Gauntlet has decided to vote against this proposal, ultimately believing that while ArbitrumHub has put in significant effort (the web design and visuals of the website are of high quality - it looks great), there is insufficient traction or need in the Arbitrum community to justify the cost. For most decentralized entities, a project’s formal communications and brand are domains that the Foundation and Labs teams have best managed. Perhaps there is an opportunity to support websites for more specific DAO programs (GCP, OpCo, etc.). Having sites for those private domains or perhaps a route to nest Arbitrum Hub within more formal Arbitrum websites makes more sense.
That said, if the DAO supports this proposal, we will reconsider our position, and we are open to others’ opinions on whether the community feels this asset has greater value than we believe it does currently.
Based on the revised proposal, the improvements made, and the DAO’s feedback being addressed, I would vote in favor of this proposal. The changes, including a narrower scope, improved KPIs, streamlined budget, and focus on platform maintenance, demonstrate a well-thought-out and community-driven approach. The pilot phase with minimal resource allocation also makes it a low-risk yet high-impact initiative.
The team has done a solid job executing the site, and I appreciate the clean layout and the value of having an alternative portal to the Foundation. The cost seems reasonable given that it basically covers two full-time people managing the website, social media, and newsletters.
I’d be down to run this as an experiment for one quarter to see its impact.
Beyond just collecting docs and resources, the real question is: can you improve the reach of Arbitrum? Can we measure whether more users, developers, or DAO contributors are onboarded through this? If we can track that effectively, it’ll be easier to justify continued support.
voting Against the current offchain proposal because I believe that for this kind of initiative to be setup for success, it needs to be included in a bigger marketing and growth unit that would manage several brand properties, like a website very similar to this one, several social media accounts, and so forth. In my opinion, this project is really high quality, and actually deserves to be paid more than what they are asking for. But the fact is that since it’s inception 9 months ago, this project has only had 12k pageviews in total. That’s very very very very little for an informational website like this, clearly revealing that this kind of initiative needs a strong social media effort to feed traffic into it. I recommended and connected the authors of this proposal with other people in the DAO that are doing solid social media work for Arbitrum DAO, and I hope they will get together and collaborate in a more encompassing proposal for the DAO.
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.
We’re voting AGAINST the proposal.
We maintain our stance since the last time we voted against it as we believe that this proposal doesn’t address the needs of the DAO in an adequate manner. The core idea of the Hub is to cover relevant content in a digestible format, which can be valuable, but the proposal’s focus is mostly based on the website’s development rather than the content itself.
Additionally, we believe that the proposing team is not as deeply integrated into the DAO as it’d be needed for such an initiative to bear any fruitful results. The effective execution of this initiative requires a close look at ongoing discussions, calls, and working groups, which the proposing team, to our knowledge, isn’t as familiar with.
With that in mind and factoring in the requested budget, which we believe is on the higher end of the spectrum, we cannot vote in favor of the proposal.
Thanks for presenting this proposal and all the work that has gone into maintaining ArbitrumHub. To reecho the views of others, we think the budgetary concerns are valid and the platform / operations can be run with significantly less funding. We also feel the same about the retroactive compensation. The overall ask is not justified by the reported outcomes and what we perceive to be the amount of effort needed to run this project.
Otherwise, this is an initiative that we would like to see supported but perhaps in some other way (e.g, via smaller ecosystem grants like Questbook) than direct DAO funding. We’re sure with continuous improvement, it can evolve into a highly valuable resource for DAO contributors, participants and newcomers.
LobbyFi voted against the proposal since the voting power has been acquired by @paulofonseca instantly to vote for this option.
Due to the technical issue that we faced in other recent proposals, the option has been wrongly encrypted and hence is not valid on snapshot.
We have voted AGAINST the proposal on Snapshot. The concerns we raised in our previous feedback remain unaddressed.
While we find the concept of ArbitrumHub interesting, the proposed annual budget of $230,400 is difficult to justify. We suggest reducing the scope exclusively to ArbitrumHub’s core functionality and removing the social media management and newsletter components. Maybe it is a possible direction for the team to consider.
I voted against due to alignment with all previous concerns raised by delegates.
Website design looks very professional, but costs presented seemed high to me. I also think this would work better not isoldated but in the context of a coordinated effort with other proposals (like opco) or the foundation itself
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.
Rationale
In line with what other delegates have expressed, a budget of nearly a quarter of a million for maintaining a website seems excessive. Additionally, much of the information overlaps with existing platforms, making it essential for a Hub like this to be developed in collaboration with stakeholders who have a deep understanding of the DAO.