At the current pace of the Short-Term Incentives Program, it appears the 50 Million ARB budget will be exceeded. I will continue to monitor this as the voting period continues but wanted to outline the different possible scenarios.
If the 50 Million ARB budget is reached:
STIP only includes 50M in funding. If this limit is reached in Round 1 there will be no Round 2 of the program.
Should the DAO wish to extend this framework, it may create a second proposal to either extend the budget for STIP to fund a Round 2 program OR create a proposal for an additional program to help meet the community’s extended demand for grants.
If the 50 Million ARB budget is NOT reached:
The remaining funds will be used for Round 2.
Round 2 submissions may begin October 13, 2023 12:00 AM EST and are due by October 20, 2023 11:59 PM EST.
In the event that only a small amount of funding is left, it may not make sense to have a second round for only a tiny amount of funding. In this case, the DAO may vote to end the program early, extend this program with an added budget, or implement a new program.
As of now the 50M ARB budget for STIP has been exceeded. This means there will be no Round 2 as there is no budget remaining.
Should the DAO wish to extend this framework, it may create a second proposal to either extend the budget for STIP to fund a Round 2 program OR create a proposal for an additional program to help meet the community’s extended demand for grants
I will continue to provide updates on the status of the funding as the voting period comes to an end.
Can the exact methodology of how the 50m will be allocated, in the case that the total voted in sum is larger, be expanded upon?
Namely, it says that the sorting will be done by votes in favor and there will be a hard cut off at 50m. Are “votes in favor” only the FOR votes, or the difference between FOR and AGAINST?
Do abstain votes count towards quorum?
Lastly, not a question per se, but it definitely seems fairer to try to come up with a pro rata distribution across all STIPs that were voted in, then have a hard binary cut-off. Like in case the total sum is 55m, all STIPs could be paid out with a 10% reduction.
Abstain votes always count towards quorum.
Now having more than 50mm allocated, we need to see those with less FOR votes, those will be left out.
On a first stance for example that Lido ends up with 40mm FOR and 39mm Negative and XX Abstain, then they will be left out (im putting Lido as example as they are the ones with most negative votes or less FOR votes).
For extending the 50MM ARB distribution, i think to better wait to see how this plays out and maybe end of November see if we extend the program or not. Maybe just better to wait for next year.
Going down the road by choosing only on “for” votes, we have 27 Projects included right now.
Sorting out by ratio for/against includes 35 Projects.
something like top ratio projects with for-votes equal to at least quorum requirement? around 72 Million votes, right?
Given the cut-off today breached the 50m mark… and the previous statement was that all 50m would be awarded as the cut-off… WINR Protocol, for instance, which was right at the cut off, on paper earned a sizable portion of its 500k request… we are assuming that partial amount will be granted, yes?
Would also love some clarity on this for the protocols right at the cutoff. Perhaps a list with numbers would be good.
I think the biggest learning and take away for next vote/program/extension/whatever is decided should be to move the system to Ranked Choice Voting.
This way projects can express votes in a much more sophisticated manner and no delegate is encouraged to not vote on a proposal. I also thought @cattin and the SEED LATAM community did an amazing job doing exactly this but manually, only voting for 50M of ARB worth grants. RCV would be a huge improvement to the way things are currently being done but Romang explained some of the other benefits better than I below: