Overview of overlapping ideas in SOS submissions

DAO Programs & Initiatives Strategic Objective Settings (SOS)
1

I went through all the SOS matrix submissions to see what ideas are shared the most / have the most overlap.

Below is a list of the most commonly mentioned ideas, with a short description, and links to SOS matrix proposals that mention that idea.

(If you notice any mistakes, such as someone being incorrectly linked to an idea or someone missing from the list, please let me know in the replies.)

Onboarding institutions

Bringing (mainly TradFi) institutional partners to Arbitrum by having them integrate Arbitrum (and its dApps) into their products, or by launching products such as RWAs (e.g., tokenized stocks) on Arbitrum.

This is echoed in matrix proposals by 0xDonPepe & JuanRah, Gabriel, Max Lomu, Tnorm, Entropy, 404DAO, and mine, Tempe Techie.

Distribution / User Acquisition Channels

Distribution refers to the strategies used to acquire and retain users. Onboarding institutions, as mentioned earlier, is one example of this.

But there are other ways as mentioned in many matrix proposals, such as integrating Arbitrum into mobile apps, including non-crypto apps (as suggested by myself and Gabriel), or developing a dedicated Arbitrum mobile app to own and control a distribution channel.

Other options include researching and identifying distribution channels more broadly, including incentive programs (see Max Lomu, Entropy, Tempe, and Tnorm).

Verticals, workstreams, and operational efficiency

It’s clear that our DAO’s operational efficiency is far from ideal, which is why multiple SOS matrix submissions address the issue and suggest solutions (Entropy, SEEDGov, Max Lomu, and Gabriel).

The main two alternatives seem to be the Entropy/AF proposal (clear division of work between AAEs and delegates; execution is in the hands of AAEs), and the SEEDGov proposal which aims to retain some execution capabilities in the hands of delegates.

DeFi as the core pillar

Some SOS matrices put a strong emphasis on DeFi or even explicitly call for DeFi to be positioned as the core pillar of Arbitrum (Gabriel, Tnorm, Entropy).

This naturally raises the question of how much focus and space to give to other use cases besides DeFi. @Tnorm suggested an 80/20 split in favour of DeFi in his SOS presentation video call. @MaxLomu offers a different perspective on this here. It would be great to hear what other delegates think as well.

Supporting builders

SOS matrices from 404DAO, Max Lomu, Gabriel, and Entropy suggest various ways of attracting builders to the Arbitrum ecosystem and supporting them, through education, onboarding programs, mentorships, and other initiatives.

Giving premium to ARB

This idea suggests that our DAO should actively explore ways of giving some premium to the ARB token, given how important the token is to our governance.

Staking is the most commonly mentioned approach in SOS matrices by Max Lomu, and Tnorm (though both agree we should first wait to see whether timeboost can provide sustainable and meaningful yield), but there are also other options mentioned.

If anyone else has ideas on how to bring more value to ARB, please share it in the replies.

AI & Social

These two are grouped together because we primarily access AI through social channels (chats, social media), and also social channels get more and more content and usability via AI.

AI and social are mentioned in various SOS matrices, either as separate verticals to explore (e.g. AI infra), or end-user apps and distribution channels (see Tempe, Gabriel, and Max Lomu).

DePIN

Another vertical mentioned in SOS matrices by Dragonawr, Gabriel, and Max Lomu, is decentralized physical infrastructure network, aka DePIN.

In some cases it is also complementary to other verticals e.g. AI (decentralized AI infrastructure), or Social (e.g. Huddle01).

—

There are some other ideas in SOS matrices, but these are the ones with the most overlap across the submissions.

If you think I missed any, let me know in the replies. Also, this topic can be a place to discuss other ideas that no matrix mentioned yet, but may turn out to be important enough to be included in the final SOS matrix.

15 Likes
2

@TempeTechie and @Brick Here is a graphic representing the the 10 top submissions, their relationship and the similarity to the consensus point in green.

image
image560×584 41.9 KB

author Similarity Score Cluster name
#1 entropy 73% Enterprise Development "Objective 1: Arbitrum is Recognized as the Indisputable Number One Home for Builders
#2 entropy 60% Enterprise Development Objective 2: Arbitrum DAO Positions Itself as a Digital Sovereign Nation
#3 entropy 57% Enterprise Development Objective 1: Arbitrum DAO Operates with Efficiency
#4 maxlomu 56% Enterprise Development "5) Promote a Network of Onchain Businesses
#5 tnorm 55% Engagement Recognition "Objective 1: Arbitrum is the Home of Ethereum DeFi
#6 TempeTechie 55% Engagement Recognition "Goal 1: Arbitrum has best-in-class mobile experience
#7 maxlomu 54% Engagement Recognition "3) Support DeFi Renaissance: Increase Liquidity & Connectivity
#8 entropy 53% Enterprise Development Objective 2: Strong and Clear Financial Management Policies that Prioritize Ecosystem Growth and Sustainability
# 9 dragonawr 53% Engagement Recognition 1: Onboard existing Orbit Chain DePIN Projects​
#10 TempeTechie 50% Engagement Recognition "Goal 2: Arbitrum has strong social presence and integrations

