SECTION 1: APPLICANT INFORMATION
Provide personal or organizational details, including applicant name, contact information, and any associated organization. This information ensures proper identification and communication throughout the grant process.
Applicant Name: Nach
Project Name: Isekai Money
Project Description: Isekai is a yield magnification and design optimization platform that aims to align incentives between market participants, enhance yield, and drive sticky liquidity to its underlying protocols. It uses a protocol and chain-agnostic approach to TVL absorption that redirects the flow of yield back to Arbitrum.
Team Members and Roles:
Nach (Founder; BD)
Halko (Founder; Strategy)
IceCreamMan (Founder; Strategy)
Ăśbermensch (Founder; Strategy)
Ultra (Founder; Solidity)
Omeguhh (Solidity)
TS (Solidity)
Xeno (Backend)
Machi (Frontend)
Realtarpcity (Frontend)
Fox (UI)
Jerame (Marketing)
Spud (Marketing)
Project Links:
- Twitter: https://twitter.com/isekaimoney
- Website: https://www.isekai.money/
- Github: Private
Contact Information
Point of Contact (note: this should be an individual’s name, not the name of the protocol): [forum handle]
Point of Contact’s TG handle:
Twitter:
Email: grants@isekai.money
Do you acknowledge that your team will be subject to a KYC requirement?: Yes
SECTION 2a: Team and Product Information
Provide details on your team’s past and current experience. Any details relating to past projects, recent achievements and any past experience utilizing incentives. Additionally, please provide further details on the state of your product, audience segments, and how you expect incentives to impact the product’s long-term growth and sustainability.
Team experience (Any relevant experience that may be useful in evaluating ability to ship, or execution with grant incentives. Please provide references knowledgeable about past work, where relevant. If you wish to do so privately, indicate that. [Optional, but recommended]):
Isekai’s contributors and advisors span various Arbitrum-native and other protocols.
This includes, but is not limited to, JonesDAO, Stryke (formerly Dopex), Silo Finance, Dolomite, and OlympusDAO.
What novelty or innovation does your product bring to Arbitrum?
Isekai is a two-part protocol consisting of yield magnification (relevant to current proposal) and design optimization (future release) arms.
The yield magnification component absorbs yield-bearing tokens from any source - this includes chains that are external to Arbitrum. $XP, the relevant Isekai native token, uses a reflexive yield restructuring mechanism on absorbed tokens while only residing on Arbitrum. Chain and protocol agnosticism allows value to flow from other L2s and L1s as well as diversified yield exposure to Arbitrum users.
The system works concurrently with the design optimization arm which initially targets Camelot. This is a full suite of optimization tools such as a liquid wrapper for xGRAIL, boosted pools, and auto-compounders.
Is your project composable with other projects on Arbitrum? If so, please explain:
By design, Isekai native tokens can be easily integrated with external protocols with wrapper-style solutions that can convert them into yield-bearing tokens. This may allow for interesting integrations with DeFi vertical such as lending markets and auto-compounders.
The suite of tools made available by the design optimization platform are freely useable by external protocols. This is especially relevant to Arbitrum DAOs with Camelot-based PoL as well as yield optimizers currently building on Camelot.
Do you have any comparable protocols within the Arbitrum ecosystem or other blockchains?
$XP’s mint-on-capture methodology (’tithing’) is similar to OlympusDAO’s bonding. However, the use of absorbed tokens are completely different and intends to address growth constraints in Olympus while being used to benefit both arms of the Isekai protocol.
At a high level, Isekai’s design optimization platform is to Camelot as Convex is to Curve. Design-wise there are a few key differences but the intention is to provide efficiency and UX upgrades in order to generate Arbitrum-centric sticky liquidity.
How do you measure and think about retention internally? (metrics, target KPIs)
Since Isekai uses a mint-on-capture model, TVL is inherently retained by the protocol perpetually. As such, Isekai’s core growth driver is TVL.
Relevant usage metrics - Please refer to the OBL relevant metrics chart 10. For your category (DEX, lending, gaming, etc) please provide a list of all respective metrics as well as all metrics in the general section:
- Daily active users
- Daily active user growth
- Daily transaction count
- Daily protocol fee
- Daily transaction fee
- Daily ARB expenditure and user claims
- Incentivized user list and Gini
- TVL
- Cross-chain TVL
- Arbitrum-specific TVL
- List of depositors
- Rewards passed through from external chains to Arbitrum
Do you agree to remove team-controlled wallets from all milestone metrics AND exclude team-controlled wallets from any incentives included in your plan: Yes
Did you utilize a grants consultant or other third party not named as a grantee to draft this proposal? If so, please disclose the details of that arrangement here, including conflicts of interest (Note: this does NOT disqualify an applicant): No
SECTION 2b: PROTOCOL DETAILS
Provide details about the Arbitrum protocol requirements relevant to the grant. This information ensures that the applicant is aligned with the technical specifications and commitments of the grant.
