Timeline Extension for STIP and Backfund Grantees

The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking and ideation of the two.

After reviewing the proposal and assessing the impact each option might have, we decided that we’ll be voting in favour of the timeline extension both for original STIP and backfunded protocols.

In our minds, allowing for an extended timeline for the protocols in the backfund proposal makes sense, considering that with the KYC/KYB process in the middle, some protocols might have to rush to distribute their incentives in a non efficient way.

And as it was mentioned in the proposal itself, extending the timeline also allows for drawing better conclusions in the future, when assessing the impact the incentives had.

When it comes to recipients of the original STIP, we believe that extending the timeline for them as well will help not put them at a disadvantage to the backfunded protocols during the period when the latter have incentives but the former do not. This situation could result with some users just flowing from one protocol to another within Arbitrum which in our opinion is not the best use of incentives coming from the Treasury.

While we understand that that’s basically what happened since STIP started and before the backfund proposal will initiate, we do not believe in correcting a wrong with another wrong.

We’d much rather level the playing field for everyone while also allowing for more time for the incentives to be distributed as the protocols see fit.