ARQ Explorer - Alwyn van Wyk - Weekly Updates

Research & Strategic Intelligence
1

Weekly updates posted here.

Original Gardens proposal to cookie jar research raid.

2

Explorer Progress & Planning Report

Explorer: @alwynvanwyk
Track: Allocator Pain Mapping & Signal Architectures
Date: Week 1

:white_check_mark: Activities So Far

  • Application Accepted → Confirmed as Explorer in Track 1.
  • Kickoff Preparation:
    • Attended kickoff session.
    • Reviewed project scope, deliverables, and research tracks.
    • Designed initial research roadmap.
  • System Setup TODO:
    • Create Extraction Template for logging allocator pain points
      and signals.
    • Draft first entry from Gitcoin Forum as an example.

:date: Plan for the Next 5 Weeks

Week 1 – Setup & First Insights

  • Set up workspace and research journal.
  • Update Charmverse Explorer camp.
  • Define guiding research questions.
  • Begin forum archaeology (Gitcoin Governance Forum).
  • Extract 5–6 allocator pain point quotes.
  • Draft skeleton for Week 1 update post.

Week 2 – Expand Source Mining + Interview Setup

  • Extend forum archaeology to Optimism governance forums (RetroPGF
    reflections).
  • Log additional allocator pain points (5–6 more).
  • Identify potential interview candidates (DAO allocators, Gitcoin
    stewards).
  • Send first outreach messages to schedule 2–3 interviews for Weeks
    3–4.

Week 3 – First Interviews & Synthesis

  • Conduct 1–2 short interviews (20–30 min each).
  • Extract allocator insights into the template.
  • Begin clustering insights into allocator personas.
  • Draft early Insight Map.

Week 4 – Signal Architecture Framework

  • Complete forum mining across 2–3 ecosystems (Gitcoin, Optimism,
    Arbitrum).
  • Refine Insight Map with combined sources (forums + interviews).
  • Draft Signal Architecture Framework (visual + explanatory
    notes).
  • Identify early signal gaps.

Week 5 – Gap Memo & Consolidation

  • Write Signal Gap Memo (1–2 pages).
  • Refine Signal Architecture Framework based on team feedback.
  • Package Week 5 update: Insight Map + Framework + Gap Memo draft.

Week 6 – Final Deliverables

  • Polish all outputs:
    • Insight Map
    • Signal Architecture Framework
    • Signal Gap Memo
  • Frame findings through TVF Impact lens.
  • Deliver final artifact + closing call participation.

:bullseye: Key Outputs to Deliver

  • Weekly updates (progress, blockers, next steps, artifacts).
  • Insight Map (allocator personas, pain points, decision
    journeys).
  • Signal Architecture Framework (how signals flow, where trust
    breaks).
  • Signal Gap Memo (missing/undervalued signals).
  • Final Artifact (packaged research outputs + TVF framing).

Summary

My research is off to a good start: system setup identified, initial
insights logged, and a clear 5-week roadmap in place.
I’ll have to run a parallel effort to line up real interviews to deepen findings and
to complement forum-based research.

1 Like
3

:seedling: Week 2 Explorer Update – @alwynvanwyk

Track: Allocator Pain Mapping & Signal Architectures
Week: 2 of 6
Date: 31 August 2025

:white_check_mark: Progress

  • Workspace and research journal set up.
  • Guiding research questions defined and pinned.
  • Forum archaeology completed across multiple ecosystems:
    • Gitcoin Governance Forum (6 insights extracted)
    • Optimism Governance Forum (2 insights extracted)
    • KlimaDAO Forum (2 insights extracted)
    • Safe Global Forum (2 insights extracted)
    • PushDAO Forum (1 insight extracted)
    • Hypercerts documentation (1 insight extracted)
  • Extraction Log updated with 14 total allocator pain point quotes and insights.
  • Pain point clusters identified across 6 major categories:
    • Systemic Allocation Biases (tech, hype, social capital, popularity biases)
    • Eligibility & Inclusion Challenges (VC bias, brand fragmentation, insider tensions)
    • Signal Quality & Evaluation Gaps (oracle problems, definition ambiguity, credibility issues)
    • Process & Operational Inefficiencies (manual toil, ad hoc permissioning, role transparency)
    • Accountability & Engagement Issues (conflicts of interest, activity tracking, reputation tracking)
    • Evaluation Process Fragmentation (duplication confusion, expertise limitations, visibility gaps)
  • Survey instruments designed:
    • Comprehensive 20-question survey for detailed research
    • Simplified 3-question survey for broader distribution

:construction: Blockers

  • No live allocator interviews scheduled yet (parallel track being seeded).
  • Need to distribute surveys to gather primary research data.

:telescope: Next Steps

  • Distribute surveys to allocator community for primary research data collection.
  • Draft allocator personas from extracted quotes and survey responses.
  • Finalize outreach list of 5–7 potential interviewees and begin sending invites.
  • Begin synthesis of forum insights into preliminary Insight Map framework.

