Arbitrum's Short-Term Incentive Program (Arbitrum Improvement Proposal)

[tnorm]

Answer’s below:

@meyaf320219

From what I understand, it was a collective effort from multiple people, delegates, and protocols, so it would be great @tnorm if you could detail how you came to the 20,000 ARB number for just yourself

To clarify, I volunteered to lead this task without any promise of payment. Throughout the process, several stakeholders suggested I ensure I receive similar compensation. If the working group members feel this retroactive acknowledgment is excessive, I welcome that feedback in private or public. Accounting for ARB price, taxes, and the relative cost of this effort compared to the costs of other Arbitrum grants programs I do feel as though this amount is quite reasonable.

Your observation about the inconvenience of participating is accurate. To facilitate, I juggled time zones, family/life commitments, and long hours to recurrently coordinate across various stakeholders via community calls/telegram and individually. The tasks ranged from facilitating workshops, calls, group messages, and to drafting and refining the program through multiple iterations. All of which involved significant hourly commitments.

@meyaf320219

Multisig

Please could you provide more clarity on the multisig? The only info provided is that plurality labs are being compensated for this. Does this mean they are the sole signers of $75m worth of ARB? This seems a slight conflict of interest, and I would expect significantly broader reassurances on a multisig for this size. Who is on it, what are their roles, are they publicly KYCed etc?

On the multisig: The 2,000 ARB per signer is a gesture for the operational burden of coordinating between the Foundation and protocol teams.

The multisig details can be read here. It was selected as it is already set up and it was identified as the most expeditious path for funding. @DisruptionJoe can answer further Q’s on the multisig re: kyc, etc.

Neither of these acknowledgments were requested but added as a thank you for a thankless job. Given the expedited nature of the process, we kept the operations as lean as possible. If the community does not value these contributor efforts, the comp can be removed.

@meyaf320219

I do not think that 75m is too big or too small, but I am simply unsure of how to understand it’s size in the context of Arbitrum. Please could the working group or @tnorm detail how you came to this conclusion? Did you have any feedback from protocols on what size proposals they would be requesting?

@axlvaz_SEEDLATAM.eth pointed towards one great comparison we also observed and I addressed why we raised it to 75M exactly because of protocol feedback above here. Protocols were 100% involved in this recommendation as were delegates.

@meyaf320219

This section appears quite vague and high-level. I understand that they are meant to be guides that protocols pick and choose rather than requirements, but it seems somewhat lacking for a framework of this size. The review process leaves me feeling the same, at what point does something not pass through the review stage? What if no delegates are involved here?

Is it possible to not get through the review stage? What is actually required here?

You are correct, while the framework may seem vague, it’s meant to be flexible. The review stage allows stakeholders to voice concerns, and provide feedback so applicants can adjust their proposal. Unless a proposal is ineligible, it moves to a snapshot vote.

@meyaf320219

In conclusion, I am pleased to see a step in the right direction, but given that this is a vague framework that still ends in delegates voting for individual protocols, I would require further clarity on it’s efficacy in order to support it. Especially regarding the review process, the compensation, the multisig, and finally how to measure the proposal as successful. I personally do not think it will pass in its current form.

It is undeniable that the robustness of the program suffers from the urgency of the DAO’s appetite for incentives. This proposal reconciles ~7 months of lethargy and avoidance of the topic, lacking leadership or even attempted coordination from the DAO.

I think we all probably feel the proposal falls short in some way. I certainly do. But as anyone who participated in this process is aware, this proposal is a result of compromise.

@axlvaz_SEEDLATAM.eth

Is there a maximum cap on the number of ARB tokens that can be applied for? I understand that the recommendations reduce the number of protocols that can apply for this type of grants. But I think that a maximum cap should be established as it has the rest of the categories.

Ultimately, delegates will decide whether an amount is excessive given the scope. Because there are two rounds, if a grant is rejected because of excessive cost, that team would have a chance to reapply.