The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking and ideation of the two.
We’ll be voting against the proposal in the temp-check, although we are very much in favour of experimenting with questing platforms to incentivise actions on Arbitrum and help STIP recipients distribute part of their incentives to users who complete quests.
The reasons we’re voting against the proposal in the temp-check are:
Given there’s also a proposal from Rabbithole in the forum, which is requesting for half the requested budget by Layer3 to be distributed as incentives, we should discuss as a DAO and come up with a way to make both work.
We’d much rather fund a pilot program with just a few quests covering few chosen protocols to better understand impact, and then determine whether we want to go for a fully fledged quests program.
We’re happy to participate in the discussion and ideation as well as to facilitate a roll call of interested parties to reshape the proposal before bringing it forward to an on-chain vote.
In considering these 2 proposals, is it correct to treat the Rabbithole and Layer3 proposals as equal?
@krst How did the governance team assign weight / impact to the educational impact of a product like Layer3, vs. the short-term money raining incentives that Rabbithole quests operate with. I believe @JoJo mentioned this above.
On the Arbitrum call just now, Joe highlighted these are 2 very different products.
Layer3 proposal = onboarding and education
Rabbithole proposal = more liquidity mining and incentives
Both can work, but they’re not the same. A pilot does seem like a good idea regardless.
Given there’s also a proposal from Rabbithole in the forum, which is requesting for half the requested budget by Layer3 to be distributed as incentives, we should discuss as a DAO and come up with a way to make both work.
We’d much rather fund a pilot program with just a few quests covering few chosen protocols to better understand impact, and then determine whether we want to go for a fully fledged quests program.
We agree that funding both to have a side-by-side comparison to help analyze results and with a smaller pilot would be most beneficial for the DAO to understand quest platforms more broadly. We are happy to help with this.
@krst How did the governance team assign weight / impact to the educational impact of a product like Layer3, vs. the short-term money raining incentives that Rabbithole quests operate with. I believe @JoJo mentioned this above.
Quest rewards are a fraction of the gas cost, in which users earn rebates for completing actions. Quests with ERC20s are about rewarding users with ownership, not financial incentives. You can see for yourself by checking out Quest Terminal.
On the Arbitrum call just now, Joe highlighted these are 2 very different products.
Layer3 proposal = onboarding and education
Rabbithole proposal = more liquidity mining and incentives
My two cents, but think this is a false categorization of the two products. RabbitHole is indeed focused on onboarding and education as well as an end user product. It’s important that this is not to be confused by Quest Protocol, which is the infratructure that underlies RabbitHole and other quest platforms like the Arbitrum Quest Platform
In considering these 2 proposals, is it correct to treat the Rabbithole and Layer3 proposals as equal?
@krst How did the governance team assign weight / impact to the educational impact of a product like Layer3, vs. the short-term money raining incentives that Rabbithole quests operate with. I believe @JoJo mentioned this above.
On the Arbitrum call just now, Joe highlighted these are 2 very different products.
Layer3 proposal = onboarding and education
Rabbithole proposal = more liquidity mining and incentives.
As we outlined in our proposal above, “Layer3 Quests provide a hands-on learning experience which makes the understanding of complex protocols more enjoyable and interactive. They provide delightful step-by-step guidance which motivates users to explore and use these protocols, thereby increasing user adoption and contributing to the broader understanding of apps.”
We’d much rather fund a pilot program with just a few quests covering few chosen protocols to better understand impact, and then determine whether we want to go for a fully fledged quests program.
We’re aligned in our belief that Questing offers a positive-sum outcome, not a zero-sum one. We’re fully on board with piloting a side-by-side comparison to validate the results @quaternary.
Firstly, we appreciate your support for the STIP projects and your efforts in drafting this proposal. As ITU Blockchain, we acknowledge and commend the achievements of Layer 3. However, we find it inappropriate to initiate the Temperature Check vote without concluding the ongoing discussions on this proposal. There have been requests for a breakdown of the 1M ARB grant to explain its allocation. Regrettably, we have not seen such a breakdown. We believe that 1M ARB is excessive for creating 95 quests on an existing application (Layer 3).
For all these reasons, ITU Blockchain casts an “Against” vote. If the grant amount is reduced and a detailed breakdown is shared, we would be very keen to reassess this proposal.
Sharing the final results of the Snapshot here. Just want to say thank you, everyone, for your feedback and engagement during this proposal process, we deeply appreciate the thoughtful conversations and inputs. We’ll take these insights back internally to consider our next steps. Despite the outcome of the Snapshot vote, we remain committed to supporting Arbitrum independent of BOOST.
We’ve been happy to be a part of this community since June 2022 and look forward to continuing development of the ecosystem.
The @SEEDLatam delegation has decided to vote AGAINST this proposal at the Temperature Check.
Rationale
We recognize the value of these projects in attracting new users to the ecosystem. However, we have decided to vote against it for the following reasons:
We consider the requested amount of 1M to be excessive, especially when compared to RabbitHole’s proposal, which requests half that amount. However, we understand that they take a different approach.
The proposal is adjusted with the STIP execution date, taking into account that on-chain voting takes 2 weeks. The schedule seems to be quite tight.
We would like more details on expenses to understand the amount of tokens requested.
We would also like more details of the missions to be executed and an estimate of the metrics you believe you can achieve.
Conclusions
We hope that the proposal will include more details and that the costs will be justified and detailed. As we mentioned at the beginning, we know that this type of project attracts new users and could be beneficial to the arbitrum ecosystem.
