Overall, we are currently in favor but would be much more supportive if we would be able to see some budget cuts.
Additionally, @gauntlet’s questions regarding the role of this entity versus a native entity hiring and implementing Orbit chains from their side is an important one. Would be nice to have some comments and opinions on that end.
When it comes to increasing transparency I’m usually in favor, as it’s one of Arbitrum and crypto’s principles. This proposal definitely goes in that direction increasing transparency and enabling data-driven decisions for Arbitrum Orbit eco. However, I think that the total costs are still too high for what is being proposed and I’d like to see them slimmed down.
Hey everyone, Matthias here from growthepie!
I want to extend my sincere appreciation for all the thoughtful comments shared. Please know that we’re taking each one seriously and are actively working to find solutions, as well as improve how we communicate why we believe this initiative will be a net positive for the DAO.
The topic of costs has come up multiple times, and we understand the concerns. It’s great to see @cp0x recognize that these costs are reasonable, but we also acknowledge the differing perspectives. From a data standpoint, we anticipate being able to reduce costs after the first year as we automate more processes and apply our learnings from the Orbits ecosystem. So, the $10k/year mentioned will certainly decrease over time.
In addition to our data tasks, we’re heavily focused on frontend development and external communication. Currently, only about 40% of our team is dedicated to data and backend tasks, while the rest is committed to ensuring seamless UX, fostering collaborations, and maintaining active communication across various social platforms. Although this work often goes unnoticed, it significantly benefits the Arbitrum DAO by making relevant data easily accessible, especially for chain and application developers, without requiring much effort on their part.
I also want to briefly address the question raised by @gauntlet about whether data presentation should be managed more by the Arbitrum Foundation versus third-party providers like us. This is a strategic question that, due to our inherent conflict of interest, we’re not in a position to definitively answer for the DAO. However, I’d like to share our perspective as impartially as possible (though please keep in mind our bias):
In the crypto space, neutral representation of data is crucial. While we’re not suggesting that any solution developed by the Foundation would lack neutrality, our experience has shown that users value platforms like ours for our unbiased reporting on the data and developments across various chains.
It was also mentioned that data providers, including us, are willing to build dashboards independently. While this is true, it’s important to note that this may not be a sustainable model. So far, we’ve extracted and stored nearly 1 billion Arbitrum One transactions (Arbitrum One - growthepie), labeled over 12,000 contracts on Arbitrum One (https://labels.growthepie.xyz/), enhanced transparency in real-time TPS and fees metrics (https://fees.growthepie.xyz/), and published hundreds of posts about Arbitrum across various social networks—all without requesting any contributions from the DAO. We’ve been able to maintain this credible, neutral approach thanks to initial funding from the Ethereum Foundation. Moving forward, we hope to continue on this path in partnership with the Arbitrum DAO.
We believe that the Orbit proposal represents a strong first step toward closer collaboration with the Arbitrum DAO. Together, we can better serve the builders in the Arbitrum ecosystem and enhance transparency around the underlying data.
Overall, I’m a strong believer that we need metrics to continue making decisions that align us with the future and to make better choices. However, I’m not sure if I agree with the amount or the development approach.
On the other hand, considering David’s response above, suggesting a 2 to 4-month timeline to provide the indexer would reduce the cost, right?
Is this something that Offchain Labs or the foundation was expecting to have, or is it okay for a third party to run it?
For now, I’ll abstain due to many questions, but I would like to see a clear reformulation of the proposal for on-chain consideration.
After consideration, Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal
We voted FOR this proposal
We found this proposal hard to analyse without the broader context of the other work in this domain. After consultation with stakeholders, our conclusion was:
For these reasons, we chose to support this proposal at the Snapshot stage. However, we would like to emphasize that, in the future, our preference is for similar-sized initiatives to be funded through Grants Programs to reduce pressure on delegates and bring funded grants under a structured evaluation framework.
I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage. I support this proposal because it meets a clear need (analytics) in an area of strategic focus for Arbitrum (Orbit), is priced reasonably, and is being implemented by a team with a track record of delivering quality product.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
After reviewing the proposal, we would like to offer the following feedback:
Voting in favor. As I said, I usually support initiatives that aim at increasing transparency, and costs were my main concern in this proposal. However, as Matthias mentioned in the response above, they will most probably decrease over time and I also believe that potential benefits of the proposal are promising.
Thanks @Frisson, @SEEDGov and @0x_ultra for your support and sharing your rationale openly.
Apart from what you all mentioned above, I would also remind everyone of the marketing potential as well, for the whole Orbit stack and each and every Orbit chain individually. growthepie is one place where they can differentiate themselves more clearly and show their value proposition. End users, builders as well as media outlets like podcasters (The Daily Gwei, Milk Road etc.) and sites like TheBlock, Decrypt, etc. use growthepie to see and highlight developments in the scaling space as well as individual chains. Most recently done by Blockworks, for example: Zora launches onchain NFT secondary markets with Uniswap - Blockworks
We also decided to host a 30 minute call on Thursday at 3pm UTC. You can find it on the Governance Community calendar here or directly using this Google Meet link: https://meet.google.com/bvn-yrqd-ffv
Thanks for the comments and open discussion @everyone 
Implementing standardized metrics is essential, and the GrowThePie team is fully equipped to execute this successfully. I support this proposal.
