposals, ArbitrumHub will closely collaborate to create a dedicated space for all the management and work Alex will be doing, ensuring easy access for everyone.
We are always open to collaboration and merging the initiatives; however, merging proposals is a complex process that takes time in a DAO landscape.
“Looking at your budget of roughly $230,000 per year, which also includes $40,000 in retroactive funding, what costing is this based on? Is there any possibility of compressing spending some more during the pilot to focus on core functionality first?” Personally, I think “the retroactive funding part is actually quite sensitive, is there a more detailed timeline and proof of results for the $40K? That way the community will be more receptive and more aware of the value of your previous efforts.” Dude, no offense, just my personal feedback.
“The metrics mentioned inside the KPIs for content updates, social media operations, and quarterly reporting all seem very specific, but is the team able to guarantee that they can accomplish them at these paces? Especially if the budget is limited at a later stage, will it affect the efficiency of execution?”
“It was mentioned earlier that community feedback suggested reducing the budget and streamlining delivery, did this revision fully cover those comments? Are there things that were missed or still need to be optimized?”
In addition, “You mentioned that the target audience is different from the Foundation website, but how does this part of the differentiated value show up? Is there a plan to do a more visual comparison, such as the division of specific functional modules?”
Thank you for your proposal and for your work. 2025 my personal feedback on arb’s first publication.
Overall the proposal feels very detailed, but a few areas could use a little more refinement, such as could the budget be more streamlined? How can the persuasiveness of retroactive funding be strengthened? And how can the value of differentiation from foundations be made more intuitive. Also, I would like to suggest that more community interaction should be organized, such as regular reports on the progress of the platform, so that the community can better feel the value of the platform. Retroactive funding can be an option, but I would suggest that the scope of use and priority should be clearly defined first, for example, for compensating the working hours of key developers to avoid controversy. Happy New Year!
Want to start by saying that the following opinion is quite personal.
I think the site is quite good, but would also need a lot of fix, partially on the structure and partially on the info (as highlighted by @jameskbh). But this is also ok because you did ran the whole time without funding.
The main problem i have is that we have the trend, in the dao, to build all sort of infrastructures (website, bot, dapp etc) that are detached one from another.
Even more, we are doing this with no strategic view on top.
I have the strong opinion that the dao should do a more comprehensive plan in this regard: have his own website, his own socials, his own initiative, and also own the infra and the content related to this.
This hasn’t happened so far because we lack a legal entity, and we have had the AF that has been a steward in this sense when it was needed. But, hopefully, will change when we have the OpCo.
All to say that I personally can’t currently support this proposal because I think we need an higher level plan from the dao to craft and create infrastructures and content that make sense based on the goals that we have (and for this the SOS proposal from @Entropy, after the vision proposal we just voted, will be able to help as well).
Don’t get me wrong, we need a front end for the dao, even this forum is hosted on the foundation domain. But we are at the point in which we need to own it, and we are also at the point in which we need to collectively establish what content we want in there, and then hire eventually service providers or elect people to create such content. It has to fall into a more strategic plan.
Beside this, I generally speaking agree with the comments on the budget. Without going into the specific details, 19k per month for all of this feels like a lot.
Thank you for presenting your proposal for the ArbitrumHub initiative.
We believe ArbitrumHub provides meaningful value to the community by simplifying access to key information for users and builders. A well-organized, centralized platform is vital in fostering greater engagement and adoption. While we agree with previous comments that improvements could be made for it to reflect the ecosystem’s growth better, the Hub is already a great resource.
To maximize the impact of this initiative, we strongly encourage harmonizing ArbitrumHub with complementary efforts such as events, grants, ARB incentives, and social media campaigns. Coordinating these initiatives under a unified strategy would ensure a more cohesive and effective approach to ecosystem growth.
We also recommend further streamlining this proposal to focus primarily on consistently maintaining the ArbitrumHub website, ensuring it remains up-to-date and inclusive.
Pairing this ArbitrumHub website-focused initiative with others—like the DAO Events Budget for 2025 or the DeFi Renaissance Incentives Program—could amplify its effectiveness. Coordination by a single entity, such as @Entropy, may provide the clarity and leadership needed for streamlined execution and effective communication across initiatives.
We have a DAO call scheduled; however, there is an issue with allowing participants to join as the access is currently with @AlexLumley. We will reschedule the call in coordination with @AlexLumley and ensure proper admin access is granted for smoother participation.
To echo what others are saying, the budget doesn’t make too much sense.
