Thanks for the input and feedback. Sharing my perspective on each of your comments.
-
It’s okay to have a different perspective on the incentive program’s limitations. As the Incentives Detox thread reveals, not all stakeholders share your perspective on the efficiency of the initial programs.
-
No decision is purely technical in this space; while it could be a leading factor, other elements are always in play. If Arbitrum held $MAGIC, it would have A. It likely received a clearer signal that Treasure was considering leaving and could have reacted. B. Influence the decision to stay or move away, C. and as a final resort, be able to recoup some of its value by either benefiting from $MAGIC growth in case it turns out their decision was better for their protocol or sell the respective $MAGIC to generate value for the Arbitrum Treasury.
-
The bidirectional alignment relates to both protocols having a direct tokeneconomic relationship through the Token Swap. This allows both sides to participate in each other’s governance and benefit from the counterparty’s growth, creating an economic incentive to help the other party develop further. The additional questions you ask regarding Arbitrum-alignment are exciting and should be further explored in this pilot and potential follow-up programs.
-
To clarify, the tokens unlocked to the relative Treasuries are not being sold. The default is for these tokens to vest in the respective treasuries.
-
I don’t see how The Bigger Picture you outlined here would discredit this proposal, especially with @CastleCapital (the author of the resources you reference) being involved directly and in favor.
-
The Council is required to streamline due diligence, plan and execute the swaps, set up supporting analytics, and provide learnings and resources from this initial pilot.