We will support this proposal because it adds crucial transparency by including information on how much fees Orbit Chains pay back to Arbitrum, something current tools don’t provide. This data is essential for ArbitrumDAO to anticipate developments and make informed decisions for the ecosystem’s future.
Additionally, we believe the information provided by the platform will be valuable not only for users but also for the DAO in making decisions on Orbit Chain initiatives, such as incentive programs for Orbit Chains. However, we do have some concerns about the budget, though we expect costs for adding new chains to decrease as the project scales. We also support the idea of future proposals like this going through a competitive process and suggest funding similar initiatives through a dedicated grant program. Diversifying information sources will provide a more comprehensive understanding and strengthen decision-making.
I fully support this proposal. By providing transparency and standardized metrics for Arbitrum Orbit chains on growthepie.xyz, this initiative will significantly enhance the decision-making capabilities of DAO members, developers, and users, ensuring that we can make more informed, data-driven choices. The proposed metrics and stack view for Orbit chains will not only bring greater transparency to the entire Arbitrum ecosystem but also lay the groundwork for future incentive programs and retrospective initiatives. The long-term partnership potential of this proposal is also highly promising, especially considering how it will improve visibility and governance efficiency within the Arbitrum Orbit.
After careful consideration, I have decided to vote AGAINST the proposal on Snapshot. I believe the proposal’s intent is correct, and—based on the opinions of the experts who have previously commented—it’s well-priced. I also think that what is being proposed adds value, and the DAO needs easily accessible information about the status of the Orbit Chains for potential future incentive programs and to properly collect the revenue promised in the licensing agreement.
Why am I voting against it? Several reasons:
I believe we should have a provider or a resource dedicated exclusively to Arbitrum and the Orbit Chains, which could eventually be integrated with other features for Arbitrum, rather than funding the growth of an external data provider. I wouldn’t oppose your team developing and maintaining this resource.
I don’t understand the need to limit development to 20 Orbit Chains, and agree with @swmartin that it could lead to a race to conclude the contract. Currently, there are already more than 60 publicly announced Orbit Chains, with many more in development that have not yet been publicly announced.
Therefore, I would be inclined to vote in favor of a proposal that covers all Orbit Chains and develops an Arbitrum-exclusive resource. I also think @AlexLumley idea of creating an RFP for this purpose is a good one.
hey @pedrob - the limit of 20 Orbit chains is necessary from our end because we cannot guarantee an endless amount of chains (it would be impossible for us to determine the infra need).
We can assure you though that we don’t want to conclude the contract as quickly as possible. As written above and also mentioned on the governance call yesterday, we are planning on implementing @swmartin idea of the $1M TVL threshold for this - so that the “top” 20 chains will be listed.
Hope this info helps!
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
After our initial comment, there have been more clarifications, discussions and affirmations (on the cost by other data tool providers) that make this proposal appealing and we are convinced of potential returns that this analytics tools can provide in the long run. Especially the development cost of the foundation is considered reasonable and promising for future marketing uses that would lead to more developers and users on the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Voting “Against”
Based on the response by @davidgarcia , it seems something of this nature is already in process and while I am generally in favor of multiple sources where possible… this is a large spend for what seems like will be a redundancy.
It seems that there is a misunderstanding. What @davidgarcia described only makes things easier for data platforms like ours (and would make it accessible to other providers with a different focus), because there would be an indexing provider that is reliably in place.
In our case, we would have some cost reductions because the data would be readily accessible for us to take and then aggregate metrics, etc. We can then provide your end users, builders and DAO members to actually read and understand the data through visualisations. Also, these aggregations would be available for everyone to take through our API and make their own analysis if someone wants to make correlations, go deeper, combine it with a different data set, etc.
hey @everyone,
a friendly reminder that we are offering our AMA today at 3pm UTC. It would be great to have you join in case you have any open questions or if anything seems unclear.
You can find it on the Governance Community calendar here or directly using this Google Meet link: https://meet.google.com/bvn-yrqd-ffv
Hope to see you there 
DAOplomats would be voting FOR this proposal during the temp check.
We initially wanted to vote against this proposal but after @tobsch provided this clarity on how the Foundation’s agreement with an indexing provider helps bolster their work, we would be supporting this proposal.
However, we would love to see an update on these cost reductions before supporting this proposal if it goes to onchain vote.
We are in favor of this proposal. Given the low cost relative to the significant infrastructure and work involved, it offers excellent value for the DAO. GTP is already a recognized leader and knowledge hub within the ecosystem, and centralizing the tracking of these metrics will enhance branding and completeness.
Moreover, this initiative will generate accessible content, which is perfect for marketing efforts and valuable for key opinion leaders (KOLs) as they discuss the growth of the Orbit ecosystem.
However, it’s important to note that this proposal doesn’t fully solve the challenge of making Orbit chain data more accessible for analytics. At present, it’s nearly impossible to delve into Orbit chain data due to the lack of coverage. Without addressing this more comprehensively, the DAO risks repeatedly funding similar dashboard projects as different contributors attempt to close the same gaps.
We’re eager to see how this proposal progresses and hope to see further steps taken to address the broader data accessibility issue.
