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.
After consideration Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal:
Similar to the Pyth proposal for an extension, the ARC will vote AGAINST this proposal. Reason being:
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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 and you can get up to speed on what has already been discussed here.
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.
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.
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.
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 .