Proposal: Accelerating Arbitrum - leveraging Camelot as an ecosystem hub to support native builders

There’s nothing wrong with incentives, they aren’t bad perse. Is the nature of them and the way to use them what can make them favorable or harmful.

Incentives have nothing to do with ponzinomics or unsustainability.

Unless the service you provide, the product you sell, or the purpose you fulfill generates value enough to cover the value you use to keep providing/selling/fulfilling it, unless that happen, is an unsustainable enterprise.
Then is when you need to add a constant flux of future value to cover the present imbalance and here is where you start dealing with a ponzi.

I’m not against of adding some ponzi punch in the equation (as long as is not an only full ponzi scheme), otherwise I wouldn’t be in crypto lol.
The end of many protocols in crypto will match with the day their emissions end, I’m not discovering anything new.
In fact many things in our economic system rely on ponzi at some degree. The financial system itself is an example, the dollar, the state pensions scheme, etc.

Anyways, we are losing the focus discussing about ponzinomics or sustainability, so I’ll leave it right now. This is not the topic here.

I mentioned previously that I’m ok with DEXes working the way they do. I’m just saying that I don’t want them to use ARB community allocation as rewards under the terms being proposed, because:

A) If is to support protocols with funding, I prefer a grants program. A propper one with accountability, transparency and reports.

B) If is to support DEXes and liquidity providers, then I could maybe agree with it as long as:

  • The purpose is presented as it is, without cover ups.
  • The support goes to all the dexes on chain that ask for it. It doesn’t matter native or multichain. If pools are on Arbitrum, the liquidity is on Arbitrum, the services are on Arbitrum, that’s what it matters. Obviously they must only incentivize their pools on Arbitrum. Amount of granted ARB proportional to TVL on Arbitrum for each DEX.
  • Only as a temporary measure.
1 Like

No, I am NOT supporting this proposal.

First of all the Camelot team could do better with keeping their word and for that alone I will not support this large amount to be used at their discretion.

I would not trust 12 million $ARB just handed over as stated in this proposal.

1 Like

Wasn’t uni, sushi and joe all airdropped?

I am very glad to see projects starting to make proposals - it feels like this is the natural step for the DAO after it was actually set up. I am user of Camelot and a lot of other Arbitrum apps, and I think it is clear that they are the native DEX, really excited to see a well put together proposal.

I think it makes a lot of sense for Camelot to be one of the first. I am looking forward to their feedback to some of the points raise.

I am also hoping to see this start the wave of other native protocols who will make grant proposals. The treasury is very big, so it needs to be spread in a couple of different ways.

I think this is very bullish for Arbitrum and a lot of the smaller builders that Camelot works with, I can’t imagine that it makes sense to see like 25 different small projects all make their own proposals, so this proposal seems to have a very clear proposition that not many other projects would be capable of delivering.

This is a great move for Arbitrum and it should send a really supportive signal to anyone wanting to use or develop here.

Since this is first propsal, it might be worth starting with a lower amount? Anyway, love everything that has been written and i think this is very bullish.

I want to see a native DEX take the #1 volume spot on Arbitrum, who else but Camelot can try do this?
Let’s go!!!


We’d like to thank the entire Arbitrum community for their feedback and support, it has been a pleasure to engage in so many discussions with the ecosystem stakeholders. Through this process we’ve gained valuable insight, allowing us to further improve the DAO proposal. Below we will add further context to some of the key points raised, whilst also highlighting the key adjustments made to the proposal itself.


  • Grant size reduced from 2M ARB per month to 1.5M ARB per month, for a total of 9m ARB over 6 months.
  • A minimum of 33% (500k ARB) is allocated specifically for liquidity pools and integrations that adopt ARB as a base asset
  • Clarified proposal objectives and KPIs, to be measured in monthly transparency reports
  • Additional parameters for determining liquidity incentives for specific pools and integrations
  • A monthly transparency report that provides transparency and holds accountability against the proposal objectives and parameters, detailing how every ARB is allocated
  • Added focus on incentivising the adoption and utility of ARB as a base asset

Our view is that the community and ecosystem should be actively engaged to propose, discuss, and shape multiple different grant programmes. There is no one size fits all approach for an ecosystem as diverse as Arbitrum, and a variety of grants will be a necessity to effectively distribute tokens and grow.

