Should large players side step the STIP program?

As of yesterday we had a maximum request of 124,442,102 ARB in total but the cap is 50M (, not all of that needs to be approved but if the large players pass it will leave very little for the rest of the community to share.

Instead of rationing out ARB like baked beans in a food shortage, would it not make more sense to have the largest players side step STIP and go straight into asking the DAO for a grant? Leaving the 50M for the other 90 or so teams to play with?

doesn’t make much sense to me to have the community favourites and best performing teams competing with small up and coming projects for the same pot of cash. It’s going to lead to a least half of the teams getting declined this round and it pressures big teams to ask for less than they need to execute their plans, does that encourage a welcoming ecosystem?


I think you are spot on here. Big players like GMX GNS VERTEX etc should get the amounts directly from ARB DAO


This would be the equivalent for the DAO to make more funds available for the STIP program. Which, if i remember correctly, was also written down in the proposal as a possibility.


The dao got like 60M arb back which was unclaimed from airdrop. So they can definitely do this


Good point, perhaps if this doesn’t come to fruition then it’s logical to lower the demands of all protocols by an equal percentage, but again we need to wait for the voting results to go about it.

1 Like

The core issue here isn’t about dividing up ARB, but rather the urgency of setting the grant program in motion. We need to ignite the flame, get things started.

The STIP is a solid initiative pointing Arbitrum in the right direction.

It’s not meant to cover every nuance of an ecosystem. Its primary goal should be ensuring momentum. Getting things off the ground, distributing initial grants, evaluating outcomes, and iterating.

An agile approach is key here.


0xWicked, you make a valid point about the primary goal of the STIP program being to ensure momentum and get things off the ground. Indeed, agility in the early stages of ecosystem development is crucial. However, the concern raised by PSY about large players potentially taking up a significant portion of the allocation does warrant consideration.

One possible approach could be a tiered system within the STIP program. Large players could still participate but with certain limitations on the amount they can request, ensuring a more equitable distribution of funds. This way, both established projects and smaller up-and-coming ones can coexist within the ecosystem without excessive competition for resources.

What are your thoughts on implementing such a tiered system within the STIP program to strike a balance between encouraging established projects and supporting emerging ones?


I disagree with this take. 50m is the reduced amount because of inflation concerns by the community. “ Leaving the 50M for the other 90 or so teams to play with” is nothing else but completely abandoning this first decision (yes, one can seriously question why this happened in the first place where everyone suddenly morphed into stingy accountants).

Anyhow, this is the framework that we have to work with now and use the funds most reasonable to 1) not being wasted / mishandled by teams with low reputation / malicious intentions 2) create stickiness to the arbitrum ecosystem.

I’m not against funding projects that are less established like the big players, but I do believe in the concept of performing first before awarding free money to those projects (as in real life )


Thanks @PSY for raising this out, and we, Vaultka truly share similar thoughts with the author. As of the figures on 3rd of October, the total grant request from the top 10 projects (According to their grant request size) has already exceeded 50m, reaching over 53million. This situation leaves limited opportunities for smaller size protocols to benefit from the STIP program. Even if smaller projects meet the 71m quorum and secure over 50% of “For” votes, larger protocols are still likely to dominate the grant allocation. This is because grants are distributed based on the amount of votes in favor when the total request exceed 50m (based on the explanation from @tnorm below), and larger protocols enjoy a significant advantage in receiving more votes and garnering recognition from delegators.

We do not expect applications to exceed the funding budget of 50M ARB. However, if requested grants do exceed the allocated budget, funding will be allocated based on the amount of votes in favor of a proposal, and secondly (if there are any exact ties) on a first-come, first-serve basis dependent upon the time the proposal was submitted to the Arbitrum Forum.

This is opposite to the original intention of the Arbitrum STIP program, which is to strengthen the growth of the whole Arbitrum Ecosystem, rather than just the top few protocols on Arbitrum.

Nevertheless, we acknowledge the concern from @relied regarding the responsible allocation of funds to prevent misuse by teams with malicious intent. Thus, given the framework that we have, we propose that if the cumulative request amount passing through the voting requirements exceed 50m (meeting minimum quorum of 71m, and getting over 50% for votes), the 50Million grant should be distributed in proportion to the grant request of each protocol. This approach ensures that a significant portion of funds remains with established protocols, guaranteeing that resources are entrusted to experienced teams with a proven track record. Simultaneously, it maintains the competitiveness of smaller protocols within the Arbitrum ecosystem. We believe this approach better aligns with the initial purpose of the grant – to strengthen the Arbitrum ecosystem as a whole

1 Like

It’s a bit of a nuanced answer as I can see both sides but here’s the perspective from TreasureDAO that I published yesterday which described us deciding against participating in STIP for this reason (among others):


The problem identified here is sadly a real one… but i think the current proposal has already passed and there isnt much we can do about it (or can we?)
but imo this can serve as feedback probably for future STIPs or incentives…
here are some options (incl. those above) that could maybe help this a little bit…
(added it as a multiple-choice poll so you could just quickvote to show your inclination…)

  • 1 - Bigger projects with bigger needs can make a direct proposal to the Arbitrum DAO for a grant.
  • 2- Arbitrum DAO could increase the 50m ARB allocation to about 100m to accomodate everyone (this can cause serious inflation!)
  • 3 - 50m be divided proportional to the asks of all the applicants eligible for a vote. this means everyone gets about half of what they asked for!
  • 4 - Arbitrum DAO could allocate the 50M into the current 4 tiers (Beacon/Lighthouse/…) and then projects compete for votes within their own tiers.
  • 5 - Big protocols (like Treasure DAO above) should sidestep and not apply for a STIP to make room for the smaller protocols.
  • 6 - Something else? Reply button is your fren!
0 voters
1 Like