Proposal: Build Optimal Onboarding for STIP Teams (BOOST)

[limes]

Arbitrum Improvement Proposal (AIP): Build Optimal Onboarding for STIP Teams (BOOST) via Quests

Abstract

This Arbitrum Improvement Proposal (AIP) seeks to enhance user acquisition and engagement efficiency in the Arbitrum ecosystem following the Short Term Incentive Program (STIP). The proposal aims to deploy 95 total quests across 62 unique applications. The goal is to provide a comprehensive onboarding, educational, and interaction model that results in sustained user commitment and thus solidifies Arbitrum’s position as a leading Layer 2 Ethereum scaling solution.

Motivation:

We propose an innovative solution to address an opportunity that has surfaced following the execution of the Short Term Incentive Program (STIP) – the need for effectively onboarding, educating, and retaining new users on the Arbitrum platforms that received STIP. The STIP successfully provides incentive to perform onchain actions, but it does not address the user onboarding experience aspect of attracting new users. This proposal is viewed as the missing puzzle piece to STIP. In addition, the STIP had teams qualify, but not receive funding, providing a situation we aim to reconcile by running additional quests for those teams that will improve user retention and increase usage of their protocols.

Rationale:

Our proposal aligns meticulously with Arbitrum’s mission to foster an inclusive, vibrant, and engaged community. By ensuring all users - existing and new ones - are carried along inclusively and effectively via well-designed quests, we will be creating an environment that promotes continued learning, interaction, and commitment. This “sticky factor” is critical for a sustainable and thriving ecosystem.

Key Terms:

What are Quests?

Quests are guided learning activities, organized around specific crypto protocols and apps. They are designed to familiarize users with different protocols, their processes, and the potential benefits they offer within ecosystems like DeFi on Arbitrum.

Why are Quests Helpful?

Quests provide a hands-on learning experience which makes the understanding of complex protocols more enjoyable and interactive. They provide delightful step-by-step guidance which motivates users to explore and use these protocols, thereby increasing user adoption and contributing to the broader understanding of apps.

View Full Size Recording

For instance, consider the above Quest on Layer3 called “Exploring Radiant”. It guides users through learning about onmichain money markets, swapping, and depositing on Radiant, breaking down each step into comprehensible segments.

By engaging with the quest, users not only learn how to use the Radiant platform, but also get practical experience which they can apply in real-world situations. Quests like these play a crucial role in demystifying DeFi protocols, making them more accessible, and bringing users to Arbitrum.

In the case of Exploring Radiant, it managed to attract 31,181 completions. This demonstrates the high engagement rate and efficiency of quests as interactive learning tools in the DeFi space. The large number of participants signifies that the quest was not only successful in providing valuable insights about the protocol but also in garnering interest from a wider community, thereby increasing the adoption rate of the whole Radiant platform.

But it isn’t just Radiant.

There is a whole library of Arbitrum quests available on Layer3. As part of the STIP Enhancement and Inclusion Quest Proposal, a whole new category will be created on Layer3 to display the quests included in the STIP Enhancement and Inclusion Quest Program

Why Layer3?

Layer3 has played a significant role in the growth of Arbitrum.

We’ve guided over 337,613 users to complete more than 5.9 million on-chain transactions on Arbitrum, all at no cost to the user or Arbitrum DAO. Our initiatives, particularly interactive quests, have already greatly increased user engagement and education on Arbitrum.

By transforming onchain operations into bite-sized, step-by-step quests, we have managed to make Arbitrum accessible to a wider audience. We have made it accessible and comprehensible to users, regardless of their technical proficiency level.

Specifications:

Teams:

Upon approval, we will embark on the design and execution of 95 quests structured strategically for the following protocols and teams in direct support of the STIP.

This includes one quest for each STIP-qualified protocol (29 projects, one quest each) and two quests for each recipient that received a greater than 50% majority in favor of their STIP proposal and more than 71.51 million ARB in support for their proposal (33 projects, two quests each). Each quest is meticulously designed to enhance user comprehension, interaction, and loyalty to the respective protocols.

