[Non-Constitutional] [RFC] Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3

Proposals
41

Thanks for the questions @gauntlet

We don’t have the traffic numbers; indeed, is worth looking into, knowing that we still have a disconnections between all products/platforms/initiatives. But worth looking into.
On the success: while the dao voted against in the temp check with 37M votes in favour and 117M against, is worth noticing that in several feedbacks of the proposal such as the one from @krst and the one from @coinflip it was suggested to Curia to tap into season 2 of the grant program.
Abstracting from this specific instance, the “success” is not strictly on the product per se in my opinion (which will need to be proven over time), but on the fact that the program satisfied a need of the DAO. We have been seeing over time how delegates either don’t want to put more capital on the table for certain initiatives, or the time and energy needed to tailor a proposal toward the best outcome for the DAO.
Effectively one of the job of DAs has become to be not only responsible to allocate capital on behalf of the DAO, but also to save delegates resources to discuss and improve certain proposals.

It feels cyclical to be honest: the more certain narrative are prominent in crypto, the more the % of proposals will gravitate toward that narrative. That said, the program has become more important and more well known over time which is favoring the ingress of more traditional or bigger teams and protocols. There is definitely a gap in comms: we need to get better, and this can be solved by the current team up to a certain point since some bd can be done by DAs but is not specifically on the scope (except for gaming that has a more specific approach). We need to get better at a DAO level on this, knowing also that the $50,000 available, while helpful, most times are not enough for these bigger teams. This also means that, to “make it work”, there has to be the will on both protocols’ side and DAs’ side to find the best way to leverage this smaller capital, either to build a subset of core functionalities, or to prioritize certain implementation in Arbitrum etc. Not always an easy task, but a task that we were capable to deliver in several instances so far.

New protocols and ideas is definitely the right bucket for this task, and yes, this could be one of the usage. Would be even better if this approach could be cointegrated through future iteration of the security subsidy funds, or any other growth initiative of the DAO; and this will be one of the task of the pm, trying to put together all of these programs in term of coordination when there is a project that can fit all the boxes.
Yes, open to discussion, you know where to find me :grin:

Agree; this is the reason why, If you check the description above for gaming, you will see that is orienting toward user acquisition and KOL campaigns more than development of product and infra. This is something that has naturally occurred over time in season 2, and in season 3 we have worked, with the help of Kiet from OCL to better define a scope, user acquisition, that should now tap not into web3 users but in web2 ones. From a practical standpoint this has translated not only in analysing what could be done with the capital available in the program (again, 50k is a good amount of money, but for sure you won’t be able to build the next call of duty with it), but also sourcing strong candidates that could have web2 and kols connections for the next elections.

2 Likes
42

Hi!
Thank you for the offer. I think that grants of this level are definitely needed by Arithrum and there are many projects with small needs for funds.
However,
First of all, I have a question about detox in grants. I think it is too early to offer continuation of grants until we understand the conclusions from the previous grants.
Secondly, I think that we should also wait for a certain plan for a year or three ahead from Entropy to understand which grants are best for us to give.

Why do you think that the continuation of this program will be successful if the second season clearly showed poor results and the first was significantly more successful?

Perhaps it is worth changing the rules for selecting projects for grants, if the percentage of successful projects has dropped so much since the first season?

Also, I don’t think it’s worth increasing the volume of grants if we don’t know the reasons for the deterioration in indicators.

1 Like
43

Hello and thanks for the comment.
I think what I posted above is not necessarily clear, will try to rewrite: what is happening in phase 2 is that, when a project is approved, it has up to 6 months to complete their deliverable. Since season 2, at full capacity, has finished 25 days ago, it means that we have up to 5 months for projects to complete. This explains why the % of completion seems low but is not necessarily low: we have until beginning of may for projects to finish what they promised.
To give the DAO a better sense check of performances, I will take care of updating the numbers before we go to tally (so in a month or so). One other thing that should happen is that @Entropy is looking into auditing some of the projects to allow the DAO to have a better, unbiased view. This won’t encompass all of course, but is should partially highlight if the program went as expected or not.

