Camelot will be voting against that proposal.
We would like to start by saying we are very much in favour of the DAO finding a way to distribute STIP ARB to more protocols, given that many deserving projects failed to make the cut during round 1, or were waiting for a round 2. Camelot has been supportive of this since the very inception of the first STIP working groups.
However, we see major flaws in this backfund proposal as it currently stands:
-
Several delegates have voted in the context of a 50m budget and the specific parameters known at the time. We believe that voting would have been significantly different if delegates knew in advance that their votes could be potentially carried forward into an entirely new situation. Votes were made under known parameters, and therefore taking them as valid into an entirely new circumstance sets a worrying precedent.
-
Several protocols (GMX, Radiant, Trader Joe…) consequently reduced the amounts requested in the first round so that more projects could be included in the STIP. Arbitrarily increasing the total amount afterwards - by including proposals with sometimes less reasonable asks - would simply mean that their proposals had been weakened for nothing. Again, this emphasises the point above that votes were cast under known parameters, and to take this as valid in a new context does not make sense.
-
Last but not least, we believe that the protocols that were waiting for a second round should be included in the same proposal.
Although we are aware that a separate proposal is being drafted, we believe that the success of a round 2 is currently significantly limited in the context that the backfund proposal is passed.
We strongly support inclusion and a clear path forward for new entrants to the ecosystem - the most appropriate way to facilitate this would be a proposal that includes a round 2. A backfund would significantly limit inclusion because of the above mentioned reasons.
For example, an interesting potential alternative would be to set up a small committee with a voted budget (e.g. 20-30m) which could distribute it to all the protocols that weren’t included.
This is just one possibility, but it shows that there are other quick and far more effective ways of remedying the situation.
Most importantly, in the scenario where a backfund passes we would expect all the included protocols to equally push for a further long-term framework and/or solution for round 2. We will continue to actively contribute throughout this process.