In SOS Workshop #2, we reviewed Max Lomu’s SOS submission, which includes 10 objectives. Note that we weren’t able to cover all of them within the 90-minute session, so we’ll go over the remaining ones during Workshop #3.
The goal of the exercise was to imagine that if this SOS submission were chosen by the DAO, who would execute each objective, what work is already underway, and where the gaps or areas for improvement lie.
Here’s the summary:
Objective 1: Build Coherent Builders’ Funnel
Who can work on this objective:
Offchain Labs
Arbitrum Foundation
DAO contributors (at least until the end of the D.A.O. Grants program)
AGV (for game builders)
What work is already underway:
The D.A.O. Grants program
The hackathon program by RnDAO
Offchain Labs & Arbitrum Foundation internal work:
Stylus workshops at crypto events and conferences.
Recently, Signal has been onboarded, presumably as part of the internal builders funnel at OCL and/or AF.
It would be good to get more information on how that funnel at OCL and AF works.
AGV & @Tekr0x.eth are organizing playtests for games funded by AGV, which is something that can benefit builders before a full-scale launch.
Gaps / Areas for improvement:
Someone needs to track KPI progress (how many builders were onboarded, what stage they are at, etc.)
A list of things Arbitrum can provide or offer to builders.
Preferably a unified (or at least coordinated) builders’ funnel.
Objective 2: Build Distribution Channels
Who can work on this objective:
Offchain Labs
Arbitrum Foundation
DAO contributors
What work is already underway:
The partnership with Robinhood is clearly one of the biggest efforts in this area. Robinhood has a huge user base, which now uses Arbitrum One under the hood for after-hours stock trading.
Hunter from Offchain Labs is promoting Farcaster as a distribution channel for Arbitrum. He’s working to attract builders to create Arbitrum mini apps and to onboard users to those apps (with some help from Alex from Superposition and delegates like @tekr0x.eth, @0xrecruiter, and myself).
The Arbitrum Foundation runs an Ambassador Program, where ambassadors organize local Arbitrum meetups. Most DAO delegates weren’t aware of this program, so it would be valuable to learn more about it and potentially contribute.
Gaps / Areas for improvement:
Figure out how to create a unified or coordinated user acquisition funnel.
DAO contributors could map and track user acquisition efforts (except the ones that need to remain confidential due to ongoing BD).
DAO contributors could research ideas for new user acquisition experiments and share them with AAEs or conduct them themselves.
Objective 3: Support DeFi Renaissance: Increase Liquidity & Connectivity
Who can work on this objective:
Offchain Labs
Arbitrum Foundation
Entropy
What work is already underway:
Institutional efforts: primarily by AF and OCL, such as tokenized stocks (a form of RWA) through a partnership with Robinhood.
DeFi: depositing DAO funds via TMC (run by Entropy).
Some KPI metrics for this objective are (or could be) available in Entropy’s Dune dashboards.
The DAO can choose to allocate part of the treasury as a liquidity boost for a select few Arbitrum dApps it wishes to support. This could be executed either by Entropy or by a service provider selected by OpCo. While this option is higher on the risk curve, it could benefit the Arbitrum dApps ecosystem.
Objective 4: Align More Strictly with Offchain Labs and AF
Who can work on this objective:
OpCo
DAO contributors
What work is already underway:
The SOS process has begun making progress in this direction, but there is still a long way to go.
Gaps / Areas for improvement:
OpCo is expected to take the lead in this area, but since it hasn’t been fully established yet, DAO contributors can step in to help bridge the gap.
Objective 5: Promote a Network of Onchain Businesses
Who can work on this objective:
Entropy (at least part of it)
What work is already underway:
? (We are not aware of any work currently being done on this objective.)
Gaps / Areas for improvement:
The main goal here is to encourage composability within the Arbitrum ecosystem: protocols and dApps integrating with one another to build network effects.
KPI 1 (liquidity for ARB pairs) could be done via TMC and DRIP (Entropy)
Objective 6: Make Staked ARB an Index of Arbitrum’s Success
(This objective has not been fully covered yet, we’ll discuss it next time)
Objective 7: Transition to Structured Investment Programs (equity/token) instead of Grants
(This objective has not been fully covered yet, we’ll discuss it next time)
Objective 8: Catalyze Creative Innovation via Stylus
(This objective has not been covered yet, we’ll discuss it next time)
(This objective has not been covered yet, we’ll discuss it next time)
Objective 10: Establish Clear and Accountable Workstreams Under OpCo Oversight
(This objective has not been covered yet, we’ll discuss it next time)
We’ll continue with objectives 6–10 at some future workshop, when Max returns from vacation. In the meantime, feel free to share any suggestions or edits here in this thread.
We could add the AGV as an AAE here, and try to get KPIs from them as well cc @Insomniac
Another point that seems a low-hanging fruit, and we can add to our to-do list (Gaps / Areas for improvement): compile what is already available. Maybe @JoJo already have it.
The same applies here regarding the addition of AGV to the mix. It is our biggest bet on that vertical.
Regarding Objective 3’s Gaps and areas for improvement
To the best of my knowledge, the DAO doesn’t have full visibility into the areas that need improvement. For example:
Which on-ramp/off-ramp channels are currently active on Arbitrum?
Which DeFi sub-sector are we behind the pack? LSTs? On-chain options?
Which currencies are already onboarded?
Payment options?
