All necessary funds already approved and in multisig: These funds are already stored in the multisig, ready to be distributed once the below Snapshot passes. No additional funds beyond the already approved amount are needed to pay the entire operational budget.
Note: These operational costs will go directly to a Snapshot vote as a separate proposal titled “Operational Budget for STIP Bridge” with options for each of the three line items.
Overall Work Done: 50+ applicants over 5 months with 36 completed incentive distributions. While 36M ARB was allocated, only 27.64M ARB was used.
In the bridge, each advisor was assigned about 20 protocols during the application phase and followed around 12 protocols each through the entire 5-month program.
100k ARB allocated by:
**3 Advisors, 58.2K ARB total,**19.4K ARB per advisor (SeedLATAM, Jojo The Cow, Castle Capital)
1 Program manager, 34.3K ARB toal. Matt Stein, StableLab
1 Proposal Writer: 5K total. Alex Lumley
5 Multisig signers, 2.5K ARB total. 500 per signer for the LTIPP Multisig.
Motivation & Rationale
The STIP Operational team provided expert advice with many learnings.
Overall Work Done: 50+ applicants over 5 months with 36 incentive distributions. While 36M ARB was allocated only 27.64M ARB was used. In the bridge, each advisor was assigned about 20 protocols during the application phase and followed around 12 protocols each through the entire five-month program.
Additionally, the greeted DAO community already agreed to this amount with the STIP Bridge. All necessary funds already approved and in multisig: These funds are already stored in the multisig, ready to be distributed once the below Snapshot passes. No additional funds beyond the already approved amount are needed to pay the total operational budget.
As the work has already been completed this is necessary we should make sure our contributors and community members are fairly compensated.
Compensation for specific STIP Bridge Operational Contributors:
Advisors:
58.2K ARB - 19.4K ARB per advisor.
Including:
JoJo
SEEDLatam Gov
Castle Capita
Role & Responsibility for STIP Bridge
Each advisor was assigned about 20 protocols during the application phase and followed around 12 protocols each through the entire 5-month program.
Advisors will work for five months, will be responsible for approximately 20 protocols each, and will:
evaluate old STIP proposals
assess results of a protocol’s previous incentives campaign
evaluate Addendum proposals
suggest feedback tailored to the protocol such as what worked well in their STIP grant and what they should change
Help protocols during the three months STIP program in case they need to adapt their program, change specific mechanisms and in general require support.
Program Manager:
34.3K ARB - Matthew Stein, Stable Labs
Compensation
This cost breaks down to 34,300 ARB * 0.56 = $19,208 for 5 months of work (April - September) or $3841.6 per month.
For operating a 37.6M ARB program, this is 0.09% of the program’s total cost well below industry standard.
Program manager responsibilities
Communicate with the 50+ total applicants to ensure they know about the bridge program and how to apply
Coordinate the posting of the Addendums to the forum
Ensure Addendums are correctly posted
Administer deadlines for various phases of the program
Handle COI with advisors assigned to protocols
Help facilitate the posting of challenge snapshots
Handle any conflicts of interest that arise from challenge snapshots
Help coordinate with the multisig and protocols to ensure funds are properly distributed and protocols understand the streams
Coordinate between the Protocols and Arbitrum Compliance
Update grant recipients on program progress as streams start, run, and end
Update the DAO on the progress of the program
Help connect the program to other areas of the DAO such as the ARDC or LTIPP workstream
Help protocols who have questions regarding the incentive rules/timelines
Facilitate the return of any unused ARB at the completion of the program
Author of the proposal:
5000 ARB to Alex Lumley
Role & Responsibility:
Wrote two distinct proposals: STIP Bridge and the STIP Bridge Operational budget the proposals for STIP Bridge, both the Tally and Snapshot.
Throughout 4-6, non-continuous weeks The protocol authors have drafted the proposal, met with delegates for feedback,
presented open workshopping calls, implemented feedback, and progressed the proposal toward a vote for the past few months.
The hundreds of hours of work put into creating this proposal.
Including:
Designing and authoring the proposal
Driving delegate outreach, gathering and implementing delegate feedback
Hosting workshop calls
Reminding delegates to vote and answering last-minute questions
Multisig:
2500 ARB total, 500 ARB / Multisigner
Previous programs
The multisig signers included: multisig 1 include Lindsey, Limes, Joseph, Bobbay and Alex Lumley.
Each Multisig signer will receive 500 ARB immediately
Note that all the streams started, and most of the program passed before the new Arbitrum Multisig even passed Tally (send link).
Halting streams based on decisions by the LTIPP Council.
Steps to Implement
Post to forum: Answer any questions and make improvements
Post to Snapshot
Pass Snapshot
KYC: Then each OpEx contributor can complete KYC
Multisig disperses funds: then the LTIPP multisig can distribute the funds to each OpEx contributor.
Timeline
All the above steps should be completed in 2-4 weeks.
Note that the STIP Bridge program will run from April to September, with key milestones including protocol evaluations, mid-program reviews, and final reports.
Castle Capital was one of the STIP.b Advisors — this role was expanded based on the previous contributions as Advisors for the LTIPP program to support protocols with their STIP.b applications. This encompassed reflecting on STIP impact, setting realistic KPIs, and sparring on the incentive mechanisms and distribution of funds.
Each advisor was assigned about 20 protocols during the application phase and followed around 12 protocols each throughout the entire five-month program.
During the initial STIP, protocols had no established actor helping them throughout the application, resulting in cumbersome processes, delays, and a higher degree of proposals being incomplete or insufficient to move forward.
Part of our STIP.b evaluation included studying previous results from STIP, which provided us (and the protocols) with a better understanding of what worked or did not from previous incentive campaigns. Protocols also had to follow an application template where they themselves were asked to provide their feedback on STIP, which will be invaluable for the development of future incentive programs and whether they would change their distribution strategy from STIP.
Based on this, we’d evaluate the Addendum and provide feedback on what worked and what should be changed based on the reports provided.
Castle Capital has continued supporting protocols throughout the distribution of the incentives, working as point of contact for general support and helping them in case of desired changes to their mechanism of distribution.
As part of our role, we received positive feedback on our contribution from protocols involved in this program, stating that our support has been instrumental in preparing and submitting a complete application and securing the grant.
Thanks to the combined efforts of all the advisors, over 39 protocols successfully received funds.
Not too much to add to what was posted.
Me, seedlatam, castlecap and Matt all jumped into stip.b trying to tackle the initial feedback of delegates, which at the time was: why we should replicate stip if we have had a better structure/experience with ltipp?
Obviously the bridge wasn’t possible to be fully adapted as ltipp was, but the idea at the time was still to guide and help protocols through advisoring that, while not strictly necessary for a vote and so not mandatory, were still provided.
I am glad to say that most protocols to which I chatted later said that there was a big difference in the overall experience between stip/stip backfdund and stip bridge, due to having “someone” to talk to to go more in depth regarding numbers, incentive mechanisms and other nuances that in previous rounds were not easy to dissect and discuss.
This makes sense to me; I’m surprised this didn’t get brought forward earlier since its been over 6 months since the STIP-Bridge now. I did a quick read of the original proposal and there was no mention of payment for these members.
In that case, I am in support of this. Should @Matt_StableLab payment be higher? It seems quite low right now IMO
Firstly, thank you, @AlexLumley, for taking the lead on this.
From SEEDGov, we don’t have much more to add beyond what @JoJo and @CastleCapital have already stated. However, we would like to highlight that, in our role as STIP.b advisors, we have made efforts to provide maximum transparency throughout the process of assisting each applicant.
This approach involved, among other things, publicly sharing feedback in the forum for each protocol under our advisory and ensuring easy access to information for the broader DAO community.
In terms of the overall experience, we have received positive feedback regarding the benefits of having advisors’ support, particularly when compared to the first STIP.
was added on tally and was quite generic: at the time we were in the place in which there was first the necessity of spinning up the initiative and iron out detail for compensation later.
I won’t specifically say if payment for a single member is too high or too low; what has happened tho, is that at the time arb was valued i think around 1.15$, and this means that (unfortunately) the overall notional dollar amount for payments has slashed in half across the board. All payments for all members compared to the tasks and jobs achieved are quite low imho, but #itiswhatitis
I’m voting ‘FOR’ this proposal because it ensures everyone involved in the STIP Bridge program gets fairly compensated for their hard work. The funds are already approved, so there’s no extra ask—just paying the folks who made it happen.
@AlexLumley one point of process is that the format of this proposal combines and changes the order of the subsections in the normal template of a proposal.
The Abstract and Specifications sections talk about funds, rather than explaining the high level purpose of the proposal, then the Overal Costs section has a graphic and no costs in it.
I find piecing together and making sense of this hard on the reader.
I am still unclear the final amount being asked for as the amounts in the abstract table are expressing a range, and there is not a final Total figure clearly expressing what’s being asked for.
Would you be open to sharpening up the formatting of this proposal?
I’m voting in favor of this proposal. It makes sense to me to distribute the 100k ARB to those who were involved in the STIP Bridge program. It’s completely normal to reward them for the work they did!
As one of the contributors to the STIP, I am voting “abstain”.
While the current COI policy approved and voted by the DAO doesn’t necessarily stop people to vote for themself, in a situation like this it makes sense to do so regardless, hoping that the DAO does indeed find valuable the contribution that me, @SEEDGov, @CastleCapital, @Matt_StableLab and @AlexLumley gave to this initiative.
We are voting in favor of the ‘STIP Bridge Operational Budget’ proposal. The details are clear, and we’ve already discussed and approved the funds, so we support this to ensure the continued operation and enhancement of the STIP Bridge.
We are voting in favor of this proposal on Snapshot, as the necessary funds were already pre-approved and discussed prior. As the completion of the program has been achieved and the work fulfilled, it makes sense to pay the operators that took on the effort. Although, we are curious to know if there were any operational takeaways from the STIP.b management that you would be willing to share.
This point will likely go, among others, into the new incentive program group, but compensation for contributors should be likely redesigned a bit:
in ltipp, contributors vested their arb from a 1.7$ to a 0.65$ in value
in stip.b, originally the amount assigned for was $115k, and is now $50k at the time of executing compensation.
While we should definitely align contributors to the dao’s success, it’s difficult to attract professional figures, and also make the current contributors stick around, if we don’t find a way to have more predictability in payments.
We support this proposal as it fairly compensates the contributors for their work on the STIP Bridge program. The budget seems reasonable, given the scope of the work. As @BlockworksResearch mentioned, we also would like to see a brief overview of any key takeaways or improvements identified during the program’s execution.
Thank you.
Voted FOR: Because the proposal and its budget already been approved I support this proposal without and comments. The team working on it did their job well and I feel they need to be compensated fairly.
No complaints. There doesn’t seem to be much if any concerns and we share that view. We are a little confused as to why this even has to go to a vote. The budget was preapproved, and it seems the changes are incredibly minute. Are we able to just move forward as pre approved in the future without this extra governance redundancy?
