As for me, it is better to allocate this money for the second drop from the Arbitrum. The marketing effect from this will be much greater, which will attract the attention of new users, than to allocate this money for conducting marketing campaigns of various projects.
The main goal is to attract more users to the Arbitrum chain. Well, the second drop will do it much better than everything else. Also, there is always a problem that having allocated money to projects for marketing, the projects will simply spend it and move to other chains. So why take such a risk?
Very simple! There are many different techniques here.
For example, Arbitrum can simply distribute the drop to old users, this will create a wave of marketing in relation to the arbitrage. Many bloggers and influencers will start talking about the 3rd and 4th drops themselves, which will entail an influx of new users and hype.
Another scenario, we just say that Arbitrum is planning a second drop in 2025. Believe me, there will immediately be such a hype around the project that one can only dream of. New users will immediately appear and even old ones will return to us
Let me answer by turning your thesis around (although I mostly agree with it!) - “flighty” users come to protocols because of direct or indirect incentives (eg. inflated APRs) they get. As long as you don’t offer these, the chance of mercenary capital flowing into the protocol is pretty small. With that in mind - there’s nothing wrong with targeting users from other blockchains as long as you don’t basically pay them to come over (because once you stop paying, they’ll go elsewhere). We need to remember that for big DeFi protocols it’s going to be hard to acquire significant traffic by targeting non-web3 users only. That’s why we allow for targeting other web3 users - just don’t basically pay them a living wage to use the product.
This is why we engage a full-time marketing expert, as well as Arbitrum Foundation Marketing specialists to help
There’s another proposal with this idea. I think helping dApps learn to acquire real users is a completely different and required activity than running an ecosystem wide airdrop - just to compare, our proposal is worth 8-9m $ARB, the other one has proposed a budget of 500m $ARB which is a 10% (!) of currently circulating supply.
Hey Everyone, thank you for your comments We’ve updated it today with the following changes:
Changelog 20/03/2025
What has been changed compared to the initial version of the proposal:
NFT & Gaming categories were removed; An “Other” category was created to cater for all projects that don’t belong to Bridges & DeFi and limited to 5 projects only.
“Application assessment”, “Application requirements” & “List of acceptable strategies” sections were added to respond to Delegate’s comments
“DAO Reporting” section was enhanced with initital templates for tracking data coming from multiple sources.
“Budget” section was enhanced with exact calculation of costs on Patterns’ side.
Thanks for helping make this proposal better!
We are planning to put this proposal to Snapshot in 1 week time.
Hey @BlockworksResearch, thanks so much for these comments Your opinion is extremely important to us. Let me answer in order:
General opinion. As it was discussed with @danielo - dApp users generate sequencer gas fees which are an important revenue stream for the ecosystem. With CAC levels of ~$50 declared by some protocols in the survey, it’s doable to achieve a positive ROI for the ecosystem for some dApps and / or campaigns but requires experimentation - which this program is designed for. At the same time - this program has the lowest budget of all incentive / rewarding / airdrop programs proposed.
On Selection and Strategy. We’ve added “Application assessment”, “Application requirements” & “List of acceptable strategies” sections . The KPIs have to be measured for Arbitrum chain only.
On Operations. It’s only Patterns analysts and Marketing Expert that are required to work full-time. Other positions were consulted with OCL & AF (the DAO representative is a paid position) and are not required to be engaged full-time. This bi-weekly model is used in other proposals and seems to be widely accepted. We’d be excited for Blockworks join as well
On KPIs. NFT & Gaming categories were exchanged with “Other” category, limited to only 5 projects to accommodate for high quality projects that don’t fit anywhere else and potentially include the AI narrative. The KPIs were changed to non-gameable ones - including only the number of converting users and the volume of transactions.
@gauntlet - thank you for the comments here and on Telegram. We very much appreciate it Regarding your comment:
We removed NFT & Gaming categories, exchanged it for “Others” and limited to 5 projects only to accommodate for any project that doesn’t belong to Bridge or DeFi category. As of our current knowledge, there are currently ~20 projects with more than 1k MAU operating on Arbitrum (including OpenSea, Treasure DAO, zkPass, etc.). However, if the Committee decides to not accept these based on proposed KPIs - we won’t be pushing this category and basically return the funds to the DAO.
Optimisation will be based on Marketing Expert working full-time to improve the campaigns (increasing conversion and minimizing CAC) and Patterns analyst tracking the on-chain LTV of newly acquired users to understand ROI for different channels.
Hello! It is nice to see how much the initial proposal has evolved, and that you guys feel it is ready to vote. I have a few comments/questions left from my initial interaction:
TL;DR: We should help the protocols to prepare their proposals
You mention this at the beginning of the proposal:
And then one of the goals is to:
I don’t see explicit actions in the proposal to help the applicants tailor their proposals to achieve the best outcome possible BEFORE being accepted into the program. If they don’t know how to market their campaigns properly and measure their results, what are we doing differently in this program to onboard them? A predefined form won’t be enough IMO.
Assuming that most projects are comprised of builders (dev-oriented), the applications will have the same issues as before.
Team assistance
We have the committee that will evaluate the proposals, but there are other professionals mentioned in the current version that could help the protocols to build their proposals, like happened in the LTIPP, with the “advisors” role. For example:
The success of this program lies in setting realistic goals based on good data and proper campaign planning. As we assume (or know) that the protocols themselves are not well-equipped to tackle this, why not help them build their proposals?
I hope you guys reconsider this point of the proposal.
Hey @jameskbh - thanks for your feedback, it’s a very valuable insight and perspective The 1st iteration of the program will be limited to 15-20 projects only (compared to 74 in LTIPP) in order to set up a high quality benchmark of what can be achieved in terms of user acquisition. Therefore teams that have good track record / experience and can produce better results may naturally be preferred in this iteration. Most of such teams already have marketing / growth specialists on-board (we asked about it).
We do however want for high-potential smaller projects to join as well (which was consulted with Arbitrum Foundation) and you’re perfectly right that such teams may need help with their applications.
We’ll therefore modify the proposal tomorrow to accommodate for initial consultations with the Marketing Specialist to help such projects prepare their applications I hope such solution sounds good and thanks for pinpointing this!
Hey Everyone! Thank you for the awesome feedback & insights We’re excited to announce that the proposal was just published on Snapshot for temperature check:
I am voting FOR this proposal at temperature check:
From my experience as a builder in the space, I can emphasize the value in not just capital, but support in exposure and amplification. Further, the emphasis on off-chain / web 2 marketing is drastically need. I would actually be more in favor of a proposal that allocated smaller sums of funding as a trial and really proved its merit through the assistance provided. A notion of ‘how far can we take $50,000’ vs starting with $150,000. With a more constrained budget focused on optimization and efficiency there could always be room to either expand the budgets for the cohort down the line or add seats for more ventures. That said, I will vote FOR this proposal during the temp check and would be open to a downsizing of the budget before onchain voting.
3M budget for both On chain incentives and Offchain marketing seems reasonable.
We like that there is a plan to track useful KPIs thoroughly, that there’s data analysts as well as marketing professionals involved.
As we run a media and work with projects, we’re very aware of the positive effects of exposure for projects, and the outsize effect of marketing spend can be when a good campaign is executed.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
We see this proposal as one potentially profiting the ecosystem in general, and/or multiple projects can benefit from a positive outcome of voting; hence, we will make the auction available.
The instant buy will be priced at 1% of the whole budget requested ($3,000,000 ~ 1580 ETH) → 15.8 ETH.
Voting YES for this proposal.
I think Kamil has put forward a great proposal and was also able to answer any question by me and other people.
We need new user and this could be a great change to get new ones.
Thanks Kamil for answering all the questions in great detail.
After reading the latest version of the proposal again, I vote FOR this proposal
Pros:
New approach to incentives
Considering that the previous LTIPP and STIP initiatives, to put it mildly, did not achieve their goal, a new approach to attracting and retaining users was needed
Control of parameters and KPIs
A great idea to summarize the results not only at the end of the program, but also periodically every month. This will give us a specific assessment of the correctness of the distribution of funds, project efforts, and we will be able to adjust the course of the program continuation. It is also worth noting the breakdown of projects by category, so that each has its own evaluation parameters
Duration of the program
Three months is a good time to see the main results, based on which the DAO can decide to continue the program, suspend or adjust
Cost of the program
A completely adequate estimate of $ 3 million is certainly not a small amount, but compared to other similar Arbitrum projects in the past, this is a small amount. Also, operating expenses of about 10% are quite acceptable given the large team for monitoring the parameters. It is also nice that there are detailed files with a breakdown of costs by position, where there are no inflated salary amounts
Cons:
Results
We do not know what the result will be, since this initiative will be implemented for the first time, so it is quite possible that there will be a zero result and we must be prepared for this
Lack of pressure on projects in the process
Despite the fact that marketing specialists are included in the budget, there is no certainty that the projects will follow their recommendations. As far as I understand, there is no procedure for withdrawing funds from projects if they work poorly under this program
Duration of the program
On the one hand, three months is good, but on the other hand, in previous programs there were moments when, due to the long passage of KYC and some other formal procedures, all projects started the program at different time and when one project was already finishing, another could only just start. I hope that the initiators of the proposal will take this into account in this program
Considering the pros and cons, it seems to me that the pros outweigh the cons
Thank you for submitting this comprehensive proposal. Our team greatly appreciates the clarity and structure with which the problem has been articulated and the proposed solution outlined. The communication is effective, and the thoughtfulness behind your approach is evident throughout.
While we may not possess the same depth of marketing expertise to fully grasp every nuance of the strategy—and thus may not yet see all aspects as clearly as you do—we recognize the diligence and care that have gone into crafting this initiative.
Our team firmly believes in the principle that DAO capital should be leveraged to empower and enable human potential. In alignment with this ethos, and based on the merits of your well-considered proposal, we are pleased to confirm that we will be voting FOR this initiative.
We are enthusiastic about the potential positive impact this proposal promises to deliver and are confident in the value it will bring to the ecosystem. Thank you again for your efforts, and we look forward to seeing the outcomes of this endeavor.
On one hand the budget seems a bit high ($50k/project/month), but on the other hand if we want to really test out a lot of different channels, it requires a higher budget. Also, this are the max amounts, the final cost may be lower than that. On top of that we will get a detailed report on effectiveness of each channel, which may be the most important result of this proposal. For this reason, I voted FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We want to start by applauding the impressive effort and creativity you’ve put into this proposal to address user acquisition challenges. It’s clear a lot of thought has gone into it, and we’re genuinely excited to see how it evolves. It’s probably of great interest for other L2s trying to figure out retention.
Based on the proposal and the conversation so far, there are a few key areas where we think more clarity could help push things forward. Here are our questions:
Budget Breakdown
You’ve outlined a $3M budget to support ~20 projects, averaging $150k per project. Could we get a deeper look into how you landed on that $150k figure? We’d also love to hear more about the specific outcomes you’re targeting—how will this investment pay off for the ecosystem?
Committee Selection
The proposal sketches out the committee’s lineup, but we’re still unsure about how members will be chosen. Can you share more about the selection process and how we can ensure decisions stay fair and transparent?
Sustainability Plan
We noticed you mentioned a potential second iteration if the first round succeeds. That’s encouraging, but we’re curious about how the program’s impact will hold up after the initial 3 months. Are there specific plans or structures to keep the momentum alive long-term?
These points seem central to strengthening the proposal, and we think digging into them could address some of the community’s open questions. We’d love to hear your take, and we’re looking forward to keeping this discussion moving!
Hey @mcfly, huge thanks for your positive words! Yes, we’ve been working on this proposal since the inception of ARB Liquidity Incentives calls so basically +6 months now - also incorporating takeaways from LTIPP
Budget breakdown
Average $150k / project / 3 months means an average budget of $50k per month. With a survey-declared CAC of $50 per user (which we plan do decrease x2) this means acquiring 1000 - 2000 users per project. For big DeFis like GMX this would mean getting their DAU / MAU back to numbers as it was 1 year ago:
Please note these are 1-week data points; source: Patterns
For multichain dApps & bridges like Across this would mean moving a chunk of their TVL into the Arbitrum ecosystem (that’s why we’re incentivizing positive net inflow into $ARB only). The userbase is there:
For smaller protocols it’s a chance to gain wider adoption and as we discussed with Arbitrum Foundation - one of the goals of this program is to identify such rising stars. This doesn’t necessarily mean that $150k will be granted to every applicant - ROI is the leading metric here. In case of both small and big projects, the overarching goal is to increase sequencer revenues by showcasing sustainable (= positive ROI) strategies to acquire new users.
Committee selection
OCL & Arbitrum Foundation representatives will be appointed by them, DAO Representative & Marketing Consultant will be selected from open applications shared here on the DAO forum but also from our direct outreach. We do have some high quality potential candidates already but we want to get the most experienced people possible so ones with the best track records win.
Sustainability Plan
Retention metrics will be calculated during campaigns and after they’re finished but more importantly - CAC & wallet LTVs will be calculated continuously along the program. Retention is important but other than in case of LTV-focused programs, our aim is to find user segments with positive ROI. This boils down to understanding which user segment has ecosystem LTV (= sequencer fees) + dApp LTV (= dApp fees) higher than its CAC. Once such segments are found, the 2nd iteration will be started to focus on these segments only. We were encouraged to plan for the future and increase the budget of this program to $10m to start the 2nd iteration instantly but we’re aware of what’s happening on the market and want to plan accordingly, saving money for the DAO (also returning unused funds in case of this program).
I hope these answers clarify, happy to continue the discussion!
We’ve updated it today with the following changes:
Your opinion is extremely important to us. Let me answer in order:
Regarding your comment:
