Long Term Incentives Pilot Program

Proposals Finalized AIPs
19

Abstract

This AIP establishes a Long Term Incentives Pilot Program for the DAO to test new incentives designs and answer the necessary questions to ensure we are ready to commit to the long-term program. This Pilot Program will distribute 25-45M ARB to protocols building on Arbitrum. The exact amount will be determined by the DAO via Snapshot vote and will be ratified via Tally vote. The program will distribute ARB to protocols for 12 weeks.

Motivation

Testing Incentives Mechanisms For a Long-Term Framework

The Arbitrum DAO has spent the last few months experimenting with incentive programs to attract new users and liquidity to Arbitrum. There is a consensus the DAO will use what we learn from these short-term programs to establish a long-term framework. While STIP V1 brought tons of attention to Arbitrum and has resulted in upticks in protocol metrics, we have learned there were many flaws with the structure of STIP Round 1. This Pilot Program looks to implement new mechanisms to address the issues seen in STIP V1. The DAO will use this Pilot Program as a test run for a long-term framework before committing to a year-long program.

The Pilot Program will operate using a Council, have Application Advisors to ensure protocols receive adequate feedback and assistance, and allow protocols more freedom to create innovative ARB incentive plans. We believe these changes will help remedy many of the pain points seen in Round 1. Running the Pilot Program to test these new features will allow the DAO to compare different program methods before implementing a long-term framework beginning in Q2 2024. This will help ensure we have all the knowledge necessary to implement the most effective long-term incentives program for Arbitrum.

Why Protocols Need a Round 2

STIP was an experimental program to distribute ARB to protocols to use as incentives for their users. While it was initially intended to have two rounds, the program was substantially more popular than expected, and the entire 50M ARB budget was used in Round 1 as was permissible in the original rules.

This meant no funds remained for Round 2, leading to its cancellation. Many protocols either missed the Round 1 deadline or intentionally waited for Round 2. This left several protocols with no alternative route to apply for ARB incentives. Many STIP Round 1 grantees have seen upticks in their metrics. This Pilot Program would allow protocols that missed out on Round 1 the opportunity to apply to gain these benefits, which will help level the playing field for these protocols. The Pilot Program will replace a round 2 and will be funded with 25M-45M ARB to accommodate the large expected protocol demand we have already seen. This will complete the incentivizing of Arbitrum-based teams to create a holistic competitive edge not against each other but against other chains.

Rationale

There is a DAO consensus that Arbitrum will need a long-term incentive program in 2024. However, many delegates feel the DAO is moving too quickly and spending too much money on backfund or V2 proposals without yet receiving any of the data on STIP’s effectiveness.

We have learned a lot from STIP and can use what went wrong in STIP and the Backfund to hypothesize what changes would create a better long-term framework. However, we have little evidence to prove these new ideas would be a better solution. DAO members currently don’t have the resources or funds to create a long-term program, nor do we understand what a good long-term program looks like.

This proposal focuses on obtaining this evidence using a committed working stream to guarantee we come away from this program ready to make informed decisions on a long-term framework. The pilot program also allows the DAO to test new aspects of an incentive program such as Application Advisors, Councils, and more flexible incentive distributions before committing long-term.

This will help save the DAO money and time in the long term by preventing the need for more short-term programs before we are ready to commit to the Long-Term Framework.

Specifications

Problem / Solutions:

The specifications of the Pilot Program were designed to remedy the 3 largest complaints regarding STIP Round 1. The Pilot Program hopes to be a test run for these additions for the DAO to determine if they should also be included in the long-term framework.

Problem #1: Too large a burden placed on delegates

In the original STIP, delegates voted on each incentive proposal individually, with almost 100 snapshot votes. This was extremely tiring for delegates and left many feeling they could not make informed decisions on every proposal.

Solution #1

To remedy this problem, the Pilot Program will have a 5 person council elected by the DAO responsible for evaluating applications and selecting which protocols will advance to a snapshot vote to receive ARB. This will ensure all applications are thoughtfully evaluated with only the most deserving receiving incentives. Not only will this help to reduce the burden on delegates, but it will also help expedite the process and allow protocols to receive incentives quickly and efficiently.

Problem #2: Protocols did not receive adequate feedback on their proposals

A major gripe from protocols was they struggled to get feedback from delegates before the deadline. This left many feeling as though the better-connected protocols had an advantage as they were able to modify their proposals based on feedback to make them more competitive during the vote. Many protocols were willing to make changes to their applications to make them more appealing to the DAO but never received the proper feedback necessary to do so.

