Synthetix requests an 8-week extension for its LTIP grant to align with the launch of Perps Multi-Collateral and distribute 900k ARB in trading fee rebates. This extension will run from September 16th to November 16th, 2024 (edit: with Snapshot ending dates) aligning the deployment of the remaining grant funds with a major product launch.
The Arbitrum community should implement this extension to maximize the impact of the originally approved grant, which targeted LP & stablecoin incentives. By aligning the distribution with the launch of our Arbitrum-exclusive Multi-Collateral Perps feature, we can ensure greater engagement, trading volume, and overall ecosystem growth.
Synthetix has experienced unforeseen delays in its deployment of Synthetix Perps on Arbitrum. We originally expected to launch by late July, to align with one month of Perps fee rebates. However, due to audits and other factors, and to ensure the top performance of our Arbitrum-exclusive multi-collateral perps feature, we've been unable to hit these targets. As a result, we've not utilized 900k ARB from our proposal and would like to seek an extension.
The extension will utilize the remaining 900k ARB tokens from our original proposal for trading fee rebates. These rebates will be distributed over 8 weeks, coinciding with the launch of Multi-Collateral Perps. This approach ensures:
The extension utilizes the remaining 900,000 ARB tokens from the originally approved 2 million ARB grant. Over the 8-week period, this amount will be fully distributed as trading fee rebates as per our original LTIP grant.
No additional funds are being requested beyond the original grant allocation.
We have been working with the LTIP Council, @Matt_StableLab, and others to work out the best path to request this extension, and we started requesting information & guidance on July 21st.
We've also posted about our proposed plans in our original LTIP thread which included options on how to best proceed.
We plan to post this on Snapshot, not Tally, next week with the help of @krst, as it does not utilize any additional funds. Any additional comments before this time would be very helpful. Thank you all!
Synthetix requests an 8-week extension for its LTIP grant to align with the launch of Perps Multi-Collateral and distribute 900k ARB in trading fee rebates. This extension will run from September 16th to November 16th, 2024 (edit: with Snapshot ending dates) aligning the deployment of the remaining grant funds with a major product launch.
The Arbitrum community should implement this extension to maximize the impact of the originally approved grant, which targeted LP & stablecoin incentives. By aligning the distribution with the launch of our Arbitrum-exclusive Multi-Collateral Perps feature, we can ensure greater engagement, trading volume, and overall ecosystem growth.
Synthetix has experienced unforeseen delays in its deployment of Synthetix Perps on Arbitrum. We originally expected to launch by late July, to align with one month of Perps fee rebates. However, due to audits and other factors, and to ensure the top performance of our Arbitrum-exclusive multi-collateral perps feature, we've been unable to hit these targets. As a result, we've not utilized 900k ARB from our proposal and would like to seek an extension.
The extension will utilize the remaining 900k ARB tokens from our original proposal for trading fee rebates. These rebates will be distributed over 8 weeks, coinciding with the launch of Multi-Collateral Perps. This approach ensures:
The extension utilizes the remaining 900,000 ARB tokens from the originally approved 2 million ARB grant. Over the 8-week period, this amount will be fully distributed as trading fee rebates as per our original LTIP grant.
No additional funds are being requested beyond the original grant allocation.
We have been working with the LTIP Council, @Matt_StableLab, and others to work out the best path to request this extension, and we started requesting information & guidance on July 21st.
We've also posted about our proposed plans in our original LTIP thread which included options on how to best proceed.
We plan to post this on Snapshot, not Tally, next week with the help of @krst, as it does not utilize any additional funds. Any additional comments before this time would be very helpful. Thank you all!
abstaining in accordance with stated COI policy for coinflipcanada
abstaining in accordance with stated COI policy for coinflipcanada
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/35?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/34
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/31?u=winverse
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/30?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/29?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/27?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/26
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/seed-latam-delegate-communication-thread/13895/47?u=seedgov
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-25: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-25
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/25?u=castlecapital
As a member of LTIPP, we do not support grant extensions on a one-off basis, because it deprives other grantees from similar opportunities.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/17?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/30?u=griff
As the LTIPP PM StableLab will abstain
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/23?u=blueweb
Excited for the new product launch, but I believe it's best to revise LTIPP terms vs one-off extensions
Abstaining as an LTIPP Council Member
has a reasonable motive and I'd rather spend wisely than worry about spurious constraints
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/20?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/18?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/3?u=duokongcrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/14?u=jojo
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/12?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/11?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/10?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/35?u=mcfly
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/34
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/31?u=winverse
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/30?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/29?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/27?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/26
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/seed-latam-delegate-communication-thread/13895/47?u=seedgov
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-25: EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-25
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/25?u=castlecapital
As a member of LTIPP, we do not support grant extensions on a one-off basis, because it deprives other grantees from similar opportunities.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/17?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/30?u=griff
As the LTIPP PM StableLab will abstain
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/23?u=blueweb
Excited for the new product launch, but I believe it's best to revise LTIPP terms vs one-off extensions
Abstaining as an LTIPP Council Member
has a reasonable motive and I'd rather spend wisely than worry about spurious constraints
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/20?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/18?u=bruce
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/3?u=duokongcrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/14?u=jojo
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/12?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/11?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-synthetix-ltip-grant-extension-request/26524/10?u=larva
For reference, we would like to know if there is anything we or the DAO itself can do to better prepare protocols for possible delays. What could be a possible communication channel to relay delays better? Additionally, maybe we should grant power by the committee at large to decide on delay extensions to prevent too much DAO overhead (as we have seen about 5 different extension proposals hit the forums). Preferably this process is streamlined for the future so there is less decision-fatigue on the DAO’s part.
