Goint to vote No for the reasons outlined in my previous post.
Stylus makes Arbitrum a differentiated ecosystem with competitive lock-in potential. So it is a pleasure to see how well-received this initiative was at such early stages.
Candidly, we support this proposal and appreciate the conservative approach. Additionally, in reference to responses from other delegates to submit these applications separately or increase the scope of the program to be more general to accept even more applicants, we disagree. Again, Stylus is one of the few differentiators with lock-in potential Arbitrum holds relative to other L2s. What’s more is that the program is ran conservatively for a reason, it cuts down on unnecessary procedural bloat, and being that it is a sprint, this is to incentivize teams willing to double down on Arbitrum right now. So, truly we see no purpose in diluting this with a much larger number of candidates that are likely low quality (you can check the Questbook) that increase the risk of migration and add bloat.
I support the request for an additional allocation of 4 million ARB as outlined in this proposal.
Funding smaller, high-quality projects offers greater flexibility and cost control while having an immeasurable impact on enhancing and improving Stylus.
We support this proposal as a valuable investment in Arbitrum’s future. Stylus is a major innovation, and it’s exciting to see such strong early interest. The 4M ARB increase will help fund nine promising projects that will enhance developer tools, security, and infrastructure, all essential for broader adoption.
That said, expanding the budget from 5M to 9M ARB is a significant step. We, along with other delegates, believe more insight is needed into how these projects were prioritized, the committee’s decision-making process, and the key success metrics. Transparency is essential to ensure the DAO makes well-informed decisions.
Overall, we are support further investment in Stylus and encourage a stronger emphasis on innovative applications that truly showcase its potential. Keeping the program focused and high-quality is the right move, and we’re aligned with this direction.
For the reasons outlined in my feedback, I vote for this proposal
I voted FOR. The projects funded with this extension seem to be worthy of this extra expenditure, and the explanation for their selection provided in the extra comments was reasonable.
I have voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot. As other delegates have pointed out, Stylus is a key differentiator and asset for the Arbitrum ecosystem. Some of my technical friends who aren’t involved with Arbitrum have heard about the funding opportunities and were impressed by the ability to develop smart contracts in multiple programming languages. So I think this is a net positive.
I believe the budget of 4M ARB is reasonable considering the size of the DAO Treasury. It’s crucial that Arbitrum invests to bootstrap its ecosystem, especially given the fierce competition among Layer 2 solutions.
At Kleros, we are exploring ways to promote ecosystem-aligned investments, including the use of Futarchy to optimize key metrics. (this can also work for grants ofc). I would be more than happy to discuss this approach with anyone interested.
Super happy to see the overwhelming response to the Stylus Sprint with such a high number of applications. When I initially voted in favor of funding the Stylus sprint my hope was that it would attract new developers to the ecosystem, and I’m happy to see that this has happened.
I fully support the request to increase the budget. As many have already pointed out, Stylus represents a significant competitive advantage for the ecosystem, and I believe it’s crucial that we invest heavily in this direction by supporting such projects. While I understand that increasing budgets can sometimes set a problematic precedent, I don’t believe this is the case here. On the contrary, I think this move demonstrates our genuine commitment to supporting projects that prove their worth. By approving this budget increase, we’re sending a clear message that the DAO is prepared to back developers with promising ideas and projects which I think is extremely important.
I also think that the milestone based structure of the fund helps mitigate potential risks, funding projects based on their quality and results. Overall, I believe this is a positive signal to the developer community. I’m looking forward to seeing future results!
Voting for in Snapshot following my previous comments. I think it’s a great opportunity to enhance the sprint.
DAOplomats is voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
As initially stated, we are onboard with this request. Since this is a one-time funding, it’s best we support projects that cover other important aspects of Stylus.
I am voting FOR this proposal in Snapshot.
I believe Stylus is a differentiator for Arbitrum in contrast with other L2s and we should support its growth as much as possible. It brings new solutions for smart contracts through WASM and it opens the door to many developers from traditional programming backgrounds who can now bring their expertise to our ecosystem.
The Stylus Sprint program is establishing strong network effects early and I am not surprised that there were many quality applications. It is noteworthy to mention that this budget expansion will enable projects focused on accelerating the adoption of Stylus such as the Solang compiler. Funding Stylus’ projects means investing in the future of the ecosystem.
It is also important to consider timing. L2 scaling solutions is a competitive landscape and this proposal will help Arbitrum strengthen its position.
I voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot. Stylus is an important differentiator for Arbitrum, and I believe the additional applicants funded by this proposal are worthwhile.
Voting ABSTAIN on this proposal
Rationale
- This proposal seems to be bypassing the initial specification of the Stylus Sprint. This could be warranted in extreme cases where the projects are very high value but as many of the projects are tooling and infra oriented, it’s hard for us to judge their value as we are not blockchain developers.
- The DeFi project on this list Ember seems quite high value from our view as DeFi analysts and traders, however it could also be funded through the Domain allocator program’s New protocols and Ideas track
Stylus is obviously a unique competitive advantage for Arbitrum and we do want to see it succeed but this proposal is very on the fence for us and we dont think we’d do it justice by trying to judge Blockchain tooling and infra projects without the ability to do so.
I will be voting vote FOR on Snapshot. Having reviewed the Stylus’ program track record from past proposal and seeing some of the pitches, the budget allocated towards this seems quite sensitive, especially when compared to other programs whose direct benefits to the ecosystem are not as obvious.
I am particularly interested in the Ember LP optimization and its potential improvements over fees structures for all parties involved.
When the original proposal for the Stylus Sprint was posted, we said this:
There were no clear deliverables and goals, which is why we voted against then. Now, there is a further proposal to extend the budget. This suggests there was no clear budget as well for the original program. This is not how the DAO should be spending funds, and is another example of what we have been regularly saying: “too much spending with too little impact.”
We are voting AGAINST this proposal.
I’m voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot as per my earlier feedback.
We are voting AGAINST this proposal. We don’t see the impact of giving 100k ARB for one hook. There is already dozens of such hooks in the open.
Voted FOR on Snapshot.
Found the summary document very helpful to make a decision. While I obviously do not have the technical depth to evaluate each team’s solution I
- believe it is key for the ecosystem to foster Stylus’ adoption
- trust that Entropy has the depth to make an informed decision about what additional projects to fund (I would have been very sceptic had we been proposed to fund all 147 applications, but in this case we will fund ~18% of applicants which imo is a decent acceptance rate)
- Are there any specific areas of infrastructure or tooling that you feel still need more funding?
We are tentatively voting FOR the proposal on Snapshot but would appreciate it if @Entropy could clarify the questions raised in our earlier response.