The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
Thanks @griff for putting together this well-thought-out proposal. We’re a bit late to the party, as we see, but would still like to add our two cents to the discussion. Apologies in advance if any of the points below echo previous comments from other delegates.
We agree with @0xDonPepe’s reflection that this is one of the first proposals to treat sell pressure and grant-farming not as inevitabilities, but as design challenges. That’s a key strength of q/acc, it doesn’t just fund projects, it attempts to create structured alignment between builders, token holders, and the ecosystem at large. The combination of bonding curves, fair-launch rounds, and locked token economies makes this a unique approach to ecosystem funding.
While it’s good to see the DAO included in the token distribution, we think the proposal would benefit from greater clarity around how the DAO’s token share will be managed. Will it be held passively in a multisig? Will it be delegated, staked, or used to participate in the governance of the supported protocols? A simple policy framework, even if non-binding, could help prevent downstream uncertainty and establish best practices for DAO involvement beyond being a passive recipient of tokens.
On the residency side, we noted that many Polygon participants had no original intent to launch there, which shows the pull of the model. But for Arbitrum, this can be a concern, like, are we becoming a launchpad or a long-term home?
A possible improvement, just thinking off the top of my head, could be to tie some post-graduation benefits, like the release of DAO-held tokens or access to follow-on support, to light ecosystem residency criteria. This could include keeping liquidity or governance active on Arbitrum, integrating with core infrastructure, or maintaining user engagement on the chain. These don’t need to be strict mandates, but they would help ensure the ecosystem gets lasting benefit from its investment.
While going through the comments, we also reviewed the graduation KPIs provided in the response, that a minimum 50% token circulation, $15M market cap, and liquidity thresholds that are clear and valuable.
That said, market cap and supply metrics can be gameable in short windows, especially with hype-driven liquidity. We’d recommend that we also consider metrics around liquidity quality, such as slippage on mid-size trades, source of LP volume (organic vs incentives), or wash trading detection. Additionally, introducing softer KPIs around ecosystem contribution, integrations, governance activity, and retention of first-time users could move graduation from just a financial milestone to a broader signal of long-term ecosystem fit.
On the reporting side, while you’ve mentioned:
If possible, along with the monthly reporting, we can add a public-facing dashboard with live metrics such as ARB demand ratio, liquidity distribution, user conversions, token velocity, etc. This would increase transparency, enable better cross-program coordination, and let everyone monitor progress in real time.
We appreciate the thoughtful structure this proposal brings and the experimentation it enables within Arbitrum’s grant landscape. q/acc stands out by proposing a mechanism-first model that directly addresses recurring inefficiencies in ecosystem funding.
We’re looking forward to seeing this cohort go live and looking at the results as outcomes unfold.
).
