[deBridge] LTIPP Application - FINAL


Applicant Name:

Alex Smirnov

Project Name:


Project Description:

At deBridge, we build interoperability for high performance. By removing the bottlenecks and risks of liquidity pools, deBridge enables virtually instant movement of value and information across chains.

Since pioneering our new model for 0-TVL cross-chain value transfers, deBridge has undergone explosive growth, onboarding nearly 100,000 users, collecting more than $1.3 million in protocol fees, and building deep network effects with some of the leading high-performance DeFi applications.

With this proposal, we suggest a new paradigm for efficient cross-chain liquidity transfers based on the settled volume, instead of continuous in-time incentivization like it’s often done in classical solutions based on liquidity pools. The grant will be distributed to users transferring liquidity to/from Arbitrum over a 12 week period, and any unused ARB tokens will be returned to the Arbitrum DAO after the incentive period.

Team Members and Qualifications:

  • Alex Smirnov (CEO)
  • Yaro Artyukh (CTO)
  • Alexander Ghahremany (COO)
  • Jonnie Emsley (CMO)
  • Gal Stern (CBDO)

Project links:

Contact Information:

Do you acknowledge that your team will be subject to a KYC requirement?: Yes

SECTION 2a: Team and Product Information

Team experience:

Alex Smirnov: CEO

Alex is a mathematician, researcher, developer, and blockchain enthusiast. He was the founder of Phenom, a research and development company in the area of blockchain technologies. Alex has led teams that have won numerous hackathons and developed various blockchain solutions and dApps. Alex came out of academia where he was doing his Ph.D. in mechanics and mathematics. Today, he and the team are full-time in the development of deBridge, where he’s the project lead focusing on protocol design, product management, partnerships, and operations.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlexSmirnov__
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alekseismirnov/

Yaro Artyukh: CTO

Yaro has ten years of experience in software development, five of which were involved in the development of fintech and blockchain solutions which is crucial for this type of role. Yaro is the project’s CTO and leads the development of all components for the deBridge protocol.

Github: artyukh (Yaroslav Artyukh) · GitHub

Alexander Ghahremany: COO

Alexander has extensive marketing and operations experience from various startups in both traditional and crypto including Forte Digital, FundingPartner, Wanchain, and DeepDAO. He was an integral part of FundingPartner’s journey to become one of Norway’s leading fintech companies and led marketing for Forte Digital – the fastest-growing consulting firm in Norway. Alexander has been in the blockchain space since 2016 and involved in several blockchain projects, which are beneficial to the marketing and operation side of deBridge.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/alexghahremany
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexanderhagenghahremany/

Jonnie Emsley: CMO

Jonnie has over seven years of experience helping Web3 companies establish and grow their brands. He has significant experience in brand identity, product marketing, and communication, and was one of the earliest employees at high-growth companies including CryptoSlate and MoonPay. At deBridge, Jonnie is responsible for creating and accelerating the company’s marketing strategy and developing a strong brand with consistent messaging.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/EmsleyJonnie
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonnie-emsley-03411288

Gal Stern: Head of Growth

Gal has been working in the Web3 space since 2017, starting his career managing and growing BEN Australia to a nationwide organization from ground zero. He later joined various leading Fintech and Blockchain startups such as Lumi (fastest growing SME lending startup in Australia) and GDA Capital (leading digital asset investment and advisory firm) to streamline and scale their BD operations, laying strong foundations for growth. At deBridge, Gal is responsible for leading business development activities and ensuring the ecosystem is developing from a position of strength.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/gal_stern
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gal-stern

What novelty or innovation does your product bring to Arbitrum?

deBridge and DLN bring a secure, reliable, and seamless bridging UX like no other in the space. Unique features include zero slippage on any order size, near-instant settlement, and exact output thanks to our 0-TVL, intent-based design.

Is your project composable with other projects on Arbitrum? If so, please explain:

Yes, our project is composable with other projects. Projects on Arbitrum can either leverage our API or Widget to enable a seamless onboarding experience for their users that fits their UX goals.

Additionally, integrators on Arbitrum can also tie an instruction (call data) to a cross-chain transfer, which abstracts the need for a user to even think about bridging in the first place. For example, a 1-click cross-chain deposit onto an Arbitrum perp DEX can be executed, or a user can provide liquidity to a lending protocol with native assets on another chain.

Do you have any comparable protocols within the Arbitrum ecosystem or other blockchains?

In terms of our unique USPs of zero slippage on any order size, near-instant settlement, and no honeypots of liquidity at risk, there are no real comparable protocols due to the clunkiness of classical bridges. Some bridging solutions are comparable from a high level though such as LayerZero, Wormhole, and Across.

How do you measure and think about retention internally? (metrics, target KPIs)

We have built our own native, public analytics page (deBridge Finance) and also have external analytics sources such as Flipside (deBridge: DLN Analysis | h4wk | Flipside), that track various metrics in real-time that are relevant to our protocol. Some key metrics we think about retention internally include cumulative volume growth, new user growth, fees generated, and how often users are returning to the protocol to place cross-chain transfers.

Relevant usage metrics - Please refer to the OBL relevant metrics chart 5. For your category (DEX, lending, gaming, etc) please provide a list of all respective metrics as well as all metrics in the general section:

General Metrics:

  • Daily Active Users: The daily count of unique addresses executing orders via DLN.
  • Daily User Growth: The daily user growth (in addresses) executing orders via DLN.
  • Daily Transaction Count: The daily number of transactions executed via DLN.
  • Daily Protocol Fee: The daily total DLN protocol fee generated. More details on the fee structure in the DLN documentation (small flat fee + 4bps spread).
  • Daily Transaction Fee: The same data as the DLN protocol fees.
  • Daily ARB Expenditure and User Claims: Data on ARB expenditure from every single cross-chain trade that is eligible for the incentive, compiled in a regular report. ARB tokens are airdropped automatically to eligible users and they don’t need to go through any claim process.
  • Incentivized User List & Gini: Data on eligible users and all the relevant details about the cross-chain order they executed, all compiled in a regular report that adheres to the data requirements of this proposal.

Bridge Metrics:

  • TVL: DLN is based upon an innovative 0-TVL design where there’s no risk of locked liquidity.
  • Bridging Volume: Data on DLN’s cumulative trading volume, which is visible on our public analytics page or DLN’s Flipside webpage.
  • List of Liquidity Providers: We have takers (market-makers) that are fulfilling cross-chain intents on the destination chains we support. It’s permissionless to become a taker, but we have onboarded some significant and well-experienced liquidity partners such as Rockaway: https://twitter.com/DLN_Trade/status/1718994653523968123.

Do you agree to remove team-controlled wallets from all milestone metrics AND exclude team-controlled wallets from any incentives included in your plan:


Did you utilize a grants consultant or other third party not named as a grantee to draft this proposal? If so, please disclose the details of that arrangement here, including conflicts of interest (Note: this does NOT disqualify an applicant):



Is the protocol native to Arbitrum?:

Our protocol is deployed on Arbitrum and various other chains as we are a cross-chain infrastructure.

On what other networks is the protocol deployed?:

We are deployed on other chains including Ethereum, Avalanche, Polygon, BSC, Linea, Base, Optimism, Solana, and Neon. We will add support for additional chains (both L1s and L2s) in the coming weeks and months.

What date did you deploy on Arbitrum mainnet?:

November 22, 2021 (deployment tx)

Do you have a native token?: [Yes/No/Planned, link tokenomics docs]


Past Incentivization: What liquidity mining/incentive programs, if any, have you previously run? Please share results and dashboards, as applicable?

Our most recent liquidity incentive was from the OP grant we received from the Optimism Foundation, which is very similar to what we have in mind for this proposal.

We have published very detailed reports on the distributions done for this incentive program, and overall it’s been successful. Since the incentive program went live, volume via Optimism saw a significant uptrend and has become one of the most popular chains to bridge via our infrastructure. Most notably, we’ve managed to facilitate over $100m in cumulative volume via Optimism from the date the incentive program went live. Our overall protocol also saw over 600% in volume growth during the incentivisation period.

Resources on OP incentive campaign:

Current Incentivization: How are you currently incentivizing your protocol?

Other than the OP grant we received, we currently aren’t incentivizing our protocol and all the traction we’ve experienced has been fully organic.

Have you received a grant from the DAO, Foundation, or any Arbitrum ecosystem related program?


