LTIPP Retroactive Community Funding

[Matt_StableLab]

LTIPP Retroactive Community Funding

100,000 ARB from the LTIPP was allocated for retroactive funding to community members who add valuable contributions during the Pilot Program.

DAO members who feel they have contributed meaningfully to the LTIPP program can apply by replying to this forum thread using the application template below.

The DAO will vote via a single Approval Snapshot vote to decide which if any, retroactive applications should be paid. The DAO does not have to spend the entire 100K ARB Budget. Only applications with at least 75M votes in favor will receive funding. If the budget is exceeded, retroactive funding will be awarded in order of most votes until the budget is exhausted.

While the DAO will decide who receives funding based on the Snapshot vote, the council and advisors may provide recommendations to the DAO given they are very familiar with what happened during the LTIPP.

Teams may edit their applications until October 7th and 11:59 PM EST to reflect delegate feedback before applications are locked and posted to Snapshot on October 10th.

Application Template

LTIPP Contribution:

What did you contribute to the LTIPP(Include links to relevant contributions)?:

Why is this contribution meaningful to the Arbitrum DAO?:

Team Info:

Who worked on the LTIPP contribution?:

How are you involved in the Arbitrum Ecosystem?:

Requested Budget:

What budget are you requesting from the 100,000 ARB?:

What is the justification for this budget request?:

Do you agree to complete the Arbitrum Compliance process before receiving any funds?:

Timeline to apply

Stage	Dates	Description
Application	September 23rd - 30th	Teams apply for retroactive funding on the forum
Delegate Feedback	September 23rd - October 7th	Delegates give feedback on requests and amounts. Applicants can alter applications to reflect feedback
Snapshot vote	October 10th - October 17th	Dao votes to select funding

[duokongcrypto]

Support
Pragmatic, detailed and transparent applications can help to win DAO support, and it is considered important to clarify the contribution: in your application, describe in detail the specific contribution to LTIPP and include relevant links. This will help DAO representatives to better assess your contribution.

[kuiclub]

Support

Retroactive funding for community members who made valuable contributions during the pilot program is expected to continue to encourage everyone to

[ggmatch]

Support

Incentivizing quality participation is a key objective for any DAO, especially one with such a high budget and important initiatives to manage.
The requested amount doesn’t look too high.

[Lumen]

Tldr; Powerhouse delivered operational software, ArbGrants.com and live program support across a 6 month project term. We successfully supported LTIPP operations and are now asking to defray a minor portion of these costs through a RPGF grant.

ArbGrants was a grassroots initiative created to address the need for scalable incentive program management through custom open-source software. Powerhouse developed ArbGrants, an alpha build that helped structure, surface, and securely submit LTIPP program data. This software also allowed the Program Manager to audit the data efficiently and community members to explore project data.

In addition to developing the software, Powerhouse provided full-time operational support and customer service (CS/CX) to over 80 participating projects, supporting the workload of both the Council and the Program Manager. This support resulted in faster service lead times and a premium user experience for Arbitrum ecosystem partners.

Throughout the project, Powerhouse covered all costs independently, preferring to demonstrate competence and value upfront. Now, through the proposal below, we are requesting a modest retroactive funding grant to help offset a portion of these costs.

Key Outcomes of ArbGrants

Arbitrum can differentiate itself and attract high quality projects through superior organization and grantee experience. Powerhouse delivered the following outcomes for Arbitrum:

• Custom Software Solution: ArbGrants successfully supported LTIPP data reporting and auditing using Powerhouse Connect.
• Operational Support: Full-time assistance to projects reduced the burden on the Program Manager and improved efficiency.
• Enhanced User Experience: Powerhouse’s support led to faster service and a high-quality experience for Arbitrum ecosystem partners.
• Open Source Contribution: All Powerhouse software is open-source and licensed under AGPL3.0, making it free to use and expand upon.
• Future Contributions: Insights and learnings from this project can be applied to future Arbitrum programs and working groups.

The ArbGrants Project Team is Substantial

Powerhouse retains all the staff required to deliver on large operations initiatives, including full stack development, business analysis, customer support, marketing, and more. This project involved four primary roles in addition to ancillary and back office support staff: an Operations Principal, a Product Manager, a Sr. Full Stack Engineer, and a Sr. Backend Engineer. This staff of four was able to implement a custom software product upon our core technology, which is supported by an engineering team of 10.