The list of protocols and teams includes but is not limited to:

Quest Section	Projects
1	Camelot, Jones, Dopex, GMX, LODESTAR, Socket, Timeswap, RADIANT, Pendle Finance, MUX, Frax, Tally, Rysk, Silo Finance, Stella, Good Entry, Gamma, Umami, Abracadabra, KyberSwap, OpenOcean, Angle, Trader Joe, Dolomite, Premia, Vertex, Perennial Finance, Balancer, WINR
2	WOOFi, Gains Netowrk, DefiEdge, Synapse Protocol, PancakeSwap, Notional Finance, Rodeo, Magpie, Stargate, Savvy, Tales of Elleria, Thales, TIDE, Solv Protocol, Furucombo, dForce, Sanko GameCorp, RAMSES, Vela Exchange, Thetanuts, JOJO Exchange, Wormhole, Shell Protocol, REALM, unshETH, StakeDAO, Curve, iZUMi, Beefy Finance, Arrakis Finance, Florence Finance, CVI, Prime Protocol

Payment Terms:

The compensation for this proposal will encompass a real-time, continuous flow of 1 million ARB tokens, streamed via the Superfluid protocol. The stream will commence immediately post-approval and will run continuously up until May 19, 2024.

Should we fall short of fulfilling our obligations at any point within the specified period, a new proposal can be initiated to stop the stream of funds.

In the spirit of transparency, we commit to providing regular progress updates and upon completion of each of the 3 phases and maintaining Dune Analytics impact dashboards for the duration of the initiative, both at the application and ecosystem level. In a scenario where we fail to deliver our commitments, the community possesses the full right to propose halting the stream until the matter is adequately addressed and resolved.

Steps to Implement:

1. Initiate a cooperative process with all STIP-qualified protocols to design a unique quest for each, and create two additional quests for the teams that met the criteria but weren’t granted STIP.
2. Implement the quests in month-long phases, during which we will monitor user engagement, quest completion rates, and user feedback, among other indicators.
3. Impact Analysis with Dune Dashboards: Post-sprint, we will analyze and present our impact utilizing detailed Dune dashboards. These dashboards will visually represent key metrics to paint a clear picture of the project’s success. Metrics categories include user engagement, unique user rates, and protocol specific metrics, with an example below.

By confronting these steps, we can continuously refine our approach, ensuring that we provide mutually beneficial outcomes for both users and protocols involved in the STIP program.

Example: Hypothetical Trader Joe Arbitrum Quest

1. Objective: Guide users through the process of performing a token swap and adding liquidity to a Trader Joe pool on Arbitrum.

2. User Flow:

   • Start the quest on Layer3
   • Learn about the history and significance of Trader Joe through info cards and quizzes.
   • Perform a token swap on Trader Joe
   • Add liquidity to a Trader Joe pool
   • Complete the quest

3. Metrics to Monitor:

   • Protocol-specific KPIs for Trader Joe
   • Arbitrum KPIs: Impact Analysis, User engagement, Unique user rates

KPIs for Trader Joe

Category	KPI	Description
Impact Analysis	Total Value Locked (TVL) Impact	Measures the change in TVL on Trader Joe as a result of quests
	Swap Volume Impact	Measures the change in total swap volumes on Trader Joe as a result of quests
User Engagement	Total Quest Participants	The total number of users who participated in the Trader Joe quests
	Quest Completion Rate	Percentage of users who completed the Trader Joe quests compared to those who started
Protocol-Specific Metrics	Average Swaps per User	Average number of swaps executed per user during the quest
	Transaction Fees	Fees generated by the Trader Joe as a result of quests.

---

KPIs for Arbitrum

Category	KPI	Description
Impact Analysis	Network Usage	Measures the change in total transactions on Arbitrum before and after the campaign
	Transaction Fees	Measures the amount of transaction fees generated by Arbitrum as a result of quests
	Gas Costs Saved	Measures the amount of gas saved as a result of Layer2 adoption
User Engagement	User Retention Rate	The percentage of users who returned to Arbitrum platform for subsequent transactions
Unique User Rates	Unique New Starters	Number of new users who started a Trader Joe quest on Arbitrum
	Unique Completion Rates	Percentage of quests that were started and completed by completely new users on Arbitrum

Example: Historical GMX Quest

Layer3 ran a GMX Quest Program in June 2022

User Engagement Metrics: 119,433 total unique participants across 6 quests

Unique User Rates: 95% of Layer3 users who completed the quest hadn’t used GMX prior to the quest

Protocol Specific Metrics: For the period covered, Layer3 accounted for 11.6% of the transactions on GMX

Timeline:

The implementation is divided into three distinct stages, each targeting a specific group of protocols:

Phase 1 - STIP Proposal Quests (November 2023 - January 2024): Quests specifically designed for all STIP-qualified protocols will be released in six groups, each running for a month. The intention is to boost user engagement with these protocols that have received official STIP funding and guide users on how to use STIP protocols.

