Voting in favor. The extension seems reasonable to me as I think that Pyth is becoming a key component to DeFi and it can make the difference in the Arbitrum ecosystem.
We believe that the proposal to extend the program is reasonable and sound. Continuous support for infrastructure-related products and services is important for the longevity and solidification of Arbitrum’s DeFi ecosystem.
The initial 12-week LTIPP has proven its worth and Pyth Network has demonstrated good behaviour, smooth operations and appropriate use of allocated funds. In our view, not encouraging the extension would be -EV for the ecosystem
We will be voting against the Synthetix LTIP & Pyth Grant Extension at this time, as the Detox Proposal has just passed, signaling a need to pause and reassess incentive programs. While Synthetix has performed well, granting an extension would create an unfair advantage over other projects that have completed their incentive periods without extensions.
After a thorough investigation, I decided to vote against it. We need a clean slate with our current grant extension for the DAO. Extending Pyth network requests could result in unnecessary amplification. To be clear. My decision has nothing to do with Pyth Network and how they did their job with the program. My vote is only operational so we stick to initial deadlines and comply with the Detox Proposal about the new structure for future grants in the DAO.
The LTIPP was a short-term experiment aimed at testing a new incentive program management model, with another plan to follow later. Then came B.STIP, which unfortunately kind of undermined the experimental nature of LTIPP. A situation that later evolved into what we now call “detox.”
Just as I believed at the time that renewing B.STIP was a mistake and unfair to both LTIPP applicants who had undergone more scrutiny, and those who failed to pass the council’s more demanding criteria (which differed from STIP’s parameters), I believe that extending the distribution deadlines implies the same unfairness. This affects applicants who met the distribution deadlines.
For this reason, I vote against the deadline extension request.
1 Like
After consideration Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal:
The ARC will vote AGAINST this proposal, for the following reasons:
- There is no clear explanation or plan on who will continue to guide and analyze these projects’ incentivization, collect the data, etcetera; since the LTIPP has already concluded.
- The requested funds were given for a specific period of time (as described in the LTIPP proposal: ‘The program will distribute ARB to protocols for 12 weeks’), any delays or miscalculations of funds needed to incentivize for that specific period are on the requesting party. Thus, any requests for extensions have to be seen as independent proposals for incentivization.
- Allowing extensions can set a precedent of projects requesting more than they can distribute or requesting money they know they can’t distribute because they won’t be able to deliver on certain products in that specific incentivization time period, as to be able to get an extension later on anyway.
- Having been approved a certain amount of $ARB to incentivize does not mean that it needs to be distributed fully, or that the requesting party has a claim on the full amount.
- We have just voted in favor of the ‘Incentives Detox Proposal’, and even though this might not be a new incentive program it still goes directly against the agreement of that vote.
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 AGAINST this proposal.
The extension request comes during the Incentives Detox period, and we think it’s important to stick to the original LTIPP timeline. This will help us better understand how the program performed. We get that the motivation and reasons in the proposal make sense, and we like seeing incentives used wisely. But for the greater good of the DAO, we believe we need to say no this time.
There are a couple more things to think about. First, only 75K ARB tokens were used out of the 1M ARB allocated. This really shows we need to rethink our incentives and how we handle them. Also, allowing this extension might not be fair to other projects who didn’t know they could ask for one. While we appreciate Pyth Network’s work, we think staying on track with our plans to review and improve our incentive programs is the right move for now.
Synthetix and Pyth LTIPP Grant Extension Request
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “AGAINST” on both proposals at the Snapshot vote / Snapshot vote 2.
Rationale
Unfortunately, while we understand the reasons for the delays in both cases, we share several concerns with the other delegates that prevent us from supporting these requests:
- The incentives detox was approved by the DAO, and allowing the distribution of incentives during this period would contradict the essence of this social agreement. We believe it would also set a problematic precedent for future agreements.
- Voting on extensions individually is impractical for the DAO and risks overburdening delegates. In our view, a blanket extension would be more appropriate
- Additionally, granting an extension at this stage presents a competitive disadvantage to those who no longer have incentives to distribute or already returned unused ARB from LTIPP.
We hope that in the future there will be longer programs or a streamlined mechanism in place to resolve this kind of friction.
Blockworks Research is voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.
Seeing as though both Pyth and Synthetix attempted to submit some notification to the DAO a week prior to the deadline, we believe that this behavior should be met with some good faith. We do understand the concerns from the other delegates that the detox proposal should remain the standing precedent to abide.
While we appreciate Pyth and recognize their efforts and successes during the LTIPP, we will be voting against the extension in this scenario.
It is unfortunate, but we believe it is important to abide by the incentives detox. However, we will endeavour to ensure that future programs are designed to overcome the challenges associated with extensions. A well-considered, forward-looking program will address these issues, along with other design considerations that promote long-term success.
We commend the contributions made under the current LTIPP but will maintain our position against any further extensions.
I could agree with you about Synthetix,
but there are no competitors in these grant programs in Pyth. Besides, the ARB expenses are not that big for Pyth.
Nothing personal against those asking for extensions, but I will be voting against any request for extensions of LTIPs / STIPs. Ultimately the DAO voted for a ‘detox’ period, and I think we need to honor that. Beyond that, passing one-off extensions like this gives competitive advantages to certain applicants. As well as creates a burden on the DAO to continually vote on projects that go out of scope of the program’s frameworks.
Adding words here that mean nothing because the forum won’t let me ‘spam post’
I decided to vote against this proposal.
I have several thoughts. On one hand, was the effectiveness of previous results demonstrated? Do we have tangible outcomes or key learnings? (In general, not just focusing on Pyth)
On the other hand, we recently voted for a “detox” period in the DAO to allow for further study and to make more informed decisions moving forward. I stand by that decision, as I believe it’s important to maintain consistency between our decisions and actions.
I’ll maintain my position related to funding at the moment.
This specific LTIPP extension is application we think. The amount requested is much smaller than the original size and it allows for the team to be able to contribute still. Our concern is overall this might create a unwarranted effect of many teams wanting extensions, but for now, we think this is valid.
I eventually decided to change my vote. Considering the existence of the Detox proposal (that I voted in favor of at the time) I’m voting against both this and Synthetix extension requests.
DAOplomats is voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.
Our reason is simply sticking to the social agreement of the Incentive Detox proposal passed in August.
I voted for this proposal.
I think it has a good balance (amount and distribution period) and it is a public good7service to other Arbitrum protocols that rely on oracles.
gm, I voted against this proposal and similar ones.
The vote is not directed at the specific project; however, many LTIPP protocols experienced delays in launching their campaigns, and have already fully returned their funds.
Allowing a select few to continue using the incentives wouldn’t be fair to the others.
Detox period on.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting AGAINST the proposal.
As others have already noted, since the Incentives Detox proposal has passed, and since incentives distribution for all projects has ended or is about to end, it would be unfair to extend the incentives for any one protocol.
Furthermore, things like distribution window extensions and the process to request one should have been addressed in the program (e.g., LTIPP or STIP.B) itself. Since there’s no recommendation from the LTIPP council for the extension of incentives distribution, we’re inclined to be against any such extension.
On the occasion of communicating our rationale, however, we’d like to invite the proposal authors to participate in the ‘Arbitrum Liquidity Incentives Working Group’. The working group meets on Wednesdays at 4 pm UTC and you can get up to speed on what has already been discussed here.
1 Like
We’re voting AGAINST this proposal due to the recent Incentives Detox approval that has halted incentives for all projects. Extending incentives for a single protocol now would create an uneven playing field.