Protocol Performance:

Over the past 3 months alone, we’ve had the following performance/key metrics for the protocol:

  • Active Users: 73,000
  • Transaction Count: 220,000
  • Volume: $450,000,000
  • Protocol/generated fee: $1,000,000

Since the inception of DLN almost a year ago, we’ve seen unprecedented volumes and traction as users have started to recognize us and the incredible intuitive bridging UX we offer. Based on our analytics (deBridge Analytics), there’s a clear indication that this exponential growth trend will continue, hence we are requesting an amount that will accommodate this growth.

Volume Growth since inception:

Daily Active User Growth since inception:

deBridge has processed $200M+ of trading volume through Arbitrum, which is ~28% of total volume without any incentives, and both — number of users and bridge volume metrics are steadily growing:

Protocol Roadmap:

We have a vast range of milestones and product updates on our roadmap for the next 12 months. Here are some of them:

  1. DLN v2: DLN v2 will go live in the coming months and will introduce a significant upgrade to the DLN high-performance value transfer infrastructure. Some of the powerful features to be included are (1) Gasless transactions to further improve user experience and (2) Partial fulfillment for cross-chain intents where different takers will be able to fulfill one specific transfer, resulting in better user experience and more efficiency.
  2. deBridge IaaS (interoperability-as-a-service) deployments: deBridge IaaS is the first service enabling complete cross-chain interoperability for EVM & SVM blockchain ecosystems. We have onboarded 8 chains so far and will rapidly scale this up to more ecosystems during this year.
  3. More B2B integrations: One of our main focus areas is to help facilitate protocols and applications to enable the best possible cross-chain experience for their users in a seamless and user-friendly way.
  4. Onboard more institutional liquidity: More liquidity to be onboarded into our ecosystem that will enable larger cross-chain value transfer and more flexibility for cross-chain intents while supporting the continued growth and activity we’re seeing.

Audit History & Security Vendors:

Here are all the details & reports of the security audits we’ve done (26+ to date): GitHub - debridge-finance/debridge-security: deBridge security audits

Security Incidents: [Has your protocol ever been exploited? If so, please describe what, when and how for ALL incidents as well as the remedies to solve and mitigate for future incidents]

No, we have had no exploits. deBridge has had 100% uptime, 100% message deliverability and no discovered vulnerabilities.


Requested Grant Size: 1,000,000 ARB

Justification for the size of the grant: The grant size justification stems from various components:

The grant size justification primarily stems from the performance-based incentivization structure, empirical data we have collected from the similar campaign we had in the Optimism ecosystem and current weekly volumes of inflows and outflows for Arbitrum that deBridge is processing.

The goal of the grant is to facilitate onboarding of users and transfers of liquidity between Arbitrum and various blockchain ecosystems connected to deBridge, allocating rebates to the following groups:

  • Makers — users who bridge liquidity through Arbitrum. Users bear gas costs + DLN fees (flat fee + 4bps) + integration partners’ fees (if trade is initiated through Arbitrum-based apps and users are paying its’ protocol fee within the same intent).
  • Takers — on-chain market makers and solvers who fulfill cross-chain trades/intents Takers expect 4bps reward laid into the spread and they bear gas costs for intent/trade fulfillment
  • Arbitrum projects and integration partners who integrate with deBridge to onboard liquidity and users from other ecosystems.

Thus, in order to onboard users and liquidity at 0 cost, the following costs should be rebated:

4bps (Taker incentive) + DLN fees (small flat fee + 4bps) + maker gas costs + taker gas costs + integration partners’ call data execution gas costs + integration partners’ fees.

Based on empirical data collected through reports of the OP campaign, we calculated Rebate/Volume(inflows+outflows) ratio for each distribution performed, the average ratio is 33 bps. Taking into account that we didn’t have (integration partners fees + call data gas) as part of rebates, we can conclude that rebates of gas costs of makers and takers take on average (33bps - 8bps) = 25bps.

Based on the last 7 days stats, deBridge has processed ~$15.8M of inflows and and $14.1M which gives ~$30M of total volume bridged through Arbitrum without any incentives, that sums into 30 * 12 = $360M of estimated total volume we aim to see processed during the 12 week period (not counting overall growth of activity and volumes driven by the campaign). Laying in an additional 25% buffer for growth of volumed driven by rebates, we set the target to be $360M * 1.25 = $450M.

