Double-Down on STIP Successes (STIP-Bridge)

Proposals Finalized AIPs
73

UPDATES FOR TALLY PROPOSAL (notes on updates made April 10th):

Feedback from successful Snapshot vote and how it was addressed in the updated proposal.

Concern 1)

We don’t yet have an understanding of which protocols were and were not successful in STIP

Updated Solution

To address this, performance audits have been integrated into the proposal. These audits, conducted by OpenBlock Labs, will provide transparent insights into how effectively protocols utilized their STIP grants.

Concern 2)

The proposed format is too passive and may lead to indiscriminate fund distribution. We need more infrastructure and quality checks.

Updated Solution

We have updated the proposal to include a much more robust infrastructure. First OBL will be providing audits. Second, the advisors from the LTIPP program will be available to work with protocols to improve their incentive mechanisms and determine appropriate amounts of ARB to request from the DAO. Finally, a PM role has been created to help facilitate the program and provide a point of connection between the delegates, advisors, protocol, foundation, and data providers.

Concern 3)

This is the same as STIP we didn’t use what we learned the first time.

Updated solution

This proposal has a few notable differences compared to STIP.

First, this pool of protocols has already been somewhat vetted by the community as they were selected initially. However, they now have had the opportunity to showcase how effectively they can use incentives. The OBL audits along with the data the community will provide will give us more insights into which protocols can successfully use incentives making it easier for delegates to choose which protocols to extend.

Second, STIP was the first time protocols applied for funding and there were strict rules for what they could use the ARB for. This led to many applicants having poor incentive mechanisms as they were unsure how to apply to one of these programs. Now, they will have the opportunity to work with the advisors who helped the LTIPP come up with exciting new incentive ideas. This will help the STIP protocols put forward better applications.

Finally, this program trials optimistic funding. Even with the council in LTIPP, there are still 77 snapshot votes. This is not sustainable for the DAO. This bridge allows us to test an optimistic approach in a more controlled environment to see if it is something we should explore using in the full long-term program

All Updates to the Proposal

  1. Performance audits have been included to give the community a better understanding of how protocols utilized their STIP grants.
  2. The advisors from LTIPP will be assisting Bridge protocols to help answer questions and improve their applications
  3. A program manager has been added.
  4. A small operational budget has been included to onboard the advisors and pm as well as cover any unforeseen costs such as additional audits. As this budget was not included in the original Bridge Snapshot vote, we will not use any of these funds until an additional snapshot is passed that determines how these funds should be used.
  5. More clarity has been added regarding the posting of Addendums
  6. More clarity has been provided on the challenge process and optimistic process
  7. The timeline has been updated
  8. The possibility of extension in case of a delay to the full long-term program
4 Likes