werent the recap from ltipp and stip supposed to come up with actionables instead of having to fund another research project?
Liked the idea of the proposal and thought it was headed in the right direction, with a clear motivation for the proposal and the goal of creating a more sustainable and effective incentive framework.
Related Suggestions:
1- Reasonable time planning: the previous incentive design was rushed, resulting in low quality. Now that there is a three-month buffer, it is recommended that the time be fully utilized to ensure that the research and framework design is sound.
2- Resource allocation: with a reasonable budget and no need for additional funds, it is a good option to use the remaining funds available to finance the working groups. It is recommended to ensure effective delivery within three months to avoid subsequent delays.
Overall, the proposal is reasonable and could help the DAO develop a more sustainable incentive framework, but I would like to make 2 points
- Past incentive programs lacked clear KPIs, making it difficult to measure success. It is recommended that the working group prioritize the definition of specific metrics to better assess effectiveness.
- The budget should be denominated in ARB, and consideration needs to be given to more contribution value rather than economic value as a guide.
Castle Capital is one of the named members of the proposed Incentives Working Group (WG).
As part of this working group, we will ensure that the program incorporates key learnings from STIP, LTIPP, and STIP.b. We now have access to quantitative data, allowing us to refine our strategy based on past experiences and results.
The early phase of the WG will be dedicated to gathering feedback from protocols and conducting research on previous programs. This ensures that the final proposal reflects a broad range of perspectives and incorporates best practices. These concerns are already considered in the multifaceted proposal that aims to create a long-term framework to better address the diverse needs of different projects, including timelines, incentive mechanisms, and goals.
Additionally, the WG will engage in discussions about Arbitrum’s overarching vision and objectives, ensuring that each program presents relevant KPIs to measure success. We are fully aligned with L2Beat’s detox proposal, and will use these three months to establish a more sustainable and comprehensive framework, ready for implementation once the detox period ends.
To clarify some details around the proposal arising from some other comments (as we see it):
- Analyzing Results: We would analyze the results from upcoming research bounties, which will be incorporated into our work as we progress.
- Fund Distribution: The idea of distributing funds directly from Arbitrum website (or a core pool of incentives that aren’t protocol specific) is an interesting concept. This has been discussed in the L2Beat detox WG, and if successful, we would certainly explore this option.
- Timing Concerns: Although the timing might feel premature given the pending LTIPP research and detox insights, there is upfront work that should begin ASAP. The WG will incorporate the research findings later into the framework.
- Incentives Council: We agree that the final Incentives Council should be an elected body, similar to the Security Council. However, this WG is a preliminary step focused on designing a robust future system.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team.
We commend the working group’s thorough approach to analyzing past incentive programs and designing a long-term framework. This strategic planning will likely result in more efficient use of ARB tokens and improve protocol alignment within the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We share @CastleCapital’s perspective that this working group is a preliminary step toward creating a robust system, and we look forward to the establishment of an Incentives Council in the future.