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?