Unifying Arbitrum’s Mission, Vision, Purpose (MVP)

[SEEDGov]

After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote.

Rationale

Quoting our previous statement:

@SEEDGov

We’d like to begin by expressing our full agreement on the need to continue laying the foundation for Arbitrum’s growth. Today, we can say the DAO is advancing, but often without a clear direction or strategic goals, and frequently without certainty as to whether the initiatives under discussion are indeed necessary for the project’s progress.

Establishing an MVP is a crucial step for the DAO’s decision-making process moving forward. The MVP will also serve as the foundational cornerstone for the OpCo if approved.

As @JoJo rightly pointed out, both the MVP and the SOS will support the DAO in its resource allocation role by identifying which proposals are best aligned and positioned to achieve ecosystem-level objectives.

Also we appreciate the emphasis placed on the user throughout this process. Products designed to provide an optimal UX have consistently shown greater ease in facilitating onboarding, as observed in the case of Solana. Focusing on Builders and Users as our primary objectives appears to be the right approach.

Finally, it would be worthwhile for the DAO to begin discussions around the SOS proposal after the holiday season. At SEEDGov, we have previously shared our perspective:

@SEEDGov

SOS Proposal

From our perspective, the verticals mentioned by @krst in his comment provide a good starting point for debating the structure of a proposal that would likely establish the DAO’s objectives for the next 12–24 months. We’d like to add a few thoughts:

Treasury Management

It’s been mentioned that the DAO needs to work on generating additional revenue streams to support long-term sustainability and provide value to the token. There’s also an RFC under discussion: [Non-Constitutional] Treasury Management v1.2. However, we want to emphasize that the DAO needs to standardize how it utilizes and manages its treasury.

Currently, each initiative handles its own treasury management in isolation: for ARDC v2, an AERA Vault is proposed; for other initiatives, funds are transferred to the AF for conversion to stables; some initiatives are paid in ARB via MSS; and others have sold ARB directly on the market. Similarly, even the use of stream applications lacks a standard framework, with no set guidelines to determine whether Sablier, Hedgey, Superfluid, or Llamapay should be used.

While we understand that different initiatives may occasionally require distinct procedures, we believe a well-designed, flexible framework could cover most cases in the future, especially if the OpCo proceeds successfully.

There have also been many discussions and proposals related to treasury diversification (including the above-mentioned proposal), but three fundamental questions remain unresolved:

• What should the asset mix in the treasury be?

• How much immediate liquidity does the DAO need?

• How much immediate liquidity does the DAO want? (Enough to cover budgetary obligations for a few years? Some extra for potential changes to our plans? Do we need a contingency fund?)

To clarify, when referring to “immediate liquidity,” we mean stablecoins or highly liquid assets with minimal selling effort (we’re excluding ARB, as its liquidity depth limits short-term sell capacity).

As a final note, it’s important to mention that these last two points largely depend on the DAO’s ability to establish an annual budget—another aspect currently unresolved.

Onboarding New Stakeholders to the DAO

For the DAO to be more resilient to capture, genuinely decentralized in decision-making, and benefit from higher-quality proposals, it must focus on onboarding new stakeholders. This means that while growth programs aimed at expanding to new markets (i.e., new builders and users) are important, equal emphasis should be placed on encouraging DAO participation to grow and diversify alongside the ecosystem. As a community, we should be equipped to face new challenges that arise as a result of growth.

In this regard, both the Staking and DIP proposals are key to aligning the Arbitrum ecosystem with its DAO.

A Flexible Program

Considering the rapid evolution of the crypto ecosystem, even if the SOS program were created solely for the next 12 months, priorities could shift at any moment.

For example:

Even if this tweet is a mere rumor, imagine for a moment what would happen if ETH Mainnet no longer required rollups for scaling…the MVP outlined in this RFC would already be obsolete. The Arbitrum ecosystem does not rely exclusively on endogenous factors, so the DAO must be capable of quickly pivoting to a contingency plan if necessary until priorities can be redefined.

[BlockworksResearch]

SOS and MVP

@Entropy

Once the DAO’s end state goals have been solidified, anyone will have the opportunity to propose a strategy matrix made up of 12- and 24-month focus areas for the DAO through an open process named Strategic Objective Setting (SOS).

