# \[RFC\] Synthetix LTIP Grant Extension Request **URL:** \ **Category:** Archived Proposals\ **Created:** [August 28, 2024, 12:07am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524 "2024-08-28T00:07:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![pedrob](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/pedrob/32/15561_2.png) [@pedrob](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/pedrob)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2024, 3:09pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/21 "2024-09-10T15:09:25Z")
One of the main concerns when drafting the rubric and the requirements for participating in LTIPP was that applicants might rush product/feature launches or skip security measures, such as audits, to meet the application deadline. Throughout the process, we encountered several applicants in this situation and advised them not to rush their products. If they couldn’t meet the deadlines, they should refrain from applying for the incentives, as 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 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 or were honest about withdrawing their application due to development delays. Whatever the reason may be, and I understand the complexities of developing Web3 products, the extension is being requested for failing to meet the promises made in the application form. I’m not saying this shouldn’t happen, and I appreciate that incentives were withheld when it was considered that the product wasn’t ready. However, I believe the experimental nature of LTIPP requires that the established deadlines be respected, allowing the DAO to enter the reflection period we voted for, called “detox.” Arbitrum has definitely benefited from Synthetix joining its ecosystem, and I’m sure you will be recipient of future incentive programs For these reasons, I vote against the deadline extension request. ---
**Author:** ![Euphoria](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/euphoria/32/14303_2.png) [@Euphoria](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Euphoria)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2024, 12:17pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/23 "2024-09-11T12:17:59Z")
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 are voting AGAINST this proposal. We recognize that extensions are often considered for incentive programs, and we acknowledge the compelling reasons provided in this proposal. However, given our current focus on the Detox of Incentives, we believe it’s important to adhere to the timeline originally proposed in the LTIPP. This approach will allow for a more comprehensive evaluation of the program’s performance. Additionally, we’re concerned that approving this extension might be unfair to projects unaware of this option. We look forward to seeing the results of the initial LTIPP and using those insights to form future decisions. ---
**Author:** ![SEEDGov](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/seedgov/32/14560_2.png) [@SEEDGov](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/SEEDGov)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2024, 5:44pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/24 "2024-09-11T17:44:56Z")
# Synthetix and Pyth LTIPP Grant Extension Request _After consideration, the [@SEEDgov](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/seedgov) delegation has decided to vote “ **AGAINST** ” on both proposals at the [Snapshot vote](https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x9db0ec7f1e6dbdaaa472eaabad7c69fac93d4453e01ce04f1971a4cbd3655ba4) / [Snapshot vote 2](https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xb761aeef86e9c7a12a7c7326f28cb10bd0d9d94a83041624dc5d03628c3f5c94)._ ## 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. ---
**Author:** ![CastleCapital](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/castlecapital/32/16535_2.png) [@CastleCapital](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/CastleCapital)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2024, 7:35pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/25 "2024-09-11T19:35:04Z")
While we appreciate Synthetix 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bob-Rossi](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/bob-rossi/32/873_2.png) [@Bob-Rossi](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Bob-Rossi)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2024, 3:33am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/26 "2024-09-12T03:33:56Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![ocandocrypto](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/ocandocrypto/32/5015_2.png) [@ocandocrypto](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/ocandocrypto)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2024, 3:56am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/27 "2024-09-12T03:56:59Z")
Not much more to add. Voting against, same position as before. > [@\[RFC\] Pyth Network Arbitrum LTIPP Extension Request](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-pyth-network-arbitrum-ltipp-extension-request/26533/33): > > 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 … ---
**Author:** ![PGov](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/pgov/32/11870_2.png) [@PGov](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/PGov)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2024, 5:57am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/28 "2024-09-12T05:57:15Z")
Address a few considerations that have been brought up here: - Fairness to Other Protocols: The extension request raises valid concerns about fairness, as it could provide Synthetix with a competitive advantage, especially since other protocols have had to operate within their initial grant timelines without similar extensions. - Process and Transparency: We support the feedback suggesting the need for a clearer and more streamlined process for managing grant extensions. Overall, we think there was proper feedback and heads up on this situation. - Long-Term Program Structure: Extending program durations or building in buffer periods could help mitigate some of these issues in the future, and maybe a formal system should be implemented. This would provide protocols with the flexibility to navigate unforeseen delays while still following intended goals. - Impact on Ecosystem Goals: It’s crucial that any extensions or adjustments continue to align with the broader ecosystem objectives of Arbitrum, such as promoting sustainable growth, user engagement, and innovation. Overall, while we are leaning towards how we understand and sympathize with the challenges Synthetix has faced, but it’s essential to balance these needs with fairness and the integrity of the grant process. We think there should be a more fledged out system for extensions in the future, and that can stop a bunch of processes like this. ---
**Author:** ![0x\_ultra](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/0x_ultra/32/236_2.png) [@0x\_ultra](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/0x_ultra)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2024, 7:58am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/29 "2024-09-12T07:58:22Z")
I’m voting against. As many brought up, this extension would counter what was established with the Detox proposal. As I was in favor of that, I decided to vote against this. ---
