And ways they can improve.

PROBLEM: Lack of Clarity Around Partner Onboarding.

A clear path that’s unique to web3 would have been helpful, and we appreciate Hunter for trying to conjure up a path for us…

Being dual-facing in both customer success and onboarding, and partner success and onboarding – is a full time job for startups and should be doubly so within the web3 space due to it’s nascent community structures. In Arbitrum’s case it’s half the work; their customers, are also their partners. But clarity around onboarding into their ecosystem is lacking, heavily. We’ve found they’re losing their organic base a bit too fast as a result, while trying to shore it up through a user acquisition strategy labeled misleadingly as development grants meant to entice upstart developers into their eco. We found this is creating friction in the community.

PROBLEM: Their User Acquisition Strategy.

Isn’t kosher.

Grant programs are mislabeled as development grants, when what they are however are user acquisition & growth funds as a strategy to replace stifled organic growth, which isn’t sustainable and it’s creating friction and downward pressure on their flagship asset. While misleading upstart developers blindly wandering into their ecosystem. In addition, the users who come packaged – onboarded through its growth strategy of paying-for-users, only stay loyal to the project they cam riding in on, in short, they aren’t participating in Arbs wider economy. Which helps no one in a collective sense. Leaving Arb with no ‘Arbitrum’ economy – just siloed projects using its tech.

Every startup knows what an acquisition is. When you want to increase your customer base, you just buy another company and absorb theirs. After a deep dive into Arbitrum’s grants, what’s available, and what they prioritize we quickly found out that grants are distributed for the sole purpose of acquiring a projects existing user-base into its ecosystem. This is a growth fund, in lieu of a marketing budget or the free-marketing that they might receive by onboarding more compelling protocols into their ecosystem. What’s bothersome here is it’s misleading for it’s partners and its customer base, the scores of devs. (Full disclosure: we are not seeking grant funding, in fact, quite the opposite)

We offered Arb a grant of our own.

Arbitrum would be better off having at least a some focus on humanity-centric innovation, through its technology as it would attract more people who want to create impact using its tech. We flipped the script, and offered Arbitrum a grant… while temp-checking their desire for humanity-centric innovation using their tech, We got a cold temp-check in return. Which is concerning.

PROBLEM: Their Lack of a Purpose Driven Mission.

We don’t believe Arbitrum is aligned with our mission directly.

Actualizing the part of our mission, being widening our application of proven and practical uses of decentralized organizations coupled with blockchain technology, or the mission of developers like us who seek to change the world in a proven, practical, impactful and decentralized way – is not part of Arbitrum’s mission in our opinion (it should be, it just isn’t). Instead the focus is anchored around DeFi only, as it relates to real life, and in-game economies.

When you apply to an ivy league school or a really senior-level position somewhere the first thing they ask about is your experience (Arb would excel here) the second thing they want to know right away is what you’ve done in the way of making an impact – in your community, or for humanity at large. And the reason for this is simple. They want to know if you’re someone who’s motivation is based in deep rooted purpose to serve others, this quickly weeds out those with low inherent motivation outside of financial rewards, those who are money driven in a me, myself and I sort of way. Arbitrum gave us this vibe. In a top-down sense.

The possibility that Arbitrum could change the world, or that decentralized community-centric projects are in fact their key to unlocking their collective potential, in doing exactly that – changing the world, in a way that truly matters to the people in it, was just not present in Arbitrum’s collective thinking, we found. And there was confusion around why we chose them, from within our existing networks if they lacked a mission and a sense of wider purpose as it relates to society as whole.

PROBLEM: Lack of Startup Culture.

..and the sort of ‘change-the-world’ mission-centric vibes that startups of my generation need to provide to both its users, and it’s teams is leading to an unhappy community, and what we believe are unhappy team members.

Startup culture around game-changing tech (in a nutshell) is a very unique thing, you know you’re part of it because you feel it — it’s electric, it’s fast paced, it’s steeped in highly innovative mission focused initiatives and it’s focused on getting shit done. We feel Arb lacks this at the front door, their communities, and within its own org.

Being part of the community felt like being in line at the local DMV. When we posted a comment about bringing new people into arbitrum this summer, and tagged a mod for a high-five, they quickly passed up on a simple emoji reaction, and went on to lethargically answer the next post. All we heard was..

Next. (that’s the sound of the lady at the DMV who needs an attitude adjustment)

If the folks that are the public facing front gatekeepers, (community mods) have a pessimistic and tired outlook, it’s a sign of a much deeper problem. An unhappy community, which we also felt from members within the Arb community.

PROBLEM: The Bunker or Siege Mentality as a result.

While being embroiled in a war with other chains, that isn’t worth having, Arbitrum has placed all eggs in a single gaming-basket.

While fighting for the same small pool of users and developers that were here in 2021. Instead of all this drama, they should replace this fight for the spaces devs and users (also devs tbh), with thinking outside the box on ways to onboard the 99% of folks who don’t use crypto or play complex mobile games, into the space. Or the space will remain a rotating churn of the same 3, 4 or 500k people that race around from protocol to protocol grabbing up all the free tokens they can since 2021 – hemorrhaging users and funds in a war with other chains isn’t sustainable unless Arb can truly pivot to a video game only chain. Which doesn’t involve People Powered.

The real problem Arbitrum has, is a lack of leadership.

Arbitrum is fantastic with it’s tech and tech teams. But, it may be time for Arb to rally around a single galvanizing mission, and then enact top-down leadership changes in every department that isn’t focused on engineering.

This, coupled with a widening of the community and success teams that they don’t have in place, and maybe a few solid design folks to revamp their look – and Arbitrum may be able to turn it all around.

It’s clear as day (after less than a week) that at the upper levels of Arb, are siloed technical founders, and strategists who cannot employ leadership at every tier of the company outside of the tiers made up of its amazing engineers. At the front-facing level are its community-outreach soldiers with bunker mentality, and they’re not happy – but being embroiled in a pointless war with no clear mission and miserable community members will make you that way. If Arbitrum wants to win the long game, Arbitrum and it’s founders must begin to think outside the silo it’s founders have put it in.

It’s time for Abitrum to empower leaders over loyalists, impact over dollars, and a bold galvanizing mission, over confusion and siloing — because what we’re looking for in a chain partner, and indeed what most people are looking for in this space, is a chain unafraid to think outside the box. One that will indeed try to change the world.

We’re rescinding the offer of coins to the Arbitrum DAO, and will be speaking with other chains over the next 48 hours..