Proposal: Empowering Early Contributors: The community Arbiter Proposal

I support the idea of rewarding Arbiters but believe it may be worthwhile to design an ongoing incentive program for Discord ambassadors (arbiters) rather than a 1-time retroactive payment.


Hi @MattOnChain
We appreciate your time and interest in our proposal! The purpose of the proposal we’ve put forth is to reward Arbiters for previous work done over the past two years, which is why it proposes a one-time retroactive payment.


I fully support the proposal to reward the Arbitrum community’s This initiative is crucial to emphasize community unity, recognize dedication, and spotlight those who have notably influenced Arbitrum’s evolution.

However, alongside my support, I’d like to address several concerns and suggestions:

  1. Equitable Distribution: Some Arbiters may have been consistently contributing over a longer period, while others, perhaps newer, have made significant impactful contributions in a shorter time frame. An equal distribution might inadvertently not recognize these nuances. Hence, I believe it would be more equitable to calculate the grant based on the actual, tangible contributions of each Arbiter.
  2. Beyond Discord: Focusing solely on Discord Arbiters might unintentionally leave out key contributors from other platforms. Arbitrum’s growth narrative has been influenced by individuals across various platforms, including Reddit, Twitter, GitHub, and more. I’d suggest broadening the criteria to recognize contributors from other platforms.
  3. Transparency and Metrics: A more structured and transparent metric system would provide clarity. Such a mechanism not only aids in this current initiative but could also be a benchmark for future reward and recognition schemes.
  4. Expanding the Beneficiaries: Many individuals outside of formal roles have also played pivotal roles in Arbitrum’s growth. The Arbiters have been instrumental, but there might be other unsung heroes in the community. Bringing them into the fold and rewarding them would truly capture the spirit of community collaboration and inclusivity.

In conclusion, while I stand firmly behind this proposal’s intent, addressing the aforementioned concerns would refine it further. This approach would ensure fairness and inclusivity and pave the way for continued growth and collaboration.

let me know what you think guys!


I support the ideas too, every great work should be rewarded.

Sorry. Never seen the real positive impact of this group. Moderating social channels is the job of Arbitrum DAO or Offchain Lab. I really doubt this is a plan by several individuals who trying to take advantage of DAO for money.

@peter “Retroactive”
We filled those shoes when there was no DAO and not enough engineers for support. You must be new.

@englandzz I answered all of your conserns on the community call.


Hi there! Thanks a ton for supporting our proposal. We’re stoked about your backing and really appreciate your thoughts.

  1. Distributing grants based on individual contributions is an interesting idea. Quantifying those contributions can be tricky, so we opted for an equal distribution. But we’re open to exploring your suggestion if more folks support it.
  2. This proposal is for Arbiters, but we’re all for community members from other platforms starting their own proposals for recognition.
  3. That’s a cool idea, and probably something the team should look into.
  4. We’re with you on recognizing other community members. If there are folks outside formal roles who’ve made an impact, then we encourage that they get involved and propose how they want to be recognized.
1 Like

I don’t think that’s a fair take. Some of the Arbiters have been around for more than 2 years, sent more than 10,000 messages in the discord where they’ve supported community members, provided feedback and also done work outside of the discord. Arbiters have contributed since 2021, prior to when the token was even released and before there even was an Arbitrum DAO.

1 Like

Our proposal has been posted in Snapshot and we hope we can get DAO’s support, thanks!

They worked a lot and they deserve to be repaid, but I don’t know if they were rewarded for their work in some way by the project.

1 Like

I agree that early contributors should be rewarded, but the 25 arbiter role owners are far from sufficient to cover all early contributors. If we aim to reward early contributors, it should be as comprehensive as possible, or it might backfire. I hope this proposal can be written in more detail and improved.

1 Like

I’m very happy that Arbitrum has also started to give new incentives :blue_heart::orange_heart:
GOOD LUCK :orange_heart::blue_heart::pray:t4:


I believe this proposal is an amazing start and contributors that helped without getting paid should most def be rewarded.

It would be interesting to see how these Arbiters were chosen and how their contributions were quantified. Maybe some were missed? I’m also a little curios why would they all receive the same amount of $ARB? :smiley:

At a first glance it does seem that most of the rewards would go to the Arbitrum Asian community which is indeed interesting.