We would like to clarify that before proceeding with this proposal, we sought guidance from the Arbitrum Foundation to ensure that Camelot’s approach was aligned with the broader goals of the chain. The Foundation provided guidance that this grant would be an appropriate proposal for the DAO, and therefore we proceeded to post and share it publicly.

Proposal Updates

In order to take on board valuable feedback and improve the proposal, we’re making several adjustments and additions. These are now implemented directly in the original proposal.

Firstly, we will be reducing the total amount requested to 1,500,000 ARB per month, for a total of 6 months and 9,000,000 ARB. We appreciate the feedback received, and we think this adjustment provides an appropriate response to ensure that the proposal will be as sustainable as possible. As this is potentially the first incentive grant, it is inherently experimental in nature. Therefore, we’re confident that over the 6 month period, we can gain all of the data needed to refine the most effective amount of incentives required for further proposals.

Secondly, we aim to provide much more thorough transparency through clear objectives and a relevant ‘transparency report’ template. On a monthly basis, we will ensure that we’ve clearly documented where every $ARB token has been allocated, the relevant growth metrics achieved, and most importantly the progress for our broader Arbitrum objectives. You can see the objectives below and a template of the transparency report attached. This report will be provided at the latest 72 hrs before the following month’s incentives are to be distributed.

Thirdly, we have now added proposal objectives and parameters, as well as a much greater emphasis on the use of incentives to increase the adoption and utility of the $ARB token as a base asset for liquidity pools and integrations.

Proposal Objectives (Which will be measured and tracked within the transparency report, attached below)

  • To grow the liquidity of Arbitrum builders, bringing new users into the ecosystem and directly supporting the growth of ecosystem protocols
  • To use the incentives to bring new protocols into the Arbitrum ecosystem
  • To support the launch of native builders and their liquidity requirements
  • To advance the adoption of ARB as a base asset in liquidity pools
  • To advance the adoption of ARB within integration partner strategies
  • To provide marketing and community support to the ecosystem builders included in the incentive programme

Accelerating Arbitrum: Transparency Report Template

New Proposal Adjustments

In addition to the transparency report, we have also made Any pool that receives rewards must be included in the transparency report with the relevant context if newly added.

  • Incentives will be distributed to a minimum of 30 partner pools, as documented in the transparency report.
  • No single pool or partner (excluding core $ARB pools) can receive more than 5% of the total incentives (as measured over a 30-day period)
  • No single pool or integration partner can receive more than 5% of its TVL in monthly incentives (as measured over a 30-day period)
  • A pool must maintain a minimum trading volume of $1,000,000 annualized to be valid to receive rewards (as measured over a 30-day period).
  • A minimum of 33% of the total incentives will be used on liquidity pools with $ARB as the base asset. On top of this minimum, Camelot will provide bonus incentives to teams that actively transition their liquidity to ARB as a base asset too. This will be included and measured within the aforementioned transparency report.
  • The partner integration section has now been merged into the “Ecosystem Builders” section, with the relevant parameters above being applicable.
  • If at any point the Arbitrum community or DAO is not satisfied with the performance or delivery, they can move forward with a governance vote to end the grant early.

Why are the proposed liquidity incentives an effective use of grants?

There have been several comments about the need for grants that provide incentives, so we’d like to clarify the value of doing this. There can and should be many forms of grants, but we feel strongly that incentives can provide the most direct and broad growth to the chain.

Simply put, liquidity is the foundation for growth and innovation. Without liquidity, onchain activity and DeFi as a whole are constrained. Focusing incentives on the liquidity of Arbitrum builders will benefit the entire ecosystem in several ways:

  • Deeper liquidity for ecosystem tokens will unlock further growth and utility. Users seek deeper liquidity to perform their DeFi actions with the least friction, and protocols want to build wherever the liquidity is deepest.
  • This grant is specifically focused on the liquidity of ecosystem projects. The tokens of these ecosystem projects are significantly less liquid and more volatile than tokens like $ETH or $USDC. Therefore, in order to deepen liquidity and attract users, higher incentives are required to compensate for the additional risk.
  • The main utility of the $ARB token is for governance, and one of the most important factors for healthy governance is a strong decentralization of the network. The initial ARB airdrop played a pivotal role in this, and we believe that distributing incentives to users whilst growing the Arbitrum protocols is the most effective way to continue to decentralise the network.
  • The incentives will be used to bring further adoption and utility for the $ARB token. We’ve updated the proposal to include guaranteed and additional incentives for protocols that use $ARB as a base asset in the liquidity pools, as well as for integration partners that drive value and adoption to the $ARB token.

