# Request for Additional Funding for the Arbitrum DDA Program

**URL:** <https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/request-for-additional-funding-for-the-arbitrum-dda-program/24862>\
**Category:** Archived Proposals\
**Created:** [June 10, 2024, 12:36pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/request-for-additional-funding-for-the-arbitrum-dda-program/24862 "2024-06-10T12:36:50Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jengajojo](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/jengajojo/32/7952_2.png) [@jengajojo](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/jengajojo)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2024, 1:02pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/request-for-additional-funding-for-the-arbitrum-dda-program/24862/4 "2024-06-19T13:02:49Z")

</div>

> [@cp0x](#):
>
> This is a vicious circle, it seems to me that you should not focus on the current cost of ARB

I do agree with this sentiment. Instead of having 1 proposal to renew this program, the DAO may have to continue to deal with more proposals about this which results in unnecessary governance overhead.

The second iteration of this proposal received some feedback from delegates [[here](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/questbook-dda-program-phase-2-request-for-continuation/21326/43)]. which was not included in this iteration.

As a DAO, we should take this is an opportunity presented to us by the market to rapidly iterate on the learnings as opposed to bridging the gap and continuing with a version which can present further governance overhead.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/request-for-additional-funding-for-the-arbitrum-dda-program/24862)._