Hello @Sinkas
As advisors in LTIPP and STIP Bridge, we support 100% this proposal.
We have seen protocols that have managed to retain users and even grow post-incentives, others that without incentives don’t seem to get traction, and some that have even distributed ARB among a few. The important thing is that as a result of these experiences, we can establish clear guidelines both for assigning incentives and for measuring the performance of a campaign.
Just to mention one thing, during LTIPP priority was given to protocols that distribute incentives directly to users. While this makes sense in most cases, some protocols may well generate benefits to the ecosystem without necessarily distributing ARBs directly to their users. An example of this is the Bridges, most of which ended up being guided to propose to subsidize gas, when in reality there are sometimes slippage or solver costs that are significantly higher for the user.
This is why the next program needs a clear, broad, and flexible framework to avoid force distribution mechanisms with little impact. It is also important to establish appropriate monitoring so that timely action can be taken, without which we are limited to taking action when it is too late.
While it is true that incentives are important for the growth of protocols and the ecosystem, this should not imply that the DAO must continually spend funds without obtaining a conclusion (positive or not) from those expenditures.
Even though significant progress has been made with LTIPP, we not only see this ‘detox’ as an opportunity to regroup and launch a robust program that brings together all the lessons learned so far, but will also allow us to assess the retention of both capital and users in sufficient time so that we can conclude whether a protocol or the ecosystem itself grows organically or not after incentives.
SEEDGov is willing to be part of the working group and urges other interested parties to do the same.