As others have mentioned here and is already in the works by @Sebix I think establishing a procurement framework for marketing service providers is a necessary prerequisite to streamline the process of acquiring the best service providers for the job at hand.
Now to get a little bit more specific on the proposal itself. When it comes to the personas and the division thereof I feel that there is quite a large gap between trying to get someone to build on Arbitrum (Tim) and trying to get people to use the Arbitrum Network (Carrie and Gary). I assume there to be quite some overlap between Carrie and Gary, but much less so for Tim. On the one hand it makes the program more comprehensive, on the other hand you need vastly different campaigns and KPIs to measure the success of each persona.
For Gary the language is too focused on earning/p2e, instead of being part of an open game economy (or games being on-chain, logged, autonomous, connected etc.). Earning could be perceived as getting in-game assets, but has been largely come to define earning money during the last bull run. I would therefore refrain from using this term to define blockchain gaming generally or at all, as do a lot of gaming projects. So as DeFi does not guarantee earnings, gaming should not be expected to deliver earnings. As for Carrie, I think the all three User Persona characteristics are too much focused on someone wanting to enter DeFi professionally (‘DeFi-centric career’) and also being interested in governance and operations, while I think that there are many (if not more) private/leisure traders that could be targeted on the DeFi front.
If we look at the engagement header we see that Carrie is displayed as someone professional interested in learning more about DeFi (educationally), while Gary seems to be only interested in having the smoothest gaming experience. While I do agree to this characterization to some extent, I think enticing gamers by educating them of the benefits of web3/decentralized gaming over traditional gaming (especially given the bad rap NFTs and in-game financialization in traditional games have gotten = gamers want to be heard/recognized and not feel financially taken advantage of) is beneficial in changing peoples’ mindset and getting them onboarded.
For onboarding (Gary), I really like the contributing part. Contributing could be split into contributing in-game (UGC, mods etc.) or outside of the game (tools, interop, marketing, feedback, streaming etc.).
Attract and Engage KPIs should include engagement on social media posts, interviews and onboarding events. If a strategy doesn’t work, adapt; possibly make use of language bound social media accounts to create tailored content for that target group.
The number of txs on Arbitrum (measures of success) can be more specific (subdivisions for personas). For Tim, I would say some measure like contracts deployed or github commits would be a better measure. Also, both measures are very dependent on market dynamics, they should not only be compared to historic txs on Arbitrum but also be compared to all L2 txs over time to have any statistical relevance.
Another measure could be giving out BanklessDAO specific referral links to projects’ socials, to track how many users are onboarded through their efforts.
These comments and thoughts reflect my personal opinions on this proposal as a member of the Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC). These do not necessarily represent the overall views of the council, Treasure DAO or provide an indication of final voting decision by the ARC.