Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget

[EzR3aL]

Goint to vote No for the reasons outlined in my previous post.

[BlockworksResearch]

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.

[Bruce]

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.

[Curia]

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.

[pedrob]

For the reasons outlined in my feedback, I vote for this proposal

@pedrob

In particular, after reviewing the proposals, I believe there is a good diversity of submissions that mostly differ from those already approved, expanding both the applications (use cases) and the infrastructure available for developing with Stylus.

For this reason, I support the initiative and agree with increasing the budget.

[jameskbh]

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.

[0xAlex]

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.

[0x_ultra]

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!

[Gabriel]

Voting for in Snapshot following my previous comments. I think it’s a great opportunity to enhance the sprint.

Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget

I’m in favor of the additional funds. We should take advantage of the ‘exceptional applications’ mentioned by @Entropy. In the end, this is meant to be a sprint, and the additional ARB to be spent will help achieve the original sprint goals. If this is approved, could we get two different reports to see if this ‘increase’ was really worth it? As a personal note, I really like the idea of Nuffle Labs, as it will allow Arbitrum to retain TVL and offer new yield sources on the chain.

[WinVerse]

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.

[Juanrah]

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.

[Frisson]

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.

[TodayInDeFi]

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.

[dragonawr]

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.

[chamadao]

When the original proposal for the Stylus Sprint was posted, we said this:

[RFC] Fund The Stylus Sprint

We voted against this proposal, as the deliverables are unclear and costs high. While further technical development in the ecosystem is important, it should be done with clear deliverables and goals.

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.

[Amira]

I’m voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot as per my earlier feedback.

Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget

Thanks for putting this together! It’s clear that a lot of thought went into evaluating these applications, and I really appreciate the transparency around the process. That said, I don’t think extending the budget for the Stylus Sprint is the right move. The initial 5M ARB budget was set with clear expectations, and I worry that making exceptions now could set a precedent that future funding rounds are flexible. That kind of uncertainty can make it harder for the DAO to plan long-term. I also…

[mcfly]

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.

[tamara]

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)

[plutodev1]

@Entropy

Abstract

• The Stylus Sprint program saw overwhelming demand, with 147 applications requesting ~31.92 million ARB, significantly exceeding the initial budget.
• This proposal requests an additional 4 million ARB to extend the committee’s original budget. The funds will enable the evaluation committee to fund a set of exceptional applications that were excluded due to budget constraints.
• The committee has provided the list of applicants that it strongly recommends deserve to be funded as part of the Sprint, in addition to the 5M ARB already allocated. Rationale and a summary of the applicants is linked in the proposal.
• We will be moving this request to Snapshot next Thursday, February 6th. If approved, an onchain vote will move forward the following Thursday as to not further disrupt the proposed timelines of the applicants.

Motivation/Rationale

With 147 applications and ~31.92 million ARB in funding requests, demand for the Stylus Sprint program significantly exceeded expectations. The committee received a large number of exceptional applications, but unfortunately, due to the initial budget constraints, the committee was only able to fund 17 applications. They were chosen based on a combination of factors including cost, timeline, necessity for immediate start, RFP category importance, and the priority to fund both applications and infrastructure/tooling.

While the committee has accepted a subset of the applicants, there remains an important opportunity to support impactful ideas and high-quality teams. With Stylus as one of Arbitrum’s strongest competitive advantages, the committee strongly believes that enabling all impressive applications received as a part of the Stylus Sprint with funding is a worthwhile investment for the DAO.

This proposal seeks an additional allocation of 4 million ARB tokens to extend funding opportunities to promising projects that were not initially accepted into the Sprint. With this budget extension, the committee will be able to fund an additional group of applicants, outlined in detail below. While there are many more strong applications, the recommended list scored especially high during the review process and are ones that the committee is confident have the potential to provide value to the Arbitrum and Stylus ecosystems.

Specifications

As stated in the original Stylus Sprint proposal, large requests may be directed to the DAO directly to request funding. This process was communicated to applicants, some of which elected to go this route over reducing their request. The smaller applicants in this list are in the committee’s opinion worthwhile investments that have the potential to improve Stylus long-term.

The following list of applicants are the ones that come with a strong recommendation from the committee and to reiterate were unable to be accepted due to budget constraints.

Open Application

1. Pyth Oracle Implementation in Stylus - ARB Requested: 1,000,000
2. Sylow - ARB Requested: 700,000
3. Nuffle Labs - ARB Requested: 500,000
4. Syndicate MintVM - ARB Requested: 210,000
5. Ember: LP Optimization with Volatility-based Dynamic Fees - ARB Requested: 100,000

RFP Track

1. Moving Stylus: Move to Stylus-compatible WASM compiler - ARB Requested: 450,000
2. Trail of Bits: Add Stylus as a Solang compiler target - ARB Requested: 440,000
3. StylusFuzz: Advanced Property Testing for WASM Contracts - ARB Requested: 408,200
4. CodeTracer - ARB Requested: 250,000

Rationale and a summary of each applicant’s proposed scope can be found in this document.

It is important to note that the decision to include the above applicants is based on the finalized version of their submission that was reviewed during the grading period.

Due to the open nature of the DAO, applicants not included in this recommendation maintain the ability to move their request directly to the forums in case they feel like they have a compelling case despite the non-acceptance from the committee, effectively circumventing the Stylus Sprint and evaluation committee. The committee is aware of some applicants that may bring revised versions and/or lower budgets than when they were originally reviewed. While we appreciate that Arbitrum DAO’s open and decentralized essence provides the freedom to make such requests, we’d encourage delegates to be mindful of the possible precedent funding projects circumventing the program would set. When appropriate, the committee has already directed certain applications to be on the look out for alternative DAO programs, such as the Season 3 of Arbitrum D.A.O program if it’s approved.

If this proposed extension is approved on Snapshot, we will move it immediately to an onchain vote the following Thursday, February 20th. The recommended applicants will be held to the current Stylus Sprint timeline, so the committee would like to not unnecessarily delay the ability to fund these projects. Projects funded as part of the Stylus Sprint’s budget increase will benefit from the infrastructure already in place as far as MSS/payments and milestone reviews by the evaluation committee.

The Snapshot vote will be a basic vote with For, Against, and Abstain as options.

Budget

The Stylus Sprint committee is requesting an additional 4,000,000 ARB to extend its Stylus Sprint budget. If approved, the funds will be sent to the existing MSS-controlled Stylus Sprint multisig.

Timeline

January 30th: Forum Post
February 6-13th: Snapshot Vote
February 20th - March 6th: Tally Vote
March 9th: Funds delivered to Stylus Sprint multisig
March 10th: Recommended teams join the Stylus Sprint

Conflicts of Interest

Entropy and the committee have no conflicts of interest associated with the recommended applicants or this proposal requesting an extension of funds.

• Are there any specific areas of infrastructure or tooling that you feel still need more funding?

[CastleCapital]

We are tentatively voting FOR the proposal on Snapshot but would appreciate it if @Entropy could clarify the questions raised in our earlier response.

Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget

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 …