Abstract

This proposal seeks a 12 weeks extension (until November 30) of the Pyth Network's previously approved LTIPP grant.

Initially, the Pyth Network was allocated 1,000,000 ARB through the LTIPP process. To date, we have utilized approximately 75,042 ARB over the 12-week duration of the program.

We are requesting to retain 174,958 ARB, bringing our total expenditure to 250,000 ARB out of the original 1,000,000, until the new grant programs are established.

Motivation

We want to highlight that incentives for infrastructure protocols and public goods, such as the Pyth oracle, typically do not yield immediate results. The impact from making such incentives available to DeFi often unfolds over weeks or even months.

For existing DeFi applications, switching to a new oracle involves significant effort and may require a new audit. Similarly, expanding from other chains to Arbitrum can be more time-consuming than anticipated, as illustrated by the Synthetix case here.

Thanks to the initial LTIPP program, Arbitrum dApps had the ability to build robust oracle systems covering over 500 assets, including cryptocurrencies, FX, stocks, ETFs, and commodities. This advancement has eliminated outdated on-chain price updates and high costs, reinforcing Arbitrum’s position as a premier layer for DeFi. This progress empowers developers to create cutting-edge applications without constraints. This extension aims to keep the momentum and further empower potential new entrants like Synthetix to deliver a best-in-class protocol.

Rationale

The proposed extension of the Pyth Network's LTIPP grant is designed to further cultivate a thriving and innovative DeFi ecosystem on Arbitrum. The LTIPP program has already proven its effectiveness, with Pyth price updates on-chain increasing by 2-3 times and peaking at nearly 10 times the previous levels, reaching over 70,000 updates on July 14.

Before the program began, the total value secured by the Pyth oracle on Arbitrum was just over 43,000 ETH. This figure has since risen to 52,500 ETH, reflecting an increase of more than 20%.

Pyth has also enabled over $16.1 billion in trading volume on various Arbitrum decentralized perpetual exchanges during June and July (with August data pending). This underscores the benefits for applications powered by Pyth Network: protocols using Pyth have experienced, including increased total value locked (TVL), higher trading volumes, and more frequent price updates driven by a growing number of applications utilizing Pyth.

The request for a 12-week extension, with a reduced ARB allocation, is part of our commitment towards responsible resource management commitment to responsible resource management while continuing to support the long-term success of applications built on Arbitrum that leverage Pyth. By covering the gas costs for using the Pyth oracle, the network has enabled more developers to create robust DeFi applications without the burden of high operational expenses.

This strategy strengthens Arbitrum's position as a premier platform for DeFi innovation, where developers can access over 500 price feeds without financial or technical constraints.

It’s important to understand that the impact of incentives for infastructure protocols and public goods like the Pyth price oracle are not immediate: it often takes weeks or even months to materialize.

Furthermore, it’s important to recognize that the impact of incentives for infrastructure protocols and public goods like the Pyth oracle is not immediate; it often takes weeks or even months to materialize.

This proposal, aims to build on the momentum generated by the initial LTIPP program, ensuring the continued growth and expansion of the Arbitrum ecosystem as new grant strategies are developed and implemented.

Key Terms

On-demand or pull oracle: An oracle network where anyone can permissionlessly trigger price updates on-chain by doing an Arbitrum tx

Specifications

13 weeks duration
175,000 ARB

The proposed extension duration is similar to that of the previous LTIPP program—12 weeks versus 13 weeks (including retroactive rebates for the end of August). However, the amount of ARB tokens requested for gas rebates has increased from 75,000 ARB to 175,000 ARB.

This increase reflects an anticipated rise in activity and associated costs, estimated at approximately 133%. The launch of Synthetix's Multi-Collateral Perps on Arbitrum is expected to drive a substantial increase in the number of price updates triggered on-chain. For context, Synthetix currently triggers around 1,000 daily updates on Optimism and between 3,000 and 5,000 daily updates on Base—both without additional incentives in place.

Steps to Implement

If the Arbitrum DAO approves this extension, no additional work or involvement will be required from the DAO itself. The responsibility for managing the funds and continuing the program would remain entirely with the Pyth Data Association.

As during the initial 12 weeks of the LTIPP, the Pyth Data Association would continue reimbursing dApps for gas costs every two weeks. Additionally, we would maintain our practice of providing bi-weekly updates on the Arbitrum forum to ensure transparency and accountability. Our latest report is available here, and we are open to including even more detailed data and information in these reports if needed.

