Thanks for putting this up, Entropy.
This is a strong proposal with clear upside. It’s great to see Arbitrum moving toward a more structured incentives framework — especially with projects like Morpho also thinking along the lines of adopting similarly strategic approaches in their own grants programs.
That said, we want to highlight a few concerns:
Power Concentration
Several delegates have already raised concerns about the level of authority granted to the SSC.
Plus, with the MSS looking to sunset, the concentration of power in a small group becomes even more pronounced. Thus, making us even less comfortable.
Overlapping Seasons
The proposal itself acknowledges that the three-month timeline is somewhat arbitrary. While the committee has the right to adjust this, the fixed initial duration could lead to seasons ending prematurely or extending unnecessarily based on factors not immediately apparent. This could impact user participation and the overall effectiveness of the incentives if the timeframe doesn’t align with the targeted activity’s natural lifecycle or market conditions.
While the proposal states that “overlapping seasons running in tandem that may make evaluation more difficult should be avoided”, the possibility of this occurring, or the challenges in ensuring clear separation and evaluation, remains a potential concern. If seasons unintentionally influence each other, it could obscure the true impact of each individual incentive program.
Also, if the SSC decides to go above a three-month per season timeline, since this current timeline is arbitrary, the program could go beyond a 1-year mandate. How would that be handled? Would more funds be requested to complete the four seasons? Or would the program be cut abruptly at the end of the 12 months?
Finally, just highlighting this comment from pedro;
It would be beneficial to understand how the SSC plans to extend the impact of the program beyond each season — especially in terms of partner retention and user behavior post-incentive.
Overall, we support the direction of the proposal, but believe these are critical details worth addressing to ensure the program is robust, measured, and future-proofed.