While I can understand why you posted this due to the misunderstanding above, I would like to reiterate that the volume is not increasing. We had, in previous season, $750,000 per domain over a 6 months period. Having now $1,500,000 per domain over a 1 year period is maintaining the same level, just more extended in time.
(and is also technically less than what we should have had: in season 2, we voted for $1,000,000 each domain, but by the end of Tally voting and conversion we had less, around $750,000 per domain, due to volatility of arb. We decided, after that experience, that $750,000 was likely enough for 6 months to be mindful of the DAO spending rate).

Most of the detox discussion has been around incentive programs and not grants, but I can also understand your point here. One of the perks of the current timeline is that we will vote for tally around the end of January, when the detox period is more than over.

This, sorry, I don’t understand, could you clarify?

44

What I mean is that this proposal from Entropy suggests a certain path of development Unifying Arbitrum’s Mission, Vision, Purpose (MVP) - #3 by cp0x
I wanted grants to be given to projects that correspond to this path, only that.

You are right, it even turns out that the fund has decreased a little.

1 Like
45

This is a very interesting take and first time I hear it referred to this set of grants which are, de facto, introductionary in our DAO.
I disagree on the premise here, in the sense that this program can serve, among others, the goal to attract builders and new teams in arbitrum, which is a goal consistent with the overarching goals we have as a DAO and as a rollup. What I mean is that to me is consistent with the MVP posted by Entropy, and obviously devil will be in the execution of the program more than anything else.
I also understand that what I just posted can be something to which not everybody can necessarily agree. But is always good to have different visions and pov.

46

Thanks for the detailed proposal, @JoJo. The reception and performance of Seasons 1 and 2 of the Domain Allocator Offerings definitely proven and delivered on its goals, and we are supportive and will vote to continue this program for Season 3 proposal with the 12-month Orbit track.

On @pedrob’s suggestion of a vested ARB bonus tied to completing the 12-month term, we agree that a potential bonus can be allocated for DAs without reducing the monthly payments. Maybe it is something the DAO can vote on separately to approve or reject after the final report on the overall performance of Season 3.

Congratulations again on a well-executed programme.

2 Likes
47

I guess if there is enough consensus on this, sure, we can structure a bonus that is either on completion, or paid pro rata with a rollover into new DA/PM/people in case of substitution (mentioning the second cause I remember reading this in a few proposals, but this is on top of my mind and might be wrong). Would have to study how we are currently doing it, and in general check consensus with delegates.

Interesting in seeing if there is enough appetite for it, and would appreciate anyone who can chim in on this topic.

48

Yes! After discussing it with @JoJo and understanding that the workload for DDAs is very heavy in applications, I agree that the best way to align the role with the long-term view is to add a bonus without reducing the base compensation for the position.

signaling my support here

2 Likes
49

First, thanks to @JoJo for bringing this proposal forward. The Questbook programs during S1 and S2 have been a great mechanism to provide alternative funding for grants outside of Arbitrum Foundation grants and direct DAO funding. The growth of Questbook Domain Allocator Offerings from one of the earliest DAO pilot programs to now its 3rd season is a great success story.

On the specifics of the proposal, we are supportive of the increased timeline and budgets as well as adding the 5th domain for Orbit. However, we would like to see more detail around post-grant tracking. We’d like to recommend a central public database in Notion that includes:

  • Grant Recipient
  • Domain Track
  • Total Funding
  • Status
  • Milestones
  • Tracking metrics (based off milestones)
  • Post-grant tracking metrics
    • not suggesting to tie this to performance of domain allocators, but for informational purposes
    • ecosystem impact e.g, adoption rate in Arbitrum
  • Any other relevant information

We believe these additions will help strengthen the program in Season 3 and beyond.

1 Like
50

Not sure about the bonus idea TBH. It’s hard to see how a bonus would tie to quality improvement… but if there was a way to reconcile that, sure

51

Both in snapshot, and likely in tally, it would be hard to cementify specifically these details since our dao is slowly moving toward initiatives, like the one proposed by @AlexLumley, in which there should be some sort of standardization of reporting (and likely repository).

That said, the suggesion in term of details is great, and is kinda what we track internally already but everyone in his own spreadsheet that we will standardize (below a snippet of mine to give a practical example).

immagine
immagine2916×288 70 KB

While not loving notion, I am agnostic on the platform. It can definitely be a start. One of my strongest desire is that, however we start, by end of next year we will have indeed a platform, dao owned, in which we can put these and other informations as well. But that is OT here.