Since this is an extension of an already approved grant, no additional legal work is necessary. The Pyth Data Association has already completed KYC and signed the grant agreement with the Arbitrum Foundation.

Timeline

The LTIPP program officially ended on August 26, and until this extension proposal is approved, the Pyth Data Association has paused reimbursing the gas costs incurred by dApps during this period.

If approved, the extension would be applied retroactively, starting from the end of the LTIPP program on August 26. This means that, depending on the timing of the Snapshot vote, there could be up to 2-3 weeks of retroactive gas rebates.

The proposed extension would conclude on November 30, 2024.

Overall Cost

The cost to the Arbitrum DAO can be seen as an opportunity cost of 174,958 ARB, or potentially even less. Originally, the DAO approved a grant of 1,000,000 ARB—funds that were effectively budgeted and allocated—of which only 75,042 ARB was utilized during the 12-week LTIPP period.

We are now requesting to retain 174,958 ARB from the initial allocation to continue offsetting costs for DeFi applications that use Pyth’s on-demand price feeds. The remaining 750,000 ARB will be returned to the Arbitrum DAO as previously agreed under the LTIPP program. Furthermore, if any funds remain unspent before the outlined timeline concludes, Pyth Data Association will promptly return those ARB tokens to the DAO.

Additional Context

We have been actively seeking feedback and advice from @Matt_StableLab to determine the best approach for moving forward with this extension request.

Our interest in extending the LTIPP grant was initiated in the original LTIPP discussion here.

Currently, we plan to submit this extension request on Snapshot by Thursday, September 5, with support from Wintermute. This timeline allows ample opportunity to gather feedback on the proposal and make any necessary adjustments based on input from the DAO.

Please note that Wintermute will merely be sponsoring the proposal as a delegate which is separate from their role as an LTIPP Council member.

Abstract

This proposal seeks a 12 weeks extension (until November 30) of the Pyth Network's previously approved LTIPP grant.

Initially, the Pyth Network was allocated 1,000,000 ARB through the LTIPP process. To date, we have utilized approximately 75,042 ARB over the 12-week duration of the program.

We are requesting to retain 174,958 ARB, bringing our total expenditure to 250,000 ARB out of the original 1,000,000, until the new grant programs are established.

Motivation

Rationale

Before the program began, the total value secured by the Pyth oracle on Arbitrum was just over 43,000 ETH. This figure has since risen to 52,500 ETH, reflecting an increase of more than 20%.

This strategy strengthens Arbitrum's position as a premier platform for DeFi innovation, where developers can access over 500 price feeds without financial or technical constraints.

Key Terms

On-demand or pull oracle: An oracle network where anyone can permissionlessly trigger price updates on-chain by doing an Arbitrum tx

Specifications

13 weeks duration
175,000 ARB

Steps to Implement

Timeline

The LTIPP program officially ended on August 26, and until this extension proposal is approved, the Pyth Data Association has paused reimbursing the gas costs incurred by dApps during this period.

The proposed extension would conclude on November 30, 2024.

Overall Cost

Additional Context

We have been actively seeking feedback and advice from @Matt_StableLab to determine the best approach for moving forward with this extension request.

Our interest in extending the LTIPP grant was initiated in the original LTIPP discussion here.

Please note that Wintermute will merely be sponsoring the proposal as a delegate which is separate from their role as an LTIPP Council member.

Abstract

This proposal seeks a 12 weeks extension (until November 30) of the Pyth Network's previously approved LTIPP grant.

Initially, the Pyth Network was allocated 1,000,000 ARB through the LTIPP process. To date, we have utilized approximately 75,042 ARB over the 12-week duration of the program.

We are requesting to retain 174,958 ARB, bringing our total expenditure to 250,000 ARB out of the original 1,000,000, until the new grant programs are established.

Motivation

Rationale

Before the program began, the total value secured by the Pyth oracle on Arbitrum was just over 43,000 ETH. This figure has since risen to 52,500 ETH, reflecting an increase of more than 20%.

This strategy strengthens Arbitrum's position as a premier platform for DeFi innovation, where developers can access over 500 price feeds without financial or technical constraints.

