The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thank you to Castle Labs (@CastleCapital) and @DefiLlama_Research from ARDC for pulling together this extensive ecosystem report for the DAO. I’ve just wrapped up reading the whole thing; yeah, it was a long one! 
But honestly, seeing the level of comparison, the deep dives into verticals, and all the data benchmarks made it really worth the read. There were a bunch of things that stood out and a few thoughts that popped up in my mind while reading, so I wanted to jot them down here, along with some ideas for where the DAO (and AAEs) can take things next. We’re also happy to help out and contribute wherever we can.
Quoting some points from the report -
“The effectiveness of [Arbitrum’s] GTM strategies and feature sets is often impacted not by a lack of innovation, but by the availability of liquidity and volume required to kickstart lasting ecosystem flywheels… while protocols and assets are present, the foundation for a compounding DeFi market remains underdeveloped compared to leading competitors.”
That point really hits home. The numbers in the report show Arbitrum in a solid spot for things like liquid staked ETH (over 17% share among L2s) and with more than $350M in RWA TVL. But it’s clear that just having the pieces isn’t enough, we need those real “flywheels” where users keep coming back and value keeps building on itself. A lot of the time, protocols are live, but user stickiness and cross-vertical activity just don’t compound as much as we hope. From our perspective, it’ll be important for the DAO to focus on user retention and real composability instead of chasing short-term bursts of TVL, some of which we are working on through initiatives like DRIP.
“Arbitrum’s GTM has evolved from broad airdrops and experimental incentives (STIP, LTIPP) to targeted strategic incentives (DRIP) and direct investments via venture studios… DRIP is intentionally simple, targeted, and measurable.”
Moving to incentive programs that zero in on specific assets or activities (rather than just spraying ARB everywhere) is definitely a good step. The report’s breakdown of why general programs often lose focus and fail to deliver durable growth makes a lot of sense. Now with DRIP getting live next month and focused on things like borrowing against ETH and yield-bearing stables, we think the DAO is in a better spot to understand what actually works in terms of long-term user and liquidity retention, not just short-term metrics.
“Composability and modular growth are Arbitrum’s edge—but liquidity fragmentation across chains and apps is a visible and growing pain point.”
Couldn’t agree more. With more appchains and Orbit deployments launching, keeping everything interconnected is going to get even harder going forward. If Arbitrum wants to keep its edge, we think the DAO and AAEs should really push unified liquidity tools and user experience. Some top-of-the-mind ideas could be things like better cross-chain messaging, standardized LP token frameworks, and incentives for projects that encourage users to bridge between verticals could be high-impact areas.
“Arbitrum leads L2s in lending TVL and utilization, but faces intensifying competition from Base and Solana… protocols like Morpho, Euler, Fluid, and Aave offer a chance to consolidate position.”
We noticed in the report that asset and protocol diversity in lending is picking up, but also that competition is getting pretty fierce. If Arbitrum wants to defend and extend its lead, maybe the next step is to lean into composability between new lending and yield protocols, onboard the hottest new assets quickly, and partner closely with teams showing high organic growth, instead of just chasing big TVL numbers.
“RWA activity on Arbitrum has grown from $200K to $300M in 18 months but remains concentrated and under-diversified… privacy layers and institutional asset onboarding remain untapped.”
The numbers on RWA growth are wild, but it’s clear there’s more ground to cover. Pushing harder for privacy features and getting more variety (like non-USD collateral, commodities, or private credit) feels like a big opportunity. Maybe the DAO and AAEs can prioritize small RWA pilots in less-served sectors and support legal/infra partners who specialize in these niches.
“Security and risk mitigation have improved with over 41M ARB deployed in incentive and security subsidies, but success must be measured by more than coverage.”
We completely agree that simply counting programs or audit sign-offs isn’t enough. From a delegate’s view, keeping an eye on things like “time to patch” and how quickly gaps are closed after bugs pop up could become a simple north-star metric for protocols to hit, even as grants and subsidies keep flowing.
“Delegate power remains concentrated, yet durable forum dialogue and critical friction persists thanks to mid- and low-VP actors.”
As a delegate with less VP, we can relate to this! Not every time, but a lot of useful perspectives come from delegates who might not have huge voting power but spend plenty of time on research, asking questions, or helping onboard new participants. We acknowledge that @SEEDGov is already working on DIP v1.7 and v2.0, working on improving delegate incentives and governance participation.
We align closely with @0xDonPepe’s recent comment on the v1.7 proposal, particularly regarding Delegate Feedback (DF) thresholds. As he pointed out, with current DF requirements, only about 12% of delegates meet the bar, even before the proposal suggests making feedback scoring more stringent and eligibility more exclusive. Increasing the difficulty risks excluding many active small delegates, which is counterproductive to a healthy, diverse DAO.
DIP currently stands as one of the last open doors for newer, smaller, or independently motivated delegates to participate meaningfully, get recognized, and be rewarded. Making eligibility more restrictive, especially by including voting power multipliers on top of strict DF standards, would effectively shut the door on those who don’t hold large amounts or institutional backing.
Ultimately, the strength of Arbitrum’s DAO has always come from people showing up regularly, giving thoughtful feedback, sometimes asking imperfect questions, and building legitimacy from the ground up. Preserving and nurturing this ecosystem of engaged delegates should remain a clear priority as DIP evolves.
To end this long post on a high note: while the ARDC has now wrapped up its mandate, the work accomplished, especially this most recent research report, sets a strong precedent for transparency, rigor, and open analysis in our ecosystem. Having access to this level of deep-dive data and clear benchmarking, thanks to contributors, empowers all delegates and community members to make more informed, impactful decisions going forward.
The research and collective reflection in this report don’t just help us understand where Arbitrum stands; they also spark new ideas and challenge us to aim higher.