$230k to manage a (good) website, a newsletter and socials, for 1 year of service? Plus another $40k retro on top. I’m sorry but is just too much,
I know it might sound cynic but if I just look at numbers it really doesn’t make too much sense.
We are talking about 320 hours per month, 2 FTE being paid around 9.5k each per month excluding the retro.
This proposal is much more reliable compared to the previous versions. The direction is clearer, and there are improvements in the details. Specifically, the focus on platform maintenance and optimization, instead of pursuing overly ambitious expansions, is commendable. Additionally, unlike the vague earlier versions, this proposal provides a clear budget, which at least shows how the funds will be spent and where. That’s a significant improvement.
However, I believe there’s still a need for a higher level of strategic coordination. I completely agree with @jojo’s point: the DAO needs a more comprehensive plan to design and build truly impactful infrastructure and content aligned with overarching goals. Without this broader perspective, it might be hard to achieve meaningful breakthroughs.
Additionally, the incentive mechanism needs to be reasonable, as it’s crucial for driving improvements and completing the work. Here are my suggestions:
Focus on small, practical steps and iterate gradually:
Don’t try to accomplish everything within a year. Start by prioritizing platform content updates and community interaction. Deliver tangible improvements that users can feel, and then gradually expand other features.
Improve communication mechanisms:
Hold regular feedback sessions or community interactions to keep everyone updated on the progress. This not only ensures transparency but also strengthens community support.
Flexibility in retroactive funding:
Retroactive funding can be released in stages. Begin by evaluating short-term results to confirm that the platform delivers real value, and then allocate further funding based on actual performance. This approach will likely lead to greater community satisfaction with the outcomes.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you @ArbitrumHub.io for your continuous improvements to the proposal and for addressing the feedback from the delegates on the proposal.
We still believe that this proposal could be a valuable initiative for the Arbitrum DAO. A centralized platform like ArbitrumHub would streamline new user onboarding by gathering resources in one place and minimizing scattered information.
But we have some points to mention -
While we recognize the value of the platform you’ve built, I’d like to address the monthly allocations for design ($2,400) and development ($2,400). The involvement of designers and developers may be essential during the initial build phase, but it seems unlikely that such a level of engagement will be necessary once the platform is ready. Personally, I believe that roles such as researcher and copywriter will be more crucial for the platform in the long run. As the DAO evolves, the flow of data and information will likely grow, demanding more focus on collecting and delivering accurate, timely content rather than regular design updates.
For a maintenance-focused operation post-development, it would make more sense to allocate the budget primarily to research ($4,000 monthly) and copywriting ($7,200 monthly), which directly support content maintenance. Development and design could be restructured as quarterly retainers for essential updates, potentially saving the DAO around $3,000-4,000 monthly while maintaining the platform’s quality and functionality. We suggest restructuring the design and development allocations to a retainer model post-development. This adjustment would preserve the platform’s core functions and quality while reducing the annual budget by approximately $15k-$25k if we remove the core development if the budget is drafted this way.
We notice that these metrics are focused on output quantities, such as ‘26 newsletters per year’ and ‘5 original posts per week’. While these are measurable deliverables, they don’t necessarily reflect the actual impact on the Arbitrum ecosystem.
While having an analytics dashboard is valuable, the proposal doesn’t set concrete targets for what success looks like. Some impact measurements can be thought of -
What is your target for monthly active users after 6 months?
Do you have specific engagement rate goals for the newsletters you’ll be sending?
What percentage increase in governance participation do you aim to achieve through the platform?
We particularly noticed that while your proposal mentions using Looker Studio for analytics, it doesn’t define what constitutes successful engagement levels. Setting specific, measurable targets would help the DAO better evaluate the platform’s effectiveness in achieving its mission of improving ecosystem engagement and accessibility.
Thank you for the detailed proposal.
I remember your previous one and this has become significantly better, both in terms of goals and in terms of lowering the costs.
However, like some other delegates, I have comments and questions:
You have reduced the cost by almost 2 times. This is good, but unfortunately not enough. I conducted a survey in my community (where there are many specialists in the field of website building). And the majority believes that an adequate amount of expenses for such a site is within $ 12,000 per month (and on average less than $ 6,000). Therefore, it seems to me that it is necessary to work in this direction a little more.
Also, many ordinary users have questions about grants, that there is little information on the site at the moment. We could significantly increase the influx of users to the site, which would benefit ordinary users who can help themselves earn and develop Arbitrum with their liquidity. Therefore, I would like to pay maximum attention to this point.
First, we want to acknowledge the continuous effort you’ve put into refining this proposal. It’s clear that there’s a strong commitment to improving ArbitrumHub, that deserves a recognition. That said, we believe there are still opportunities to strengthen it and ensure this platform.