Key Terms

On-demand or pull oracle: An oracle network where anyone can permissionlessly trigger price updates on-chain by doing an Arbitrum tx

Specifications

13 weeks duration
175,000 ARB

Steps to Implement

Timeline

The LTIPP program officially ended on August 26, and until this extension proposal is approved, the Pyth Data Association has paused reimbursing the gas costs incurred by dApps during this period.

The proposed extension would conclude on November 30, 2024.

Overall Cost

Additional Context

We have been actively seeking feedback and advice from @Matt_StableLab to determine the best approach for moving forward with this extension request.

Our interest in extending the LTIPP grant was initiated in the original LTIPP discussion here.

Please note that Wintermute will merely be sponsoring the proposal as a delegate which is separate from their role as an LTIPP Council member.

Abstract

This proposal seeks a 12 weeks extension (until November 30) of the Pyth Network's previously approved LTIPP grant.

Initially, the Pyth Network was allocated 1,000,000 ARB through the LTIPP process. To date, we have utilized approximately 75,042 ARB over the 12-week duration of the program.

We are requesting to retain 174,958 ARB, bringing our total expenditure to 250,000 ARB out of the original 1,000,000, until the new grant programs are established.

Motivation

Rationale

Before the program began, the total value secured by the Pyth oracle on Arbitrum was just over 43,000 ETH. This figure has since risen to 52,500 ETH, reflecting an increase of more than 20%.

This strategy strengthens Arbitrum's position as a premier platform for DeFi innovation, where developers can access over 500 price feeds without financial or technical constraints.

Key Terms

On-demand or pull oracle: An oracle network where anyone can permissionlessly trigger price updates on-chain by doing an Arbitrum tx

Specifications

13 weeks duration
175,000 ARB

Steps to Implement

Timeline

The LTIPP program officially ended on August 26, and until this extension proposal is approved, the Pyth Data Association has paused reimbursing the gas costs incurred by dApps during this period.

The proposed extension would conclude on November 30, 2024.

Overall Cost

Additional Context

We have been actively seeking feedback and advice from @Matt_StableLab to determine the best approach for moving forward with this extension request.

Our interest in extending the LTIPP grant was initiated in the original LTIPP discussion here.

Please note that Wintermute will merely be sponsoring the proposal as a delegate which is separate from their role as an LTIPP Council member.

Hi everyone,

Although this extension was not approved, I want to sincerely thank all the delegates for the time and effort you invested in this proposal. I fully understand and respect the reasoning many of you shared.

Our commitment to advancing the Arbitrum DeFi ecosystem remains strong, and we look forward to increasing our active involvement in shaping the future initiatives of the Arbitrum DAO.

Hi everyone,

Our commitment to advancing the Arbitrum DeFi ecosystem remains strong, and we look forward to increasing our active involvement in shaping the future initiatives of the Arbitrum DAO.

Hey @Tane

Definitely, happy to do so!

Have you seen some analysis/insights shared in the past you liked? Both content and structure? Whether within the Arbitrum DAO or elsewhere?

Hey @Tane

Definitely, happy to do so!

Have you seen some analysis/insights shared in the past you liked? Both content and structure? Whether within the Arbitrum DAO or elsewhere?

gm @0xTALVO.ETH_MTY

As for any oracle (or infrastructure provider), success is measured by the success of those who depend upon it. The initial LTIPP program granted to the Pyth oracle has already shown a great success in increasing key metrics for Arbitrum DeFi apps such an increase in TVL, trading volume (for perpetual protocols) and a significantly greater availability of freely available price updates onchain (reminder that reading Pyth prices onchain is free, only writing incurs costs).

gm @0xTALVO.ETH_MTY

By extending the program, Pyth Network aims to build on this momentum, ensuring that Arbitrum remains a leading layer for DeFi innovation.

For the latter question, the first thing that comes to mind is the support of the tentative/upcoming stARB token with a Pyth price feed. This would enable all Arbitrum dApps (money-market to perpetual protocols) to integrate and support this asset that is likely to get a significant traction given its properties.

A positive side-effect outside of Arbitrum is that a Pyth stARB price feed would also be automatically available on all the other chains (70+) Pyth supports - and here Arbitrum Orbit chains could also greatly benefit from that as the Pyth oracle expands there.

And as a matter of fact, the Pyth oracle has been deployed on XCHAIN, a brand new Orbit chain for IDEX, an omnichain perpetual protocol.

I fully support the extension of the LTIPP for Pyth Network. The initial program has already demonstrated substantial value with significant improvements in access to price feeds. As a core contributor to Pingu Exchange, which has benefited from the program, I believe that extending the grant will allow the momentum to continue.

