We can definitely do this if we win the bid. We can ensure we have a dedicated program manager focusing on Arbitrum, and no other chains.
A lot of things are shifting in Arbitrum DAO’s structure right now, I am following along as a delegate and we will ensure an AAE has proper oversight over our program. But exactly how that all plays out is ambiguous because the rules are still be written… not by us, but by the DAO. This is a timing issue. A lot of things will become more clear, such as Arbitrum treasury management and oversight, and by the time this proposal goes to snapshot, it will clear these things up.
Teams will deliver value in a variety of ways, after one year they will have built their project on Arbitrum, brought their community there, and effectively pegged their token to ARB. Those things don’t change after the 1 year mark.
The biggest difference between this model and other grant systems is we don’t have to have a plan and over engineer things to get teams to continue to deliver value. We have aligned incentives. Their stream starts to unlock after 1 year, but its streams over another year. It’s not likes they can just dump at the 1 year mark. They still need to drive value to their token.
The teams have major upside in their own success, and their upside is aligned with Arbitrum’s success, as the token’s price rise mechanically locks up ARB (and the DAO owns a lot of the token).
It won’t make sense for them to jump from chain to chain, they are locked into Arbitrum from every angle, the incentives are clearly there for them to commit fully to our ecosystem from the start, and lock-in for the long haul.