Serious People: Proposed Update to LTIPP Application Advisor Responsibilities


@SeriousIan @SeriousTaylor @SeriousKeith

Proposed Update to LTIPP Application Advisor Responsibilities

After taking a look at the role of the Application Advisor, it is the opinion of Serious People that we can make a few suggestions on the best way to design this role given the new information that we have. Many things have remained the same, but as we create an easier way for the proposals to be compared to one another, that should be reflected in the role of the Advisor(s). We have built off of Matt’s initial work here to update what we believe would be the best way to set up this position.

Application Advisor Role Outline


Application Advisors are integral to the proposal process, serving as impartial entities with DeFi expertise. Their primary function is to provide detailed, unbiased feedback on applications, aiding protocols in refining and improving their submissions.


Collaboration with Council and Program Manager: Work jointly to design the application template, KPI’s, and a grading rubric, ensuring alignment with council expectations and clarity in the evaluation process.

Feedback and Recommendations: Offer detailed feedback on each eligible application assigned to your team during the review period.

Communication with Applicants: Engage actively with applicants to streamline the application process, aiding in proposal improvements and clarifications.

Hosting Office Hours: Schedule and conduct public office hours 3 times per week while the program is running for protocols to seek advice. This will focus on transparency and accessibility. All interactions during these sessions will be recorded and summarized for everyone. Order of speaking on the office hours will be on a first come first serve basis.


Impartiality: Advisors must remain unbiased, especially as they do not have the final say in proposal acceptance. While application advisors will work closely with the council members to create the Rubric, advisors should not interfere with the votes from the council nor guarantee any outcome to projects they speak with.

Continuous Engagement: Post-application feedback is crucial, as is ongoing involvement in the later stages of the process, subject to discussion and agreement with relevant parties. There may also be later involvement in the process when the program is running or over.

Timeline and Process

Pre-Application Phase: Advisors are required to hold open office hours, focusing on guiding applicants in preparing their proposals.

Application Review Phase: Each proposal receives at least one detailed feedback report addressing key criteria established by the DAO.

Post-Application Feedback: After the submission of proposals, advisors provide insights on the process and suggest improvements for future cycles.

Selection and Ratification

The application to be and advisor is currently open here: LTI Pilot Program Position Application Thread


Very interesting proposal and there’s a lot of great stuff here.

I am very bullish on leveraging councils to reduce the burden on delegates during the application process. Additionally, I see this as an excellent chance to cultivate a diverse and balanced set of expertise within the council, so applications from all verticals are being judged and advised accurately.

Here is some constructive feedback I have:

Re: Council/Problem #1

Over Centralization: Upon first reading, one of my initial reactions was that I imagine a more collaborative approach between delegates and the council. This proposal significantly removes delegates from the voting process. I have no doubt a highly competent council would be formed, but it is important to ensure we stay within the spirit of decentralized governance. 5 votes seems overly centralized and relying solely on vetos seems very limiting.

Two Stage Voting Approach

I would propose a two stage application process where a council/advisor team establishes a “short list” of strong applications that have had the chance to work with advisors and submit a strong application. This reduces the centralization issue, as well as the burden on delegates as they will be dealing with a smaller set of qualified, well put together applications.

Diversifying Expertise

In addition to reducing the burden on delegates, one of the main reasons I have been supportive of forming council positions is that I believe we need to establish a diverse and balanced set of expertise within the governance community.

As we open up programs to a wider range of protocols and initiatives, it’s crucial that we have people with expertise in different verticals to ensure the DAO is making informed decisions and providing relevant feedback to all applicants. This will ensure Arbitrum can grow in all directions and reach its highest potential across verticals.


Appreciate you offering your perspective on the council position! Definitely a very interesting and crucial new position that the LTIPP introduces as well.

The two stage voting system is interesting as well, but I believe that a well constructed rubric/grading system will help to alleviate some the issue here. If the council and advisors are working towards grading the applications based on a standardized system then it should be pretty easy to narrow it down to the most deserving applicants based on the grade they receive in respect to the rubric.