This grant will enable Arbitrum to become an even more attractive environment for users and builders. Deeper liquidity attracts both users and developers, with incentives playing a key role in this. While incentives may be viewed as attracting short-term mercenary capital, the enduring impact is attracting more protocols and spurring development. Choosing where to build is a crucial decision for a project. Therefore, liquidity incentives will initially attract users, but the sustained growth of the ecosystem will be driven by increased development and the network effects of protocols. Builders are drawn to active, incentivized ecosystems, and this proposal is designed to create such an environment.

Why is Camelot uniquely positioned to distribute these incentives?

Several comments expressed that the Arbitrum DAO should not favour any DEX over others and that Camelot would unfairly benefit from this grant.

Camelot is home to over 40 ecosystem partner pools and integrations. A new native or multichain protocol would not be in a similar position to receive and distribute a comparable grant. Camelot’s Round Table is formed of over 25 official partners that are formally committed to working closely together and supporting the broader ecosystem. These types of partnerships cannot happen overnight and the material impact can be reflected in the data, which shows that Camelot has the highest TVL of any native DEX, as well as the highest volume for native tokens, and the highest number of partnerships. Camelot can therefore effectively handle the business development and co-ordination required to assist these partners in using ARB as a base asset.

Whilst the table @MrOakilt shared above is not exhaustive, it shows the extent to how many Arbitrum protocols Camelot directly supports and has brought into the ecosystem. Camelot has assisted the onboarding of large multichain protocols like Pendle, hosted the public sale of projects like Penpie, and made close long-term relationships with the largest native players like Plutus and Jones.

How does this benefit the DAO?

As mentioned above, by distributing ARB tokens as liquidity incentives to ecosystem builders, we can unlock significant growth for ecosystem builders, onboard more users and protocols, further decentralize the network, progress the adoption of ARB as a base asset, and overall strengthen Arbitrum’s position as the lead L2 for DeFi.

Arbitrum’s key strength is the ecosystem it has managed to grow, with such a diverse range of protocols and an active and driven community. Camelot has been committed to bringing new protocols into the ecosystem and supporting the launch of native builders, and therefore Camelot can ensure that these incentives are used to continue this pace of growth whilst deepening the network effects. As mentioned above, whilst there may be the perception of incentives being a short-term strategy, the value gained from new builders developing in the ecosystem has long-lasting and permanent effects.

Camelot is the leading native DEX with over >40 ecosystem partner pools and integrations, and therefore is best positioned to ensure that any incentives be can distributed to the teams that actively build on Arbitrum. This extends to incentivising the use of ARB as a base asset within liquidity pools, as well as for integration partners too. This is an important factor that will see value accrue directly to the ARB token itself as its utility increases.


Firstly great proposal and glad to see such healthy discussion in the forums! Great to see the Arbitrum community engaging actively with governance. This response by Camelot is wellthought out and shows that they have really taken on board all the suggestions by the community and listened attentively to all helpful feedback.

Camelot is an important project on Arbitrum, since it is the biggest Arbitrum native DEX which allows for price discovery and liquidity for long-tail assets. For an ecosystem like Arbitrum to thrive and grow this is vital and up to this point Camelot has been doing great supporting for this usecase. For new protocols looking into building on Arbitrum, it is incredibly comforting to know a DEX like Camelot exists which can help to provide liquidity for a project’s token without the need to the project itself to spend endless capital on incentivising said liquidity. Its a key competitive advantage that Arbitrum has over other chains, and helps to attracts such a diverse group of projects and builders.

Looking at the proposal, as @Ice says, it is incredibly selfless in nature. Camelot is one of the only projects on Arbitrum with the ability to distribute value through these grants in a trickle down manner to over 40+ different partner projects attracting new and larger entrants into the Arbitrum ecosystem. The use of these funds are important, and not only has Camelot committed to using the grants to support the ecosystem and promote ARB as a key pair asset, but also promises to deliver transparency reports detailing the use of said funds.

Camelot has already addressed the concerns with the size of the grant in their response, and adjusted accordingly. In addition, having earmarked a percentage of the grant to be used to incentivise the use of ARB as a base-asset is incredibly interesting for ARB holders. Not only will the ecosystem benefit from more projects, builders and deeper general liquidity, but so will ARB holders benefit from the increased utility in the token itself. A proposal that seeks to benefit all.

