LTIPP Retroactive Community Funding

voted Do not fund on this offchain proposal because I think we should return this money to the DAO.

We’re voting DO NOT FUND this proposal. While the intent to reward valuable contributions is commendable, the current retroactive funding approach lacks necessary structure. Without clear evaluation criteria, delegates can’t make informed decisions on individual compensations. A more systematic reward program would better serve the community and ensure fair recognition. Additionally, current market conditions suggest we should prioritize initiatives that directly contribute to Arbitrum’s growth, and LTIPP doesn’t fit in that criteria. By refining our approach to future community incentives (retroactive or not), we can better align spending with long-term ecosystem development.

I would really prefer if @Matt_StableLab and the rest of the LTIPP crew distributed this, as they were close to the process and have a better perspective than us.

But I don’t like the idea of the hit to our integrity if we don’t distribute these funds, so rather than vote against, i will be selecting the groups i have first hand experience with.

Lampros Labs & Serious People

I used Lampros Labs’ spreadsheets to vote, forked them myself and I am confident taht the spreadsheet saved me hours and made my votes more informed.

I attended Serious People’s KPI Working Group calls and felt better informed on what would make a good Liquidity program and loved the discussions, and the concept of ROE (Return on Emissions). I would have loved to see that develop further in the DAO.

2 Likes

We also agree with other delegates that the DAO should distribute this fund based on the recommendations (who and how much) from the core members of the LTIPP program, but we would choose Lampros Labs since we used their dashboards to vote on the applications much more effectively than not having them.

3 Likes

I voted Do Not Fund on the Snapshot proposal.

In addition to the detox program we decided to vote on a few weeks ago, I think we all lack clarity regarding the results and how the funds were used initially and based on that retro reward this efforts. No strong opinions on the projects, btw. Just the way for use this funds… I feel more comfortable with returning the funds to the DAO.

I agree with @pedrob’s perspective here:

I second his feedback.

The following 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.

We’re voting “Do not fund” on this proposal.

The reason we’re voting against the proposal doesn’t have to do as much with each individual application but rather because the whole ‘retroactive funding’ structure was in our opinion poorly set up from the get-go. While we understand the reasoning behind intentionally leaving the scope of retroactive funding vague, we believe it had the opposite of the desired effect.

It’s extremely difficult to assess each individual application because there’s no criteria to do so, especially when it comes to the impact the contributions had on the LTIPP. Given that, funding any of the applicants wouldn’t be based on any objective metrics. And funding all of them would feel like we’re doing simply because the funds were earmarked for that purpose, which is a precedent we don’t want to set.

Overall, although we find individual contributions to be valueable, we feel that the amounts being requested are not justified. However, due to the structure of this ‘retroactive funding’ they are non-negotiable at this point. Therefore, we’ve decided not to vote for any of the requests.

In any future programs, we encourage the compensation for impactful contributions to the LTIPP, but with a different method with objective criteria or KPIs set up in advance.

1 Like

Blockworks Research is voting against this proposal with the “Do not fund” option.

We’re voting against this proposal, not due to any specific concerns about the applicants, but because it’s extremely challenging to assess each applicant’s contribution accurately after the work has already been completed. We find the contributions to be valuable, though we would’ve liked to see better justifications overall. Similar to what other delegates have mentioned, for future reference we would like to see more strict KPIs put into place to monitor contributive efforts.

We have decided to vote ABSTAIN for this proposal.

We believe that as it is, there are no clear guidelines for delegates to assess or evaluate contributions.

For this reason, we believe that someone with more knowledge on the matters at hand (LTIPP Council) should be responsible for evaluating applications and offering a sum to the applicants.

This is to ensure that funds are allocated properly according to contributions.

DAOplomats is voting ABSTAIN on this proposal on Snapshot.

We do agree that work was done by these individuals/groups but we are not able to really quantify how much effect it had and like several delegates already stated, would have preferred the LTIPP council to handle this process.

The results are in for the LTIPP Retroactive Community Funding Selections off-chain proposal.

See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats:

After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.

Rationale

We share the other delegates’ position that evaluating the contributions is difficult due to the absence of clear guidelines. As a result, we decided to abstain from voting because we lacked the necessary elements to make an informed decision.

Below are the opinions of the UADP:

We decided not to fund this initiative since we do not believe that we have the understanding nor view of the contributions the parties on the poll had on the LTIPP. These decisions are more prudently made by members who were in closer proximity to the stated parties. However, we are not against the concept of retroactive funding as a whole—it is too common that many contributors in the space don’t attain their fair share of compensation for their work.

Voted against in this proposal. It’s extremely difficult to retroactively assess this, given the organizational challenge of reviewing all applications, which can have merit or not. Optimism has built a whole process behind RPGF, and the idea does work, but I decided not to support it on this form as it could not be guaranteed that real quality would be rewarded, given the challenges of organization.

Vote: DO NOT FUND

Type: Snapshot

Proposal link: LTIPP Retroactive Community Funding Selections

Voting Rationale Link:

Commenting on Proposal Link:

=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===

This proposal’s intent to reward individual community members for their contributions to the LTIPP program is commendable, yet there are critical flaws in its execution. Retroactive funding without clear evaluation criteria or pre-established metrics makes it challenging to objectively assess each applicant’s impact. While rewarding valuable contributions is important, the lack of defined standards for measuring individual achievements risks creating a precedent of funding based on subjective judgments, which could undermine fairness and efficiency within the DAO’s governance processes.

Additionally, as some delegates have pointed out, existing programs already offer rewards for meaningful community engagement. Rather than duplicating these efforts, it may be more effective to consolidate or enhance current initiatives with measurable goals to ensure transparency and accountability. AVI could consider structured financial alignment strategies that integrate clearer KPIs, which would enable both the DAO and contributors to understand expectations and outcomes better.

Some delegate feedback seems to be not so much opposed to giving a Retroactive grant at all, but more so there isn’t enough context from the program managers to accurately assess who deserves it. Is there any openness @Matt_StableLab to do some type of analysis + recommendation for DAO approval? Or is this just dead and funds are going back to the DAO?

Asking simply because in terms of optics I think this situation is setting a tone towards contributors that even though we as a DAO say we will set aside funds for retroactive funding the process of actually get paid is unlikely in practice. I know value is subjective, but it feels here like the ‘no’ votes are from an administrative issue then any actual assessment of the projects. And I’d imagine it’s frustrating if you put a ton of effort into some of these things only to get a no based on operational decisions versus subject measurement of the input.

Personally the main problem i see here is that, for the good or the bad, the single teams have provided a quote on their work.

I don’t think that there is no value in what was done; I think tho some if not most quotes are not corresponding to the effective value.

I believe that Retroactive Community Funding is crucial for motivating community members to take initiative and contribute meaningfully. Many contributors participated in the LTIPP with the understanding that their efforts might be rewarded through retroactive funding. I agree with @Bob-Rossi’s point that

Supporting these contributions would set a positive example and encourage future work from community members.

I also recognize that budget estimates, as raised by some delegates, can be a point of consideration. Since there was a one-week feedback period post-application, applicants would have had the chance to adjust or clarify their requests if any concerns around budgets had been raised. If possible, I suggest that the LTIPP Council consider reviewing and funding those who made the most eligible contributions. This would affirm the DAO’s support for proactive work by the community and provide clarity for future programs.

2 Likes