We expect that ~10% of total volume will be driven by integration partners who integrated with our widget or API.

Assuming the average ARB price won’t be below $1.5 (currently ARB = $1.7) during 12 weeks period, and laying in an additional 17bps buffer for integration partner fees and call data execution gas costs on top of 33 bps ratio we got from empirical data from the OP campaign, we get 50 bps incentives/volume ratio for the component of volume driven by integrations.

Taking into account this additional price volatility buffer, the amount of ARB needed to process this volume is:

$450M * 10% (integrators volume) * 0.005 (50 bps) / 1.5 (min average ARB price) = 150,000 ARB

And for the rest of the volumes:

$450M * 90% (direct volume through deBridge app) * 0.0033 (33 bps) / 1.5 (min average ARB price) = 891,000 ARB

We round down 891,000 ARB to 850,000 ARB to make a total ask for the grant to be 1M ARB, assuming the error margin is also covered by laid in ARB volatility buffer as well as by the recent Dencun upgrade that could slightly optimize 25 bps rate for the gas component, giving us an additional buffer.

As mentioned, we launched a similar incentive program with Optimism in October 2023. Since then, based on our analytics, there’s been a clear trend in Optimism outpacing the growth of other L2s that our infrastructure is compatible with. From this, we can conclude that this kind of incentive program that improves the bridging UX while nullifying onboarding costs is very attractive to users and integration projects, and helps to fast-track liquidity inflows into a particular ecosystem. This in turn helps the ecosystem and the protocols built on top of it to flourish.

In the case of this Arbitrum LTIPP proposal, if we were to get this proposal accepted and deploy the incentives, we would also expect an acceleration in traction of volume bridged through Arbitrum relative to all other blockchains supported by deBridge.

This campaign will also provide a second-order benefits to the Arbitrum ecosystem - less onboarding costs and friction for Arbitrum-based apps, increased volumes, and faster growth of Arbitrum TVL:

Grant Matching: deBridge doesn’t have a token so we currently can’t match with token incentives.

Grant Breakdown: 100% of the ARB tokens provided via this grant will be allocated towards incentives to users (makers), market-makers (takers), and integration partners. It will also be available to all users of applications that have integrated the deBridge Widget and API or protocols/addresses interacting with our smart contracts on-chain. Grant breakdown is explained in the table in the previous section.

The DLN trade’s intent created by users lays in the spread based on the following pricing model:

  • At a market quote, there’s a spread between the assets a maker has on the source chain and what they receive on the destination chain. The taker‘s normal spread is 4bps + taker’s gas expenses (operational costs to fulfill the trade) including gas cost of call data execution for integration partners.
  • For inflows into Arbitrum: Instead of earning the spread, takers receive an incentive in ARB tokens that covers the normal 4bps spread and their gas costs, which allows takers to provide a tighter spread (0 bps) as they will be incentivized in ARB tokens. Makers will then only pay the DLN fee. The Maker DLN fee is rebated in full in ARB tokens after the trade is fulfilled. Additionally, the gas a user pays will also be rebated in ARB tokens. Thus users and protocols can move liquidity into Arbitrum from any other ecosystems supported by deBridge at 0 cost.
  • For outflows out of Arbitrum: rebate half of the maker fees (2 bps), and half of the normal spread for the taker, so that the maker still needs to pay 50% of the Taker incentive. Essentially half the total rebates compared to inflows into Arbitrum (with the same gas exception).

To prevent abuse, the total rebate for the transfer shouldn’t exceed 5% of its’ USD equivalent.

The grant justification section defines a minimal bound for volume that will be processed by deBridge as a result of this campaign. Thus, the grant distribution will have the following breakdown summary:

Direct volume processed through deBridge app (33 bps ratio):

Total ask ARB tokens breakdown Target volume for each component of the grant
4bps DLN Maker fee + 4bps Taker incentive 204,000 ARB (8 out of total 33 bps ratio), ~24% of 850,000 ARB part of grant $97,200,000
Gas costs of makers and takers + DLN small flat fee 646,000 ARB (25 out of total 33 bps), 76% of 850,000 ARB part of the grant $307,800,000
Total: 850,000 ARB (rounded down) $405,000,000

Breakdown for 10% of Volume driven by integration partners (50 bps ratio):

