# Plurality Labs Milestone 1 Review

**URL:** <https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/plurality-labs-milestone-1-review/20198>\
**Category:** ThankARB by Thrive (prev Plurality Labs)\
**Created:** [December 20, 2023, 12:58pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/plurality-labs-milestone-1-review/20198 "2023-12-20T12:58:55Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DisruptionJoe](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/disruptionjoe/32/1084_2.png) [@DisruptionJoe](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/DisruptionJoe)\
**Post date:** [January 31, 2024, 4:20am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/plurality-labs-milestone-1-review/20198/4 "2024-01-31T04:20:22Z")

</div>

# TL;DR Response

- It generalizes opinions that we don’t think the DAO in general agrees with and then refers to their opinions as fact throughout the document. They sited the [Treasury & Sustainability Working group](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-treasury-and-sustainability-working-group/18978) as a failed grant. This was both an experiment and what we think was a successful grant. I was at Gitcoin when the treasury didn’t get diversified as GTC went from 15 to 3 before they took action. We got something moving with this grant. There are 3 key research artifacts, a [proposal](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/final-arbitrum-stable-treasury-endowment-program/20139) and [next steps](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-treasury-and-sustainability-working-group/18978/19).
- The entire review is a cost analysis. There is no benefit analysis. Example: They don’t address that STIP likely wouldn’t have happened without us or the value of Open Block Labs grant.
- There are many assumptions made such as the importance of checking boxes against what we first said was likely work to assuming there shouldn’t be flexibility in our need to execute on deliverables which we determined had changed in importance during the campaign.
- They review the experimental programs as though success and failure are the outcome. In experimentation, there is nuance to which failures are successes based on learning. They call out that there weren’t learnings to some of the programs but there is quite literally a database in the comment above the one they posted with a section for each program titled “Lessons Learned”!
- Many of these reviews are critiquing the review we put out in December. In some places they add a sentence saying “they have since updated this” without a new evaluation of what was done. In most places they simply have factually incorrect info.
- They don’t seem to understand the core value proposition of our proposal. Delivering capture-resistance over three milestones based on experimenting with governance of grant programs and how they operate. The misunderstanding can be seen here:

> [@krst](#):
>
> Our understanding and assumption is that somewhere down the line, Plurality Labs pivoted from trying to create a grants framework to trying to create an Ops & Facilitation Program that reacts to current DAO events.

How are we supposed to deliver capture-resistant grants governance without experimenting with the operations that support the governance which decides how to deliver resources?

We are currently the only program which has funding available for DAO operations. Please read my [companion piece](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-thank-arb-by-plurality-labs-milestone-2-scaling-value-creation-in-the-dao/20534/19) to the proposal which assesses this need and how we are directly addressing it.

_ **Funding governance operations experiments is not a pivot, it is the primary deliverable across three milestones.** _

# Overview Issues

> [@krst](#):
>
> The review proved challenging, since a lot of the data wasn’t readily available in the public domain, was not easy to verify, or was simply outright missing.

This was mostly because we had a deliverable date for the building of the database to consolidate the information of Jan 31st. We did make this available upon your request and later in this document you acknowledge this.

> [@krst](#):
>
> Our current understanding and belief is that Milestone 1 hasn’t been fully completed yet,

We did take longer to get some aspects of the proposal moving. Compliance alignment was difficult to figure out. We didn’t get payments out to grantees until late November. Therefore some programs started later than intended and will run past the end date for milestone 1.

> [@krst](#):
>
> First of all, when thinking about a grants ‘framework’, we think it’s safe to assume that most people, including us, envision structures and processes that are repeatable in a predictable manner, regardless of the future involvement of the team creating them. As a reference, you can think of the different frameworks being tested on Optimism, or even in different grants programs in the European Union — specific processes to follow, structures that make accountability and responsibility obvious, and predictable expectations.