One key area is the need to more directly tie the platform’s goals to measurable outcomes within the DAO ecosystem. While the KPIs outlined in the proposal are effective for tracking operational performance, such as updates and audits, they do not fully address the platform’s impact on governance. For instance, how does ArbitrumHub contribute to enhancing delegate participation, or how often do proposals leverage resources hosted on the platform? Gathering feedback from delegates through periodic surveys could also provide actionable insights, allowing the platform to evolve in ways that directly serve its users and the DAO’s broader goals.
Regarding the budget, the reliance on $ARB for quarterly withdrawals introduces an element of uncertainty due to the token’s price fluctuations. While the focus is often on potential losses, it is also worth considering the scenario where the token appreciates significantly. If the funds exceed what is needed to maintain operations, will the surplus be returned to the DAO treasury, reinvested in expanding the platform, or allocated elsewhere?
Lastly, I see an untapped opportunity for ArbitrumHub to expand its role in education. Many proposals under the Questbook domain have been approved for educational initiatives, and these could be integrated into the platform to enrich its offerings. By adding a dedicated section for governance education and leveraging existing resources, ArbitrumHub could guide members through the complexities of governance processes, making them more accessible. Summaries of key proposals, tutorials on using governance tools, or insights into best practices could elevate the platform’s value. This could position ArbitrumHub as an essential resource for all DAO members, from newcomers to advanced users.
The idea of a central Arbitrum hub alongside the Foundation website to combat info fragmentation is good. The design of the arbitrumhub.io website is also solid. However, beneath the surface, plenty of the content is dated and many crucial segments (collaboration, initiatives, events, jobs, incentives) remain empty.
The X page has a minimal following and not posted since August. All other socials point to Arbitrum’s own channels. Website views are okay at 12,700 views / 5600 sessions since launch but not high-impact.
ArbitrumHub’s focus claims to be on:
- Internal Focus: Providing a comprehensive overview of all Arbitrum DAO initiatives, governance, and ecosystem activities - External Focus: Engaging a broad audience by offering insights into what the Arbitrum ecosystem has to offer. […] and serving as a platform for showcasing community-driven projects.
Looking at it critically, which of these focus points have been successful so far…?
As a member of GMX’s Governance Committee, I lean towards JOJO’s analysis above:
Shouldn’t this be part of a strategic plan by the Arbitrum DAO to develop its own website, infrastructure, socials, and content? Coordinating these initiatives under a unified vision? Based on the results achieved so far by the Hub, I have the feeling that would be the alternative path that likely drives optimal results, reach, and engagement.
Thank you, ArbitrumHub, for sharing this refined proposal. We appreciate the effort you’ve invested in incorporating the community’s feedback and updating the proposal with clear KPIs and deliverables.
With that said, this initiative represents a significant undertaking. Maintaining a relevant and useful hub requires high DAO-context and expertise, making the Research role outlined in the budget especially critical. Could you clarify which individuals will be taking on this role and their qualifications? Additionally, what incentives are in place to encourage community members to contribute by submitting GitHub requests to keep the platform up-to-date?
Another concern that we have is with the budget. While we recognize the value of this initiative, we echo others’ sentiments that the requested funding seems quite large. We also believe this initiative may be better suited for funding through donation-based mechanisms, such as Gitcoin rounds or going through the DAO’s Questbook offering.
Thanks for the proposal. Is there user data on the traction the site has received to date? The hourly rates are very reasonable, but it’s difficult to measure the site’s impact and value without evidence of existing usage.
These kinds of initiatives have a discoverability issue as they’re not associated with Arbitrum’s existing online presence and infra (as @JoJo mentioned above). So evidence of self-sustaining growth and discoverability is unfortunately critical.
We faced a similar problem a year ago and decided to address it by building a dedicated platform for the Arbitrum Ecosystem. This initiative led to the creation of ArbitrumHub, which, as the name suggests, embodies a vision aligned with this purpose.
We believe that visually presenting the need for ArbitrumHub will be more effective and impactful.
We had already considered this issue during the establishment of the platform and incorporated it into the development of the platform Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). Specifically, we developed SOP(b) to address this concern.
We are dedicated to this initiative and have implemented well-defined Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to ensure the continuous maintenance of the ArbitrumHub website. Additionally, we have established clear Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to monitor progress and deliver impactful results effectively.
To strategically guide this initiative, we have established a periodic feedback mechanism to ensure continuous direction and improvement.
