Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget

[lobbyfi]

Lo0bbyFi voted in favor of the proposal since the ‘for’ pool overbid the ‘against’ pool within the community auction.

[olimpio]

I voted FOR to this proposal. In general I do not support increasing initial budget since it was voted that way for a reason, but the rationale from Entropy makes sense and gives the chance to for additional high quality applications.

[Frisson]

@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.

I voted FOR this proposal on Tally

[BlockworksResearch]

Blockworks is voting FOR this proposal on Tally for the reasons we have stated prior in this response:

@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.

[Tekr0x.eth]

Voted For: I agree with increasing the budget to fund additional projects. The Stylus Sprint program is an important piece of our ecosystem. We can see a real show of strength by having so many projects apply to this program (147). It makes sense to support as many as we can because this will allow us to grow the developer base for future development on Arbitrum and our Orbit chains.

[Ignas]

I voted For on Tally and maintain the same reasoning here.

Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget

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 fo…

[Gabriel]

Voting “FOR” on tally because of the same reasons stated above.

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.

[newze]

@newze

If your budget has been managed efficiently, the existing funds should be sufficient. Increasing the budget would be an unnecessary financial burden. If everyone requests a budget increase on short notice, it will affect funding for other important proposals in the future. I suggest that these projects should not rely on DAO grants—good projects will attract investors to fund them. In my opinion, there is absolutely no need to increase the budget.

I will be Against !

I still have no reason for, I stand by my decision

[maxlomu]

gm, voted FOR in line with my previous statement. I understand that increasing the budget isn’t ideal, but this sprint is meant to showcase Stylus’ utility—a key advantage that sets Arbitrum apart from other L2s. I’m fully onboard to leverage it and push for it.

[Tane]

We vote FOR the proposal on Tally.

We maintain the support made at the Snapshot phase.

Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget

We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot. We showed our support in the previous comment and we acknowledged the committees’ effort to negotiate with the applicants of the projects chosen in the list by reviewing each application in Questbook and its review score/comments. Competitive development platforms require great tooling and middleware to support great applications to be built and this is the area the DAO should invest in.

[CastleCapital]

We voted FOR the proposal on Tally based on the clarifications provided on our earlier questions

Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget

Entropy has an update on 2 of the recommended applications, Ember and Nuffle Labs. Both have agreed to revise their budgets down by 40k ARB, so each is now requesting 60K and 460K ARB respectively. The scope and deliverables remain largely unchanged and additional information can be found in the comment section of their application on Questbook. Tagging @mcfly who mentioned in their rationale the cost of Ember. The total request of the recommended applicants now stands at 3,978,200 ARB. The com…

[Linzerd]

Voted FOR on Tally for the same reasons exposed in my prior comment.

Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget

I voted FOR this proposal. Stylus is one of the key tech advancements of the Arbitrum ecosystem, and we as delegates must incentivize the activity of worthy projects to use these tools to build infrastructure and apps on top of Arbitrum. While this proposal does double the budget of the Stylus Sprint proposal approved earlier, the committee evaluated and rated these projects as promising in a pool of 147 applications. I see no reason to not support them given the recommendation and the relevanc…

[Juanrah]

I will be voting FOR in Tally. As I said earlier, funding Stylus’ projects means investing in the future of the ecosystem.

I believe the strong response to the program with 147 applications demonstrates strong demand to build with Stylus and selecting only 17 programs could not be achieved without a disciplined approach by the Committee.

I also think that waiting for a complete assessment of the first round could delay ecosystem development and it is not considering the fast-paced environment in the L2 landscape.

[WinVerse]

DAOplomats voted FOR this proposal on Tally.

We maintained our support from the temp check using the same rationale.

[Entropy]

With this proposal passing last week, the additional 4m ARB has been sent to the existing Stylus Sprint MSS controlled multisig and the 9 recommended applicants joined the Stylus Sprint. These teams are now in the process of completing the necessary KYC/KYB and will soon being work on their deliverables.

Additionally, our team has posted the first program update on behalf of the Stylus Sprint committee. With most teams working through the compliance process in February, only a few teams have submitted their first milestone reports. We expect a more substantial update by the end of April.

[olimpio]

@olimpio

I voted FOR to this proposal. In general I do not support increasing initial budget since it was voted that way for a reason, but the rationale from Entropy makes sense and gives the chance to for additional high quality applications.

My stance has not changed, I voted FOR on Snapshot and voted FOR on Tally. As others have noted, Stylus is unique to Arbitrum and offers several advantages compared to other Ethereum L2s. Looking forward to Entropy sharing updates on the first milestone reports.

[newze]

Didn’t change position