Phase 2 - Non-STIP Proposal Quests 1 (February 2024 - April 2024): The second phase focuses on those teams that met the STIP criteria but did not receive funding. This stage ensures that these projects also get beneficial visibility and user engagement through their initial quests.

Phase 3 - Non-STIP Proposal Quests 2 (March 2024 - May 2024): The final phase continues the support for non-STIP funded projects, further providing engagement through a second quest for each team. This step is designed to maintain and enhance user interest and interaction, consolidating the engagement prompted in Phase 2.

Running two quests for non-STIP funded projects (Phase 2 and 3) is particularly beneficial as it contributes to user retention through a deeper experience with the protocol.

• The first quest provides users with initial exposure to the protocol, its functions, and utility. It attracts & onboards new users and raises their curiosity, while also providing a sense of familiarity and comfort with the protocol.
• The second quest aims to solidify this relationship. A user returns to reinforce their understanding and re-engage with the protocol – a follow-up to further strengthen the interaction between the user and protocol.

The aim is to attract users and provide a solid foundation for them to be engaged, active and aligned with the protocol over a longer period. This ultimately contributes to the longevity and sustainability of each protocol.

This phased approach allows us to target attention to each group of protocols, ensuring each has optimized quests and yields the best possible results for all involved.

Overall Cost Estimate:

The total cost to implement this AIP is 1M ARB where:

Recurring costs will entail updates and maintenance, community engagement efforts, partnerships, performance tracking, and reporting.

This proposal lends to Arbitrum’s goal to build an engaged and knowledgeable community committed to the platform’s longevity. By incorporating all users in a guided and rewarding learning journey, we act as a funnel for new Arbitrum users, rather than current participants dominating rewards. By also acknowledging and rewarding the efforts of teams that did not qualify for STIP, we foster a fairer and more inclusive community spirit, further underlining Arbitrum’s commitment to its members.

This dynamic, transparent, and comprehensive approach propels the strength and sustainability of the Arbitrum community.

[dk3]

Pure speculative math.
Historic Value Brought to Arbitrum
5.9mm Txns * 0.20c per txn = 1.18mm $$

Future Value Brought to Arbitrum
~50k $$ in overhead for the Setup of 95 Quests + $$$ Infra Costs
Market Cost to facilitate an undertaking like this is probably ~300k
++ Marketing Cost on Navigated User Acquisition ?? (Likely expensive)
++ 300k Users * 95 Quests * 0.20c per txn = 5.7mm $$ (Best Case)

Assuming that the numbers hit even 20% best case on-chain activity seems EV+ to support this initiative on pure economics. (1.14mm - 920k cost = 220k)

Obviously, sequencer has costs, but the value of the distribution Layer 3 can achieve as the starting point for users to explore/navigate the STIP programs is quite valuable in itself.

[Englandzz_Curia]

I have thoroughly reviewed the Arbitrum Improvement Proposal submitted by Layer3, which aims to foster user engagement and education through the Building Optimal Onboarding for STIP Teams (BOOST) initiative. I appreciate the effort and thought put into this proposal, and I have some thoughts and concerns that I would like to share to ensure we make well-informed decisions moving forward.

1. Using Resources Wisely:

The plan to create 95 quests for 62 different dapps is a big task, and it makes me wonder if you have thought enough about how much time and effort this will take. Also, I’m worried about the plan to use 1 million ARB tokens as rewards. We need to be sure that we are using our resources in the best way possible.

Additional Thought: Avoiding Overwhelming Users:

I’m also worried that if we start too many quests at once, it might be too much for our users to handle. We should think about introducing the quests slowly to keep users excited and involved.

