L2BEAT Delegate Communication Thread

Intro

Firstly, allow us to introduce ourselves for anyone who isn’t already familiar with L2Beat or our actions in Arbitrum’s governance.

L2BEAT is an independent, public goods company who acts as an impartial watchdog for the Ethereum Layer2 ecosystem. Our mission is to provide comprehensive and unbiased analysis and comparative evaluations of Layer 2 solutions . We are committed to the verification and fact-checking of the claims made by each project, with a special focus on the security aspects. What sets L2BEAT apart is our unwavering commitment to delivering accurate and reliable information.

In addition, L2Beat has a governance team (@krst and @Sinkas) which actively participates in constructive discussions of specific protocol challenges and issues, fostering the discourse toward increasingly permissionless, open source, and trustless systems. Our participation in various DAOs and public debates reflects this commitment.

For more information on L2Beat and our participation in Arbitrum’s Governance, please refer to our delegate statement on Tally.

Delegate Communication Thread

To promote transparency and communication as delegates, we’ll be regularly updating the below thread with our actions in the governance of Arbitrum. Our updates will include how we voted for different proposals and our rationale, discussions we are engaged with, and our notes from important calls/events we attended.

Update #1

Voting

[Snapshot] Accelerating Arbitrum - leveraging Camelot as an ecosystem hub to support native builders - Voted FOR

After careful consideration of the pros and cons of the proposal, we decided to vote for the proposal. You can read our full rationale behind our decision, as well as a summary of the pros and cons here.

[Tally] Delegated Domain Allocation by Questbook - Voted FOR

Despite initially voting against the proposal (for reasons outlined here) in the Temperature Check, after long and diligent conversation with Saurabh from the Questbook team (which you can partly follow along here), we decided to vote in favor of the proposal.

[Tally] Fund the Grants Framework Proposal Milestone 1 - Voted FOR

We voted in favor of the proposal after attending workshops held by Pluralistic Labs and having conversations with them regarding their approach. We are convinced they are aligned with the DAO, as it’s evident from their overall presence (e.g with holding workshops, their active presence in the forums and participation in discussions).

[Tally] Update Security Council Election Start Date to Ensure Time for Security Audit - Voted FOR

After raising some points regarding the proposal which were addressed by the Foundation, we voted for the proposal.

Discussion

Open Governance Call #4

On Wednesday, 26/07/2023, we hosted the 4th Open Governance call, notes/summary of which you can find in the comments. The next Governance Call will be held on Wednesday, 23/08/2023.

RFC - Grant Proposal for Blockchain Product Development Incubation

We reviewed and provided feedback to an RFC regarding a blockchain product development incubation on Arbitrum.

L2Beat’s Arbitrum Office Hours

To further our communication with our constituents and any interested party in the community, we’re hosting recurring Office Hours on Google Meets.

The office hours will be held every Thursday at 3pm UTC/ 11am EST

During the Office Hours, you will be able to reach L2Beat’s governance team, which consists of @krst and @Sinkas and discuss our activity as delegates.

The purpose of the office hours is to gather feedback from the people who have delegated to us, answer any questions in regards to our voting activities and rationale, and collect input on things you’d like us engage in discussions about.

You can add the L2Beat Governance Calendar in your Google Calendar to find the respective Google Meets links for every call and to easily keep track of the Office Hours, as well as other important calls and events (e.g. voting deadlines) relevant to Arbitrum that L2Beat governance team will be attending or hosting.

12 Likes

trying to vote on this

1 Like

Voting

[Snapshot] Onboarding Matrixed.Link as a Validator - Voted AGAINST

You can find our extensive rationale for voting against the proposal here.

[Snapshot] Building the Future of NFTs: The Rarible Protocol - Voted FOR

After extensive discussion with the Rarible team, and after them revising their proposal based on the feedback they received, we decided to vote in favour of the proposal. A more thorough explanation of our rationale can be found here.

