The Arbitrum Orbit Stimulus Pilot [Request for Discussion]

Note: In the spirit of open communication, this proposal aims to launch a discussion around the first proposed iteration of direct-to-contract incentives on Arbitrum. As an introductory proposal and a call for collaborators, we welcome feedback from delegates, analysts, protocols, Orbit chains, and the community.

We’d also like to note that while this proposal is under development, it is designed to complement existing Arbitrum project incentive programs like STIP and LTIPP, as well as Foundation programs for Orbit partners. It is not intended to compete with or deter those programs, but rather bring new tooling, onchain innovation, and important marketplace dynamics to the Arbitrum Incentives ecosystem.


The Arbitrum Orbit Stimulus Pilot introduces an objective and metric-driven onchain incentives program designed to provide infrastructure and tokens to help grow Arbitrum’s Orbit chains.

This proposal evolves protocol-driven incentives by leveraging composable, permissionless, and onchain infrastructure to facilitate decentralization, via third-party incentives managers, and streamlined operations, via onchain tooling.

The proposal introduces a six-month and 9M ARB program to support user growth and retention on up to six Arbitrum Orbit chains. Orbit chains will be selected via an Arbitrum DAO council with a budget to both setup infrastructure and incentives to bootstrap their project. Each accepted chain is eligible to receive the following:

  1. Up to 1M ARB for onchain user incentives (including performance fees for Incentive Managers, etc.)
  2. Up to 500k ARB budget for onchain infrastructure support (Including rpc, indexer, data, and incentives infrastructure).


The ultimate motivation of this proposal is to simultaneously endow Arbitrum Orbit chains with long-term onchain infrastructure for sustainable growth while simultaneously offering an alternative model that improves upon existing incentives programs by addressing existing issues of bureaucracy, capture and inefficiencies.

The Arbitrum Orbit strategy represents “freedom”. By encouraging its Orbit partners to customize their L2/L3 chains with unprecedented flexibility, Arbitrum is well positioned to attract a diversity of use-cases, structures, and strategies to the ecosystem. As such, this proposal aims to establish growth support for every Orbit chain (defined as an Orbit L2 sharing sequencer revenue or an Orbit L3 built on Arbitrum One or Arbitrum Nova).

We believe that validating the efficacy of onchain incentives infrastructure and performance-driven incentives will establish a foundation for long-term Orbit success. Equipped with robust tooling, Orbit chains, the DAO, and even third-parties (DEXs, onchain games, creators, etc.) can leverage the infra beyond the ARB granted from the program, either leveraging future grants, native tokens or digital assets, even when DAO incentives dry up.

The proposal aims to address multiple issues:

  • User Experience: By establishing a unified incentives funnel, it seeks to unify Orbit chain discovery into a cohesive user experience, addressing fragmented users and providing a scalable growth strategy for each protocol’s journey from an app to a chain.
  • Onchain Tooling: By replacing short-term programs with long-term tooling and infrastructure, Orbit chains will leave the Stimulus Pilot program with robust user data (CAC, segmentation analysis, growth metrics) and onchain relationships with their users, extending value beyond the status quo of continuous incentives via program extensions.
  • Objective-based Grants: By grounding Orbit growth in objective metric-based strategies (i.e. Mantle, Blast, Optimism) the DAO can align it’s impact with specific Orbit chain goals and objectives.
  • Evolving Onchain Incentives: As a pilot step toward the direct-to-contract philosophy, the Arbitrum Orbit Stimulus Pilot aims to realign DAO grants with blockchain principles: transparency, decentralization, and automation.


Arbitrum DAO has approved over 115M ARB worth of incentive grants on Arbitrum. Although these project-based grants spurred significant on-chain activity, they’ve been impeded by operational inefficiencies, unclear governance, and a lack of strategic direction. The absence of clearly defined success metrics has created a disconnect between expectations and outcomes. The DAO has largely been unable to define success, leading to misaligned expectations, grants, and results. Further, as Arbitrum chains grows, its user base becomes increasingly fragmented, leading to a disunified user experience and making it more difficult to explore complementary protocols and chains in the ecosystem.