Solution #2

The Pilot Program introduces Application Advisors. This will be impartial organizations tasked with providing each applicant with detailed feedback and guidance on how to improve their applications. This ensures each applicant can iterate on their proposal so they can put forward the best possible incentive plan for the council.

Problem #3: Strict Limitations on Incentives Mechanisms

STIP Round 1 had strict limitations on how the ARB could be used as incentives. This was done to protect the DAO and prevent misuse of funds. However, the strict rules resulted in the stifling of many innovative incentive designs. Many protocols had interesting designs that used the ARB in ways that increased alignment, improved cost efficiency, or helped to limit the dumping of ARB. However, these designs were not permitted in Round 1 leading to almost all protocols resulting in generic liquidity incentive models.

Solution #3

The Pilot Program provides more flexibility to protocols to create innovative incentive structures. With the addition of the Council and Application Advisors, the Pilot Program does not require the rules to be as stringent. Malicious or inefficient designs will be first filtered out by the Application Advisors and then rejected by the council. Allowing protocols to innovate on incentive distribution mechanisms will allow Arbitrum protocols and community members to get a better idea of which designs work and which don’t work. This will help everyone as we prepare for a longer-term incentives program.

Flow of V2

Application Period (2 week)

Protocols will have 2 weeks to apply using the Pilot Program application template. The application template will be created by the Council and the Application Advisors to ensure everyone has the same goals and make it easier for the council to process applications. Applications will be posted in the Pilot Program section of the Arbitrum forum. Protocols only need to post the initial draft of their application during this period. They will then have 2 additional weeks during the feedback period to edit their applications. No late submissions will be accepted.

Feedback Period (2 weeks)

During the feedback period, the Applications Advisors will provide feedback and guidance on all proposals. Protocols will be assigned an Application Advisor who will provide feedback and guidance on applications on a rolling basis. Protocols will then use this time to work with the Advisors to edit their proposals before applications lock at the end of the 2 weeks.

StableLab will also read all submissions during this period and highlight any rule violations to allow applicants to edit their submissions to ensure they comply with all program rules.

Screening Period (1 week)

During this period, the council will use the pre-determined rubric to grade each protocol and decide which protocols will advance to the voting period to receive ARB. The Council will use the rubric to select which applications will progress to a snapshot vote. The protocols that the council selects to advance to a snapshot vote must have a total funding amount that is equal to or lower than the incentives budget. This will ensure the DAO does not overspend should all Snapshot votes pass. Any unused funds will be returned to the DAO.

The rubric will be created by the Council and Application Advisors during the Tally voting period and will be publicly available by the time protocols begin to apply. The council will be required to publish a brief reasoning for all of their decisions on the forum to create transparency and accountability.

The council must judge applications as they are and cannot accept protocols at lower amounts than their application states. For example, if an application asks for 200,000 ARB the council can not fund them with 100,000 ARB

EXAMPLE: This is a hypothetical example using a budget of 10 ARB with 50 applicants that each request 1 ARB

50 protocols apply requesting 1 Arb Each → Councils grades all 50 applications using the rubric and narrow the selection down to the top 10 applicants to not exceed the budget → 10 snapshot votes are created to allow the DAO to confirm the council’s decisions → 9/10 Snapshot votes receive a majority of “fund” votes → 9 protocols are funded with 1 ARB each and 1 Arb is returned to the DAO

Voting Period (1 Week)

Upon completion of the preliminary applicant screening process by the council, the selected applications will be formally presented for consideration. Each application will then be subject to a voting process via Snapshot, allowing Arbitrum delegates to vote on the allocation of funds. In the event that the Snapshot vote is favorably concluded, the respective protocol will commence receiving its funding through an Hedgey stream, facilitated by oSnap execution pending the protocol successfully passing KYC.

Incentives Period (12 weeks)

Selected protocols will receive their requested ARB using bi-weekly Hedgey streams for 12 weeks. During this time, protocols will be required to provide bi-weekly updates on the progress of their incentives using this template. Protocols will be required to finish their incentive distributions or return any unused funds two weeks after their final disbursement is available.

During this period Application Advisors will continue to work with the protocols to help them analyze and improve their distribution mechanisms. Protocols will be allowed to adjust their incentive plans as long as they do not violate any rules and provide their updated plans in their next bi-weekly update.

Roles & Responsibilities

The Council

The council will comprise 5 DAO members. These members should be unbiased and knowledgeable builders or delegates with experience in incentive programs, grants councils, or growing a protocol.

The council will decide which protocols will progress to a snapshot vote to be awarded the ARB incentives. The council does not need to spend the entire incentives budget should they feel there are not enough quality applications. Any unused funds will be returned to the DAO to be used in the Long Term Framework.

The council members will be responsible for creating a rubric that all protocols will be judged against. The council will design this rubric with input from the Application Advisors and will communicate what they are looking for with the Application Advisors to ensure the Application Advisors guide protocols in the right direction. The highest-scoring protocols will progress to Snapshot votes to allow the DAO to determine if they should receive ARB. The council will be responsible for publishing the graded rubrics as well as a brief explanation for all decisions.

The council will also be responsible for determining when to halt a protocol’s stream should they violate program rules or misuse funds. All reports of violations will be evaluated by the council. It will require 4 out of 5 council members to vote in favor of halting the stream for a stream to be stopped. Streams can also be halted via a DAO snapshot vote should the DAO disagree with the council’s judgment.

Additionally, the council will select who completes each research bounty. While there is 200,000 ARB allocated for research bounties. This selection will be made via a simple majority by council members and will require them to provide their reasoning for all choices made. The council does not need to spend the full amount should they receive lower budget requests or do not find an appropriate party to fill a bounty.

Council Election

The 5 council members will be selected by DAO vote. The 5 Council Applicants with the most votes will be elected to serve on the council for the Pilot Program.

Those who wish to serve on the council can apply here. Once the Pilot Program moves to a snapshot vote, anyone who applied to be a council member will be included in a simultaneous snapshot poll to allow the DAO to select who will sit on the council.

Those who serve on the Pilot Program Council are not guaranteed to be included on a council in the full Long Term Incentives Program. There will be new elections to select council members when it comes time for the full long-term program.

Council Workload:

The exact amount of hours the Council position will require is difficult to estimate given this is the first time the DAO will use a council for incentives. However, the following is an estimated breakdown.

Designing Rubric and Application Template: 20 hours

Grading Protocols and providing Reasoning: 4 hours per protocol.

Determining if a stream should be halted: 5 hours per week

Selecting Research Bounties: 4 hours per applicant

Council Responsibilities:

  • Design a rubric with the help of Application Advisors to grade applications
  • Grade all protocols against the rubric to determine who will progress to snapshot vote
  • Provide public reasoning for all funding decisions made
  • Decide whether a protocol’s funding should be halted if they violate the rules or fail to distribute ARB
  • Read over all Research Bounty applications and select who completes each research bounty based on the budget requested and level of expertise in that field of research.

Council Members

Council members will be elected via a Snapshot vote and will be added to this proposal before it progresses to an on-chain vote to allow the DAO to ratify the council. Those who wish to serve on the council can apply here.

  • TBA 1
  • TBA 2
  • TBA 3
  • TBA 4
  • TBA 5

Removing Council Members

Should the DAO feel a member or members of the council are not fulfilling their duty they may remove them using a snapshot vote.

Anyone will sufficient voting power can initiate a Snapshot poll to remove council member(s). Should the poll receive a majority “remove” votes the council member(s) will be immediately removed.

Should this occur there will then be a week-long application process where replacement council members can apply via the forum. This will be followed by a Snapshot vote to elect replacement member(s).

Application Advisors

Overview

Three Application Advisors will help protocols design, implement, and update their incentive plans. Application Advisors are integral to the proposal process, serving as impartial entities with DeFi expertise. Their primary function is to provide detailed, unbiased feedback on applications, aiding protocols in refining and improving their submissions.

The Application Advisors will also work closely with the council to create the application template and grading rubric. This will ensure the council and advisors are on the same page so they can provide the best feedback to applicants and ensure the council understands the details of the incentive mechanisms the Advisors are helping protocols design.

As this is an experimental addition to the incentives framework, having expert advisors working with protocols will help protocols and the DAO understand what is most helpful from an advisor and allow the DAO to adjust the role for the longer-term framework. This will also help protocols design more innovative incentive distribution mechanisms that can be tested to see how effective they are going into a long-term incentives framework.

Responsibilities

Collaboration with Council and Program Manager: Work jointly to design the application template, KPIs, and a grading rubric, ensuring alignment with council expectations and clarity in the evaluation process.

Feedback and Recommendations: Offer detailed feedback on each eligible application assigned to your team during the review period.

Communication with Applicants: Engage actively with applicants to streamline the application process, aiding in proposal improvements and clarifications.

