I just like to point out that Castle Capital is an untrustworthy source that hides their bias under a thin veil of professionally styled feedback.
Make no mistake, they are simply GMX fanboys that try and attack any competition they deem threatening.
For proof on the matter I would direct the reader to the following twitter thread:
Castle Cap is using disgraceful methods to try and create an unlevel playing field on Arbitrum.
Nothing more needs to be said on the matter in my opinion.
Blockworks Research is inclined to support this proposal on the condition that the requested amount comes down from 7M ARB to 5.2M ARB based on, among other things, the anticipated sustainable impact on, and goodwill to, the ecosystem, metrics such as TVL / volume / fees on Arbitrum and overall, a comparative analysis of all submitted STIP proposals, the distribution of incentives across verticals, as well as, to a certain extent, the recommendations made by the Arbitrum Working Group through the four grant categories.
Replying to the specific post made by Castle Capital with full honesty below.
Bringing in these subjective parameters and saying āwe are poor, we donāt have enoughā is a highly misplaced argument. The allocations to other protocols can be churned so that everyone gets the fair share as per their merit.
I am sorry to say but this response by Castle Capital acting as the voice of Arbitrum team (which I think is wrong in the first place) reeks of complete irrational bias. His response brings in factors that are simply his personal opinions and have no foundational basis in reality.
And even if someone were to look beyond stats and use subjective factors, I would expect an Arbitrum working group/committee member to make discussion based on factors like innovation and product differentiation instead of a biased maxi shooting random arrows to protect their own bags.
Itās clear for anyone with an unbiased eye to notice that that Gains innovations on lookbacks, 1-click trading and differentiated offerings like Forex and Commodities make them an ideal candidate for a Top-2 grant (if not the Top grant). By dismissing a Top Tier-1 project using such preposterous personal ill-founded opinions, Arbitrum Foundation as a whole will only put a black mark on its independence and showcase the influence of biased, non-worthy individuals like this gentleman in its otherwise impeccable decision-making so far.
I think itās high time we call out fake folks who are diluting the accomplishments of the great success Arbitrum has been. Arbitrum has been successful because of its objectivity and fair assessment of Dapp builders so far. Letās not spoil it by giving weight to these fake messengers who pretend to be the voice of the Arbitrum community/Arbitrum Foundation (because they are not)!!
Having a biased and incompetent representative like Castle Capital as a part of Working Committee for Arbitrum worries me about the future of Arbitrum! I would request Arbitrum foundation to reevaluate his responses on the forum so far (for all projects) and measure his remarks with an independent set of eyes.
This is a respectful comment and a reasonable demand.
However, it is my understanding that there are only few hours left before the grants close and I think this one has already been submitted as the final version.
Wished you had expressed your opinion earlier.
Iām not sure how it goes from here.
Sir, while you write āIt is beyond any unreasonable doubt that Gains is āthe Top Dappā and I mean āThe Top Dappā on all metrics on Arbitrum barring only GMX on stats.ā I have to disagree, because in fact, I have BIG doubts that GNS makes even top 4.
@BorisTheBlade
Check stats. And please donāt look at TVL alone. If you canāt comprehend finance or measure economic value, I am sorry I canāt help you hereā¦
Whatās important is the volume, that is the metric I used. Other than that, very rude to talk to strangers that way, there is an etiquette. But I will just withdraw myself from debating with you. Have a nice day!
gTrade last 24hr Arb volume = $70.5M
GMX last 24hr Arb volume = $54.3M
You may need a new metric to make your point
Please the source as your metrics seemed invented lol
Take a look on dune
https://dune.com/shogun/perpetual-dexs-overview
Or DefiLama
Thanks for the link confirming on Dune that yesterday GNS did more volume than GMX.
And that yesterday on Defillama both chain volume of GNS was $55M vs $59M for GMX
GMX stats page for Arbitrum V1 and V2 is $57.2M last 24hrs.
GNS stats page for Arbitrum is $70.5M
You said for yourself, whatās important is volume, and thatās the metric you use. So be my guest and use that metric, from either or both of the sources you trust.
What you trying to do here looks silly, sorry but this is true. What do you have to cut top 5 places from defilama ? And why you use for instance the day that you want to pick the volume ?? Currently on defilama the FULL SCREENSHOT!
I deleted the projects that are not on Arbitrum and left only the one that are, GNS on the 5th place, stop manipulating and choosing the days you want.
If you have on dune a dashboard that shows 30D volume instead of 24h I would appreciate that because pretty sure GNS doesnāt make top 3 by 30d volume.
I simply posted that today gTrade was beating GMX, nothing more.
You claimed my numbers seemed invented. They are not.
GMX shills have been hard at work discrediting gTradeās grant submission, when itās clear gTrade is in a position to compete with GMX and the other forks who buy volume by diluting their token. Which is almost certainly why they are here working so hard to spin it otherwise. Iām not seeing HMX, Vela and Vertex here campaigning against GNS, and I think we both now how much of a role their incentives have played on their volume, so my motivation to bring them into the conversation is zero.