The project team was led by @Lumen who has, among other graduate degrees, an R1 PhD in judgement and decision making, as well as executive operations experience at MakerDAO and prior startup/FAANG operations roles.

Powerhouse Delivered a Six Month Project with Significant Resource Utilization

The ArbGrants project consisted of three phases: Discovery and Scoping, Development and Implementation, and Live Operations. Work cadence involved weekly stakeholder meetings with the Program Manager and daily internal Powerhouse standups regarding project for open project support tickets. Below we denote the average weekly contribution of each role within a phase and then across the entire project term, Table 1.

---

Phase 1: Discovery and Scoping (Late Feb - Early April; 6 Weeks)

Discovery and Scoping involved meeting with stakeholders to identify the existing workflows and identify how they should be translated into software.

Principal, Operations Lead; 20 hours/wk * 6 weeks = 120 hours

Product Manager; 10 hrs/wk * 6 weeks = 60 hours

Sr Full Stack; 30 hrs/wk * 6 weeks = 180 hours

---

Phase 2: Development and Implementation (Mid April - Mid June; 8 Weeks)

Development and implementation consisted of designing and developing the ArbGrants workflows and front-ends.

Principal, Operations, 15 hours wk * 8 weeks = 120 hours

Product Manager, 15 hrs wk * 8 weeks = 120 hours

Sr Full Stack, 30 hrs wk * 8 weeks = 240 hours

Sr Backend, 15 Hrs wk * 8 weeks = 120 hours

---

Phase 3: Live Operations (Mid June - Mid September; 12 Weeks)

Live operations including iterative QA development, communications, and ongoing customer (grantee) support.

Principal, Operations, 15 hours wk * 12 weeks = 180 hours

Product Manager, 10 hrs wk * 12 weeks = 120 hours

Sr Full Stack, 10 hrs wk * 12 weeks = 120 hours

Sr Backend, 5 Hrs wk * 12 weeks = 60 hours

ArbGrants RPGF Request

Powerhouse agrees to complete the Arbitrum Compliance process prior to any reward of funds. The project cost and term above was significant and is an open source public good. We humbly request an award of 100,000 ARB for ArbGrants, approximately $50,000.00 USD to help offset the cost and past six months of services we provided to Arbitrum and LTIPP. While these funds only address a modest portion of the costs, it will help us continue to support Arbitrum into the future. We hope to continue our work with Arbitrum and appreciate the consideration of this request.

Please feel free to leave any comments or questions regarding ArbGrants or our LTIPP support operations.

[Soheeb]

I worked closely with the Powerhouse team and they were diligent in answering requests and resolving issues that I had, so I second their request as an LTIPP grantee.

Thank you guys, and of course, thank you again to the Grant selection committee and the larger DAO for giving us the opportunity.

[Lumen]

Thanks for the words, @Soheeb. It was a pleasure to work with you and the Contrax team!

[McNut]

I would also like to voice my support and gratitude to the Powerhouse team. There was an endless amount of effort to make LTIPP successful and much of this success is due to their work.

Thanks again!!

[Lumen]

Thanks McNut! We enjoyed working with you on behalf of Lido!

[cp0x]

I think I should apply too

LTIPP Contribution:
What did you contribute to the LTIPP (Include links to relevant contributions)?:

1. I actively voted on all projects, objectively reviewing each of them and made an objective decision (look at my decision list, although none of the delegates made this analysis),

2. Conducted an analysis of the votes from the top 21 delegates (Voting Arbitrum LTIPP - Google Sheets), and posted this analysis in our crypto community for more than 3.5 thousand participants.
   And also posted in the Arbitrum community

3. Supported the program shutdown to conduct an analysis of the effectiveness of LTIPP.

Why is this contribution meaningful to the Arbitrum DAO?:

One of the conclusions about the votes of the top 21 delegates, I found out that a significant part of the votes always go for or abstained. I do not believe that all projects were ideal for LTIPP, so such votes leave many questions and can help in making decisions in other ways in the future.