Gm, gm :sparkles:

The results are in for the [Pyth Network] Arbitrum LTIPP Extension Request off-chain proposal.

See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1353

gm @0xTALVO.ETH_MTY

By extending the program, Pyth Network aims to build on this momentum, ensuring that Arbitrum remains a leading layer for DeFi innovation.

And as a matter of fact, the Pyth oracle has been deployed on XCHAIN, a brand new Orbit chain for IDEX, an omnichain perpetual protocol.

Gm, gm :sparkles:

The results are in for the [Pyth Network] Arbitrum LTIPP Extension Request off-chain proposal.

See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1353

We believe that the proposal to extend the program is reasonable and sound. Continuous support for infrastructure-related products and services is important for the longevity and solidification of Arbitrum's DeFi ecosystem.

The initial 12-week LTIPP has proven its worth and Pyth Network has demonstrated good behaviour, smooth operations and appropriate use of allocated funds. In our view, not encouraging the extension would be -EV for the ecosystem

I support the extension, oracle diversity is much needed in our space and Pyth has shown constant professionalism in the years. I think this is particularly important on a chain like Arbitrum which is the main DeFi hub between L2s.

We're voting AGAINST this proposal due to the recent Incentives Detox approval that has halted incentives for all projects. Extending incentives for a single protocol now would create an uneven playing field.

The following 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.

We’re voting AGAINST the proposal.

The following 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.

We’re voting AGAINST the proposal.

As others have already noted, since the Incentives Detox proposal has passed, and since incentives distribution for all projects has ended or is about to end, it would be unfair to extend the incentives for any one protocol.

Furthermore, things like distribution window extensions and the process to request one should have been addressed in the program (e.g., LTIPP or STIP.B) itself. Since there’s no recommendation from the LTIPP council for the extension of incentives distribution, we’re inclined to be against any such extension.

On the occasion of communicating our rationale, however, we’d like to invite the proposal authors to participate in the ‘Arbitrum Liquidity Incentives Working Group’. The working group meets on Wednesdays at 4 pm UTC and you can get up to speed on what has already been discussed here.

Below are the opinions of the UADP:

We voted abstain on this proposal because it presents an isolated case where Pyth alone would attain an extension. If extensions are to be given, this should be conducted in a collective and orderly manner, not in a one-off manner. The DAO also voted to pause incentives for a period of time to reflect and analyze the results and efficacy of previous programs. Introducing an extension detracts from that goal.

Vote: AGAINST

Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> Pyth Network Arbitrum LTIPP Extension Request

Voting Rationale Link: [Pyth Network] Arbitrum LTIPP Extension Request

=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===

We vote AGAINST the proposal on Snapshot.

While the request itself seems totally valid and we expressed the support, we have resolved to respect the decision made with the Incentives Detox period (which hasn't started yet but in effect soon) and we believe all the extension requests should be treated the same. We apologize for the wrong signal made before realizing the Detox is in effect for the extension.

First, we would like to thank @KemarTiti and his team for providing an update on their status here. The update was very detailed and informative, addressing many of the questions we had.

However, we align with other delegates in upholding our commitment to the Detox proposal and ensuring fairness to those who will no longer receive incentives.

I voted for this proposal.

I think it has a good balance (amount and distribution period) and it is a public good7service to other Arbitrum protocols that rely on oracles.

DAOplomats is voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.

Our reason is simply sticking to the social agreement of the Incentive Detox proposal passed in August.

I voted against this proposal in the context of the Incentives Detox that passed, and also since it's stipulated that funds should be returned if unused in the original guidelines of LTIPP.

The following 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.

We’re voting AGAINST the proposal.

The following 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.

We’re voting AGAINST the proposal.

Below are the opinions of the UADP:

Vote: AGAINST

Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> Pyth Network Arbitrum LTIPP Extension Request

Voting Rationale Link: [Pyth Network] Arbitrum LTIPP Extension Request

=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===

We vote AGAINST the proposal on Snapshot.

First, we would like to thank @KemarTiti and his team for providing an update on their status here. The update was very detailed and informative, addressing many of the questions we had.

However, we align with other delegates in upholding our commitment to the Detox proposal and ensuring fairness to those who will no longer receive incentives.

I voted for this proposal.

I think it has a good balance (amount and distribution period) and it is a public good7service to other Arbitrum protocols that rely on oracles.