We recently integrated the SimScore into Google Sheets. Here is the detailed SimScore Analysis

Here page with a list and description of key terms of the SimScore App.

3 Likes
3

Thanks for this analysis and graphic representation @Maets23! Btw, it’s interesting that none of these top 10 objectives is about onboarding institutions, even though most SOS submissions have an objective on that topic. Why do you think is that? :thinking:

4

Would you mind listing the objectives you are referring to, rather than the author names. That way we can see where these objectives are on the SimScore graph and matrix. This may help explain. thx

1 Like
5

@TempeTechie I looked through the objectives and authors. All 4 of Entropy’s objectives are in the top 10. Which one of their objectives is the one that mentions “onboarding”? It will mean this SOS component will either be #1, #2, #3 or #7 out of 10,

1 Like
6

Yeah, I guess #1, #5, and #7 cover it, mainly because they cover a broader range of topics, among them also institutions/RWAs (that’s why it isn’t immediately clear from the name of these objectives) :+1:

7

Thank you for making this thread! We’re using this space to respond to the SOS proposals broadly, since we think pieces from many of these can be useful and it’s hard to talk about each proposal in isolation.

Things we think should be focuses:

DeFi at the Center of Arbitrum

We agree with @Tnorm’s stance that blockchains are primarily a vehicle for economic activity and that other use cases, while interesting, are secondary. Arbitrum has historically done a good job of being ‘the DeFi chain’ but we’ve been ceding ground to others recently. We think that reaffirming DeFi as the core of Arbitrum would be the best way to stay competitive. The 80/20 split suggested is aggressive, but we have enough conviction that this is the direction Arbitrum should be going in to support it.

Developer and builder support also plays into this. While we have a strong ecosystem of apps, other chains have been attracting builders at a rate higher than Arbitrum and we think we can regain some of that by putting resources towards the Builders Funnel from @maxlomu’s proposal.

Onboarding Institutions

This is an important area that Arbitrum still has a strong position in, we want to push any advantage we can get here, and it seems like most people agree on this.

Mobile Focus

The market for mobile users is massive, and we think that tapping into it could boost Arbitrum’s usage significantly. While the suggestion is around building an app from the ground up, we agree with @Jose_StableLab that it would be a better idea to facilitate integrations with existing apps. We understand the argument that it would be better for the DAO to have full control over this pipeline, but we think risks can be mitigated by going wide with potential partners, so any unexpected pivots by one don’t affect the strategy as a whole.

We’re less sure about integrations into social apps, but we see how it can be synergistic with the above so we think it would be safe to at least experiment in this domain as long as it doesn’t become the main focus (unless of course we see outsized returns on investment here).

Things we think we should be careful around:

Unprofitability and the ARB token

We agree that the DAO should favor reinvesting into growth areas, but we don’t believe deciding in the moment that the DAO will not channel any funds to the token for the next two years would be a good idea. We don’t think staking should happen immediately, only once the DAO has enough revenue for it to be meaningful, but we think it should be kept a part of conversations around where value is flowing.

A Focus Towards External Enterprise and Educational Entities

These are both areas that we think could have a huge amount of impact if successful, but there is also a substantial risk that these fail to gain the footing they need to succeed. If there were to be a secondary set of objectives which were smaller focuses of the DAO, we think these would fit into that.

4 Likes
8

@TempeTechie Based on the pairwise matrix…the following set objectives should be merged “#1,#2 and #8” and “#5 and #7” as these groups have similarity scores of 50% meaning they have alot of duplication. Any score over 20% is considered “plagiarized” in academia. .

In order to stay unbiased, not reading each SOS. My suggestions are purely based on the SimScore Analysis results.

However, so far I have never seen pairs have similarity of more than 50% when analysing other forum topics. So the merger of these SOS points seems needed otherwise Arbitrum will have objectives that are overly crosslinked, thereby being less effective.

1 Like
9

Since this came up as the number one item across all the various SOS proposals … how many of those who submitted SOS applications actually reached out to say the top 3-5 protocols by tvl, users, gas consumption, social engagement scores, etc… to understand what pains they have, what the DAO / Arbitrum could do to actually better support them, what they are willing to do to support Arbitrum, what would actually move the dial.

Would really like this to be more than lip service because i can tell you other ecosystems are asking these questions and actually seem to want that feedback and are acting on it.

10

hey @coinflip, I had collated all the SOSs to do the SimScore Analysis. Here is Claude’s response to your questions.

by claude: "After reviewing the SOS (Strategic Objective Setting) proposals, I can answer the delegate’s question about outreach to top protocols. The question specifically asked how many SOS applicants reached out to leading protocols (by TVL, users, gas consumption, social engagement) to understand their pain points and needs.

Based on my analysis of the provided SOS proposals, there is limited evidence of direct outreach to top protocols. Here’s what I found:

Limited Protocol Outreach Evidence

Most proposals focus on structural improvements, infrastructure development, and general ecosystem growth rather than showing specific research with top protocols. Key observations:

  1. No explicit protocol research documentation: None of the proposals specifically mention conducting interviews or surveys with top protocols by TVL, users, or gas consumption to understand their specific needs.

  2. Institutional focus without specific protocol engagement: Several proposals (including entropy, 0xDonPePe & Juanrah, and TempeTechie) emphasize institutional engagement but don’t document direct conversations with existing top Arbitrum protocols.

  3. General ecosystem assumptions: Most proposals appear to be based on general ecosystem observations rather than direct feedback from leading protocols.

Closest Examples of Protocol Engagement

The proposals that came closest to addressing protocol needs include:

  • tnorm’s proposal mentions focusing on DeFi liquidity and creating “best-in-class” infrastructure, but doesn’t explicitly document conversations with existing protocols.

  • entropy’s objective acknowledges feedback: “we are increasingly hearing unsatisfied feedback from builders across all sizes. Arbitrum-focused builders feel like the DAO doesn’t support them enough,” but doesn’t detail a formal outreach process.

  • maxlomu’s proposals reference the need for stronger coordination and mention existing efforts like “Camelot started a great initiative with the Orbital Alliance,” but again lacks documentation of systematic protocol outreach.

Conclusion

Based on the provided SOS proposals, there appears to be minimal documented evidence of systematic outreach to top Arbitrum protocols to understand their pain points and needs. This aligns with the delegate’s concern that the proposals may be offering “lip service” without substantive protocol engagement.

The proposals generally focus on broader ecosystem initiatives rather than specifically addressing the needs identified by leading protocols through direct research. This represents an opportunity for future SOS processes to incorporate more direct stakeholder engagement with the most important protocols in the ecosystem."

11

I’m sharing the questions I asked in today’s SOS Discussion call #5.

I would kindly ask all delegates to try to answer these questions (at least some of them), and also to give feedback to SOS submissions in their respective topics. All submission authors would appreciate it a lot.

Also, it would be great to get feedback from AAEs, especially @Arbitrum Foundation and Offchain Labs.

Note: The Feedback period ends on 30 April (this is the last day when you can issue your feedback). After that, SOS submissions authors will have 2 weeks to update their submissions based on your feedback, and submit them to the final vote.

Here are the questions:

  1. Do you have any strong objections to any of the SOS objectives/ideas listed in this overview? (Check the first post in this topic)
  2. Do you prefer having very specific objectives, or high-level objectives? (How would you want them to be formed?)
    • For example, a very specific objective would be: “Launch an Arbitrum dedicated mobile wallet”.
    • But a more high-level objective would be “Arbitrum has best-in-class mobile experience”, and it would leave it up to the AAEs to decide how best to achieve it.
  3. Is there any important objective missing from the list above? (Something that you think is important and should be considered by anyone who will submit a final SOS matrix.)
  4. How much focus should we place on DeFi vs. other verticals?
  5. How do you see the role of delegates in the future, in terms of executing on these objectives?
    • Do you think only AAEs should work on execution of the objectives? Or should the DAO keep the right to create working groups or workstreams to also work on objectives?
    • If the role of delegates is reduced to only voting and overseeing the AAEs, what’s the best way to implement that oversight?
1 Like
12

Hi @Coinflip—thank you for raising this issue. While we agree that delegates and those who submitted SOS’s should reach out to builders and protocols, this is easier said than done. At 404, we made attempts to reach out to Arbitrum builders while developing our own initiatives, such as the Onboarding initiative as well as the Short Term Marketing Campaign. To be frank, the results were mixed: even with warm introductions, many builders ghosted us, while others were open and helpful.