**Author:** ![Tekr0x.eth](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/tekr0x.eth/32/2289_2.png) [@Tekr0x.eth](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Tekr0x.eth)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2024, 8:15am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/30 "2024-09-12T08:15:42Z")
**Voted Against:** For the same reason as another proposal to extend grants. 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. ---
**Author:** ![WinVerse](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/winverse/32/10523_2.png) [@WinVerse](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/WinVerse)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2024, 8:35am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/31 "2024-09-12T08:35:39Z")
DAOplomats is voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot. We are not supportive of this proposal [for the same reason](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-pyth-network-arbitrum-ltipp-extension-request/26533/36) we voted against the Pyth Network request. ---
**Author:** ![jameskbh](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/jameskbh/32/2667_2.png) [@jameskbh](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/jameskbh)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2024, 8:58am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/32 "2024-09-12T08:58:54Z")
I voted against this proposal. While I recognize the merits of it, I think the protocol could have requested a smaller amount, and reduced the distribution period. ---
**Author:** ![maxlomu](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/maxlomu/32/1282_2.png) [@maxlomu](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/maxlomu)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2024, 9:14am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/33 "2024-09-12T09:14:01Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![krst](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/krst/32/1357_2.png) [@krst](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/krst)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2024, 10:20am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/34 "2024-09-12T10:20:38Z")
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, same as in [similar proposal from Pyth](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-pyth-network-arbitrum-ltipp-extension-request/26533/39), and we will be voting the same on all extension proposals of that kind to ensure fair and equal treatment of all projects participating in that program. The rationale here is the same as in the other ones. 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](https://www.notion.so/Arbitrum-Synthetix-Pyth-125f71509e2c49819fd14e84fbe55cf8?pvs=21) and you can get up to speed on what has already been discussed [here.](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-incentives-detox-proposal/25849/65) ---
**Author:** ![mcfly](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/mcfly/32/3099_2.png) [@mcfly](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/mcfly)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2024, 11:02am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/35 "2024-09-12T11:02:28Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Tane](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/tane/32/3187_2.png) [@Tane](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Tane)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2024, 12:01pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/36 "2024-09-12T12:01:03Z")
We vote **AGAINST** the proposal on Snapshot. While the request itself seems totally valid, we respect the decision made with the Incentives Detox period (which hasn’t started yet but in effect soon) and we believe all the extension requests should be treated the same. ---
**Author:** ![Frisson](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/frisson/32/2288_2.png) [@Frisson](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Frisson)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2024, 12:11pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/37 "2024-09-12T12:11:04Z")
I voted Against this proposal at the temp check stage. I think the right thing to do in this situation is return the unused funds to the DAO and re-apply/propose for another incentive grant, rather than to extend the current program. ---
**Author:** ![ITUblockchain](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/itublockchain/32/558_2.png) [@ITUblockchain](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/ITUblockchain)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2024, 9:29pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/38 "2024-09-12T21:29:22Z")
We voted “ **against** ” this proposal. We share the same opinion as expressed [here](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-pyth-network-arbitrum-ltipp-extension-request/26533/43). We encourage all projects seeking an extension of their incentives to wait at least until the date suggested by the Detox proposal. ---
**Author:** ![snowdot](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/snowdot/32/8991_2.png) [@snowdot](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/snowdot)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2024, 8:50am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/39 "2024-09-13T08:50:31Z")
The results are in for the **Synthetix LTIP Grant Extension Request** off-chain proposal. See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: > **[Synthetix LTIP Grant Extension Request](https://dhive.io/proposal/1358)** > > Explore Synthetix LTIP Grant Extension Request proposal, results, votes, and analytics ---
**Author:** ![olimpio](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/olimpio/32/11_2.png) [@olimpio](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/olimpio)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2024, 1:23pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/40 "2024-09-25T13:23:40Z")
I voted against this proposal in the context of the Incentives Detox that passed, and also since it’s stipulated that funds should be returned if unused in the original guidelines of LTIPP **.** ---
**Author:** ![AbdullahUmar](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/abdullahumar/32/5025_2.png) [@AbdullahUmar](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/AbdullahUmar)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2024, 2:46am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/41 "2024-10-01T02:46:58Z")
Below are the opinions of the UADP: Our reasoning here is identical with our feedback on the similar Pyth proposal. We voted abstain on this proposal because it presents an isolated case where Synthetix alone would attain an extension. If extensions are to be given, this should be conducted in a collective and orderly manner, not in a one-off manner. The DAO also voted to pause incentives for a period of time to reflect and analyze the results and efficacy of previous programs. Introducing an extension detracts from that goal. [Previous page](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524.md?page=1) [Next page](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524.md?page=3)