Please, we are still wiating for the following to get some more clear information about what past work has delivered for the DAO.
We would like to see these in any further proposals before voting yes:
- Clear outcomes from past work with specific numbers and evidence
- Examples of past work from each role category that was produced within the scope of the proposal
Thank you, @chamadao, for the alert.
We would like to take this opportunity to highlight our past work. In Jan-2024, we received a small starter grant from pL Labs to lay the foundation of the platform. We successfully delivered on that initial goal and completed the foundational development. After this, we have been working independently without any support from any entity or node within the DAO.
Following this, we have continuously collaborated with multiple stakeholders to address gaps, introduce new features, and build relevant sections of the platform. Notably, all sections under Programs, Global Search, Grants, and several other key areas were developed independently without any additional financial support or funding.
This effort included conducting thorough research, creating original content (including blog posts and pages), designing visuals and infographics, and implementing everything through coding. The details of these contributions can be verified directly through our GitHub repository.
Additionally, we recently implemented tools to ensure the platformâs long-term utility, including:
In the past, we also played an active role in highlighting and briefing on various DAO grant programs, which were officially linked in the foundationâs documentation.
We have invested significant effort into building a robust foundation for this platform, despite limited support. We remain committed to taking any actions necessary to strengthen this initiative further as highlighted in our proposal.
For those still uncertain about the scope of this work, we recommend consulting experienced developers, designers, or agencies to understand the level of effort and knowledge required to create something like this. The process involves:
Every addition to the platform follows this structured workflow as of now:
Research & Ideation â Content Creation â Design & Infographics â Coding â Stakeholder Communication & Verification
Thank you.
Thank you, @andreiv, for such deeply researched feedback. This is undoubtedly one of the most insightful pieces of feedback weâve received so far, aside from the budget discussions! 
Regarding the domain ownership, the arbitrumhub.io domain is owned by our team under a legal entity registered in our name. The domain is currently registered until 2026, and we will ensure it is renewed well in advance to avoid any lapses.
The project has been made open-source to decentralize operations in the future, while we remain the primary team leading the initiative. This approach will allow us to establish a solid foundation and validate use cases during the pilot year before transitioning to a more decentralized structure where we can have a budget for community and possibly a work-group.
We, as a team, diligently review all pull requests (PRs). Every PR is made 100% public, allowing anyone to track why a specific PR was merged or closed. Security is a top priority for us, and we implement robust measures to ensure the safety and integrity of the codebase.
The repository is fully open and accessible to the community, ensuring transparency and accountability in all development activities.
Thanks again for your valuable feedback!
Iâm leaning towards voting For without retroactiveă
After reviewing it, my initial impression is that while this proposal may not be the DAOâs most urgent need right now, it shows a solid effort to address community feedback. The team has refined the scope and budget, focusing more on content quality and platform maintenance, which is a positive step forward. Theyâve shown theyâre reliable and trustworthy.
The budget might seem a bit high, but the overall plan demonstrates efficient resource allocation. Plus, the quarterly funding reviews and termination clause provide a layer of transparency for DAO funds. That said, I hope the team can continue to optimize budget management, further clarify how the platform differentiates itself from the Foundation, and strengthen community participation and transparency in the future.
The current proposal presents two disconnected pieces: a list of planned tasks and a monthly hour allocation. Whatâs missing is the crucial connection between these two - specifically, how each activity translates into the quoted hours.
A detailed task-based breakdown is usually requested and expected from any vendor in professional project planning, especially when pitching for a job. Let me illustrate this with a simple example:
In the case of newsletter publishing. A proper breakdown would look like this:
Newsletter Production (Bi-monthly)
At $X per hour for copywriting and $Y per hour for art direction, this would total $Z per issue, or $2Z per month for two issues.
This level of detail needs to be applied across all proposed tasks to justify the requested monthly budget. Each team memberâs role should be mapped to specific tasks with corresponding time estimates and hourly rates. This granular breakdown would allow us to properly evaluate the total monthly retainer being requested, which we feel is currently a high ask.
This approach justifies the costs and provides clear metrics for evaluating performance and deliverables. Hope this helps in future.
Iâm voting AGAINST this proposal. While I appreciate the teamâs efforts and intentions, the implementation doesnât seem particularly useful at this point.
Most links redirect to the Arbitrum Governance Docs or other sections of the same website. Since the Governance Docs are already well-structured with a clear outline, Iâm not sure why they would need a separate front end.
Additionally, the Developer Hub links currently point to the Hardhat/Foundry/Brownie homepage. I donât think introducing developers to Hardhat, Foundry, or Brownie is the issueâour target audience is likely already familiar with these tools. This approach doesnât seem like the most effective way to address their needs.
Thank you for the effort, but I believe the ArbitrumHub could be reworked to add more tangible value.
I voted abstain on this proposal at the temp check stage. I think the plan and budget are fine, and I think the team has done a reasonable job executing on the site to date. My concern is that I donât like fracturing comms across many properties. I would prefer to have a marketing website for the DAO that is connected to the rest of the Arbitrum Foundation properties. With that said, Iâm open to moving forward with this proposal if the DAO supports it.
I decided to vote âAgainstâ following my comments. Anyways i do believe this is a valuable and great initiative.
Edit: Vote in tempcheck
Voting NO on this proposal
Rationale:
Very on the fence here because its a good idea to have a resource which gathers useful info for:
-DAO delegates
-developers
-ARB Holders
-potential ambassadars
And also to introduce people to Arbitrum DAO in general,
The budget would be reasonable if it addressed those use cases specifically and actionably, however looking at the current MVP thereâs signs that it may not do so:
-the website doesnt address key stakeholders clearly
-the order of buttons and stakeholders doesnt seem organized in a way that makes sense (for instnace ambassadars is one of the first items but delegates, users, developers, would arguably be higher priority stakeholders to target)
-there are several broken links for key items
-many of the most useful working links are to AF docs or AF resources
On the plus side, we like the proposal hub, grant hub, meetings page. These provide useful content and guidance which is complementary to the Arbitrum foundation page.
Once again this is not a bad idea - having a resource for arbitrum DAO, but the current lack of focus and lack of clarity in messaging makes it hard for us to vote for this proposal, especially as many of the more important functions like the developer hub are duplicated with AF or basically link to their resources.
Would suggest progressing the MVP more with a quest book Grant.
Voted Against: I really like the ArbitrumHub website, and I think you did a great job collecting so much information in one place and organizing it so it is easy to find, especially for new people joining the DAO or builders looking for a grant.
My main issue is the budget ($230k+) and the justification for it. I went to check out Analytics. Having roughly 1k views per month and around 500 sessions on average in 2024 is a clear stat that the website is a nice thing to have, not a necessity for the DAO. Itâs just not crucial, and this is why I think the budget doesnât justify it.
I would hope you guys keep on building. There are incentives like Questbook grants or maybe even outside funding like Gitcoin or Giveth grants available where you might participate. I really hope you guys find a way to fund yourselves and continue building.
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.
We are voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot voting.
We appreciate the hard work and dedication the team has put into the project so far, as well as their efforts in answering and incorporating the delegateâs feedback.
The idea of having a platform where users can easily find all the information about the DAO is valuable. This project has great potential to benefit the community, especially new users, by making it simple to stay updated and engaged. We like the vision and believe it can benefit the Arbitrum community. However, we feel that the proposed budget is higher than what makes sense for the projectâs current stage.
We suggest the team apply in the upcoming Questbook round and use it to run a pilot phase of this project. Completing a pilot would help show the platformâs value, get some info on the analytics, refine the budget, and create a stronger plan for the future. This approach could make it easier for the DAO to support the project in the future.
We look forward to seeing the team come back with the updated platform, results, a revised budget, and a solid roadmap to make this project a success in the future.
Thanks, @ArbitrumHub.io, for this proposal and for your great job! This proposal shows good effort in trying to centralize ArbitrumDAO information and support the community. The focus on platform maintenance and the detailed cost breakdown are helpful, but $230,400 for the first year seems too high.
Can the team start with a smaller budget? This would make the plan more practical and easier to support.
I am supportive of this proposal as the team has already shown themselves to go above and beyond. Their value is worth the price, but their intangible value is worth much more.
Iâm voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot. The proposalâs high cost, and unresolved redundancy with existing resources like the Arbitrum Foundationâs platform fail to justify its necessity. Until the team demonstrates organic demand, cost efficiency, and clear alignment with the DAOâs core priorities (rather than duplicating efforts) I cannot support this proposal.
The website is very well made and it looks well-engineered. I think one of the main reasons this project seems costly for delegates is the fact that it is trying to go beyond the basic needs of an information hub. The project looks structured as to be both, an information repository and an analytics platform.
This is potentially creating an unnecessary scope expansion and also driving up costs, as it includes research and copyright roles. Engaged delegates within the DAO already have all the information accessible in order to make informed decisions. While I agree that some of this information might seem scattered, it is easy enough to find if one puts a little bit of effort. The argument that we need a comprehensive platform with full-time research and content creation roles to enable participation seems to overstate the actual barriers to entry.
A hub with the characteristics mentioned in the proposal would be convenient, but this convenience does not justify the cost, especially not knowing how useful it will be once it is operational. Passing this proposal risks creating an expensive, ongoing obligation without clear evidence that it would meaningfully improve governance participation or decision-making.
For this reasons, I am voting AGAINST in Snapshot.
Having said this, I do recognize the teamâs resilience and their technical prowess. I commend you to continue building and keep creating new projects.
After reviewing the proposal, we have decided to vote against it due to concerns about the cost. While we appreciate the effort to build a resource hub for Arbitrum, the budget remains high, particularly with increased hourly rates, and we believe there may still be room for reductions. Additionally, more insights into user engagement would help justify the funding request. We also encourage exploring alternative funding options like Questbook.
First of all, I want to acknowledge the significant effort and dedication the @ArbitrumHub.io team has shown in refining this proposal multiple times, taking into account community feedback and working to address previous concerns. However, while I recognize ArbitrumHubâs importance to the ecosystem, I must vote against this proposal. The main reasons are:
While I recognize ArbitrumHubâs potential value as a central information resource for the ecosystem, I think we should explore a more cost-effective approach. Rather than fully funding an external team, we could focus on covering basic infrastructure costs plus a modest allowance for platform enhancements. I suggest opening a competitive bidding process to explore alternative solutions, combined with implementing small rewards for active DAO participants who contribute to maintenance and onboarding efforts. This would not only reduce costs but also leverage existing community expertise while fostering greater ecosystem engagement.
Weâll vote AGAINST. While ArbitrumHub addresses a legitimate need for consolidated ecosystem information, the proposed solution appears overengineered and unnecessarily expensive for what is essentially a content maintenance operation. The $19,200 monthly budget, though reduced from initial proposals, remains difficult to justify given the current stage of platform development and demonstrated user engagement.
We vote AGAINST the proposal on Snapshot.
We appreciate the ongoing efforts of the ArbitrumHub team. While we see the value in a centralized and regularly updated portal for Arbitrum DAO-related information, relying on a third-party team for its maintenance presents significant challenges and unnecessary costs. A more effective approach would be to align with existing initiatives like GRC and its dashboard or contribute to the Foundationâs team managing the main Arbitrum site. Otherwise, long-term discoverability and maintainability could become problematic.
DAOplomats is voting for without retroactive
The ArbitrumHub proposal has been well iterated on and we are comfortable with the changes made. However, because we agree with some delegates about the cost still being high, we decided to support but without retroactive as this somewhat justifies the cost for us.