Total ask ARB tokens breakdown Target volume for each component of the grant
4bps DLN Maker fee + 4bps Taker incentive 24,000 ARB (8 out of total 50 bps ratio), 16% of 150,00 ARB part of the grant $7,200,000
Gas costs of makers and takers + DLN small flat fee 75,000 ARB (25 out of total 50 bps), 50% of 150,000 ARB part of the grant $22,500,000
Call data execution costs and integration partner fees (Applied only to 10% of volume) 51,000 ARB (17 out of total 50 bps ratio), 34% of 150,00 ARB part of the grant $15,300,000
Total: 150,000 ARB $45,000,000

Funding Address:

Funding Address Characteristics:

deBridge 5/8 governance multisig

Treasury Address:

Same as funding address.

Contract Address:

To be determined.



We believe this structure of incentives, where we rebate users performing cross-chain trades via Arbitrum will accelerate inflows of capital and new users into the ecosystem from our other compatible chains (e.g. Ethereum, BNB Chain, Optimism, Avalanche, Polygon, Linea, Base, Neon, Solana and more to come). It will also encourage Arbitrum-deployed protocols to build intents that elevate their UX and make it more seamless as performing it is at no cost to the user.

Execution Strategy: [Describe the plan for executing including token distribution method (e.g. farming, staking, bonds, referral program, etc), what you are incentivizing, resources, products, use of funds, and risk management. This includes allocations for specific pools, eligible assets, products, etc.]

Every two weeks we’ll generate a snapshot of all DLN market orders to/from the Arbitrum ecosystem, calculate their USD equivalents at the moment of trade, and rebate DLN fee + gas cost to makers and spread + gas cost to takers (gas cost should not exceed 5% of the market trade value to be eligible for rebate).

For makers, distribution will be performed to the “order authority on the destination chain” address for trades coming to Arbitrum, and “order authority on the source chain” for trades initiated from Arbitrum. These parameters are specified by the user at the moment a DLN order is created.

For integration partners, who integrate through deBridge widget or deBridge API and attach instructions/call data to cross-chain trades, we’ll rebate a gas cost of the execution to takers, and integration partners fees to makers, so that integrators and their users will have 0-cost for onboarding into Arbitrum and bringing liquidity to the ecosystem.

Here’s an example of the reporting we did for the Optimism incentive program: OP Reports - Google Drive

What mechanisms within the incentive design will you implement to incentivize “stickiness” whether it be users, liquidity or some other targeted metric?

The beauty of our model is that we distribute incentives solely based on performance or value accrued. In contrast, other classical bridges distribute continuously in time to LP’s. The “stickiness” of a bridging protocol simply comes down to which bridging solution can provide the most seamless and cost-efficient user experience to get onboarded into an ecosystem. Like many power users who mention us on social media and wish they had known about us earlier, we have an unparalleled user experience for those wanting to bridge native assets in a near-instant, low-cost, and seamless way. This incentive proposal will further support this goal of ours by providing a significantly better UX for users.

Some examples of user testimonials:

Specify the KPIs that will be used to measure success in achieving the grant objectives and designate a source of truth for governance to use to verify accuracy.

The main KPIs we’ll be carefully tracking include various metrics such as cumulative volume via Arbitrum, the number of users that placed cross-chain orders, and the total number of orders that have been placed. We will also be looking at which Arbitrum-deployed protocols are providing the most activity relating to the metrics mentioned above. With these protocols, we can also do comarketing to attract more liquidity and users to the ecosystem.

Primary sources of truth for KPIs:

Grant Timeline and Milestones:

Alongside the reports and promises we will provide described in Section 5, below are the commitments we’ll work towards with the grant.

We expect to process at least $450M in cumulative volume via Arbitrum within 12 weeks of deploying our ARB incentives (as a minimum benchmark).

Milestone Minimum estimated ARB distributed Source of Truth Deadline
$150m in cumulative volume through Arbitrum 333,333 ARB deBridge Analytics page / Flipside dashboard 4 weeks after deployment of incentives
$300m in cumulative volume through Arbitrum 666,666 ARB deBridge Analytics page / Flipside dashboard 8 weeks after deployment of incentives
$450m in cumulative volume through Arbitrum 1,000,000 ARB deBridge Analytics page / Flipside dashboard 12 weeks after deployment of incentives

How will receiving a grant enable you to foster growth or innovation within the Arbitrum ecosystem?

It’s important to highlight that the classical cross-chain approach poses a lot of risks and limitations, especially when it comes to cross-chain capabilities and scaling DeFi as a whole, and we offer a great alternative with notable USPs:

  1. Efficiency
  • Since DLN does not utilize the classical AMM model, traders incur zero slippage on any order size. Instead, a spread can be laid in as an incentive for takers to fulfill. Additionally, the quote shown on the destination chain is a guaranteed rate because there’s no slippage incurred. In contrast, solutions that utilize the AMM model are only able to show the theoretical maximum that a user can receive, which disregards the slippage tolerance and the amount a user receives on the destination chain, which tends to be much less than the metric shown. We believe this is an inefficient model and negatively impacts the user experience.
  1. Fast settlement
  1. High–performance cross-chain interactions
  • Our infrastructure allows attaching any call data/instruction to the trade, which the market maker will be obliged to execute at the moment of fulfillment. That opens a whole new spectrum of applications and enables projects to build powerful UX which abstracts away the entire infrastructure stack. For instance, users can initiate a $1,000 cross-chain trade into Arbitrum and have a long position on GMX opened at the moment of settlement, having this interaction executed in seconds.
  • Example of trade into Arbitrum with call data.
  • Video of how cross-chain UX may look like for integrators leveraging call data transfers through deBridge widget: https://twitter.com/AlexSmirnov__/status/1755944836346081588
  1. Security
  • Our 0-TVL model is also a very favorable model from a security perspective, altogether avoiding the risk of passively locked multi-million dollar liquidity pools. Funds are locked individually in isolated smart contracts, and only for an extremely short duration (a few seconds) before settlement. This means that the attack surface layer of our model is highly minimized.
  • Over time, the DeFi space has witnessed the security risks associated with the TVL model, as they are honeypots at risk of getting drained, resulting in over 2 billion dollars in total hacks.
  • Users no longer have to have exposure to wrapped assets at any point of their cross-chain trade, as native assets are sent directly to their address by the market makers.
  1. Scalability
  • DLN is also a much more favorable solution since it’s rapidly scalable. It’s able to facilitate 6-7 figure orders simply because the model is not capped to the size of a liquidity pool, and can draw liquidity from the entire market. If there is a significant volume in a certain direction, market makers will be able to efficiently fulfill that demand as they can re-balance liquidity very quickly, which is not feasible in classical bridges with statically locked liquidity.
  • Liquidity in DLN is also much more capital efficient as takers (e.g. market makers) have full custody of their liquidity at all times in DLN. This enables a vast range of rebalancing capabilities where liquidity can be reapplied to order settlements to maximize yield opportunities.
  • We also have a unique partnership with institutional liquidity providers such as Rockaway to onboarding institutional-grade liquidity to the cross-chain space, more details here: https://twitter.com/DLN_Trade/status/1718994653523968123 2

Example of a recent 7 figure order into Arbitrum (Transaction details):

Our innovative incentivization structure allows inflows into the Arbitrum ecosystem to be at zero cost relative to outflows. Naturally that will allow protocols and liquidity deployed within the Arbitrum ecosystem to flourish. We not only see our infrastructure as a high-performance cross-chain trading infrastructure, but as the most seamless user onboarding experience for ecosystems like Arbitrum.

We also believe that there are many sub-segments of the DeFi sector that are heavily underserved such as traditional institutions, market makers, OTC desks, and protocols that need and desire high-performance cross-chain capabilities, simply because current cross-chain solutions are too clunky and cannot facilitate their use cases due to their bottlenecks. These sub-segments consist of key industry players that have shown a lot of interest in our infrastructure because we’re the only solution that enables high-performance cross-chain interactions and value transfers.

Moreover, we see ourselves as much more than a cross-chain infrastructure, but also as DeFi’s global liquidity engine due to the possibility of tapping into the liquidity of the overall space, making the sector more capital-efficient with liquidity-on-demand.

Do you accept the funding of your grant streamed linearly for the duration of your grant proposal, and that the multisig holds the power to halt your stream?