I believe that the analysis I have done is quite important and allows us to link two initiatives:
LTIPP and Delegate Incentives.
From the LTIPP point of view, we need to understand how to structure future voting for grants so that it does not turn out that most of the votes are For or Abstain because the delegates did not have enough time for hundred projects.

For an adequate and thoughtful vote, it was necessary to spend at least 150-200 hours studying the applications, arguments and conducting a minimal analysis of the project, as I did (see my file about LTIPP voting)
From the Delegate Incentives point of view, we can conclude that a simple vote does not give us confidence that this vote is thought out. In the future, exceptions can’t be made for any votes; it is necessary to write a justification for each vote. And also, taking into account the votes, indicate the conflict of interest.

Team Info:

cp0x worked as a delegate and conducted voting analysis.

How are you involved in the Arbitrum Ecosystem?:

cp0x is one of the most active delegates and constantly attracts new delegations

Requested Budget:
What budget are you requesting from the 100,000 ARB?:

5.000 ARB

What is the justification for this budget request?:

I believe that the analysis I conducted can have a positive impact on future programs.
I spent at least 60 hours on it. Based on the calculation of $50 per hour, we get $3,000. Thus, with a minimum of 30 hours, we get 5,000 ARB at the rate of $0.6 per ARB.

Do you agree to complete the Arbitrum Compliance process before receiving any funds?:

Yes

[Euphoria]

Lampros Labs DAO - LTIPP and STIP-Bridge Voting Dashboards Application

---

Lampros Labs DAO is an open community of builders and governance enthusiasts dedicated to fostering transparency, decentralization, and inclusivity within the Web3 ecosystem. Our mission is to empower emerging Web3 developers by enhancing their skills and knowledge, ultimately contributing to a more decentralized and resilient community. We actively engage in governance, collaborate on innovative projects, and provide mentorship to new builders, all while promoting a transparent and inclusive environment.

---

LTIPP Contribution:

What did you contribute to the LTIPP (Include links to relevant contributions)?

We (Lampros Labs DAO), developed live voting dashboards that played a crucial role in streamlining the voting process during the Long Term Incentives Pilot Program (LTIPP) and STIP-Bridge. There were two dashboards - one for LTIPP which tracked the voting of all 77 council-approved applications and 15 post-council feedback submitted applications in real time and the second one was for STIP-bridge which tracked the voting for 18 applications which resolved several pain points faced by delegates and community members throughout the process.

Key pain points the dashboard addressed:

• Centralized Access: With 77 protocols voting simultaneously, delegates struggled to find and vote on proposals. The dashboard consolidated all Snapshot voting links, forum proposals, and live voting statuses into one easily navigable platform.
• Simplified Voting: Delegates could access all necessary links and voting statuses in a single Google Sheet, eliminating the need to manually track each protocol’s voting.
• Post-Council Voting Dashboard: Following the initial voting phase, we created a separate dashboard for 15 additional protocols, making it easy for delegates to track new proposals based on council feedback.
• STIP-Bridge Dashboard: Following LTIPP voting phase, the voting for STIP-Bridge proposals started simulataneously for which we created a separate dashboard for 18 protocols, making it easy for delegates to track new proposals and vote on those proposals.
• Ease of Use: Built in Google Sheets, the dashboard was accessible to everyone in the Arbitrum DAO and widely circulated via the Arbitrum Forum, X (formerly Twitter), and the LTIPP Discord Channel, providing real-time updates every 5 minutes.
• Personalization: Delegates could create personalized copies of the dashboard to track their votes, complete with dynamic updates and color-coded columns for enhanced usability.

By resolving these issues, the dashboard made the voting process more efficient and accessible for the entire Arbitrum DAO, encouraging participation and ensuring transparency throughout the LTIPP.

Dashboard Link: LTIPP Voting Dashboard, STIP-Bridge Voting Dashboard.

Why is this contribution meaningful to the Arbitrum DAO?

