RFC - Introducing a Robust Framework for Arbitrum Service Providers [Marketing & Growth]

Hello, Arbitrum community! In light of the ongoing discussion in the Bankless DAO proposal and the post created by Jengajojo on establishing a framework for service providers, the Atoma team wishes to contribute our insights. We’ve crafted a comprehensive framework to address such scenarios. Our goal is to stimulate the discussion around this subject, gather community feedback, and lay the foundation for a robust Arbitrum framework for marketing & growth service providers.

If the community sees value in it, the Atoma team is willing to contribute further to this project.

Introducing a Robust Framework for Arbitrum Service Providers [Marketing & Growth]

Establishing a proper framework for marketing & growth service providers for the Arbitrum protocol involves defining clear guidelines and procedures to ensure transparency, fairness, and efficiency. The Atoma team advocates for the implementation of a comprehensive framework, encompassing the following key elements:

  • 1- Documentation and Proposal Submission.
  • 2- Evaluation Criteria.
  • 3- Community Feedback.
  • 4- Trial Periods.
  • 5- Regular Reviews and Updates.
  • 6- Flexibility and Scalability.
  • 7- Communication Channels.
  • 8- Education.
  • 9- Legal and Compliance Considerations (Optional).

1. Documentation and Proposal Submission

Require service providers to submit detailed documentation outlining their proposed services, methodologies, and expected outcomes.

Service providers interested in contributing to the Arbitrum protocol should be required to submit comprehensive documentation that outlines the specifics of their proposed services. This documentation would serve as a transparent and informative basis for the community and the Arbitrum DAO to evaluate the merit of the proposal. The documentation should include:

  • Introduction and Background: A brief introduction to the service provider, highlighting their background, expertise, and any relevant experience in the Web3 and blockchain space. Details about the team members involved in the proposed services.
  • Scope of Services: A clear and detailed description of the services the provider intends to offer to the Arbitrum protocol. Information on how these services align with the needs and goals of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
  • Methodologies: An explanation of the methodologies and approaches the service provider plans to employ in delivering the proposed services. Technical details on how the services will integrate with the Arbitrum protocol.
  • Expected Outcomes: Clearly defined expected outcomes and goals of the proposed services. Metrics or key performance indicators (KPIs) that will be used to measure the success of the services.
  • Timeline: A proposed timeline for the delivery of services, including key milestones and deadlines. An estimated time frame for the trial or pilot period, if applicable.

Establish a standardized proposal format or template that includes key information such as the provider’s background, experience, and a breakdown of services.

To streamline the evaluation process and ensure consistency in the information provided, the Arbitrum DAO should establish a standardized proposal format. This format will include specific sections for key information, making it easier for community members and DAO participants to review and compare different proposals. The standardized format may include:

  • Executive Summary: A concise overview of the proposal, highlighting its key elements and objectives.
  • Provider Information: Background information on the service provider, including previous experience in the blockchain and Web3 space.
  • Service Breakdown: A detailed breakdown of the proposed services, methodologies, and any technical specifications.
  • Team Members: Profiles of team members involved in the project, emphasizing their relevant skills and experience.
  • Budget and Funding Request: A clear breakdown of the budget required for the proposed services, including any funding requested from the Arbitrum DAO.
  • Timeline and Milestones: A detailed timeline outlining key milestones and deliverables, providing a clear roadmap for the project.
  • Risk Analysis: Identification of potential risks associated with the proposed services and strategies to mitigate them.

By establishing a standardized proposal format, the Arbitrum DAO can ensure that all necessary information is consistently provided, facilitating a more efficient and transparent evaluation process for service providers seeking to contribute to the protocol.

2. Evaluation Criteria

Define clear criteria for evaluating service providers. This may include technical expertise, experience in the Web3 space, track record, and alignment with the core values of the Arbitrum ecosystem.

The Arbitrum DAO should establish a set of transparent and comprehensive criteria to evaluate service providers. These criteria are designed to ensure that the evaluation process is thorough, fair, and aligned with the specific needs and values of the Arbitrum ecosystem. The criteria may encompass the following aspects:

  • Technical Expertise: The provider’s technical proficiency in relevant areas such as blockchain technology, smart contract development, and layer 2 scaling solutions.
    • Demonstrated expertise in areas specific to the proposed services for the Arbitrum protocol.
  • Experience in the Web3 Space: A track record of successful contributions or projects within the broader Web3 and blockchain ecosystem.
    • Experience with similar protocols, technologies, or platforms within the decentralized space.
  • Track Record: An assessment of the provider’s past performance, including successful implementations, contributions, or collaborations.
    • Consideration of any relevant partnerships, recognitions, or achievements in the blockchain industry.
  • Alignment with Core Values: Evaluation of how well the service provider’s mission, values, and approach align with the core values outlined in the Arbitrum Constitution.
    • Consideration of factors such as inclusivity, sustainability, security, and openness in their proposed services.

Community should consider creating a scoring system to objectively assess proposals based on predetermined criteria.

To enhance objectivity and facilitate a systematic comparison of proposals, the Arbitrum DAO may implement a scoring system. This system will assign numerical scores to each criterion based on the provider’s response and documentation. The scoring system could include:

  • Technical Expertise (Score out of 10): Assessing the depth and relevance of the provider’s technical capabilities.
  • Experience in the Web3 Space (Score out of 10): Evaluating the provider’s history of successful engagements within the broader Web3 ecosystem.
  • Track Record (Score out of 10): Assigning scores based on the provider’s past achievements, collaborations, and contributions.
  • Alignment with Core Values (Score out of 10): Scoring the provider’s alignment with the core values and principles of the Arbitrum ecosystem.

The cumulative scores across these criteria would provide an objective measure of each proposal’s merit. This scoring system ensures that the evaluation process remains transparent and consistent, enabling the Arbitrum DAO to make informed decisions when selecting service providers to contribute to the protocol.

3. Community Feedback

Encourage community input on service provider proposals. This can be done through forums, voting mechanisms, or community discussions.

The Arbitrum DAO recognizes the importance of community involvement in decision-making processes. To foster transparency and inclusivity, the DAO should actively encourage community members to provide feedback on service provider proposals. This engagement can take various forms:

  • Forums and Discussion Platforms: Establish dedicated forums or discussion platforms where community members can review and discuss service provider proposals.
    • Facilitate an open dialogue, allowing community members to express their opinions, concerns, and suggestions regarding each proposal.
  • Community Discussions: Organize community-led discussions meetings to provide a space for in-depth conversations about proposed services.
    • Foster an environment where community members can engage directly with service providers, asking questions and seeking clarification.

Consider community sentiment as a factor in the evaluation process.

The Arbitrum DAO should acknowledge the significance of community sentiment as a valuable metric in the evaluation of service provider proposals. While the DAO would maintain a structured evaluation process, it would also take into account the collective opinions and preferences of the community. This consideration ensures that the chosen service providers not only meet technical requirements but also resonate with the broader community’s values and expectations.

The integration of community sentiment into the evaluation process strengthens the decentralized nature of decision-making within the Arbitrum ecosystem. By valuing community feedback, the DAO will make informed decisions that align with the interests and aspirations of its diverse and engaged community members.

4. Trial Periods

Implement trial or pilot periods for selected service providers. This allows the community to assess the actual performance and impact of the proposed services.

The Arbitrum DAO also recognizes the importance of practical assessments in evaluating service providers. To ensure a thorough understanding of the proposed services and their real-world impact, the DAO should implement trial or pilot periods for selected providers. This approach offers several benefits:

  • Hands-On Evaluation: During the trial period, the community can experience the actual services provided by the selected vendors in a live environment.
    • This hands-on evaluation allows community members to assess the functionality, usability, and effectiveness of the proposed services.
  • Real-World Impact: By observing the services in action, the community gains insights into how they contribute to the overall objectives of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
    • Assessing real-world impact ensures that the chosen service providers align with the practical needs and expectations of the community.