DAOplomats is voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.

Our reason is simply sticking to the social agreement of the Incentive Detox proposal passed in August.

I voted against this proposal in the context of the Incentives Detox that passed, and also since it's stipulated that funds should be returned if unused in the original guidelines of LTIPP.

Vote: AGAINST

Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> Pyth Network Arbitrum LTIPP Extension Request

Voting Rationale Link: [Pyth Network] Arbitrum LTIPP Extension Request

=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===

While we understand Pyth Network’s contributions and the reasons for this extension request, the approval of the Incentives Detox period makes it important to maintain consistency in how we handle incentive programs. Granting this extension would set a problematic precedent, leading other projects to assume extensions will be available in similar cases. Additionally, the original LTIPP guidelines stipulated that unused funds should be returned, and it’s vital that we stick to that framework to maintain fairness. We encourage the proposal authors to consider participating in future initiatives that take these concerns into account.

First, we would like to thank @KemarTiti and his team for providing an update on their status here. The update was very detailed and informative, addressing many of the questions we had.

However, we align with other delegates in upholding our commitment to the Detox proposal and ensuring fairness to those who will no longer receive incentives.

With these considerations in mind, we voted "against" this proposal.

I eventually decided to change my vote. Considering the existence of the Detox proposal (that I voted in favor of at the time) I’m voting against both this and Synthetix extension requests.

This specific LTIPP extension is application we think. The amount requested is much smaller than the original size and it allows for the team to be able to contribute still. Our concern is overall this might create a unwarranted effect of many teams wanting extensions, but for now, we think this is valid.

I could agree with you about Synthetix, but there are no competitors in these grant programs in Pyth. Besides, the ARB expenses are not that big for Pyth.

Nothing personal against those asking for extensions, but I will be voting against any request for extensions of LTIPs / STIPs. Ultimately the DAO voted for a 'detox' period, and I think we need to honor that. Beyond that, passing one-off extensions like this gives competitive advantages to certain applicants. As well as creates a burden on the DAO to continually vote on projects that go out of scope of the program's frameworks.

Adding words here that mean nothing because the forum won't let me 'spam post'

Blockworks Research is voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.

Seeing as though both Pyth and Synthetix attempted to submit some notification to the DAO a week prior to the deadline, we believe that this behavior should be met with some good faith. We do understand the concerns from the other delegates that the detox proposal should remain the standing precedent to abide.

gm, I voted against this proposal and similar ones.

The vote is not directed at the specific project; however, many LTIPP protocols experienced delays in launching their campaigns, and have already fully returned their funds.

Allowing a select few to continue using the incentives wouldn’t be fair to the others. Detox period on.

Synthetix and Pyth LTIPP Grant Extension Request

After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “AGAINST” on both proposals at the Snapshot vote / Snapshot vote 2.

Rationale

Unfortunately, while we understand the reasons for the delays in both cases, we share several concerns with the other delegates that prevent us from supporting these requests:

Synthetix and Pyth LTIPP Grant Extension Request

After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “AGAINST” on both proposals at the Snapshot vote / Snapshot vote 2.

Rationale

Unfortunately, while we understand the reasons for the delays in both cases, we share several concerns with the other delegates that prevent us from supporting these requests:

The incentives detox was approved by the DAO, and allowing the distribution of incentives during this period would contradict the essence of this social agreement. We believe it would also set a problematic precedent for future agreements.
Voting on extensions individually is impractical for the DAO and risks overburdening delegates. In our view, a blanket extension would be more appropriate
Additionally, granting an extension at this stage presents a competitive disadvantage to those who no longer have incentives to distribute or already returned unused ARB from LTIPP.

We hope that in the future there will be longer programs or a streamlined mechanism in place to resolve this kind of friction.

The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and @Nyx, based on our combined research, analysis and ideation.

We're voting AGAINST this proposal.

The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and @Nyx, based on our combined research, analysis and ideation.

We're voting AGAINST this proposal.

The extension request comes during the Incentives Detox period, and we think it's important to stick to the original LTIPP timeline. This will help us better understand how the program performed. We get that the motivation and reasons in the proposal make sense, and we like seeing incentives used wisely. But for the greater good of the DAO, we believe we need to say no this time.

