Hey @Matt_StableLab and @meyaf320219, thanks for your feedback.
I’d like to get some clarification from Arbitrum about what level of detail we have to post in this document. It’s not an attempt to be purposely ambiguous, but more to have flexibility about how we’re going to be distributing incentives. In our experience, these kinds of choices are made with the most possible information, closer to game time.
We have six different AMMs we can incentivize. (Uniswap, SushiSwap, Ramses, Camelot, Zyberswap, and PancakeSwap). They all have different strengths and attributes. I assume all of them will also be posting their own grant proposals here. We also assume that other liquidity managers, aggregators, and other platforms will be applying as well.
As an example, right now. there is a proposal to do quite a bit of incentives on LST pairs on Uniswap. If that passes, it would definitely influence how we would choose pairs to best help the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Likewise, our exchange partners like Camelot, Ramses, and others are likely going to apply for incentives with strategies in mind. It’s important to understand where they’re headed so we can make the best choices to support Arbitrum. To their credit, they all have their own agendas and ideas about where incentives need to go, and it’s totally fair for them to have a stake in that.
But I can offer some guidance on how Gamma will pick pairs.
- Native pairs to Arbitrum (these pairs tend to need the most liquidity and are undercapitalized)
- Critical infrastructure pairs (WETH, ARB, WBTC, stablecoins, and most users regularly use)
- Pairs that play to the strengths of the AMM they’re on.
- Avoiding already incentivized pairs by another organization
- Avoiding overcapitalized pairs
- Structuring incentives so AMMs are not working against each other inefficiently
I hope this sheds some light on our approach. I will get some clarity on the rules of the grant, and we’ll add more details as needed.