These rubrics serve as a structured evaluation framework to assess grant proposals submitted to the Arbitrum DAO Grant Program. Each category plays a critical role in determining whether a project is eligible for funding, ensuring that only well-prepared, impactful, and innovative projects receive support. The scoring system (1, 3, 5) helps differentiate strong proposals from weaker ones based on key criteria.

New protocols and Ideas will prioritize the categories **[Innovation and Novelty] and [Measurable Impact]

[Innovation and Novelty]** Innovation is a key driver of ecosystem growth. Projects that introduce new technologies, mechanisms, or approaches have a higher chance of attracting developers, users, and investors to Arbitrum. Simply replicating existing solutions without meaningful differentiation is unlikely to receive funding.

[Measurable Impact] Sustainable growth and clear impact measurement are critical to ensuring that DAO funds are effectively utilized. Projects that lack measurable outcomes may struggle to demonstrate value to the ecosystem.

Category Subcategory Context Methods Red Flags Score 1 Score 3 Score 5
Team Strength and Capabilities Relevant Expertise Does the team have domain-specific knowledge and technical skills? Have they previously delivered successful projects? Review CVs, LinkedIn, GitHub, and references. Analyze contributions to open-source or the ecosystem. Lack of relevant technical experience or an unbalanced team structure. No relevant technical skills or experience some relevant skills and experience, no successful projects has all necessary skills, launched and exited successful projects
Team Strength and Capabilities Track Record What has the team achieved within or outside the blockchain space? Cross-check claims against public records and references. Overstated accomplishments or unverifiable credentials. Overstated or unverifiable achievements. Limited achievements or contributions in the ecosystem. Significant achievements and impact in related fields.
Team Strength and Capabilities Internal Processes How is decision-making structured within the team? Are roles and responsibilities clearly defined? Analyze organizational charts or statements in the proposal. Lack of clear leadership or over-reliance on one person. No clear roles or leadership. Partial role definition but some ambiguity in leadership. Well-defined roles, strong leadership, and decision-making processes.
Innovation and Novelty Novelty Is the project introducing genuinely new mechanisms or solving previously unaddressed problems? Compare the solution with existing projects and analyze the whitepaper. Incremental improvement on existing solutions without significant innovation. Incremental improvement with no meaningful innovation. Moderate improvement or refinement of existing ideas. Introduction of genuinely new mechanisms or approaches.
Innovation and Novelty Technology Utilization Does the project leverage Arbitrum's unique capabilities (e.g., Orbit chains, Stylus)? Review technical documentation and the proposed tech stack. Token adoption of Arbitrum's tech without clear benefits. Does not leverage Arbitrum's capabilities. Partial use of Arbitrum's features but no optimization. Fully leverages unique Arbitrum features for enhanced functionality.
Innovation and Novelty Market Differentiation How does the project stand out from competitors? Conduct a SWOT analysis relative to competitors. Weak differentiation or unclear competitive advantage. No clear differentiation from competitors. Moderate differentiation but lacks a competitive edge. Strong differentiation with clear advantages over competitors.
Ecosystem Alignment Strategic Fit How does the project align with Arbitrum's goals (e.g., DeFi dominance, developer tools, ecosystem expansion)? Map project goals to Arbitrum's ecosystem needs. Misalignment with ecosystem priorities or goals. No alignment with Arbitrum's goals. Partial alignment but with limited relevance. Strong alignment with direct ecosystem benefits.
Ecosystem Alignment Proposal Scope Is the proposal scope realistic and well-defined given the team, resources, and deliverables? Assess whether the proposal scope aligns with the team's capabilities and resources. Unrealistic or poorly defined proposal scope. Scope unrealistic or poorly defined. Scope moderately realistic but lacks precision. Realistic and well-defined scope with clear deliverables.
Ecosystem Alignment Partnerships Does the project have meaningful partnerships or synergies within the Arbitrum ecosystem? Review the proposal for integration plans and partner endorsements. Lack of ecosystem ties or unclear collaboration plans. No ecosystem ties or partnerships. Limited partnerships with moderate ecosystem relevance. Strong partnerships with high synergy and ecosystem integration.
Ecosystem Alignment Long-Term Contributions Will the project create sustainable growth (e.g., new user acquisition, network effects)? Assess scalability plans and projected metrics like TVL or DAUs. Limited or unsustainable ecosystem impact. No evidence of sustainable growth potential. Moderate potential with limited scalability plans. Clear, sustainable growth strategy with measurable impact.
Feasibility and Implementation Roadmap & Milestones Are milestones clearly defined, time-bound, and measurable with quantitative metrics where applicable? Analyze the roadmap and prior milestones. Vague or unrealistic deliverables. No milestones or vague deliverables. Some milestones defined but lacking clarity or metrics. Clear, time-bound milestones with measurable metrics.
Feasibility and Implementation Spending Plan Does the proposal include a detailed spending plan tied to milestones? Review budget breakdowns and quotes provided. Unexplained costs or disproportionate funding requests. No spending plan or vague cost breakdown. Partial spending plan with some unexplained costs. Detailed, justified spending plan tied to milestones, with market rate comparisons.
Feasibility and Implementation Technical Feasibility Is the technology viable and scalable? Has it been tested? Review GitHub repositories, testnets, and prototypes. Unverified technology or reliance on untested mechanisms. Technology unverified or unrealistic. Some technical feasibility but with potential risks. Fully feasible and scalable technology with evidence of testing.
Feasibility and Implementation Audit Planning Does the project plan include a security audit? Are funds allocated for this? Evaluate the audit plans and budget allocation for security audits. No audit plans or insufficient budget allocated for audits. No audit plans or budget allocated for audits. Audit plans mentioned but not well-developed. Detailed audit plans with allocated budget and provider identified.
Measurable Impact Ecosystem Impact What metrics will the project improve (e.g., TVL, active users, transactions)? Review proposed KPIs and historical data. Lack of measurable metrics or vague impact statements. No measurable metrics or vague impact. Some metrics defined but lacking clarity or relevance. Clear metrics with significant ecosystem impact potential.
Measurable Impact Community Engagement How will the project involve the Arbitrum community? Assess plans for community outreach, developer engagement, or education. Minimal or no plans for community involvement. No community engagement plans. Limited engagement plans with moderate effort. Comprehensive community engagement strategy with actionable initiatives.
Measurable Impact Post-Grant Sustainability What is the plan for maintaining operations after the grant period? Evaluate the post-grant roadmap and funding strategy. Over-reliance on future funding or lack of long-term vision. No post-grant sustainability plans. Some plans but with potential reliance on further funding. Clear, self-sustaining strategy with long-term vision.