Proposal: Arbitrum Sponsorship at RWA Paris 2025

[pedrob]

@paulofonseca

this is not correct. the DAO can decide to fund whatever it wants with whatever amount it wants.

Hey Paulo,

Thank you for your comment. You’re absolutely right— the DAO can approve any amount of funding at any time for events or any other proposed initiatives.

However, the point I was trying to make was different, and I clearly failed to communicate it effectively. The DAO has reached a level of maturity where we need to ensure consistency both in what we vote on and in our internal processes in order to: (1) avoid overwhelming ourselves by having to review hundreds of proposals like this, and (2) provide external proponents with clear guidelines on the appropriate channels to use, so time isn’t wasted on discussions that could have been resolved more efficiently.

The DAO has already voted on two distinct channels for event funding.

One is through Questbook and its seasons, which clearly covers sponsorships of this type, where Arbitrum gains brand visibility and offers some form of educational content.

During the two Questbook seasons, more than 60 initiatives for event sponsorships or educational content funding were approved. None of them exceeded the $50K USD cap. In fact, the vast majority stayed well below this limit. Only two of those requests surpassed Questbook’s initial internal cap of $25K per Domain.

In this proposal, I don’t see a single reference explaining why this event is special or why it warrants funding that is more than triple the amount of 62 out of 64 initiatives approved through Questbook.

As I mentioned in my Eth Bucharest proposal vote:

@pedrob

However, this does not change the fact that, in my opinion, such a high budget is not sufficiently justified. Supporting documents could have been provided, such as a breakdown of the costs being covered (as seen in Questbook) or comparisons with other events, highlighting the cost-benefit ratio.

This elevated level of scrutiny stems from the fact that through the DDA program, the DAO has already set a precedent for the amount it is willing to allocate to this type of sponsorship (50k max).

Therefore, if a proposal of this nature is to be reviewed by the DAO instead of the Domain Allocator and seeks more funds than what is typically approved for such sponsorships, I expect the level of detail to be exceptionally high.

@paulofonseca

the questbook grants domain for events, which is not active as of not, and will maybe be active in about a month if it passes its onchain vote, as a cap of $50k per project.

I know that Season 3 is not yet active, but as I mentioned in my comment:

@pedrob

Submissions for Phase 2 concluded in December, with a six-month execution window. This proposal should have been channeled through Questbook Season 2, not via this pathway.

The other channel is the DAO’s event budget, which, as I believe and agree with Entropy’s concern, is intended to fund larger events where Arbitrum can host its own initiatives (like Arbitrum Day) rather than simply being one more sponsor at a given event. This budget is aimed at ensuring Arbitrum’s presence at massive events on a different scale than simple sponsorships:

@Entropy

1. Ecosystem Growth Events to foster innovation and community engagement, ideally coinciding with other major crypto conferences (specifically ETHDenver, Bitcoin 2025: Las Vegas, EthCC, among other potential events) at the same location. These events can include, but are not limited to:

• Virtual hackathons
• Non-crypto conference presence (RustConf, CES, etc.)
• In-person hackathons
• Side events
• Sponsorships of major events
• Arbitrum Days around the world (not just EthCC)
• Educational workshops (Stylus & Orbit)

@Entropy

However, as we communicated in our rationale in voting for the ETH Bucharest proposal, Entropy strongly advises the DAO to carefully consider if it wants to further the precedent of smaller sponsorships being funded via the 2025 Events Budget. RWA Paris is not the only conference to reach out to Entropy expressing interest, and we anticipate that several similar requests will follow if this event is funded. While these may be well-run events that provide value to Arbitrum, slowly draining the ~$1.1m available with one-off sponsorships may not be the best course of action. At a certain point there will be insignificant funds to propose for example a cohesive and synergistic set of Arbitrum dedicated events.

Therefore, returning to the idea of consistency, in 2024 the DAO approved two types of funding for events in 2025: Questbook (with its Seasons 2 and 3) and the DAO Events Budget. In my opinion, this proposal does not follow the proper procedures to receive funding through either of these channels. The first, due to timing, as it should have requested funds during Season 2. The second, due to the type of proposed sponsorship.

[paulofonseca]

I’m not defending the funding of this specific proposal. If this goes to a vote I’m still not sure if I would vote For or Against.

I just wanted to clarify that yours and @Curia comment that I quoted above could be read as misinformation by others. The DAO does not have a cap to spend money on events.

Also, regarding this:

@pedrob

In my opinion, this proposal does not follow the proper procedures to receive funding through either of these channels. The first, due to timing, as it should have requested funds during Season 2. The second, due to the type of proposed sponsorship.

I disagree. It can be argued that this proposal for sponsoring NFT Paris is actually perfectly suited to be funded by the Events Budget, because, as you quoted from the original proposal:

@Entropy

Our proposed Events strategy should focus on 2 key categories:

1. Delegate Gatherings aimed at streamlining operations through in-person meetups such as a delegate retreat.
2. Ecosystem Growth Events to foster innovation and community engagement, ideally coinciding with other major crypto conferences (specifically ETHDenver, Bitcoin 2025: Las Vegas, EthCC, among other potential events) at the same location. These events can include, but are not limited to:

• Virtual hackathons
• Non-crypto conference presence (RustConf, CES, etc.)
• In-person hackathons
• Side events
• Sponsorships of major events
• Arbitrum Days around the world (not just EthCC)
• Educational workshops (Stylus & Orbit)

The proposed breakfast could be seen as a Delegate Gathering mentioned in point 1, and NFT Paris can be considered a major events that we would like to sponsor, making it part of the “Sponsoring of major events” in point 2.