Thanks for the suggestion!

2 Likes
52

Thank you for this proposal! I’m delighted to see the Grant program continuing to advance. I must say, @JoJo’ execution is unparalleled—one of the most diligent and effective people I’ve encountered in Arbitrum DAO.

From the data, it’s apparent that the completion rate for Season 2 has dropped significantly. I believe this is not only because Season 2 is still ongoing but also due to the bear market. However, with the market now warming up, I think Orbit is poised for a rapid growth phase.

So we could adopt a more aggressive approach by slightly relaxing the criteria for projects to receive Grants. Overly strict KPIs could potentially stifle innovation. Has @JoJo considered this issue? Happy to get your feedback!

1 Like
53

what I have observed over the last year is that the influx of participants is really a function among others of the narratives currently live in crypto as a whole plus the enthusiasm of crypto participants.
The success of the program is very flow dependant, but at the third iteration we might just be in the situation that the program is established enough for people to know about it and come to us, and this should help in this regard :slight_smile:

2 Likes
54

Yes, absolutely, I completely agree with this point. Flow is incredibly important for a new project in Crypto. In fact, I am very eager to see projects similar to Pump.fun and Friend.tech emerge on Arbitrum. However, this creates a paradox: if a project has already been launched and is well-received, does it still need these tens of thousands of dollars in Grants? This is a tricky question.

I believe that if we can support developers when their ideas are still in the concept stage, it would be more impactful. Of course, this is extremely challenging and difficult to evaluate in terms of KPIs.

1 Like
55

this is something I covered but not sure if it was here, so will gladly repeat.
I get this question a lot: does a project that has made a seed round for a few millions need to tap into a program like this one?
Answer is: depends. While a project can have a fat treasury, doesn’t mean is keen on spending. While 50k can be a lot, or not, they can be enough to prioritize certain development of core functionalities in our chain, or expantion in our chain, knowing that these functionalities/expantion might have likely come at some point in future but not knowing when or in what regards. In this sense for a big project a program like this allows to move arbitrum related milestone on top of the list; if you add to this the fact that the DAs can also negotiate, up to some degree, for a deployment that is in the best interest of the ecosystem, I think the answer is yes, big projects should tap into this as long as their application can bring value in the ecosystem.

This is also partially related to what we saw in stip/ltipp, with extremely big project tapping into the program, and some questioning if it was the case for this “rich” projects to do so. In the end, the answer is in how is executed more than in the fact per se.

Of course this program is mostly oriented toward bootstrapping smaller team, we will always have this nature.

2 Likes
56

Interesting perspective. Definitely, this is a principle that a well-functioning program should adhere to.

1 Like
57

The success of Ss 1 and 2 is proof that Season 3 is worth continuing. Arbitrum can attract more creative projects, driving innovation, and growing the ecosystem in the long term.

One key goal here I see really reasonable is ensuring long-term sustainability for projects post-funding. This will help Arbitrum build a stronger, more sustainable ecosystem and keeping projects thriving on Arbitrum for the long run.

2 Likes
58

I just voted in favor on Snapshot to renew the program with 5 domains. As I mentioned on my previous reply, the program’s impact has been exceptional, and I believe this renewal will further drive innovation and creativity. Excited to see what comes next.

1 Like
59

Im voting NO, as there are already so many initiatives running and no clear monitoring of all of those. Im still in the camp saying the DAO needs a fixed budget and someone taking care of treasury management. If the budget is used up, the DAO has to find ways to pay for initiatives.

1 Like
60

Thanks for the proposal and for seasons 1 and 2. You have done exceptional work with this program. I’m looking forward to season 3, and I agree that having a new domain that enables orbits to grow is a great idea and challenge.

One thing that always comes to mind is incentives and how to align the domain allocators with the correct incentives—not just for deploying but for being cautious with the money being handled. I would love to see better incentive alignment.

Also, I think it would be incredibly healthy to have rotation in some domain allocators.

I will vote “FOR” in snapshot for full 5 domains.

1 Like