This fragmentation complicates interaction with complementary protocols and chains within the ecosystem. While previous incentives favor protocols with precedent and governance influence (existing dApps on Arbitrum), an increasing wave of partners and protocols require support for new challenges in launching Orbit chains. This proposal advocates for a technical collaboration to foster and validate efficient, decentralized, and forkable on-chain workflows, along with tooling that will last long beyond the incentives themselves.

Concentrating on Arbitrum Orbit chains, this proposal aims to establish an adaptable, user-centric, and accountable bootstrapping framework. This initiative is designed to address unique challenges of L2 and L3 chains, offering innovative solutions that underline the proposal’s goal to exemplify its strategies within the Arbitrum ecosystem.

Program Structure

The program is managed by three key roles: The Orbit Pilot Council, Orbit Grantees, and Incentive Managers.

How incentive programs generally work

How The Orbit Stimulus Pilot Works

Program Roles and Responsibilities:

  • Orbit Pilot Council: The Orbit Pilot Council is responsible for evaluating, approving, and validating both Orbit Grantee and Incentive Manager applications.
  • Orbit Grantees: These are the Orbit Chains receiving incentives. They work with eligible Incentive Managers to define key objectives, metrics, campaigns, and KPIs. Orbit Grantees are approved by the Orbit Pilot Council.
  • Incentive Managers: These are professionals or entities whitelisted by the Orbit Pilot Council to design and deploy incentive strategies tailored to Orbit chains’ unique needs. They collaborate with Orbit Grantees to devise comprehensive strategies focused on areas like user acquisition, retention, liquidity management, transaction volume, and other strategic objectives.

Program Governance

The program is overseen by the Orbit Pilot Council, ratified by the Arbitrum DAO, responsible for reviewing and approving Incentive Manager and Orbit Grantee applications, as well as proposed strategies. The DAO holds ultimate responsibility and governance for the Council. The Council will comprise five individuals elected by the DAO in the Orbit Pilot Council election. At least one seat will be filled by an appointed representative from either the Arbitrum Foundation or Offchain Labs at the time of the proposal’s onchain vote.


  • Election Stage: The DAO elects council members for the Orbit Pilot Council.
  • Application Stage: Incentive Managers and eligible Orbit Chains submit applications in their respective tracks.
  • Evaluation Stage: The Orbit Pilot Council reviews and approves up to six Orbit applications and whitelists eligible Incentives Managers.
  • Proposal Stage: Accepted Orbit Chains work with Incentive Managers to propose strategies.
  • Execution Stage: Orbit Pilot Councils approve proposals, allowing Incentive Managers to deploy strategies. Once approved, grantees will be empowered to distribute incentives over a 6-month period, from the date upon which incentives are received. Over this period, Incentives Managers and Orbit Chains will design, execute, and deploy strategies over 1-month periods.

Technical Implementation

The program leverages the Boost Protocol, a composable, permissionless, and on-chain infrastructure for deploying incentive strategies. Incentive Managers can use no-code onchain tools to incentivize specific onchain actions, with parameters like address whitelisting, action types, protocols, assets, reward sizes, and incentive lengths.

The innovative approach outlined below leverages the Llama protocol alongside a sovereign governance model, integrating role-based solutions to streamline grant operations without compromising the core principles of flexibility and decentralization. This model employs a contract system to establish a primary account and define policyholders, utilizing soulbound ERC-721 tokens to enable permissioned responsibilities.

Additionally, this framework introduces a management platform and no code incentives deployment, facilitating the direct control of DAO over program goals while ensuring compensation and monetization for each side of the incentives marketplace. The subsequent sections will delve into the distribution mechanisms, data and measurement strategies, and the economic impact of these innovations, underpinning a governance model that not only enhances program management but also fosters accountability, transparency, and community engagement in the blockchain ecosystem.

Onchain Program Management

The Program employs a role-based solution using Llama protocol contracts, streamlining grant operations while maintaining flexibility and decentralization. The contract establishes a primary account, with the ability to define policyholders. A policy is a soulbound ERC-721 granted to an EOA, enabling permissioned responsibilities to either create (mint) new policyholder NFTs or spend permissioned amounts from the Llama primary account. This structure allows for onchain program management, ensuring both security and the use of funds on the appropriate use cases.

The following summary outlines a sovereign governance model that enables direct DAO control over program goals, objectives, budgets, and managers.

  • Orbit Program Account: An account managed by Policyholders. This account will receive the program budget (ARB) from the Arbitrum Treasury upon passage of the AIP. The program account will only be able to transfer ARB on the whitelisted deployment addresses (Boost Deployer Contract Address) OR in a clawback to the Arbitrum Treasury. The Orbit Pilot Council will be able to select a spend limit for each approved Orbit Program Account (one account per accepted grantee).
  • Incentive Managers:
    • Orbit Pilot Council Policy: The Orbit Pilot Council Policy will be assigned to a specific budget within the Program Account to which the Orbit Pilot Council may assign Incentive Manager Policies for each program (Network Stimulus, User Adoption, and Incentive Sandbox).
    • Incentive Manager Policy: Incentive Managers will be permissioned to spend ARB from the Program Account.

View the technical specifications of this onchain infrastructure here: Orbit Incentives Technical Spec

No Code Incentives Deployment

To encourage both decentralization and streamline incentive deployment, Incentives Managers will leverage the Boost Manager toolkit. Manager is a “no code” tool to deploy incentives in a trustless manner. This interface provides access to Orbit chain plugins which allow them to incentivize specific actions (swaps, mints, etc.) and collaborate with the Orbit Chains to enact pre-determined strategies targeting areas like user adoption, liquidity management, or transaction volume.

Built into the incentives deployment is a native fee structure, allowing a small portion of the incentives budget, and user claim fees, to provide compensation to both Boost creators, and user platforms, to help align each stakeholder in the incentive process.


Orbit chains instantly tap into a cohesive user experience facilitated by the Boost API. This allows each incentive opportunity to be displayed by any frontend, with the aforementioned compensation structure providing a small monetary benefit to any frontend who wants to help funnel users to the action. This means wallets, dApp websites, chain websites, and the DAO owned Arbitrum Inbox (shown below), each can participate in bringing a wide audience base to the chain itself. Unlike traditional incentive programs, which require users to find the app chain independently, these frontends also facilitate user discovery through many centralized locations (including frontends hosted by dApps, Orbit chains themselves, and by the Arbitrum Foundation), while the core infrastructure and earning opportunities operate entirely on-chain.

Data and Measurement

A key shortcoming of incentive programs to date has been the lack of standardized data at both the strategic program level, and the tactical level. Despite strong efforts, the DAO has failed to agree upon concrete KPIs, while paying for reporting that, as a result, provides little actionable information. KPIs and accurately report them. To help solve this issue, this proposal provides financial support for both RPC and Indexer costs (if needed). Eligible chains will also receive integration with either Dune or Flipside, providing open data for the community and, therefore, accountability and performance.

Leveraging native attribution, standardized claims, and the Boost API, this proposal enables comparable analysis in real-time. As each Incentive Manager deploys strategies, The Orbit Pilot Council and Orbit Grantees have the ability to provide feedback on iterative campaigns. This means that each individual Boost strategy can be picked apart, compared, and incentive managers can conduct sophisticated methods such as A/B testing, targeted whitelisting, and iterative approaches.

The goal is to collaborate with these entities to create comprehensive dashboards tailored to the specific objectives of each program. These dashboards will enable anyone to analyze, report, and evaluate the performance of various incentive strategies deployed by Incentive Managers. Since the underlying data is open-source, these dashboards can be modified, built upon, or critiqued by anyone in the community, fostering transparency and collaborative improvement.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Data Driven Results

Imperative to the proposal is the ability for each Orbit chain to be accountable to deliver reasonable and expected results. Thus, Incentives Managers, the Arbitrum Orbit Council, and Orbit Chains will work together to define and present key performance metrics to support their proposed strategies. The Council will be responsible for the approval of Orbit Chain KPIs and deployment objectives, while Incentive Managers and Orbit Chains will work together to design and implement strategies, iterating based on real-time results and campaign objectives.

Depending on the chain, these metrics will be held as key indicators in each grant’s structure, holding both grantees and incentive managers accountable to performance. User KPIs will benefit from in-depth analyst guidance, including user segmentation, profiling, advanced targeting, and sybil-resistance (where necessary). Alternative KPIs can include number of transactions, mints, strategic asset volumes, bridging volume, etc., all depending on a chains specific business needs and objectives.

Program Economics

Beyond its technical advantages, the Orbit Stimulus Program also features a built-in attribution that streamlines and powers a compensation structure to align each program stakeholder within the program itself. This allows earning opportunities for Incentive Managers, user frontends (through referrals), and further protocol development.

Incentive Managers

The program’s success heavily relies on incentive managers, responsible for crafting and implementing strategies for Orbit grantees. To attract and compensate these managers, the program leverages Boost Protocol’s fee structures, allocating one-third of all protocol claim fees and 5% of all rewards to the managers (see fee structure below). This approach not only aligns the interests of the program and the incentive managers but also makes the role appealing to analysts and third parties, fostering competition for these positions.

Frontend Clients

Boost Studios will collaborate with the Arbitrum DAO to develop and launch an Arbitrum Inbox front-end, serving as a central point for user engagement. This platform will not only facilitate user discovery but also generate revenue through Boost Protocols’ fee mechanisms. By leveraging Boost Protocol’s attribution feature, frontend clients can access one-third of protocol claim fees and 2.5% of all rewards generated. This revenue-generation capability extends to the DAO and third-party frontend clients, including grantees, motivating them to integrate with the platform. This integration fosters a competitive environment among frontends, wallets, and dApps, all aiming to attract users to Orbit chain incentives.

Protocol Maintenance and Growth

Funds are directed to the Boost Guild, a group of Boost community members, to encourage innovation and activity on the Boost Protocol. This investment acknowledges their contributions and aims to spur further network engagement, aligning with the protocol’s growth and dynamism. The Boost Guild receives one-third of protocol claim fees and 1% of all rewards generated

The Fee Structure

The complete fee structure derives from two fees: A Protocol Fee (paid by the funder of a Boost) and a Claim Fee (paid by users claiming a Boost reward).

  • Protocol Claim Fee: 0.000075 ETH

    • Incentive Managers: 0.000025 ETH
    • User Frontends: 0.000025 ETH
    • Boost Guild: 0.000025 ETH
  • Program Expenses: 8.5%

    • Incentive Managers: 5%.
    • User Frontends: 2.5%.
    • Boost Guild: 1%.

Stakeholder Revenue

*Fees vary depending on users interacting w/ Affiliate Frontends. The full version of this spreadsheet model can be found here. To learn more about Issuer and Affiliate Fees explore the calculator here.

What is the Boost Guild?
The Boost Guild is a group of community stakeholders who have proven their merit onchain through contributions. Their goal is to create new initiatives on the Boost Protocol that incentivize further onchain actions and drive more network activity.

Budget And Deliverables

Incentives Budget: 6,000,000 ARB

  • Up to 1,000,000 ARB per Orbit Chain
    • 5,490,000 ARB to Users
    • 300,000 ARB to Incentives Managers
    • 150,000 ARB to Distribution Frontends
    • 60,000 ARB to Boost Guild

Infrastructure Budget: 3,000,000 ARB

  • Up to 500,000 ARB per Orbit Chain
    • 200,000 ARB for RPC Provider (Quicknode)
    • 200,000 ARB for Data Provider (Flipside)
    • 100,000 ARB for Governance/Integrations (Llama/Boost Studios)

RPC Deliverable:

  • N/A to be filled by Quicknode (depending on availability/cost)

Data Provider Deliverable (per chain):

  • N/A to be filled by Flipside, Goldsky, Dune (depending on availability/cost)

Boost Studios Deliverable:

  • Up to 10 BoostSDK Plugins
  • Integration on Boost Manager
  • Action Type Development (where necessary)

Outstanding Questions

Who are the Data and RPC Providers?
This is the largest outstanding question of the proposal, and the Boost Studios team is actively working with multiple providers to get a cost-estimate for best matches. Given the program requires deployment on multiple chains, we are open to having Orbit Chains select their provider, but also understand that price points in interest in supporting one-off chains can vary significantly.

Who are the Incentives Managers?

Boost Studios has conducted interviews with a number of service providers, analysts, and experts in user segmentation, incentives optimization, and onchain data and has found that many analysts are interested in the prospect of earning beyond just analysis.

Application details still must be confirmed and provided. Some a few analysts we have briefly discussed the proposal with include:

  • Sealaunch
  • Slice
  • Castle Capital
  • Ouroborous Research
  • And more…

What is the dynamic between Orbit Chains and Incentive Managers?
Currently, Orbit Chains will work with Incentive Managers to design and execute incentives strategies on an iterative basis. Depending on the data provider and preferred structure, this iterative workflow can be expanded, improved and adapted between now and the proposal’s final form.


Disclosure Statement
This post and the proposal it contains are published for discussion purposes only, on behalf of Boost Studios. It aims to solicit feedback on the proposed direct-to-contract incentives on Arbitrum, introducing preliminary ideas and strategies intended for community collaboration and input. Boost Studios expressly disclaims any liability for errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided and reserves the right to update or alter the content at any time without notice.

By engaging with this document, respondents acknowledge that it serves informational and discussion purposes only, assuming all risks associated with its use, including financial, regulatory, and technological. This proposal does not create any binding obligation or relationship between Boost Studios and any individuals or entities that choose to provide feedback or engage in discussions based on its contents. Boost Studios and its affiliates aim to limit liability through this disclosure, emphasizing the proposal’s preliminary nature and the importance of due diligence by all parties involved.


Quite complex to evaluate and also very thoughtful.

At first glance, after reading once or twice, seems that the innovations here compared to any incentive program so far ran through the dao are at several levels:

  • from an operational/implementation standpoint, a “quest type” of approach on rewards, oriented toward users’ actions more than usage of protocols
  • from an strategic standpoint, the introduction of managers (which should basically work alongside orbit chains to create the plan for users’ actions) feels like the evolution of the advisors we just had in ltip: they not only help on paper to craft the plan, but also get their hands dirty through the boost manager. And council has a similar role in selecting grantees
  • from an economical standpoint: alignment in rewards of incentive managers to the chain and the dao through a portion of fee generated.

I can’t say any of the above is bad. It is, indeed, quite good. All of the benefits stands around how powerful the tool is, and my main questions are currently on this topic.

How flexible is the tool? So far we have been seeing incentives crafted by protocols, in the most basic usage could have been “arb distributed pro rata on top of a pool vault”. Which is quite easy to achieve, quite passive, can’t steer too much actions except for the usage of assets in the pool in case of composability (if any, and if user is willing to).

But we have also being seeing more complex mechanism on top, such as rewarding users coming from other chains and using other protocols, to turn an incentive program into a potential vampire attack.
Now, this is only an example of course. What I would like to understand are the tools capabilities, flexbilities, and how this translates in complexity of implementation.
Would even dare to say that looking at a demo of what is doable, or even a simulation of the tool applied on a certain period of time on top of a real protocol, would be very very interesting.

The secon main question I have is the relationship between council and managers: i see that managers are whitelisted by the council. Is not clear to me if this means, practically, that managers are selected internally by the council, or elected by the dao and ratified by the council, or elected by the dao and whitelisted in the tool by the council, or what is the framework underneath. And also, if a chain can select a single manager, or if all managers will potentially compete on all chains (which seems the case looking at diagram, but how does that practically work when 2 competiting policies are up?). I think the role of the manager, while clear on an high level, needs a bit of a clarification on the implementation level.

Beside the 2 questions above (tool capability, we need a drill down, and specificity of managers), i think is great to see a growing economic alignment of parties. I see in general a blend and an evolution of what we have seen in previous (stip) and current (ltip) grant program, which is a great way to itereate.

The fact that is applied to orbit also helps us tackling a need that we had, which is a program specifically tailored for this important part of the arbitrum ecosystem.

Very nice job man, very nice.


Overall I like it, and I do think we need some sort of package for Orbit Deployments.

