Certainly a good idea to broaden the scope of participation in the STIP. Will be good for Arbitrum which is under heavy competition from an array of L2s. Need the small good projects to have a chance to take off and create greatness within ARB. Some huge players are ripe to be knocked down a few pegs if some of the small projects get a bit of funding (Ramses in particular);
7 Likes
Gauntlet is generally supportive of this proposal. As part of the working group that put together the original STIP program, the total budget (and amounts proposed for selection) was not scientifically chosen - rather, a larger emphasis was put on speed in response to the Arbitrum ecosystemâs desire to move quickly. With that in mind, it makes sense to extend the funding to projects that received the required support from delegates but didnât receive funds due to budgetary constraints. We view the Round 2 process as separate from this and believe the learnings from Round 1 will help ensure blindspots like this are sufficiently covered moving forward.
15 Likes
Absolutely in favour of this proposal. Itâs clear that the original proposal, while well intentioned, penalised some of the smaller protocols that nevertheless are deserving of support.
This would go a long way to rectify that in an efficient, straightforward manner.
Fully believe this is the best outcome for the ecosystem and to help keep Arbitrum competitive.
10 Likes
Iâve been looking at DefiEdge for a few weeks now. They are building some incredible tools that work across many platforms. And they are starving for capital. I have been wanting to test out these tools but have avoided doing so. Why? Because they did not get a grant and I am waiting for the grants to drop so I can put my funds in some useless low-efficiency Camelot or Balancer pool and farm and dump ARB. The truth is I donât even care if this additional STIP passes because I firmly hate Arbitrum now and as soon as the previously passed farm-and-dump program is done I am leaving Arbitrum altogether and not coming back. Well done you geniuses.
7 Likes
Iâm in favor of this proposal. Notional would benefit from backfunding so you have to take my words with a grain of salt, but I think that Savvy make a good case that it is in the long-term interests of Arbitrum.
In my opinion, the most important thing here is to design and produce a longer-term incentive framework that achieves the DAOâs longer-term goals. Backfunding STIP proposals would significantly broaden the sample size of this program and give the DAO a better starting point to work off of as it puts together the longer-term incentive framework.
I believe that the data gained from passing this proposal would lead to better decision-making and design with respect to the longer term incentive framework. I support it.
11 Likes
In favor of this proposal in order to not stifle innovation on Arbitrum. Plenty of small technologically innovative projects (who reached quorum for ARB incentives on the original STIP) may fall to the wayside because their less innovative and less capital efficient competitors are being propped up by disproportionate STIP funds. Everyone should get the opportunity to showcase their tech on a somewhat equal playing field, only way to really see which teams are pushing the envelope and which ones are lacking (something that can be covered up for a time with disproportionate external incentives).
12 Likes
The delegates did an outstanding job analyzing a vast array of grant requests. It would have been impossible for the delegates to âgameâ out which protocols would get not only the FOR votes but also into the top 50, without using the entire process in a mercenary sort of fashion. Their job was to vote on protocols they understood and/or believed in. Not voting for something is not the same as voting NO.
To that end, the benefits to the Arbitrum ecosystem in extending the grant applications are many. We need to build out more users and a bigger base of defi and crypto enthusiasts NOW as we get ready to enter the next leg of the bull market. Increasing trading volume through the allocation of these grants is designed to do just that. Having this increased flow of capital through these grants, becomes our ecosystem MOAT and gives us strength in comparison to BASE or Polygon or others.
However, limiting competition effectively undermines this moat we are building, the BIG players already got big allocations and this will help to solidify their moats. But, these moats may be at the expense of innovation in our ecosystem and may in turn drive smaller players away to our competitors.
In other words, the BIG players are already established and will use their allocations to prevent competition from challenging their established positions. This does not help our ecosystem as effectively as providing grants to protocols that have already demonstrated utility and delegate confidence, even if with slightly less votes. Overall, this is a very modest request in the big scheme of things and will provide a great opportunity to measure effectiveness and growth across the ecosystem.
