Thank you for your review here. To clarify on some of the points raised here:
1. Data Reporting
Throughout the program we published Bi-Weekly updates here: Synapse Protocol Bi-Weekly STIP Backfund Updates - #4 by moses. This data can be used as the source of truth, was audited and is being implemented by Openblocks now to share. The reasons for data discrepancies were all outlined here: Synapse STIP Addendum - #4 by moses
2. Metrics
Synapse delivered on the first and most important goal of the program, Encouraging new $$ into the Arbitrum ecosystem. (More than $3b in bridge volume). These dollars flowed into partner protocols like GMX and Uniswap through modules like SynapseX and xAsset token bridging. In regards to the last goal of increasing TVL → The development of SynapseRFQ accomplished the first two items in a capital efficient way, such that idle liquidity (TVL) is replaced with just-in-time liquidity providers (relayers). So while TVL on Arbitrum did not increase by an order of magnitude, bridging and volume overall increased more capital efficiently than any liquidity based bridging,
3. The allocation of 750k ARB was not only allocated in the original proposal under “Slippage-free bridging” (which was accomplished), but also was earned delegated by individual relayers (and since @socrates has requested that they undelegate). I further elaborate on this here: Concerns Regarding Possible Misconduct by Synapse with Respect to the Usage of ARB Incentives Allocated Through the STIP - #4 by moses
@socrates elaborates on the delegation of the 750k ARB by the relayers
- 750k ARB was distributed to bridgers as fee rebates, and 750k was distributed to RFQ relayers. I asked those relayers if they’d consider delegating their Arb to me which they did. As mentioned in @moses’s reply, I can see how this could be viewed as some sort of “quid-pro-quo” and have since asked them to undelegate or vote themselves. That said, I don’t think it’s against STIP rules; my understanding is the ARB shouldn’t be used by the DAO for governance, but after it’s distributed to relayers, users, LPs, etc, they can use it for governance.
futhermore:
In regards to the use of Arb in governance, a clarification of the rules here would be helpful. The original STIP proposal says, " Grants are not to be used in DAO governance". Our understanding of this was that Arb tokens given to the respective STIP DAOs shouldn’t be used in governance but once they’ve been distributed, it could be used. Similar to how LPs & traders that received Arb from GMX’s STIP program could use the Arb in governance.
The full response to these concerns can be found here: Concerns Regarding Possible Misconduct by Synapse with Respect to the Usage of ARB Incentives Allocated Through the STIP - #5 by Socrates