So I believe this proposal is following the correct procedure to get funding from Arbitrum DAO, and is doubly suited to get funding from the 2025 Events budget since it complies with both key categories in the original proposal. So, in my opinion, this proposal is actually a great example of a service provider looking to get funded by Arbitrum DAO.

[paulofonseca]

Also, I really really really don’t like the argument of:

“we delegates shouldn’t be bothered to decide on individual event sponsorships, because we don’t want to have more proposals to analyze and vote on”

We need to be mindful that right now, the DAO is spending about a quarter of a million dollars every month, to incentivize delegates to participate in governance, through DIP 1.5. so I feel it’s kinda rich, for delegates that are literally being well paid to analyze and vote on proposals, to complain that they have too many proposals to vote on, and argue to outsource that responsibility to yet another committee that the DAO would maybe have to spend even more money to fund.

[WinVerse]

Thanks for putting this proposal up, Rafalovic.

There’s already a very clear reason to not go ahead with this (doesn’t align with this 2025 Event proposal) but even if we wanted to, the timing for this is off.

Just to draw attention here for a bit

@Entropy

Planning and funding events on a case-by-case basis are impractical due to the lead time and the lengthy DAO voting process

The event happens mid-February (a month away) and the governance process involved will take a sizable amount of that time. The DAO Event Budget proposal was drafted to mitigate situations like these.

Other causes of concern can be seen in the proposed budget, and also here:

@Rafalovic

Engaging with Financial Giants: Connect with 200-300 institutional players exploring blockchain adoption, tokenization, and decentralized finance.

Who is making the connections here? Is there going to be a DAO representative there?

Once again, we would say that since there already is a structure in place for events, we shouldn’t have to concern ourselves with one-offs like this. However, since OpCo would be taking over handling DAO events at some point, it might be worth considering setting aside some budget (maybe during the 2026 event planning) for these one-offs during situations where D.A.O. and other grant options aren’t live as some do come with potential.

[SEEDGov]

Hello everyone,

First, we’d like to express our alignment with @Entropy’s response. We believe the current timeline is insufficient to develop an appropriate marketing strategy and that the Events Budget should focus on higher-scale proposals. However, the issue remains that there is no mechanism to bridge the gap between proposals up to 50k and those that exceed this amount without reaching the scale of major initiatives.

Additionally, one concern that has arisen (which we also noticed with ETH Bucharest) is that the current Events Budget committee lacks a mandate to negotiate budget terms with the various proposers. Ideally, if the DAO approves a proposal, it should only signify support for the idea while setting a MAXIMUM budget. The committee should then evaluate/renegotiate the terms, possibly rejecting the sponsorship if they believe the costs do not align with the value offered. In such cases, the proposer must seek funding through Tally to move forward.

Regarding Questbook, as previously mentioned, the application phase for Season 2 has concluded, and we still do not know who the DAs for each vertical will be in Season 3 (in fact, the latter hasn’t even been approved on Tally yet). Considering the event’s start date, it seems unlikely that it will be able to apply for the new Season.

It is a pity, considering that the DAO is positioning itself in RWA, the event could bring value to Arbitrum.

[EzR3aL]

I agree here with Entropy.
Overall I do think the DAO should create a list of conferences and sponsorships for a whole year. The DAO can then decide via voting which seem to be interesting and valuable and then have a fixed budget amount. If then, for some reason, there is the need to allocate more funds then a second vote for that specific event can be considered.

The benefits would be

• clear roadmap of events for the year
• clear spending amounts for the year for events
• less governance burden
• optimal use of funds.

Because otherwise the DAO will end up with several threads and proposals about events weekly and sometimes there is simply not enough time to evaluate things. Same like it is here.

[Jonezee]

The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.

Some of us have attended NFT Paris in the past, and came away with a good impression.

That said, the proposal feels impractically timed. Looking at the short timeline, it doesn’t seem feasible for the DAO to make the most of a big event presence like this. The lead time and DAO voting process will take up most of the available prep time. That leaves very little time to properly, let alone optimally, execute. Specifically on something like a high-level, private breakfast with hundreds of guests in attendance.

Additionally, decisions regarding event sponsorships should preferably be made in the context of the broader events strategy. Starting with deciding on the year’s top events, where a DAO presence is crucial, and prioritising accordingly. We concur with EzR3aL that this would offer significant benefits;

@EzR3aL

• clear roadmap of events for the year
• clear spending amounts for the year for events
• less governance burden
• optimal use of funds.

[chamadao]

We are not in support of this proposal. There is already work being done in the DAO from multiple teams on events, which we think is already too much spent on this activity without much clear additional value.

We will vote NO on this proposal if it comes up, as in line with our continued stance against wasteful spending.