Thank you for the feedback. So if you measure in Arb then yes it is slightly more but like most people, we measure the value in USD. With the price depreciation of ARB it’s actually much less. The amount of work that we did for the DAO far exceeds the amount we are asking for and anyone who worked on the LTIPP will acknowledge the amount of work that we did.
To say that you should just take the money back is a rugpull on people who contributed with the expectation of some compensation on the back end and would completely undermine the purpose of setting up this fund in the first place. I do not think this would be good for people’s trust in the DAO.
1 Like
In my opinion, the various incentive programs and grants existing in Arbitrum DAO have already given sufficient rewards to these contributors, so I think it is not necessary to set up another LTIPP Retroactive Community Funding separately. I’d love to hear more thoughts on this issue.
I am unfortunately having to vote AGAINST, because i do not have the context to make an appropriate vote on compensation to individuals.
I really thought ARB DAO had moved beyond us voting on individual people getting compensation. I would much rather have had stable labs or the council/application advisors give an assessment on who were the people that helped and how much they should be paid.
As it stands, i don’t think delegates should be voting on individual contributions when we really don’t know who helped how much.
I voted no, there are already sufficient programs to fund community member, by being an active delegate, active in a Multisig and many other things.
I’m going to have to vote against this one. While I genuinely appreciate the hard work and dedication from the individuals involved, I don’t believe that retroactive funding is the right approach in this case
I’m voting against. I don’t think that funding individual community members would be the best idea given that:
- there are already other programs that allow individuals to be rewarded for their engagement in the community and their work
- it’s difficult to clearly evaluate efforts
Plus, I saw that in same cases the requested budget is not justified enough to support the specific amount that is being asked. I feel like it’s very difficult to fairly reward the individual contributors though this process.
As my VP is not that big, I elected one application: voted FOR Tokenguard. It is a tool (CRM) that has the potential to aggregate value for the protocols that were part of the LTIPP, and that was what I was judging when reviewing the applications.
2 Likes
After reading and evaluating all of these submissions, we share many of these concerns that have been listed prior. However, instead of calling it nothing for everyone, we think a few of these teams deserved some level of retroactive funding.
Right now, we think Origin’s proposal is a great combination of work done and proactive involvement, for a very reasonable and considerate budget request. Their improvements helped align the technical processes with the DAO’s goal of enhancing transparency and operational efficiency within the LTIPP, and after seeing all of the issues that came, this would be well deserved we think.
Overall, if this snapshot doesn’t pass, what would we want to consider going forward? Would there be a max on how much each team can request? Or another style of sumissions?
2 Likes
I will be voting to approve Lampros Labs. Their google docs sheet was very helpful during the voting process (as a delegate), as well as tracking my projects status (as an applicant). It also doubled as an easy way to share the list of projects for marketing purposes… as I would often see posts in communities I am in asking what projects are running incentive campaigns. The asked amount seems a little steep IMO… but it was truly helpful. I’d recommend for future projects however this type of work be part of the Program Managers responsibility / budget. Its a little bit of a grey area, but there was an operating cost to this project that having some type of dashboard like this is reasonably expected to be part of the project management IMO.
I think Powerhouse’s project is worthy of funding, however I simply can’t justify spending the entire budget on one project. Its unfortunate we’ve sort of created a game-theory type situation for voting but I cannot vote to approve Lampros Laps and also Powerhouse at the same time due to budget constraints. I’ll add to this, I see value in Origin was able to accomplish, but if Powerhouse is going to get 100,000 ARB I think they should be able to cover the 5,000 ARB request as part of their own bounty / bug programs.
Other projects, while their work is appreciated, I don’t believe warrant retroactive community funding or were asking too much for the services provided.
2 Likes
Hi @Bob-Rossi,
I wanted to note, the reason Powerhouse asked for the entire budget was to request the balance beyond other projects that were selected as valuable, if any.
The goal was not to take all funding on a zero sum if other projects were deemed valuable.
The funding was intended to be on a meritocratic waterfall. Any project that gets over 75mm were to get funded in that order. Of course the ARB was allocated at a different spot price so the pool is a bit more constrained than initially intended.
Powerhouse is happy to operate on a binary and sit junior to any other requests that get over 75mm. Meaning, Powerhouse is happy to have other requests get funded first if they do hit 75mm.
We believe Tokenguard (@kamilgorski) have done valuable work and would also endorse delegates voting for Tokenguard. We would gladly have them funded first out of the same pool, assuming all requests reach the threshold of 75mm.
With regards to Origin (@Pete’s) request, we do not believe it appropriate for grantees to receive community funding. Grantees were already incented through the receipt of substantial grants and the “QA“ work did not exceed one hour of contributions, nor did it exceed the expected operational time commitment of a grantee.
Anyway, just wanted to shed some light on this and allay some concerns. The goal is to acknowledge and reward value when, where, and if it was delivered.
We put in a lot of time to make LTIPP a success, including most of the boots on ground and last mile operational work. We hope that can be acknowledged, even if more modestly.
1 Like
As the funding rules currently stand, if you were to get 80mm votes and say another project asking for 10k ARB got 79mm votes, you would get the full 100k ARB. Only way the 'waterfall" would occur is if you were the lowest vote getting over 75mm (i.e., you got 79mm votes to the 10k projects 80mm.
It sounds like you are willing work that way (you are funded last regardless of vote count, as long as its over 75mm), which is commendable. However I’d prefer if that was approved by @Matt_StableLab before any votes changed. As I don’t have the authority to change the rules on this. If there is an agreement this rule can be amended, I will reconsider my vote.
Appreciate the clarification and perspective of the work. I had initially read the post as indicating there was a lot more involved then just <1 hour of testing. Regardless, my main point was simply to say in the original context it sounded like a bug find, which I tend to see any reward from bug finding / testing to be determined by the entity building said project. So IMO it felt out of the scope of the DAO to fund that. I know ultimately that’s a separate item then your proposal, and I will also clarify my approval/non-approval vote for Lumen’s request is 100% independent of Origin’s request.
1 Like
I voted ABSTAIN on the Snapshot proposal. In my opinion, the LTIPP council should make this decision. I personally do not have enough context to decide who merits the retroactive funding. I’m happy for the council to use these funds to rewards projects that added meaningful value.
I love this kind of measures: “retroactive funding will be awarded” and the whole funding plan is good.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting ABSTAIN for this proposal.
Since we are one of the applicants for this funding, we believe abstaining is the best option to observe the DAO’s perspective on each applicant fairly.
Voted Do not fund: In general I am very supportive of retroactive rewards. I think it’s the best way to compensate people or projects. But in this case, I don’t believe this is the right way. It’s hard for me to understand who deserves the reward. The project leader should plan and set up a system to hand out these rewards. Or set an internal committee to pick who gets it.
We’re voting against this proposal
- According to the LTIPP program framework, it’s council members’ , not delegates’, duty to evaluate the contributions of each project and determine the amount of funding to be distributed
- Delegates didn’t work closely with these projects and thus do not have the enough information to make informed decisions
Thanks to the team for their contribution to the LTIPP program! While we already have other ways to reward participants, we believe it’s crucial to recognize the extra work that goes beyond programs like the delegate incentive. For instance, efforts such as reporting and identifying areas for improvement deserve additional recognition. We’d also appreciate it if council members and advisors could provide further justification for the amounts awarded to each applicant, as they have the best insight into the applicants’ contributions.
However, we will be voting against this proposal as the distribution model should be based on the actual impact created and judged by the program manager and councils.
Hey,
Tokenguard team would like to say thanks to everyone who appreciated our work (@jameskbh, @Lumen) and to all others that voted. We’ve presented results of our work at the ARB Liquidity Incentive Group but if anyone would like to listen to some additional insights, we’re happy to invite you to a short event we’re organizing today on broader perspective of web3 user acqusition:
Best regards,
Kamil
1 Like
I’m voting for the option “Do not fund”, since I don’t feel like any of the applicants qualify for what I understand a “valuable community contribution” is.
Nevertheless, I greatly appreciate the contributions of everyone who applied here, and I believe there is valuable work that can be used in the future for incentive programs. I invite you to stay informed and contribute to the discussion currently being led by L2Beat in the Incentives Working Group
We are supportive of the retoactive funding. But agree with most of the opinions there that delegates don’t have enough context to decide which teams are qualified for what amount of the funding. The council should take the responsibility to make the call.