Arbitrum Incentives Working Group Call #4 - Call Notes
The agenda included:
- A summary of the Working Group’s history to date
- A retrospective on STIP consensus Framework
- A thought excersize on Extending STIP
The working group used to brainstorm and vote on feedback based on the STIP program across a number of areas.
- What Went Well
- Arbitrum distributed ARB in just a matter of weeks (i.e. the consensus framework worked).
- Huge community participation (although unexpected, and overwhelming, it was encouraging).
- The framework moved quickly (speed).
- The application process highlighted many smaller Arbitrum projects.
- Initiated continued discussion on a long term framework and the Arbitrum ecosystem.
- What Went Poorly
- Delegates expressed having less than ideal time to review proposals based on the number of applications.
- A few projects got relatively large amounts of funding.
- Would have benefitted from a stronger code of conduct for applicants.
- There was some confusion around the budget and round 2.
- What Would You Change
- Different voting mechanism (quadratic, limited voting, etc.)
- Create a code of conduct based on lessons from this time.
- Reduce the total budget and prescibe clear goals.
- More clearly tier budgets and applications based on voting.
- Extending STIP
- Reasons to Extend STIP as is
- Keep it simple.
- Fairness to proposals who were cut off from funding due to budget.
- Reduce the advantage granted to those who received funding.
- Reasons to extend STIP with Adjustments
- Extend with a hard cap for different tiers.
- Wait until a Long Term Framework
- Wait to see STIP results.
- Work hard on building long-term program(s) now to make sure something is live when STIP runs out.
- Preference a more robust framework based on lessons learned.
- Discuss the merits of STIP applications prior to accepting new ones - define what a strong application looks like.
- More focus on KPIs.
