At a high level, we very much appreciate the perspectives and points you make – having a healthy debate is key to making sure incentives are spent effectively for the benefit of the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Our reply to @Perl should cover our thoughts on this point, though if there are additional points you feel we should address please do let us know.
Not only are we matching the grant during the grant period (~13.5% of grant amount), we are committed to extending it to cover the total duration of a year. If you prefer to only focus on the grant period, please feel free to do so; however, our 1 year commitment still stands.
Do note also that 156k is our baseline amount - we will look to increase it as we grow on Arbitrum, especially after the incentivization period to prevent TVL from leaving the ecosystem.
Our incentivized Farm pairs are always changing - right now our Farms skew towards core pairs since that was our go-to market strategy. We have introduced Farms for Level Finance and Magpie and will continue to do so for other projects old and new to Arbitrum.
We felt that 50% was a good balance - it allows sufficient incentivization of core pairs that are heavily used and essential for DeFi legos, while still adequately supporting non-core pairs (some of whom will be invited by us to deploy on Arbitrum).
I saw that you agreed with Camelot’s proposal which earmarks 40% to core pairs (ARB/ETH/USDT/USDC pools), which is not too different from our split.