Set clear milestones and success metrics for the trial period.

It is crucial to establish transparent criteria for evaluating the success of trial periods. To provide a structured framework for assessment, the DAO should set clear milestones and success metrics, including:

  • Performance Metrics: Define key performance indicators (KPIs) relevant to the specific services being trialed.
    • Establish benchmarks that indicate successful performance in areas such as efficiency, reliability, and user satisfaction.
  • Community Feedback: Continue to encourage community feedback during the trial period.
    • Utilize community sentiment as an additional metric for evaluating the success of the services.
  • Scalability and Adaptability: Assess the scalability and adaptability of the services to changing ecosystem needs.
    • Ensure that the services can seamlessly integrate into the evolving landscape of the Arbitrum protocol.

By setting clear milestones and success metrics, the Arbitrum DAO would conduct a comprehensive evaluation of service providers, empowering the community to make informed decisions based on tangible results and community feedback.

5. Regular Reviews and Updates

Establish a schedule for regular reviews of service providers’ performance. This ensures ongoing accountability and allows for adjustments based on changing circumstances. Providers should be open to feedback and willing to adapt their services based on community and protocol needs.

The Atoma team emphasizes the importance of establishing a structured framework for continuous evaluation and adaptation of service providers. This should involve the following key components:

  • Scheduled Performance Reviews: Define a regular schedule for comprehensive reviews of service providers’ performance.
    • These reviews should occur at predetermined intervals, providing a systematic approach to assess the effectiveness and relevance of the services offered.
  • Dynamic Accountability Mechanisms: Ensure that the accountability mechanisms are dynamic and responsive to changing circumstances.
    • By scheduling regular reviews, the DAO can adapt its evaluation criteria to evolving community and protocol needs, fostering flexibility in the governance framework.
  • Adjustments and Adaptations: Establish a mechanism for making adjustments to service provider agreements based on the outcomes of performance reviews.
    • This includes the ability to modify service scope, terms, or other relevant aspects to better align with the evolving requirements of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
  • Open Communication and Feedback Loop: Encourage open communication channels between the community, the DAO, and service providers.
    • Establish a feedback loop where community members can provide input on the performance of service providers, fostering a collaborative environment for improvement.
  • Community-Driven Adaptations: Consider incorporating community sentiment and feedback into the review and adaptation process.
    • Community-driven adjustments ensure that the services provided are aligned with the broader goals and expectations of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
  • Transparency and Reporting: Require service providers to provide transparent and detailed reports on their activities and outcomes during the review periods.
    • Transparency enhances the visibility of service provider performance, facilitating informed decisions during the review and adaptation processes.

By implementing a robust system of regular reviews and updates, the Arbitrum DAO would maintain a high standard of service provision, adapt to changing dynamics, and ensure that service providers remain responsive to the evolving needs of the community and the protocol.

6. Flexibility and Scalability

Design the framework to be flexible and scalable to accommodate the evolving needs of the Arbitrum ecosystem. Consider mechanisms for onboarding new service providers and retiring outdated or underperforming ones.

In the pursuit of a dynamic and adaptable service provider framework, the Atoma team recommends to prioritize flexibility and scalability. This involves key considerations:

  • Evolving Framework Design: Craft the initial framework with a forward-looking perspective, ensuring it is inherently adaptable to changing circumstances and emerging needs.
    • Establish a governance structure that allows for updates and amendments to the framework, promoting long-term relevance.
  • Accommodating Ecosystem Growth: Anticipate the growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem and design the framework to seamlessly accommodate an expanding user base, diverse service needs, and evolving technological requirements.
  • Retiring Underperforming Providers: Introduce mechanisms to assess the performance of existing service providers regularly.
    • Establish clear criteria for identifying underperforming providers, allowing for their retirement or replacement to maintain the quality of services offered.
  • Dynamic Governance Parameters: Consider governance mechanisms that empower the community to suggest and vote on adjustments to the framework.
    • This ensures that decisions regarding the inclusion or removal of service providers align with the collective will of the Arbitrum community.
  • Transparent Retirement Process: Define a transparent process for retiring or replacing service providers, including clear criteria and communication channels to inform the community.
    • Transparency fosters trust and confidence in the governance processes, reinforcing the commitment to maintaining a high standard of service provision.
  • Scalable Infrastructure: Design the technical infrastructure supporting the framework to be scalable, capable of handling increased participation and demand over time.
    • Scalability ensures that the ecosystem can grow organically without compromising the efficiency of service provider management.