[Tally] Building the Future of NFTs: The Rarible Protocol- Voted FOR

Following a successful temp-check, the proposal from Rarible went to on-chain vote unaltered, and therefore we voted for it to pass, just as we did during temp check.

[Tally] Update Security Council Election Start Date to Ensure Time for Security Audit - Voted FOR

After the points that we raised were addressed in discussion in the public forums, we voted in favour of the proposal.

[Tally] Security Council Implementation Spec - Voted FOR

We were in agreement with the implementation spec provided in the Security Council Elections post and therefore we voted in favour of it during the on-chain vote.

[Tally] Arbitrum One Governance Parameter Fixes - Voted FOR

Having reviewed the proposed fixes as well as the associated security audit, we decided to vote for the proposal.

[Snapshot] Time Management in Arbitrum’s Governance - Voted FOR

We engaged in a conversation with @Cattin regarding their RFC and we decided to vote in favour of the proposal after suggesting some ways the proposal could be improved before going to an on-chain vote.

[Snapshot] Domain Allocators

After reviewing all applications for each domain, and after hosting 2 pitching sessions for domain allocators (more info below), we cast our vote for each domain. Our rationale for each domain can be found here.

[Snapshot] Arbitrum Short Term Incentive Program - Voted FOR

Having attended the liquidity incentives workshops, and after consulting with other delegates and relevant third parties regarding the potential impact of the program, we decided to vote for it, with a preferred allocation of 50M ARB.

[Tally] Arbitrum Short Term Incentive Program - Voted FOR

Following a successful temp-check which ended with our preferred allocation of 50M ARB as the most voted option, we cast our on-chain vote in favor of the program.

[Snapshot] Arbitrum as official sponsor of Ethereum Mexico 2023 - Voted AGAINST

Our vote against the proposal had more to do with the channel it was pursued through, rather than with the proposal itself. This proposal came after Questbook’s Grant program was voted on and after domain allocators were elected, and we believed that going through the program would be a more suitable avenue for the proposal. As a result, we voted against the proposal during temp check.

[Tally] Security Council Elections - Round 1 & Round 2

We cast our votes for both rounds after extensive internal discussion, research and due diligence. Our extensive rationale as well as the list of nominees we voted for in each round can be found here.

[Snapshot] STIP Applications

We reviewed and voted on all STIP applications. We shared our approach as well as reflections on the whole process here.

[Snapshot] Empowering Early Contributors: The community Arbiter Proposal - Voted AGAINST

While we’re very much in favour of rewarding contributors, we felt that the amount requested was too high, without relevant data supporting it. We shared our explanation under the original proposal.

[Snapshot] Build Optimal Onboarding for STIP Teams (BOOST) - Voted AGAINST

We like the idea of using quests to educate users and help protocols distribute their STIP funds in a streamlined way. Given there was another similar proposal from Rabbithole, we felt it’d be beneficial if discussed these proposals as a DAO in more depth before deciding on an approach. That’s why we decided to vote against for the time being, but shared our support in the forum.

Discussions

Hosted Open Governance Calls #5, #6, & #7

You can find the recording, chat log and transcript of Open Governance Call #5 here.

You can find the recording, chat log and transcript of Open Governance Call #6 here.

You can find the recording, chat log and transcript of Open Governance Call #7 here.

Domain Allocators Pitching Sessions

During the elections process for Domain Allocators for Questbook’s grant program, we organised and hosted 2 pitching sessions for Domain Allocators to introduce themselves and present their relevant experience to delegates.

Both calls were recorded and published in the forums to be available for people who were unable to make it.

Decrease Censorship Delay from 24 hours to 4 hours

Following the discussion both on the forums but also during the open governance call, we planned a separate call to discuss the proposal to reduce the censorship delay from 24 hours to 4 hours in more detail.

The recording of the call as well as the transcript can be found here.

[RFC] Introduction of a new role in governance - Governance Facilitator

We reviewed and provided our feedback to the proposal.