Is the protocol native to Arbitrum?:
Yes.
The core protocol resides on Arbitrum although portions of TVL may exist on external chains. However, the benefits from external chains are passed through directly to Arbitrum via $XP.
On what other networks is the protocol deployed?:
The protocol operates on Arbitrum but accepts assets from other chains on to Arbitrum.
What date did you deploy on Arbitrum mainnet?: [Date + transaction ID. If not yet live on mainnet, explain why.]
Testnet launched on 3 March 2024 with mainnet to follow.
Testnet link is https://sepolia-testnet.isekai.money/
Do you have a native token?:
Yes.
Past Incentivization: What liquidity mining/incentive programs, if any, have you previously run? Please share results and dashboards, as applicable?
N/A
Current Incentivization: How are you currently incentivizing your protocol?
N/A
Have you received a grant from the DAO, Foundation, or any Arbitrum ecosystem related program? [yes/no, please provide any details around how the funds were allocated and any relevant results/learnings(Note: this does NOT disqualify an applicant)]
Isekai has received funding in the form of a Grant from the Arbitrum Foundation which was to be used per Arbitrum Foundation rules for Operational Expenses. We have used these funds for audit.
Protocol Performance: [Detail the past performance of the protocol and relevance, including any key metrics or achievements, dashboards, etc.]
N/A
Protocol Roadmap: [Describe relevant roadmap details for your protocol or relevant products to your grant application. Include tangible milestones over the next 12 months.]
Q1 2024
Second audit of yield magnification platform and $XP
$XP bootstrapping event
Launch yield magnification platform and $XP
Q2 2024
Final comprehensive audit
$HOLY bootstrapping event
Launch design optimization platform and $HOLY
Audit History & Security Vendors: [Provide historic audits and audit results. Do you have a bug bounty program? Please provide details around your security implementation including any advisors and vendors.]
Halborn - Comprehensive; completed.
Guardian - $XP; ongoing.
Security Incidents: [Has your protocol ever been exploited? If so, please describe what, when and how for ALL incidents as well as the remedies to solve and mitigate for future incidents]
No.
SECTION 3: GRANT INFORMATION
Detail the requested grant size, provide an overview of the budget breakdown, specify the funding and contract addresses, and describe any matching funds if relevant.
Requested Grant Size: 500k $ARB
Justification for the size of the grant 19: [Enter explanation. More details are better, including how you arrived at the required funding for individual categories of expenses covered by your grant plan]
Grant Matching: [Enter Amount of Matching Funds Provided - If Relevant]
Grant Breakdown: [Please provide a high-level overview of the budget breakdown and planned use of funds]
The entire grant will be allocated to incentivizing user actions on Isekai; initially being:
- 50% to $XP tithing
- 50% to XP-ETH magnify
- 0% to XP engagers
Incentives may shift between these three allocations over time to target optimal distribution.
Funding Address: [Enter the specific address where funds will be sent for grant recipients]
Funding Address Characteristics: [Enter details on the status of the address; the eligible address must be a 2/3, 3/5 or similar setup multisig with unique signers and private keys securely stored (or an equivalent custody setup that is clearly stated). The multisig must be able to accept and interact with ERC-721s in order to accept the funding stream.
Treasury Address: 0xb6Ad6AC30b92Ce8D023f8f303A43172CC34D97BC
Contract Address: [Enter any specific address that will be used to disburse funds for grant recipients]
SECTION 4: GRANT OBJECTIVES, EXECUTION AND MILESTONES
Clearly outline the primary objectives of the program and the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), execution strategy, and milestones used to measure success. This helps reviewers understand what the program aims to achieve and how progress will be assessed.
Objectives: [Clearly state the primary objectives of the grant and what you intend to achieve]
The primary objectives of the grant is to:
- Drive Isekai’s capture of tokens
- $XP supply growth
- Redirect rewards from other chains to Arbitrum
The goal is to drive cross-chain liquidity that
Execution Strategy: [Describe the plan for executing including token distribution method (e.g. farming, staking, bonds, referral program, etc), what you are incentivizing, resources, products, use of funds, and risk management. This includes allocations for specific pools, eligible assets, products, etc.]
