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.
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.
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 fourth call, we had Tnorm, the man who spearheaded STIP, present his views and learnings.
The importance of having protocol representatives share their perspectives during the calls.
The feasibility of a small grants program, noting the challenges of scaling and the high volume of applications, was questioned.
That the classification of projects requires better definition and that the goals for different types of projects should be clearly stated.
The need for a better definition of “good projects” and the importance of metrics in evaluating project success.
From the presentation of Tnorm, we discussed:
STIP was designed as an emergency program to unlock capital and support the ecosystem. I was set up quickly with stakeholder input and prioritized speed over practicality.
The need to return to first principles and strategic thinking around incentives and incentive programs.
Onchain incentives aim to create actions onchain by making transactions cheaper and/or more attractive. There’s a spectrum of actions that can be incentivized.
Objective-based grants, which can target specific actions like buying, selling, depositing, liquidity provision, and so on.
Direct-to-contract incentives, which could offer granular, targeted incentives at the contract level. (more on this here).
The differences between strategy and tactics in incentive programs, emphasizing the
importance of clear goals, KPIs, and objectives.
What three main stakeholder groups that Tnorm identifies are: network stakeholders, application stakeholders, and user stakeholders.
The traditional program structure, where incentives flow from a treasury to decision-makers, who then distribute them to projects.
Insights Tnorm’s interviews with delegates, highlighting the need for clear processes to serve different project buckets.
Three main buckets for project-based incentive grants: small and early-stage projects, scaling projects, and large, established projects.
The challenges of defining small projects and the need for a council to handle high-volume, low-admin grants.
The need for higher oversight and clear KPIs for scaling projects, which aim to support projects with proven product-market fit.
A partnership budget approach for large projects, where the DAO provides strategic support and high-level services.
The importance of objective-based incentive programs, which focus on specific metrics like user incentives and native project support.
The need for sophisticated user segmentation and the potential for targeted campaigns to attract valuable users.
The importance of native token minting and strategic asset support as key objectives for incentive programs.
The concept of network-wide campaigns, which could incentivize actions across multiple protocols and verticals.
The use of service providers to support sophisticated analytics and distribution of incentives, at least for specific verticals.
The need for tooling improvements to support innovative approaches, such as direct-to-contract incentives, which could eliminate the need for protocol-specific grants and support market dynamics.
In terms of ideas for future programs:
The need for a layer of accountability and authoritative power to make decisions on project funding was highlighted.
For the 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
Please note that the next call will be on Wednesday 25/9 as we’ll skip this week’s call due to Token2049.
Below is the recording of the fifth 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 fifth call, we had OpenBlock’s Labs present the dashboards they have created to track incentives.
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