> [@krst](#):
>
> We cannot say that we saw a framework like that delivered in Milestone 1, and we’re unaware of any such frameworks existing even internally within Plurality Labs as some of the experiments and programs funded seem arbitrary. Also, despite information about which projects got funded being available, there’s no information on which programs **did not** get funded and why.

To learn quickly, our experimentation in milestone 1 was designed to be decided by Plurality Labs. We would then assess the programs and how each worked to then craft specific experimentation around the needs for solving capture-resistance. Our professional discretion was used to select the programs.

We needed an initial set of programs to develop the assessment framework. This is a principle of iterative design. We didn’t want to create a framework, then be constrained by an arbitrary set of self-imposed limitations.

While the expectation that a greenfield team could run the framework after 6 months, the reality is that we are designing the first ever pluralist program. We’ve learned about considerations we didn’t know about at the beginning. Any entrepreneur will recognize this - we learn as we go. We sense and respond. In this review, it seems that our sensing to the needs of the DAO and responding to them is a bad thing.

imho - _ **There is no point to designing capture-resistant governance that doesn’t sense and respond to the actual needs of the DAO.** _

That said, we didn’t deliver a framework that can be handed off, but this is directly addressed in the milestone 2 proposal.

> [@krst](#):
>
> Lastly, when trying to review Milestone 1, we started by going through [Plurality Labs’ own review](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/plurality-labs-milestone-1-review/20198). We were disappointed to see that the report was more of an overview of the different programs funded, with crucial details for each omitted.

This was posted in December. We’ve discussed this with you multiple times that we posted a review with what we had at the time to start the discussion. It seems like multiple parts of your review here refer back to this point which is no longer true.

# Deliverable Issues

> [@krst](#):
>
> While we appreciate the efforts of trying to find the DAO’s vision, mission and values, we’re not confident that we got any meaningful and DAO-native insights. Both JokeRace and ThankARB initiatives (which are relevant here) seemed to be heavily botted as we’ll see further down this post.

As we explained and can share the data for, just because the bots were submitting items on jokerace did not mean that they got paid OR that the data from their submissions was used. In the govmonth report, we discussed the methodology used to remove these.

As for the farmers on Thank ARB. There is a big difference between “farmers” and sybils. We conducted a thorough with TrustaLabs to remove the sybils from the allowlist. This means they didn’t get paid, but not all applications are gated.

Now for the engagement farmers, if it is one human with one account, who are we to say they are illegitimate! Here is [an article](https://share.zight.com/yAuBbwO8) about the methodology TrustaLabs used to identify 96,000 sybils which got past the sybil detection efforts done for the airdrop. Here is an [old article](https://gov.gitcoin.co/t/airdrop-farming/10938) showing the nuance between farmers and sybils.

 ![Image 2024-01-30 at 8.50.22 PM](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/uploads/arbitrum1/original/2X/3/34dfc55e473a8d04b10673d3b6a2504007a90abe.jpeg)  
We hired TrustaLabs to repeat this review work in August and created the allowlist for GovMonth with sybils removed and only ARB holders eligible.

> [@krst](#):
>
> Furthermore, it seems that most of the active contributors to the DAO did not participate in these campaigns, thus making it difficult to claim the results to be DAO native. Lastly, we believe that any sort of results should be ratified by the DAO through a vote before being labelled as ‘official’ and used as the foundation on which we base different initiatives.

We addressed the fact that many delegates and active contributors didn’t participate as a failure on our part. We also tried to explain that this is an iterative process and since the findings are high level, we wouldn’t need to redo - we would continue to sense and respond through a variety of methods including the Tuesday workshops and progress from the IRL events like Istanbul.

We disagree that the findings need to be ratified for the whole DAO. In a pluralist model we can use these strategies to guide our program, but don’t need to be ratified to the entire DAO. Like all the governance mechanisms we are discovering and using, if they work well enough the DAO will opt-in to their usage.

