Application Rubric
Application Rubric Background
The Rubric below was created by the LTIPP Council (GFX Labs, 404 DAO, Wintermute, GMX, and Karel Vuong) and the LTIPP Advisors (JoJo, SeedLatam Gov, Castle Capital).
For more info on the program and the application/selection process please read the LTIPP FAQ
Rubric Rationale
The rubric will help guide the structure of the LTIPP Application Template to provide candidates with the best chance of fulfilling the rubric’s requirements.
The rubric focuses on assessing 4 core areas:
- Grant ask & execution strategy
- Protocol & Team background
- Alignment
- Accountability
Reviewer Conduct
The scoring rubric is a baseline for the judges to help them evaluate applications. The rubric presented is not all encompassing but is indicative of the key performance metrics considered by the council. Council members will provide additional evaluation to determine their final yes or no decision.
A low score or receiving more than one 0 on the rubric can justify the reviewer voting against an application.
Applications will be randomly assigned to 3 council members for preliminary review. Applications that receive ⅓ yes votes will be reevaluated by all 5 council members. Any applicant that then receives 50%+ votes in favor will move on to a Snapshot vote.
Successful applicants who pass the preliminary round will have the following details included in their Snapshot vote: their average rubric score, a link to the graded rubric, and a brief explanation synthesizing the Council Members’ evaluation of the application.
For unsuccessful applicants who do not pass the preliminary round, the Council Members’ assessment will be published after the Screening Period and summarized in a Notion document with the following details: average rubric score, a link to the graded rubric, and a brief explanation synthesizing the Council Members’ evaluation of the application.
Rubric
| Execution | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grant Size | Grant size likely outweighs the expected benefit | Grant size is likely proportion to the expected benefit | Expected benefit is likely to exceed the grant size | Expected benefit is likely to significantly exceed the grant size |
| Strategy, Goals & Objectives | Applicant lacks clear goals, objectives, and an execution strategy | Applicant describes goals and objectives but lacks a clear execution strategy | Applicant demonstrates a clear understanding of their goals, objectives, and execution strategy | Applicant demonstrates a thorough understanding of their goals and objectives with a well laid out execution strategy |
| KPI Orientation | KPIs are insignificant and lack clarity or effectiveness | KPIs are clear but lack effectiveness or justification | KPIs are clear in their effectiveness and purpose | KPIs are thoroughly justified in their effectiveness and purpose |
| Distribution | Grant is likely to concentrate in the hands of a few large users and/or mercenary users | Grant is likely to reach genuine users on Arbitrum | Grant is likely to reach new users and existing power users on Arbitrum | Grant is likely to reach new power users and communities across other ecosystems |
| Ecosystem Benefits (i.e Attractiveness) | Incentive design fails to strengthen Arbitrum’s competitive positioning in the L1/L2 ecosystem | Incentive Design minimally strengthens Arbitrum’s competitive positioning in the L1/L2 ecosystem | Incentive Design strengthens Arbitrum’s competitive positioning in the L1/L2 ecosystem | Incentive Design considerably strengthens Arbitrum’s competitive positioning in the L1/L2 ecosystem |
| Protocol Benefits (i.e Stickiness & Retention) | Grant use is expected to have none or little demand or supply-side benefit/activity after incentives end | Grant use is expected to lead to some demand or supply-side benefit/activity after incentives end | Grant use is expected to lead to a notable amount of demand or supply-side benefit/activity after incentives end | Grant use is expected to lead to a considerable amount of demand or supply-side benefit/activity after incentives end |
| Sybil + Wash Trading Resistant Mechanisms | Includes no mechanisms to protect against attack vectors | Mitigation tactics to combat attack vectors are presented but they are either unclear or incomplete | Application presents sufficient mechanisms and/or strategy to mitigate against attack vectors | Application presents thorough mechanisms and/or strategy to mitigate against attack vectors |
| Prospects | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Team | Team has no track record and their ability to execute is unclear | Team has a limited track record and does not show significant ability to execute | Team has a proven track record in their ability to execute | Team has an excellent track record and a clear ability to execute on their plan |
| Reach | The protocol appeals to a low or insignificant number of users | The protocol appeals to a moderate number of users | The protocol appeals to a large number of users | The protocol appeals to a large number of users inside and outside of the Arbitrum ecosystem |
| Novelty | The project is a fork or near copy of other projects in a competitive sector | Some experimental differentiation or improvements from other projects in a competitive sector | The project is unique in its product offering and builds upon existing infrastructure | The project is unique in both its product offering underlying technology/infrastructure |
| Product Usage | Underperforming relevant usage metrics relative to the age of the project | Moderate usage or signs of growth relative to the age of the project | High usage or impressive growth relative to the age of the project | Very high usage or outstanding growth relative to the age of the project |
| Security | No code audit | One Audit | Multiple Audits | Multiple Audits + Bug Bounty Program |
| Alignment | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Arbitrum Relationship | Prior history of development on Arbitrum but no current deployment on Arbitrum Mainnet (can include testnet) | Newly deployed on Arbitrum mainnet (< 3 months old) | Newer protocol with some development activity (3-6 months old) | Existing project with continued development activity (> 6 months old) |
| Composability | The project lacks integration capabilities and has no meaningful direct effect on other Arbitrum projects; vice versa | The project has limited composability and cross-protocol traction | The project is widely composable with a demonstrated ability for cross-protocol traction | The project is highly composable with strong evidence of cross-protocol traction |
| Accountability | 0 | 1 | 2 | |
| Milestone Trackability | Not Trackable | Somewhat Trackable | Easily Trackable | |
| Milestone Objectives | Does not target increasing users and/or activity on Arbitrum | Somewhat targets increasing users and/or activity on Arbitrum | Specifically targets increasing users and/or activity on Arbitrum | |
| Data Measurability | Little or no data available on protocol usage | Some data available on protocol usage | Extensive data available on protocol usage | |
| Bonus | 0 | 1 | 2 | |
| Co-contribution | No intended co-contribution of marketing or incentives | Some amount of co-marketing or co-incentives | Proportional amount of co-incentives and (bi)weekly co-marketing |
Comments:
