[QiDao] [FINAL] [STIP - Round 1]

[meyaf320219]

MAI has not held $1 peg in over 3 months.

There is no way that Arbitrum should be subsidising something that is fundamentally broken.

[Jadmat]

So, prior to the migration, QI had deep liquidity in Arbitrum?

Do you want to explain a little more about what “Grant Matching” would be like?

[Benjamin.lens]

thank you for the kind words ser Builders know builders

[Benjamin.lens]

Not fundamentally broken. Just been impacted by Fantom incident. As you can see in the isolated chains (i.e. Base), everything is functioning perfectly with the peg at $1. Arbitrum can be isolated too, as mentioned above

[Benjamin.lens]

QI liquidity is built where there is most emission. QiDao is a DAO so that’s something that can be set up. Important to note that most crosschain DAOs (Balancer, Aave, Curve, etc) all have main liquidity on Ethereum, even though they have emissions elsewhere. This has never been an issue for them.

In terms of the grant matching, the exact $ values are detailed above in my initial response to you. With 50% of revenue (in ETH) plus up to $4,000 / week in QI.

[Matt_StableLab]

Hello @Benjamin.lens ,

Now that your application has been marked eligible, please be advised of the remaining steps in the application process to be completed prior to the Review Period Deadline:

@Matt_StableLab

• Review Period Deadline: October 4, 2023 11:59 PM EST

Please complete the following steps required for your application to proceed to Snapshot:

@Matt_StableLab

2. Once feedback is collected, applicants will need to change their application title from [DRAFT] to [FINAL] by the Review Period deadline: October 4, 2023 11:59 PM EST. At that time, all eligible proposals with the following formatted titles will be migrated to Arbitrum Snapshot to vote. The correct format for a proposal ready to move to vote looks like this: [Project Name] [FINAL] [STIP - Round 1].

To change your proposal to final, please tag an Arbitrum Foundation Forum Moderator (@ stonecoldpat @ cliffton.eth @ eli_defi) by the Review Period deadline to notify them of your proposal’s readiness to proceed from [Draft] to [Final] status.

Once notified, the Arbitrum Foundation Forum Moderator will adjust your title from [Draft] to [Final] status. Once marked as [FInal], your application post will be locked by moderators and you will no longer be able to edit your proposal.

[Benjamin.lens]

@stonecoldpat @cliffton.eth @eli_defi Please adjust the title of this proposal from draft to final.

[cliffton.eth]

Post has been marked FINAL and locked. I’ve also deleted your duplicate post to prevent confusion.

[Griff]

@Benjamin.lens

• Lido: stETH derivative collaterals

Only incentivizing stETH is a net negative for the ecosystem, so I have to vote no, if this proposal doesn’t make it I hope you don’t incentivize lido and can incentivize rETH, cbETH, etc and re propose for round 2.

[Benjamin.lens]

Hi ser, please note that QiDao is also to incentivize rETH and sfrxETH, in addition to stETH.

here is the quote from the proposal:

“The primary goal is to use QiDao’s native-first model to create more stables minted natively on Arbitrum with assets that belong to Arbitrum and the greater Ethereum ecosystem: ARB token, project-specific tokens like gDAI and stETH-ETH Curve LPs, as well as Ethereum LSTs (stETH, rETH, and sfrxETH).”

[ITUblockchain]

As ITU Blockchain delegation team, our concerns stem from the insufficiency of details within the proposal. While it holds potential for enhancing the Arbitrum ecosystem, the requested grant size allocation strategy lacks transparency. Furthermore, the reliance on partnerships necessitates more detailed plans.

Therefore, these outlined details remain inadequate for us to offer our support and we voted “against” to this proposal.