> [@krst](#):
>
> - **Clearly define funding priorities including short & long term goals & boundaries**
> 
> We couldn’t find any clearly defined priorities, except for some vague insights in the [GovMonth Report](https://www.canva.com/design/DAFxnxARPYQ/-V_4RrRGcHJAphTjROakcw/view?utm_content=DAFxnxARPYQ&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link&utm_source=editor#1).

> [@ThankARB: A Strategy, Framework, & Platform for Arbitrum’s Success](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/thankarb-a-strategy-framework-platform-for-arbitrum-s-success/19130):
>
> ThankARB: A Strategy, Framework, & Platform for Arbitrum’s Success Coherence, Coordination & Competency via Community We completed a participatory design process open to all 600,000 token holders to align on Vision, Mission, Values, and Strategic Priorities. Now What? This post is designed as a compliment to the “executive level” strategic framework decided upon by the community. (Review the GovMonth report [here](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/plurality-labs-gov-month-report/19129) to see how it was made.) Priorities are a start…

We understand if you think these don’t count because they weren’t ratified. We do think they count.

> [@krst](#):
>
> While some information around why a program was funded or the expected results are available, there’s no obvious key success metrics for each program.

We ran programs that we thought would be interesting using professional discretion. Afterwards, we will then learn what things are truly successful. This is innovation work.

> [@krst](#):
>
> - **Scope out requirements for a Gitcoin Grants round on Arbitrum**
> 
> Given there were three Gitcoin Rounds included in the different programs, we consider this to have been delivered. It is worth to note though that there’s no written requirements specification for running Gitcoin Grants in the future.

There are clear runbook guides available on Gitcoin website. What our framework must figure out, is what “settings” to use in which situation based on how they compliment each other. Running one experiment and delivering end-to-end how to guides is unrealistic.

> [@krst](#):
>
> As it became apparent to us after-the-fact while reviewing, there were no clear communication cadences & channels. While we appreciate Plurality Labs’ availability, engagement and proximity to the DAO, it doesn’t really constitute a communication channel through which delegates could regularly be updated in a comprehensible way regarding progress made.

We agree. While we did have regular twitter spaces with the foundation, tweet threads, Tuesday workshops, all of our programs posting updates on the forum, and our only updates on the forum - we did not find the method that achieved the outcome of delegates being informed. We gave ourselves a red on this deliverable and consider it a challenge for milestone 2.

> [@krst](#):
>
> - **Identify suitable tools and technology to support a robust, secure and efficient grants program (i.e. Allo)**
> 
> As far as we can tell, there isn’t a mention of the process used to identify the aforementioned tools and technology, there’s no clear mention of which tools were identified, neither a review of their pros and cons. We find it hard to agree that simply the fact that PL did use some tools and technology for Milestone 1 means that this deliverable has been completed.

We do think this is not in a desired documentation format. We have hired a team member to own the public facing organization of this research.

> [@krst](#):
>
> For the above 4 bullet-points, there have been some deliverables (like Miro boards), but we’re not entirely sure they reflect the points mentioned above. It’s not clear who was involved, what the process behind them was, or what the final structure should look like outside of the Plurality Labs’ programs.

Here we go:

> [@krst](#):
>
> Design and process map the end to end grant funding flows

What deliverable should there be other than a [mural board](https://app.mural.co/t/arbitrumgrantsprocess8044/m/arbitrumgrantsprocess8044/1699040492374/2ab1199e30baf8b3098f947825856a299bd41c88)?

> [@krst](#):
>
> Design approach, process and channels for sourcing high impact grants ideas

We realize this happens at a program level. We are observing and documenting what works. It turns out this is an ongoing task at the program provider level.

> [@krst](#):
>
> Design Grantee Registration process and grant pipeline management structure

At the pluralist framework level, we realized this is infrastructure, a database which is being jointly designed with the foundation. We shared this work with Krystof. There is a one link to “pre-apply” for grants and have it routed to the applicable programs. It automates some of the compliance comms. It also provides community dashboards and a database for review.

