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 of participating projects. The proposal mentions the need to consider LTV which we understand there is no clear basis at the moment, but it’s unclear how you intend to determine if these campaigns truly deliver sustainable growth.
2. High Budget
A budget of $3 million is significant for an offchain marketing experiment. We’d prefer a pilot phase with a smaller, more targeted scope, so we can gather meaningful metrics—like CAC and LTV—before committing to a larger budget. Testing on a smaller scale would also help the DAO determine whether these strategies are truly beneficial and worth further investment.
3. Limited Arbitrum Brand Association
If each project runs its own campaign, the benefits to the Arbitrum brand would be minimal. We’d rather see a coordinated, umbrella-style effort, similar to Odyssey in terms of coordination where multiple projects align under a larger Arbitrum initiative. This approach would likely amplify the impact of any individual campaign and foster a stronger association with the Arbitrum ecosystem.
While the proposal is interesting, it seems overly optimistic in its current form. We’d recommend a a smaller pilot program with more measured, data-driven approach (can be drawn from existing web2 performance and extrapolated up/down to provide a range) before committing more substantial resources.