Your comment presents a thoughtful perspective on the STIP 1 grant allocation process and the proposed Round 2. However, there are several underlying biases and contradictions in your argument worth addressing.
Firstly, your emphasis on the challenges faced by larger, established protocols in the STIP 1 grant process, while understanding the need for smaller protocols to gain attention, seems to inadvertently lean towards a more selective approach that could favor established entities. This stance inherently supports increasing the barriers of entry for emerging protocols, which contradicts the decentralized and inclusive ethos that many DAOs, including those associated with Arbitrum, strive to uphold. By advocating for larger grants to already well-established protocols, you seem to be favoring a more monopolistic approach under the guise of alignment with Arbitrum’s interests.
Secondly, while you voice support for a Round 2 of STIP and acknowledge the importance of diversity in grant allocation, your actions suggest otherwise. You fail to mention that you have not joined the open group working on Round 2, preferring instead to work on a separate proposal in a more controlled, closed group setting. This choice raises questions about your commitment to inclusivity and transparency, core principles of DAO governance. It appears that you prefer a scenario where you can exert more influence over the outcome, which might not align with the broader community’s interests.
The concern about resource allocation limiting the possibility of a Round 2 is valid. However, it’s crucial to balance immediate needs with long-term strategies. The backfill proposal aims to address immediate gaps, while Round 2 is about future opportunities. The DAO needs to consider both without unduly favoring one over the other.
Your call for support for the initiation of a Round 2, independent of specific proposals, is indeed commendable albeit superficial. However, it’s important that this support not be used to undermine current initiatives that also hold value for the community. A more balanced approach would be to advocate for efficient resource allocation that accommodates both the backfill proposal and the potential for a robust Round 2.
In conclusion, while your insights into the grant allocation process are valuable, it’s important to reflect on how your preferences and actions may inadvertently promote a less inclusive, more monopolistic approach. True support for the community involves embracing diversity, transparency, and equal opportunities for both established and emerging protocols.