Hi and thank you for the constructive feedback.
To further clarify and try and assist you getting a clearer picture of the nature of our proposal:
- TVL growth is not a KPI that determines the success of Thales products due to the nature of our collateralization and AMM architecture. We are completely different than other onchain derivative products and should not be looked at under the same KPIs. Due to the
high risk/high rewardbinary nature of our product, our capital efficiency of collateral liquidity is much much higher than perp and vanilla option products, meaning that we can cater to demand sufficiently with much lower total TVL. Matter of fact, the growth of our TVL is limited due to THALES token gating where only stakers have the luxury to LP into the AMM pools. Conclusion is: the performance of our products should be weighted by onchain activity such as unique users, fee accrual and volume.
e.g. for past couple couple weeks we averaged around ~400 weekly unique users on Optimism contracts without any incentives, while Arbitrum contracts are less than half that on average. This activity is present ever since we depleted our Optimism incentives from OP grants, meaning that we maintain a solid post-incentives user retention numbers. We wish to do the same on Arbitrum with this moderate ARB grant.
- Trading competitions are only a small part of the 160k ARB Focused Event Incentives, while the direct usage incentives are a total of 340k ARB. This means that trading competition incentives will be around ~10% to ~15% of this grant. Also, Trading Competitions as a growth tool for product such as our own should not be underestimated. We observed that promoting incentivized Trading Competitions on mainnet not only drive immediate usage and volume, but also increases the number of active regular users that stick around after trying out our products for the competition.