Well, value creation and scalabilities are all activities don’t you think?
The right question is what activities create value and are scalable?
Also, what kind of value does the program want to draw from the activities? It is sort of a simple mind map with close to 10 hops from start to end.
Extremely excited to see this proposal and although I am a lil sad that Milestone 2 didn’t get the vote of confidence from the DAO I can understand why from the delegates POV a bridge might be seen as the right choice.
I fully trust the team and never in my life witnessed a plurality of high quality grant programs being developed in a ecosystem, like PL did for Arbitrum!
I am a little curious thought what programs will be funded and even more curios to see which other types grant programs wiill start out. Also love the council idea because it guarantees alignment with the DAO and the overall web3 ecosystem.
While everybody is enjoying in Denver, I am gonna break the ice on the just posted snapshot proposal.
I am gonna vote Yes on this. For the one reason above all: @DisruptionJoe was able to address most of the concerns from the DAO. The idea of taking an external committee to evaluate the program as a whole makes a lot of sense. We will see how it goes, but i think that the approach of iterating fast, break shit, do new stuff, iterate again is well embedded in the DNA of plurality labs. And is definitely a net +ve in the current state of the Dao.
Hello, @DisruptionJoe
I’m glad that you took into account the feedback, including from us.
Our team will support this proposal for efficient distribution of grants.
It’s great that you are improving your team of experts
Hey there @allen_muhani thanks for the dialogue on this.
While I was at ETHDenver, I was reminded about how important it is not to confuse activity with value. While meeting with a cohort of web3 grant operators, we tried to drive home the point that the maturing of a grant program depends on moving from simple milestone verification to validating value creation. And given Arbitrum has such a need for growth, we need to scale.
@DisruptionJoe said it well above, this proposal 1B will focus on:
To your second question:
In September - we launched “GovMonth” a month long sense and respond campaign where we pulled together 15000 community responses to help us orient where to drive value. While we should have ended that community sourcing with a community ratification - it was a solid method to develop an initial orientation.
Moving forward, we will continue to experiment with community sensing, but we also introduce the creation of a Board to help us determine where value needs to be driven:
Thanks again for your engagement in Arbitrum and for supporting the Arbitrum DAO!
Hey @JoJo it was great to meet you face to face at the GovHack and thank you very much for the support, and for your leadership in the DAO.
Thanks for pointing it out - the proposal is now posted on snapshot! Get out there and cast your vote!
ser i am not in denver 
ohmygod. We had a really great conversation about decentralizing grants, the need to compensate delegates, the growth of the ecosystem, how to reward contributors who deliver actual value…
Who tf was that?? 
This proposal makes more sense. I had some reservations with regard to handing out the amount of ARB requested in Proposal 2. While some deliverables weren’t met (yet) and evaluations could not be done fully.
This “Bridge” as the clever/corny (depending on who you ask) name suggests. Makes a lot of sense. I’m leaning towards voting in favor based on the changes made compared to Proposal 2.
Joe, Plurality Labs and Thrive Protocol did mess up and make mistakes at times, but I think the value they’ve already provided is clear and we should give them a chance to bridge the gap to a Proposal 2.
I’m expecting an eventual second try on the Proposal 2 that’s immeasurably better than the first try!
I dunno but there is only 1 cow in arbitrum and is currently sitting on a sofa in Italy 
Was asking from the perspective of a grant applicant. It helps to know whether a grant application will meet the expectations of the DAO beforehand.
The questions I asked myself were:
With the above, I believe that it is very easy for both the applicant and the reviewer/grant committee to easily screen a grant and approve or reject it to both parties’ satisfaction.
I think this passage Joe mentions from the proposal is relevant here.
The objective of this approach is to ensure we find and fund the best ideas that deliver actual value. A great forum to bring up proposal ideas (if you are not comfortable with discussing the idea on the forum) is the Open Arbitrum Delegates call. You can find those (and other Arbitrum calls) listed here.
In addition to that, if this proposal passes (you can vote here) - as new and renewed programs come back on line, we will announce those opportunities via the Thank Arb x account. And as always, feel free to reach out directly to discuss ideas! We love to help ideas find funding on Arbitrum.
Thanks again @allen_muhani!
Thanks @dk3. We’re excited for your participation too. You - and the rest of our board - make us better, and you’ll provide important support as work to create impact and scale.
I agree. Our intent is to evolve and improve based on the input and the changing needs of our community. The space is moving exceptionally fast now - so it’s valuable to have a board with their fingers on the evolving pulse of Arbitrum. This will help us direct resources to the right places, even as needs change.
Thanks @Frisson. This means a lot to all of us.
As a delegate, we find the proposal for funding Plurality Labs Milestone 1B(ridge) quite intriguing, particularly for its focus on decentralization and innovation within the ecosystem.
However, we wonder if we’ve fully explored the potential benefits and efficiencies of routing such initiatives through established grant programs. Could using these existing programs offer a more streamlined approach to funding, while still aligning with governance values? We’re echoing many of the comments beforehand and simply just am a little confused as to why this is going to general governance and not existing pre voted in structures.
