Need to incentivise developers and value them I think it’s really necessary so that it will attract, motivate and retain more good partners, Stylus is very important to the Arbitrum ecosystem and also the review committee is 5 members, I’m curious to know how they will do a good job related to this and how to leverage their motivation, is the fee a one time payment? With this in mind, I personally suggest that the committee produce reports on their work at regular intervals of say 3 months.
The FranklinDAO / Penn Blockchain team will be voting FOR this proposal. With the Stylus upgrade proposal having passed, we’re excited to see teams to write custom code to utilize the WasmVM and also migrate and deploy codebases onto Arbitrum. In particular, we are excited in the potential of Rust contracts and applications from chains such as Solana deploy onto Arbitrum, with the support of this Stylus Sprint funding program. We also understand the importance of RFP track is important as well as it’ll fund tooling for developers to more easily utilize Stylus. We would like to see a targeted marketing push toward developers and teams that might be interested. We also have slight concerns around the 1 year timeline for projects to deploy their projects - 1 year is a long time horizon and we definitely want to have tooling and projects utilize Stylus as early as possible, but also understand the overhead to create such tooling and migrations.
We second the idea brought forth by @BlockworksResearch - we believe the DAO would benefit from setting up RPGF grants for the tooling category for more sustainable growth beyond this program.
We support this proposal because it’s the right time to push this initiative, maintain momentum, and increase stylus developer adoption. Arbitrum can attract more developers and foster innovation. Additionally, we also agree that using RPGF would be a great approach to further support this initiative.
100% support. Stylus is opening Arbitrum to thousands of potential new developer which are really needed. I think the last few months we haven’t really seen innovation in terms of new protocols. Stylus could change this, but there is the need for funding. But I want to urge that funds are given to dedicated teams not just spread towards anyone who is asking.
The Treasure ARC will be voting FOR this proposal. We believe that supporting builders fosters a culture of creativity and innovation, introducing fresh ideas to the Arbitrum ecosystem. By incentivizing the use of Stylus, we can ignite a surge of new concepts that have yet to be explored.
A diverse committee is essential for ensuring a fair and balanced selection process for funding recipients. Having members with both product focus and technical expertise will help in selecting high-quality builders capable of making a significant impact on Arbitrum.
This proposal has the potential to equip builders with the resources they need, fuel their passion for developing on Arbitrum, and generate a positive cycle of value creation within the ecosystem.
1 Like
I support this proposal as Stylus is at the frontier of its development, enabling smart contract creation using Rust and C++. This multi-language support will attract a broader range of developers, driving innovation and expanding Arbitrum’s ecosystem.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and @Nyx, based on our combined research, analysis and ideation.
We’re voting FOR this proposal as we believe it’s a necessary step for Stylus adoption.
The idea of having an Evaluation Committee made up of Stylus experts is a good approach. We also agree with giving out funds based on milestones, as this will help prevent misuse.
To make this sprint really successful, we suggest running a strong marketing campaign to attract as many developers as possible. It would be great to showcase the Stylus Sprint at ArbiVerse during Art Museum Token2049 - this could help get more people to apply.
Overall, we think this program can really speed up the adoption of Stylus by creating a set of high-quality projects that show what it can do.
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot.
We believe Stylus is an ambitious, yet reasonable innovation that Offchain Labs has developed to make Arbitrum even more attractive to Rust and C++ developers and it’s important to generate momentum of its use within the developer community to have attractive applications and toolings on the Arbitrum ecosystem, thus the program like this is timely, crucial and much needed.
We also agree that having an Evaluation Committee is selected by the program manager from the beginning with Stylus experts, but it would be better to have consideration to include contributors who are familiar with the grants as it’s basically another grants program focusing on a particular type of applications on the ecosystem. Entropy can play a role in that perspective, but as other delegates pointed out, possibly a few grants/incentive-providing experts like JoJo can be involved.
We also believe that conducting proper marketing campaigns about the program is the key. There doesn’t seem to be an explicit budget allocation to that point, but we would want the program manager to consider it to be included before its onchain ratification.
1 Like
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Rationale
SEEDGov views the proposed initiative as generally well-structured, and we welcome the integration of Questbook, alongside the commendably low operational costs.
However, we believe that the suggested maximum ARB allocation for individual applicants is excessive. Allowing a single applicant to receive up to 20% of the total budget (1M out of 5M ARB) seems unfeasible. We recommend capping the maximum allocation at 10% of the overall budget.
Furthermore, as mentioned by @BlockworksResearch, we would like to underscore the importance of the reporting outlined in the proposal. We hope that established communication channels, such as the ‘Arbitrum Reporting Governance Call,’ will be utilized to enhance the dissemination of these reports.
Blockworks Research will vote FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
Stylus is a big upgrade and it entrenches Arbitrum ahead of the rest in flexibility with the tech stack. We would like to emphasize that we want accessible transparent reporting from the Stylus advisors for the DAO. Finally, we would like to make one additional point in that we would like a better outlined applicant pipeline that takes into account possible failures at each stage, i.e., applicants dropping out, requiring more time in some manner if KPI based, etc
Castle’s voting in favour of this proposal as we believe that a well constructed incentives program is required to onboard developers and projects.
We’re particularly pleased to see the inclusion of tooling and education materials as we can’t expect to onboard new developers if they don’t have enough necessary tools, docs or reference material to get started building in a new paradigm.
We believe this sprint can help kickstart development, however there is a clear need for a longer term incentives program. As others in the thread have highlighted, we’d also be in favour of exploring RPGF to support this longer term, beyond this sprint.
I’m voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot. Just a few comments:
1. I believe the proposed timeline between the approval of the proposal on Tally and the start of the sprint is quite tight. Stylus is designed precisely to attract developers from other ecosystems. I suggest allocating a budget for a small marketing campaign, at least one month before the proposals window opens. This way, you can create awareness of the incentive program, and it will also give teams more time to prepare high-quality proposals, which is what you’re looking for.
2. One of the most difficult things to manage is oversight of the development process. I recommend having very clear rules regarding deadlines, milestone completion, potential reports (as others have suggested), and the consequences of failing to meet them. The LTIPP and B.STIP programs were too lenient with non-compliance, as there were no clear control roles or consequences.
3. Like with other proposals, I don’t understand why a new multisig is being created instead of using the DAOs MSS.
Congratulations and thank you for the initiative. The initial phase, when you start receiving applications, will be chaotic, turbulent, and exhausting. But the effort will be worth it.
I just finished reading the audit report of Stylus from Zeppelin.
There are still critical vulnerabilities in the code that have not been fixed.
Therefore, I propose to postpone the implementation of this proposal (despite the votes) until the critical vulnerabilities of the audit are completely eliminated.
Otherwise, we may end up forcing projects to implement their code on untrusted software, which will jeopardize the future of Stylus.
2 Likes
Voting “For”
Proposal is well thought out and should bring value to the DAO at a reasonable cost. Look forward to what comes of all this.
Multisig Setup
The Stylus Sprint multi-sig will be created and allocated 5M ARB for the Stylus Sprint Program and 150K ARB for payments to judges. Funds will be sent to an MSS-secured multisig. The funds in the multisig belong to the DAO and the signers act as grant managers on behalf of the DAO in coordination with the Arbitrum Foundation. Funds held in the multisig are explicitly banned from usage in DAO governance, including delegation.
Agree with @pedrob here, what’s the rational for creating a multisig when the DAO multisig exists? Or is this a misunderstanding of the process?
Edit: Voting “For”, my opinion is unchanged since the Snapshot vote. Just editing this comment to save space in the forms for the Tally vote. Clarification on the MSS has been appreciated
1 Like
I truly appreciate the approval of Stylus and the beginning of something so important for the Arbitrum ecosystem. However, I’m not sure I fully align with the idea of creating siloed initiatives that focus solely on providing incentives and funding without a clear output beyond bringing projects to Stylus.
On one hand, I believe it lacks a structure that could foster cohesion in various areas—such as acceleration, mentorship, and a long-term vision for the ecosystem.
On the other hand, I share the concerns of my colleagues regarding the use of another multisig when we already have a DAO process in place, with trusted individuals previously selected to manage this.
I would like to see more detailed progress on this proposal. Stylus adoption is essential. However, I believe grant programs should be more comprehensive and go beyond simply distributing funds, hoping for the best outcomes.
We are a big fan of this project and it seems there are many comments showing support. To be not redundant on these, some points of consideration for the future that we like and want to talk about could be:
- Expand Evaluation Committee: Consider including additional members from different backgrounds/expertise to bring fresh perspectives and further strengthen objectivity in the evaluation process.
- Community Engagement: Incorporate community-driven feedback loops or regular Q&A sessions where prospective applicants can directly engage with the Evaluation Committee to clarify their proposals and refine ideas before submission.
- Additional Incentives for Educational Content: Encourage projects to develop educational resources, tutorials, or workshops as part of their milestones to help lower the learning curve for Stylus and attract new developers.
- Metrics for Success: Define more KPIs and clear success metrics for funded projects, such as the number of active users, transaction volume, or integration of Stylus features, to better assess the impact of the program.
- Post-Program Sustainability: Maybe have a requirement for grant recipients to outline post-program sustainability plans to ensure the long-term success and maintenance of their projects beyond the initial funding period.
I really like this initiative, this is why I’m supporting it on Snapshot. I’m sure that this will attract new developers in the ecosystem, which is much needed.
Voting For: I feel that the proposal size is quite big (5M+ ARB) for the structure the Entropy team set up. Many other initiatives with significantly less funding have a better structure, in my opinion. However, due to the novelty of Stylus and my full trust in the Entropy team, I support this proposal. I look forward to the analytics and results after the proposal ends. For the next iteration of the program, I would like to see a more detailed structure.
I voted for this proposal. Stylus is a big development for Arbitrum, and we need to provide enough funds to promote and support this initiative.
DAOplomats is voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
Creating this structure that invites individuals/teams to build and grow Stylus is very much welcome. Also, these well-thought-out application tracks would do a good job of streamlining what to expect at the end of the Sprint. This way, it would be easier to assess the success of this initiative.
Suggestion:
Milestone-based funds disbursement can happen in ARB but we suggest leaving the floor open for requests to be made in USD. Requesting funds in the volatile ARB could hamper a team’s spending as a dip in ARB could severely affect development costs leading to insufficient utilization of funding received.