:card_index_dividers: Artifacts

  • Extraction Log: Updated with 14 allocator insights across 6 governance forums, organized into 6 refined cluster categories
  • Miro Affinity Diagram: Visual clustering and analysis of pain points available at https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVJOMbzRY=/?share_link_id=211957903568
  • Survey Instruments:
    • Comprehensive 20-question survey for detailed research
    • Simplified 3-question survey for broader distribution
  • Public Research Repository: All research documentation available at https://github.com/alwynvanwyk/arq

:bullseye: Reflection

Key patterns emerging from Week 2 research:

The analysis revealed 6 distinct cluster categories of allocator pain points, representing a more nuanced understanding than initially anticipated. The most significant finding is the prevalence of systemic allocation biases - not just individual preferences, but structural issues where technical expertise, social capital, and marketing prowess consistently overshadow actual impact measurement.

Signal quality and evaluation gaps emerged as a critical bottleneck, with allocators struggling with oracle problems for non-digital impact, definitional ambiguity between impact and profit, and credibility issues around future funding commitments.

Process inefficiencies create compounding problems - manual contributor management, ad hoc permissioning, and lack of role transparency not only waste time but actively undermine accountability and progressive decentralization efforts.

1 Like
4

:herb: Week 3 Explorer Update – @alwynvanwyk

Track: Allocator Pain Mapping & Signal Architectures
Week: 3 of 6
Date: 14 September 2025

:white_check_mark: Progress

  • Survey live (Google Forms); responses: 4 (raw data kept private).
    • See “Anonymized Survey Summary” below for public aggregates only.
  • Interviews: 2 respondents consented; being scheduled for this week (20–30 mins each).
  • Extraction Log: forum insights baseline complete; interview entries will be added as de-identified rows (e.g., “Interview #1 — DAO steward”).
  • Personas v0: outline ready; to be drafted after first 2 interviews.
  • Mutual aid session (Funding Readiness Quest): As part of my Week 3 activities, I participated in a gamified mutual aid session hosted on the Funding Readiness Quest platform, where I contributed ideas to support two fellow researchers, Trinity and Kent. I also evaluated nine peer submissions—excluding my own—by scoring the value of their insights for the research. Together, these activities modeled a playful yet practical approach to rotating mutual aid, aligning with the ARQ program’s broader goal of experimenting with new ways of distributing support and feedback among peers. Awesome initiative, ForkInWisdom!

:construction: Blockers

  • Scheduling constraints for interviews (availability + time zones).
  • Small-N survey sample so far (promotion ongoing).
  • Privacy constraints (raw responses cannot be stored in this public repo).

:telescope: Next Steps (Week 3 focus)

  1. Conduct 1–2 interviews; capture anonymized notes; extract 4–6 insight units into the Extraction Log.
  2. Update Anonymized Survey Summary with theme counts and sanitized exemplar quotes.
  3. Draft Personas v0 (2–3 personas) grounded in clusters and interview data.
  4. Draft Insight Map v0 (repo one-pager).
  5. Prepare Week 3 claim (post link + artifacts list).

:card_index_dividers: Artifacts

  • Extraction Log – Allocator Insights: ./Extraction Log – Allocator Insights.md
  • Survey (Google Forms): Allocator Pain Points & Signal Architecture Survey
  • Survey Summary – Anonymized: ./Survey Summary – Anonymized.md
  • Survey Responses Summary 1: ./Survey Responses Summary 1.md
  • Survey (redacted CSV export): ./Allocator Pain Points & Signal Architecture Survey-redacted.csv
  • Interview Guide – Allocators: ./Interview Guide - Allocators.md
  • Interview Notes Template: ./Interview Notes Template.md
  • Outreach Script – Interviews: ./Outreach Script - Interviews.md
  • Personas v0 – Scaffold: ./Personas v0 - Scaffold.md
  • Week 1 Report: ./Explorer Progress & Planning Report-1.md
  • Week 2 Report: ./Explorer Progress & Planning Report-2.md
  • Miro Affinity Diagram: Miro

:bar_chart: Anonymized Survey Summary (public aggregates only)

Scope: 4 responses (private dataset). No PII stored here; raw responses remain off-repo.

Top themes (counts) — preliminary:

  • Distinguishing hype vs substance: [N]
  • Lack of standardized evaluation criteria: [N]
  • Difficulty assessing real-world impact: [N]
  • Limited time for due diligence: [N]

Sanitized exemplar quotes (roles generalized):

  • “As a [role], I struggle with … because …”
  • “We lack visibility into … which makes … hard.”

Notes: Update counts and exemplars after additional responses; keep strict anonymization.

:compass: Interview Plan & Schedule

Interview # Role (generic) Status Date/Time Notes
1 [DAO steward / Badgeholder / Operator] Scheduled [Date, TZ] Focus on signals trusted vs missing
2 [DAO steward / Badgeholder / Operator] Scheduled [Date, TZ] Walk through a difficult allocation

Interview prompts (mapped to clusters):

  • Role & scope; recent hard allocation decision walkthrough.
  • Signals trusted vs distrusted; missing signals that would increase confidence.
  • Bias and fairness concerns; mitigation strategies.
  • Operational frictions (permissioning, roles, tooling) and accountability gaps.
  • Evaluation fragmentation: duplication, expertise limits, visibility gaps.

:locked: Privacy Statement

To protect respondent privacy, raw survey responses and detailed interview notes are kept off-repo.
Only anonymized aggregates and sanitized quotes are published here.

:memo: Changelog

  • v0.1 (W3): Scaffold created; placeholders for interview outcomes and anonymized survey summary.