Thanks for proposing this, I think it makes total sense.
This STIP was great but highlighted a few issues. One of them is that rules changed between the snapshot vote and the execution of the vote. With the voted allocation (final allocation on a first-come-first-served basis), nearly all projects would have received their grant (52 out of 64, compared to 30 with this new cut-off method invented 24h before the end).
Second issue: a handful of projects are trusting the quasi-totality of the STIP, leaving dozens of projects who passed the governance vote with nothing. Those projects are generally projects who already made it, are very profitable, and don’t really need additional subsidies, but managed to push massive grant request thanks to their governance power.
GMX alone takes 24% of the program (even though with the voted allocation method they should have add $618k).
First 4 protocols take half of the STIP, and 2/3 are taken by the top 8.
One of the ideas that could help would be to “flatten the curve”.
Furthermore, these funds are not efficiently helping to bring value to Arbitrum since they are going to be concentrated to already successful Arbitrum native projects. Top 8 mentioned above is all native Arbitrum projects (except Trader Joe). If one of the objective of this program was to incentivise protocols to come and build on Arbitrum, it is however sending the opposite message: “don’t come on Arbitrum, you are not welcome and won’t be able to compete with our native projects”.
In my opinion there are a few possible ways going forward to maximise the efficiency of this STIP (which needs to be efficient as it is still a 50m ARB investment).
There are two main categories: A) rething the distribution process to make the STIP more efficient and fair, and B) increase the enveloppe.
A) Adjust the distribution process for a fairer and more efficient STIP keeping the 50m ARB enveloppe
1/ Keep the voted process of first-come-first served basis
This would lead to 52 beneficiaries instead of 30, and only 12 projects would be left out with nothing despite them passing their proposals by the rules.
2/ Distribute pro rata of asked grant:
That’s the normal way to do things in finance: when a pocket of money is overallocated, every body is downsized proportionately to what they asked for.
3/ Adjust the cap amount that could be given to a single project
If the total amount that can be given to a single project for this 3 month period is 1.5m ARB, then every project can receive their fair share of the STIP.
Here is a little table of what each solution would give:
B) Increase total enveloppe
Two ways here: either we increase straight to get all those good projects the funding they deserve, and not do any second round, or vote an enveloppe for second round, and consider the projects who passed already at this round but had nothing, as qualified already for this second round.
I would personally lean towards adjusting the capped amount so that everyone can get allocated, but any step towards more fairness or efficiency of this STIP would be in the right direction.