2. Being Ready to Make Changes:

I’m glad to see that we have clear goals and ways to measure our success. But we also need to be ready to change our plans based on what our users tell us and how the project is going.

3. Keeping Users Interested:

The proposal doesn’t talk much about what we will do to keep users involved after they finish the quests. We need to think about ways to keep them interested in using the protocols.

[Womnayden]

A request of 1M ARB is extremely unreasonable and unfair for any project that did not qualify for STIP.

Rabbithole’s STIP proposal did not make the cutoff and requested 1M ARB for the same initiative where incentives directly go towards user engagement. In your case, the requested funds would be pocketed and I’m having trouble identifying the benefit for Arbitrum.

This seems unnecessary and I strongly disagree with this proposal.

[limes]

Thanks for putting this together!

In addition to the protocol revenue, our biggest value we hope to drive is to a “Contributoooor Supply Chain”. This means attracting new users → getting them up to speed on protocols and education through hands on learning → guiding them to be a meaningful contributor in governance (See quests about Snapshot and Tally)

[limes]

@Englandzz_Curia

The plan to create 95 quests for 62 different dapps is a big task, and it makes me wonder if you have thought enough about how much time and effort this will take

We have tons of experience running quests at Layer3! Check it out on our site. Additionally, I have added our expected timeline Gantt Chart in the Timeline section.

@Englandzz_Curia

Also, I’m worried about the plan to use 1 million ARB tokens as rewards.

To be clear this ARB is used by the team for building and maintaining the quests. As @dk3 pointed out above, the value could be returned on a pure ETH paid back to the DAO, not even accounting for the value of the new users themselves.

@Englandzz_Curia

I’m also worried that if we start too many quests at once, it might be too much for our users to handle. We should think about introducing the quests slowly to keep users excited and involved.

Hopefully the Gantt chart shows this! Let me know if you have feedback there.

@Englandzz_Curia

I’m glad to see that we have clear goals and ways to measure our success. But we also need to be ready to change our plans based on what our users tell us and how the project is going.

Not sure what you mean here.

@Englandzz_Curia

The proposal doesn’t talk much about what we will do to keep users involved after they finish the quests. We need to think about ways to keep them interested in using the protocols.

I think that’s a great thing to track. A large part of the reason why we stretch the quest period over 27 weeks is to keep users coming back to Arbitrum to see what’s new and set up habits to continually be engaged.

[limes]

@Womnayden

A request of 1M ARB is extremely unreasonable and unfair for any project that did not qualify for STIP.

We never applied to STIP.

@Womnayden

Rabbithole’s STIP proposal did not make the cutoff and requested 1M ARB for the same initiative where incentives directly go towards user engagement. In your case, the requested funds would be pocketed and I’m having trouble identifying the benefit for Arbitrum.

As for the funding, it certainly doesn’t go into our pockets. The funds will be allocated towards designing, developing, and maintaining these quest systems, and in turn, contributing to making Arbitrum more accessible.

In essence, this initiative’s value proposition for Arbitrum lies in generating a more informed, confident, and committed user base, enhancing protocol adoption and usage.

[George_WG]

The WOOFi team has worked closely with Layer3 for more than a year now, and I can vouch that their ability to execute engaging, user-friendly quests is second to none. I support this proposal and see it as a great way to bring new users into the ecosystem, showcase budding/innovative protocols, and ultimately drive wider interest in Arbitrum.

[peter]

Why do we need to spend money on marketing to attract dApp users when the incentive itself is a strong motivation?
I’m sure there will be a lot of tweets about how to farm it effectively, which will also educate users and get newcomers on board.
I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is a waste of money.

[limes]

The first goal listed in the STIP proposal is:

• Support Network Growth: Accelerate the distribution of incentives to Arbitrum dApps to drive network and ecosystem growth.

And we want to accentuate that! Even if platforms are given all the ARB in the treasury, how will platforms reach new users? Tweets are much higher friction than a quest and don’t support the teams that qualified for STI but didn’t receive an ARB allocation.

[Womnayden]

@limes

We never applied to STIP.

Well, it does look like it’s exactly the reason why you never applied for STIP - your proposal would be ineligible due to pocketing the funds.