[RFC] Allow the PL-ARB Grants Safety Multisig to trade ARB for sequencer fee ETH

We reviewed and provided our feedback to the proposal.

[RFC] Delegate Incentive System for ArbitrumDAO

We had extensive conversations with @Cattin who brought forward the proposal on behalf of SEED Latam during our Office Hours, on Telegram, and during a community call hosted by SEED Latam. Overall, we believe it’s a very important topic for the DAO and as such we offered our extensive feedback to the proposal.

[RFC] Fund Arbitrum Odyssey 2.0 Airdrop

We reviewed the proposal and provided our feedback. Arbitrum Foundation announced Odyssey Reignited a week later and as a result the proposal wasn’t pursued any further.

Community Growth through Educational Content and Events & Protocol Owned Liquidity Calls

During Governance Call #6, there were 3 proposals that were briefly discussed. We followed up with organising and hosting 2 calls to facilitate a discussion around those proposals. These calls were not recorded.

[RFC] Activate ARB Staking

We shared our thoughts and feedback on a proposal by PlutusDAO to activate ARB staking.

Etherean League Gathering - Governance Workshop

L2BEAT is happy to announce that we’ll be hosting a Governance Workshop during L2DAYS in the context of Devconnect in Istanbul.

More information here.

L2BEAT Arbitrum Office Hours

Lastly, we want to remind everyone that to further our communication with our constituents and any interested party in the community, we’re hosting recurring Office Hours on Google Meets.

The office hours are held every Thursday at 3pm UTC/ 11am EST

During the Office Hours, you will be able to reach L2BEAT’s governance team, which consists of @krst and @Sinkas and discuss our activity as delegates.

The purpose of the office hours is to gather feedback from the people who have delegated to us, answer any questions in regards to our voting activities and rationale, and collect input on things you’d like us engage in discussions about.

You can add the L2BEAT Governance Calendar in your Google Calendar 10 to find the respective Google Meets links for every call and to easily keep track of the Office Hours, as well as other important calls and events (e.g. voting deadlines) relevant to Arbitrum that L2BEAT governance team will be attending or hosting.

6 Likes

Voting

[Snapshot] Arbitrum Security Enhancement Fund - Voted FOR

Even though Cyfrin withdrew their proposal in order to participate in the procurement framework, we decided to vote in favour of their proposal to signal our support.

[Snapshot] Activate ARB Staking - Voted FOR & Lowest Amount

After our initial comments were addressed, we decided to vote in favour of the proposal. We still believed the proposal could be improved before going to on-chain vote, and therefore we voiced our opinion after we voted.

[Snapshot] The Arbitrum Coalition - Voted ABSTAIN

We were originally included in the proposal as the pre-appointed “Advocate”, even though we did not participate in the formation of the coalition and did not co-author the proposal. However, we provided our extensive feedback and point of view for the consideration of other delegates in the forums.

[Snapshot] Procurement Framework | Security - Voted FOR

DK put forward a proposal to consolidate all security-related proposals in a procurement framework. Given the multiple proposals with that scope appearing on the forum at the same time, we believe that creating a framework to onboard them makes a ton of sense and therefore voted in its favour.

[Snapshot] Backfund Successful STIP Proposals - Voted FOR

Although we were initially hesitant to support the proposal, after extensive discussion with the team leading the initiative, and after our original concerns were addressed, we were happy to support the proposal.

[Tally] Backfund Successful STIP Proposals - Voted FOR

We voted in favour of the proposal following a successful temp-check.

[Snapshot] Funding Gas Rebate and Trading Competition Program to Amplify Arbitrum’s Ecosystem Growth - Voted AGAINST

We voted against the proposal since we believe it should have pursued funding through the STIP instead of coming directly to the DAO. We encouraged the proposer to resubmit their proposal during the second round of STIP, when it becomes available.