This dynamic varies by delegate—based on reputation, delegation size, and external factors. Over time, delegates tend to build feedback loops with familiar builders. This is both a feature and a bug: it diversifies input across the DAO but risks over-representing the most vocal protocols. Ideally, the aggregate reflects the full spectrum of builder needs.

That said, @clJoseph from Gains Network (gTrade) is a highly motivated contributor who makes his best effort to participate in governance. When we asked him for feedback on our SOS submission, he suggested adding the following builder pain points & possible solutions:

  • gas fees (spikes) / blockspace / latency
  • incentives for both usage and building
  • subsidies for interoperability integrations
  • feedback loops with core protocols (perhaps once every quarter)

Your point also raises an interesting dilemma: should we focus on the pain points of the largest protocols—the ones driving most of Arbitrum’s TVL, volume, and fees—or broaden the lens to capture the needs of up-and-coming builders just entering the Arbitrum ecosystem?*

Beneath that lies a governance question: who should take ownership of gathering and sharing these builder insights—the Foundation, Offchain Labs, or the individual delegates of the DAO?

13

Thank you @TempeTechie for starting this thread.

My 2cents trying to answer some of the questions you raised as well as sharing some observations.

What I miss in most submissions

a) What are we solving for?
Evidently the DAO runs a business and is solving for Revenue (R) - Costs (C) > 0 in the long run. Hence minimizing C (all efficiency goals) is a no brainer. On the R side (which is a function of price and quantity) we can increase price (not an option in our case), increase quantity (yes), or add new revenue streams (also yes).

Having this very simplistic framework in mind would make some submissions stronger imo.

b) Being data driven
While not everyone is a Dune Wizard, I suggest looking through previous work done by the ARDC to back up some SOS submissions. E.g., Nethermind looked at the sustainability of the Sequencer Revenue and their recommendation wasfor Arbitrum to position itself as the DeFi liquidity hub

Additionally a remark on being very builder focused (I have been pondering a while whether this is a correct comparison or too simplistic, hence feel free to push back):

The way I see it Arbitrum One resembles slightly a marketplace in Web2. Builders build on one side, users consume what builders build and a fee is generated when the two interact. When you build and nurture these marketplaces (I set one up from scratch in Web2) you constantly have to balance the two and make sure you curate both of them at the same time. Because good builders bring users (if they figure out their customer acquisition strategy) but good users also attract builders.

Hence I believe if we go a “builder first” route we should also go a “user first” route trying to

  • own and improve their UX
  • onboard new crypto users directly onto Arbitrum (relating to point a) above about increasing the total Q → sidenote: by making the pie bigger for everyone and not just attracting yield seekers for a short period of time)
2 Likes
14
  1. Do you have any strong objections to any of the SOS objectives/ideas listed in this overview?

DePIN feels out of scope for Arbitrum at the moment. While I’m bullish on its potential and use cases, I don’t think Arbitrum should actively pursue it right now. DePIN is a large and complex space that requires builders with specific skills (like IoT knowledge, hardware, ..).

It’s quite different from what Arbitrum is focused on. Since Arbitrum has a strong position in DeFi, I think we should double down on that instead. DePIN and DeFi seem like separate paths, and trying to do both could spread us too thin.

  1. Do you prefer very specific objectives, or high-level objectives?

I prefer high-level goals. The SOS should act as a guiding star for all initiatives, not as a to-do list.

  1. Is there any important objective missing from the list above?

As far as I know, gaming wasn’t included in the objectives. Maybe this falls under Builders? With the size of the GCP program, strong support from the future AAE, I think gaming should be added as a separate objective in the final version of the program.

  1. How much focus should we place on DeFi vs. other verticals?

I see DeFi as the core of Arbitrum. Right now, we have such a strong DeFi ecosystem. To keep it, we need to stay active. I think we should focus 50% of our efforts on DeFi vertical.

  1. How do you see the role of delegates in the future, in terms of executing on these objectives?

I believe delegates should be involved in carrying out the objectives, not just setting them. Most SOS objectives came from delegates, and it’s clear they have deep knowledge and insight. Delegates with a specific background could bring a lot to the table in the execution phase. AAEs should find a way to include those delegates (work groups, committees,..)

4 Likes
15

Thank you for putting this summary together — it’s incredibly helpful to see the common threads across the SOS submissions. Below are a few areas that I personally see as most critical for the next 1–3 years of Arbitrum’s growth:

1. Distribution & User Acquisition Channels
I believe this is the key driver for Arbitrum’s next phase of expansion. A great comparison here is Base. Its rapid growth can largely be attributed to its distribution channels — specifically Coinbase Exchange, Coinbase Wallet, and Farcaster.