@limes

As for the funding, it certainly doesn’t go into our pockets. The funds will be allocated towards designing, developing, and maintaining these quest systems, and in turn, contributing to making Arbitrum more accessible.

Sorry, but isn’t this exactly the definition of the funds going to your pockets? What you just described here is allocating the budget towards your platform’s quest systems, rather than directly rewarding users for engagement with Arbitrum.

As @peter mentioned, the incentive should be strong motivation in itself, and this goes back to the original point as to why your proposal would not have passed for STIP (I’m assuming this is the reason why you didn’t apply in the first place).

I understand the idea of the proposal, but the fund allocation and amount is simply inefficient. Proposals from both Rabbithole and Galxe (which both applied for STIP) are developing and maintaining quest systems for Arbitrum without additionally requesting operational budget to do so.

[brandonkumar]

Thanks for reviewing the proposal and sharing your perspective, @Womnayden. It’s critical to emphasize that Layer3 has already developed and maintained Quests for Arbitrum, successfully driving 337,000+ users to complete more than 5.9 million on-chain transactions. We pride ourselves on being the market leader in delivering high-quality, results-driven Quests, and our goal is to increase our focus on projects that received or were eligible for STIP funding.

The potential impact of running 95 Quests across over 60 protocols is undeniable, especially when taking into account the performance metrics mentioned above. Just for GMX, we engaged 119,000+ users, with 95% of them being new to GMX, to participate in on-chain transactions.

We genuinely believe that this proposal will bring clear and immediate benefits to the DAO and the broader Arbitrum ecosystem. We’re dedicated to its success and welcome continued dialogue to ensure its effectiveness.

[Mariam]

This proposal has the potential to really amplify the STIP rewards with an added layer of cross-education between different Arbitrum dApps to onboard new users into the chain and make the adoption stick. The track record of Layer3 in executing high impact quests gives also gives me confidence in their ability to carry this out.

[tnorm]

Thanks @limes, for the thoughtful proposal. A few thoughts:

Evidence suggests this style of quest enhances user engagement and transactions (and thus network fees), while having less of an impact on liquidity metrics like TVL, suggesting a complimentary synergy here for STIP grantees (1, 2).

Batching STIP groups across various periods also helps the DAO evaluate user interactions and the quests’ impact across each incentivized protocol. The approach aligns with the goal to cultivate insights for a durable long-term strategy.

My one wish would be that looking forward, more stakeholders engage from the onset of future programs. If Arbitrum wants to innovate, it must transition from outdated, traditional incentives like STIP and leverage novel companies, products, and smart-contracts. Insights from folks like Layer3, Galxe, etc. appear to be an essential piece of this puzzle.

Regardless of if this proposal proceeds, I’d encourage similar stakeholders to continue to be involved in WGs, continue to draft proposals like this one, and continue to work in concert w/ data providers and protocols to help ideate more robust long-term solutions. I genuinely believe we’re at the beginning of an explosion of novel and innovative design in this area, and I think the Arbitrum community is actually uniquely positioned for collaboration.

[Womnayden]

@brandonkumar

Thanks for reviewing the proposal and sharing your perspective, @Womnayden. It’s critical to emphasize that Layer3 has already developed and maintained Quests for Arbitrum, successfully driving 337,000+ users to complete more than 5.9 million on-chain transactions. We pride ourselves on being the market leader in delivering high-quality, results-driven Quests, and our goal is to increase our focus on projects that received or were eligible for STIP funding.

The potential impact of running 95 Quests across over 60 protocols is undeniable, especially when taking into account the performance metrics mentioned above. Just for GMX, we engaged 119,000+ users, with 95% of them being new to GMX, to participate in on-chain transactions.

We genuinely believe that this proposal will bring clear and immediate benefits to the DAO and the broader Arbitrum ecosystem. We’re dedicated to its success and welcome continued dialogue to ensure its effectiveness.

Thanks for the reply @brandonkumar.

I’m not denying any achievements of Layer3 or any added benefits from running Arbitrum quests in general. My question is straightforward - what are the reasons of requesting such a large sum of ARB to simply run quests for the aforementioned protocols?

You have just stated in your response that Layer3 has already developed and maintained quests for Arbitrum. @limes mentioned that ‘the funds will be allocated towards designing, developing and maintaining these quest systems’. This shows you have previously driven engagement to Arbitrum without requesting an operational budget. Why are you requesting one this time?

