- Please provide the addresses of the contracts you plan to incentivize and a spending plan for how you will incentivize them as per
- Additionally the incentive grants can not be used for your own grants program.
Generally agree here.
Additionally, all bridges seem to be asking for large amounts that are essentially used to rent liquidity or encourage sybil behaviour.
It’s nice that Synapse is prepared to create Dune Spells and Dashboards for the incentive program, ensuring transparency and data reporting.
You mentioned supporting existing Arbitrum partners like GMX, FRAX, and OHM. Could you elaborate on the specific initiatives or incentives you plan to provide to these partners and their users?
supb we are in right way … keep support Arbi - Eco -Sys
Can you elaborate on this, what contracts will you select and what will be the dynamics of reward distribution?
I think this is outside the scope of this grant, as it does not cover the funding of integrations.
The same applies to this point
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that you also want to subcite Arbitrum’s withdrawals? is that correct?
Regarding the grant breakdown, could you provide some further clarity.
“500k ARB will be used to support these projects and their users bridging to and from Arbitrum. Gas rebates, fee rebates and other incentives will reward these partners and give their users additional incentives to use the Arbitrum ecosystem.”
I don’t understand the value of (3) in the grant breakdown. “Loyalty” can be gamed by creating a new address? What type of grants will be given for new tokens/projects? Some more info here would be helpful.
Other contracts will include those of external swap pools specifically on GMX, Uniswap, and Velodrome. Immediate scope will look at stableswap pairs (USDC/USDT/USDC.e/DAI).
The spending plan for the above is 800k/2m will go towards Synapse contracts (100k to the bridge/300k to the minichef and 400k to the concentrated liquidity pool). All rewards will be distributed evenly from the day of distribution to 6 months later.
Rebates for bridge transactions are better as a fraction of the total fee + slippage. The goal of this is to decrease the delta between what a user deposits and what they withdraw.
With regards to your concerns around (3) the general idea is to encourage loyal users to continue to be power users and not churn/ leave the ecosystem. Creating new addresses does not game the system because things like the age of the address / methods to determine how organic an address is are helpful.
In terms of “grants” for new tokens and projects I briefly address this in my response to Matt above but outside of liquidity incentives for different tokens, incentivizing liquidity for external stableswaps/routers is mutually beneficial.
Subsidize may be the wrong term – the goal is to encourage Liquidity provision to improve prices.
Currently we support these protocols in a few ways. First, we are the primary bridge partner for all of these projects. both GMX and gOHM can only be bridged through Synapse, and Synapse is one of Frax’s limited bridge partners. Bridge volume for these tokens is > $500m to date for these tokens.
Furthermore, there are also smart contract integrations that enable swaps on these protocols to happen before and after bridging events. This increases touchpoints for protocols and improves the user experience Imagine not only receiving the desired output token (any token you want) but also discovering reliable protocols when first onboarding into the ecosystem. Here is an example of this in action: Arbitrum Transaction Hash (Txhash) Details | Arbiscan
@moses Thank you for these changes! Your submission now meets all requirements to be considered for a snapshot vote.
Hello @moses ,
Now that your application has been marked eligible, please be advised of the remaining steps in the application process to be completed prior to the Review Period Deadline:
Please complete the following steps required for your application to proceed to Snapshot:
To change your proposal to final, please tag an Arbitrum Foundation Forum Moderator (@ stonecoldpat @ cliffton.eth @ eli_defi) by the Review Period deadline to notify them of your proposal’s readiness to proceed from [Draft] to [Final] status.
Once notified, the Arbitrum Foundation Forum Moderator will adjust your title from [Draft] to [Final] status. Once marked as [FInal], your application post will be locked by moderators and you will no longer be able to edit your proposal.
Firstly, thank you for your proposal and your evident commitment to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Synapse is seeking a grant of 2,000,000 ARB to enhance their asset bridging capabilities on Arbitrum. Already a strong presence with 40% of its TVL on Arbitrum, Synapse aims to make asset transfers faster and more cost-effective. Their proven track record of facilitating $8bn in total volume and engaging around 200,000 users on Arbitrum speaks volumes. We believe the proposal aligns well with Arbitrum’s broader goals, offering tangible benefits like gas and fee rebates to new users and developers.
Castle Capital values the efforts Synapse has put forth and the services it offers to the Arbitrum ecosystem. We are inclined to support the proposal, contingent upon the lowering of the grant size to better fit within the current budget constraints.
Our recommendations can be summarized as follows:
We hope our feedback helps fine-tune your proposal and that it’s received as constructive input for the benefit of everyone involved in Arbitrum’s growth.
@moses Friendly reminder to complete the following:
Post has been marked FINAL and locked.
We would like to support this proposal, which is meticulously designed to inject vibrancy and liquidity into the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Synapse, already a key player in the ecosystem with significant volume and user base, is uniquely positioned to achieve these objectives.
Synapse, proving to be one of the biggest contributors for the ecosystem continuing to provide mining rewards on Arbitrum and supporting the ecosystem with 4M+SYN in the past year, requests the proposal focusing on mainly 2 objectives: supporting faster and cheaper bridging, and supporting Arbitrum partners. Even though the requested budget amount is remarkably big, considering the sustainable outcomes and the possible future contribution for the ecosystem makes it reasonable.
Based on these reasons, ITU Blockchain voted in favor of this proposal.