For reference, we would like to know if there is anything we or the DAO itself can do to better prepare protocols for possible delays. What could be a possible communication channel to relay delays better? Additionally, maybe we should grant power by the committee at large to decide on delay extensions to prevent too much DAO overhead (as we have seen about 5 different extension proposals hit the forums). Preferably this process is streamlined for the future so there is less decision-fatigue on the DAO’s part.
Thank you very much for the first part of this post. As a member of the OP Grants Council and longtime delegate within DeFi Gov, I think it's critical that projects take communication regarding grants seriously and aren't simply rushing to chase grant targets; that's never good and something we would never do.
Regarding how to improve this process in the future, I think there are a few pieces of feedback I would have:
1 - Create longer-dated programs—12-week (LTIP/STIP) programs are great for limited experimentation, but I would much prefer having longer-dated programs with built-in buffer periods to work through KYC, new guidance from delegates, voting delays, and so on. Plus, the typical operational issues suffered at protocols to handle the distribution and marketing amongst users.
2 - If a delay is needed, I would prefer working directly with an empowered council to streamline the communication between protocols and the DAO. - Currently, protocols are left to coordinate with advisors, various councils, and delegates, making it hard to know which guidance is correct and how they should handle this. For context, we've been seeking out the best path to an extension with @Matt_StableLab since mid/late July, at first we worked through the LTIP Council, then direct to dao, then RFC questions, and so on. It's a pretty confusing process.
3 - Create a process for extension requests - Related to #2, any guidance or process on requesting extensions when programs are approved would be ideal alongside an empowered council that works through whether the delays are within the initially approved reasons for the program, so these are handled within guidance and not created individually for each project.
That's just some of my feedback on how we can improve this going forward, and I hope it does help drive the conversation in the right direction. Either way, a delay is a delay, and we do not blame the ARB DAO for any of the necessities here, as that is up to us (Synthetix) to handle. We are just sharing how we can improve the process in the future.
Thanks!
Thanks to @krst, we have posted our proposal to Snapshot requesting an extension of our LTIP grant.
We would appreciate any and all support for this proposal so we can make our multi-collateral launch a massive success for Arbitrum users and traders.
Thanks to @krst, we have posted our proposal to Snapshot requesting an extension of our LTIP grant.
We would appreciate any and all support for this proposal so we can make our multi-collateral launch a massive success for Arbitrum users and traders.
For those who aren't aware, our Arbitrum multi-collateral perps release will use USDx (our arbitrum native stablecoin) as perps margin, as well as tBTC, ETH, SOL (via wormhole), and stables (USDe). This will allow users to leverage their existing assets, employ new trading strategies, and ensure a smooth entrance into the Perps system.
Regardless of the result, we're prepared to make this a great product for Arbitrum users. Let me know if anyone has questions. Thank you!
Snapshot poll will be posted very soon. Dates in this proposal (Sep 16th to Nov 16th) have been edited to reflect the one week necessary for voting.
Tough situation: First, the grant was given a specific time frame. Second, you will have a competitive advantage because everyone else will run out of grant money.
Tough situation: First, the grant was given a specific time frame. Second, you will have a competitive advantage because everyone else will run out of grant money.
We're very aware that this timeline does tie directly into the detox for incentive programs, and we understand that it may be a limiting factor.
An additional piece of context is that we have been working directly with @Matt_StableLab since mid/late July on the best path to an extension, first waiting on the LTIP Council to decide on how to move forward and then working through the direct-to-DAO option for the last few weeks. Gov guidance changed a few times during this, which has delayed our proposal.
Our main goal here is to align with a successful arbitrum exclusive product launch for Synthetix Perps Multi Collateral on Arbitrum and ensure that we retain TVL, bring in traders, and highlight how this new feature sets us apart.
Regardless of the result, we will be hyper-focused on growth for Synthetix on Arbitrum.
The results are in for the Synthetix LTIP Grant Extension Request off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1358
For reference, we would like to know if there is anything we or the DAO itself can do to better prepare protocols for possible delays. What could be a possible communication channel to relay delays better? Additionally, maybe we should grant power by the committee at large to decide on delay extensions to prevent too much DAO overhead (as we have seen about 5 different extension proposals hit the forums). Preferably this process is streamlined for the future so there is less decision-fatigue on the DAO’s part.
