Clarified Process for Non-Council Recommended Applications to Move to Snapshot

Thank you to everyone who applied for the LTIPP! As stated in the LTIPP proposal, those who were not recommended by the council can still have their application moved to Snapshot.

The council, advisors, and PM would like to propose some guidelines to help keep this process easy and organized for applicants and delegates.

Proposed Process to move to Snapshot

Applicants who wish to move their proposals to snapshot may update their proposals to address the concerns of the council.

The council and advisors have provided the table linked below displaying each application, their council scores, and tags of the reasons they were not selected by the council. This information is being provided to make it easier for delegates to analyze these proposals.

Link to Table

Please Note: the tags are informative only, please see council feedback for specifics on each application

The council will not be doing another round of reviews. However, council members, if delegates, might still provide feedback in the forum as other DAO members.

Applicants may post their updated proposals and a concise explanation of what they have changed as a forum comment under their original LTIPP application thread.

These updated applications should be posted to the forum under their original LTIPP application thread over the next week.

Snapshot votes should be put up sometime between Wednesday, April 24th, and Friday, April 26th.

Any delegate with more than 500K ARB delegated is able to post to snapshot. Applicants looking to get their updated proposals posted must coordinate with one of these delegates. A full list of Arbitrum delegates can be found here

Snapshot proposals posted in the appropriate period that receive more than 66% “For” votes (excluding Abstain votes) will be included in the LTIPP and will be funded via the LTIPP budget. Should the total funding amount exceed the 45M budget, funding will be awarded in order of “For” votes until the budget is exhausted.

After Friday, April 26th any request for funding Snapshots will no longer be coming from the LTIPP budget and will have to go through the entire Arbitrum DAO governance process to receive funding.

Future Incentives Programs

In the LTIPP, we will fund at least 75 protocols and have learned a lot throughout the process. We experimented with how to structure the advisors and council, how to handle many different types of protocols, and how to handle such a large volume of applications.

The LTIPP workstream consisting of the Advisors, Council, and PM will now use these experiences and learnings to begin turning our attention toward providing the DAO with recommendations for a full Long-term Term Incentives program or Perpetual Incentives Program that the DAO can run over a longer period with multiple funding cycles.

We will improve the process using what we have learned and will have a new year-long program ready to be voted on by the time LTIPP funding ends in July. This program will be open to everyone and will immediately follow the conclusion of the LTIPP. We are announcing this now so the DAO is aware there are plans in place and can feel more comfortable that there will be future incentive funding available.


Did the original cohort of council approved applications require 66% YES votes (with abstain votes excluded) or is 66% a new threshold requirement being placed on just the resubmitted apps?

1 Like

The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.

The position the protocols applying outside of the LTIPP process found themselves in is understandable and illustrates a shortcoming in the program’s structure that must be addressed in the future. Although we are generally against going outside the process when there is one in place, we also do not wish to act as blockers by voting against or abstaining from the current votes simply because they were submitted individually. That said, our votes were cast on the merit of the proposals themselves, and we relied heavily on the council’s feedback, just as we did with the first round of applications.

Specifically, we reviewed the original feedback of the council for each application and compared it to the revisions made in the application to see whether it had been addressed. If we believed the council’s feedback was addressed we voted in the proposal’s favor, while we voted against proposals that we felt did not adequately address it in their revised submission.


@krst is what good governance looks like. Applying judgement and biasing toward support.

1 Like

Thanks for taking the effort to do the analysis. I have followed your lead in voting for proposals outside the LTIPP process

1 Like