We are again and again spending more than originally requested instead of fixing a budget and then see the outcome.
You all have seen where the price right now is. And this won’t stop with more and more ARB token being given away and sold on the open markt causing the price to crash more and then new proposals are coming up, asking again for more ARB token as the price declines and they initial amount is now way lower.
This is a dead spiral and one of the major actor is the DAO itself.
I would like to support it, but maybe its time to stick to a proposal see the outcome and then decide rather than asking for more token.
Our team appreciates the feedback and comments thus far. We’d like to follow up on some of the points that @JoJo shared a few days ago and address the additional questions.
First, on the discussion of reopening applications. While we recognize the thought process and opinions of the delegates who feel this is a better route, we’d like to highlight that the application period was open for 9 weeks (November 11th - January 13th) and that applicants were able to update and incorporate the committee’s feedback into their submissions throughout the process. Additionally, as JoJo explained, the program is designed to be a “Sprint” with the priority of bootstrapping the Stylus ecosystem given its currently nascent state. The 17 accepted applicants along with the 9 recommended in this proposal will help lay an important foundation. For example, Sylow, if built, would dramatically reduce the complexity and time to build certain ideas with Stylus. Another application, Moving Stylus, if successful would open up an entirely new range of possibilities. Without their work, an application today could cost much more ARB to fund due to the increased engineering hours and technical expertise required. Therefore, by letting these applications bear fruit, the DAO may be able to fund ideas in the coming months for hopefully cheaper.
On the concern of additional ARB hitting the market, we’d like to remind delegates that the Stylus Sprint is milestone based. Teams will only receive funds if they deliver on the proposed scope and hit certain checkpoints. These milestones are also spread out over the course of an entire year, so the requested 4M will not be hitting the open market immediately. On behalf of the committee, Entropy will also be providing status updates to the DAO so they have transparency into what has been delivered and what remains to be built.
The committee actively worked to negotiate the budgets of each application. While each is at a point where the committee is comfortable with the value being returned for the ARB spent, we proceeded with the 4M ARB number as we’re confident we can continue to reduce some of the budgets slightly.
All of the accepted and recommended applicants’ scores can be found on Questbook.
As JoJo also explained briefly, there was a combination of factors that led to the committee recommending these 9. While each scored highly (>= 19/25), there was also a priority to include in the Sprint a range of application based submissions and certain tooling/infra that was deemed high-value in the short to medium term. Additionally, for certain RFP categories, like the GUI for the Stylus Cache Manager, it was deemed preferable to fund only one team to build this tool as multiple could cause unnecessary fragmentation and competition for adoption from what is right now a very limited set of projects. In those instances for example, there were several applicants worthy of funding that scored well, but certain factors like execution capability/risk were valued highly and influenced the committee’s final decision.
Lastly, as our subset of recommended applications began to grow, eventually a cut-off had to be made. Expanding on what JoJo mentioned, the presented list does not greatly overlap with what has already been funded and would cover some of the other priorities/goals the committee had for the Sprint.
Currently, the plan is to still move forward with a Snapshot vote on Thursday.
I appreciate the work on this proposal and the detailed review of the additional applications. I have a few concerns and observations about this proposal coming from a stance of getting the best value for the DAO:
Since the grading process is complete, and the grading criteria were initially designed to take the best of the applications in an objective way, funding these applications would necessarily represent diminishing returns for the DAO. Initial funding caps and criteria are designed to set boundaries for grant/funding rounds to avoid situations where there might be some “budget creep” and to force prioritisation and objective comparison. It seems bad precedent to expand scope after the fact. Instead, if these are extremely valuable proposals they should have been approved in place of others, and if the scoring process worked then these are not as good value for money as the initially approved applications and represent diminishing ROI.
I believe there was a 500k ARB soft cap imposed on applications in the initial proposal with requests exceeding this to be sent to the DAO directly. It seems several of the proposals here exceed that and so should be voted on as standalone proposals if I’ve understood this correctly. Can you confirm if any of the other approved proposals also exceed this cap and why they have been approved without individual proposals?
Almost doubling the cap seems excessive. It would be slightly more understandable if it was one or two proposals that could be voted on as standalones. In my mind this suggests either defficiencies in the review process or an ineffective scoring method.
Overall it feels like this is a proposal which doesn’t represent good value for the DAO as evidenced by the fact that better applications have been funded in place of these ones, and the enormous increase in budget in % terms. If this is due to the initial program design being flawed, I believe it should be iterated on and another round completed once impact of the first round has been established.
We have been thinking about this proposal and the effects this might have not only here but across other initiatives and believe this is a good idea.
The evaluation committee is made up of very structured entities, so for them to draw up this proposal regardless of the original funding intention goes to show how convinced they are of the listed projects here and their alignment to the sprint’s priorities.
On this
We were going to mention this as well. However, if we would be increasing the budget to cater for the listed projects, there is no point asking these >500k projects to come to the DAO directly. Seeing this is a one-off sprint funding initiative, it would be net positive to have them all in this basket then fund them altogether. According to Entropy as well, some of these projects might still see a cut in their budgets so that’s worthy of note too.
I see where you’re coming from but in my mind the point would be that funding of this scale is “extraordinary” and out of scope of the initial funding budget and so should require extra scrutiny from the DAO. Bundling these proposals together in this way does not provide the same level of scrutiny and approval as individual proposals.
I believe that increasing the budget will be very useful for the development of Stylus.
The companies presented are useful and will not be able to develop without grants (such as Pyth and Trail of Bits)
That is why I support this initiative.
It is interesting that in my telegram channel about DAO I wrote that I would like the amount allocated for this program to be higher.
I wanted to emphasize that new applications will hinder competition, since new projects will have the opportunity to analyze old applications and justifications for the decisions of the selection committee.
Appreciate the comment @ACI, we’d like to address a few points directly.
Starting with the following question:
Thirdweb’s application (900k) was the only submission included in the initial budget that was over the recommended soft-cap. Below is the exact wording from the original Stylus Sprint proposal:
Thridweb was funded as part of the 5M budget for a variety of factors - including its timeline compared to some of the other recommended applications who were more flexible in being delayed, the scope of work outlined, the strategic importance of the partnership to the Arbitrum ecosystem, and taking into account the team’s willingness to greatly reduce their overall request to ensure work could start immediately.
We understand that such factors may lead to the impression that the original accepted applicants are overall better than the 9 recommended, as evidenced by the following comments:
However, we would like to strongly emphasize that this is not the case, but rather the result of the program’s multiple priorities and tracks. The committee had several different objectives, such as including applications that could help scale Stylus usage, highlight a core strength of Stylus, or tools/infrastructure that fill a specific need. The scoring system was designed to introduce a level of objectivity and help the committee compare applications when necessary, but deciding which applications to accept, reject, and recommend was partially a subjective process to determine how we could best accomplish the above mentioned goals within the 5M budget. The committee worked together to come to these decisions, with the scores and rationale then being aggregated and posted to Questbook.
The 17 accepted applicants allowed us to partially achieve these goals and cover several of the RFP categories, but not all of them. As outlined in this request’s rationale, the committee believes the recommended applications are impactful ideas paired with qualified teams. Funding them would help the Sprint and the committee by extension, fully deliver on its stated goals and lay a strong foundation for the Stylus ecosystem over the Sprint’s duration.
Finally, regarding the following statement:
Rather than sending 9 applications to the DAO, some of which require a certain level of technical expertise and understanding of the current Stylus ecosystem, it was communicated to Entropy that it was preferred to present the applications together as opposed to having delegates vote on each application individually like for example during STIP. The request for an increase in budget can be seen as the applications being directed to the DAO. Entropy strongly believes that giving the evaluation committee agency over an increased budget is a better path to this effect than 9 (with more likely coming in unendorsed) proposals coming in individually.
We support this backfunding proposal to increase the Stylus Sprint budget and fund the recommended applicants. Stylus is Arbitrum’s most significant differentiator in the competitive L2 landscape, making developer tooling for Stylus a top priority.
Given the strong demand from applicants, the high quality of submissions, and Stylus’s strategic importance to Arbitrum, we believe the DAO should consider making the Stylus Sprint a bi-annual initiative. This would provide additional opportunities for previously denied applicants to reapply while also attracting new applicants, ensuring a continuous cycle of new ideas.
Stylus is definitely a key factor in helping Arbitrum stay competitive, increasing the budget to attract more innovative projects makes sense to me.
I will support this proposal
I don’t have any issues with the increase of 4M (seems reasonable, even with the total budget being 9M, is not too much for Arbitrum’s long-term growth plan). I also trust the committee will choose the best projects.
I believe @Entropy has carefully considered when posting this proposal. While asking for double the initial budget could set a questionable precedent, I can see their effort to bring more promising projects to Arbitrum.
Stylus is Arbitrum’s most significant differentiator in the competitive L2 landscape, and investing in its ecosystem is critical for maintaining our leadership in the space. By enabling developers to build with Rust, C, and other languages alongside Solidity, Stylus lowers the barrier to entry and makes Arbitrum far more accessible to a broader range of developers.
Beyond accessibility, Stylus unlocks the potential for more advanced applications and significantly improves execution efficiency. These are the kinds of innovations that will drive meaningful adoption and reinforce Arbitrum’s position as the most technically advanced and developer-friendly L2.
Given the importance of Stylus, I fully support expanding the sprint committee’s budget to ensure high-potential initiatives receive the funding they need. Supporting developer tooling and ecosystem growth around Stylus is a high-impact investment that will strengthen Arbitrum’s long-term competitive advantage.
The Stylus Sprint Evaluation Committee’s request for a 4M ARB increase to its budget is now up for a vote on Snapshot. Voting will conclude in 1 week on February 13th.
Additionally, after further discussion with the team behind the Moving Stylus application, we have come to an agreement on a reduced budget of 450k ARB (Prev. 500k). More information can be found on their Questbook application.