Keep in mind, I have no reason to deny the general effectiveness of running quests for the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem. My point is, you are requesting a large amount of funds for something that: a) you have previously done without requesting an operational budget; b) other questing systems provide the same questing service without requesting an operational budget.

[teddy-notional]

I think it makes sense. If Arbitrum is going to invest 50M ARB into this incentive campaign, I think it’s a good idea to take some of that ARB and apply it to services like Layer3 that can help funnel users to the incentivized opportunities. I’m sure the incentives to the STIP projects will be enough to draw a lot of users and TVL, but my guess is that companies like Layer3 can help maximize their effectiveness.

I think if Arbitrum is going to make this big investment in liquidity incentives, it might as well allocate some budget to ancillary services to try and maximize effectiveness of that investment.

[0xWenMoon]

This proposal seems to be to check both of the main things I look for in proposals. Number 1 it supports something that is innovative or something that would usually not be supported in traditional frameworks, rather than for example incentivising the 20th GMX fork. Making Arbitrum the home of everything, in this case SocialFi tooling, is important. On top of this, as my 2nd point and as @dk3 explains pefectly in his comment, it seems to make economical sense to support such a proposal from the DAOs perspective.

For these reasons, I support it.

[jellyfish]

Thanks for making this proposal! A couple of questions:

337,613 users to complete more than 5.9 million on-chain transactions on Arbitrum

1. Is there any way the community can verify these numbers? Etherscan/Flipside/Dune etc. Looks like the GMX campaign drove over 1/3 of those users if I understand correctly (113.7k)

2. How much did it cost to get those numbers and transcations? What did projects pay in these instances?

3. What is the projection of the number of transcations the community will receive for 1M ARB tokens? I didn’t see it in the proposal.

4. What is the exact cost of marketing and developing each quest? Having these will help the community better understand the cost and return.

Thank you for answering the questions in advance!

[ArbDefender]

We have already the Odyssey campaign that is onboarding thousands and thousands of users and still have some time left. Why we should do another one on top of that or right after the Odyssey campaign ends? For me it makes no sense.

Also the Odyssey campaign (Galxe) its a near FREE cost campaign. For anyone working on any DAO knows that Layer3 quests are super expensive, looking at this it seems -for numbers i got quoted from Layer3 for other projects- that this campaign would cost $100k+

I dont see the benefits at least now. Maybe a campaign on Layer3 could do some good on Arbitrum Nova on some future when more dApps are deployed there.

[limes]

@jellyfish

Is there any way the community can verify these numbers? Etherscan/Flipside/Dune etc. Looks like the GMX campaign drove over 1/3 of those users if I understand correctly (113.7k)

Absolutely, we work closely with Spindl, a third-party data provider, to offer verified statistics. We’ll share public dashboards alongside our formal proposal. And to clarify, while GMX was a significant part of our campaign, many users were active on Layer3 before the GMX quest and completed quests across a variety of Arbitrum protocols. We’re committed to transparency and are more than willing to provide verifiable data to the community.

@jellyfish

How much did it cost to get those numbers and transcations? What did projects pay in these instances?

Costs vary depending on quest complexity, marketing, development, and other factors. Historically, acquisition costs range from $0.75 to $4.00 per transaction. While each protocol has unique financial structures, our primary goal is to provide effective solutions that generate a positive ROI event.

@jellyfish

What is the projection of the number of transcations the community will receive for 1M ARB tokens? I didn’t see it in the proposal.

For the investment of 1M ARB tokens, we project a substantial return in terms of transactional activity. Based on our models and previous campaigns, we’re anticipating around 25,000 transactions per quest. Multiply that by the 95 quests we’re planning, and the community can expect a total of over 2 million transactions as a direct result of this initiative, roughly $0.40 per transaction. Our focus with Layer3 is not just about immediate numbers but ensuring that each of those transactions are meaningful, promoting long-term engagement within the ecosystem.

@jellyfish

What is the exact cost of marketing and developing each quest? Having these will help the community better understand the cost and return.

Roughly 10,500 ARB per quest driving 15,000-25,000 users to make ~25,000 transactions per quest.