I voted YES for the following reasons:
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in the Tally voting.
As mentioned in our Snapshot rationale above, we continue to support DRIP for its shift toward activity-based, outcome-driven incentives and its thoughtful improvements over past incentive programs, particularly around evaluation, marketing support, and adaptability.
In addition to what we’ve already shared, we see DRIP as a valuable opportunity to test goal-driven, activity-based incentives at scale, in a way that aligns user behavior with DAO priorities. The clarity of seasonal objectives and the ability to adjust them mid-cycle gives the DAO better control over how incentives translate into real usage.
Look forward to seeing how season 1 is implemented.
Voting AGAINST in Tally.
I appreciate the clawback mechanism with the snapshot vote and Entropy taking responsibility for failures/successes. Entropy has been working for a while and deserves the trust.
Even with these improvements, I’m voting against because of the substantial amount of money for this experiment without real skin in the game. I truly believe what I said before. I saw this firsthand on Honeyswap community where HONEY token lost value and momentum from mercenary capital. That’s why I’m hesitant of this initiative in this state.
The liquidity comes for rewards and leaves when rewards stop, regardless of how targeted we make it.
1 Like
Voted Against.
None of the critical issues I’ve raised or several other delegates raised were addressed and incorporated in the transition from Snapshot to Tally.
Several delegates stated: I’m voting FOR for now, with a “hope” these things are addressed before Tally, well most points were not addressed, operating on hope is not a plan.
I’m seeing a lack of listening and willingness to detail a unique mechanism, or to include language and mechanism for transparency, DAO involvement or accountability.
This is a troubling trend that the largest delegate and AAE is willing to operate with and descend into these low standards. This is not a healthy trajectory for the DAO.
5 Likes
I didn’t change my opinion: DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP) - #55 by danielM
Voted FOR on Tally
With the recent addition of the ability for the DAO to kill the proposal once live, this proposal feels even ‘safer’. I was already in favor of this proposal before, but the ability to clawback mid-execution is a real nice-to-have that any proposals should offer to the best of their ability.
I have voted “For” on Tally.
DAOplomats is voting FOR on Tally.
We see DRIP as a meaningful step toward a more structured, performance-based incentive strategy within Arbitrum. It is encouraging to see this incentive experimentation.
We previously expressed concerns around the centralization of authority within the SSC and the implications of a small group managing a substantial budget. That concern still holds, but we appreciate the inclusion of a community-based circuit breaker. This backstop, combined with the season-by-season structuring, gives us enough confidence in the program’s governance for it to proceed.
Our other concerns on overlapping seasons and the arbitrary nature of the three-month cycle were addressed adequately by Entropy.
Upon passing of this proposal, greater transparency around internal deliberations, more clearly defined performance metrics, and mechanisms for public accountability should be prioritized for us to fully support a renewal of this program when the time comes.
I will unfortunately be voting “Against” at the Tally stage. As I mentioned above:
The detox period has concluded and its worth trying to address the next set of incentives. For now I’m voting for to keep momentum going on this. At it’s core, it seems to be thought out and addresses feedback from delegates. I do believe there should be more refinement before Tally, but I do want to show support for this in the interim.
Something I’d like to see is a commitment to have more emphasis put on getting money back to the DAO. It’s been a long-time complaint of mine that almost all our projects are just giving out funds with no expectation of tangible return. While we may not have broken past the tipping point yet, I think treasury health is important long term and without some partial fee return model its only going to get worse.
This has, as far as I can tell, not been addressed in the Tally proposal. Willing to change if proven wrong otherwise, but I don’t want to continue to watch these big projects move forward with 0 thought on long-term sustainability of the DAO treasury.
We vote for this proposal.
This proposal delegates execution to specialized operators who can recalibrate incentives far faster than a full DAO process, a prerequisite for keeping rewards aligned with real-time market conditions. Our stance has not changed since the Snapshot vote.
I had some initial questions, and I want to thank Entropy for taking the time to respond. That said, I still hold a few reservations, but I don’t yet feel ready to articulate them — not because I want to avoid responsibility, but because I want to thoroughly understand some of the DAO’s core structures and internal dynamics before raising any concerns.
For these reasons, I believe the most responsible and honest choice at this stage is to vote abstain.
gm, voted FOR with my previous rationale.
I look forward to details on the first campaign and hope the Treasury Management Committee will soon complement incentives with direct liquidity provision into protocols
Most of my concerns were addressed with the clawback clause.
I hear from some voting against that the program is vague. Honestly, to set up a good program like this will take a lot of time, expertise and thoughtful reviews. The burden of DAO bureaucracy often creates a bad outcome.
They can do all this work ahead of time, and then something changes (e.g. market conditions, narrative opportunity) and they have to execute on it anyway, losing their chance to pivot, or worse, they do all this work and we vote it down… both ways create a lot of waste. Though the details are vague, the high level idea is clear, and it is seems like a great way to go.
I still believe the budget is quite large, and I would have loved to see some clear limits set on operational overhead (like a cap of 8% or something) but accountability has been established for the program’s successes and failures, and trust Entropy to do a good job.
I’m excited to see how these programs end up getting executed.
1 Like
Onchain voting for this proposal is ending within 24 hours:
[Vote on Tally: DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP)](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4/proposal/2606309579402773764)
* * *
I am a bot. Questions? Contact support@tally.xyz
I’m voting against. When I voted on Snapshot, I supported this new approach because it seemed like an interesting experiment that addressed issues from previous programs. However, I also requested a more detailed breakdown of expenses. Since then, there has been no significant update on this point. Given the size of the budget involved, I believe it is essential to have a clear and transparent cost breakdown before approving such a proposal. Without this clarity, I am not comfortable giving my approval.
To be clear, I still believe the overall approach has potential and could be beneficial, but it needs to be better structured and more transparent before I can support it.
2 Likes
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We are voting FOR.
After reviewing the proposal and extensively discussing with Entropy both in private and public calls, we’re comfortable being cautiously supportive of DRIP and giving a new incentives program the benefit of the doubt. The committee appears to have the right blend of BD reach and day-to-day execution power to run a targeted, data-driven program.
Our support, however, comes with clear expectations. We’ll closely follow the program and expect results to be published in a format that allows anyone to properly verify the impact and outcomes of this program. If reporting or KPI start to stall without explanation, we’ll be vocal about it. For now, we’re pleased to see a focused, experiment-oriented plan move forward.
Voting has ended!
===============
[DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP)](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/eip155:42161:0x789fC99093B09aD01C34DC7251D0C89ce743e5a4/proposal/2606309579402773764)
### Final Votes
| **Category** | **Result** | **Details** |
|----------------------|------------------|-----------------------------|
| **Quorum reached** | ✅ | 217.64M of 128.77M |
| **Majority Support** | ✅ | |
| **For** | | 190.24M (84.2%) |
| **Against** | | 8.18M (3.6%) |
| **Abstain** | | 27.40M (12.1%) |
* * *
I am a bot. Questions? Contact support@tally.xyz