Hi, the Arb requested in this proposal is the full amount of the award for our contribution over the past two years.

No other additional bonuses, thank you for your support!

1 Like

Hello, this proposal is simply a reward for the contributions made by early community Arbiters, thanks!

Hello, thank you very much for recognizing us, the reason why the rewards are not distributed according to the contribution, that’s because a lot of the work can’t be quantified, and a lot of the data are not well preserved, all for the sake of fairness we choose to distribute them evenly, as you can see, most of the arbiters are from the Chinese community, but they have made great contributions in both the Chinese and the English community, and part of the proposal for these jobs are also listed, thank you for your support! :heart:

1 Like

Can you give a list of the contributors, their social networks and discord and at least some metrics links of the work they have done?

And another question, will the funds be sent to a multisig? or do you intend to send 20k ARB to each address?


This is exactly what’s missing from this proposal. If it’s just 25 people, it would be really helpful to have a list of them and a sentence or two about what each has done to merit 20,000 ARB. The concept is fine, but this kind of bookkeeping is important.


Firstly, on behalf of ITU Blockchain, we wish to express our gratitude for your efforts in preparing this proposal. We recognize the significant contributions made by “Arbiters” through Discord and various community applications. Although we are unable to catalog messages sent by those with the Arbiter role on Discord, the community is well-acquainted with you and acknowledges your previous assistance.

However, within this proposal, we hoped to see a clear articulation regarding the criteria for selecting “Arbiters”, whether obtaining this role is still possible, and a quantitative expression of the contributions made by those who currently hold this role.

Currently, a grant for a closed group consisting of 25 individuals is under consideration. We wholeheartedly agree that this group should be rewarded in line with their past contributions, but believe that this should be done in collaboration with the Arbitrum Foundation. Integrating the rewards with the Arbitrum Foundation’s recent initiative, the Ambassador Program seems to be a more logical approach. In hopes of collaborating on this matter, we are tagging the officials from the Arbitrum Ambassador program: @eli_defi @AnaTech.eth

Due to the reasons mentioned above, we choose to cast an “Abstain” vote in this decision.


We would like to commend the initiative to recognize and reward the Arbiters for their dedication and hard work. It is evident that these individuals have played a significant role in the development, support, and growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem over the past years. Their contributions in various areas such as translation, promotion, community support, and fraud prevention are commendable and undoubtedly deserve recognition.

Points for Consideration

However, we believe there are some aspects of this proposal, particularly concerning reward distribution, that need a closer look and potential modification:

  • Equitable Distribution: The current proposal suggests a flat distribution of 20,000 $ARB tokens to each of the 25 Discord Arbiters. While this approach streamlines the process, it might overlook the nuances of individual contributions. We looked into some of Arbiter Discord activities (Arbiter.xlsx), we found out that there’s some noticeable disparities in the engagement and contribution levels among Arbiters. We need a more nuanced distribution strategy that factors in the quality, magnitude, and impact of these contributions.

For instance, Arbiter <.fyray>, despite being part of the Arbitrum Discord for a mere 6 months, has showcased more engagement than , a member for three years. Such disparities should influence the distribution metrics.

  • Valuing External Contributions: While the proposal does touch upon contributions outside Discord, it doesn’t delve into their assessment and valuation. Since several Arbiters have excelled Arbitrum through external promotions, events, and content creation, it’s crucial to devise a mechanism that recognizes and rewards these diverse efforts. We need a holistic view that values contributions, both within and outside the Discord community.
  • Benchmarking with other similar initiatives from other DAOs: We looked at similar initiatives, like the Optimism Collective’s reward system for community contributors. In contrast to Arbitrum’s uniform rewards, Optimism Collective uses a tiered system, ensuring rewards align with each contributor’s actual contributions and impact.

In short, while it’s great to want to reward the Arbiters, the way the rewards are given out needs some tweaking. Ensuring our rewards reflect industry standards and correspond to the effort put in will make this reward approach more equitable. Given the current state of the proposal and the points highlighted, we are inclined to vote against it unless these considerations are addressed.

1 Like