Best of luck getting your grant. Hopefully both teams get a close approximation to what they are asking, and they both can prosper from it. Thereās no reason why they canāt both bring huge value to Arbitrum, and win users from CEXs, which is the goal, right?
By the way, thanks for not using Chat GPT for your most recent posts. A refreshing change.
@BorisTheBlade
I never intended to have a chat with you- let alone enter into a debate with you. Please donāt give yourself a place that you havenāt earned!
I have seen your responses on the forum and itās clear that your comparisons and arguments have been below average for anyone to even bother.
Rest assured, you canāt comprehend the stats. You fail to comprehend the full picture and are simply comparing Gains with wash-trading Perp protocols running on inflationary money printing engines. This is a classic 101 mistakeā¦
Would humbly request you to not engage with others (especially me) on any arguments in future without thorough research and deeper economic understanding!!
Anymore information on the points system please?
It feels a little too opaque at the moment, for such a large amount. Overall good protocol.
Hi meyaf,
We asked for some feedback regarding this from Arbitrum delegates and they recommended us not revealing too much so as to not give similar platforms a template from which they can copy us from.
Unfortunately, this grant process has been more hostile than we would have hoped it to be.
Hi Blockworks team,
Thank you for being interested in our proposal.
I fully understand your claim to lower the requested amount based on how other projects have decided to lower it.
However, we feel like our grant amount is sound based on our historical performance and contribution to the Arbitrum Ecosystem.
Our performance has been organic from the start (we have never had volume incentivization mechanisms in place to purposefully push up metrics) and we believe it justifies the amount we are asking for. Since we donāt have a history of incentivising metrics just for looks, you can rest assure the money will be well spent to benefit the Arbitrum Ecosystem as a whole which is the main purpose of this grant.
We would nonetheless appreciate discussing some points you might be hesitant about and have some fruitful discussion even though the proposal itself cannot be edited anymore. Unfortunately, the post was changed to [FINAL] before the comment was posted and once itās final we cannot go back and edit it. If possible we would ask for some earlier feedback next time.
Whether or not this is approved needs to be considered fundamentally from the point of view of the arbitrum ecosystem. An ecosystem ultimately thrives on diversity, as it brings a wider range of participants into it.
GNS has demonstrated that they can offer rapid advancement of meaningful trading tools for the arbitrum ecosystem which have the ability to draw in people and capital which is not presently within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Not only is it important that GMX and GNS coexist effectively to stimulate continued development through competition, it is also important that the Arbitrum ecoystem doesnāt find itself stale through being centric on a single product. As soon as this happens, efficiency, development, and resultantly user experience of Arbitrum will slow down and decrease.
The āGMX Legoā graphic is an interesting one in their proposal, as it actually highlights the extremely high degree of benefit for Arbitrum that can be gained through incentivising smaller protocols. The number of adjacent protocols that you will get is not linear to the money invested - it will start to decrease as each application built around a protocol is capitalised on.
This means, for each real yield generating product, there is an ecosystem waiting to happen. GNS has seen institutional traders wait at the development gate to use the platform - partial trades has been one of the cited features that they need. This is capital and users who are not presently operating on Arbitrum but want to use the product for the merits of the product alone.
If you ask me, GNS should have asked for more - and Arbitrum will be shooting itself in the foot if it presses ahead centralising its capital and voting power around a single protocol. I would encourage caution in funding the biggest projects the hardest, as it leads to a less innovative ecosystem. I think it is very important to consider that the grant is used efficiently - GMX V2 pools do not offer anywhere near the level of liquidity efficiency that GNS offers. This is why they need to ask for 6m of Liquidity incentives.
This brings me to DAI, which has been the currency to trade on GNS. GNS has enjoyed a positive relationship with MakerDAO for a long time. Through this it has made it clear that it continues to build with the ethos of decentralisation as its cornerstone - it also demonstrates another reason why Arbitrum can extremely strongly benefit from funding GNS and back to my point that I feel GNS should have asked for more.
If the Arbitrum Foundation were to provide the ARB to bootstrap a gARB vault, it would see a great increase in the use of ARB as a trading currency. āCastle Capitalā have decided to take aim at the usage of ARB as a currency - if the Arbitrum Foundation want to realise the full value of ARB as a currency this is one of the clearest ways to do it. **This is exactly why funding smaller projects is needed to maintain ecosystem wide innovation. **
Edited: Incorrect about last point apologies.
One point that is easy to miss, and worth considering, is this proposal is collaborative because it matches 100k GNS for liquidity incentives which will directly benefit DEXs on Arbitrum
We believe that the proposal prepared by Gains Network for STIP is technically appropriate and detailed sufficiently. Additionally, the requested grant amount seems acceptable, given that it will be allocated for the onboarding of new users and for the use of a protocol that has already proven its legitimacy. However, sharing the use of incentives in the future and the traction they create could be better in terms of transparency and engagement.
As ITU Blockchain, we look forward to hearing development stories in the upcoming period and producing content about their contribution to the community/DeFi on Arbitrum.