Our contribution significantly enhanced the efficiency and transparency of the LTIPP voting process, ensuring community members, delegates, and protocols had a centralized, accessible resource for tracking the progress of proposals. Here’s why it was important:

• Streamlined Voting Process: With 77 proposals up for Snapshot voting, 15 additional proposals after council feedback and 18 proposals for the STIP-bridge program, our dashboard made it easier for delegates to stay organized, access proposals quickly, and monitor live voting results in one place.
• Increased Participation and Engagement: By providing a user-friendly interface and real-time updates, the dashboard encouraged more delegates to participate actively, ultimately driving higher engagement in the voting process.
• Personalization for Delegates: The ability for delegates to create personalized copies of the dashboard allowed them to keep track of their votes in a customized way, empowering them to be more efficient in their decision-making.
• Transparency: Updating every 5 minutes, the dashboard ensured the entire Arbitrum community had access to the most current information, fostering an open and transparent governance process. Many protocols were observed using the dashboard to check their status.

This contribution has had a lasting impact on how voting was conducted in the LTIPP and represents a meaningful step toward making governance more accessible and transparent within the Arbitrum DAO.

---

Team Info:

Who worked on the LTIPP contribution?

The following team members from Lampros Labs DAO played key roles in the development and management of the LTIPP Voting Dashboard:

• @Euphoria: With a management postgraduate degree and expertise in data analysis and project management, Euphoria was instrumental in overseeing the dashboard’s development and ensuring smooth collaboration among team members. He coordinated updates and ensured the dashboard was consistently maintained and circulated effectively across the Arbitrum community through channels like the Forum, X (formerly Twitter), and Discord.
• @Blueweb: He has extensive experience in blockchain ecosystems and took the lead in integrating on-chain data with the voting dashboard. Chain_L ensured that live voting statuses were accurately tracked and reflected in the dashboard, allowing for real-time updates and transparency during the LTIPP voting process.
• @ARDev097: A specialist in data integration and visualization, ARDev utilized tools like Google Sheets to build the interactive voting dashboard. His expertise in data management and dashboard creation ensured that the tool was user-friendly, regularly updated, and accessible for all delegates, providing them with real-time insights into the progress of the voting process.

Together, these team members contributed their skills and expertise to create a robust and accessible voting dashboard that significantly improved the LTIPP voting experience for the entire Arbitrum DAO community.

How are you involved in the Arbitrum Ecosystem?

Our contributions to the Arbitrum ecosystem focus on several key areas:

• Governance Engagement: We are actively participating in Arbitrum Governance through the Lampros Labs DAO delegate.
• Ecosystem Expansion: We are working on Arbitrum Governance and Development Initiative, recently approved under Questbook DDA Phase II, aimed at empowering new developers in India with the knowledge, skills, and experience needed to contribute as builders and participate in Arbitrum governance.
• Research and Education: We are working on LTIPP Research Bounties, which will soon be submitted to the DAO and its community members, providing comprehensive insights into the Incentive Program.
• Protocol Development: We are actively exploring a few ideas to effectively contribute to the Arbitrum ecosystem.

By participating in governance calls, enhancing Arbitrum’s protocols, supporting new projects, sharing research insights, and expanding our presence in Asia, Lampros Labs DAO is committed to driving the growth and adoption of Arbitrum on a global scale.

For a comprehensive view of our past work and contributions to the Arbitrum ecosystem, please visit our Notion page: Lampros Labs DAO | Arbitrum Contributions.

---

Requested Budget:

What budget are you requesting from the 100,000 ARB?

We are requesting 20,000 ARB (~12,000 USD) for the creation and maintenance of the voting dashboards throughout the two-week voting period of the LTIPP and the one-week STIP-Bridge voting period. This includes the initial setup for tracking the 77 protocols and 15 protocols in real-time, as well as the subsequent dashboard developed for the 18 protocols for STIP-Bridge that went for Snapshot voting after LTIPP.

The approval of this proposal will encourage continued contribution in different capacities to Arbitrum DAO by our members, fostering ongoing engagement and support for the ecosystem.

What is the justification for this budget request?

We are requesting 20,000 ARB (~12,000 USD) to fairly compensate the efforts of the three team members who contributed throughout the process, from planning to execution, and continuously monitored the voting dashboard over the 21 days of voting periods. This included:

• Integrating the Snapshot API and developing Python scripts to ensure real-time voting data updates.
• Managing data storage using Google Sheets and Gspread API for seamless data flow.
• Continuous monitoring and troubleshooting to ensure accuracy and reliability throughout the voting period.

The requested amount reflects the time, resources, and technical expertise required to create, maintain, and ensure the smooth operation of the voting dashboard.