Hosting Office Hours: Schedule and conduct public office hours 3 times per week while the program is running for protocols to seek advice. This will focus on transparency and accessibility. All interactions during these sessions will be recorded and summarized for everyone. Order of speaking during office hours will be on a first come first serve basis.

Expectations

Impartiality: Advisors must remain unbiased, especially as they do not have the final say in proposal acceptance. While application advisors will work closely with the council members to create the Rubric, advisors should not interfere with the votes from the council nor guarantee any outcome to projects they speak with.

Continuous Engagement: Post-application feedback is crucial, as is ongoing involvement in the later stages of the process, subject to discussion and agreement with relevant parties. There may also be later involvement in the process when the program is running or over.

Timeline and Process

Pre-Application Phase: Advisors are required to hold open office hours, focusing on guiding applicants in preparing their proposals.

Application Review Phase: Each proposal receives at least one detailed feedback report addressing key criteria established by the DAO.

Post-Application Feedback: After the submission of proposals, advisors provide insights on the process and suggest improvements for future cycles.

Selection and Ratification

Application Advisors will be elected via a Snapshot vote and will be added to this proposal before it progresses to an on-chain vote to allow the DAO to ratify. Those who wish to serve on the council can apply here.

Once the Pilot Program moves to a snapshot vote, anyone who applied to be an Application Advisor will be included in a simultaneous snapshot poll to allow the DAO to select the Advisors.

Those who serve as a Pilot Program Advisor are not guaranteed to be included onboarded in the full Long Term Incentives Program. There will be new elections to select Advisors when it comes time for the full long-term program.

The application to be an advisor is currently open here: LTI Pilot Program Position Application Thread

  • TBA 1
  • TBA 2
  • TBA 3

The Multisig

The same STIP-ARB multisig used in Round 1 and the backfund proposal will continue for The Pilot Program. The funds in the multisig belong to the DAO, and the signers act as grant managers on behalf of the DAO in coordination with the Arbitrum Foundation. Funds held in the multisig are explicitly banned from usage in DAO governance, including delegation.

The STIP-ARB multisig includes two features to ensure the accountability of signers and grantees:

  1. Clawback capability so the DAO can retrieve funds if the multisig violates the agreement.
  2. Streaming of funds to grantees every second week for the grant’s duration using Hedgey. This allows for the halting of funds if misuse is discovered to stop bad actors, not punish bad designs.

Program Manager

The Program Manager will be responsible for coordinating between all parties involved to ensure the Pilot Program runs smoothly. They will be available to answer any questions the DAO has regarding the Pilot Program and will publish bi-weekly reports so the community understands the status of the program. The Project Manager will be available to the community at least 40 hours a week. This role is designed to add efficiency and clarity to all aspects of the Pilot Program. The Program Manager will have no input into which protocols receive funds. However, they will be responsible for handling any operational tasks that arise throughout the Pilot Program.

Matt from StableLab will act as the program manager. StableLab will function in a similar capacity as they did for STIP Round 1. They will help coordinate between the multisig, council, Application Advisors, applicants, foundation, and community to ensure the Pilot Program program runs smoothly. StableLab will serve as a neutral party and have no power to decide which protocols receive funding or which streams are halted.

StableLab was responsible for designing this Pilot Program and will continue working on designing a long-term Framework with the help of the incentives working group and the DAO. StableLab will be responsible for publishing a research report on the effectiveness of the Pilot Program and their findings on how it operationally compared to STIP V1.

Should the DAO feel StableLab is not fulfilling their duties as program manager, they may remove them using a snapshot vote. An emergency Snapshot vote will then be used to elect a replacement program manager.

In the Long Term Incentives Framework, this position will be decided by the DAO. However, because the Pilot Program is intended to move quickly, it will continue using StableLab’s services given they have experience from managing STIP V1 and already have knowledge from designing this process.

Program Manager Responsibilities

  • Provide feedback on all applications regarding their eligibility. They will not provide any thoughts on the merits of the applications.
  • Answer any questions regarding incentives from the community, protocols, council, Application Advisors, foundation, and multisig
  • Handle forum communication regarding the program.
  • Provide bi-weekly updates on the progress of the program.
  • Organize the Council and Advisor Elections
  • Help the council coordinate the review and selection process. They will have no say in the council’s decisions.
  • Help the data provider coordinate with protocols.
  • Coordinate KYC progress with foundation and multisig.
  • Coordinate streams between multisig and protocols.
  • Continue designing the Long Term Framework, ensuring it has DAO approval and will be ready to begin in Q2 2024.
  • Publish a detailed research report breaking down the operational effectiveness of the Pilot Program compared to STIP V1 in terms of DAO costs and effort.