There are a couple more things to think about. First, only 75K ARB tokens were used out of the 1M ARB allocated. This really shows we need to rethink our incentives and how we handle them. Also, allowing this extension might not be fair to other projects who didn't know they could ask for one. While we appreciate Pyth Network's work, we think staying on track with our plans to review and improve our incentive programs is the right move for now.

While we appreciate Pyth and recognize their efforts and successes during the LTIPP, we will be voting against the extension in this scenario.

It is unfortunate, but we believe it is important to abide by the incentives detox. However, we will endeavour to ensure that future programs are designed to overcome the challenges associated with extensions. A well-considered, forward-looking program will address these issues, along with other design considerations that promote long-term success.

While we appreciate Pyth and recognize their efforts and successes during the LTIPP, we will be voting against the extension in this scenario.

We commend the contributions made under the current LTIPP but will maintain our position against any further extensions.

I decided to vote against this proposal.

I have several thoughts. On one hand, was the effectiveness of previous results demonstrated? Do we have tangible outcomes or key learnings? (In general, not just focusing on Pyth)

I decided to vote against this proposal.

I have several thoughts. On one hand, was the effectiveness of previous results demonstrated? Do we have tangible outcomes or key learnings? (In general, not just focusing on Pyth)

On the other hand, we recently voted for a “detox” period in the DAO to allow for further study and to make more informed decisions moving forward. I stand by that decision, as I believe it’s important to maintain consistency between our decisions and actions.

I'll maintain my position related to funding at the moment.

The LTIPP was a short-term experiment aimed at testing a new incentive program management model, with another plan to follow later. Then came B.STIP, which unfortunately kind of undermined the experimental nature of LTIPP. A situation that later evolved into what we now call "detox."

Just as I believed at the time that renewing B.STIP was a mistake and unfair to both LTIPP applicants who had undergone more scrutiny, and those who failed to pass the council’s more demanding criteria (which differed from STIP's parameters), I believe that extending the distribution deadlines implies the same unfairness. This affects applicants who met the distribution deadlines.

Voting in favor. The extension seems reasonable to me as I think that Pyth is becoming a key component to DeFi and it can make the difference in the Arbitrum ecosystem.

We will be voting against the Synthetix LTIP & Pyth Grant Extension at this time, as the Detox Proposal has just passed, signaling a need to pause and reassess incentive programs. While Synthetix has performed well, granting an extension would create an unfair advantage over other projects that have completed their incentive periods without extensions.

In favour of this proposal, pyth, as the leading prophecy predicator protocol, is the infrastructure for many network protocols and has a very important place in the arb ecology as well, and as it takes time for the infrastructure to be updated and developed, this extension makes sense.

Quoted from BlockworksResearch

It’s worth noting that while Pyth received 1M in ARB for incentives, only 75,000 had been used by the end of the LTIPP. This could indicate an unintentional oversight in fund allocation. Moving forward, it would be helpful to reassess how we distribute funding to ensure we’re aligning with actual needs and optimizing ARB resources.

jump to post →

LTIPP has significantly contributed to Pyth's development, which is evident to all. It is entirely reasonable for Pyth to apply for an extension of the LTIPP, especially since the budget is not excessively large, which is commendable. I always believe that for a business organization to succeed, it must strive to control costs—achieving more with less has always been my guiding principle. Therefore, I fully support this proposal.

Vote: AGAINST

Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> Pyth Network Arbitrum LTIPP Extension Request

Voting Rationale Link: [Pyth Network] Arbitrum LTIPP Extension Request

=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===

First, we would like to thank @KemarTiti and his team for providing an update on their status here. The update was very detailed and informative, addressing many of the questions we had.

However, we align with other delegates in upholding our commitment to the Detox proposal and ensuring fairness to those who will no longer receive incentives.

With these considerations in mind, we voted "against" this proposal.

I eventually decided to change my vote. Considering the existence of the Detox proposal (that I voted in favor of at the time) I’m voting against both this and Synthetix extension requests.

I could agree with you about Synthetix, but there are no competitors in these grant programs in Pyth. Besides, the ARB expenses are not that big for Pyth.

Adding words here that mean nothing because the forum won't let me 'spam post'

Blockworks Research is voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot.

gm, I voted against this proposal and similar ones.

The vote is not directed at the specific project; however, many LTIPP protocols experienced delays in launching their campaigns, and have already fully returned their funds.

Allowing a select few to continue using the incentives wouldn’t be fair to the others. Detox period on.

