Proposal: Build Optimal Onboarding for STIP Teams (BOOST)

[brandonkumar]

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.

While the Odyssey campaign serves its purpose, our initiative at Layer3 is distinctly tailored for STIP projects. With us, you’re not just getting another campaign; you’re investing in a comprehensive service package including quest design, marketing & promotion, content creation, technical build, quality assurance, technical support, and transparent reporting. With Layer3, you’re ensuring that STIP projects reach the widest and highest quality audience possible.

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+

We believe in quality over quantity. While bulk offers might seem cost-effective initially, the real value lies in attracting and retaining high-quality users who genuinely engage with the platform. It’s worth noting that platforms like Odyssey, despite their reach, are known to have UX challenges that lead to user and project frustration. Our commitment to excellence is evident not just in our results, but also in the seamless user experience we provide. Our results and partnerships underscore the premium value we bring to the table, including longstanding campaigns with Coinbase, Phantom, Brave, Slingshot, Uniswap, and other leading projects.

[jellyfish]

Thanks for taking the time to answer the previous questions!

Some responses below:

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.

Great, looking forward to seeing this, I think that would be great for the community to see!

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.

How are you arriving at these acquisition costs if there are were no previous cost to projects or Arbitrum DAO? Also as far as I understand your model, users receive XP and NFTs for completing quests rather than direct ARB tokens, so just trying to understand the math a bit here.

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.

Can you walk me through your process on why you think all 95 quests are created equal and will have the estimated same results? I understand the need to support everyone in the ecosystem with growth, but the community will want to double click on these assumptions.

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

Can we see a detailed breakdown of how you’re arriving at this 10,500 ARB? You mentioned most of the cost is around updates, maintenance, community engagement efforts, partnerships, performance targeting and reporting, but you have managed to get 5.9 million transactions without 1M ARB.

[zeck]

In STIP, both Galxe’s 500,000 $arb and RabbitHole’s 1 million $arb will benefit users. Galxe will use it to support claim oat, while RabbitHole will distribute it to all users through the quest protocol. And is it a joke that Layer3 applied for 1 million $arb only for marketing and designing Quest?

[peter]

As @zeck mentioned the DAO has already spent 500K $ARB on the Galxe solution through STIP. There must have been a logical reason they didn’t choose Layer3 at the first place. I really doubt what kind of added value Layer3 offers which costs the DAO further up 1M $ARB?

[JackL]

Agreed, and as far as I know, most of the projects on layer3 require payment to be listed.

[limes]

@jellyfish

How are you arriving at these acquisition costs if there are were no previous cost to projects or Arbitrum DAO?

These are acquisition costs that customers pay Layer3.

@jellyfish

Can you walk me through your process on why you think all 95 quests are created equal

We fully expect them to be different and seek the input of the protocols as to what they think would be most effective for their platform! These are averages.

@jellyfish

Can we see a detailed breakdown of how you’re arriving at this 10,500 ARB?

This number is arrived at by 1M ARB/95 Quests

[jellyfish]

Blockquote This number is arrived at by 1M ARB/95 Quests

The very basic question that was asked here is why you need 1M ARB to run the quests if you already ran plenty without any tokens. You have mentioned that you will need ARB to cover the costs of running the campaigns, which is a conflicting statement. You then mentioned that it will cost approximately 10,500 ARB to run each quest, and I have asked what the detailed breakdown is. 1M/95 is not an answer to this question.

As others have mentioned, proposals from other quest platforms like Galxe/RabbitHole had funds going directly to incentivizing contracts and users, whereas this is not the case.

I’d like to see more thoughtfulness be put into the proposal, as it seems very rushed and trying to take advantage of the fact that everyone can win with this proposal, which is idealistic and not feasible. Perhaps it may be a better idea to apply for Round 2 if it does end up happening, or even choose a subset of the projects and have a more strategic approach that the community can get behind

[dk3]

Gonna weigh in here as both a user/delegate, a previous layer3 customer, and Odyssey selected project.

The infrastructure to run these campaigns is not cheap. You may not see it, but projects pay Layer3 for their quests, @limes has provided this costing to you, that is real $$ that a project pays Layer3 to run a campaign.

Layer3 and Galaxe have different approaches. Layer3 does all of the heavy lifting for you, Galaxe does not. A Galaxe quest will cost the running project engineering time to build tracking, set up infrastructure, test, etc, then designer time to create marketing and quest assets, quite a few things. I am not saying one model is better than the other, I am just saying they are very different models from the project standpoint.

As a user/delegate I would prefer not to put all eggs in one basket; they have some segments that overlap, and they have some segments that do not overlap, each has their own strenghts. I think a great example to look at today is Cipher, they were the go-to SocialFi app on Arbitrum, today they announced (after 250k in revenue) they are not making enough to be a profitable platform and are going to shut down. Even after raising investor capital.

[OpenOcean]

Having collaborated with Layer3 previously, we’ve seen firsthand its efficacy in educating and channeling high-quality users focused on DeFi to us. Given that most STIP projects this round lean into DeFi, we fully support this proposal as an effective method to introduce new users, highlight innovative protocols, and draw interest in Arbitrum.

[Womnayden]

It seems the Layer3 team is not addressing the core concern - why do you require operational funding from the DAO when other questing providers are doing this for free?

As I’ve mentioned before (which was also denied by the Layer3 representatives), the requested budget will be pocketed by the team, while other questing service providers applied for STIP and will use their funding to distribute to users as rewards directly.

This proposal is clearly flawed and I’m not exactly sure the intent of the Layer3 team is in the right place. You did not apply for STIP because it wouldn’t have allowed you to pocket the funds, and now you are outlining a strategy which is essentially paid marketing that costs the treasury 1M ARB. Other questing providers do not require operational budget to run quests, they applied directly for STIP and do not pocket any funds. What this means is you intentionally did not apply so you could angle your proposal to promote STIP applicants for a paid fee covered by the treasury.

The benefits of quests for growth and engagement is undeniable. What is concerning here is the lack of transparency and the contradicting statements Layer3 representatives have provided in this discussion.

[brandonkumar]

Thank you for such an engaging discussion!

We appreciate the support from community members and projects like Notional, WooFi, OpenOcean, Mariam, dk3, and 0xWenMoon.

See below for clarity on a few open topics:

• Grant: To state the obvious, Layer3, like any other enterprise, has a fixed amount of resources. The reality of running a high-quality service is that it requires resources. Therefore we need to allocate our resources across many different chains. This grant enables us to channel our resources towards Arbitrum’s growth. It’s about investing the treasury where it’s most needed for the betterment of Arbitrum. Without this grant, Layer3 may need to allocate its resources towards other chains and apps.

• Our Proven Track Record: We stand by our track record. We’ve successfully driven 337,000+ users to complete more than 5.9 million on-chain transactions on Arbitrum. The numbers, particularly from our GMX campaign, speak volumes. We brought in 119,000+ users, 95% of whom were new to GMX. These aren’t hypotheticals; these are real, tangible results.

• Transparency and Commitment: The detail of the proposal above and the clarity in our responses shows that we operate with complete transparency.

• Premium Product: Layer3 is recognized as a premium product, partnering with leading projects like Coinbase, Phantom, Brave, Slingshot, Uniswap, and dozens of others. It’s worth noting that platforms such as Odyssey are known to face UX challenges, leading to user and project frustrations. As dk3 mentioned, our commitment to excellence is evident not just in our results, but also in the seamless user experience we provide.

Again, we appreciate the support from so many community members and projects above. This grant is about aligning our strategies, resources, and capabilities to serve Arbitrum most effectively. We’re all on the same side, aiming for the growth and success of this community.

[limes]

We’ve put proposal up for voting on Snapshot.

[peter]

It’s unclear why the proposal was rushed to a vote amidst ongoing disputes. Is this an abuse of delegate or voting power?
cc: @Womnayden @jellyfish

[brandonkumar]

Thanks for your input, Peter! We’ve had a constructive and extensive discussion above. Like yourself, we are eager to contribute to the swift growth and success of this community.

We have addressed and provided clear responses to all the open questions raised, ensuring transparency and alignment with the community’s objectives. 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.

The snapshot is the best way to measure the community’s interest in this proposal.

[jellyfish]

It’s unclear why the proposal was rushed to a vote amidst ongoing disputes. Is this an abuse of delegate or voting power?

Agree with you and @Womnayden. There has been an avoidance of questions and there seems to be a rushed Snapshot which comes off as an attempt to loot the treasury. Of course the projects that are included in the proposal will be for the proposal. This sets poor precedent for the DAO, and will lead to more situations like this in the future where projects are taking advantage of governance. I’d encourage delegates and voters to read through the entire discussion.

[Womnayden]

It seems @limes and @brandonkumar keep repeating the same outline instead of actually providing any reasoning or explanation as to why they should have preferential treatment over questing services that provide similar services for free. Also, instead of providing valid arguments, they just rushed a Snapshot vote.

@brandonkumar

Grant: To state the obvious, Layer3, like any other enterprise, has a fixed amount of resources. The reality of running a high-quality service is that it requires resources. Therefore we need to allocate our resources across many different chains. This grant enables us to channel our resources towards Arbitrum’s growth. It’s about investing the treasury where it’s most needed for the betterment of Arbitrum. Without this grant, Layer3 may need to allocate its resources towards other chains and apps.

You have just acknowledged that you do not require any funding to launch quests, but rather you want Arbitrum DAO to pay up for the privilege. This is not the language that your colleague @limes used when he stated that the funds are not going into your pockets.

Your communication here has been a major red flag, and your intentional skipping of the STIP application only further proves you just want to pocket the funds. Other questing services (Rabbithole and Galxe) have applied and the allocated funds will be going directly to users (which is an actual incentive).

You mention transparency but your communication in this discussion has only shown the lack of it. The only replies we’ve been receiving so far are canned responses about your previous achievements (which you didn’t request funding for).

I’m strongly against this proposal, and suggest everyone to thoroughly review this discussion before voting.

[limes]

Thanks, Jellyfish and Womnayden! Fortunately, this is a clear win for the DAO as our track record has shown that we will drive new user growth, increased transaction activity, improved governance participation, and heightened community awareness.

The potential impact of running 95 Quests across over 60 protocols is undeniable, especially when taking into account the performance metrics mentioned above.

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.

It’s evident that others share this belief, given the support from community members and projects like Notional, WooFi, OpenOcean, Mariam, dk3, and 0xWenMoon.

[ArbDefender]

Why this is already on Snapshot when there are open discussions here?
I dont get it why rushing things, like wtf.

I might vote against.

[zeck]

I suggest that the delegates carefully consider this proposal before making any hasty decisions.

In fact, there are better alternatives available for allocating 1 million arb, and the community currently lacks a proper process for establishing its own grants.

In my opinion, this rushed approach is a poor way to begin. In the long run, releasing a proposal for discussion with only 1-2 days of deliberation time will disrupt the governance of the dao.

[stonecoldpat]

Just in case anyone isn’t aware, Snapshot is simply used as a temperature check and the result is not binding. It can help spur discussion about a proposal before going to the real on-chain vote (via Tally’s UI).