Data Provider

Overview

As in STIP round 1 and the Backfund proposal, the Pilot Program will use a service provider for data monitoring and reporting.

Responsibilities

Making Data Publically Available: The Data provider will be responsible for publically displaying data from all funded protocols. This will serve two purposes. First, it will allow the entire community to see the success of the program. Second, it will ensure those completing the Research Bounties have access to this information so they can provide proper analysis of this data. This will allow for the Bounty completers to provide better reports and data visualizations for the community. This provides the DAO with a decentralized method for analyzing and understanding how effective this program is as well as better setting up the DAO for the Long Term Framework.

Data required to report:

  • TVL
  • Transactions
  • Users
  • Fees Generated
  • Volume
  • Protocol Type
  • Contracts Incentivized
  • Impact per ARB

Communication with Protocols: Engage actively with funded protocols to collect all data necessary.

Monitor For Misuse of Funds: The data provider will monitor data from all funded protocols to detect any misuse of funds. Should they find suspicious activity the data Provider will be responsible for sharing this with the Council.

Create a Recap Report: The Data provider will be responsible for creating a recap report that tells the story of the Pilot Program and breaks down the successes and failures of the different incentive strategies.

Expectations

Impartiality: The Data Provider must remain unbiased. While the Data providers will not have the power to halt streams themselves, they must be impartial when it comes to reporting the data and examining for any misuse of funds. Any suspicious behavior they find must be communicated to the council for further review.

Continuous Monitoring: The Data Provider must continually update the data to reflect the latest updates. This will ensure the bounty researchers and community have access to the correct information. They also must continually monitor for misuse of funds to allow the council to act quickly should any issues arise

Timeline and Process

Post-Selection Phase: The Data Provider will communicate with all funded protocols to ensure they can collect all necessary data and understand which contracts are being incentivized.

Incentives Phase: The Data Provider will continually update the data and monitor for any violations.

Selection and Ratification

This will be an elected position in the long-term program. Additionally, given the long-term framework will have a much larger scope and will include many separate incentive categories, it will most likely require the DAO to onboard multiple different organizations to handle the long-term framework’s data monitoring and reporting. However, because the Pilot Program is intended to move quickly, the Data provider will be selected and ratified by the DAO similar to STIP round 1. Potential data providers are currently being discussed and vetted and will be added to this proposal before it progresses to a vote to allow the DAO to ratify.

Research Bounties

The Pilot Program proposal will include research bounties to ensure the DAO collects sufficient data and draws meaningful conclusions from STIP, the Backfund, and the LTIP Pilot Program. There will be up to 200,000 ARB available to those who complete bounties.

When this proposal goes live to Tally, it will include many questions the DAO wants answered. Some examples Include:

  • Which protocol incentive designs were most effective at attracting sticky users/liquidity?
  • What is an appropriate budget for a Long Term Incentives Incentive Program?
  • What was more effective the council or delegates voting?
  • What category of protocol received the most funding? Were any categories left out?

Researchers will then apply to claim these bounties by providing why they are the best fit to answer the question as well as providing a budget. The council will be responsible for selecting who completes each bounty. This process guarantees the DAO will have multiple teams working on providing meaningful conclusions regarding incentive programs. These conclusions will be essential to allow the DAO to possess all the information necessary to create the best possible long-term incentive framework.

Retroactive Community Funding

In STIP Round 1 we saw many community members go above and beyond by providing valuable contributions without any funding. 100,000 ARB will be allocated for retroactive funding to community members who add valuable contributions during the Pilot Program. Earmarking these funds upfront lets people know there will be retro funding which will encourage community members to contribute. This section is intentionally vague to encourage all kinds of community contributions. The DAO will have the final say in how these funds will be used.

Arbitrum Delegates

This program is designed to reduce the large burden delegates faced during STIP round 1. While many of their responsibilities are replaced by the Council and Application Advisors, the Arbitrum delegates will still retain the final say in many aspects of this proposal.

Delegates will retain the following powers:

  • Elect Council Members and Application Advisors
  • Ratify all additional roles included in this proposal
  • Remove any position holder via a snapshot vote should the delegates feel they are not fulfilling their responsibilities
  • Veto any funding decision made by the council
  • propose the final research bounty questions

Eligibility Requirements

The pilot program is intended for protocols that did not receive ARB during STIP or the Backfund. However, protocols that received grants from the Arbitrum Foundation, Questbook’s grant program, or any other Arbitrum Grants program are eligible to receive Pilot Program funding. Additionally, receiving funding from the Pilot Program does not prohibit protocols from applying for funding from other DAO or foundation programs including the Long Term Incentives Program.