As mentioned above, the committee is actively negotiating budgets with each applicant. Entropy will continue to relay other updates/reductions to the recommended applicants’ budgets as they occur.
Voted For: My suggestion was to re-open the application window in case the proposal passes and the budget increases. After getting the feedback from Jojo that a budget increase is already set for specific projects, I agree that there is no need to re-open the application. Also, I learned that projects could update their application and budget in Questbook anytime (like Moving Stylus did). Seeing this dynamic is enough for me to vote For this proposal. It is great to see that this sprint gained such great traction. Love to see a successful proposal like this.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal
Based on the general agreement amongst the community that increasing the budget is the correct move, and taking into account the strategic importance of Stylus, LobbyFi sees the broader community + the particular grantees as the profiteers from a positive proposal outcome. For this reason, the community auction for LobbyFi’s voting power will be made available.
Since the budget increase is quite substantial (80%) and no new application period is planned (with the projects to get the grant already known), we will set the instant buy price at 1% of the highest grant amount (1M ARB * 0.45 ARB/$ * 1% ≈ 1.7 ETH) for the largest profiteer to have a chance to “rescue” the proposal in case it is needed.
Excited to see the overwhelming interest from builders in the Stylus Sprint program. When we voted in support of the program, we did so because we believed that Stylus was going to be a driver of growth for the Arbitrum ecosystem. What we’ve seen in terms of program traction so far, seems to confirm this.
Given the unique advantage that Stylus brings to Arbitrum, as well as the quality of applicants, we think it’s in the interest of the DAO to capitalize on this by increasing the budget to support more projects.
We understand concerns regarding setting a wrong precedent around the utilization / allocation of grants budgets. However, we view this a strategic opportunity for the DAO to capitalize on. It’s important for the DAO to remain flexible under these circumstances.
Finally, we do not believe it is the best approach to ask applicants to bring their grant requests directly to the DAO. This will result in duplication of efforts (applications have already been reviewed) and additional delays. It also potentially sets another wrong precedent of grantees bypassing specially designated funding programs to seek direct funding from the DAO—defeating the purpose of program itself.
Voting FOR. After reviewing the pending projects we agree with the assessment of the committee. These are valuable for Arbitrum.
That being said, we hope we can advance more towards investments rather than grants in the future. This is not a full black and white line as multiple projects serve more as network goods (generally public goods for the specific Arbitrum network), so more of a directional comment.
We appreciate the potential of Stylus and recognize its importance for Arbitrum’s ecosystem. However, we have some questions about the proposed 80% budget increase from the original 5m ARB allocation.
What about these specific projects are so critical that they necessitate a budget increase?
What internal discussions occurred within the committee to justify this request for a budget increase? Was there a formal vote before a decision to request additional funds was reached? If so, we want to know the breakdown of committee members’ positions and how they voted.
Has the committee considered what the success metrics (beyond milestone delivery) will be for the projects considered for the additional fund requested or the program as a whole and its impact on Stylus? How are we defining success for Arbitrum?
While we fundamentally support investing in Stylus’s growth, we believe clarity of what transpired leading up to this proposal is crucial for the DAO to make an informed decision. The jump from 5m to 9m ARB is significant and should be provided with a clear and detailed justification.
Glad to hear that the Arbitrum ecosystem has so many amazing new projects. The more there are, the better.
I completely agree that more funding needs to be provided and that the opportunity to apply should not be opened again because, as @JoJo said, it will lead to Groundhog Day.
But why the budget is requested in ARB and not in USDC or USDT?
This may lead to risks of lack of funding and deployment of projects, since the price of ARB is unstable, which may negatively affect not only the Stylus program itself but also the Arbitrum ecosystem, since projects will not be completed and unfinished, and the DAO’s money will simply be thrown away
I’m voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot, and Event Horizon. Stylus is crucial to Arbitrum’s long-term success, and this budget increase effectively meets the overwhelming demand for the Stylus Sprint program. I am confident in the committee’s thorough review process and clear prioritization of projects, making sure that the selected initiatives are ready to launch and deliver meaningful impact.
Voting YES. The extra projects proposed here are solid - improving oracles, zk tech development tools, and other key infrastructure for Arbitrum. This is exactly the kind of strategic investment we need.
I like how transparent this request is - we can see exactly which projects would get funded and why. This sets a good precedent for how to ask for additional funding: show the community specific high-value projects that couldn’t make the initial cut.
I disagree with the sentiment to open this for new applications. We had a successful process, these are the overflow projects that scored high but couldn’t get funded due to budget constraints. Let’s keep it focused on these specific projects rather than opening a new funding round. After seeing the results of the project as a whole we can re-evaluate it.
gm, I voted FOR on Snapshot.
Stylus is a fantastic innovation and we need to strongly advocate, advertise and promote it across the ecosystems.
I noticed the vast majority of the approved applications (both in batch 1 and 2) are tools for developers and applications.
I think it’s fine to fund initially these type of shovels, however I would encourage to focus on innovative apps that can really showcase the technology.