One thing I hate is single-action-based marketing campaigns. Odyssey got us 20k+ users over 3 days, of which zero ever returned. I see them as botnets that only cost the supporting project increased infrastructure costs (our increase was >5k that month). If RPC/Wallet/Etc providers agree to wave costs, then maybe we are stepping in the right direction. But IMO the real future of these type of campaigns are either:

  1. project-specific loyalty programs to targeted users (known wallets labeled as Traders, Gamers, etc)
  2. Time-based rewards like time spent gaming, time spent with open position, academy courses completed etc
  3. Liquidity-based rewards like notional amount bridged, capital committed, in-game items bought.

Some food for thought is you may hit pushback on pre-selecting the vendors. Similar to how the coalition was shot down initially.

Overall though we definitely need a scaleable way to

  1. Incentive Orbit Deployments and Bootstrap Use
  2. Data and Analytics to measure Orbit Deployments on similar terms
  3. Selection Criteria or Council for eligibility on points 1 & 2

Do you have any dashboards I can review regarding user retention and boost campaigns?
I am supportive, though. In my experience, these are fine for short-term campaigns, awareness, and blitzkrieg project usage, but that could be a personal problem and not a shared experience others encountered.


This feedback is a joint work with other @SEEDGov members.

First of all, we want to congratulate @tnorm for this proposal, we think it is important to start thinking about what are the right incentives for Orbit. We have some questions and comments:

We understand that it will be up to the Orbit Pilot Council to choose the projects, but we believe that at least some minimum requirements or starting points should be established for the selection of the Orbit chain.

What type of Orbit chain will be able to participate?

  • The Orbit chains that are already operating or the ones that are about to be launched (testnet)?
  • General purpose or app-chain specific?
  • As for the host chain, should it be Arbitrum One or Ethereum?

There are currently approximately 17 orbits (at least publicly known):

  1. Testnet:
  1. Mainnet:

Note: the list may contain errors, if so, please let us know.

  • Most Orbit L3’s are for gaming, do you think it can overlap with Catalyze Gaming Ecosystem Growth on Arbitrum?
  • Should it be Orbit that was only given the license?
    • We think this program could be good for the DAO to license as well and further align incentives, although this should be discussed further.As we understand that the licenses granted by Arbitrum Orit Expansion Program, 10% of the revenue are shared with the Foundation.

Note: we are not 100% sure that this is the case, if this information is incorrect, please let us know.

  • For the election of board members, are there minimum requirements? We want to avoid a popularity contest.
  • Will the Boost protocol provide any support/workshops on the use of the Boost manager and plugin?
  • For data provider and RPC, most Orbit chains use RaaS for chain maintenance and deployment. We think it would be better if we can agree with some of them, to provide this services, here an incomplete list (provided the chain uses some of these services):
    • Caldera
    • Coinduit
    • AltLayer
    • Gelato
    • Zeeve
    • Vistara

Hey @dk3 @JoJo @axlvaz_SEEDLATAM.eth, appreciate the quick responses and kind words! Fair questions and concerns across the board…Addressing ln-line below:

1. The Tooling

Both Llama protocol and Boost Protocol are live and open-source. Anyone can play around with the incentives creation tooling here and view the docs here.

For the purpose of the proposed program, Boost Protocol contracts will be deployed on each Orbit chain alongside custom plugins (which allow Boost contracts to verify actions) for key projects and actions on each Orbit Chain. This means, depending on the goals of a chain, the implementation and capacity of the full stack will vary. Certainly, the flexibility of the tooling is a benefit, in its current iteration the tooling would support the following actions: Swap, Bridge, Mint, Open a Position, and Stake.

Further, as you alluded to, the tools will evolve, and new strategies will become available as well. While not dependent pieces of this proposal, dynamic rewards, chained rewards, and third-party validation techniques (oracles, etc.) are modular additions that can be integrated in future protocol updates. Further, integrations with additional partners such as Gitcoin, Hedgey, Superfluid, Identity Protocols, etc. mean this tooling is just the first lego of an operational toolkit for Arbitrum chains.

2. Action-Based Incentives

It’s a fair critique that single-action marketing campaigns often prioritize short-term user acquisition (i.e. mercenary users) over sustainable engagement. “Quests” have largely manifested as bounty markets for metrics (transactions, daily active users, etc.). In contrast, this proposal aims to establish long-term tooling to facilitate exactly the opposite, while doubling down on user and action-centric incentives.

