Oh, I see what you mean. Thank you for your explanation, I agree with your perspective.
1 Like
Your insights on the pilot program and resource allocation optimization for Orbit Chains are truly valuable.
Orbit Chains remind me of the rapid growth of OP Stack. In the current competitive environment, I believe that the priority and necessity of Orbit Chains should be elevated to the highest level. Its demand scenarios are very clear, but the current budget and priority settings might not fully unlock its potential. I recommend increasing the budget while ensuring effective resource utilization through regular reports and progress tracking.
Orbit Chains provide L3 application chain expansion capabilities and attract more protocols to the ecosystem. I hope it can achieve even better results. Here are my personal suggestions:
1. Budget Increase:Raise the budget for Orbit Chains from $750,000 to $1,250,000 to support early developer incentives and technical infrastructure. If an immediate increase is not feasible, consider running it for 3-6 months and then evaluating performance to decide on additional funding. I firmly believe that spending adequately on the most important areas is essentialāmore funds enable better outcomes.
2. Priority Elevation:Elevate Orbit Chains to the same priority level as the other four domains, ensuring sufficient resource allocation and team focus to drive its development.
1 Like
Great to see this advancing.
One small suggestion I would make is to broaden the scope of the Community/Events and New Protocol/Dapps categories to explicitly include (mini grants) for researching an opportunity.
We could save A LOT of money if builders could quickly get a small amount of funding to research an idea, as this avoids the constraint of having to build a pre-determined roadmap and the risk of finding out halfway that thereās a better idea but youāre not funded for thatā¦
Thinking about it, perhaps that should be a separate track as itās a different skillset to assess and mentor research proposalsā¦
1 Like
If any, I think it would be a separate track: the Education, Community and Event domain is one with a very clear identity, and the goal for season 3 would be to have more coordination with AF events and, eventually, DAO events, on the event side of things, and more coordination wiith AF resources on the deverel type of thing.
What you are suggesting seems like something separate, more specific, with different dynamics and different goals.
Glad to see a Season 3 of this (crazy to think itās already on itās third iteration!). This has been, IMO, one of the more successful DAO-led projects. It fills an important niche of funding small-scale projects and does so in an effective and cost-efficient manner. Definitely think this should be continued, and I think we have enough data to absolutely make the step to 1 year intervals instead of 6 months.
Question - does the team still think 1 member / team per domain is enough to handle the increased applicant load? Just curious
Iāll addā¦
Gaming - Iām glad to see some evolution of this domain and acknowledgement of the GCP will inevitably have some over-lapping work. And Iām glad itās still a domain, as I said above this program fills a niche that the GCP might not be able to handle with their larger scale. Should be interesting to see how this plays out
Orbit - I think itās good to get ahead of this stuff. Something I think weāve learned with the GCP among other things. Last thing we want to do is wait for something to be live and then be behind, so I can see the rationale in starting it now. I think as long as there is an avenue to get funds back if nothing materializes of this I can support it.
Time flies, both in life and in the dao 
itās stretched, I can tell you that. Depends on a lot of things, partially on domain (education is the one with more inbound requests, but protocol is the one more heterogeneous for example which poses other difficulties), partially on period (in some months there is double the amount of inbound). All in all, I interviewed all current DAs to ask about workload plus salary, they all say is close to a limit tho.
I think there is a merit for keep going like this for another season; it can make sense to increase DAs, or payroll, only if we increase overall allocation so that we can serve more grants in the same span of time. As of now there is a decent effort to try to keep the opex low.
Once we will have the GCP investment thesis, which should come soon, and we will also have a more concrete view of what happens in the gaming domain here, we can definitely find a synergy between the 2 programs.
2 Likes
Thanks for putting this up, Jojo.
First off, very interesting abbreviation 
We have been impressed by the teamās work so far. Weāve especially loved that New Protocols and Ideas wildcard. We also find the possibility of the fifth domain interesting. Not entirely sure where we stand with that but it sounds good.
Our question/suggestion is this: If this prop passes temp check, could we get an updated metric on season 2ās completed projects before going to onchain vote in January? As is, S1 did better than S2 in terms of project completion. We know there are still six months to the end of S2 but we would be more confident to support this proposal seeing more projects completed in S2 than in S1 before the onchain vote.
Also, here, we believe you meant mid February
1 Like
Hi @JoJo , thanks for the proposal, 
I was just reading through and this thing from Orbit Chains section stood out for me
Is there any internal roadmap for addressing user experience fragmentation? specifically regarding interoperability between Orbit chains. Is there a more thorough vision or plan in place that aims at strengthening the interaction between different chains within the Orbit ecosystem?
Iāve also read through the 2024-2025 Offchain Labs roadmap and loved to see interoperability as one of the core values.
Iām curious to hear your thoughts on whether it would make sense to develop a more unified block explorer that offers insights and transparency across the entire Orbit ecosystem.
Would love to hear your thoughts, and thank you again for this
Rebeca from routescan.io
1 Like
it really happens that new protocols and ideas is a capture all type of bucket, but in the good sense, with some crazy ideas being dropped there in the last year. It has been fun so far And for the fifth domain: this is the reason why we are gathering feedbacks here, but also we will vote directly on having or not having it, knowing that any specific answer might just be reverted at some point in future with a new voting if the dao wants, because we really need flexibility in a 1 year program.
Yes we will do our best to update numbers before tally so there is a clearer picture.
Yes. The timeline will be updated, because at it stands now, we wonāt be able to have elections before Christmas due to the pause from the code of conduct. So elections will be in january, with the candidacy period during december, and likely program ready by mid february.
Ehy Rebeca, this is more of a broad question for the DAO. As posted above there is a working group that is trying to answer questions like this one and other. While I see an overlap with the roadmap that OCL has created for us, Orbt is really a topic we are figuring out in real time, and any answer now might be different from any answer in 6 months - 8 months - 1 year. It will depend a lot on the lead of the domain and the vision he wants to apply, and this is why I am a strong proposer, for Orbit, to not have elections but appoint directly @maxlomu, because we need someone in charge able to deliver a vision.
As per the above this would mostly be a question for the future lead of the Orbit domain. But yes, explorer are currently a painpoint. From an economic standpoint the program is not necessarily equipped to provide enough for a block explorer in a single chain (we still have a 50k cap), and in general if the team that is running the orbit chain is not able to directly pay for this infra, is highly unlikely that a grant can make a difference in this sense beside some short term relieve. Curious about what you are doing at routescan, but also a bit OT in this discussion, and I guess if we will have an orbit domain there could definitely be space to talk in more details.
1 Like
gm, great to see the Questbook program advancing for season 3.
I agree with the general sentiment that this has been one of the most useful and well-run programs so far, so I was equally pleased to learn I was being considered as a DA for the Orbit track.
If the proposal passes, Iāll do my best to use the acquired knowledge and skills in the orbit and interop realms to start driving competitive advantages and innovation to orbit chains, and complement the actions of the Foundation and OCL.
1 Like
Thank you for the proposal. Weāre overall supportive of the continuation of the program and the inclusion of Orbit as a new domain.
Glad to see the inclusion of a checkpoint after their final milestone and metric. We believe this is critical to measure long term alignment and outcomes of the program.
We echo the sentiment below, given its the first iteration of this length.
1 Like
Thank you @JoJo for bringing forward the new program! Iām fully in support of continuing. It will bring great ideas that ultimately benefit and bring life to the project. I think itās very positive to include Orbit given the amount of support itās received from the Arbitrum community. Iām glad to see fewer abandoned projects in Season 2, which is a good sign that things are on the right track.
Iād like to recommend āKickā as a new platform in the gaming area that is currently being used a lot, without forgetting Facebook Gaming which also has a large user base.
1 Like
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly āLampros Labs DAOā) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you for sharing the Season 3 proposal for the Arbitrum Domain Allocator Offerings (D.A.O.) Grant Program. We find this proposal truly impressive and appreciate the thoughtful evolution of the program across its previous seasons. The focus on enabling small teams and builders to bootstrap their projects perfectly aligns with the DAOās vision of fostering ecosystem innovation.
As a grantee in Season 2 of the Education track, we can attest to how smooth the entire process was ā from the application stage to the clear communication during the feedback period, and through to the approval and ongoing communication. The work done by the domain allocators in Season 2 has been truly impressive.
Weāre curious about Novaās current trajectory. Would it be beneficial to allocate a specific portion of the Dev Tooling domainās budget to projects that could potentially drive Nova adoption? Or is the focus shifting away from this area?
The post-grant tracking mechanism is an excellent addition. This will provide meaningful insights into the real impact of funded projects.
The following section is very well included in this proposal. It sets clear guidelines on standard reporting which will go a long way.
The potential inclusion of the Orbit Chains domain is particularly exciting, demonstrating the DAOās adaptability and readiness to explore new opportunities. We support it and are eager to see how this experimental addition might support dApp expansion and address user experience challenges. We believe that the option of adding Orbit Chains should be for the same amount as other Domains.
Regarding budget management, will all ARB be converted to USDC at once? We suggest spreading the conversion of all ARB to USDC across four quarterly intervals or two semi-annual periods, rather than converting everything at once. This approach could help manage liquidity and minimize price impact.
Additionally, we suggest an innovative approach of reserving 10% of the budget for domains like DevTooling, New Protocols, and Gaming, specifically for previous grantees. This could provide continuity for promising projects still seeking product-market fit, without requiring a full DAO vote.
Overall, this proposal reflects a well-thought-out and forward-looking plan.
1 Like
Missed this part from @0xDonPepe in the previous message sorry.
What do you have in mind here? Would it be a performance assessment on the domain itself, on the grantees or on the DA?
If we are talking about adjusting the focus of domains, I can tell you that the narrative and market trends in crypto will dictate the flow of proposals in the domains. Especially in new protocols and ideas, when AI last year was mostly used for chatbot and as support services, we saw plenty of chatbot/support services proposal. I am expecting for example several proposals, out of the gate, for AI agents, which is a trend that formed in the last few weeks.
If we are talking about increasing fundings in domains, this can always be done if the dao wants to through a snapshot discussion and tally voting; the same applies as you can see from the proposal to plug in new domains. I really really think we need the flexibility in a 1 year long program to adapt to what we want to do as a collective.
Obviously all of this will be, partially, covered in the monthly report and the calls that will be done. I guess we can also prepare more detailed reports on a quarterly basis to also understand trends of the market. Would this suffice? Otherwise let me know what you have in mind here.
(small note: the details about reporting etc are currently not included in snapshot. Idea is to include them in tally, not necessarily at an extra granular level, but in term of how frequently you want report (monthly), how frequent there are calls (likely monthly, either a specific call but seems an overkill, or through GCR/Open governance calls/whatever is gonna be utilized by the dao during the year), and if we want āspecial reportsā like the above).
Could you please dm me a reference to this please? Curious to see it
best thing is likely let the market dictate what it wants without us putting too many constrains. If we will see a surge of Nova again as a technology, we will likely see plenty of proposals coming in. As of now, it doesnāt seem a priority target for stakeholders, or at least seems less important than others such as stylus/orbit
As stated in the proposal, the idea is to use the support of the Foundation to do so. This means it shouldnāt happen on chain, and should minimize the impact through the usage of coinbase prime. Will also coordinate with them to have more details into this; but, and I will be honest, I really donāt want us to find ourself in the situation like in season 2, in which even with the buffer the program ended up with around 10-20% less funds than it should have had. The size has already been downscaled to what we effectively got in season 2 (so, not the full amount), risking of getting less would mean having a very non efficient program.
I am not sure this is for the best. I think that someone that applied to season 1, or season 2, can apply again for season 3. Evaluation will obviously be biased by 1) previous goals achieved 2) the fact that, as for previous seasons, we will have an oversubscribed program which means every yes to a team is a no to another 3-4 teams.
I also understand where you are going with programs having a a clearer path in our dao, potentially a growth path, and this is what we are building in season 3. I know we lacked this in previous seasons, so I can understand the why of your request.
Thank you for the proposal, Curia also participated in the program and the DAs have been very helpful and easy to work with throughout the process.
As we move forward, we just want to ask that what are the key takeaways or challenges from SS1 and SS2 that could guide improvements or adjustments for SS3?
1 Like
if I had to take a guess: we have limited funding, and always oversubscribed domains. So far, 1 out of 4 takes a grant, overtime it will likely become 1 out of 5, but thatās not really a challenge it only means the program is succesfull.
The main challenge is: allocating, to that single project, in a way that bears the most return for the ecosystem.
We want to ensure diversity in the program but we also want to leverage expertise and success, tracking metrics such as if the team has been around 3 months after the grant will help us understand if we are going in the right direction.
Thanks for the splendid proposalļ¼
Arbitrum D.A.O.Season 3 seeks to extend the programās reach while addressing prior gaps, ensuring Arbitrum remains a leading hub for innovation and community-driven growth.
I love the idea of āLong-term Project Sustainabilityā, which is necessary to track the current status of projects and I wish to see more details of this Metric.
However, I decide it is premature to launch the fifth domain at this stage. Based on the current development, Season 3 could focus on systematically reviewing and rebuilding on the progress made in the previous seasons. Once the four existing domains have achieved significant results, we can then consider launching the Orbit Chain.
1 Like
We are pleased with the proposal and acknowledge that, with the experience gained from previous programs, you have once again managed to present a proposal that includes all the necessary details.
However, we would like to make a small observation: the image shared, which details the timelines for each stage, indicates that the total duration of the proposal is one year and 9 months. For this reason, we believe it would be important to include a textual breakdown of these timelines, clearly differentiating between the program duration (one year) and the overall proposal, to enhance understanding.
You are right @Argonaut. I crafted the section āProgram Phasesā to better explain the timeline, please let me know if there is anything to clarify further.
1 Like