[Tally] Empowering Early Contributors: The community Arbiter Proposal - Voted AGAINST

Voting against the proposal was very difficult and it wasn’t a decision we made lightly. During temp-check, we communicated that we felt the requested amount was too high and that we’d be really supportive of the proposal if the request was lowered by a considerable amount. The proposal was submitted to on-chain vote without any amendment and therefore we stuck to our original decision. Our full rationale can be found here.

[Snapshot] ArbOS Version 11 - Voted FOR

We agreed with the proposed upgrades & fixes and their scope and voted in favour of the proposal during temp-check, while also committing to extensively review the proposed changes before the on-chain vote.

[Snapshot] Timeline Extension for STIP and Backfund Grantees - Voted Extend for Both

After reviewing the proposal and considering the implications of all options, we decided to vote in favour of extending the timeline both for original STIP recipients as well as for backfund grantees.

[Snapshot] Experimental Incentive System for Active ArbitrumDAO Delegates - Voted FOR

We’ve been involved in the discussion surrounding the concept of delegate incentives for the past few months, and we’ve actively provided our feedback through multiple RFCs before this proposal. Although we believe there are small improvements that can be made before the proposal goes to on-chain vote, we voted in favour of it during temp-check to signal our support. You can find our full rationale here.

[Snapshot] Establish the ‘Arbitrum Research & Development Collective - Voted For highest→lowest amount

We supported the proposal as we believe a collective similar to the one outlined will be very useful to the DAO.

Discussion

Ecosystem Security Fund by Sherlock

Sherlock put forward a proposal for the provision of security related services to the DAO and although they too withdrew their proposal to participate in the proposal to consolidate all security-related proposals into an RFP process, we dropped a comment in the forums to signal our support for their team.

Hosted Open Governance Call #9

You can find the recording, chat log and transcript of Open Governance Call #9 here.

L2BEAT Arbitrum Office Hours

Lastly, we want to remind everyone that to further our communication with our constituents and any interested party in the community, we’re hosting recurring Office Hours on Google Meets.

The office hours are held every Thursday at 4pm UTC/ 11am EST

During the Office Hours, you will be able to reach L2BEAT’s governance team, which consists of @krst and @Sinkas and discuss our activity as delegates.

The purpose of the office hours is to gather feedback from the people who have delegated to us, answer any questions in regards to our voting activities and rationale, and collect input on things you’d like us engage in discussions about.

You can add the L2BEAT Governance Calendar in your Google Calendar 10 to find the respective Google Meets links for every call and to easily keep track of the Office Hours, as well as other important calls and events (e.g. voting deadlines) relevant to Arbitrum that L2BEAT governance team will be attending or hosting.

Update on what we’ve been up to from December 2023 to April 2024.

Voting

[Snapshot] Security Council Improvement Proposal - Voted to Increase the Threshold to 9/11

We drafted the proposal to improve the structure of the security council as per the Stage 1 requirements according to L2BEAT’s framework of assessing the maturity of rollups. Since there was no case of self-dealing or personal enrichment of any kind, we also participated in the voting.

[Tally] ArbOS Version 11 - Voted FOR

We reviewed the executable code, and after finding no issues, we voted in favor of the upgrade.

[Snapshot] Establish the ArbitrumDAO Procurement Committee

We didn’t cast our vote in time but we signaled our support for the proposal in the forums.

[Snapshot] Long-Term Incentives Pilot Program - Voted FOR

After following the development of the proposal through the relevant working group, we decided to vote in its favor.

[Tally] Establish the Arbitrum Research & Development Collective - Voted FOR

We were supportive of the idea of having a dedicated team of industry experts ever since the proposal for the Arbitrum Coalition. The ARDC proposal addressed several concerns that delegates had with the Coalition and as a result, we voted in its favor.

[Snapshot] LTIPP Elections for the Council and Application Advisors

We participated in the elections for the LTIPP positions of the council and application advisors. Our choices and rationale behind each can be found here.