Analysts will assume a role of segmentation and profiling, which we believe can be leveraged using the protocol’s targeting strengths to apply strategies specifically for those examples you describe. Boost Studios will not run any of these campaigns in the proposal’s current setup.

Some analysts we’ve spoken with are already sitting on strategies and CAC metrics, user profiling, and segmentation. The dream scenario for a grantee is to graduate the Orbit Pilot with not only an increase in onchain metrics, but also with valuable user profiles of their existing demographics, robust tooling to directly access their users, and a blend of information regarding retention costs, migration costs, and general CAC-estimates for expanded growth campaigns.

A few examples of easy to deploy strategies using this tooling would include:

Conquest Campaign

  • Objective: Target Gamers from Avalanche
  • Action: Mint Game NFT
  • Whitelist: Active Addresses of DeFi Kingdom, StarMech, and Battle.Tech.

Migration Campaign

  • Objective: A DEX wants to bring wstETH liquidity from its Arbitrum One DEX to its Arbitrum Orbit Chain.
  • Action: Bridge any amount of wstETH > 0.5 from Arbitrum One to Arbitrum Orbit Chain
  • Whitelist: Include Users with LP token for desired position, wstETH holders on Arbitrum One

Retention Campaign

  • Objective: Retain highest turnover profile of DEX users
  • Action: Swap
  • Whitelist: Include target Segment (Users generating between $20 - $30 USDC in monthly fees, with >10 swaps per month), Exclude users active in the last 72 hours

Further, one of the most interesting case studies we’ve seen is natural use of Zora boosts, where artists have found certain strategies can develop natural discovery using Zora algorithms, giving positive ROI based on an understanding of the Zora mint flywheel. Some more examples of alternative strategies from the RabbitHole STIP grant are here.

3. Incentive Managers and The Council

The proposed dynamic would place incentive managers behind a relatively low barrier for entry, with the idea being that the council is primarily responsible for “whitelisting” or approving incentive managers based on preliminary applications. Once approved, any Orbit chain will be able to then reach out and worth with an incentives manager to design custom strategies.

In short:

  1. Incentive Managers Apply

  2. Council reviews applications as an initial screen (w/ relatively light eligibility requirements - proof of ability, willingness to KYC, etc.)

  3. Accepted Incentive Managers are whitelisted

  4. Orbit Chains Apply for a Grant

  5. Approved Orbit Chains reach out to Incentives Managers to create strategies

  6. Council approves strategies

  7. Incentives Managers execute strategies


While no formal guidelines have been established above, this is definitely something to consider. Personally I’d prefer to have a combination of growth experts, a representative of the larger Orbit Strategy (OCL/Arb Foundation rep), and folks w/ specific chain growth expertise (either from the protocol or network side).

Yes! We will definitely provide training, workshops, and support for all Incentive Managers and Orbit Chains as they launch. It’s imperative that the tooling is accessible and well understood for the program to succeed.

Perhaps a deeper analysis of the infra could be conducted w/ ARDC members as well…definitely will continue these conversations offline. Would love SeedLatam’s support!


This is an exciting innovation on Arbitrum incentive programs across multiple dimensions :pray:

Great to see this conversation happening.


This proposal sounds pretty promising! The “Arbitrum Orbit Stimulus Pilot” plan is aimed at boosting the development of the Arbitrum Orbit chain, which sounds great, doesn’t it? However, I think we can step it up in a few areas:

  1. We need clear objectives and measurable standards to gauge success. Otherwise, we might end up not knowing if we’ve succeeded or not.

  2. While simplifying operations is crucial, how exactly do we do that? We need more details to ensure the plan can be executed smoothly.

  3. Also, don’t forget to engage with the community more and listen to their feedback. After all, their support is crucial.

Overall, this proposal has a lot of potential to ensure sustained growth for the Arbitrum Orbit chain. If we can set clear objectives, simplify operations, and engage more with the community, then we’ll definitely be on the right track! :smiling_face_with_three_hearts: