Thanks for submitting this SOS proposal. We appreciate the focus on user onboarding, mobile accessibility, and distribution as core pillars for Arbitrum’s future growth. The case is well-argued: despite Arbitrum’s strong technical foundation and early lead in TVL, sustained growth will depend on how effectively we reach and retain the next wave of users.
On Mobile Experience
We agree with the core premise: a strong mobile presence is essential to scaling user adoption, particularly as competing ecosystems double down on mobile-first strategies. However, we hold the view that it is simpler and more effective to facilitate Arbitrum integration into existing mobile apps rather than developing an Arbitrum-exclusive wallet from scratch.
Developing and marketing a standalone Web3 mobile wallet is resource-intensive, both from a technical and go-to-market standpoint. The user acquisition, retention, and differentiation challenges in this space are non-trivial and would likely require significant ongoing investment by the DAO.
Instead, we believe the DAO’s resources would be better spent making Arbitrum the easiest and most advanced chain to integrate into third-party apps. By ensuring best-in-class mobile SDKs, account abstraction support, and seamless onchain UX, Arbitrum can become the default choice for teams building mobile-native Web3 products.
Additionally, rewarding existing wallets and apps that prioritize Arbitrum over other chains (through grants, revenue-sharing, or promotional partnerships) can produce a stronger ROI and quicker market impact than attempting to build and maintain a DAO-owned app.
This doesn’t rule out the development of Arbitrum-native wallets entirely, but in our opinion, it’s a complementary rather than primary strategy. If the DAO is also supporting external integrations, we must ask: does it make sense to develop and compete with those same partners?
On Social Presence and Integrations
We support the objective of integrating Arbitrum into popular social networks and messaging platforms, particularly through AI agents, bots, and mini-apps. These touchpoints are where users spend much of their time online, and enabling seamless onchain functionality within these environments is a natural evolution of Arbitrum’s usability.
We also recognize a clear synergy between Objective 2.1 (social app integrations) and **Objective 1.2 (integration in existing mobile apps). While these two goals target different audiences—users within mobile-first ecosystems versus users in social/messaging contexts—the operational approach and technical requirements (SDKs, AA, wallet connectivity, UX abstractions) can be streamlined. A shared RFP or partner-onboarding framework could support both initiatives under a unified strategy focused on apps built on Arbitrum.
However, with regard to Objective 2.2 (Marketing Incentive Program), we approach this with some caution. While the intention to mobilize community-led marketing is commendable, we’re skeptical about how such a program would function in practice. Incentivized content creation can easily be gamed, resulting in low-quality, engagement-farmed material that fails to provide real value or reach.
In governance, we’ve seen how structured programs like the Delegate Incentive Program (DIP) can be powerful when well-defined, with a clear goal: to support a decentralized but high-quality cohort of delegates that represent a range of perspectives. We believe that marketing deserves the same level of structure and accountability.
Instead of incentivizing loosely coordinated individual content creators, we recommend focusing efforts on building a cohesive Working Group or AAE (to reference the Entropy’s SOS terminology), composed of skilled contributors with proven experience. This team would be responsible for designing, executing, and reporting on coordinated marketing campaigns aligned with the DAO’s strategy, including managing any ambassador or content programs under a unified vision.
This would lead to more coherent, professional, and goal-oriented marketing initiatives, with a stronger sense of ownership and accountability than could be achieved through open-ended grants or reward programs for individuals acting in isolation.
On Institutional Adoption
We recognize the significant upside in aligning Arbitrum more closely with TradFi institutions. Enabling financial institutions to launch products, offer DeFi access, and explore tokenized stocks are all promising pathways to unlock real-world utility and liquidity.
That said, institutional adoption often comes with longer timelines, higher regulatory complexity, and reputational risks. We’d like to see a more detailed risk assessment and governance plan for engaging TradFi partners, especially around ensuring that DAO resources are allocated responsibly and that institutional priorities don’t crowd out core ecosystem needs.
We also recommend clearly distinguishing between institutional goals driven by Offchain Labs or the Foundation, and those where the DAO should take the lead. This alignment is especially critical given ongoing conversations about the DAO’s role.
Overall Feedback
This proposal offers a clear and actionable plan for increasing Arbitrum’s usage and visibility through real-world channels. It complements other ongoing efforts focused on developer enablement and ecosystem growth by shifting attention toward user-facing distribution.
We would suggest including a more detailed assessment of resources needed, risks involved and how these objectives align with Arbitrum’s MVP before this is submitted for formal voting as some of these are touched on, but not consistently across all goals.