After careful consideration, I voted abstain on this proposal.
Things I like about this proposal
- It continues to invest in the growth of leading projects on Arbitrum, many of whom were successful pre-STIP (and therefore have demonstrated product-market fit)
- STIP projects are excluded from LTIPP. In retrospect, I think it’s weird that we exclude specific protocols from incentive programs and think I should have pushed back harder on this aspect of LTIPP. This creates an environment where the excluded protocols are incentivized (no pun intended) to create their own program. I like that this proposal allow projects excluded from LTIPP to be eligible for incentives. Going forward, I don’t think specific projects should be excluded from incentive programs.
Things I don’t like about this proposal
- This proposal does not attempt to learn from the results of STIP. I would like to see some analysis of the successes/failures baked into future incentives strategies.
- I suspect there was a significant gap in effectiveness among STIP projects. I’d like to see a plan to surface some analytics around this to help delegates with the optimistic voting process.
A note about Tally specifically:
- We (Tally) were able to successfully deploy 100k ARB of our 200k ARB STIP grant to onchain DAOs that deployed on Arbitrum. We earmarked the last 100k for distribution to GMX, who is launching their DAO on Arbitrum shortly. However, we technically are not able to deploy it because the GMX DAO will not exist onchain until (shortly) after the STIP period is officially over. This proposal would allow us to technically follow the procedures of STIP by sending back the 100k we earmarked for GMX and then applying for it again during the STIP bridge period. With that said, if this proposal does not pass, we would very much like to be able to deploy the 100k from the original STIP period to GMX after the STIP period is technically closed.