Additionally, some comments express concerns on the effectiveness with which the ARB grant would be used in attracting deep liquidity through Camelot. For this, I would like to point out the large differance between the amount of Grail emissions Camelot had earmarked for incentives vs the current amount used. The Camelot team has already demonstrated diligence in using emissions effectively.

On top of this, Camelot’s recent v3 upgrade introduces a much more effective DEX model in general which edges itself ahead of other v2-style competitors. I expect Camelot to be leveraging its current emissions schedule to better incentivise liquidity through v3. This will provide a drastic increase in efficiency of emissions to generate incredibly deep liquidity, where the ARB grant will likely also be utilised.

Overall, I am strongly in favour of this proposal and welcome the positive effects it seeks to have on the ecosystem and ARB token.


Some said Camelotis Better and Better How community Think?

I feel that many who weren’t convinced will see the sense in this proposal.

I wasn’t too keen on the first draft of the proposal, there is no doubt that the updated version is more aligned with the Arbitrum community. As a Grail, ARB and many other arb tokens holder, the proposal at its current stage is music to my ears.

Camelot certainly took feedback on board. I guess that’s the beauty of debating and working as a community to deliver an outcome that aligns with every participant in the ecosystem, or at least most of them.

At this point, It’s not rocket science to figure out that if the grant were approved, it would greatly enhance ecosystem adoption and provide additional utility for the ARB, which currently serves as just a governance token. I strongly believe that incentives are laid out in a fair manner, in terms of the impact for ARB holders while maintaining opportunities for the key Arbitrum builders who are supposed to drive the ARB vehicle. The allocation to the ARB pools forms a significant percentage of the grant, something that every holder in my opinion shouldn’t argue about.

Even if someone is still unconvinced about the benefits of this grant for the ecosystem, the DAO could vote to revoke the proposal. At this point, no ARB holder should feel threatened by this proposal, as some stated in the previous comments before the proposal was updated.

I really can’t think of a better DEX that is more aligned with ecosystem development than Camelot. It has already done so much in a short space of time for the ecosystem, as evidenced by the number of partners and protocols that have started building on Arbitrum thanks to Camelot.

Camelot once again proves that its mission truly is to an ecosystem-focused DEX that is there for the arbitrum builders and most importantly community.

I hope that the arb community will see the sense in this proposal that could potentially kick off the arbitrum summer that I’m sure most of us here would like to see happen.

A big yesss from me.


In accordance with our governance procedures and after an on-chain DAO vote, the Lodestar Finance community has voted in favour of supporting Camelot’s grant proposal :trophy:

Link to the forum discussion: Discord

Link to the onchain vote: Snapshot


“Camelot is only asking for $9m instead of $12m, how selfless of them!!! They really know how to take feedback!!! How kind of them to do the bare minimum of offering transparency reports”

Can we please stop using emotional language like “selfless” we all can see clearly who stands to benefit from this proposal.

Camelot’s success thus far has been a result of giving free money to incentivize project liquidity. They hope to continue this success by using Arbitrum DAO funds to continue their innovation in the space of giving out free money. This is hardly revolutionary and the ‘updated’ proposal does not really change much, despite what the circlejerkers in this thread may make it seem like. Ask yourself if this is a sustainable model for a dex.


One simple question:
Why not use the 2 mm previously airdropped $ARB Token first, and show that the planned strategy indeed do benefit the ecosystem in a sustainable way, before asking for more $ARB Tokens?


never gonna happen lol they realise the value of their ask.

Regarding the monopolization of the grant for incentives:

I genuinely wonder what the other DEXs in Arbitrum have to say, specially the native ones. Not only about the proposal itself and the consequences of it for them, but also about Camelot approach on this “war”.

Camelot is repetitively and publicly putting them down, over and over.

I still didn’t hear them. Aren’t they aware? or they just don’t care? If they keep silent I’d assume they’re agree so who are we to defend the fair play if they don’t care?

If I was them I would publicly ask for my allocation. Because later you now… No asked, no complain.


Good decisions come from good alternatives. This is the first significant proposal from a dex on Arbitrum and of course, it won’t be the last. Hard to imagine that effective use of foundation funds will be evaluated in a vacuum, rather, in context of all the alternatives.