[Snapshot] Election of Procurement Committee Members (ADPC)

We participated in the election of the ADPC members. Our choices and the rationale behind them can be found here.

[Snapshot] Thank ARB by Plurality Labs - Milestone 2: Scaling Value Creation in the DAO - Voted AGAINST

After reviewing Milestone 1 in-depth, we voted against the proposal during temp-check. Later during the process, and based on delegate feedback, Plurality Labs withdrew their proposal.

[Tally] Establish the ArbitrumDAO Procurement Committee - Voted FOR

Although we missed the deadline for casting our vote during temp-check, we voted in favor of the proposal during the on-chain vote as we were supportive of it.

[Snapshot] Changes to the Constitution and the Security Council Election Process - Voted FOR

After reviewing the proposed changes and their implications, we voted for the proposal.

We also voted in favour of the proposal during the subsequent on-chain vote.

[Snapshot] Arbitrum Stable Treasury Endowment Program (STEP) - Voted FOR

Before the proposal went to a vote, we had been following its progress by participating in the related working group. We voted for the proposal during temp-check but requested some additions before committing to support the proposal on-chain.

[Snapshot] ArbOS Version 20 “Atlas” - Voted FOR

We voted for the proposal during the temp check and committed ourselves to reviewing the proposed changes in-depth before the on-chain vote. When the subsequent on-chain vote was created, we reviewed the changes and, after ensuring nothing was wrong, we voted for the proposal.

[Snapshot] Batch Poster Manager and Sequencer Inbox Finality Fix - Voted FOR

As with other similar votes, we voted for it during the temp check and committed to reviewing the proposed changes in-depth before the on-chain vote.

[Snapshot] Empowering Early Contributors: The community Arbiter Proposal 2.0 - Voted FOR

Following the revision of the proposal after their first version failed, we voted in favor of the proposal by the Arbiters.

[Snapshot] Funding for Into the Dungeons: Machinata - a PvP Digital Miniature Game V2 - Voted FOR

We were engaged in the conversation around the proposal, and after carefully reviewing the proposal, we decided to vote in its favor.

[Snapshot] Proposal to fund Plurality Labs Milestone 1B(ridge) - Voted ABSTAIN

Even though we voted against Plurality Labs’ Milestone 2 proposal, we were supportive of their Milestone 1B proposal. However, we had to abstain from voting as we were part of the proposal in the capacity of an Advisory Board member.

We also abstained in the subsequent on-chain vote for the same reason.

[Snapshot] Arbitrum Research and Development Collective Elections

We participated in the election for the members of the ARDC and voted for the Security, the Research, and the Risk members. We had to abstain from the DAO Advocate election because we were among the applicants.

You can see who we voted for as well as the rationale behind the choices here.

[Snapshot] Fix Fee Oversight ArbOS v20 “Atlas” - Voted FOR

After participating in the relevant call set up by the Foundation, we voted in favor of the proposal while also raising the point that it would be interesting to be able to manage contract parameters without having to do a full contract upgrade for every small change.

[Snapshot] Request for Continuation of the Arbitrum DDA Program Request - Voted FOR

After reviewing the performance of Questbook’s DDA program, we decided to vote for the proposal during the temp check. At the time of voting, we hadn’t published our review of Questbook’s similar to the one we published for the Plurality Labs program.

[Snapshot] Front-end interface to force transaction inclusion during sequencer downtime - Voted FOR

We believe the proposal to be really important to maintaining the permissionless and censorship-resistant nature of Arbitrum and therefore we voted in its favor.

[Snapshot] Catalyze Arbitrum Gaming: HADOUKEN! - Voted FOR

We voted in favor of the proposal during the temp check as we believe the proposal to be a strong signal to bring more games to Arbitrum.

[Snapshot] Expand Tally Support for the Arbitrum DAO - Voted FOR

We value Tally’s work in supporting Arbitrum’s governance and as such we voted in favor of the proposal.