For reference, we would like to know if there is anything we or the DAO itself can do to better prepare protocols for possible delays. What could be a possible communication channel to relay delays better? Additionally, maybe we should grant power by the committee at large to decide on delay extensions to prevent too much DAO overhead (as we have seen about 5 different extension proposals hit the forums). Preferably this process is streamlined for the future so there is less decision-fatigue on the DAO’s part.
Thank you very much for the first part of this post. As a member of the OP Grants Council and longtime delegate within DeFi Gov, I think it's critical that projects take communication regarding grants seriously and aren't simply rushing to chase grant targets; that's never good and something we would never do.
Regarding how to improve this process in the future, I think there are a few pieces of feedback I would have:
1 - Create longer-dated programs—12-week (LTIP/STIP) programs are great for limited experimentation, but I would much prefer having longer-dated programs with built-in buffer periods to work through KYC, new guidance from delegates, voting delays, and so on. Plus, the typical operational issues suffered at protocols to handle the distribution and marketing amongst users.
2 - If a delay is needed, I would prefer working directly with an empowered council to streamline the communication between protocols and the DAO. - Currently, protocols are left to coordinate with advisors, various councils, and delegates, making it hard to know which guidance is correct and how they should handle this. For context, we've been seeking out the best path to an extension with @Matt_StableLab since mid/late July, at first we worked through the LTIP Council, then direct to dao, then RFC questions, and so on. It's a pretty confusing process.
3 - Create a process for extension requests - Related to #2, any guidance or process on requesting extensions when programs are approved would be ideal alongside an empowered council that works through whether the delays are within the initially approved reasons for the program, so these are handled within guidance and not created individually for each project.
That's just some of my feedback on how we can improve this going forward, and I hope it does help drive the conversation in the right direction. Either way, a delay is a delay, and we do not blame the ARB DAO for any of the necessities here, as that is up to us (Synthetix) to handle. We are just sharing how we can improve the process in the future.
Thanks!
Thanks to @krst, we have posted our proposal to Snapshot requesting an extension of our LTIP grant.
We would appreciate any and all support for this proposal so we can make our multi-collateral launch a massive success for Arbitrum users and traders.
Thanks to @krst, we have posted our proposal to Snapshot requesting an extension of our LTIP grant.
We would appreciate any and all support for this proposal so we can make our multi-collateral launch a massive success for Arbitrum users and traders.
For those who aren't aware, our Arbitrum multi-collateral perps release will use USDx (our arbitrum native stablecoin) as perps margin, as well as tBTC, ETH, SOL (via wormhole), and stables (USDe). This will allow users to leverage their existing assets, employ new trading strategies, and ensure a smooth entrance into the Perps system.
Regardless of the result, we're prepared to make this a great product for Arbitrum users. Let me know if anyone has questions. Thank you!
Snapshot poll will be posted very soon. Dates in this proposal (Sep 16th to Nov 16th) have been edited to reflect the one week necessary for voting.
Tough situation: First, the grant was given a specific time frame. Second, you will have a competitive advantage because everyone else will run out of grant money.
Tough situation: First, the grant was given a specific time frame. Second, you will have a competitive advantage because everyone else will run out of grant money.
We're very aware that this timeline does tie directly into the detox for incentive programs, and we understand that it may be a limiting factor.
An additional piece of context is that we have been working directly with @Matt_StableLab since mid/late July on the best path to an extension, first waiting on the LTIP Council to decide on how to move forward and then working through the direct-to-DAO option for the last few weeks. Gov guidance changed a few times during this, which has delayed our proposal.
Our main goal here is to align with a successful arbitrum exclusive product launch for Synthetix Perps Multi Collateral on Arbitrum and ensure that we retain TVL, bring in traders, and highlight how this new feature sets us apart.
Regardless of the result, we will be hyper-focused on growth for Synthetix on Arbitrum.
The results are in for the Synthetix LTIP Grant Extension Request off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1358
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 .
We voted "against" this proposal.
We share the same opinion as expressed here.
We encourage all projects seeking an extension of their incentives to wait at least until the date suggested by the Detox proposal.
I voted Against this proposal at the temp check stage. I think the right thing to do in this situation is return the unused funds to the DAO and re-apply/propose for another incentive grant, rather than to extend the current program.
We vote AGAINST the proposal on Snapshot.
While the request itself seems totally valid, we 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.
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
Our reasoning here is identical with our feedback on the similar Pyth proposal. We voted abstain on this proposal because it presents an isolated case where Synthetix 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.
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 .
We voted "against" this proposal.
We share the same opinion as expressed here.
We encourage all projects seeking an extension of their incentives to wait at least until the date suggested by the Detox proposal.
I voted Against this proposal at the temp check stage. I think the right thing to do in this situation is return the unused funds to the DAO and re-apply/propose for another incentive grant, rather than to extend the current program.
We vote AGAINST the proposal on Snapshot.
While the request itself seems totally valid, we 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.
Below are the opinions of the UADP:
Our reasoning here is identical with our feedback on the similar Pyth proposal. We voted abstain on this proposal because it presents an isolated case where Synthetix 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.
DAOplomats is voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.
We are not supportive of this proposal for the same reason we voted against the Pyth Network request.
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, same as in similar proposal from Pyth, and we will be voting the same on all extension proposals of that kind to ensure fair and equal treatment of all projects participating in that program.
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, same as in similar proposal from Pyth, and we will be voting the same on all extension proposals of that kind to ensure fair and equal treatment of all projects participating in that program.
The rationale here is the same as in the other ones.
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.
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.
I voted against this proposal.
While I recognize the merits of it, I think the protocol could have requested a smaller amount, and reduced the distribution period.
Voted Against: For the same reason as another proposal to extend grants. 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.
I’m voting against. As many brought up, this extension would counter what was established with the Detox proposal. As I was in favor of that, I decided to vote against this.
Address a few considerations that have been brought up here:
Fairness to Other Protocols: The extension request raises valid concerns about fairness, as it could provide Synthetix with a competitive advantage, especially since other protocols have had to operate within their initial grant timelines without similar extensions.
Process and Transparency: We support the feedback suggesting the need for a clearer and more streamlined process for managing grant extensions. Overall, we think there was proper feedback and heads up on this situation.
Long-Term Program Structure: Extending program durations or building in buffer periods could help mitigate some of these issues in the future, and maybe a formal system should be implemented. This would provide protocols with the flexibility to navigate unforeseen delays while still following intended goals.
Impact on Ecosystem Goals: It's crucial that any extensions or adjustments continue to align with the broader ecosystem objectives of Arbitrum, such as promoting sustainable growth, user engagement, and innovation.
Address a few considerations that have been brought up here:
Fairness to Other Protocols: The extension request raises valid concerns about fairness, as it could provide Synthetix with a competitive advantage, especially since other protocols have had to operate within their initial grant timelines without similar extensions.
Process and Transparency: We support the feedback suggesting the need for a clearer and more streamlined process for managing grant extensions. Overall, we think there was proper feedback and heads up on this situation.
Long-Term Program Structure: Extending program durations or building in buffer periods could help mitigate some of these issues in the future, and maybe a formal system should be implemented. This would provide protocols with the flexibility to navigate unforeseen delays while still following intended goals.
Impact on Ecosystem Goals: It's crucial that any extensions or adjustments continue to align with the broader ecosystem objectives of Arbitrum, such as promoting sustainable growth, user engagement, and innovation.
Overall, while we are leaning towards how we understand and sympathize with the challenges Synthetix has faced, but it's essential to balance these needs with fairness and the integrity of the grant process. We think there should be a more fledged out system for extensions in the future, and that can stop a bunch of processes like this.
Not much more to add.
Voting against, same position as before.
Vote: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> Synthetix LTIP Grant Extension Request
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/18
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
Vote: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> Synthetix LTIP Grant Extension Request
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/18
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
While we acknowledge the challenges Synthetix has faced and understand the rationale behind this extension request, it’s important to maintain consistency with the recent Incentives Detox. Extending incentives for a single protocol could create an uneven playing field, particularly when other projects have adhered to the original grant timelines. Moving forward, it would be beneficial for the DAO to establish a clear process for managing extensions and delays. This would ensure fairness and transparency across all incentive programs while maintaining the integrity of our incentive structure.
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.
While we appreciate Synthetix 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 Synthetix 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.
We commend the contributions made under the current LTIPP but will maintain our position against any further extensions.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “AGAINST” on both proposals at the Snapshot vote / Snapshot vote 2.
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 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 are 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 are voting AGAINST this proposal.
We recognize that extensions are often considered for incentive programs, and we acknowledge the compelling reasons provided in this proposal. However, given our current focus on the Detox of Incentives, we believe it's important to adhere to the timeline originally proposed in the LTIPP. This approach will allow for a more comprehensive evaluation of the program's performance. Additionally, we're concerned that approving this extension might be unfair to projects unaware of this option. We look forward to seeing the results of the initial LTIPP and using those insights to form future decisions.
I voted abstain. On the one hand i would support Synthetix, on the other hand not because of the "unfair" advantage their perp would/could get.
One of the main concerns when drafting the rubric and the requirements for participating in LTIPP was that applicants might rush product/feature launches or skip security measures, such as audits, to meet the application deadline.
Throughout the process, we encountered several applicants in this situation and advised them not to rush their products. If they couldn't meet the deadlines, they should refrain from applying for the incentives, as LTIPP was a short-term experiment aimed at testing a new incentive program management model, with another plan to follow later.
We will be voting against the Synthetix LTIP 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.
Although the Grant Extension Request is necessary and I give the green light, there are still 2 issues:
Blockworks Research is voting FOR this proposal.
Seeing as though Synthetix and Pyth both came to the DAO earlier, we believe this behavior should be merited to some degree. While it wasn’t as early as we all would’ve liked it shows initiative and honesty which is paramount in a decentralized workspace with limited accountability. The deadline for the program was September 2nd, 2024, and seeing as though Synthetix and Pyth posted these extensions prior to the deadline we believe that this warrants some leniency. The DAO should reward rational process, not punish it. LTIPP deemed itself incapable of granting extensions to incentives, rationally so, and thus the reasonable course of action was for Synthetix to propose directly to the DAO.
DAOplomats is voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.
We are not supportive of this proposal for the same reason we voted against the Pyth Network request.
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, same as in similar proposal from Pyth, and we will be voting the same on all extension proposals of that kind to ensure fair and equal treatment of all projects participating in that program.
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, same as in similar proposal from Pyth, and we will be voting the same on all extension proposals of that kind to ensure fair and equal treatment of all projects participating in that program.
The rationale here is the same as in the other ones.
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.
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.
I voted against this proposal.
While I recognize the merits of it, I think the protocol could have requested a smaller amount, and reduced the distribution period.
Voted Against: For the same reason as another proposal to extend grants. 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.
I’m voting against. As many brought up, this extension would counter what was established with the Detox proposal. As I was in favor of that, I decided to vote against this.
Address a few considerations that have been brought up here:
Fairness to Other Protocols: The extension request raises valid concerns about fairness, as it could provide Synthetix with a competitive advantage, especially since other protocols have had to operate within their initial grant timelines without similar extensions.
Process and Transparency: We support the feedback suggesting the need for a clearer and more streamlined process for managing grant extensions. Overall, we think there was proper feedback and heads up on this situation.
Long-Term Program Structure: Extending program durations or building in buffer periods could help mitigate some of these issues in the future, and maybe a formal system should be implemented. This would provide protocols with the flexibility to navigate unforeseen delays while still following intended goals.
Impact on Ecosystem Goals: It's crucial that any extensions or adjustments continue to align with the broader ecosystem objectives of Arbitrum, such as promoting sustainable growth, user engagement, and innovation.
Address a few considerations that have been brought up here:
Fairness to Other Protocols: The extension request raises valid concerns about fairness, as it could provide Synthetix with a competitive advantage, especially since other protocols have had to operate within their initial grant timelines without similar extensions.
Process and Transparency: We support the feedback suggesting the need for a clearer and more streamlined process for managing grant extensions. Overall, we think there was proper feedback and heads up on this situation.
Long-Term Program Structure: Extending program durations or building in buffer periods could help mitigate some of these issues in the future, and maybe a formal system should be implemented. This would provide protocols with the flexibility to navigate unforeseen delays while still following intended goals.
Impact on Ecosystem Goals: It's crucial that any extensions or adjustments continue to align with the broader ecosystem objectives of Arbitrum, such as promoting sustainable growth, user engagement, and innovation.
Overall, while we are leaning towards how we understand and sympathize with the challenges Synthetix has faced, but it's essential to balance these needs with fairness and the integrity of the grant process. We think there should be a more fledged out system for extensions in the future, and that can stop a bunch of processes like this.
Not much more to add.
Voting against, same position as before.
Vote: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> Synthetix LTIP Grant Extension Request
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/18
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
Vote: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> Synthetix LTIP Grant Extension Request
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/18
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
While we acknowledge the challenges Synthetix has faced and understand the rationale behind this extension request, it’s important to maintain consistency with the recent Incentives Detox. Extending incentives for a single protocol could create an uneven playing field, particularly when other projects have adhered to the original grant timelines. Moving forward, it would be beneficial for the DAO to establish a clear process for managing extensions and delays. This would ensure fairness and transparency across all incentive programs while maintaining the integrity of our incentive structure.
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.
While we appreciate Synthetix 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 Synthetix 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.
We commend the contributions made under the current LTIPP but will maintain our position against any further extensions.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “AGAINST” on both proposals at the Snapshot vote / Snapshot vote 2.
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 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 are 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 are voting AGAINST this proposal.
We recognize that extensions are often considered for incentive programs, and we acknowledge the compelling reasons provided in this proposal. However, given our current focus on the Detox of Incentives, we believe it's important to adhere to the timeline originally proposed in the LTIPP. This approach will allow for a more comprehensive evaluation of the program's performance. Additionally, we're concerned that approving this extension might be unfair to projects unaware of this option. We look forward to seeing the results of the initial LTIPP and using those insights to form future decisions.
I voted abstain. On the one hand i would support Synthetix, on the other hand not because of the "unfair" advantage their perp would/could get.
One of the main concerns when drafting the rubric and the requirements for participating in LTIPP was that applicants might rush product/feature launches or skip security measures, such as audits, to meet the application deadline.
Throughout the process, we encountered several applicants in this situation and advised them not to rush their products. If they couldn't meet the deadlines, they should refrain from applying for the incentives, as LTIPP was a short-term experiment aimed at testing a new incentive program management model, with another plan to follow later.
We will be voting against the Synthetix LTIP 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.
Although the Grant Extension Request is necessary and I give the green light, there are still 2 issues:
Blockworks Research is voting FOR this proposal.
Seeing as though Synthetix and Pyth both came to the DAO earlier, we believe this behavior should be merited to some degree. While it wasn’t as early as we all would’ve liked it shows initiative and honesty which is paramount in a decentralized workspace with limited accountability. The deadline for the program was September 2nd, 2024, and seeing as though Synthetix and Pyth posted these extensions prior to the deadline we believe that this warrants some leniency. The DAO should reward rational process, not punish it. LTIPP deemed itself incapable of granting extensions to incentives, rationally so, and thus the reasonable course of action was for Synthetix to propose directly to the DAO.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “AGAINST” on both proposals at the Snapshot vote / Snapshot vote 2.
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:
We hope that in the future there will be longer programs or a streamlined mechanism in place to resolve this kind of friction.
One of the main concerns when drafting the rubric and the requirements for participating in LTIPP was that applicants might rush product/feature launches or skip security measures, such as audits, to meet the application deadline.
Throughout the process, we encountered several applicants in this situation and advised them not to rush their products. If they couldn't meet the deadlines, they should refrain from applying for the incentives, as 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 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 or were honest about withdrawing their application due to development delays.
Whatever the reason may be, and I understand the complexities of developing Web3 products, the extension is being requested for failing to meet the promises made in the application form. I'm not saying this shouldn't happen, and I appreciate that incentives were withheld when it was considered that the product wasn't ready. However, I believe the experimental nature of LTIPP requires that the established deadlines be respected, allowing the DAO to enter the reflection period we voted for, called "detox."
Arbitrum has definitely benefited from Synthetix joining its ecosystem, and I'm sure you will be recipient of future incentive programs
For these reasons, I vote against the deadline extension request.
Although the Grant Extension Request is necessary and I give the green light, there are still 2 issues:
I hope that during the Extension phase, there will be better measurements of progress to ensure that the whole process could be completed according to the schedule.
Blockworks Research is voting FOR this proposal.
Seeing as though Synthetix and Pyth both came to the DAO earlier, we believe this behavior should be merited to some degree. While it wasn’t as early as we all would’ve liked it shows initiative and honesty which is paramount in a decentralized workspace with limited accountability. The deadline for the program was September 2nd, 2024, and seeing as though Synthetix and Pyth posted these extensions prior to the deadline we believe that this warrants some leniency. The DAO should reward rational process, not punish it. LTIPP deemed itself incapable of granting extensions to incentives, rationally so, and thus the reasonable course of action was for Synthetix to propose directly to the DAO.
We can vouch for Synthetix in that they are actively shipping new products. They launched perps trading for Base in April. On June 18th they opened liquidity provision for their Arbitrum pools. These are not bare bones integrations either -- Synthetix is attempting to have experimental assets as collateral for their pools as well, which makes for tricky risk management. Then there’s the added governance process of voting to add additional oracles, etc for Arbitrum’s deployment specifically.
We understand @JoJo's perspective that this proposal, like others, could come across as somewhat reactionary and an attempt to navigate through the incentive reduction with the remaining grant funds. However, it's important to highlight that proper process was followed earlier, and there is a time-sensitive aspect to the incentives that should be considered.
Now, it may be rational to ask Synthetix to lower the amount retained and set some precedence similar to Pyth. This would help maintain alignment with Pyth's similar request and fairness overall.
In favour of the proposal, I see the important points mentioned here: the Arbitrum Multi-Collateral Perpetual Contracts release will use USDx (our Arbitrum native stablecoin) as the perpetual contracts margin, as well as tBTC, ETH, SOL (via wormholes), and stablecoins (USDe). This will allow users to utilise their existing assets, adopt new trading strategies and ensure a smooth entry into the perpetual contract system. It looks complex and offers a different perspective on the arb ecosystem.
I think Pyth is trying to find a middle ground with their extension request of a lower value, not all the remaing ARB of the grant. Is it possible to consider doing something similar?
Thank you for this detailed feedback.
I am, unfortunately, voting against this and all the other extention requests in Arbitrum. 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.
Thank you for this detailed feedback.
I am, unfortunately, voting against this and all the other extention requests in Arbitrum. 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.
But I also want to add a few things. I really feel you about first, the excitement of participating to this program, and then the constant small delays of integrations and tech development that turn out to be eating more and more week over week on the timeline, up to the point you had to come here to ask for this extention; I have seen this happening, and even in the protocols i work for we had to take hard and complex decisions due to delay of partners' integrations. As you already partially mentioned most of the issue would be addressed by a longer program, in which of course we need to embed a process for these and other similar situations: if you have 1 year, and you need to skip the first three months for technical issue, you will still have a way in.
Finally, i want to commend the effort the synthetix team made to come to arbitrum. You decided to go for a specific push in our chain, with an ad-hoc application and obviously a lot of work behind it, on a product level, strategic level and marketing level, and what did happen is indeed unfortunate but also something quite common in the tech world. For this reason, in the next program, I will be one your stronger supporter fwiw.
understand your situation and would appreciate it if you could provide us with some information to assist us in our decision-making.
Are there any details about your new product, including documentation, a demo version, or images of your Perp DEX and native stablecoins?
I abstain because while the extension seems beneficial, it introduces concerns about fairness to other protocols without similar opportunities. The lack of a streamlined process for handling delays makes it difficult to confidently support this specific request.
Voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot. As an early Synthetix user/spartan, I've seen it grow into a DeFi powerhouse with real usage. Perps on Arbitrum are a big deal, boosting trading options and liquidity. This 8-week extension makes sense as it aligns with the launch of Multi-Collateral Perps. SNX is key to Arbitrum's DeFi scene, and keeping up the momentum with these rebates is a net-positive for the ecosystem.
Similar to Pyth, Synthetix has performed well in the LTIPP, benefiting both the protocol itself and the Arbitrum network significantly. Initially, I had some reservations about the 900,000 ARB budget request, as it's not a small amount, especially since I firmly believe in the principle of achieving more with less. However, I later learned that the LTIPP had already allocated a 2 million ARB budget for Synthetix, and this proposal is merely requesting the remaining unspent portion. With that understanding, I no longer have any objections, and I support this proposal.
Sorry for not jumping in the conversation earlier, but I would like to leave a comment, as I will vote analysing each specific extension request:
When applying for the program, everyone knew that the sprint was short (as it was a pilot for a long duration program). In your particular case, it seems that it was a development delay (it happens all the time) that prevented the full utilization of the grant.
Sorry for not jumping in the conversation earlier, but I would like to leave a comment, as I will vote analysing each specific extension request:
When applying for the program, everyone knew that the sprint was short (as it was a pilot for a long duration program). In your particular case, it seems that it was a development delay (it happens all the time) that prevented the full utilization of the grant.
However, you guys distributed over 1m ARB in this period, and the request for the extension, like it was already pointed out, will come in a period with no other incentives program.
It would be wonderful to match a new release with an incentive program, but this situation seems not fair to other protocols that don't have the opportunity to match these extra incentives in this period.
We’re pleased with the level of communication that’s been displayed by Synthetix, and candidly Synthetix reached out to Blockworks prior to notify us of a potential delay.
For reference, we would like to know if there is anything we or the DAO itself can do to better prepare protocols for possible delays. What could be a possible communication channel to relay delays better? Additionally, maybe we should grant power by the committee at large to decide on delay extensions to prevent too much DAO overhead (as we have seen about 5 different extension proposals hit the forums). Preferably this process is streamlined for the future so there is less decision-fatigue on the DAO's part.
Seeing that the main aim is to align the deployment of the remaining grant funding with the release of the main product. Deferred for 2 months. Transparency would be nice and I hope you guys can do a better job
Tough situation: First, the grant was given a specific time frame. Second, you will have a competitive advantage because everyone else will run out of grant money.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “AGAINST” on both proposals at the Snapshot vote / Snapshot vote 2.
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:
We hope that in the future there will be longer programs or a streamlined mechanism in place to resolve this kind of friction.
One of the main concerns when drafting the rubric and the requirements for participating in LTIPP was that applicants might rush product/feature launches or skip security measures, such as audits, to meet the application deadline.
Throughout the process, we encountered several applicants in this situation and advised them not to rush their products. If they couldn't meet the deadlines, they should refrain from applying for the incentives, as 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 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 or were honest about withdrawing their application due to development delays.
Whatever the reason may be, and I understand the complexities of developing Web3 products, the extension is being requested for failing to meet the promises made in the application form. I'm not saying this shouldn't happen, and I appreciate that incentives were withheld when it was considered that the product wasn't ready. However, I believe the experimental nature of LTIPP requires that the established deadlines be respected, allowing the DAO to enter the reflection period we voted for, called "detox."
Arbitrum has definitely benefited from Synthetix joining its ecosystem, and I'm sure you will be recipient of future incentive programs
For these reasons, I vote against the deadline extension request.
Although the Grant Extension Request is necessary and I give the green light, there are still 2 issues:
I hope that during the Extension phase, there will be better measurements of progress to ensure that the whole process could be completed according to the schedule.
Blockworks Research is voting FOR this proposal.
Seeing as though Synthetix and Pyth both came to the DAO earlier, we believe this behavior should be merited to some degree. While it wasn’t as early as we all would’ve liked it shows initiative and honesty which is paramount in a decentralized workspace with limited accountability. The deadline for the program was September 2nd, 2024, and seeing as though Synthetix and Pyth posted these extensions prior to the deadline we believe that this warrants some leniency. The DAO should reward rational process, not punish it. LTIPP deemed itself incapable of granting extensions to incentives, rationally so, and thus the reasonable course of action was for Synthetix to propose directly to the DAO.
We can vouch for Synthetix in that they are actively shipping new products. They launched perps trading for Base in April. On June 18th they opened liquidity provision for their Arbitrum pools. These are not bare bones integrations either -- Synthetix is attempting to have experimental assets as collateral for their pools as well, which makes for tricky risk management. Then there’s the added governance process of voting to add additional oracles, etc for Arbitrum’s deployment specifically.