Synthetix and Pyth LTIPP Grant Extension Request

After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “AGAINST” on both proposals at the Snapshot vote / Snapshot vote 2.

Rationale

Unfortunately, while we understand the reasons for the delays in both cases, we share several concerns with the other delegates that prevent us from supporting these requests:

Synthetix and Pyth LTIPP Grant Extension Request

After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “AGAINST” on both proposals at the Snapshot vote / Snapshot vote 2.

Rationale

Unfortunately, while we understand the reasons for the delays in both cases, we share several concerns with the other delegates that prevent us from supporting these requests:

The incentives detox was approved by the DAO, and allowing the distribution of incentives during this period would contradict the essence of this social agreement. We believe it would also set a problematic precedent for future agreements.
Voting on extensions individually is impractical for the DAO and risks overburdening delegates. In our view, a blanket extension would be more appropriate
Additionally, granting an extension at this stage presents a competitive disadvantage to those who no longer have incentives to distribute or already returned unused ARB from LTIPP.

We hope that in the future there will be longer programs or a streamlined mechanism in place to resolve this kind of friction.

The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and @Nyx, based on our combined research, analysis and ideation.

We're voting AGAINST this proposal.

The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and @Nyx, based on our combined research, analysis and ideation.

We're voting AGAINST this proposal.

While we appreciate Pyth and recognize their efforts and successes during the LTIPP, we will be voting against the extension in this scenario.

We commend the contributions made under the current LTIPP but will maintain our position against any further extensions.

I decided to vote against this proposal.

I have several thoughts. On one hand, was the effectiveness of previous results demonstrated? Do we have tangible outcomes or key learnings? (In general, not just focusing on Pyth)

I decided to vote against this proposal.

I have several thoughts. On one hand, was the effectiveness of previous results demonstrated? Do we have tangible outcomes or key learnings? (In general, not just focusing on Pyth)

I'll maintain my position related to funding at the moment.

Voting in favor. The extension seems reasonable to me as I think that Pyth is becoming a key component to DeFi and it can make the difference in the Arbitrum ecosystem.

Quoted from BlockworksResearch

jump to post →

For this reason, I vote against the deadline extension request.

Quoted from BlockworksResearch

jump to post →

educated and wild guess on my side, the application was crafted and evaluated with pre dencun metrics. This has been one of the (several) challenges for both protocols and advisors during LTIPP program. Since in the PYTH reporting there is no mention of specific delay in integration, I might just be right here but happy to have more details. Also, the byproduct of this result for future program could be that for infra projects a pre-allocated budget might not be the way to got.

Going back to the snapshot, as for the synthetix application, I am, unfortunately, voting against it, as well as the other extention requests in Arbitrum. To quote my previous answer:

Quoted from JoJo

I would have normally been in favour if it wasn’t for the detox proposal just recently presented, and passed, in our DAO; but that proposal is an extremely important signal about 1) trying to see what happens to our chains with no incentives 2) give the time to the DAO to best reflect how to weaponize these programs in future. There is also the secondary point, not necessarily as important but indeed important, about competitive advantages of protocols asking for an extention versus protocols that just finished in LTIPP or about to finish in STIP.

jump to post →

In here we have a different situation, which is a potential usage of funds for an infra product, so I could see the merit of the extention. But the mix of the detox proposal + the fact that most of the leftover funds are tied, in my understanding, to lower costs than expected, means that the only real reason to keep Pyth in an extention would be to facilitate his role in Arbitrum. This is something we could advocate for Synthetix and Aave as well, even if their role is different. Again, the vote of the DAO for the detox proposal is more important, and should just be respected by participants.

After a thorough investigation, I decided to vote against it. We need a clean slate with our current grant extension for the DAO. Extending Pyth network requests could result in unnecessary amplification. To be clear. My decision has nothing to do with Pyth Network and how they did their job with the program. My vote is only operational so we stick to initial deadlines and comply with the Detox Proposal about the new structure for future grants in the DAO.

The FranklinDAO / Penn Blockchain Team voted FOR this proposal on Snapshot. We appreciate Pyth's responsible use of the LTIPP funds. We are excited to see the growth of Synthetix multi-collateral perps and see how usage will stack up against other perps platforms like Hyperliquid and GMX.

Regarding the weekly reports, we would like to see the Dune Dashboard for usage per contract label each wallet address for ease of understanding.