[Snapshot] Double-Down on STIP Successes (STIP-Bridge) - Voted FOR

Although not fully comfortable with the proposal’s form during temp check, we decided to vote in its favor to keep the discussion going and hopefully improve it before the on-chain vote with the involvement of other delegates.

Discussions

Hosted Open Governance Call #10, #11, and #12

You can find the recording, chat log, and transcript of Open Governance Call #10 here.

You can find the recording, chat log, and transcript of Open Governance Call #11 here.

You can find the recording, chat log, and transcript of Open Governance Call #12 here.

Plurality Labs Milestone 1 Review

We conducted an in-depth review of Plurality Labs Milestone 1 and published it on the occasion of their Milestone 2 proposal going to a vote.

You can read the full review here.

Call for action - review of DDA program by Questbook

We published a call to action to remind delegates that Questbook’s DDA program was nearing its end and we should collectively review its performance so we can decide how to proceed. We also coordinated with the DDA team to host 2 calls on which they presented what they have funded to the DAO.

Elected as DAO Advocate

Together with Ant Federation, L2BEAT was elected as the DAO Advocate in the context of Arbitrum’s Research and Development Committee (ARDC). Over the next 6 months, we’ll be working on directing the ARDC’s efforts to have the best possible impact on Arbitrum’s DAO while also remaining in constant communication with the DAO and its stakeholders.

We set up a separate communication thread for DAO Advocate updates.

L2BEAT Arbitrum Office Hours

Lastly, we want to remind everyone that to further our communication with our constituents and any interested party in the community, we’re hosting recurring Office Hours on Google Meets.

The office hours are held every Thursday at 3 pm UTC/ 11 am EST

During Office Hours, you will be able to reach L2BEAT’s governance team, which consists of @krst and @Sinkas, and discuss our activity as delegates.

The purpose of the office hours is to gather feedback from the people who have delegated to us, answer any questions in regard to our voting activities and rationale, and collect input on things you’d like us to engage in discussions about.

You can add the L2BEAT Governance Calendar in your Google Calendar to find the respective Google Meets links for every call and to easily keep track of the Office Hours, as well as other important calls and events relevant to Arbitrum that L2BEAT governance team will be attending or hosting.

3 Likes

The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.

After reviewing the applications to STIP Bridge and the qualitative data on their performance shared by Blockworks after their research in the context of ARDC, we have decided to vote in the way outlined below.

Our decisions were made based on a combination of past performance during STIP and our ability to assess it based on the available data, the violation (or not) of the rules of either STIP or STIP Bridge, as well as whether or not a team adequately addressed the concerns raised in the challenge of their protocol’s application.

MUX - For

While Mux’s request was among the biggest in the STIP Bridge, we voted in its favor because there were no significant concerns related to their incentive mechanism or their performance during STIP.

Stargate - For

Stargate ran into complications with KYC during STIP and did not receive their allocated ARB. We see their application to STIP Bridge as a second opportunity at STIP. We voted in Stargate’s favor, given that we had no specific concerns regarding their application.

Solv - For

Solv achieved impressive growth during STIP, and the protocol met the KPI goals that it had set in its original STIP application. We voted in their favor, but we would like to see better reporting from the team from here on forward, as they failed to provide any updates other than the final report.

Sanko GameCorp - For

Sanko saw solid growth during the STIP, which it managed to maintain even after the incentives ended. There were no immediate concerns with their STIP Bridge application, and therefore, we voted in its favor. As with Solv, however, we’d like to see Sanko do better with reporting, as they failed to provide any update during STIP.

Tide - Against

Tide is requesting 120% of the ARB they received during STIP, which is against the rules outlined in the STIP Bridge proposal. Additionally, the protocol still controls 15,000 ARB (18,5%) from their STIP grant that hasn’t been distributed. Since the team did not a) reduce their STIP.B request and b) did not address the leftover funds, we have decided to vote against their application.