SECTION 5: Data and Reporting

OpenBlock Labs has developed a comprehensive data and reporting checklist for tracking essential metrics across participating protocols. Teams must adhere to the specifications outlined in the provided link here: Onboarding Checklist from OBL 5. Along with this list, please answer the following:

Is your team prepared to comply with OBL’s data requirements for the entire life of the program and three months following and then handoff to the Arbitrum DAO? Are there any special requests/considerations that should be considered?

Yes, we are very prepared to comply with the requirements, we already have experience with this kind of data collection.

Does your team agree to provide bi-weekly program updates on the Arbitrum Forum thread that reference your OBL dashboard? [Please describe your strategy and capabilities for data/reporting]

Yes, we already do this for our incentive program for Optimism. Here’s where you can look into the reporting we did and how it’s structured: OP Reports - Google Drive

*First Offense: In the event that a project does not provide a bi-weekly update, they will be reminded by an involved party (council, advisor, or program manager). Upon this reminder, the project is given 72 hours to complete the requirement or their funding will be halted.

Second Offense: Discussion with an involved party (advisor, pm, council member) that will lead to understanding if funds should keep flowing or not.

Third Offense: Funding is halted permanently

Does your team agree to provide a final closeout report not later than two weeks from the ending date of your program? This report should include summaries of work completed, final cost structure, whether any funds were returned, and any lessons the grantee feels came out of this grant. Where applicable, be sure to include final estimates of acquisition costs of any users, developers, or assets onboarded to Arbitrum chains. (NOTE: No future grants from this program can be given until a closeout report is provided.)


Does your team acknowledge that failure to comply with any of the above requests can result in the halting of the program’s funding stream?: [Y/N]


1 Like

Hello @deBridge ,

Thank you for your application! Your advisor will be Castle Capital @Atomist.

Please join the LTIPP discord and ping your advisor in the general chat so they can create a new channel and start communicating with you.

1 Like

Hi @cliffton.eth + @raam. This proposal is ready for the title to be updated to the FINAL status. Thanks a lot for all your support!

Hey there, I’ve amended the post title to reflect that this proposal is FINAL. All the best!

1 Like


The Trader Joe Council believe that there is limited evidence that suggest incentivizing bridging activity works in retaining users over the long-term (stickiness). Demonstrated in the STIP and STIP backfund, bridges were given incentives but limited - if any - data points suggest this generated value worth supporting again in the LTIP or other incentive program.

From a practical standpoint, most major centralized exchanges (CEXs) now facilitate direct withdrawals to the Arbitrum network, offering users a streamlined entry into the Arbitrum ecosystem. Additionally, users already active within DeFi will see fit to bridge to Arbitrum if incentives are live and being distributed by the DeFi dApps, this action will be taken regardless of incentives being added to a bridge.

The Trader Joe Council have therefore decided to vote against all approved proposals linked to Bridges, for clarity these are Hop, Across and deBridge.

DeBridge’s LTIPP proposal has generated significant trading volume on Arbitrum and aims to further increase this volume through incentives. The proposal is clear and well structured and the KPIs and milestones set are realistic and logical, which can be achieved with additional incentives. While the proposed grant amount is large, the structuring and justification is good for end users.

1 Like

Camelot will vote against bridging proposals in LTIPP.

Following the results seen during the STIP grants, we believe there is insufficient evidence to support further incentivising bridging activity to Arbitrum. Whilst we see value in fast and low-cost bridging options, we believe that there are many options already available and that using incentives will bring little to marginal gain from the existing choices for users.
Bridges are an important piece of infrastructure. However, Arbitrum DAO should focus on creating as much value in the ecosystem itself, which will naturally incentivise users to enter the ecosystem and, therefore, explore bridges organically. A bridge alone doesn’t inherently translate to people wanting to come and generate activity in the ecosystem.

Arbitrum DAO has approved our proposal to distribute one million ARB tokens across the deBridge ecosystem


1 Like

Hi Arbitrum community,

​​There’s been a misunderstanding in the LTIPP template. As the template didn’t specify that the recipient multisig should all be team members, we provided our governance multisig, which has people on it beyond team members. So it isn’t the right fit to receive the grant.

We would like to update the community that instead of using our governance multisig, we made a simpler ⅔ team multisig, and kindly ask to use it as our grant funding address: 0x6c1b3813BDFc0916b833E611fC3cDa03C1F75107

Looking forward to distributing incentives.

-deBridge team