Additional eligibility requirements

  • Grantees must be live on Arbitrum at the time of application
  • Grantees must refrain from farming their own incentive programs.
  • Grantees must outline a spending plan, provide a pro forma, and state the grant’s objective.
  • Grantees must commit to providing data on distributions, all ARB spending transactions, and key metrics like daily TVL, transactions, volumes, unique addresses, and transaction fees. This data should cover 30 days before, during, and after the Incentivization period, and be presented preferably in a Dune Spell/dashboard.
  • Grantees must agree to share all contract addresses being used to distribute incentive rewards.
  • Grantees must disclose the contracts being incentivized and denote any external contracts being incentivized as part of the program.
  • Grantees can only incentive contracts on the Arbitrum Network.
  • Grants are not to be used in DAO governance.
  • Grantees are expected to not encourage or partake Sybil attacks against the forum to sway community opinion.
  • Grantees must agree to KYC with the Arbitrum Foundation to receive funds.
  • Grantees must apply using the approved program application template

By streaming grant payments, the multisig will be empowered to hold grantees accountable to their proposals by halting fund streaming for any of the following reasons:

  • Any use of funds not explicitly described in the grantee’s application.
  • Failure to comply with data reporting standards.
    • Grantee recipients will be required to provide Dune dashboards uploaded and posted to the forum
      • Dashboard requirements are: Daily TVL, transactions, volumes, unique addresses, and transaction fees for incentivized protocols. This data should cover 30 days before, during, and after the Incentivization period. If a metric does not apply, or this is not achievable, it should be noted in the application.
      • More granular dashboards (including pool-level and user analysis) will be noted by the community for future programs.
    • If dashboards are not posted by this date, the multisig will be empowered to halt incentive funding streams for protocols at their discretion.

In that this proposal aims to be experimental, the multisig is not intended to provide quality control on the design of incentive programs. Rather, they are empowered to halt streaming in the event of negligence or misuse of funds.

Steps to Implement

  • Protocols can begin applying for incentives after a snapshot vote passes.
  • At the same time, it is recommended applicants begin the KYC process with the foundation to expedite the process should they receive funding.
  • Once protocols begin applying, the Application Advisors and the council will begin providing feedback on proposals on a first come first serve basis.
  • Once this proposal passes the on-chain vote, the total amount of ARB will be sent to the multisig.
  • Protocols will work with Application Advisors to improve their applications.
  • The Council will design a rubric and grade each application using this rubric to select which applications are funded.
  • All protocols that will be receiving funding will have to pass KYC and sign grant agreements.
  • Once the foundation notifies the program manager and multisig that protocols are ready for funding, the program manager will coordinate with the protocols, and the multisig will initiate the streams.
  • Research Bounties will be selected and completed throughout the process.

Overall Cost

Total Cost: 25,815,000 - 45,815,000 ARB

  • Incentives: 25,000,000 - 45,000,000 ARB. The exact amount will be determined by the DAO through a Snapshot vote. The entire budget does not need to be spent by the council. Any unused funds will be returned to the DAO
  • Council Members: 125,000 ARB - 25,000 ARB each
  • Application Advisors: 105,000 ARB - 35,000 ARB each
  • Research Bounties: 200,000 ARB Total - the exact amount and sizes of specific bounties will be selected by the Council and can be vetoed by delegates.
  • Data and Analytics Provider: 150,000 ARB for data monitoring and reporting
  • Program Manager: 100,000 ARB for program design, organization, management, research report, and continuing development of the Long Term Incentives Framework. See the full list of responsibilities above.
    Proposal Creation Assistance: 15,000 ARB - 10,000 ARB for Alex Lumley and 5,000 ARB for Bobby Bola for their time spent assisting with proposal design, hosting proposal office hour calls, and communicating with delegates to gather feedback.
  • Retroactive Community Funding: 100,000 ARB
  • Multisig Signers: 20,000 ARB - 2,500 ARB each

Voting Options

  1. Fund Pilot Program with 45,815,000 ARB
  2. Fund Pilot Program with 35,815,000 ARB
  3. Fund Pilot Program with 25,815,000 ARB
  4. Don’t Fund Pilot Program
8 Likes