> [@krst](#):
>
> Design Grant Program manager application process and assessment criteria

We picked using our judgement this time. When we see what works and what doesn’t, we can then assess what criteria to use.

> [@krst](#):
>
> - **Design credibly neutral grant funding evaluation criteria, reporting structure and cadence**
> 
> This wasn’t delivered at all.

For the last 4 weeks we’ve been onboarding grantees onto [Karma GAP](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/karma-gap-grant-updates/20502/3). We also funded [Open Source Observer](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/open-source-observer-x-arbitrum/20266) for reliable data which is now integrated with Karma.

For the pluralist framework, we are interested in decentralized review. Capture-resistance depends on removing single points of failure.

_ **This is another clear example of how this review misses the forest for the trees.** _ If you review us as a dept and a corporation or a government entity, this review will seem like quality work. However, there is a reason that those companies can’t access innovation. If you evaluate our work like a startup innovating highly valuable solutions, we think it is hard to say we shouldn’t follow up with a seed investment.

> [@krst](#):
>
> - **Onboard and coach Pluralist Program Managers in grant program best practices**
> 
> What are the best practices for grants programs? Who are the Pluralist Program Managers being on boarded? [The document](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xknfZSamvGiTJkSPQdeUDCkBhfXADMb3lh9jebXVkto/edit#heading=h.llltc2xm1k4h) provided in PL’s Deliverables Tracker doesn’t include any of that information.

This was a bad deliverable to include and we learned that during the course of milestone 1. If we run an experiment, how can we know best practices before we clearly define the next stage with a hypothesis. A single instance cannot show best practices. Once enough programs finish, we can begin documenting the consistencies across programs.

> [@krst](#):
>
> At the time of writing, [the multisig](https://app.safe.global/balances?safe=arb1:0xC158b555F0B1ddd7F4D4f97Fd2a9acd144f8e0D4) still contains 1,9M ARB. Of that, there seems to be 1,535M allocated but not paid yet (as [found on a screenshot here](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/plurality-labs-milestone-1-review/20198/2)). The same screenshot mentions that there’s 0.151 ARB unallocated. Which begs the question, what is the 0,214M ARB remaining? There’s a report from R3gen Finance that is due in January, but other than that, there’s little insight into the financial data around Milestone 1.

We are paying out a lot everyday now. Would this explain it?

 ![Image 2024-01-30 at 9.55.19 PM](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/uploads/arbitrum1/original/2X/d/d714cdf6f0c4474aefda7242da39e617246770ab.jpeg)

> [@krst](#):
>
> Of the 300k ARB for Matching Pools, only 40k [has been spent so far](https://www.notion.so/6da2c8a03b324cf9ba083a54f34d3c52?pvs=21), which means this deliverable hasn’t concluded yet. Furthermore, if we also include [Questbook Support Round](https://www.notion.so/1e6fd7a8c1b6447cadc7ff251e994ed7?pvs=21), and [Arbitrum Citizen Retro Funding](https://www.notion.so/8903834087094b43853e9c097b8ba1c7?pvs=21), the total budget allocated to Gitcoin Grants rounds exceeds 500k ARB, which is almost double the initially planned amount.

Yes, the matching program which brought the American Cancer Society first round to Arbitrum along with MetaGov and TokenEngineering Commons, is still going! We couldn’t start it until December and Gitcoin has postponed their GG20 round until April.

To include the questbook support rounds and citizen retrofunding here is disingenuous. Gitcoin has a plurality of mechanisms available now. Using their ready made smart contracts for deploying funds to Arbitrum community members is a totally different things. Especially since no fees were paid.

