Below is the recording of the third call, the call’s transcript, and the chat log. You will also find notes on the topics/questions we discussed and a summary of the views expressed. In the third call, we had Matt from StableLabs present the LTIPP Council’s perspective of incentives.
Links
Recording - Liquidity Incentives Call #3 (4.9.2024)
Transcript - Liquidity Incentives Call #3 (4.9.2024)
Chat Log - Liquidity Incentives Call #3 (4.9.2024)
Summary
The things that were discussed were:
- On operational challenges faced by the advisors and the council, the feasibility of advising 180 protocols with three people was questioned, highlighting the time-consuming nature of the process.
- In response, the the variability in the time required to advise protocols, depending on their experience and preparedness was also discussed.
- The need for a coordination layer within the DAO to support multiple grant programs and
initiatives. - The need for a more holistic approach to support protocols and ensure alignment with DAO objectives.
- The need for a smaller, dedicated group to research and propose the new incentives program
From the presentation of Matt from StableLabs, we discussed:
- The DAO voted on 95 proposals, leading to chaos and poor incentive design choices.
- Operational challenges included KYC delays, lack of clear goals, and ineffective
decision-making by the multi-sig team. - The PM was overwhelmed with managing 75 protocols and 70 million ARB
- Advisors were added to help protocols design incentives, but protocols missed deadlines
and couldn’t alter proposals. - KYC delays and fluctuating ARB prices led to misjudged goals and confusion for
delegates. - The lack of data funding and a council made it difficult to monitor and approve proposals.
- The STIP Bridge program was created to address the disadvantages faced by protocols applying to LTIPP.
- Advisors helped with STIP Bridge addendums, but the program had a short incentive period and no
guidelines for ARB use. - Delegates were hesitant to post challenges due to unclear past performance metrics.
- The lack of objectives, operational structure, marketing, and enough people to manage the programs was highlighted.
- Timelines were unclear and too short, leading to delays and shortened incentives periods.
- Protocols were unsure about future incentives and faced competition dynamics like a race-to-zero on protocol fees.
- Having a single bucket of incentives for all protocols made it hard to create a standardized rubric and guardrails.
In terms of ideas for future programs:
- A new program should have specific goals derived from the DAO’s objectives, with different
programs for different protocol categories. - A marketing team and watchdog should be introduced to improve visibility and monitor for
misuse of funds - The program should be iterative, allowing for changes based on feedback and performance.
- It was suggested that some tasks, like gathering delegate feedback and defining DAO
goals should be handled by a dedicated incentive team. - The need for a one-year program to reduce the rush and improve the process.
- The idea of having verified experts as advisors was proposed to improve the quality of advice and reduce the workload for DAO contributors and delegates.
- The importance of aligning the program with DAO goals and ensuring clear operational
costs and structures.
For next call:
As with previous calls, we encourage participants to prepare for the next one and share their visions and lessons earned with the rest of the working group. If you have an analysis, a report, or other findings to present during one of the upcoming calls, please contact Sinkas on Telegram.