The LTIPP grant will be applied to:
- 50% (variable) to tithers via airdrop
- 50% (variable) to XP-ETH Magnifiers via an incentive controller (staking)
- 0% (variable) to XP engagers via an incentive controller (staking)
The weighting may be adjusted based on their efficaciousness to achieving the primary objectives.
What mechanisms within the incentive design will you implement to incentivize “stickiness” whether it be users, liquidity or some other targeted metric? [Provide relevant design and implementation details]
By design, tithing creates liquidity that permanently resides on Arbitrum and other chains. Regardless of chain, the benefits of said liquidity are ultimately redirected to Arbitrum via $XP.
eXP and XP-ETH magnify have similar mechanics to xGRAIL where sticky liquidity is economically encouraged.
Specify the KPIs that will be used to measure success in achieving the grant objectives and designate a source of truth for governance to use to verify accuracy. [Please also justify why these specific KPIs will indicate that the grant has met its objective. Distribution of the grant itself should not be one of the KPIs.]
TVL
TVL is a measure of the amount of value Isekai has been able to capture. Since a mint-on-capture mechanic is used, any TVL captured is permanently sticky.
Rewards passed through from other chains
$XP uses a protocol and chain-agnostic approach where non-Arbitrum rewards can be passed back to Arbitrum. Quantification of and changes in rewards passed through provides insight into value flow from external changes and efficacy of reward distribution.
DAU and Daily Transactions
DAU and daily transactions are a reflection of Isekai’s on-chain engagement.
Grant Timeline and Milestones: [Describe the timeline for the grant, including ideal milestones with respective KPIs. Include at least one milestone that shows progress en route to a final outcome. Please justify the feasibility of these milestones.]
Timelines
[Date 1] Public Testnet
[Date 2] Completion of Audit
[Date 3] Bootstrapping Event
[Date 4] Public launch of XP
Milestones
How will receiving a grant enable you to foster growth or innovation within the Arbitrum ecosystem? [Clearly explain how the inputs of your program justify the expected benefits to the DAO. Be very clear and tangible, and you must back up your claims with data]
$XP is a brand new yield primitive that has interesting interplays with other DeFi verticals such as yield optimizers, lending markets, and derivatives. Its chain-agnostic design in its minting mechanic also allows yield to be passed through from other chains back to Arbitrum.
Adequate incentivization will allow $XP to capture massive value from multiple chains to increase yield exposure to Arbitrum users without needing to leave the chain. As such, the value flow from external chains to Arbitrum is a KPI.
Do you accept the funding of your grant streamed linearly for the duration of your grant proposal, and that the multisig holds the power to halt your stream? Yes
SECTION 5: Data and Reporting
OpenBlock Labs has developed a comprehensive data and reporting checklist for tracking essential metrics across participating protocols. Teams must adhere to the specifications outlined in the provided link here: Onboarding Checklist from OBL 13. Along with this list, please answer the following:
Is your team prepared to comply with OBL’s data requirements for the entire life of the program and three months following and then handoff to the Arbitrum DAO? Are there any special requests/considerations that should be considered?
Yes.
Does your team agree to provide bi-weekly program updates on the Arbitrum Forum thread that reference your OBL dashboard? [Please describe your strategy and capabilities for data/reporting]
Yes, Dune Dashboard.
First Offense: *In the event that a project does not provide a bi-weekly update, they will be reminded by an involved party (council, advisor, or program manager). Upon this reminder, the project is given 72 hours to complete the requirement or their funding will be halted.
Second Offense: Discussion with an involved party (advisor, pm, council member) that will lead to understanding if funds should keep flowing or not.
Third Offense: Funding is halted permanently
Does your team agree to provide a final closeout report not later than two weeks from the ending date of your program? This report should include summaries of work completed, final cost structure, whether any funds were returned, and any lessons the grantee feels came out of this grant. Where applicable, be sure to include final estimates of acquisition costs of any users, developers, or assets onboarded to Arbitrum chains. (NOTE: No future grants from this program can be given until a closeout report is provided.)
Yes.
Does your team acknowledge that failure to comply with any of the above requests can result in the halting of the program’s funding stream?: [Y/N]
Yes.