I voted for on this proposal, as the value is not that high and it would boost GHO adoption on Arbitrum.
This request to extend Aaveās LTIPP grant for an additional two months would allow Aave more time to complete their GHO incentives program, which has already contributed significantly to the Arbitrum ecosystem in attracting new liquidity, but we think itās not the most appropriate given the delays and similar precedent. We think in this case, this would be too much of an advantage while no other teams have this incentive.
I voted Against this proposal at the temp check stage. I think the right thing to do in this situation is return the unused funds to the DAO and re-apply/propose for another incentive grant, rather than to extend the current program.
Iām voting against this proposal for the same reasons that I expressed for the grant extension request for Synthetix. This is mainly due to the existence of the Detox period. Moreover, it would be unfair if this passed but not the other requests.
Voted Against: For the same reason as another proposal to extend grants. My vote is only operational so we stick to initial deadlines and comply with the Detox Proposal about the new structure for future grants in the DAO.
The FranklinDAO/Penn Blockchain Team voted to Abstain this proposal on Snapshot. We believe that growing Aave/GHO on Arbitrum is an important partnership that the DAO should invest in.While the ARB incentives on Aave have helped bring $9.7m of supply onto Aave, the other half of proposed ARB incentives on DEX LPs have been less successful, with only $160k of GHO liquidity on Balancer. We want to see increased growth of GHO, and believe it may be best for Aave to potentially find new strategic ways to increase usage and liquidity of GHO on Arbitrum, rather than simply continue ARB incentives.
I will abstain for this one as i see both a need to push DEFI adoption forward in Arbitrum but also AAVE extension feels unfair to other LTIPP recipients.
The following reflects the views of L2BEATās governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and itās based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
Weāre voting AGAINST the proposal.
We also voted against similar proposals by Synthetix and Pyth for the same reasons (outlined below) but weāre also commenting here for visibility.
As others have already noted, since the Incentives Detox proposal has passed, and since incentives distribution for all projects has ended or is about to end, it would be unfair to extend the incentives for any one protocol.
Furthermore, things like distribution window extensions and the process to request one should have been addressed in the program (e.g., LTIPP or STIP.B) itself. Since thereās no recommendation from the LTIPP council for the extension of incentives distribution, weāre inclined to be against any such extension.
On the occasion of communicating our rationale, however, weād like to invite the proposal authors to participate in the āArbitrum Liquidity Incentives Working Groupā. The working group meets on Wednesdays at 4 pm UTC and you can get up to speed on what has already been discussed here.
On behalf of the UADP, we are leaning against this proposal, similarly to prior extension requests.
As many other community members have highlighted, allowing an extension of incentives for one protocol, after the main incentive period has ended, sets an unfair precedent when itās the full amount. For extensions were to be considered, we think the appropriate time to address the terms for such extensions would have been during the original drafting of the program (e.g., through LTIPP or other governance proposals).
Overall, we like L2Beatās comment about attending the incentives working group. A possible avenue could be going to Aave DAO and starting discussions around if it would be beneficial to incentive match this ARB with Aave, which we think would definitely warrant a rediscussion of this proposal.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting AGAINST this proposal.
Our reason remains the same as in previous extension requests of Pyth and Synthetix. This extension comes during the āDetox of Incentivesā phase and also puts other projects at a disadvantage, especially those who didnāt know extensions could be requested.
We believe that the right course of action for now would be to return the unused funds to the DAO. Following the original LTIPP timeline will allow us to assess the programās effectiveness properly and make better decisions for future grants and incentive programs.
We vote AGAINST the proposal on Snapshot.
While the request itself seems totally valid, we respect the decision made with the Incentives Detox period and we believe all the extension requests should be treated the same.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote āAGAINSTā on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Rationale
Unfortunately, while we understand the reasons for the delay, we share several concerns with the other delegates that prevent us from supporting these requests:
- The incentives detox was approved by the DAO, and allowing the distribution of incentives during this period would contradict the essence of this social agreement. We believe it would also set a problematic precedent for future agreements.
- Voting on extensions individually is impractical for the DAO and risks overburdening delegates. In our view, a blanket extension would be more appropriate
- Additionally, granting an extension at this stage presents a competitive disadvantage to those who no longer have incentives to distribute or already returned unused ARB from LTIPP.
After consideration Treasureās Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal:
Similar to the Pyth & Synthetix proposals for an extension, the ARC will vote AGAINST this proposal. Reason being:
- There is no clear explanation or plan on who will continue to guide and analyze these projectsā incentivization, collect the data, etcetera; since the LTIPP has already concluded.
- The requested funds were given for a specific period of time (as described in the LTIPP proposal: āThe program will distribute ARB to protocols for 12 weeksā), any delays or miscalculations of funds needed to incentivize for that specific period are on the requesting party. Thus, any requests for extensions have to be seen as independent proposals for incentivization.
- Allowing extensions can set a precedent of projects requesting more than they can distribute or requesting money they know they canāt distribute because they wonāt be able to deliver on certain products in that specific incentivization time period, as to be able to get an extension later on anyway.
- Having been approved a certain amount of $ARB to incentivize does not mean that it needs to be distributed fully, or that the requesting party has a claim on the full amount.
- We have just voted in favor of the āIncentives Detox Proposalā, and even though this might not be a new incentive program it still goes directly against the agreement of that vote.
I mentioned this before when related it to LTIPP proposals, but Iāll be voting against it as Iām following a DAO detox.
Nothing personal against those asking for extensions, but I will be voting against any request for extensions of LTIPs / STIPs. Ultimately the DAO voted for a ādetoxā period, and I think we need to honor that. Beyond that, passing one-off extensions like this gives competitive advantages to certain applicants. As well as creates a burden on the DAO to continually vote on projects that go out of scope of the programās frameworks.
gm, I voted against this proposal and similar ones.
The vote is not directed at the specific project; however, many LTIPP protocols experienced delays in launching their campaigns, and have already fully returned their funds.
Allowing a select few to continue using the incentives wouldnāt be fair to the others.
Gm, gm 
The results are in for the [Aave DAO] LTIPP Grant Extension Request off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats:
I support this proposal as it involves no additional cost and simply extends the timeline to complete the distribution of ARB as originally planned. It ensures the grant is fully utilized without any extra expense.
DAOplomats voted against this proposal on Snapshot.
We voted against this proposal for the same reasons we didnāt support Pyth and Synthetix.