As a founder who is making significant investment to deliver a sustainable and scalable liquidity hub for this ecosystem, I’m watching very closely how the community and foundation are responding to this particular proposal. Precedent matters.

Reacting to this specific proposal, I think the initiative of the team and their willingness to put something out there to get discussion going despite the risk of significant pushback and criticism is noteworthy. It’s a brand new governance process and we’re all learning as a result.

Coming from the viewpoint of a builder who will also benefit from grants, I’m thinking this proposal and naturally comparing it to mine. Particularly, I’m thinking about how heavily the community and foundation will factor technology infrastructure as a key component to providing a sustainable and scalable liquidity hub for Arbitrum. Partnerships with long-term contributors to the ecosystem is key (Ramses has 40+), but you also need the tech. Even if we just look at the last week, on key ARB pairs (ARB/WETH and ARB/USDC), Ramses did 8x the vol on 3% of the liquidity compared to Camelot. ARB/WETH 24hr average - Camelot: ($100k vol/$6M liq) vs RAMSES ($800k vol/$200K liq).

Historical performance of efficient support of ARB base pairs is just one example of the types of points we’ll be highlighting in our proposal requests to pour incentives into proven technology. As mentioned, this is the first big proposal from a dex, but it won’t be the last. Alternatives and debate are a healthy component I hope we continue to develop as a community working together (even in competition at times) to build a thriving ecosystem we can all contribute to and enjoy for many years to come.


I believe most of us are simply watching, as I know I was. Genuine opinion and constructive criticism can be misconstrued depending on the underlying biases of the messenger. In this case any DEX, such as ourselves, has 2 paths of moving forward in regards to this proposal:

  • Disagree and provide alternatives
  • Agree with the understanding that we would get the same level of support as this sets a gigantic precedent.

In my personal opinion it was pretty unbecoming to front-run a proper DAO/governance grants program with haste. Especially from such a well-funded team. Grants should be to spark innovation and support builders, not further incentivize ‘successful’ projects. Pool 2 rewards as ARB token is quite possibly the least effective method to distribute these funds, as it naturally leaks into endless ARB selling through auto-compounders. ARB is not a token that should be thrown out of the window for self-gain and increasing APRs for mercenary LP. ARB should be given to ecosystem participants and protocols, such as through matching programs incentivizing Arbitrum projects, a-la bribe-matches.


Dog and north you are both representing Ramses, right?

I am surprised to see u say:

unless i am not getting something, bribes are really just a way to decide where to place pool2 rewards. in the end it is the exact same, liquidity incentives. your statement seems contradictory. you use bribes to decide where to place pool2 incentives.

is there any data to suggest bribes are an effective way to distribute incentives? i have seen a lot of solidly forks die, and not many ever build long-term liquidity from bribes. a bribe model is often even less efficient and very dilutive, as shown by the charts for solidly DEXs.

Ramses earns less than $3000 in fees a day and i can see that excluding the standard pools like ARB and ETH, it does very low volume on ecosystem liquidity. Ramses TVL was 80m only a few months ago and is now lower than 20m, is this an effect of the sustainable bribes? The $RAM token is also over 90% down in 4 months. Sorry i am not trying to be rude, but you are not in a position to be talking about “mercenary LPs”.

Would you say ur comments were made in good faith? @North @Dog


@akiyahyeah Bribes are not for directing Pool 2 rewards. They direct emissions. Bribes have plenty of data pointing to success, if you read the proposal in this post-- they even directly drew a parallel to Velodrome. Velodrome does their distribution through bribes. This is better as it ONLY goes towards voters-- and majority of voters are large ecosystem protocols who were gifted veNFTs to bootstrap their pools. Your latter half of the paragraph is just ad hominem and does not actually provide any valuable feedback. Camelot IS a solidly fork, and so was Excalibur on fantom. They just removed the bribe/voting part. If you want to discuss our DEX I’m more than happy to tell you about the many custom-coded innovations we did in record speed with a tiny un-funded team :slight_smile:


I rather have a proper grant program setup and having the 40+ ecosystem partners make individual applications and giving a grant on merit basis helping the arbitrum ecosystem as a whole rather than just delegating this work onto Camelot and having them distribute ARB around as they please.

Ramses are the team that took user funds and then rebranded.

I can remember several solidly forks from the same team members that didn’t work out. You’re also behind another protocol already - Gravita.

Not a good look.

1 Like