Take Farcaster Frames as an example: these were instrumental in Base’s early ecosystem growth. They provided engaging, low-friction experiences that made it easy for users to interact with the chain. The Base team also paired this with fun, developer-friendly initiatives like pizza-filled hackathons that showcased Frames tech and energized builders. Campaigns like Coinbase Coffee Days further demonstrated how smooth and accessible Base transactions could be — directly driving user onboarding.

Distribution channels weren’t just a side effect of growth — they were a core engine. I think Arbitrum should take note and make this a top strategic priority.

2. Verticals, Workstreams & Operational Efficiency
I agree that improving structure and execution is essential. The proposed AAEs framework from the Foundation feels like a solid step in the right direction. Clearer roles, verticals, and more streamlined processes will go a long way in enabling the DAO to execute more effectively and in reducing the workload both from delegates and initiative-initiators.

3. DeFi as a Core Pillar
Fully aligned here. DeFi is a proven use case and has historically been Arbitrum’s strongest vertical. With increasing competition from L2s like Base, Unichain, and Ink, now is the time to reassert leadership in this space. More dedicated support, coordination, and capital allocation to DeFi protocols can help maintain Arbitrum’s edge.

Additional thoughts on this point here and here.

4. Supporting Builders (Especially Beyond Solidity)
Arbitrum has a unique edge: it can attract developers outside the Solidity ecosystem, thanks to Stylus. This massively widens the potential builder base compared to other chains. More builders → more experimentation → more chances at breakout success. Stylus should be a centerpiece of the ecosystem’s developer strategy, and we should be doing everything possible to grow and support this builder base.

1 Like
16

@bertani Awesome, I think your observations are spot on!

Btw, can you also answer these five questions (or at least some of them)?

17

I don’t think we should view the DAO as a pure business — that mindset risks making us overly short-term oriented.

Arbitrum is an extension of Ethereum. Our goal should be to create the greatest possible impact in the world (one step at a time). Impact means: a larger and more diverse ecosystem, flourishing experiments that evolve into real use cases, and becoming a facilitator for individuals to create wealth onchain.

If we achieve that, the revenue will follow. But that’s the reward — not the goal itself.

6 Likes
18

Maybe my comment was a but misleading:
I agree with the broader goal of creating the greatest possible impact.

But I don’t think putting a business lense to it is necessarily evil & short-term oriented. It just forces you to focus on where there is real demand & be user oriented (vs ivory tower thinking of building what is theoretically great and interesting).

And if we define impact in another way that is not profit (although then at some point we will have a funding issue), then it would be important to define that.

In the sense of:

  • This is how we define impact: a,b,c
  • SOS submissions x,y,z will get us there
2 Likes
19

I think the SOS are best done as high-level objectives, but at the same time I think it’s important that there is some level of concrete measurability to whatever the objective is.

Sometimes high-level objectives become very broad, to the point that whether some action moves toward that objective or has achieved it in any regard becomes entirely subjective. At that point a SOS is no longer a guiding principle, but rather a platitude to be invoked as needed.

An example might be “Arbitrum grows its userbase of mobile wallet users and transacters”, which provides freedom as to what methods are utilized, but still provides a means to measure the success.

I think AAE’s provide an extremely powerful organizing force that Arbitrum should definitely make use of, by empowering them with appropriate decision-making authority and autonomy among other things.

However, AAE’s being an extremely powerful organizing force relative to Arbitrum DAO’s slow-moving and disorganized nature (and I mean no offense in saying this), also means that the DAO is extremely vulnerable to even slightly self-serving actions taken or light bias applied by these AAE’s.

As a result any SOS or proposal that moves to grant far-reaching influence to AAE’s (such as described in The Vision) also needs to be match it with a commensurate level of oversight, including transparency and accountability requirements covering at the very least financials and conflicts of interest. The Vision is at the time of writing this inadequate in those areas, so it becomes an important aspect to cover well in a SOS.

1 Like
20

I am currently working on a proposal to bring q/acc to Arbitrum. It uses ARB to launch bonding curve tokens for vetted projects.

It is a grant program that creates DEMAND for ARB! I know it sounds crazy, supporting builders AND creating demand for projects at the same time, but q/acc did it with for Polygon, and we can do it for Arbitrum too!

Screenshot 2025-05-01 at 12.43.27 PM
Screenshot 2025-05-01 at 12.43.27 PM433×121 4.89 KB

We took 1.7M POL and turned it into 17M POL TVL, 2.1M POL locked and 8 legit teams building on Polygon. We can do the same for Arbitrum.

See Impact report here for full details: Q/ACC: S1 Impact Report — Quadratic Accelerator

3 Likes