# \[Non-constitutional\]\[RFC\] ARB Incentives: User Acquisition for dApps & Protocols **URL:** \ **Category:** Archived Proposals\ **Created:** [January 28, 2025, 5:40pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arb-incentives-user-acquisition-for-dapps-protocols/28291 "2025-01-28T17:40:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 100
**Author:** ![CastleCapital](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/castlecapital/32/16535_2.png) [@CastleCapital](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/CastleCapital)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2025, 5:57pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arb-incentives-user-acquisition-for-dapps-protocols/28291/100 "2025-04-02T17:57:56Z")
Hi @kamilgorski, we have voted Against the proposal on Snapshot. We still stand by our earlier response. > [@\[Non-constitutional\]\[RFC\] ARB Incentives: User Acquisition for dApps & Protocols](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arb-incentives-user-acquisition-for-dapps-protocols/28291/48): > > Thank you for sharing the reply. While we appreciate the effort to grow Arbitrum’s user base, we are not in favour of the proposal it in its current form for the following reasons: 1. Unclear Returns We recognize that previous programs did not fully track performance from a CAC perspective. However, for the channels you’ve proposed, there are established benchmarks (even if not specific to crypto). We would have expected a clear plan detailing how you’ll measure ROI and assess the performance … The proposal in our point of view lacks proper consideration on how the program proposed can be extended further than the allocated budget. As we’ve mentioned before: • The budget is too large for an undetermined result. There’s a reason the DAO decided on a period of abstaining from new incentive programs. If the objective of the program is to be an experiment, why not starting with a smaller ask for a pilot program open to limited protocols. • In the current structure protocols are incentivized to spending because they will be reimbursed, misaligning incentives on efficient expenses. We’d prefer as mentioned before if the individual protocol campaigns were encapsulated by a larger campaign. So that if the results returned poor, at least Arbitrum still obtained visibility during the campaign period. • Utilize a matching grant approach, this helps Arbitrum achieve the best returns on capital spend and ensures participating protocols have sufficient skin in the game. We also agree with @maxlomu’s comments > [@maxlomu](#): > > - I am in favor of a study to define how to efficiently attract users to apps that found PMF. > - The goal should be building a playbook that works for the next 12-24 months that the DAO / Arbitrum Foundation can help when new builders come onboard. > - The study should start from very specific and narrow use cases. Ex: onboarding new users to consumar apps (games, SocialFi, …) from various offchain sources. Currently this proposal seems angled where the DAO supports the program financially over a set period. There is nothing mentioned in the proposal what the path to maturity looks like. This would be important as this would not be a program that is funded in perpetuity. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-rfc-arb-incentives-user-acquisition-for-dapps-protocols/28291)._