Viewing this alongside the OpCo proposal, this appears to be part of a broader template for streamlining proposals that feed into the OpCo entity under strict timelines. This makes sense and seems like the natural maturation of the DAO. That said, some initiatives are short-term sprints with urgent timelines. How does the SOS framework plan to handle these?

This may be an edge case given the existing grant groups and events budget which likely address most immediate decision-making and spending. However, in case I’m wrong, how can we ensure agility/flexibility from this system? This is likely a conversation for the SOS, once that proposal is posted.

Competition

The technology focus of Arbitrum is exactly what’s needed here. Arbitrum’s product is its network, applications, and tech-suite that’s powered by decentralization and scalability. Furthering itself in this domain will naturally allow it to win against competitors. Earlier in this discussion, others noted that the proposal could benefit from stronger language on Arbitrum’s unique identity. Building on that point, I think the proposal needs to address the competitive landscape more directly.

The MVP does touch on Arbitrum becoming the default option for applications and developers, though it’s possible that a more direct focus on competition would help frame Arbitrum’s unique value proposition. The L2 ecosystem is dominated by a few players, and there are other DAOs with the resources to compete even if they lack mindshare. It’s important for the DAO to recognize that, and articulate where Arbitrum will lead and how it will continue to compete. As many delegates have stated already, they’re concerned about the DAO’s ability to be agile and flexible in times of need. This competitive language may be what the proposal needs to signal that the DAO will still retain the ability to be flexible in response to a competitive market.

The rollup ecosystem is not just a vague collection of networks sharing the market; rather, these rollups are actively competing with one another. I agree with @L2Beat’s points that there are overlooked areas the DAO should start exploring. For example, with this Arbitrum-specific view, it might be time to start looking into getting Arbitrum-specific assets or Arbitrum-specific onramps rather than relying on competitors (like Coinbase) who will likely be preferential to their own rollups moving forward. Part of a mission statement is the acknowledgement of competition, and gaining a competitive mindset. It may be time for Arbitrum to clearly articulate its competitive stance, as this perspective could influence how funding initiatives are prioritized in the future. Acknowledging competition means that the DAO would become less frivolous with spending and actually award true winners in select vectors to win in its own market as a rollup.

Token

Finally, I think that there is a missing component to many of the recent conversations on Arbitrum: the ARB token. The token plays an integral role in the governance of the network, and so it stands to reason that there should be some additional mention of it within the mission statement. While it can be argued that defending Arbitrum means defending the ARB token, this connection isn’t obvious. This isn’t to suggest the token should dominate the DAO’s focus, but it deserves a clear mention in the mission statement.

TLDR; Overall, I think the proposal could benefit from stronger competitive language and a clearer mention of the ARB token, but we’re in support.

Concluding thoughts: Blockworks Advisory will be voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.

[Tane]

We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.

We support the initiative to unify the Mission, Vision, and Purpose of the Arbitrum DAO. This foundational step will enable the DAO to craft and execute appropriate strategies, aligned with a to-be-determined Strategic Objective Setting, ensuring that stakeholders work cohesively toward shared goals. Drawing inspiration from successful implementations like Lido’s MVP and GOOSE initiatives, this proposal has the potential to align contributors and DAO participants effectively.

We appreciate the Purpose statement for its clarity in defining why the DAO exists—it is well-articulated and resonates strongly. While the Mission provides a direction for what the DAO should do in the mid-term, its reference to “the best onchain world” could benefit from more specificity. Similarly, the Vision is thought-provoking but somewhat ambiguous, as the term “the universal shift” might need further clarification. Additionally, the emphasis on “onchain” in both the Mission and Vision could unintentionally exclude projects that bridge “offchain” and “onchain” ecosystems.

However, we recognize that clear focus is crucial for defining the DAO’s trajectory. If these statements are widely agreed upon by the DAO participants, settling on them and executing aligned strategies is a meaningful and necessary step forward.

[paulofonseca]

voting Against the current offchain proposal because this new purpose statement feels much less ethereum-aligned than what it was previously, and since the current constitution of the Arbitrum DAO mentions explicitly that this DAO should be ethereum-aligned, I can’t vote for a purpose statement that erodes that enshrined value. The previous purpose of Scale Ethereum without compromise feels much more aligned to me than this new one to defend and guide the Arbitrum ecosystem.

[paulofonseca]

I also bought the 804.439,61 ARB of voting power available in lobbyfi.xyz to vote Against in this offchain proposal Arbitrum One Transaction Hash (Txhash) Details | Arbitrum One

[Euphoria]

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot voting.

