Summary

As Arbitrum seeks to grow, it’s critical to understand why builders and entrepreneurs choose to develop on this platform, and what its strengths and weaknesses are compared to its competitors.

Currently, Arbitrum delegates and key organisations in the ecosystem (GCP, OCL, Foundation, etc.) have multiple theories on why some developers and entrepreneurs opt for it as their technology of choice and others don’t. And many choices are being made to define which programs to fund and how to prioritise the technical roadmap.

We aim to interview builders and entrepreneurs to understand:

1. why they build on Arbitrum
2. what features they want to see in future development
3. who are the types of people that are more or less likely to be Arbitrum’s users.

Beyond what desk research or a survey can accomplish, this research will provide the Arbitrum DAO and affiliated entities with a deep understanding of builders' mental models and decision frameworks, allowing better strategic choices. To ensure relevance, we’ll create a Stakeholder Council (and success bonus approved by said council) and work closely throughout the project, refining research questions, sharpening the research focus from preliminary findings, and ensuring comprehensiveness of the final report.

We’ll also coordinate with the ARDC research position to complement their work with our deep user research capabilities.

Context

While Arbitrum has a strong brand and core competencies that separate it from competitors, it’s still unclear which features are most important to developers and what kind of support would be most meaningful. We don’t really know why builders choose Arbitrum over its competitors. Is it the capability to use a variety of programming languages? Is it the technology’s existing ecosystem? Is it something else?

Multiple technical comparisons have been done (e.g., L2Beat report, Binance report, MIIX Capital report, Tiger research). However, there’s a lack of research that focuses on the perspective of users.

This represents a strategic threat - how do Arbitrum organisations (GCP, OCL, Foundation, DAO, etc.) build on our collective strengths if it’s not even clear which strengths (or weaknesses) make the difference? And, how does Arbitrum effectively distinguish itself from other Layer 2 (and Layer 3) technologies if it isn’t clear why builders might prefer those platforms?.

Proposal

We propose to do intensive research with builders and entrepreneurs to establish a deep understanding of the features important to these critical members of our ecosystem. This will identify why Arbitrum has become a technology of choice among its users, where its weaknesses are, and promising directions for future development.

We will also develop profiles of the “type” of people most likely to build on Arbitrum, so we get a sense of who our existing market is (and is not) to give clarity on how to best expand the ecosystem.

This research will be done in close collaboration with Arbitrum’s key organisations and stakeholders, to ensure maximum relevance and actionability. For this, we’re proposing to set up a Stakeholder Council including:

• Representative(s) from the Foundation
• Representative(s) from Offchain labs
• Representative(s) from Gaming Catalyst Program
• Arbitrum DAO Delegates

Our research goals include:

1. Understand why builders who build on Arbitrum selected it as their technology of choice. Illustrated the storyline of how people come to build on Arbitrum.
2. Identify key strengths and weaknesses that Arbitrum has in comparison to 2 key competitors from the perspective of builders.
3. Highlight key areas for future development for Arbitrum (both technical and support programs), from the standpoint of builders and entrepreneurs who use the platform.
4. Build a profile of prototypical Arbitrum users to better understand the types of people who tend to prefer this technology.

The research participants will include:

• Builders from Arbitrum’s established and emerging verticals (DeFi, Gaming, AI, etc.).
• Builders with a variety of tenures, split between builders who have used Arbitrum for more than a year and less than a year.
• Builders who have either come to Arbitrum to build entirely new projects versus those who use the technology to expand on their existing projects.
• Builders who have chosen competing ecosystems (e.g. Solana, Optimism, Base. TBD with Stakeholder Council).

This composition of participants is meant to offer both a broad understanding of Arbitrum’s user base, while also making sure we are able to identify nuance at the level that is relevant for actual builders. We will be able to highlight trends that are relevant Arbitrum-wide, while also diving into the insights that help us understand the needs of builders in specific projects and with specific experiences.

Research questions:

We’ll refine the research questions together with a council comprised of

• Representative(s) from the Foundation
• Representative(s) from Offchain labs
• Arbitrum DAO Delegates

Methods

• We will do live interviews with all participants that focus on the following topics:
  • Participant background and projects
  • Specific project demands
  • Participant decision-making process around platform and technology use
  • A comparison of different development technologies
• We will organize the interviews around the Voice of Consumer frameworks such as Personas / Job to be Done.

Output/Deliverable

The output from this research will support Arbitrum’s efforts to improve and expand, furthering its vision to become a great home for builders. Specifically, this research will:

• Give guidance on future feature and support programs by highlighting builders’ perspectives onArbitrum strengths and weaknesses
• Support the deepening of Arbitrum’s ability to meet the needs of specific builders by highlighting which capabilities are most relevant for different projects.
• Support future outreach efforts to evangelize and bring people by highlighting Abritrum’s key value propositions for specific types of builders
• Support the development of pipeline initiatives to bring people onto the platform by sharing how builders come to Arbitrum

1. The deliverable will be a research report that addresses our key research goals:

• Understanding why participants prefer Arbitrum (or other ecosystems)
• Understanding participants' mental models for decision-making around blockchains to build on
• Offering insights for further developing and expanding Arbitrum
• Understanding typical profiles of Arbitrum builders

2. Live session with Arbitrum delegates and Stakeholder Council for Q&A on research report.

Timeline

3 months from kickoff for project completion
(Preliminary findings shared from week 4 onwards)

Team

Alex Lumley + RnDAO user research team

Daniel Stringer, PhD (project lead): User Researcher at RnDAO. Daniel founded of Stringer Research, a Design and User Research firm focused on cross-cultural and international research. Daniel has over 15 years of experience leading user research studies and teaching companies to use human-centered design in their operations at Facebook, The World Bank, Google, and other organizations.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/danieltheory/

Alex Lumley (stakeholder management and coordination): Arbitrum delegate. Previously product developer and cofounder at Savvy, Jobs to be Done practitioner at ReWired Group, and consultant at Bain & Co.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexanderlumley/

Andrea Gallagher (research planning support): Drea is research lead at RnDAO. Previously she was research lead at Google Suite, Asana and Aragon, and was an innovation catalyst at Inuit.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/andreagallagher/

Stakeholder Council

The research will directly support the initiatives of stakeholders within the Arbitrum ecosystem. Representatives from stakeholder organizations will guide the research deliverables to help maximize the ability of this work to improve Aribtrum’s technology and expand the ecosystem.

Our council will include:

• Delegate advocates
• Offchain Labs representation
• Builder advocates
• Foundation representatives
• Venture representatives
• Potentially: ARDC representation / service provider / other ecosystem participants

Membership on the council would involve a set of rituals meant to guide the research for optimal impact:

• Pre-Project:
  • Provide guidance during the research planning process to ensure that the proj

... please visit link below to view full proposal

https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x107fc8aecc6054725266830cd9097b7ff71f632c708c5ca39e58c5be88f46f14