Hey all, I’ve had to moderate the comments section and delete some back and forths that were unconstructive and to an extent, demeaning. As @stonecoldpat mentioned, we have a maximum politeness policy, and you can find the community guidelines here which we use to moderate the forum.
We ask that everyone stay on topic, be respectful, provide evidence, and remember that the purpose of this forum is to foster productive and respectful discussions related to governance.
Can someone confirm that there no guarentee that the ARB allocated will actually be fully “spent”?
There seems to be heated emotions from several sides in this post. I am simply trying to understand the proposal.
Does recycling guarantee that the ARB tokens will be fully distributed and therefore spent?
Is there a scenario where this ARB is recovered and held by the team/partners as part of the “recycling”?
I think that Ramses deserve a grant, but I am really quite concerned with recycling. From what I can see, there is a scenario where this allocated ARB never actually gets used and would largely be recovered and kept by the ve holders. Whilst we can disagree about how likely this is, it’s a potential outcome.
In the current form of the proposal there is no guarantee that this won’t happen.
Will the team add in a clause to ensure that every ARB is spent and not able to be recovered?
Thanks
in the proposal it is said, partners will recycle their arb and everything that is left will be returned at the end of the 3 months, at least in current draft
I undertstand the questions around the mechanism, but are we seriously implying that this model not spending/dumping the whole allocation faster is bad for Arbitrum? Why is everyone advocating for full-speed mercenary capital dumping as the best outcome for the DAO? Recycling is a feature, not a bug.
As far as I understand, let’s say voters can recycle 60% per epoch (I believe its much less but lets be pessimistic), after 12 loops (12 weeks=12epoch) on a 1.5M grant, there would be only around 10% unspent to be returned (100-200K ARB approx), so the amounts wouldn’t be that big anyway. Other projects already said they would return funds if KPIs are not met with upfront funds so how is this different?
I interpret that the remainder will be returned from the original post, but for example, it could also be LP bribed in the last epoch, so the grant is fully utilized (just an idea).
This is not a discussion of what is more “efficient”, stop mixing up my simple question with random other points. I am simply saying that all requested ARB needs to be fully spent, and that if recycling can circumvent this then there needs to be EXPLICIT guarantees within the proposal.
Then this should be guaranteed as part of the proposal. Right now it is not.
There should be no application that has the potential for teams/partners to recover and hold the ARB past the 3 month deadline. This would easily be seen as a potential route to “farm” the token and therefore could risk the eligibility. There needs to be confirmation that this cannot happen.
Why team cant get arb? I dont get these point every team member can choice if dump or lock.
With the lock you get whatever bribe and fees are, pretty sure many other team has fat bag in the LP they will incentivate do you wanna chrck 1 by 1 if they gonna get any arb?
In guidelines of the “maximum politeness policy”, I will post my factual data (sourced) once again - in a maximally polite and fact-checked way.
Knowing the Solidly ecosystem in-and-out (and having deployed our Beta on Arbitrum in November 2022) I will provide the following inputs and possible tangents of concern:
Grantees must not farm their own incentive programs.
The team has - in my opinion - shown questionable ethics in the past:
If this information gets deleted again, you’re actively withholding material and significant information from governance and acting in bad faith against Arbitrum’s investors.
(this post is a reply to @meyaf320219 can’t edit anymore)
You said you were “quite concerned with recycling”, so my answer was directly on topic.
From the proposal, you can see its clearly disclaimed that partners cant keep any ARB and it must be recycled
Anyway, I guess your feedback is reasonable in that the proposal can be updated to make crystal clear how does the grant finalize. I think LP bribing any remainders on last epoch is a good idea to make sure the grant is fully utilized. Or just return it, however Ramses wants to do it.
@Dog @North can there be an update on the proposal to clarify how does the grant end? it’s a recurring topic asked here
Would be great if the team could respond officially to this.
It is important that we can discuss open-source facts like this on the forum in a polite way. I appreciate Seraph’s efforts to share, and would like to keep this discussion friendly but objective. We cannot ignore some of these statements.
When did launching a new protocol/coin became a crime? And what does it have to do with Arbitrum grants. If a business/person has found a way to expand/capitalize on their existing tech, knowledge etc; shouldn’t be concern to the proposal.
As for Cleopatra, by that logic every other protocol who is multichain should not get grants? Seems a bit far fetched. Even so it is a friendly fork launching, this grant has nothing to do with Cleopatra and is exclusively going to be utilised for Arbitrum as outlined in the proposal.
The only ARB that will be spent over the STIP 3 month period will be as matches where a protocol has invested their own (not ARB) incentive towards attracting tvl to their pool and therefore into the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Any unspent/unmatchable ARB will be returned to the DAO at the end of the STIP. (similar to most protocol proposals here on the forum).
Kinda wild it’s not possible for Ramses to have a normal grant discussion thread without people literally opening accounts with the sole purpose of mudding the process. I guess having a fully open anon forum doesn’t help.
@stonecoldpat @cliffton.eth is there any way we can make this thread stay on topic with discussions about the grant? This is not a place for people to convince others if the project is good or not as far as I’m concerned.
I am trying to understand this breakdown that shows examples of the recycled ARB never actually being “spent”.
Could you confirm?
I am trying to validate these calculations here, if you could respond to this:
Thanks
The arb recycled from epoch n-1 includes all the arb from previous epochs, all the arb from epoch n-2 is recycled into epoch n-1, and it now adds up to the arb of epoch n-1, the question makes no sense, all arb is recycled.
Those calculations are wrong, I believe it seems like I am rude to Perl but the recycled ARB is actually less than 10% after you loop 12 times like I illustrated before. I am trying to stay peaceful and illustrate the point of why those arguments are wrong. Hopefully we understand eachother eventually.
If a partner incentives a pool, we match with the ARB grant. That ARB is spent. End of story.
And we look forward to displaying the efficient results and positive impact on Arbitrum during the bi-weekly reports per the stipulations of this program.
Thanks, so to confirm, ARB that is used to match could never actually go to users, and could entirely be held by the partner (or team) veRAM holders indefinitely.
This confirms that the only guarantee is that the ARB goes to veRAM holders, and could potentially never be distributed to users.
This is my concern with ‘recycling’. Can you guarantee that those ARB are not just held by veRAM holders, especially past the 3 month deadline?
Whilst there is the potential that the “ARB matching” can lead to incentives for the Arbitrum community, this application is clearly incentivising veRAM directly, just to clarify.
Appreciate your time to respond, thank you
For clarity, how do you define “User”?
Someone that doesn’t hold veRAM.
E.g if you remove your own token holders, there is no guarantee that anyone else would ever get the ARB. It is entirely incentivising veRAM, with no guarantee that the veRAM holders pass it to users.
Partner rebribes and recycles their ARB for 12 epochs. All ARB has landed literally only in participating user wallets minus the remaining from last epoch vote (approx 10%). I’m not sure how do you conclude that.
