DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP)

[EzR3aL]

I voted YES for the following reasons:

DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP)

I voted For this proposal as the DRIP is hopefully able to help arbitrum becoming a major L2 in terms of DeFi activity. In my opinion is has been designed better and more carefully than other initiavites in the past. This seems like a longer lasting program which should be able to capture good amounts of liquidity paired with strong DeFi partner.

[Euphoria]

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.

[Zeptimus]

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.

[KlausBrave]

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.

@KlausBrave

Voted Against.

1. Incentive mechanic inadequately detailed. The claimed novel mechanic to incentivize and retain new users is not detailed, as a delegate we are left with trust us, we’ll work it out along the way and we’ll rely heavily on the distribution partner. The detail on Distribution partners criteria and responsibility is missing, this leaves a huge absence in a reliable plan and frankly not adequate work for an 80m ARB request
   After the amount of pushback, rigour and inquiry that went into the Incentives Detox this is disappointing to not see a more detail strategy and rational for why this time it will be different.
2. Lack of DAO involvement. Lack of formal balanced DAO representation and accountability mechanisms. Soft language is used from a accountability metric perspective, creating a trust assumption that is unverifiable and unfalsifiable “Entropy encourages the whole community to participate in proposing new activities and assets for incentives and is happy to be the primary point of contact for community ideation. There will absolutely be opportunities for community input throughout the DRIP process.” Given this is a big concern mentioned by many delegates more specific language is needed.
3. Missing operational costs. “A portion set aside”. “The DRIP seeks funding of 80M ARB for the first 4 seasons, with a maximum of 20M allocated per season and a portion set aside for operational costs related to vendors utilized by the season selection committee.” For a proposal of this size and from the top AAEs this requires a higher standard, the operational costs need to detailed, at the least an estimate provided.
4. Disjointed proposal. This proposal sits on an island out on its own and doesn’t represent a joined up strategy that fulfills the MVP, nor the SOS or moves Arbitrum towards a digital sovereign nation. My questions regarding this were left unanswered, Entropy pointed to a reply they made to Daniel which was unrelated and didn’t answer the question. The lack of coherently positioning this incentive program’s role in fulfilling the high level objectives of Arbitrum and the DAO leaves delegates with the question what’s the point and will this make any lasting difference.

@KlausBrave

nor how this approach achieves the MVP or moves us towards creating economic zones of opportunity.

It would be good to have this explained more clearly, in particular how could this cost outflow of 80m ARB bring returns back into the treasury? if that’s not the paradigm, how are the AAEs thinking about returns?

Happy to support with these 4 points addressed.

[danielM]

I didn’t change my opinion: DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP) - #55 by danielM
Voted FOR on Tally

[Hawheik]

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.

[WinVerse]

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.

[Bob-Rossi]

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.

[Tane]

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.