13 Likes
I think this is a very sensible proposal that will help increase the diversity and resilience of Arbitrumâs ecosystem
10 Likes
Very supportive of this STIP for a couple reasons. The first reason is the projects already did get community consensus to be funded. The community agreed that each project that reached quorum SHOULD get funding, but the way the program was set up not all could receive funding. It wasnât the quality of the projects and their proposals that were causing them to not get funded, it was the fact that there wasnât enough funds for all of them.
The second reason is, I tend to think that Layer 2âs right now are in a position where there is fierce competition. Virtually every single Layer 2 is fighting to get mindshare and dapp activity up. The arbitrum DAO has been conservative so far, but it is time to make moves as more and more L2s are going to launch with big incentive programs. Take advantage of being one of the earlier ones and use this head start to build up a strong dapp ecosystem which can serve as a moat. Giving these projects incentives is one way to jump start that.
Final reason is that the projects that got the most votes last time were the ones who asked for the most and had the biggest community. The STIP basically acted as a way to make the stronger protocols get stronger and solidify their lead. With apps, I believe it is worth funding many different apps as there may be better designs for a particular type of app and this type of a proposal can help kick start these newer and smaller projectâs growth.
9 Likes
I see the proposal very favorable, wouldnât change a thing in it.
The prop should be put up for voting, not only because it would be fair, but because it would benefit the diversity of projects being built in the Arbitrum ecosystem as such. Same problems sometimes need different approaches to be dealt with in an agile and efficient way.
The main advantage I see, is the opportunity of collecting as much data as possible via the STIP distribution, analyzing it and making the according adjustments in the future STIPs or any other subsidies the Arbitrum DAO may or may not provide. So having an almost twice the data sample size, makes decision making a lot more efficient.
So, you mustnât look at this part of the grant as a âpitty giveawayâ, you should see it as an investment in the ecosystem as such.
9 Likes
There are a number of protocols that reached the passing criteria for the STIP that are not included here. Would be odd and unfair to not include all of the proposals that passed according to the criteria listed.
âTo succeed, an application must reach a 71.51M ARB Quorum and receive more than 50% of votes in favor of the proposal.â
7 Likes
I support the extension and I think its fair to the teams that got their proposal approved. That said I would like to understand what is the criteria for the cut, since Beefy (the protocol I collaborate for) is not on the list. Based on my understanding the proposal should include funding up to âPrime protocolâ.
6 Likes
The cutoff was based on the original STIP round 1 voting. Basically any team that was approved (reached % for and passed quorum) but was not funded due to the 50m funding cap is on the list.
BUT the important thing is that after this STIP process, the data will be used to create a much more equitable, well-structured grant proposal for projects across different verticals and sizes. So lots on the line here.
3 Likes
Hello everyone,
I write as a member & on behalf of the Trader Joe Governance Council:
Firstly, kudos to the STIP-Inclusion working group for spearheading this proposal and working tirelessly to make sure that the STIP is more inclusive in nature and serves to give smaller projects an opportunity to show what their products are capable of achieving. Lest we forget that these incentives will be distributed from protocols, by virtue of the respective protocolâs functions, and thus this will naturally give some much needed exposure to various projects that are either taking their first steps within the Ecosystem, or are small/medium-sized in their current stage of progression.
Secondly, the Trader Joe Governance Council would like to express its support for the Backfunding proposal. The main reason for our support here lies in the fact that for just an additional 21.4 Million ARB, the Ecosystem will be funding an additional 26 projects that will increase the incentive-impact of the STIP to a total of 56 projects. Hence, for less than half of the originally funded STIP, the Ecosystem will be able to fund almost double the amount it would have with the initially concluded STIP round. We see this value-add to be substantial in nature and one which will naturally lead to the STIP achieving a far greater successful outcome & impact. In addition, one of the goals of the STIP was to attract new developers and projects to the Ecosystem. As a Phase 1 participant, Trader Joe truly appreciates the substantial efforts invested by all parties involved. Remarkable small and medium-sized projects and developers participated, and we firmly believe that funding these projects independently via backfunding will successfully fulfil one of the primary goals of the STIP.