And to highlight:
We believe in the power of collaboration, especially with strategic teams like Entropy and key delegates. Having their input in our quarterly ArbitrumDAO meetings for ArbitrumHub would be incredibly valuable - their perspective could help shape and strengthen our initiatives.
While we’re confident in our abilities (we’ve proven this by building and maintaining similar projects for Akash.Network and others), we know that the best outcomes come from working together. Regular feedback from ecosystem leaders helps ensure we’re moving in the right direction.
The way we see it, combining our hands-on experience with insights from established teams can create something truly impactful for Arbitrum.
Yess, we have made Arbitrum Hub Analytics Dashboard for tracking the platform impact.
We have got more than organic 12000 users on our Platform. And every month we are getting more than 1000 organic users.
Having achieved such good organic numbers is remarkable achievement for our platform.
Also, this platform is being ranked in some top links when we search about Arbitrum on google.
This is again a remarkable because some organizations spend tons behind achieving those rankings.
In past, we have played an important role in officially briefing various grant programs.
If the DAO provides us with proper support, we can confidently promise that this initiative will evolve into an extremely useful resource for the DAO and its members.
And to follow more upon your question, we would like to also address other community concerns about user metrics.
ArbitrumHub is currently transitioning from its Introduction phase to the Growth phase of its product lifecycle. During this critical period, we have:
Clearly defined our target audiences
Established strategic goals
Developed realistic, achievable quarterly milestones
This transition phase requires substantial resources to successfully move from early Growth to established Growth phase. The cost structure we’ve presented reflects industry-standard hourly rates while remaining as economical as possible for work of this scope and complexity.
Although, We have seen strong organic engagement on the platform thus far. Our approach for the next year focuses on three key phases:
1. Foundational Work (Completed):
Target audience definition
Strategic goal setting
Quarterly milestone establishment
2. Implementation Phase (Next 12 Months):
Executing our planned initiatives with dedicated resources
Building core functionalities and content infrastructure
3. Growth Phase:
Expanding website engagement
Implementing comprehensive analytics
Scaling our user base
ArbitrumHub was created after a year of deep research and planning when we identified some information gaps in the Arbitrum ecosystem.You can go through ArbitrumHub Deck or ArbitrumHub Research Document to understand it more in depth.
In the early days, back in January-February, we received a starter grant from PL Labs, which helped us get started. Since then, we’ve been operating on our own.
For the next 12 months, our focus is to build a strong foundation of platform, set clear long-term goals, create practical use cases, and integrate it with different areas through collaboration with stakeholders like the Foundation, DAO, and other initiatives.
This proposal is for the pilot phase of ArbitrumHub, designed based on feedback from other delegates to keep the goals focused and realistic. The aim is to establish and maintain the platform effectively. Then take it to next level once the solid base is formed.
And for that, we’re requesting support from the DAO to help us take the next steps and move forward.
Basically, I think the cost is too much to justify for this type of website. The reduction in cost is appreciated, but it’s still too much. I think this would be best targeted towards a Questbooks type grant, or moving forward with only the retroactive portion of this.
Thank you for the follow-up proposal and we applaud your tenacity in pushing the proposal through. We however have some concerns which we would like to bring up for your consideration.
Content Plan seem overly optimistic
What does publishing weekly content updates to ArbitrumHub entail?
Biweekly newsletter seems excessive. This can be minimized to monthly honestly.
We do not believe a dedicated social media account for ArbitrumHub is needed and would rather Arbitrum as a whole consolidates its social media presence.
The content plan we feel has been padded unnecessarily and a standalone social media account for ArbitrumHub further fragments mindshare amongst an already fragmented social media presence for Arbitrum as a whole. This is something that needs a different discussion amongst the various stakeholders in our opinion and we agree with @JoJo.
We’ve also touched on the challenges with Arbitrum’s marketing in a different proposal but the same holds true here.
Cost
The cost seems exceptionally high for a website like ArbitrumHub. The monthly cost for Research and Copywriting is the equivalent of a full time hire. Whereas in the estimate its accounted for as 10 and 15 mandays respectively.
While the breakdown of costs according to planned resources is good, this needs to be tied back to the costs associated with deliverables. I.e. monthly newsletters, content updates (monthly), and research reports (quarterly), and they are tied back to your man-hour estimation for each role and summed to equal the cost as listed.
But quite honestly, the cost of $19,200 per month and $230,400 per annum as already highlighted by @danielo, @Gabriel, @cp0x and others is not feasible. The cost needs to be looked into and revised downwards significantly.
At the moment, based on the current proposal, our stance is not in favour.