By prioritizing flexibility and scalability, the Arbitrum DAO would create a governance framework that not only meets current needs but also anticipates and accommodates the future growth and evolution of the Arbitrum ecosystem.

7. Communication Channels

Establish effective communication channels between the Arbitrum DAO, the community, and service providers. This includes regular updates, reporting, and channels for issue resolution.

Effective communication is fundamental for the success and transparency of the service provider framework within the Arbitrum ecosystem. Here’s a more detailed exploration of this point:

  • Regular Updates: Institute a systematic and transparent process for service providers to provide regular updates on their activities, progress, and any relevant developments.
    • Regularly disseminate these updates to the community, keeping stakeholders informed about the contributions and impact of service providers.
  • Reporting Mechanisms: Implement standardized reporting mechanisms for service providers to share comprehensive insights into their performance, challenges, and future plans.
    • Define reporting intervals and formats to ensure consistency and ease of understanding for the community and the Arbitrum DAO.
  • Community Engagement: Foster direct engagement between service providers and the community through forums, Q&A sessions, or periodic meetings.
    • Encourage open dialogue, allowing the community to provide feedback, ask questions, and express concerns regarding the services provided.
  • Issue Resolution Channels: Establish clear and accessible channels for issue resolution, enabling both the community and service providers to address challenges in a timely manner.
    • Define procedures for escalating and resolving disputes, ensuring fair and efficient conflict resolution.
  • Feedback Loops: Create feedback loops that facilitate the flow of information between the Arbitrum DAO, service providers, and the community.
    • Encourage continuous improvement by valuing and incorporating feedback into the decision-making processes of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
  • Multi-Channel Approach: Utilize multiple communication channels, such as official forums, social media, newsletters, and direct communication tools, to cater to diverse community preferences.
    • Ensure that critical information reaches a wide audience by employing a strategic mix of communication platforms.
  • Transparency and Clarity: Prioritize transparency and clarity in all communications, avoiding jargon and providing information in an accessible manner.
    • Clearly articulate the roles, responsibilities, and expectations of both service providers and the Arbitrum DAO to minimize confusion.
  • Emergency Communication Protocol: Develop a protocol for emergency communications to efficiently address urgent issues or unforeseen circumstances.
    • Outline clear steps for disseminating critical information rapidly to relevant stakeholders during emergencies.
  • Documentation Hub: Maintain a documentation hub accessible to all stakeholders, containing essential information, updates, and resources related to service providers.
    • This hub would serve as a reference point for the community and service providers, promoting easy access to relevant information.

By establishing robust communication channels, the Arbitrum DAO would create a collaborative environment where stakeholders are well-informed, engaged, and actively contribute to the success of the service provider framework.

8. Education:

Provide educational resources for service providers to stay updated on the latest developments in Web3 and blockchain technologies.

Incorporating a comprehensive education is crucial to ensuring that service providers within the Arbitrum ecosystem are well-equipped with the knowledge necessary to navigate the dynamic landscape of Web3 and blockchain technologies. Here’s a breakdown of this point:

  • Educational Resources: Improve accesibility of educational materials like articles, guides, and whitepapers, that cover fundamental and advanced concepts about Arbitrum and the blockchain technologies.
    • Develop informative content that addresses the specific needs and challenges faced by service providers within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
  • Knowledge Sharing Platform: Establish a platform where service providers can share their experiences, challenges, and solutions, fostering a collaborative learning environment.
    • Encourage the creation of knowledge-sharing forums, both online and offline, to facilitate peer-to-peer learning among service providers.
  • Continuous Learning Culture: Promote a culture of continuous learning and adaptation, emphasizing the importance of staying informed about technological advancements and industry changes.
    • Regularly update educational resources to reflect the latest developments in the Web3 and blockchain space.

