Streamlining the LTIPP Bounties

Abstract

This proposal aims to streamline the LTIPP bounty process by allowing the LTIPP council more autonomy in choosing who completes each bounty. This will help create a faster-moving selection system with more accountability, allowing the DAO to gather more insights into the results of the incentive campaigns.

Motivation

The LTIPP proposal included up to 200,000 ARB available for research on STIP, the Backfund, and the LTIP Pilot Program. The bounties guarantee the DAO will have multiple teams working on providing meaningful conclusions regarding the incentive programs. These conclusions will be essential to allow the DAO to possess all the information necessary to create the best possible long-term incentive framework.

However, in its current format, it will take multiple months and many DAO votes to decide who will complete each bounty. This proposal aims to streamline that process so that more teams can research Arbitrum Incentives programs in a timely manner. By allowing the LTIPP council more freedom in using the bounty funds, we can move faster to start the bounties the same week as the start incentives.

Rationale

This new process not only speeds things up but also creates more accountability and can lead to more teams applying to fulfill bounties.

DAO-wide votes to select who completes each bounty can become a popularity contest. This discourages less well-connected or busy researchers from applying, as they don’t want to deal with the struggle of lobbying every delegate.

However, allowing the elected LTIPP council to choose the most qualified teams without the researchers worrying about lobbying and DAO politics will encourage more bounty applications. This will lead to more options to choose from and result in better overall research being done.

This new process for selecting bounties also adds accountability, as the decision is made by a small group instead of the entire DAO. The DAO delegates might not want to take the time or have the expertise to read and understand each application. Additionally, it is hard to assign accountability for decisions when they are made by large groups like DAOs.

However, with a smaller group making the decisions, more accountability and expertise will be placed in each decision, leading to better outcomes for the DAO. The LTIPP council comprises strong teams and individuals elected by the community who have the DAOs’ best interests in mind. The council has intimate knowledge of the incentives programs and understands what needs to be studied to create a new and improved incentives program.

Specifications

The LTIPP proposal allocated a maximum of 200k ARB for research bounties. To streamline the process, this proposal allows the council to choose who fulfills each bounty. The proposed new bounty format is as follows.

Bounty Submission

Starting May 20th, researchers can apply for bounties by submitting applications on the forum. The council will put out a list of bounties they would like researched but researchers can also submit their own ideas for bounties.

Bounty Feedback

Applications for research bounties will be due June 3rd. The council and delegates will give feedback on the forum up until the 3rd to give feedback and allow people to alter their applications.

Bounty Selection

The LTIPP council will then select which bounties to fund on June 10th. Researchers whose bounty is selected would start their research immediately upon selection. This will align nicely with the start of LTIPP incentives beginning on June 3rd.

Bounty Payments

Researchers will be paid half of their bounty upon completing KYC and half of it upon completing their bounty. The LTIPP workstream will monitor the bounties throughout the program to ensure the bounties are completed and payments are made.

Steps to Implement

  • Complete Snapshot vote to give more autonomy to the LTIPP council.
  • Have teams submit proposals for bounties
  • The council selects which bounties to fund
  • Research starts
  • Researcher’s selected for bounties complete KYC
  • Half of the bounty is paid once KYC is completed
  • Half of the bounty is paid upon completion of the research

Timeline

Stage Dates Description
Snapshot vote May 22 - May 29 Dao votes to change the bounty process
Application May 22 - June 3 Teams apply for bounties on the forum
Selection June 3 - June 10 The council selects which bounties are funded
Research June 10 - September Researchers work to complete their bounties.

Overall Cost

There is no additional cost to this proposal. The funding will come from the 200K arb budget from the LTIPP proposal.

5 Likes

Hi @Matt_StableLab,

Clear instructions and timeline.

If anyone is interested in applying for the research bounties, do they need:

  1. Description of the research that they wish to conduct.
  2. Provide the budget for completing the research(bounty)

Essential bounty topics need to be presented inorder to actually work on it, is it?

