Couple of comments and questions surrounding this proposal:
I see the Snapshot vote has already gone live within 48 hours of posting to the forums. This is not a sufficient window in my opinion in order to take necessary feedback and iterate if needed. For that reason alone, I think the current vote warrents a “No” until this feedback as been sufficient, but does not mean that a future vote could not have a different outcome.
Would love to hear more justification as to why a Quest initiative is necessary given the aim of the STIP process was to use DAO funds in order to onboard new users into applications based on where the DAO decided it was best allocated. It was well under the purview of STIP applications to include ARB allocation towards Quests or onboarding initiatives. Why is an additional program at this point in time really necessary?
There is not enough details surrounding the ARB allocated to this proposal and what the funds will explicitly be used for. Just saying it will be going towards “recurring costs” is not enough to justify a 1M ARB spend. A breakdown of where this ARB will be allocated and over what time period is a must in order for this to pass.
Looking forward to hearing your feedback here! I do think Quests as a whole are a good quantitative way to onboard new users, but this proposal is lacking in certain areas.
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback regarding our proposal. We appreciate the attention you’ve given to it and acknowledge your concerns. Here are some clarifications and responses:
Feedback Period & Snapshot Vote: As noted above by Patrick, Snapshot is not binding in any sense and it is merely a temperature check tool to get community feedback from DAO delegates. In fact, step 1 on the Arbitrum DAO delegate docs is to submit to Snapshot.
We are still very much open for discussion and debate
Justification for Quest Initiative: While the primary aim of the STIP was to utilize DAO funds to onboard new users into applications, we see the Quest initiative as a complementary effort rather than a replacement. Our rationale is as follows:
Completeness of Experience: Although STIP provides the funds, it doesn’t address the actual user onboarding experience. Quests, on the other hand, offer a structured, enjoyable, and interactive way to onboard users, making the transition smoother and more engaging.
Increased Retention: While STIP might bring users to platforms, our Quests ensure they remain active, educated, and engaged, leading to better user retention.
Unfunded Projects: We’ve also addressed the projects that met STIP criteria but didn’t receive funding. Through Quests, these projects also gain visibility and engagement.
Detailed Breakdown of ARB Allocation: We understand the concern regarding the allocation of the 1M ARB. Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
Quest Development & Maintenance: Approximately 40% will go towards the development, iteration, and maintenance of the 95 quests. This includes creating content, integrating with different platforms, and testing.
Community Engagement: 20% will be allocated to community engagement, partnerships, and promotional activities, ensuring the quests reach a broader audience.
Performance Tracking & Reporting: 15% will be dedicated to analytics, tracking, and reporting, to ensure transparency and effectiveness of our efforts.
Platform Costs: 10% will cater to costs associated with Layer3, such as hosting, scaling, and other operational costs.
Reserves: The remaining 15% is reserved for unforeseen costs, additional enhancements based on community feedback, and potential future expansions of the initiative.
We truly believe that with the combined power of STIP and our Quests initiative, Arbitrum becomes a more accessible, enjoyable, and productive environment for both old and new users alike. We’re continuously working on refining our approach and are open to feedback you’d like to see to make this more beneficial.
Layer3 has put forward a proposal that genuinely aims to enhance the entire STIP’s effectiveness for the ecosystem by addressing a key issue that hasn’t been widely focused on: new user onboarding.
There’s a prevailing sentiment that ‘if we provide incentives, users will come’. While it’s true that some users will venture into the ecosystem seeking out these incentives, the real power of the STIP lies in acquiring new users who are potentially new to DeFi or not yet confident enough to explore other ecosystems. This approach to focus on acquiring these newer audiences is crucial for the grassroots growth of the ecosystem and will benefit all participants for the longer term.
Questing has consistently proven to be a fantastic Web3 specialized medium capable of targeting and onboarding users who are new to DeFi or even just new to specific types of protocols. Layer3 is also a highly respected platform with a strong track record of delivering high-quality user experiences that genuinely drive activity, acquisition, and aid in improving user education and safety.
This proposal aligns well with the values held by the Arbitrum DAO, and I commend Layer3’s efforts to showcase the diverse ecosystem by including many protocols as part of this comprehensive proposal.
Supporting this proposal will benefit the ecosystem during a pivotal time and i hope the DAO also view this as a genuine value add proposal.
We are highly supportive of the Arbitrum Improvement Proposal (AIP) titled “Build Optimal Onboarding for STIP Teams (BOOST) via Quests.” It’s heartening to see a proposal that’s squarely focused on fostering a more inclusive and informed community, aligning perfectly with Arbitrum’s core mission.
The idea of deploying 95 quests across a wide range of projects is a remarkable step forward in creating an inviting space for both seasoned crypto enthusiasts and newcomers. It’s essentially about breaking down the complexities of DeFi on Arbitrum into manageable, interactive quests. This, in our opinion, is fundamental for the sustainable growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Moreover, the phased approach in the proposal, targeting both STIP-qualified and non-STIP-qualified projects, is a strategic move that could facilitate enduring user engagement and allegiance. The investment made here isn’t just financial but a commitment to building a resilient, thriving community. The proposal’s pledge to maintain transparency and accountability adds an extra layer of assurance for the community. In essence, we find this AIP a compelling step towards advancing Arbitrum’s mission, and lend our full support to it. We have already voted FOR.
In addition, we appreciate Layer3’s inclusion of the smaller and earlier stage protocols that approved in STIP, but did not receive funding. This inclusion shows a thoughtfulness to improving the onboarding and continued retention of the new Arbi users brought by STIP.
Here is my view on how this proposal aligns to DAO priorities.
Alignment
This is intended to show how this proposal aligns to our strategic priorities. (Scale: Actively against, Not aligned, Neutral, Aligned, Highly Aligned)
Grow the Community - Highly Aligned
This proposal could help make STIP more inclusive and attract a broader set of users.
This review is cost neutral. It’s only concern is alignment to strategic priorities. The DAO always reserves the right approve any proposal, aligned or not.
Without delving into the finer details of budgeting or the cost associated with running these quests, we believe there is value in implementing questing programs to complement the STIP for achieving maximum effectiveness. It is commendable that teams which didn’t qualify for STIP are also able to acquire users through this program, making it a fair and inclusive approach. We appreciate the Layer3 team for addressing the questions from the community. We fully support the proposal and believe it will provide a net value-add to the overall Arbitrum ecosystem.
We are really excited that the Arbitrum community is interested in diversifying into other quest platforms to drive new users and growth alongside the STIP. However, as others have pointed out in this discussion, we believe that the Layer3 model not only has misaligned incentives with the DAO by using ARB as operational cost and distributing none to users, but also lacks the ability to be transparent with their data.
We have put forth a new proposal that addresses these concerns, with the same goals in mind: To use Quest Protocol to drive growth to STIP projects that received grants and didn’t make the cutoff, as well as new goals such as increase the number of ARB holders that are participating in the network. Hope you can give it a read here.
We believe the Arbitrum DAO deserves an open, honest conversation about the benefits that quest platforms offer, as well the pros/cons of having an offchain and onchain model.
While is debatable if engaging through quests will lead to sticky tvl, we need all to understand that, while L2 are our bread and butter, for a lot of folks are something that is either unknown, or just too obscure.
Useless to say, incentivization of activity through money raining is always a good motivation for retails, and so the whole initiative should have a good effect in term of number of users onboarded.
Also, @dk3 made some quick napkin math (for which I thank him in the name of all of us left curve brains) showing how the initiative would also have economic value overall.
We’re appreciative of the support from our fellow builders and DAO members. To enhance the transparency and depth of our proposal, we’ve partnered with Spindl to further clarify the impact of Layer3 on the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Here are a few updated metrics as of October 26th, 2023:
342,500 users have successfully completed a Layer3 Quest on Arbitrum.
Layer3 has driven 10,000,000 transactions on Arbitrum.
Layer3 has driven $1.6 million in transaction fees on Arbitrum.
We are confident that this proposal will deliver tangible and immediate advantages to both the DAO and the larger Arbitrum ecosystem. The metrics above underscore the reach and influence of our platform. We are committed to Arbitrum’s success and invite ongoing discussions to ensure we’re capturing feedback from the entire community.
Thanks for posting these numbers Brandon, I think it’s very helpful for the community to see! However, it doesn’t look like there is a way to verify this onchain anywhere by a third party (we don’t have access to Spindl’s data or can’t audit it) Can you point us to where we can verify these metrics are correct?
One thing that would be helpful and maybe to include in the proposal for the next step (if voted for in temp check) is plans for a recommended path of quest completion for the stip projects. Doesn’t even have to be fancy, but a simple directed list or map to handhold users I think would go far in terms of retention time.
Like This or an Advent Calendar (1 Focused Quest a Day)
Cause I feel like when I sign into layer3 sometimes it’s like this
We can attest to the effectiveness of Layer3’s campaigns, seeing as we have used them before. Airdrop incentives, alone, are not enough for sticky users and TVL. Layer3, undoubtedly, helps bridge the gap for users who are unfamiliar with the available products on any DeFi ecosystem. We therefore support this proposal.
Leaving my two cents here - Layer3 campaigns have proven to be useful to outside ecosystems. In terms of value to the actual network, Dk put it nicely, this grant pays most of itself back via fees to the sequencer. Commiting to do a campaign for every project is also top notch and this proposal has my full support.
Having reviewed the proposal and taking into consideration feedback from other delegates, we are inclined to support this proposal AIP for the following reasons:
Education Leading to Adoption: The AIP’s emphasis on designing quests is a interesting approach to both onboarding and education. These structured and immersive quests simplify the complex world of DeFi, making it more accessible to newcomers. By breaking down intricacies into digestible formats, we not only empower users with knowledge but also encourage deeper engagement with the protocols, leading to increased adoption.
Upholding Inclusivity and Foster Community Building: The proposal’s deliberate effort to support both STIP-funded projects and those that missed out showcases Arbitrum’s commitment to inclusivity and fairness. By ensuring all deserving projects have an opportunity for visibility and engagement, we’re fostering a strong foundation for a community that thrives on collaboration and mutual growth.
Phased Implementation: The proposal strategically segments the quest rollout into distinct stages, ensuring each protocol gets dedicated focus and resources. This approach allows for tailored quest design specific to each protocol, offers an adaptive feedback loop after each phase for continuous improvement, and promotes sustained user engagement. By spreading the releases over time, we keep the community consistently engaged, optimizing both user experience and interaction within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
On another note, we think it’s important to address potential concerns to uphold the integrity of our decision-making framework. The notable amount of voting power held by Layer3 and the author of the proposal (@limes) raises questions about our stands against potential conflicts of interest. Their commitment to the Arbitrum ecosystem is clear, yet the act of voting on their initiatives deserves better clarity. This is less about questioning motives and more about seeking clarity on our voting ethos within the ArbitrumDAO community. We suggest delving deeper into this matter in another dedicated forum thread, ensuring transparency and a shared understanding.
Michigan Blockchain is voting FOR this proposal on the temperature check. Layer3 campaigns and quests have seen great success and we are excited for their team to work with the Arbitrum community to further encourage widespread ecosystem participation for the protocols that are on the receiving end of the recent STIP and beyond. We appreciate their commitment to assisting the large list of projects individually and developing quests to better onboard users and engage participants. Given this sustainable impact, we support this proposal and hope to continue to communicate with the Layer3 team to run a successful program that includes transparent usage of their ARB allocation and widespread ecosystem benefits.
From Beefy’s side we fully support this proposal. Layer3 has proven to be an amazing and innovative to incentivize current users, but most importantly capturing new ones. The complete proposal seems pretty thought out and makes a lot of sense.
Blockworks Research has decided to vote “Abstain” for the initial Snapshot vote for the BOOST proposal. Here are our reasons for doing so:
The vote for this proposal was far too quick to give reasonable time for delegates such as ourselves to give feedback, hear out concerns, and feel confident in the information outlined. As such, we think this proposal deserves some time and clearer communication before it should be posted to Tally for the official vote.
Updates to the proposal will need to be made to reflect changes in the number of Quests, making this proposal already outdated. Therefore, it becomes difficult to vote for a proposal that is not reflective of its current state, and would only cause confusion prior to the Tally vote.
This does not mean that we will not be in favor of future iterations of this proposal, rather that we are not confident in the state of the current Snapshot vote. We will be following this proposal as it updates to make sure the community has given sufficient feedback and that the vote itself becomes clear.
