Arbitrum Security Subsidy Fund: Outcome Report

[pedrob]

gmgm

@sid_areta

This statistic, coupled with the relative lack of builder support and project acquisition programs run by the Arbitrum DAO, highlights the value provided by the SSF and demonstrates the need for an expanded subsidy fund that builds upon the learnings of the pilot phase, providing consistent, long-term support to builders on Arbitrum.

I can’t overlook these kinds of comments, which have become a constant to justify new “meh” proposals. I find them absolutely false and unnecessary. Moreover, they create and reinforce a narrative that simply isn’t true.

So, I reiterate: in 2024:

The LTIPP & STIP2, Stylus Sprint, Questbook grants (New protocol ideas & Dev tooling + Orbit new one) and the gaming investment initiative. And a lot of work for the upcoming incentive programs this year.

And all of this happened throughout 2024, in parallel with the approval and execution of this proposal. Again, as I already said, of course, there’s room for improvement and for providing even more support. But it’s simply false to say there is a lack of support.

Regarding the means test:

@Bernard

The development of this Means Test aims to provide a structured approach for the ADPC to evaluate applications for financial assistance. This tool is designed to identify applicants who would benefit most from support, ensuring equitable access to subsidies within the Arbitrum Ecosystem, particularly for smaller entities with valuable contributions.

The intent is to allocate subsidies to those most in need, avoiding exploitation by larger players looking for a ‘free lunch/handout’. Such an event could give recipients an unfair advantage over their competitors or be an inefficient use of the DAO’s funds if they do not bring about a net positive change.

Could you comment on how the results reflect the original intent? Did the means test work as designed and expected?

@sid_areta

We assessed the following sub-criteria with the highest weights in the Means Test: Ecosystem Contribution, Funding Gap Rationale, Reasonableness of Subsidy Amount Requested, Accountability Measures, and Security Requirements. This approach allowed the ADPC to rapidly screen out applications that only provided cursory responses to Means Test or otherwise scored well below their peers in the cohort.

There’s something I don’t quite understand. Did you only analyzed the proposals based on those “sub-criteria” rather than all of them? Or am I misunderstanding?

And if that’s the case, how do these isolated sub-criteria reflect the intent of the subsidy fund in terms of “identifying applicants who would benefit most from support”?

@sid_areta

23 of the 56 projects were not yet deployed on Arbitrum, while 33 projects were already deployed on the chain.

Out of curiosity, how many of those 23 were ultimately selected to receive a subsidy?

@sid_areta

Feedback for Rejected Applicants

The ADPC sent individual rejection emails with feedback for the 31 rejected applicants. Each email contained 2-3 bullet points outlining specific reasons as to why their applications were not taken forward, and where requested (as with a specific applicant), the ADPC provided even further feedback over a call.

Maybe it would have been helpful to include a bullet-point summary of the main reasons for rejection as a lesson for future applications.

Overall, I find the report very thorough, with valuable insights and learnings that can help develop, together with the foundation, a second version of the subsidy fund that serves as a framework for the future.

Thank you for the work and the report