Proposal: Request to match my donation to boostrap Curve Lending on Arbitrum

We are voting forward. We had leveraged Curve products in the past and we are happy to keep supporting them within Arbitrum

1 Like

Savvy DAO votes FOR this proposal.
We really appreciate the aligned incentives and matching concept initiated here. We would like to see more of these in the DAO!

We could use to do this. :smile:

See delegate thread here: Savvy DAO - Delegate Communication Thread - #18 by SavvyDAO

1 Like

Before saying anything else, we would like to thank @michwill for this proposal with huge potential and for his contributions. The success of Curve Finance on Ethereum is well known, and we agree with the delegates on the forum that this proposal will attract great liquidity to Arbitrum. We are truly looking forward to seeing how the approval of this proposal will impact the Arbitrum ecosystem. Consequently, we are supportive of this proposal.

1 Like

I will be voting “Against” this proposal.

Nothing against the proposal itself (It looks well thought out and I would support it if it were in the LTIPP), simply concerned about setting precedent of projects asking for grant funds outside of the processes already in place. I’d like to see how the LTIPP plays out first.

The proposal seems to pretty closely mirror what an LTIPP grant application would have looked like, is there a reason why this wasn’t just part of the LTIPP process?

Edit: Updating (5.21.2024) here to not take up more forum space, but I have voted “Against” on Tally. My opinion remains the same as the snapshot vote. After we see what comes of the LTIPP experiment I will re-assess my opinion on this.

The @SEEDgov team has thoroughly reviewed and evaluated this proposal, and we’re voting FOR this proposal. We appreciate the work @Jadmat did on this analysis.

We’d like to highlight that CurveLens introduces significant innovations in its liquidation and efficiency mechanisms, particularly in the integration of crvUSD, the stablecoin that can be borrowed against any of the listed assets. @michwill has incentivized this protocol on Arbitrum with personal capital, not DAO funds, and has made similar efforts for crvUSD across various Layer 2s and other prominent EVM chains to increase liquidity for this new product.

For more details on how it works, you can visit:

However, we must be cautious regarding incidents like the one on 04/13; CRV wasn’t arbitrable for several hours, which led to the liquidation of some positions using this asset as collateral. This incident was related to the low liquidity of CRV on Arbitrum and a shortage of arbitrage operators. While these issues were not severe, the inclusion of CRV did expose some risks.

We believe the proposal is solid, coherent, and well-founded. It proposes using ARB as a direct incentive, and it would be interesting to delve deeper into the rationale for this strategy, rather than directly incentivizing the stakers. We estimate that this point has already been considered and that the decision was made in pursuit of maximum efficiency.

We vote in favor. CurveLens’ choice of Arbitrum as its first chain following Ethereum is key to the Curve ecosystem, as it brings significant capital efficiency to users, as well as opening up many possibilities for innovation in the creation of Perps and high-leverage operations. CrvUSD has performed impeccably since its deployment. Curve, already established as an essential on-chain infrastructure, is expanding its ecosystem and introducing innovations across various sectors; its integration into Arbitrum represents a win-win that also benefits the users.

1 Like

We are voting “For” this Curve Lending on Arbitrum proposal, despite falling outside our usual scope. This proposal is solid and poised to attract more users, increasing platform activity and overall utility. Curve’s innovative lending model could foster new integrations within our ecosystem, enhancing functionalities and empowering users. The substantial benefits, coupled with matching funds from Curve’s founder, underscore both of our commitment.

1 Like

The Princeton Blockchain Club is voting FOR this grant to bootstrap Curve’s lending market on Arbitrum.

This proposal heavily benefits the liquid restaking narrative on Arbitrum, and additionally supports Curve’s decentralized stablecoin. Egorov doing a 100% grant match out of his own pocket (regardless if the proposal passes) is the cherry on top.

We’re not really a big fan that this was outside of something like the LTIPP, but considering we’re still voting on approving LTIPP grants this fits in pretty well. Great timing tbh.

1 Like

After consideration Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal

We have voted “Abstain”.

We don’t have any specific objections to this proposal and appreciate @michwill’s offer to utilize his ARB to incentivize Curve on Arbitrum. However, in line with our recent voting on LTIP proposals, we’re hesitant about transitioning to a model where delegates are responsible for reviewing and approving incentive-based grant spending without input and feedback from domain experts.