We find this report (and suggestions included as a proposal, which is not relevant for this case) made for Uniswap interesting: https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-proposal-to-active-2-3-4-bps-fee-tiers-on-base/24346. It has covered not only metrics and numbers, but insights and explorations as well.

Reviewing your report, we believe Average daily TVL, Average daily transactions, Usage per day & Usage per contract are important in your reports. Structurally, it's crucial to have not only the numbers, but also their details and possible reasons for fluctuations.

By sharing such information with the community, the DAO can better understand how Pyth utilizes the incentives provided by Arbitrum and what it learned from the experiment.

Supportive of different oracle provider and happy to support Pyth here. Hoping for longterm alginment with Arbitrum.

Thanks for the quick response @KemarTiti

The initial LTIPP program's success is evident in the increased metrics and enhanced price feed availability. I think extending the program will undoubtedly build on this momentum and solidify Arbitrum’s position in DeFi. I trust the Pyth Network to continue driving this growth effectively.

Just voted in favor of this proposal on Snapshot. Oracles like Pyth are essential to DeFi, providing the accurate and timely data that keeps everything running smoothly. This extension, along with the Synthetix LTIP extension, go hand-in-hand as they work together to support DeFi incentives on Arbitrum—something we really need in this tough market.

Pyth submitted their extension application request early, similar to Synthetix, and thus we should honor the request for similar reasons we posted in the Synthetix proposal. Though, we do think that Pyth can certainly be evaluated on its performance by some metric, what are the total number of protocols they service, etc.

As we had said in the Synthetix thread, we would like to know if there is anything that the DAO can do to better prepare protocols for possible delays. What could be a possible communication channel to relay this information better or minimize the amount of extension requests to hit the DAO forums for decision making? Should the LTIPP council have been given the proper clearance to push an extension or does this belong to some oversight body separate from the general DAO body.

It's worth noting that while Pyth received 1M in ARB for incentives, only 75,000 had been used by the end of the LTIPP. This could indicate an unintentional oversight in fund allocation. Moving forward, it would be helpful to reassess how we distribute funding to ensure we're aligning with actual needs and optimizing ARB resources.

Hi @KemarTiti How does this extension align with the long-term vision for Pyth Network on Arbitrum? Are there other strategic initiatives you're considering to further integrate Pyth within the Arbitrum ecosystem?

This proposal is reasonable, as oracles-just like the Pyth nethwork, being infrastructure protocols, are essential for the development of the DeFi ecosystem, cause the prices of assets is of crucial importance in any network. The effectiveness of the initial 12-week LTIPP has already been smoothly demonstrated, and the allocated funds have been used appropriately. Since the impact of building infrastructure protocols takes time to manifest, so extending the program for another 12 weeks is justified.

Incentives for infrastructure protocols and public goods such as Pyth prophetic machines usually don't have an immediate effect, agreed. pyth as the leading infrastructure, the ARB ecosystem needs your long term builds. in fact why not think about 1 million ARB of funding to consider giving a portion of the incentive to pledge users as a way of encouraging pledge users of PYTH

I welcome the continued funding of Pyth and understand that the financial expenditure here differs from standard protocols, which themselves can increase the size of incentives.

We support the program's current success and strongly agree that Pyth should continue to receive funding to contribute to the Arbitrum ecosystem.

There's just one point we'd like to suggest for improvement. Regarding your bi-weekly reports, would it be possible to include your own analysis and insights? The current reports primarily consist of basic numerical data, and we believe it would be valuable if you could provide context on what factors influenced changes in these numbers.

For this reason, I vote against the deadline extension request.

Quoted from BlockworksResearch

jump to post →

Going back to the snapshot, as for the synthetix application, I am, unfortunately, voting against it, as well as the other extention requests in Arbitrum. To quote my previous answer:

Quoted from JoJo

jump to post →

Regarding the weekly reports, we would like to see the Dune Dashboard for usage per contract label each wallet address for ease of understanding.

By sharing such information with the community, the DAO can better understand how Pyth utilizes the incentives provided by Arbitrum and what it learned from the experiment.

Supportive of different oracle provider and happy to support Pyth here. Hoping for longterm alginment with Arbitrum.

Thanks for the quick response @KemarTiti

I welcome the continued funding of Pyth and understand that the financial expenditure here differs from standard protocols, which themselves can increase the size of incentives.

We support the program's current success and strongly agree that Pyth should continue to receive funding to contribute to the Arbitrum ecosystem.