> [@krst](#):
>
> - **Oversee grants rounds to ensure they are free from fraud or abuse**
> 
> We understand that sybil protection is a difficult thing in crypto. However, when we went to check the ThankARB program, to which 350,000 ARB was allocated, it became easily apparent that the vast majority of contributions were bots. Why did we allocate such a significant amount (worth over $500,000 with the recent price increase of $ARB) to something that is difficult to protect from abuse. In contrast, Firestarters, which was arguably one of the most successful programs, was allocated 300,000 ARB.

Again, this doesn’t include the discussions we have had addressing this. We did run sybil protection and you are mistaking many people airdrop farming for “bots” or bad actors. Now, there are some that may get through, but I’ve also had people thank me for the campaigns at IRL events.

This says “with the recent price increase in ARB” - it was budgeted before the recent price increase in ARB. We’ve only spent 87k of it so far with 100k earmarked for grant reviews.

The new thrive protocol addresses this problem with human validations. While still in an mvp stage, we do think we can get meaningful crowd validations and only payout the users who put in the effort to be aligned with the crowd. This is our problem to solve!

> [@krst](#):
>
> We’re waiting for the financial report from R3gen Finance, but other than that, we haven’t seen a lot of information delivered on this front.

The information including finances we have is in the [comment that is literally above yours](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/plurality-labs-milestone-1-review/20198/2). Yes, R3gen is contracted to do a full DAO financials report. We will be receiving the 1 year report of financials to date on the DAO bday (in March) and then we will receive monthly reports thereafter.

> [@krst](#):
>
> - **Share key learnings and grants program best practices with Arbitrum DAO and the wider web3 community**
> 
> While there has been a plethora of insights shared with the DAO, we’re not sure any of it constitutes ‘key learnings’ or ‘grants program best practices’ with any actionable and material impact. We’ve found that most of the insights shared (e.g. in the GovMonth report) to be vague and to not be at a point in which they can be used to inform the DAO’s decision-making mechanism.

There is quite literally a field on lessons learned in the review that this is responding to and in the database with all the grant information.

> [@krst](#):
>
> - **Collate community feedback and input on grants programs efficacy and success**
> - **Evaluate, review and iterate based on this feedback to continually improve the overall impact of the Arbitrum DAO grants program**
> 
> The last two items have not been delivered in the sense that community has not been asked to provide input to the programs, and therefore the programs have not been iterated based on that input. Furthermore, in the Milestone 1 review, PL stated that these deliverables will not be delivered at all, which is quite worrisome given that the DAO is being asked to do a 10x follow up in Milestone 2.

We did conduct community reviews of what they thought about the selections of grant programs and this report will be out soon.

We realized that understanding the success of the grants programs we funded depended on understanding the success of the grants the program funded. As the decentralized review is underway, this dependent step cannot be started. It is a different deliverable which we would argue makes sense.

# Program Assessment Review Issues

> [@krst](#):
>
> Looking into the results of Milestone 1 we believe that this has been delivered only to a very limited extent, with most of actual grant programs starting only after Plurality Labs announced the completion of Milestone 1.

2/12 programs will have started during January or later. I don’t believe this constitutes as “most”.

Because of the delays with compliance, many programs which we would have hoped to end before our milestone are now extended beyond it.

> [@krst](#):
>
> The [Milestone 1 review](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/plurality-labs-milestone-1-review/20198) presented only the general assumptions behind each selected program but not the process behind the selection of those specific programs and it did not present any funding details, outcomes or lessons learned from these programs. Moreover in some cases while we understand the overall value of funded initiatives, we struggle to understand their relationship to the scope of original proposal.

_ **AGAIN, this is assessing the post we put up in December!** _

We put this up in an attempt to begin communicating what we had knowing full well that our milestone wasn’t done and there should have been NO expectation of complete information. It was designed to be a start. All this info you mention is in the latest update.

> [@krst](#):
>
> **Allo on Arbitrum Hackathon**
> 
> We found this initiative a valuable experiment in grants distribution, however at the time of collecting the data for our review, the program was still in progress so we weren’t able to assess its outcomes.

Here is a review of the event which ended last week. [Allo / Arbitrum Hackaton Hosted by BuidlBox, Allo & Arbitrum - 👋 News and Community - Gitcoin Governance](https://gov.gitcoin.co/t/allo-arbitrum-hackaton-hosted-by-buidlbox-allo-arbitrum/17508)

> [@krst](#):
>
> **Arbitrum’s “Biggest Small Grants Yet”**
> 
> At the time of collecting the information for this assessment, this program has not started yet, so it’s hard to say anything concrete about the results. However we find the overall structure of this program as a valuable experiment that might provide insights for the future grants framework.

Here is the [week 2 recap](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/plurality-labs-our-biggest-minigrants-yet-jokerace/20040/39)

> [@krst](#):
>
> **Firestarters**
> 
> We see Firestarters as an answer to the DAO’s need for facilitation of workstreams that aim to solve specific problems. We believe it’s a very valuable initiative and we think many contributors perceive it as such. However it does not seem to be an organised program by itself as seen from a perspective which takes into account the goals of Milestone 1. As far as we can tell within this initiative Plurality Labs is funding workstreams that are needed by the ArbitrumDAO based on their own judgement and not based on any organised framework.
> 
> Some of the remarks we had while reviewing this program:

> [@krst](#):
>
> There’s lack of clarity in terms of what can and should be funded through a Firestarter grant. We couldn’t find any instructions on how to apply for it or any criteria on which future grantees are selected.

Of course there was. We were defining it as we went. We quite clearly have stated that this was a response to DAO needs. In our milestone 2 proposal, we discuss needing to build accountability structures and pathways for success. We also discuss creating a role that has the power to initiate these grants.

> [@krst](#):
>
> We see that there is a big disparity between the amounts of grants, ranging from 8k ARB for the work on Arbitrum DAO Procurement Committee to almost 80k ARB for the Treasury Sustainability working group.

We were figuring it out as we go. Yes, we need to structure now.

> [@krst](#):
>
> We think that the program overall lacks oversight of the grantees work and their deliverables. From what we can tell these are rather “fire & forget” grants, which is understandable for an experiment, but not acceptable for long-term scaling

Exactly. Its an experiment and we clearly discuss next steps in the milestone 2 proposal.

> [@krst](#):
>
> While we find participation in Gitcoin matching pools valuable overall, it’s hard to frame this as an experiment in the grants framework design - at least from what we can tell this are just regular Gitcoin rounds that are well known in the crypto grants space and there’s not much we can learn from this experiment in terms of a grants framework design. In the forum we didn’t find any lessons learned from this experiment, just the post announcing it 3 months ago.

This was an explicit part of the milestone 1 proposal. Gitcoin expedited deployment and integration of their protocol on Arbitrum.

 ![Image 2024-01-30 at 10.33.10 PM](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/uploads/arbitrum1/original/2X/1/134aa836b26011edf4ffb9469a4aa47208367bfd.jpeg)

> [@krst](#):
>
> ### 3. Projects in which we struggle to position in the scope of original proposal
> 
> **MEV (Miner Extractable Value) Research**
> 
> While we understand the value that lies in research of MEV, we don’t understand how does a MEV-related conference fit into grants framework experiments, especially in the amount that represents more than 10% of the whole budget for the program. Moreover, while MEV research is important in general, its implications to Arbitrum as a rollup are quite specific in nature. Therefore we feel that funding of this conference from ArbitrumDAO should be approved by the DAO itself and we should come with some expectations regarding the topics covered so that implications are relevant not just to the crypto industry in general but also specifically to Arbitrum.

You won’t understand without [watching this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R90cycstul8&t=5950s) to understand how we can improve our conversations. It is based on a paper by Puja, Vitalik, and Glen Weyl. It is the next step of protecting the information frontier.

MEV constitutes an existential crisis for Ethereum. Arbitrum is scaling Ethereum. Not to mention there are potential revenue opportunities.