Curve is one of the OGs of DeFi on Ethereum. They have a vast user base and liquidity. This proposal can potentially attract users and liquidity to the Arbitrum network because these users will look for better opportunities for their money on a network with cheap gas fees while trusting Curve.

Voting FOR.

To add to what @blockworks research said, this will set a precedent for future protocols and provide continuity for successful projects after exhausting their milestones in their various grant programs. Thriving projects with a good track record can approach the DAO for funding to scale their projects and also generate income for the DAO through a partnership with the protocol.

1 Like

Blockworks Research will be voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.

The above is based on the reasoning detailed in our earlier comment.

Although figures and the usage of funds have been slightly modified since our previous comment, they still appear sensible to us. We particularly appreciate the added focus on the emerging LRT market.

1 Like

The following 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 in favor of the proposal and we want to request that the LTIPP council includes Curve in their monitoring. The proposal is well structured and the amount requested is reasonable, and we believe that it would be accepted within the LTIPP if it had been submitted to it, as also suggested by @coinflip. The matching of funds by @michwill also helps inspire confidence in the determination of Curve to successfully utilize the grant to drive growth of their lending product on Arbitrum.

We understand the concern raised by other delegates regarding setting a bad precedent of protocols applying outside of programs, but we believe instead of letting that drive projects (especially well-established ones) away from Arbitrum, we should focus on making DAO programs more visible and easy to discover.


As far as I understand, this offer appeared later than it was possible to submit an application, which means that you will have to wait at least 3 months for the next ones.
At the same time, we have almost finished voting Double-Down on STIP Successes, which generally issues 37 million ARB to all past projects.

Taking this into account, submitting such an application is a completely normal procedure:

  1. It does not contradict anything
  2. Grant programs are designed to weed out blatantly bad applications, but in the end we all vote on every project.

So, if you like this proposal you have no restrictions )

1 Like

This is a great idea, should this proposal be approved, @SEEDGov as an LTIPP Advisor we commit to monitoring the development of the incentives distribution.

In this regard, it would be fantastic if Curve committed to report completing the same template.


I should clarify. I didn’t intend to indicate this proposal broke procedure. Anyone with enough voting power can bring any request they would like to Snapshot. I also understand mechanically why they were unable to join the LTIPP (they missed the application period). I also don’t want to imply the proposer did anything wrong.

My question was more to ask the ‘why’. As in why didn’t they prepare this application in time to meet LTIPP requirements? I don’t believe missing a deadline is justification to go around the grant frameworks established and by passing something like this it sets precedent that this is acceptable.

I’ll also again clarify that I don’t believe that was the intention of the proposer, just speaking towards the broader picture.

We are very happy about the very positive outcome of the snapshot vote and appreciate the overall positve sentiment and the additional feedback. We are looking forward to the final vote on tally.

1 Like

Voting FOR in the On chain Proposal and In favor of inclusion in the LTIPP. It’s good that they accepted it. Especially in terms of reports, follow up, transparency, etc.

I understand the concern raised by delegates about not having tried through other funding mechanisms such as the aforementioned LTIPP, do I understand from my point of view that the decision to donate a part of the funds is out of scope? Of course interested in continuing to learn from the opinions of my colleagues in these cases.

However, I think that raising these alerts so that they do not become valid is very positive and in my opinion helps us lay the foundations for the DAO’s decision framework. Very good.

I voted FOR this proposal on Tally. This is a compelling proposal from an innovative project that has been building in the DeFi ecosystem for many years. I like that the founder of Curve has committed some of his own capital. I think compelling proposals should always be welcome in the DAO, even if they are outside of established frameworks.

1 Like

We’re voting FOR the Curve grant request on Tally for our previously stated reasons.

Happy to see that this’ll also be included in the LTIPP monitoring!

1 Like

Voted FOR on Tally as well - same reason

I voted FOR this proposal on Tally - already persuasive given the nature of the proposal, and the fact that @michwill has already thrown in funds makes it even more attractive.

I do see the concern about doing this outside of LTIP but agree with @Frisson about the value of flexibility when something this compelling comes along.