Do you agree to complete the Arbitrum Compliance process before receiving any funds?

Yes, we agree to complete the Arbitrum Compliance process before receiving any funds.

---

Community Feedback and Appreciation

Below, we have attached some screenshots from the LTIPP Discord Channel and some personal DMs where community members expressed their appreciation for the creation of the Voting Dashboard. These messages highlight the value and positive impact the dashboard had in simplifying the voting process and making it easier for delegates and participants to track the voting status of all applications.

---

Conclusion

We believe our contribution of the voting dashboards for both the LTIPP and STIP Bridge programs played a critical role in improving the efficiency, accessibility, and transparency of the voting processes for the Arbitrum DAO. We kindly request delegates and community members to provide any feedback, comments, or questions regarding the Voting Dashboard. We would be more than happy to answer and engage in further discussions to continue improving our contributions to the community.

[huf]

Their Product Manager (T?) was professional, knowledgeable and overall a great person to work with through this process. Immediately available, and they helped support very well throughout the LTIPP

[Lumen]

Thanks Huf. It was great to work with you and Pear. We are lucky to have T!

[pedrob]

My opinion comes from my participation in the LTIPP as an Advisor in the Seedgov team, which I am no longer part of, and my current role as Arbitrum delegate.

I want to provide an alternative perspective to Powerhouse’s (@Lumen) request for retroactive funding.

@Matt_StableLab

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.

I do not agree that PowerHouse’s work has been a community contribution eligible for retroactive funding.

The application template for the LTIPP provided the structure for how the reports would be executed for the program and to track the execution of the incentive distribution

@Matt_StableLab

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]

That’s why I was surprised when, after the deadline to publish the first report in the forum had passed, none of the applicants had done so. I decided to post in the LTIPP Discord to ask the applicants who were advised by Seed, and I was surprised to learn that they were not supposed to publish in the forum, but instead send their reports to ArbGrants:

Not only that, but the tool wasn’t ready and still wasn’t working; it was supposedly going to be up and running a few days after the deadline for submitting the first report. Many applicants also reported difficulties in understanding how to complete the reports. Additionally, the report was supposed to include the OBL dashboards, which could easily be integrated into the forum posts, but that information was not available in the ArbGrants reports.

There was also no timely formal communication in the forum about the incorporation of ArbGrants as a tracking tool. Nor proper discussion regarding its implementation.

@Lumen

ArbGrants: A Collaboration Between StableLab and Powerhouse

Note that the linked post is from after the first reports deadline. This led to confusion, delays, and challenges both for the recipients of the incentives and for us in tracking the distribution of incentives

I know the PowerHouse team from my participation in Maker DAO governance. I know they are serious and hardworking. I believe they could be excellent service providers for managing future incentive programs, as a tool to facilitate progress tracking is necessary. I am very grateful to them for their work, for engaging with the DAO, and for providing a new tool.

However, I think Arbgrants was not a community contribution, but rather an unilateral business development decision from the Program Manager for how reports would be executed. Decision which I do not intend to comment on, the elected PM made the decision deemed appropriate and its fine.

@Lumen

Stablelab partnered with Powerhouse to prepare a software proof of concept to streamline the ongoing reporting of incentive information. Powerhouse is a former MakerDAO Core Unit dedicated to scaling DAOs through transparent operations and open-source software. Together, Powerhouse and Stabelab aspire to continue improving the efficacy and transparency of Arbitrum’s incentive programs.

To be clear: I don’t think Powerhouse did a bad job. Arbgrants may become a great tool for the DAO in the future. I just don’t believe that the Program Manager BD decision can be labeled as a community contribution nor should it be eligible for “community” retroactive funding, which is what the DAO approved the funds for.

[Pete]

Hello, this is Peter from the Origin Protocol team. We would like to partipate in this, here is our submission:

LTIPP Contribution:

What did you contribute to the LTIPP(Include links to relevant contributions)?:

Origin was one of (if not) the first protocols to submit the bi-weekly reports to the Arbgrants dashboard week over week on the day it was due. Origin was punctual and eager to submit the by weekly report, but several bugs were found and the database was wiped, leading to Origin needing to resubmit the reports multiple times. From the unexpected and unplanned platform testing, Origin’s submissions aided in the development of new Powerhouse features that may have not been previously planned.

Why is this contribution meaningful to the Arbitrum DAO?:
New Powerhouse additions include a feature that will provide user feedback after successfully saving and a ‘online/saved’ status, and an edit feature with some additional pre-filled data options that will help users to fill in their reports much quicker.

This is also the first time an event sourced architecture is being used on a decentralized backend with EVM credentials, so several bugs were found that needed to be fixed. By solving these issues early we can avoid them for all other users in the future.

Team Info:

Who worked on the LTIPP contribution?:
Peter Gray, Etiosa Richmore, and Micah Alcorn from the Origin team worked on the LTIPP contribution.

How are you involved in the Arbitrum Ecosystem?:
Origin has bridged OETH from the Ethereum mainnet to Arbitrum, leading to bringing more than $5m in TVL over to Arbitrum.

Requested Budget:

What budget are you requesting from the 100,000 ARB?:
Origin is requesting 5000 ARB for these contributions.

What is the justification for this budget request?:
We believe this amount is justified from the development of the new Powerhouse features that may have not been previously planned, and from finding the bugs that, after they were fixed, led to a greater experience for all other teams participating in the LTIPP.

Do you agree to complete the Arbitrum Compliance process before receiving any funds?:
Yes - Origin has previously completed the required Arbitrum KYB, but would be happy to submit any additional KYB documents

[kamilgorski]

Summary:

Tokenguard has delivered an easy-to-use growth analytics with a CRM-like feature for a +30 LTIPP projects. It has been used mostly by DeFi protocols, to track new conversions from their most valuable users as well as monitor and counteract churns.

LTIPP Contribution:

Tokenguard indexed Arbitrum One chain and built support for +30 projects that took part in the LTIPP programme completely free of charge. Each dApp received access to the following features:

• CRM of dApp users interacting with the protocol during the last 3 months, including their deposit value, first & last interactions and other dApps they interacted with.
  • Exemplary Uniswap CRM >>

• Activity Dashboard with a summary of last week activity within the dApp, focusing on most important metrics and user flow within the Arbitrum Ecosystem. Dashboard also provides comparison between different blockchains the protocol is deployed on, as well as a quick summary generated by AI models.
  • Exemplary Pancakeswap Activity Dashboard >>

• dApp Activity Comparison that allows to compare dApp activity within multiple blockchains (eg. Arbitrum One vs Binance vs Optimism) or compare activities between dApps on one blockchain (eg. Paraswap vs Sushiswap on Arbitrum One) using the following metrics:

  • Acquired users
  • Returning users
  • Churned users
  • Ecosystem fees
  • TVL
  • Interactions

• Exemplary comparison between Across & Aave on Arbitrum One >>

All Tokenguard dashboards for Arbitrum One protocols can be found here >>

Feedback from Arbitrum projects

Links to the above dashboards were shared with LTIPP projects through the following channels:

• Direct mails & LinkedIn
• Social Media (Telegram, Twitter, Discord)

We have received numerous responses from projects that were happy to start using Tokenguard to:

• Track conversions coming from the most powerful DeFi users, usually acquired through lengthy business-development processes,
• Monitor churns from the most valuable liquidity providers and counteract these churns,
• Analyze the LTIPP-induced growth of the dApp on Arbitrum One compared to other chains the dApp is active on
• Compare the growth of the dApp to other competitors within the same / different network.
  
  

Why is this contribution meaningful to the Arbitrum DAO?:

Support for LTIPP projects helps Arbitrum DAO achieve the following LTIPP goals:

• Increase protocol activity within the ecosystem, which is one of the main Arbitrum DAO goals,
• Counteract churns of the most important DeFi users, leading to increase in long-term TVL of the ecosystem which is one of the LTIPP goals,
• Understand how LTIPP influences the growth of Arbitrum projects and therefore allow Arbitrum DAO make better and more informed decisions,
• Compare the growth of Arbitrum ecosystem to other networks which can help understand what other strategies are worth considering for long-term Arbitrum growth.

