They could also just grant Uniswap to grow those LSTs regardless – but I guess thats unrealistic to happen so I appreciate your explanation.
Despite not agreeing with protocols building on top of AMMs getting grants could turn into significant positive-sum turnover, I guess this use case could make sense if it truly can bootstrap LST usage.
Good luck!
Hello @Squirrel,
Now that your application has been marked eligible, please be advised of the remaining steps in the application process to be completed prior to the Review Period Deadline:
Please complete the following steps required for your application to proceed to Snapshot:
To change your proposal to final, please tag an Arbitrum Foundation Forum Moderator (@ stonecoldpat @ cliffton.eth @ eli_defi) by the Review Period deadline to notify them of your proposal’s readiness to proceed from [Draft] to [Final] status.
Once notified, the Arbitrum Foundation Forum Moderator will adjust your title from [Draft] to [Final] status. Once marked as [FInal], your application post will be locked by moderators and you will no longer be able to edit your proposal.
Hey @Matt_StableLab,
Thanks for this.
@stonecoldpat @cliffton.eth @eli_defi this proposal is now ready and can be changed from [Draft] to [Final]. Thank you!
Post has been marked FINAL and locked.
We are thrilled at the prospect of this project coming to fruition and would like to formally extend our support for your proposal. We look forward to the possibility of further collaboration in the future!
BR,
iZUMi Team
Hey!
Apologize, with the other messages we somehow missed this.
I just wanted to clear up a few points:
The LST Vaults are NOT PALM vaults so the 1% management fee does not apply. 100% of all rewards will go to the LPs as amended in the proposal.
Here again we would like to lean on the fact of wanting to achieve to get the LST ecosystem to flourish- via higher LST TVL as well as usage. Group proposals can be successful but as can be seen from the current Arbitrum Uniswap one that is live, it actually isnt increasing volumes by much as a lot of JIT bots are farming the rewards.
Thanks for your constructive feedback and we hope that you understand our response which explains how if this proposal is accepted can help the Arbitrum ecosystem a lot.
First of all, thank you for your proposal. When we look at the LSD ecosystem, especially Arrakis Finance users prefer to keep their assets on Ethereum. The requested grant amount is quite high, representing 1.612% of the total grant amount. Other projects seeking grants of this magnitude typically have Arbitrum TVLs ranging from $50-100M. However, Arrakis Finance’s Arbitrum TVL is only $1M. Particularly, considering that the requested grant will be distributed over 3 months, it’s challenging to believe that LSD holders will stay on the Arbitrum network for an extended period.
For all these reasons, ITU Blockchain votes “Against” this proposal.
Hey!
Thanks for your comment.
We understand where you are coming from but would say that Arbitrum spending on LSTs makes a lot of sense for the ecosystem. Yes, as always with incentivies some capital will leave however what we can achieve here is that the dapps built on top of LSTs (e.g stablecoins) that are currently only available on Ethereum due to the liquidity depth will be able to deploy on Arbitrum. This could then again increase volumes, which would encourage LPs to stay.
What we want to achieve with the incentivies is have deep liquidity for LSTs, resulting in more LST users on Arbitrum, which should spike the building on top of Arbitrum.