The STIP Operational team provided expert advice with many learnings.
Overall Work Done: 50+ applicants over 5 months with 36 incentive distributions. While 36M ARB was allocated only 27.64M ARB was used. In the bridge, each advisor was assigned about 20 protocols during the application phase and followed around 12 protocols each through the entire five-month program.
Additionally, the greeted DAO community already agreed to this amount with the STIP Bridge. All necessary funds already approved and in multisig: These funds are already stored in the multisig, ready to be distributed once the below Snapshot passes. No additional funds beyond the already approved amount are needed to pay the total operational budget.
As the work has already been completed this is necessary we should make sure our contributors and community members are fairly compensated.
list of protocols funded https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/start-of-stip-b-streams-and-timeline-of-incentives/25014
bi-weekly updates of protocols funded: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/c/dao-grant-programs/biweekly-updates-stip/22
Advisors will work for five months, will be responsible for approximately 20 protocols each, and will:
34.3K ARB - Matthew Stein, Stable Labs
5000 ARB to Alex Lumley
2500 ARB total, 500 ARB / Multisigner
All the above steps should be completed in 2-4 weeks.
Note that the STIP Bridge program will run from April to September, with key milestones including protocol evaluations, mid-program reviews, and final reports.
The STIP Operational team provided expert advice with many learnings.
Overall Work Done: 50+ applicants over 5 months with 36 incentive distributions. While 36M ARB was allocated only 27.64M ARB was used. In the bridge, each advisor was assigned about 20 protocols during the application phase and followed around 12 protocols each through the entire five-month program.
Additionally, the greeted DAO community already agreed to this amount with the STIP Bridge. All necessary funds already approved and in multisig: These funds are already stored in the multisig, ready to be distributed once the below Snapshot passes. No additional funds beyond the already approved amount are needed to pay the total operational budget.
As the work has already been completed this is necessary we should make sure our contributors and community members are fairly compensated.
list of protocols funded https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/start-of-stip-b-streams-and-timeline-of-incentives/25014
bi-weekly updates of protocols funded: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/c/dao-grant-programs/biweekly-updates-stip/22
Advisors will work for five months, will be responsible for approximately 20 protocols each, and will:
34.3K ARB - Matthew Stein, Stable Labs
5000 ARB to Alex Lumley
2500 ARB total, 500 ARB / Multisigner
All the above steps should be completed in 2-4 weeks.
Note that the STIP Bridge program will run from April to September, with key milestones including protocol evaluations, mid-program reviews, and final reports.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489/34?u=maxlomu
As the proposer of this vote I am voting abstain on this. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489/33?u=alex
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489/31?u=winverse
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489/34?u=maxlomu
As the proposer of this vote I am voting abstain on this. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489/33?u=alex
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489/31?u=winverse
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489/29?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489/28?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/seed-latam-delegate-communication-thread/13895/47?u=seedgov
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489/26
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489/23?u=euphoria
For! The work has been done well, the budget is detailed and reasonable.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489/22
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489/19?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/27?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489/16?u=blockworksresearch
As a delegate, it is common to see their proposals and recommendations, and the STIP operations team provides a wealth of experience and exp
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489/12?u=jojo
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489/11?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489/9?u=0xdonpepe
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489/29?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489/28?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/seed-latam-delegate-communication-thread/13895/47?u=seedgov
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489/26
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489/23?u=euphoria
For! The work has been done well, the budget is detailed and reasonable.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489/22
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489/19?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/27?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489/16?u=blockworksresearch
As a delegate, it is common to see their proposals and recommendations, and the STIP operations team provides a wealth of experience and exp
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489/12?u=jojo
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489/11?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489/9?u=0xdonpepe
Seems reasonable given the duties performed over the time period.
The details in the post are appreciated, given that the funds are already allocated under the multisig.
Pass.
Seems reasonable given the duties performed over the time period.
The details in the post are appreciated, given that the funds are already allocated under the multisig.
Pass.
The results are in for the STIP-Bridge Operational Budget off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1127
The results are in for the STIP-Bridge Operational Budget off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1127
Sorry for belated response.
Before we start, we want to thank you for submitting this proposal. The tasks and costs are clearly laid out. Since the work is already completed and no additional funding is being requested, we voted "FOR" this proposal with confidence.
gm, voting FOR. I wasn't supportive of the STIP-Bridge proposal but recognizing the value of the work provided by the coordinators and advisors.
Voted in favour, funds have already been spent.
Voted FOR. This work was not on the original scope for the LTIP members, and the additional payment is totally justified.
As the proposer of this vote I am voting abstain on this.
Just noting that I also did not add my Commenting on Rationale because I was the author of the proposal.
Voted in favour to this proposal - on-chain vote had already passed and activities already carried out.
Sorry for belated response.
Before we start, we want to thank you for submitting this proposal. The tasks and costs are clearly laid out. Since the work is already completed and no additional funding is being requested, we voted "FOR" this proposal with confidence.
gm, voting FOR. I wasn't supportive of the STIP-Bridge proposal but recognizing the value of the work provided by the coordinators and advisors.
Voted in favour, funds have already been spent.
Voted FOR. This work was not on the original scope for the LTIP members, and the additional payment is totally justified.
As the proposer of this vote I am voting abstain on this.
Just noting that I also did not add my Commenting on Rationale because I was the author of the proposal.
Voted in favour to this proposal - on-chain vote had already passed and activities already carried out.
I’m voting FOR this proposal
It guarantees fair compensation for everyone involved in the STIP Bridge program. The necessary funds have already been approved, so this proposal isn’t requesting additional money; it’s simply about compensating those who contributed to its success.
We vote For the proposal on Snapshot.
The budget was already approved and the distributions of it proposed by Alex makes sense, thus no reason to be against it. We appreciate all the contributors who are experienced in the process of LTIPP and other initiatives are compensated for their work for STIP-Bridge operations.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Given our financial involvement in the proposal, our policy in such cases is to abstain, as we believe this approach is both morally and ethically correct.
The details in the post are great communication and we appreciate the members putting this on the forums for our attention. On behalf of the UADP, we are fully in support of this and see no reason or issues as to why this should be turned down. If anything, are votes like this needed? or more of a "hats off" to the DAO.
I am in favor of the proposal. I have joined their dedicated Discord Channel to learn about and monitor the consulting process, as well as the feedback provided by advisors, including @SEEDGov, @JoJo, and @CastleCapital. The requested amount is fair.
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 vote in favour of this proposal.
The work done by the advisors was really helpful in making the process smooth and efficient. The Program Manager did a great job in coordinating everything, which kept things on track.
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 vote in favour of this proposal.
The work done by the advisors was really helpful in making the process smooth and efficient. The Program Manager did a great job in coordinating everything, which kept things on track.
Since the funds were already approved, it's easy to vote in favor of this proposal.
I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage on Snapshot. The budget is reasonable relative to the work involved. In the future, funding for operations associated with a proposal should be included and approved in the original proposal. This should not require a follow-up vote after the work is completed.
For! The work has been done well, the budget is detailed and reasonable.
No complaints. There doesn't seem to be much if any concerns and we share that view. We are a little confused as to why this even has to go to a vote. The budget was preapproved, and it seems the changes are incredibly minute. Are we able to just move forward as pre approved in the future without this extra governance redundancy?
DAOplomats is voting in favor on Snapshot.
This compensation is for work already completed and with the budget already approved during the onchain vote, we see no reason not to go ahead with this.
This point will likely go, among others, into the new incentive program group, but compensation for contributors should be likely redesigned a bit:
Voted FOR: Because the proposal and its budget already been approved I support this proposal without and comments. The team working on it did their job well and I feel they need to be compensated fairly.
We support this proposal as it fairly compensates the contributors for their work on the STIP Bridge program. The budget seems reasonable, given the scope of the work. As @BlockworksResearch mentioned, we also would like to see a brief overview of any key takeaways or improvements identified during the program's execution. Thank you.
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 are voting FOR this 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 are voting FOR this proposal.
Even though we abstained from the STIP Bridge proposal on Tally, we understand that this vote is about the use of funds that were earmarked for the operational expenses of the STIP Bridge proposal, which passed the onchain vote successfully. As a result, and given that the responsibilities outlined in the original STIP Bridge proposal were carried out, we’re voting in favor of the Snapshot to utilize the funds for the operational expenses.
As one of the contributors to the STIP, I am voting "abstain". While the current COI policy approved and voted by the DAO doesn't necessarily stop people to vote for themself, in a situation like this it makes sense to do so regardless, hoping that the DAO does indeed find valuable the contribution that me, @SEEDGov, @CastleCapital, @Matt_StableLab and @AlexLumley gave to this initiative.
I'm voting in favor of this proposal. It makes sense to me to distribute the 100k ARB to those who were involved in the STIP Bridge program. It's completely normal to reward them for the work they did!
I think it's pretty fair that the experts who help the protocols get paid.
The pay seems low to me, although I don't know the exact hours.