KyberSwap - For

KyberSwap was exploited in November 2023 and had to halt the distribution of incentives from their STIP allocation. Their original grant was for 1,500,000 ARB from which they only distributed 69,871 ARB (428,572 claimed - 358,701 returned to the treasury). While we understand that there are no metrics with which to evaluate KyberSwap’s performance during STIP, we also appreciate the team’s approach of requesting 450,000 in STIP.B (or 30% of their original allocation). We believe it’s a fair meet-in-the-middle request, and as a result, we have voted in its favor.

Gains - For

Gains achieved strong growth during STIP, and the primary concerns raised from the data by Blockworks have been adequately addressed by the team in their response to their addendum being challenged. We have decided to vote in favor of their application to STIP.B.

Boost (Rabbithole) - Against

Boost had an extremely high sybil ratio, and the structure of the incentive mechanism itself was prone to farming. Furthermore, although Boost clarified that they didn’t use the funds from STIP to pay for operational expenses directly, the funds ultimately ended up with Boost Guild and were used to reward contributors.

Thales - Against

While Thales addressed some of the concerns, including their distribution mechanism and why they still have 110,000 ARB from STIP, they did not address the fact that they seemingly used 30,000 ARB from STIP to pay for a Layer3 marketing campaign. Using funds from STIP to cover any operational expenses, including marketing, goes against the rules of the original proposal. As a result, we have voted against their application.

Savvy - Against

Savvy changed their STIP incentive distribution mechanism halfway through the program and allocated more than half to their new bond product, which involved selling ARB to acquire protocol-owned liquidity. Selling the ARB allocated by the STIP was strictly against the rules of the original proposal. Although their approach is now different, as stated in their addendum, we also believe that their request is relatively big compared to their TVL, accounting for roughly 25% of it at the time of writing. As a result, we have decided to vote against their application.

Stake - Against

Stake still has over half of the ARB allocated to them during STIP since complications during KYC prevented them from starting the distribution in time. With that in mind, their request from STIP Bridge should have been much smaller and should only act as a buffer to the amount they’d need to last them until the end of the STIP.B distribution window. The team, however, requested an amount that we cannot justify, and as such, we have decided to vote against their application.

Furucombo - Against

Furucombo is requesting more than five times their STIP grant, which goes against the STIP Bridge’s application rules. In addition, the funds from their STIP allocation are unaccounted for after they were transferred to a centralized exchange, for which Furucombo hasn’t offered any clarification. As a result, we have voted against their application.

Socket - Against

Socket’s reporting during STIP was lackluster, to the extent that we feel we could not properly assess their performance and the effects the incentives had. While the team has returned the ARB that was left over from STIP, we cannot, in good conscience, vote in favor of their application without being able to assess their performance. As a result, we have voted against their application.

Angle - Against

Angle’s reporting during STIP was lackluster, to the extent that we felt we could not properly assess their performance and the effects the incentives had. With the information we did have at our disposal, the results weren’t as encouraging as we would have hoped. As a result, we have decided to vote against their application.

OpenOcean - Against

OpenOcean’s incentive structure was somewhat unclear, which made it difficult to assess STIP’s effectiveness in the protocol. While we appreciate the team’s responsiveness under their addendum, we have decided to vote against their application.

Thetanuts Finance - For

Thetanuts had a decent increase in their TVL during STIP, and although there were concerns that they might have farmed their incentives through protocol-owned liquidity, they offered clarifications, which we felt adequately addressed the concerns. As a result, we voted in favor of their application.

Dolomite - For

Dolomite’s growth was impressive during STIP, although the incentive mechanism could be perceived as questionable. Dolomite hasn’t addressed the concerns raised in the challenge, so making an informed decision was difficult. Ultimately, taking into account their impressive growth metrics we decided to vote in favor of the continuation of this incentive program.

Umami - For

Umami addressed the concerns raised in their STIP Bridge challenge and clarified using oARB. Furthermore, they have changed their incentive structure for their addendum to a direct distribution. With that in mind, we have voted in favor of their application.