** Objective 5**
This would be my 2 cents here:
KPI 1 - This is a good point to be handled by the TMC (Entropy) and DRIP.
KP3 - AF + the DAO Contributors through the Events Budget.
IMO, it was a productive call, and we need to have more contributors (ideally, from all AAEs and current initiatives) there, so we can have a better view of what is being done and who owns the information.
On the Ambassador Programs application form, only a few countries are accepted. For the ecosystem to grow, I believe anyone globally should be allowed to join the program and build a community in their locale.
I just noticed in the Arbitrum Google Calendar that an event called Intro to the Arbitrum Foundation’s Ambassador Program was added for 18 August at 1pm UTC. Perhaps they will answer this question then.
What I meant here is that we should compile all the tooling and other dev-related grants the DAO funded and and define what makes sense to be added in Arbitrum documentation. And then do it to improve the DevEx.
Just a reminder everyone, Workshop #3 will take place tomorrow (Friday) Monday (4 Aug) at 1pm UTC. The event is already in Arbitrum DAO community calendar, with the following description:
This time we’ll have a special guest - Connor McCormick will present Negation Game, a governance tool that helps create critical analysis of proposal and ultimately form a rationale for it. We will analyze Entropy’s SOS proposal.
Thank you for the detailed summary and initiative.
We’d like to share our perspective on the proposed objectives:
Objective 1: Build Coherent Builders’ Funnel
In our view, the optimal setup for this objective would be a joint effort between Offchain Labs (OCL) and the Arbitrum Foundation (AF). As the core developers of Arbitrum, OCL is best positioned to provide the technical depth needed to effectively onboard builders. Meanwhile, the Foundation already has a dedicated growth and business development team, making them well-suited for execution. From what we understand, this collaboration is already underway, and we don’t believe additional DAO involvement is necessary at this stage.
Objective 2: Build Distribution Channels
Our position here is similar to Objective 1. OCL and AF are already working on expanding distribution and are best placed to do so given their infrastructure, reach, and mandates. At this point, we don’t see a clear need for further DAO input.
Objective 3: Support DeFi Renaissance: Increase Liquidity & Connectivity
We support the AAEs outlined here and see this as a critical growth area. That said, we want to flag a potential risk in the proposed improvements. Leveraging the treasury to support specific dApps must be approached with strategic caution. Deploying funds in isolation—without a broader financial framework—could jeopardize long-term sustainability. We strongly recommend embedding these efforts within a comprehensive treasury management strategy that aligns ecosystem growth with financial sustainability.
Objective 4: Align More Strictly with Offchain Labs and AF
We believe OpCo is the most suitable entity to take the lead here. For a reference point, the Uniswap Foundation’s FFG structure offers a potential model to follow in strengthening alignment between OCL, AF, and the DAO.
Objective 5: Promote a Network of Onchain Businesses
No additional comments on this objective at this time.
We thank @krst from L2Beat for continuing to host SOS sessions. After listening to the recording, we found it to be a productive discussion, with a key takeaway that the next steps in the SOS process remain unclear and require further refinement for delegates to feel comfortable voting on an SOS matrix. Specifically, delegates need clarity on ownership of specific goals and objectives, as well as the role of delegates in stewarding the chosen matrix. SOS submitters may also need to create an inventory of mid-term objectives to complement the higher-level nature of current submissions.
Drawing on kpk’s reference in their comment, we can look to Uniswap DAO’s Foundation Feedback Group as a model for strengthening role clarity and coordination between the Arbitrum Foundation, Offchain Labs, and the DAO. This approach could help define roles and responsibilities more clearly, and strengthen communication, ensuring there is no overlap in work.
We would also like clarity on the social consensus implications of the DAO selecting a specific SOS matrix. Based on the conversation, it appeared that choosing one focus area could mean any proposal not neatly fitting into that vertical would be automatically rejected. We see this as problematic. While we agree the DAO should maintain focus, this approach risks creating blind spots in a rapidly changing environment. Additionally, determining whether a proposal “neatly fits” into a vertical is inherently subjective, which could lead to inconsistent decision-making.
Lastly, we would appreciate seeing a copy of the rationale produced through the Negation Game. This would help delegates review the discussion in a more visual and structured format, offering an alternative to parsing long forum threads.
Just FYI everyone, because of August vacations and the upcoming conference in Warsaw, the SOS workshops will resume in September, after ETH Warsaw wraps up.
While we’re waiting for the SOS workshops to resume, I wanted to share some thoughts on what we’d like to achieve with strategic objectives.
During those workshops, I noticed that we spent a lot of time discussing the details of how each objective would be executed.
On one hand, this helps us understand each objective better and gives us a clear roadmap for execution. But in reality, things rarely go exactly as planned, and the actual implementation often looks nothing like what we imagined.
The downside is that we end up spending too much time debating execution details, or even constraining our objectives and limiting the flexibility to find alternative (better?) ways of achieving them later on.
Instead, we could focus more on the outcomes or key results, rather than how we’ll get there.
This might leave us in the dark about the specifics of execution, but it gives us more room to maneuver when it’s time to put these plans into action. It keeps us focused on the results we want and, most importantly, helps us reach the final SOS proposal faster.
Once the DAO approves the final SOS proposal, it will give DAO contributors a clear idea of what to work on and what is expected. This way, everyone is on the same page, and we can all work together more effectively.