We will not be able to find capture-resistance without being able to support these types of ideas from the best minds in the space.

### The other programs

It seems like the critisism is undefined. Something like “I have preset assumptions about the scope of your program which everyone else should consider.”

> [@krst](#):
>
> - **Did they [Plurality Labs] do what they said they would do in Milestone 1?**
> 
> Even if some deliverables were completed, we believe the ‘headline’ of Milestone 1 was to deliver a best-in-class grants framework. As we explained throughout this post we don’t believe that PL delivered the grants framework, so we can’t say that they did what they said they would in Milestone 1.

Please point out a better pluralist program. It’s 6 months since approval and 2 months that we have been able to fund things. Remember when the DAO, partly driven by you, negotiated us down from 750k to 336k for our fee for milestone 1. Had we been properly staffed do you think we wouldn’t have buttoned up many of these issues you have?

> [@krst](#):
>
> - **Did grant funding go to worthwhile programs & projects?**
> 
> The response to this question is debatable. There were both worthwhile and questionable programs and projects funded, with the latter unfortunately being the majority.

There seems to be zero appreciation for any of the value we did add. I’d advise others in the DAO to think critically about the effect we have had on the DAO. The opinion that the majority were unworthy comes from a source which thinks the treasury and sustainability and open block labs grants were not worthy. If you think these were, then you would likely disagree with this assessment overall.

Additionally, the point of experimentation is that some will not work out. This critical point is missing any benefit analysis and focuses only on cost.

> [@krst](#):
>
> - **Did they [Plurality Labs] prioritised experimentation & learning for the future?**
> 
> While we can certainly say that experimentation was prioritized, we cannot confidently say that it was done in a way that equipped us with learnings for the future as a lot of the supposed learnings were not documented, or were not made publicly available, as mentioned above.

_**There is literally a [database with every program and grant](https://plurality-grants-arb.notion.site/plurality-grants-arb/Plurality-Labs-Arbitrum-Grants-f1614537b2f14ed8a500dcf4fae54f93) that has a section about what we learned!**_

It looks like this:

 ![Image 2024-01-30 at 10.49.36 PM](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/uploads/arbitrum1/original/2X/d/dd667f773e7c464f81230a1779981570d79528ae.jpeg)

Then you click onto a program:

 ![Image 2024-01-30 at 10.51.40 PM](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/uploads/arbitrum1/original/2X/6/6e9a2451d12d1a84a1ed39304d530b022b3c5aee.jpeg)

Then scroll down and there is LITERALLY a “lessons learned” section

 ![Image 2024-01-30 at 10.52.35 PM](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/uploads/arbitrum1/original/2X/4/4007b0fd7f25ede344412118bf8259a7563b651e.jpeg)

Then you can see ALL the grants in that round.

# Conclusion

L2Beats shared this information with us weeks ago. We asked for them to publicly share it so we could address it then. For some reason, it was decided to hold it until today.

I appreciate L2Beats. They dig in and find things no one else would. He’s like a coach that makes us all better and perform at the highest standard. We will look back and reminisce about how real he was.

However, I see problems here that delegates must take into account.

- The amount of old info which doesn’t consider the work we’ve done in the past month.
- The clear misunderstanding about the purpose and intention of our work overall.
- The unrealistic expectation to stick to deliverables stated 6 months ago in changing circumstances even if the deliverable is replaced or easily explained.
- The lack of empathy for the role of a founder pushing new innovative solutions to actual problems.

These considerations suggest that we need to take L2Beat criticism to heart, but we should not stop with critical work or cut funding to people committed to Arbitrum: who are going above and beyond to deliver a FIRST in class pluralist grants program. Of course there will be roadbumps along the way. To expect their wouldn’t be, especially after negotiating the rate to less than half of what we initially suggested it would take, is simply unrealistic.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/plurality-labs-milestone-1-review/20198)._