By investing in education, the Arbitrum ecosystem could empower service providers with the insights needed to navigate the evolving landscape of decentralized technologies, ultimately contributing to the robustness and sustainability of the entire ecosystem.

9. Legal and Compliance Considerations (Optional)

Ensure that service providers comply with relevant legal and regulatory requirements. Clearly define the legal relationship between the service provider and the Arbitrum ecosystem.

Legal and compliance considerations could play an important role in establishing a robust and accountable service provider framework within the Arbitrum ecosystem. Here are key points to elaborate on:

  • Compliance Assurance: Prioritize adherence to local and international legal and regulatory standards by all service providers.
    • Establish mechanisms for due diligence to verify the compliance status of service providers, mitigating legal risks associated with their operations.
  • Legal Relationship Definition: Clearly define the legal relationship between the service provider and the Arbitrum ecosystem.
    • Draft comprehensive agreements or contracts outlining the rights, responsibilities, and liabilities of each party, fostering transparency and accountability.
  • Regulatory Alignment: Stay abreast of regulatory developments in relevant jurisdictions to ensure ongoing compliance.
    • Implement procedures to promptly address any changes in regulations that may impact the legal standing of service providers within the ecosystem.
  • Risk Mitigation Strategies: Develop risk mitigation strategies to handle legal challenges that may arise during the course of service provision.
    • Establish contingency plans and legal frameworks that enable the Arbitrum ecosystem to navigate unforeseen legal issues effectively.
  • Community Awareness: Communicate legal and compliance requirements clearly to the community, fostering awareness and understanding of the legal landscape.
    • Provide educational resources to both service providers and the community to ensure a shared commitment to legal and ethical standards.
  • Legal Expertise Engagement: Consider engaging legal experts or consultants with expertise in blockchain, Web3, and relevant regulatory domains to provide guidance.
    • Legal professionals can contribute valuable insights to the development and refinement of legal frameworks within the service provider ecosystem.
  • Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: Implement effective dispute resolution mechanisms in legal agreements to address potential conflicts between service providers and the Arbitrum ecosystem.
    • Clearly outline procedures for dispute resolution, ensuring fair and impartial processes.
  • Regular Legal Audits: Conduct regular legal audits of service providers to ensure continuous compliance with evolving legal requirements.
    • Periodic reviews contribute to the overall resilience of the ecosystem against legal challenges.

By integrating legal and compliance considerations into the service provider framework, the Arbitrum DAO would create a secure and legally sound environment that instills confidence in both service providers and the broader community.

This proposal is open for discussion. Please, share your thoughts.


Hi very good idea. I have some ideas for improvement.
1)Since many of the proposals include an aim to save someone’s time or finances, I suggest as a mandatory part of the proposal to include a cost-benefit analysis (at least in some simplified form).

  1. Since the authors of the proposals are asking for relatively large sums, they should provide a justification why in a given area the final beneficiaries (arbitrum citizens) could not receive a grant directly or through a voucher that they could use with several service providers.

I have a question on this:

Is the framework for all types of service providers or is it for marketing and growth providers?


Hey @medocons! Regarding your feedback:

1.- While the cost-benefit analysis may not be explicitly outlined, we believe that the structure of the proposal and its components inherently serves this purpose. Nevertheless, we could integrate a cost-benefit analysis into the framework if community believes is for the best.

2.- Our proposal assumes that centralizing resources through service providers can lead to more efficient and effective outcomes. The choice to allocate funds to service providers rather than directly to Arbitrum citizens or through vouchers is rooted in the complexity of the tasks involved. Service providers are expected to contribute specialized skills and technical expertise that directly impact the functionality and growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem. However, we welcome community feedback on this aspect; we are open to exploring alternative models that align with the community’s preferences.