We understand @JoJo's perspective that this proposal, like others, could come across as somewhat reactionary and an attempt to navigate through the incentive reduction with the remaining grant funds. However, it's important to highlight that proper process was followed earlier, and there is a time-sensitive aspect to the incentives that should be considered.
Now, it may be rational to ask Synthetix to lower the amount retained and set some precedence similar to Pyth. This would help maintain alignment with Pyth's similar request and fairness overall.
In favour of the proposal, I see the important points mentioned here: the Arbitrum Multi-Collateral Perpetual Contracts release will use USDx (our Arbitrum native stablecoin) as the perpetual contracts margin, as well as tBTC, ETH, SOL (via wormholes), and stablecoins (USDe). This will allow users to utilise their existing assets, adopt new trading strategies and ensure a smooth entry into the perpetual contract system. It looks complex and offers a different perspective on the arb ecosystem.
I think Pyth is trying to find a middle ground with their extension request of a lower value, not all the remaing ARB of the grant. Is it possible to consider doing something similar?
Thank you for this detailed feedback.
I am, unfortunately, voting against this and all the other extention requests in Arbitrum. 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.
Thank you for this detailed feedback.
I am, unfortunately, voting against this and all the other extention requests in Arbitrum. 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.
But I also want to add a few things. I really feel you about first, the excitement of participating to this program, and then the constant small delays of integrations and tech development that turn out to be eating more and more week over week on the timeline, up to the point you had to come here to ask for this extention; I have seen this happening, and even in the protocols i work for we had to take hard and complex decisions due to delay of partners' integrations. As you already partially mentioned most of the issue would be addressed by a longer program, in which of course we need to embed a process for these and other similar situations: if you have 1 year, and you need to skip the first three months for technical issue, you will still have a way in.
Finally, i want to commend the effort the synthetix team made to come to arbitrum. You decided to go for a specific push in our chain, with an ad-hoc application and obviously a lot of work behind it, on a product level, strategic level and marketing level, and what did happen is indeed unfortunate but also something quite common in the tech world. For this reason, in the next program, I will be one your stronger supporter fwiw.
understand your situation and would appreciate it if you could provide us with some information to assist us in our decision-making.
Are there any details about your new product, including documentation, a demo version, or images of your Perp DEX and native stablecoins?
I abstain because while the extension seems beneficial, it introduces concerns about fairness to other protocols without similar opportunities. The lack of a streamlined process for handling delays makes it difficult to confidently support this specific request.
Voting FOR this proposal on Snapshot. As an early Synthetix user/spartan, I've seen it grow into a DeFi powerhouse with real usage. Perps on Arbitrum are a big deal, boosting trading options and liquidity. This 8-week extension makes sense as it aligns with the launch of Multi-Collateral Perps. SNX is key to Arbitrum's DeFi scene, and keeping up the momentum with these rebates is a net-positive for the ecosystem.
Similar to Pyth, Synthetix has performed well in the LTIPP, benefiting both the protocol itself and the Arbitrum network significantly. Initially, I had some reservations about the 900,000 ARB budget request, as it's not a small amount, especially since I firmly believe in the principle of achieving more with less. However, I later learned that the LTIPP had already allocated a 2 million ARB budget for Synthetix, and this proposal is merely requesting the remaining unspent portion. With that understanding, I no longer have any objections, and I support this proposal.
Sorry for not jumping in the conversation earlier, but I would like to leave a comment, as I will vote analysing each specific extension request:
When applying for the program, everyone knew that the sprint was short (as it was a pilot for a long duration program). In your particular case, it seems that it was a development delay (it happens all the time) that prevented the full utilization of the grant.
Sorry for not jumping in the conversation earlier, but I would like to leave a comment, as I will vote analysing each specific extension request:
When applying for the program, everyone knew that the sprint was short (as it was a pilot for a long duration program). In your particular case, it seems that it was a development delay (it happens all the time) that prevented the full utilization of the grant.
However, you guys distributed over 1m ARB in this period, and the request for the extension, like it was already pointed out, will come in a period with no other incentives program.
It would be wonderful to match a new release with an incentive program, but this situation seems not fair to other protocols that don't have the opportunity to match these extra incentives in this period.
We’re pleased with the level of communication that’s been displayed by Synthetix, and candidly Synthetix reached out to Blockworks prior to notify us of a potential delay.
For reference, we would like to know if there is anything we or the DAO itself can do to better prepare protocols for possible delays. What could be a possible communication channel to relay delays better? Additionally, maybe we should grant power by the committee at large to decide on delay extensions to prevent too much DAO overhead (as we have seen about 5 different extension proposals hit the forums). Preferably this process is streamlined for the future so there is less decision-fatigue on the DAO's part.
Seeing that the main aim is to align the deployment of the remaining grant funding with the release of the main product. Deferred for 2 months. Transparency would be nice and I hope you guys can do a better job
Tough situation: First, the grant was given a specific time frame. Second, you will have a competitive advantage because everyone else will run out of grant money.