Hi @PGov, I’m happy to respond while Joe makes the rounds at EthDenver
Thank you. Yes, the value of more efficient decentralized grants-making is that we can experiment quickly, double down on the winners, and scale grants making in a way that avoids capture.
Grants programs (we call them “grants allocators”) can create enormous value… or not. They can operate in ways that are fully aligned with governance values… or not. The benefit of our work is that we work with, in your words “established grants programs” as allocators. We also work to ensure they drive desired value and values alignment. If they do, we double down on them. In this way, we help ensure the work we do with grants allocators - whether they are more or less established - leads to more value for the DAO.
You might mean a few things by your words “existing pre voted in structures”. If you’re talking about the Arbitrum Foundation, we have a close working relationship to optimize our work in Arbitrum. If you’re talking about DAO votes, we were literally AIP-3 - which passed with ~99% of the vote. If you’re talking about work we’ve done across web3, we have a years-long (value-driving) footprint and history. In other words, I believe we are the structure you’re hoping for. In answer to your question, we are going through the DAO voting process because it’s important for our community to have a voice in the work we do and value we create.
Thanks again, PGov, for your support, questions, and contributions to the DAO. And happy weekend!
That was @jengajojo 
Unrelated to Shawn mistaking Mr. Poopybutthole for a cow…
First off - Thank you @shawn16400 and @thrivegiraffe for helping out with replies while I was bouncing around Denver looking for signs of the Bull. The GovHack was incredibly powerful. The Arbitrum booth was understated in a way that only the leading L2 could pull off. I learned how good Shake Shack’s burgers are and I fought for Arbitrum’s glory in the L2 wars on Rehash podcast! It was great to have the team able to support here while I was dipping into a small coma after a week of Milady Raves and governance brunches.
Here is my presentation at EthDenver about the pluralist grant framework:
https://x.com/DisruptionJoe/status/1764276384078111107?s=20
Hello @DisruptionJoe !
First of all, thank you for reconsidering your proposal and taking into account the delegates’ feedback.
I think this proposal can be further improved with some small changes.
As you mentioned, some deliverables could not be completed in the first milestone and I see the analysis on the corrective actions to be taken is correct.
However, despite the incorporation of the Board (which I think is positive, even though since they are not paid there is no economic commitment but rather reputational), I consider that it is necessary that as DAO we can more easily evaluate the performance of Milestone 1.b and this would be possible through the incorporation of clearer/quantifiable objectives as well as more detail regarding the execution/timeline of the program and also deadlines to achieving each deliverable/objective.
(I repeat, this considering that there were objectives that were not achieved).
In this way, knowing in detail the step-by-step, quantified objectives (for example, the number of programs they expect to fund with the requested budget) and observing the execution, we will be able to have a more accurate picture of the success of the program.
It is important that in addition to the Board, any delegate or member of the community be able to properly follow up on the proposal.
This opinion is my own and does not reflect the one of SEEDLatam Gov.
Hi @MinistroDolar,
First, it’s great to connect. I’ve lived in Argentina, Chile, Peru, Costa Rica, and Guatemala during various stints of writing, volunteer work, and work. LATAM is a big part of my heart.
Thanks for your thoughtful feedback. Responses are below:
Of course. Feedback makes us better.
Here are the quantifiable objectives for Milestone 1B(ridge), along with further detail:
Yes. We agree. We’ll make sure this happens.
Again, thanks so much for your feedback, MinistroDolar. I’m excited to meet in person sometime.
gm, thanks Joe and the PL team for the effort put into compiling Milestone 1B.
As I mentioned in the past, I am supportive of the Pluralistic vision and see the “program of grant programs” as an essential evolution for a DAO.
Following the discussion on Milestone 1’s outcomes, this latest proposal has left me with some points to clarify…
I echo @MinistroDolar that the outlined objectives for Milestone 1B seem more like broad intentions rather than the quantifiable goals we should be aiming for.
While these directions are valuable, perhaps incorporating specific, measurable KPIs could help in holding the program accountable and ensuring alignment.
Having seen the feedback from other delegates on the previous proposal, the challenge seems to lie in quantifying the value creation before the start of Milestone 2.
I think this extension would be effective if these points are clarified - otherwise, we might find ourselves in the same situation in 6 months.
EDIT: I voted in favor of this proposal - I trust the PL team they will deliver on these short term objectives and excited for the next phase.
We’ll be keeping a close eye on their reporting dashboard to monitor the progress.
Firstly, we would like to thank Joe and PluralityLab for thoughtfully considering delegate feedback and presenting a revised proposal. After reviewing both the proposal and PluralityLab’s past contributions, we decided to support this initiative. The proposal’s enhancements and its focus on grant programs are very important for the DAO. We believe advancing this proposal is crucial for attracting more builders to Arbitrum, fostering innovation, and strengthening our ecosystem.
Additionally, we think it would be beneficial that the team could provide reports on the performance of projects post-funding. This will make it easier for delegates to evaluate the impact and follow the progress of these grants.