OR

All research topics will be picked by LTIPP council & interested candidates need to just apply for any topic they can fulfill.

Do I understand correctly that you want to exclude DAO from voting for grants?

I don’t really like this point, since I don’t see any problems with 7-day voting. There are no voting months here.
A small group gets too much rights and can be a corrupting aspect, unlike the entire DAO.

The council will provide some topics they would like researched as a guide but candidates are also encouraged to apply with their own topics. Anyone can submit a research topic and what their budget would be to fulfill it and then the council will select the applications they think will be beneficial to the program.

Not on all grants but just for the bounties in this specific program. We agree that it’s very important for the DAO to have a say in grants. However, in this specific situation, we don’t want to burden the DAO with another 20+ votes when they might not want to take the time to research each bounty and also might not have the same knowledge of the LTIPP as the council does.

However, we really value the community’s opinion, which is why we want to put this to a vote. If the dao votes this proposal down, then we are happy to proceed with the DAO voting on each bounty. If they are ok with allowing the council to decide on the bounties, then the council is willing and able to handle this responsibility for the DAO

1 Like

hi @Matt_StableLab , Thank you for the clear timeline and structured information.

Wanted to ask - when will the council present the potential research areas? We have been working on a few ideas internally and would like to align our work with the DAO’s vision.

An argument that we hear a lot and honestly have had ourselves is that we as delegates are exactly equipped on the whole to be grant reviewers. This was an issue that came up in the past and was why a lot of these delegate programs came up in the first place. Hence, we think these streamlining edits should reduce the burden for delegates and we are fully in favor.

Hi @Matt_StableLab,

Thanks for the information and the timeline.

We(Lampros Labs DAO) would like to propose the following research bounty topic for consideration -

Title - Effects of Growth Incentives on Non-Recipients Protocol

  • Study spillover effects of Incentives on other projects in the same category.
  • How is the User, TVL & Fees Growth of non-recipient protocols.
  • A specific category like DEXes or Lending Protocols that received STIP Round 1 or STIP Backfund vs non-recipients will be researched.

We believe this research could provide valuable insights into the broader ecosystem impact of incentive programs. Also, we would be interested in potentially working on this bounty.

Please let us know if there’s any other information or any next step required.

Thank you for your attention!

Makes complete sense - These types of tasks are best handled in this agile manner. I would only ask that if the Council picks an organization that is somehow related to the internal members - they be handled with extra scrutiny given the obvious conflicts of interest. I have no doubt you will all handle it well as I’ve already seen members exclude themselves from processes where they might have a bias. Great work, thank you everyone!

I voted for this proposal at the temp check stage because I think the LTIPP council is in a better and more informed position to evaluate LTIPP bounty grant requests than the average delegate. As a DAO, we have already approved funding for the LTIPP council to operate and I think it’s reasonable to extend them this additional responsibility that is closely related to the scope of the previously approved program.

2 Likes

Voting “for” on this proposal. There is indeed the need of a more agile management of this mini internal funds. And tbh this also applies in general to others as well, more thoughts on this after all votings is over.

But, in general

  • necessary to allow council to be able to leverage funds to effectively answer questions that might arise
  • necessary to allow council to be able to leverage funds to effectively answer needs that might arise
  • totally agreeing with @Tenzent here: if any selected entity is part of the council, advisors or others contributors of LTIPP, there has to be a very good reason on why 1) the question was posed 2) the answer has to be provided specifically by that entity

After reviewing the proposal and comments, we believe allowing the LTIPP council more autonomy in selecting research bounty recipients will benefit the Arbitrum DAO. It will streamline the process, enable research to start sooner, and add accountability.

The council has the expertise to select qualified researchers, and the forum application process still allows for community feedback. We acknowledge the important points raised around potential conflicts of interest.

Overall, this proposal balances agility and oversight. Streamlining bounty selection will lead to faster insights for the DAO’s incentive programs. Something that is highly needed with the current program’s addendums.

On behalf of the Arbitrum community members who delegated their voting power to us, we’ll be voting FOR this proposal.