Team Info:

Whole Tokenguard team was engaged into building support for Arbitrum ecosystem and LTIPP projects. Our team consists of:

Kamil Gorski (Full Time) - Product Manager / CEO (https://www.linkedin.com/in/gorskikamil/)
Jakub Rojek (Full Time) - Backend developer / CTO (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jakub-rojek-dev/)
Damian Rolek (Full Time) - Data Analyst / CDO (https://www.linkedin.com/in/damianrolek/)
Jacob Piorecki (Full Time) - Frontend Developer & Designer (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jacobpiorecki/)
Piotr Józefowicz (Full Time) - Blockchain Backend Developer (https://www.linkedin.com/in/piotr-jozefowicz-529669220/)
Krystian Trepczyński (Full Time) - Fullstack Developer (https://www.linkedin.com/in/krystiantrepczynski/)
Adam Denes (Full Time) - Data Scientist

Additionally, substantial cloud & infrastructure costs were covered in order to integrate Arbitrum ecosystem.

How are you involved in the Arbitrum Ecosystem?:

Tokenguard is a user segments & conversion analytics tool focused on boosting revenue of DeFi protocols. Cooperation with Arbitrum Ecosystem is crucial for our us & our product as it’s one of the most important DeFi networks.

We’re actively engaged in:

• Cooperation with DeFi protocols in Arbitrum ecosystem (including GMX, WooFi, Magpie, Wormhole & others),
• Arbitrum Open Hours (co-organized by L2Beats),
• Delivering new ideas on how to improve DeFi activity and revenues on Arbitrum Foundation forum (eg. forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ltipp-improving-efficiency-and-roe-with-conversion-growth-tool/23319)
• Sharing growth knowledge based on Arbitrum data on events such as EthCC, Devcon, ETH Warsaw (eg. Boosting web3 growth with cross-chain user & asset flow :: ETHWarsaw 2024 :: pretalx)

Requested Budget:

We’re kindly asking the Arbitrum DAO to consider a budget of 27,000 ARB which covers only a small part of our expenses for supporting Arbitrum for the last 3 months.

Justification for this budget request

Our time engagement related to Arbitrum integration resulted in 878 hours of work within the whole team. Exact time engagement can be found here >>

Milestone	Hours
1. Activity Dashboards	356.00
2. CRMs	442.00
3. Leaderboard	80.00
TOTAL	878.00

Most DeFi protocols are still too early to generate enough revenue to cover growth related expenses such as rewards, airdrops & tooling. We believe that support from from their parent ecosystems can help these protocol find use cases for new user groups and modify their business models to finally achieve mass adoption of crypto.

Arbitrum Compliance process

Yes, we agree to complete the Arbitrum Compliance process. We’re a registered and legally operating business.

Please feel free to put any comments / insights / feedback regarding implementation of user & conversion analytics for Arbitrum projects!

[Lumen]

Hi Pedro,

Thanks for taking the time to write a reply. We wanted to first acknowledge that it was a challenge to develop and integrate the ArbGrants software in the pre-existing LTIPP workflows. We also wanted to note, the Council approved both the product concept and a subsequent live demo of the software prior to the launch of the work. Stablelab did not unilaterally implement ArbGrants.

[SeriousKeith]

I would like to apply for the LTIPP funding on behalf of my team, Serious People.

What did you contribute to the LTIPP(Include links to relevant contributions)?:

Our team, Serious People has spent countless hours working to do whatever we can to make the LTIPP sustainable and inclusive to all involved.

Our team was initially drawn to Arbitrum over a year ago as we saw the explosive growth on the chain and the quality of the teams that were here. We began by working with projects that were connected to arbitrum in any way. With our background being in running our own DEX as well as advising other DEX’s on sustainable practices, when we saw the initial announcement of the STIP we were ready to dive in and add our expertise to the conversation. We hopped on every weekly call and did everything that we could to contribute to the conversation. With the huge amount of tokens being used for incentives and the expected march unlock coming up, we believed that these incentive programs, if run correctly could really do wonders in ensuring that there would be liquidity when we got there.

Having been so close to the STIP, we were tuned in with what we believed went right and what wrong and how the LTIPP could improve on those things to see even more success. We took this as an initiative to dig our heels in even further. We dropped some proposals on the forum, making suggestions on many different things.

1 First we took a cut at how we believed that we could adjust the Application template to make the process of applying more insightful to the DAO and more efficient. Many of our adjustments were accepted and used in the final form of the application. Serious People: Application Template Proposed Update for LTIPP

2 Next we made suggestions on how we believed that the application advisors should be selected to assure fairness to the applicants. It was very important to us that the apps were picked based on the merit of the project and the plan that they had and so that there was cohesiveness between the parties doing the reviewing so that the projects were not confused in what they should do for their app.

Serious People: Proposed Update to LTIPP Application Advisor Responsibilities

Authors @SeriousIan @SeriousTaylor @SeriousKeith Proposed Update to LTIPP Application Advisor Responsibilities After taking a look at the role of the Application Advisor, it is the opinion of Serious People that we can make a few suggestions on the best way to design this role given the new information that we have. Many things have remained the same, but as we create an easier way for the proposals to be compared to one another, that should be reflected in the role of the Advisor(s). We have b…

3 We took a cut at what we believed should be asked for in the research buckets so that when the program was run, we could pull as much data and info from it as possible, improving future programs. We believe that if we are spending tens of millions on a program, we should also spend some time and money making sure it works and what the strengths and weaknesses are.

Serious People: Research Bounties for LTIPP

Hello, is this research project still going on? I have recently seen all the projects of ltipp and I have some ideas.

4 Finally we began the discussion on how “success” should be gauged and how we could set up KPI’s to ensure that we have a good way to measure this success. This post ended up being our most popular as it seemed to be top of mind for everybody.

Serious People: Proposed KPIs for Arbitrum Grant Programs (LTIPP)

Authors @SeriousIan @SeriousTaylor @SeriousKeith Proposed KPIs for Arbitrum Grant Programs Abstract The purpose of this post is to address some common concerns that we have been hearing over the past few months with the STIP/LTIPP initiatives. The Serious People team has been having a plethora of conversations over the past few months, with that, we feel we are in an optimal spot to summarize our findings and make a number of recommendations to move the ball forward, focusing on better cohesi…

4b Because of the acknowledgement of the importance of this, this ended up evolving into an unpaid group that Serious People ran for months. We took the time to push this conversation forward. We invited all of the top contributors to the conversation and set up a weekly agenda to keep the conversation developing.
@ArbKPIworkinggroup

Team Info:

Who worked on the LTIPP contribution?:

Our whole team of 6 people worked on our contributions.

Ian Campbell

Taylor Pedde

Gonzalo Vasquez

Jakub Deuritsbacher

Keith Carlino

Requested Budget:

What budget are you requesting from the 100,000 ARB?:

We are requesting 40,000 ARB for our contribution.

What is the justification for this budget request?:

We believe that we are deserving of the 40,00 ARB. First of all we were told that when we set up our working group that we were going to be compensated for running it as the other parties who ran working groups were. Unfortunately when it came to paying our team there were no more funds left.

Our team collectively spent 1000’s of hours working with the Dao, joining calls and offering our advice in as many places as we could between the STIP and the LTIPP. We were involved in every conversation from budget size to monitoring, to data collection and analysis. We have been on calls, (collective and individual) with every team in the DAO to gather information and make sure that everyone was heard.

We believe that we are more than deserving of being compensated for the work that we have done as we have not been compensated at all by the DAO.

Do you agree to complete the Arbitrum Compliance process before receiving any funds?:

Yes

[Ov3rkoalafied]

Powerhouse was a bright spot in the LTIPP process. The website was intuitive and they were responsive when I had questions. The website was sometimes unstable, but this is due to decentralizing the back end of it, which I admire - so I would not hold it against them. They also made significant improvements during LTIPP that cut down on reporting time, based on feedback.

While there was plenty of disarray in the program (ie, things that can be improved, especially in the automated data collection/requirements communication), the arbgrants site was the most functional aspect. I also believe the arbgrants site is set up in a way that should make evaluating grant effectiveness fairly easy, compared to the rest of the data collection that I feel may be too complex/arbitrary to derive many meaningful insights.

[GFXlabs]

@SeriousKeith

We are requesting 40,000 ARB for our contribution.

This is more than either the council members or the official advisors received.

More generally, people and projects requesting these funds should demonstrate some restraint. These funds do not have to be disbursed and perhaps should just be returned to the treasury.