At its current stage, the STIP has already provided a host of lessons that ought to be taken into account for the structuring of future incentive programs within the Ecosystems (most predominantly, the main lesson being the need for a more equitable disbursement of incentives so as to grant small/medium-sized projects a level playing-field for incentive competition).
We look forward to working with other Ecosystem partners and contributors so as to make sure that future incentive programs cater for the aforementioned project-class and thus, serve to attract prospective start-ups to the Arbitrum Ecosystem.
Kind regards,
Immutable Lawyer
Axis Advisory
10 Likes
Hello I am writing as lead of the Arbitrum Treasury and Sustainability working group to comment on the budgetary implications and price impact of passing this proposal
We recently concluded our analysis on ArbitrumDAOâs suggested spending limit for Q4 2023. We project there to be minimal price impact if the DAO limits itself to a 135-210 million liquidation until December end (of which 80 million has been already allocated).
The current proposal thus represents ~10% of our budget for this quarter and is a good utilisation of funds in my personal opinion.
11 Likes
As @Djinn said below any team that passed quorum AND had greater than 50% FOR vote is included. You can see the full list of âapproved teamsâ here: ARB STIP â raho.me
The cutoff was based on the original STIP round 1 voting. Basically any team that was approved (reached % for and passed quorum) but was not funded due to the 50m funding cap is on the list.
BUT the important thing is that after this STIP process, the data will be used to create a much more equitable, well-structured grant proposal for projects across different verticals and sizes. So lots on the line here.
9 Likes
Strongly believe that we need to provide funding to those who made it to STIP-I and passed the quorum. All these projects passed on the basis of merit showcasing their hard work and achievements in the past.
-
This vote for funding will showcase that tech prowess and user acquisition stats matter more than being close to whales or having ARB OGs on cap table.
-
It will also establish that Arbitrum as an ecosystem maintains a relatively neutral stance as long as there was a demonstrated historical performance and the system doesnât try to nitpick winners. All capable candidates need a level playing field and funding the remaining STIP projects will more or less enable this.
Firmly support this!
8 Likes
We at Gains Network strongly support the backfunding proposal by the Savvy DAO. This initiative stands to significantly bolster the Arbitrum ecosystem by providing much-needed support to diverse and emerging builders, which is vital for innovation and growth. By addressing the limitations of STIP 1, we can ensure that our commitment to inclusivity isnât just aspirational but actionable. This proposal isnât merely about allocating funds; itâs about upholding our communityâs values and fostering an environment where all builders, regardless of size, have the opportunity to thrive. Itâs a strategic move that acknowledges the importance of diversity in our ecosystem and reinforces our dedication to nurturing high-potential projects that may otherwise face undue hardshipsâ.
8 Likes
I support this proposal.
These projects all met the requirement of STIP 1.
The current all-or-nothing cut-off at 50M would create an unlevel playing field within the arbitrum ecosystem that frankly is not necessary nor beneficial to the arbitrum chain.
I believe further funding to the tune of 21.4M ARB is a small price to pay for this and would benefit the 26 important protocols that took a lot of time and effort to get their proposal to pass STIP-1.
6 Likes
I have to commend Alex and the rest of the Working Group on the amount of thought, effort and coordination put into this proposal. For those who werenât close to the process, this has been tirelessly worked on for 7 days a week since the day voting ended on Round 1. Every effort has been made to engage with delegates, successful Round 1 projects and wider community members to ensure each aspect was considered.
Naturally, the Stargate Foundation supports this proposal. An additional 26 projects being funded, especially for a lot of smaller grants, will enable significantly more growth and development of the ecosystem. This is particularly obvious when considering how successful the initial funding of 50M ARB has already proven to be with TVL up 15% and volumes up almost 100%.
The STIP process was a huge learning opportunity for the ArbitrumDAO on how to best run a similar process in the future, but also how popular Arbitrum is as an L2 and how many protocols are willing to put in work to support it. This proposal closes the loop and signals support for all projects that were initially voted on to help the DAO achieve its goals.
We look forward to continuing our support for Arbitrum and itâs participants.
7 Likes