The below response 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 following the development of the proposal through the relevant working group, we have decided to vote in its favour during temp-check.
It is apparent that the LTIP working group put a lot of thought into addressing the challenges delegates faced during STIP and although the proposal isn’t perfect, it’s a huge step forward. And, considering this is a pilot program, it’s a good stepping stone upon which the DAO can iterate in the future.
Having a council screen applications before having the delegates vote on them is a great way to ease the burden put on delegates, while at the same time letting them retain the decision-making power. On a similar note, enabling applying protocols to have someone to turn to (Application Advisors) to get feedback will allow them to create even better proposals, thus increasing their chances of being accepted, and in turn potentially increasing the positive impact they can have on the broader Arbitrum ecosystem.
The biggest improvement in our eyes however, is the fact that this proposal, contrary to the STIP (although OpenBlock Labs did retroactively analyse the STIP), includes a data provider to monitor and report on the data from each protocol receiving funding. Understanding the impact the LTIPP has (and STIP had) is crucial in order to create a sustainable, long-term incentives program that has a positive and lasting effect on Arbitrum.