Your arrogance is becoming difficult to reason with.
You continue to be negative and toxic, failing to have a constructive discussion or contribute meaningfully. At this point, I have to question your intentions for the Arbitrum ecosytem, you are coming across as someone “with a grudge” against Camelot. For the sake of this discussion, let’s remove the name “Camelot” and simply refer to it as the “the native DEX”
You realize >10 DEXs have tried this? Look at the number of Solidly forks etc that have tried to surpass the native DEX with significantly higher emissions and still failed. How do you explain Camelot having larger metrics, partners, and a much broader impact than huge DEXs that were already present like Sushi or Balancer? Even TraderJoe has less than a handful of partners on Arbitrum, in comparison to Camelot’s >30.
You continue to ignore the objective impact that the native DEX has had on the ecosystem. You are allowed an opinion, but you are ignorantly ignoring facts now.
@Woo_woo what is an ideal grant programme for the native DEX? If Camelot is not the native DEX, then please provide an alternative suggestion of the best protocol to distribute incentives effectively.
The medium post you’re quoting gives me the impression those were meant to be distributed, maybe not all at once like Camelot thinks is best but over time, they are meant to be distributed.
Easy. Camelot is less than 8 months old and launched at the peak of Arbitrum season. When you have a fresh emissions schedule it’s pretty easy to make friends. If you promise people free incentives they will always say yes. I’m sure there’s skill in navigating that, but it doesn’t make it a good dex. A dex being “arbitrum native” does not make those incentives go any further. If uni/balancer/tj got 12m in incentives on the same exact pools, I guarantee the tvl/volume would be higher on those three than on Camelot. You can check this right now by checking similar pools on sushi/uni(externally incentivized)/balancer/tj and seeing how much more tvl/volume they bring in with less incentives.
Can you perhaps lay out what the objective impact that Camelot has had on the ecosystem? It’s already been proven in multiple posts here the volume is subpar and the effect on the ecosystem has been greatly exaggerated.
I think a great initiative for the native dex would be to use the Arb tokens they were already allocated for doing stuff exactly like this proposal outlines. Ya know, instead of begging for their entire marketcap in free monies.
For the record I had no issue with Camelot prior to this proposal that seeks to use Arbitrum DAO funds to run their LM program instead of relying on native emissions/arbitrum dao distribution to increase their competitiveness. I just saw them for what they were, another new forked dex that provides nothing new to the table.
Even more disgusting is how this proposal frontruns the establishment of an actual grants program.
So locking the 2.2M $ARB in the treasury multisig (more than the per month grant) while distributing the grant to a huge basket of arbitrum native liquidity providers does not distribute fairly to Arbitrum users?
That said, I would support lowering the total amount as well.
It really seems like you are more worried about the effect this would have on other dexes in the ecosystem, rather than the effect on Arbitrum, $ARB or it’s users.
Do you realize that other dex’s are a big part of the arbitrum ecosystem? Go check defillama and you’ll see other, more technologically advanced dex’s bring WAY more tvl and volume to the Arbitrum ecosystem. And many projects are built upon those dexes, like pendle. Camelot has no such integrations along those lines. (edit: this is untrue, pendle does have Camelot pools apologies for the mistake) Safe to say that these other dex’s are way more involved in the Arbitrum ecosystem.
My problem is that they’re asking for $12m+ to be blown within 6 months, on LPs who wouldn’t stick around after. It’s about Camelot asking for upwards of twelve million United States dollars with no intention of doing anything meaningful with it.
The argument that they’re native or as they claim, leading, is just not good enough to be asking for 12m to give to LP’s.
I actually do agree and think the numbers could be smaller, maybe using the 4M $ARB as a starting point. I do appreciate you taking the time to write out your thoughts calmly. @Woo_woo as well.
I assure you, if uniswap asked for 12m arb to incentivize LP’s I’d be against that too. I think Camelots community need to lose the “they’re haters”, “they’d rather support another dex” attitude.
It’s not that it’s Camelot, I use Camelot and have no problem with them. If they said they’re working on something that would change DEXs as we know it, I would support 12m arb for funding in a heartbeat.
There is over 3.5 billion ARB currently sat in the DAO treasury. If this was to be spent over 20 years, it would be 141m ARB a year. @Woo_woo@frensy
How do you suggest this being allocated? Camelot is one of the most used apps and largest communities, with the largest partner base in the ecosystem, and @Woo_woo you’re suggesting they should receive no grant at all? No other DEXs should receive any grants too?
Arbitrum quite literally is its native protocols - without those it is just another L2 with no differentiated ecosystem. What is Arbitrum without GMX, Vela, Camelot, Jones, Plutus, Dopex, Magic and all of the other native builders? I would genuinely love to hear who is deemed worthy of a grant.
You’d rather the DAO sit on a huge amount of tokens whilst other ecosystems aggressively support its builders?
I would love to hear how you think it should be allocated - with clear examples of protocols and the expected effect across a broad range of native projects, since you have such a strong opinion on how it SHOULDN’T be used.
Please feel free to actually give an example. Do you mean innovation that would require deeper spot liquidity, more users, more collaboration, and overall a thriving ecosystem?
I wonder how we might be able to create an environment ripe for innovation on Arbitrum - perhaps a grant programme focused on its native builders that are already actively collaborating and pushing the chain further?
If you do the math again, and say we used these parameters for granting $12M proposals to any other project current and future, how long will the arb in treasury last?