We think it’s very important for everyone in the DAO to have a clear mission, vision, and purpose. This helps us all work together better and support the DAO’s growth.

This proposal is a step toward ensuring that the DAO’s strategies are clear and focused. It sets a direction that will guide all our future work and support efforts to increase the value of the ARB token.

We’re looking forward to seeing the SOS proposal and are excited about how it will help us stay on the right track. It will enable the DAO and its stakeholders to align more closely with the defined goals, fostering effective contribution and better decision-making aligned with our long-term objectives.

[lobbyfi]

Confirming @paulofonseca has acquired our voting power.

We voted Against the proposal with 804.439,61 ARB since the voting power has been trustlessly acquired on lobbyfi.xyz.

[maxlomu]

gm, voted FOR.
Excited about how this proposal has progressed and looking forward to the next steps.

While many comments raise valid points about nuances that may not be explicitly reflected in the formal statements, these elements are addressed in the sub-sections. These details will likely form part of the manifesto accompanying the SOS.

@BlockworksResearch

Part of a mission statement is the acknowledgement of competition, and gaining a competitive mindset. It may be time for Arbitrum to clearly articulate its competitive stance, as this perspective could influence how funding initiatives are prioritized in the future.

For example, I am not sure I agree with this.

Rather than focusing on direct competition, our mission should adopt a “blue ocean” mindset. The value created onchain in the coming years is expected to grow by one or two orders of magnitude. Every rollup contributes to bringing more people onchain.

Yes, we are competing with other ecosystems, but a strong mission should focus on expanding the pie rather than fostering baseline conflict. Our vision highlights how we lead in creating opportunities for everyone onchain, driving growth for the entire space.

[pedrob]

Thank you very much for the months of work dedicated to articulating the purpose, mission, and vision of the DAO. Defining these elements in a decentralized environment is an extremely complex task. I agree with the way it has been framed: users, developers, and technology. and I am eager to see the first draft of the SOS and how this MVP is implemented in practice.

For this reason, I will vote in favor during the temp-check.

My only comment:

@Entropy

Purpose (Meaning): Defend and guide the Arbitrum ecosystem.

Mission (Action): Empower people with the freedom to build their best onchain world.

Vision (Aspiration): Arbitrum is home to the universal shift onchain.

None of the three explicitly mentions decentralization in its title. I believe it is the core value that should guide, to some extent, every proposal within the DAO. And it is the very reason for the DAO’s existence at all. After all, DAOs exist to govern systems that aim to be decentralized. In fact, it is often the lens through which proposals are evaluated and the reason why some are rejected.

I understand that the Purpose (Meaning) describes Arbitrum in its content as follows:

@Entropy

Arbitrum is not just scaling tech, it scales L1s without concessions to censorship resistance, accessibility, decentralization, or security.

However, I would like decentralization to be explicitly stated in the title, as I consider it to be the non-negotiable aspect. A potential revision could be: “Defend and guide the Arbitrum decentralized ecosystem.”

Again, thank you!

[paulofonseca]

@pedrob

I would like decentralization to be explicitly stated in the title

full agree here!

I mean, guess where this screenshot is from…

[krst]

The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.

We’re voting FOR the proposal.

To begin with, we’d like to acknowledge the difficulty of drafting an MVP that is broad enough to encapsulate the views of all the different stakeholders that comprise the DAO while remaining focused enough to serve its purpose.

We appreciate Entropy leading the charge on this and ensuring that they incorporate as much of the feedback they have received as possible in different iterations. We believe that having a north star that the whole DAO is working toward will help us be more targeted in our initiatives.

The outlined Mission, Vision, and Purpose, combined with the SOS approach, might be the right balance the DAO needs to firmly move forward with finding our north star while decentralizing the process to a reasonable extent. While it is a bit vague and open-ended to our liking, it might be a good first step to aligning our initiatives and having a better vision for what we should be funding.

However, we would like to point out that we treat this document as a first version that should be revised and adapted after some time. It might be a good idea to set aside some time in 6 and 12 months to validate how it works and whether or not it is really helpful in decision-making.

[JoJo]

@BlockworksResearch

getting Arbitrum-specific assets or Arbitrum-specific onramps rather than relying on competitors (like Coinbase)

I think this is key. And likely fits in the SOS.