Thank you for the input :).

@axlvaz_SEEDLATAM.eth Although this framework could be applied to other service providers —with relevant changes— this proposal is intended for marketing & growth service providers. We’ll make sure to clarify this, as we realized the title might be a bit confusing. Thank you for highlighting this!


Very thorough proposal and one that is needed to formalize frameworks for Service Providers.

I am curious if it would make more sense to have a more general framework for all service providers rather than just marketing and growth. From that you can add additional requirements based on the focus (technical, growth, etc). Therefore, service providers and delegates have uniformity across all processes.

Thanks for pushing this forward!


Hey, @Cole_404. We agree with the importance of uniformity across all processes for service providers. To address this, we would need a more general framework that encompasses various categories of service providers, including technical, growth, UX, analytics, legal, partnerships, and more. First thing would be to define the categories encompassing both current and potential future service providers for Arbitrum.

This approach could provide a standardized foundation applicable to all service providers, ensuring consistency in the evaluation, onboarding, and ongoing collaboration processes.

We could develop specific templates tailored to each category of service providers. This would streamline the submission process, making it easier for both service providers and delegates to navigate.


Thank you for posting such a well-structured and comprehensive proposal. I think it hits the key aspects needed for the establishment of a framework for marketing and growth service providers within the Arbitrum ecosystem. My tldr feedback on the proposal is that it might be too strict, by either the scoring system being too narrow or the requirements being too comprehensive (for smaller service providers to be able to comply).

When it comes to 2. who will be evaluating and scoring potential service providers on these criteria? Also, the proposed scoring system seems too narrow, which could exclude potential service providers that would be great at doing the job at hand despite lacking in some areas. For instance, imagine a large marketing company is seeking to expand into crypto and want to partner up with Arbitrum, they will score poorly if the proposed criteria were to be used.

On 4., do we want to implement trial/pilot periods for all of our service providers, and is this practically feasible (without losing a valuable share of potential service providers)?

When it comes to 6. And 7. I have some questions about how to get all of these things of the ground and for 7. specifically, if we really need them all (cost/benefit). It’s very good to see the community/DAO being valued, and I definitely agree to the points made that we need transparency and accountability, but having service providers needing to spend a lot of resources on communication channels will be resource intensive/costly (besides potentially some good service providers not having the resources to do this, yet being good at the marketing/growth side). I would suggest having a core of updates, reporting and channels for issue resolution stay intact, while a committee takes care of the smaller stuff (or even have the committee mediate in certain instances).

These comments and thoughts reflect my personal opinions on this proposal as a member of the Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC). These do not necessarily represent the overall views of the council, Treasure DAO or provide an indication of final voting decision by the ARC.


Hey, @SmolPhil. Thank you for your words and feedback.

We’re currently working to increase flexibility in the evaluation process. We’re hoping to create a more concrete and precise proposal to ensure framework practicality, besides comprehensiveness.

To address concerns about feasibility and potential loss of valuable service providers, we’re considering the establishment of a specialized Marketing, Branding & Growth Council. This council could handle issues such as trial periods, selectively applying them based on factors like integration complexity, service provider experience, or the potential impact of proposed services.

The council could also manage the documentation hub, maintain communication channels, and handle other tasks to alleviate service providers without compromising transparency or accountability. Simultaneously, it could ensure the framework’s flexibility and scalability by instituting a regular review process and addressing necessary amendments.

I’d also like to mention that we explored the possibility of creating a single framework for any service provider, but it proved to be too intricate to be effective.


Hey @Sebix , great proposal here that will definitely all the DAO to select the best service providers. However the scope of the framework is pretty broad, my suggestion is to have some sort of Growth Committee / Working group that can keep the different service providers service providers accountable, evolve the framework design, conduct performance reviews, etc.

While this is a great framework, with someone or a group to uphold and regulate the framework, I fear its intend aim and value to the DAO could be lost.