Work was done, no reason not to pay. Voting "For"
We are voting in favor of the 'STIP Bridge Operational Budget' proposal. The details are clear, and we’ve already discussed and approved the funds, so we support this to ensure the continued operation and enhancement of the STIP Bridge.
This makes sense to me; I'm surprised this didn't get brought forward earlier since its been over 6 months since the STIP-Bridge now. I did a quick read of the original proposal and there was no mention of payment for these members.
In that case, I am in support of this. Should @Matt_StableLab payment be higher? It seems quite low right now IMO
I’m voting FOR this proposal
It guarantees fair compensation for everyone involved in the STIP Bridge program. The necessary funds have already been approved, so this proposal isn’t requesting additional money; it’s simply about compensating those who contributed to its success.
We vote For the proposal on Snapshot.
The budget was already approved and the distributions of it proposed by Alex makes sense, thus no reason to be against it. We appreciate all the contributors who are experienced in the process of LTIPP and other initiatives are compensated for their work for STIP-Bridge operations.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “ABSTAIN” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Given our financial involvement in the proposal, our policy in such cases is to abstain, as we believe this approach is both morally and ethically correct.
The details in the post are great communication and we appreciate the members putting this on the forums for our attention. On behalf of the UADP, we are fully in support of this and see no reason or issues as to why this should be turned down. If anything, are votes like this needed? or more of a "hats off" to the DAO.
I am in favor of the proposal. I have joined their dedicated Discord Channel to learn about and monitor the consulting process, as well as the feedback provided by advisors, including @SEEDGov, @JoJo, and @CastleCapital. The requested amount is fair.
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 vote in favour of this proposal.
The work done by the advisors was really helpful in making the process smooth and efficient. The Program Manager did a great job in coordinating everything, which kept things on track.
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 vote in favour of this proposal.
The work done by the advisors was really helpful in making the process smooth and efficient. The Program Manager did a great job in coordinating everything, which kept things on track.
Since the funds were already approved, it's easy to vote in favor of this proposal.
I voted FOR this proposal at the temp check stage on Snapshot. The budget is reasonable relative to the work involved. In the future, funding for operations associated with a proposal should be included and approved in the original proposal. This should not require a follow-up vote after the work is completed.
For! The work has been done well, the budget is detailed and reasonable.
No complaints. There doesn't seem to be much if any concerns and we share that view. We are a little confused as to why this even has to go to a vote. The budget was preapproved, and it seems the changes are incredibly minute. Are we able to just move forward as pre approved in the future without this extra governance redundancy?
DAOplomats is voting in favor on Snapshot.
This compensation is for work already completed and with the budget already approved during the onchain vote, we see no reason not to go ahead with this.
This point will likely go, among others, into the new incentive program group, but compensation for contributors should be likely redesigned a bit:
Voted FOR: Because the proposal and its budget already been approved I support this proposal without and comments. The team working on it did their job well and I feel they need to be compensated fairly.
We support this proposal as it fairly compensates the contributors for their work on the STIP Bridge program. The budget seems reasonable, given the scope of the work. As @BlockworksResearch mentioned, we also would like to see a brief overview of any key takeaways or improvements identified during the program's execution. Thank you.
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 are voting FOR this 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 are voting FOR this proposal.
Even though we abstained from the STIP Bridge proposal on Tally, we understand that this vote is about the use of funds that were earmarked for the operational expenses of the STIP Bridge proposal, which passed the onchain vote successfully. As a result, and given that the responsibilities outlined in the original STIP Bridge proposal were carried out, we’re voting in favor of the Snapshot to utilize the funds for the operational expenses.
As one of the contributors to the STIP, I am voting "abstain". While the current COI policy approved and voted by the DAO doesn't necessarily stop people to vote for themself, in a situation like this it makes sense to do so regardless, hoping that the DAO does indeed find valuable the contribution that me, @SEEDGov, @CastleCapital, @Matt_StableLab and @AlexLumley gave to this initiative.
I'm voting in favor of this proposal. It makes sense to me to distribute the 100k ARB to those who were involved in the STIP Bridge program. It's completely normal to reward them for the work they did!
I think it's pretty fair that the experts who help the protocols get paid.
The pay seems low to me, although I don't know the exact hours.
Work was done, no reason not to pay. Voting "For"
We are voting in favor of the 'STIP Bridge Operational Budget' proposal. The details are clear, and we’ve already discussed and approved the funds, so we support this to ensure the continued operation and enhancement of the STIP Bridge.
This makes sense to me; I'm surprised this didn't get brought forward earlier since its been over 6 months since the STIP-Bridge now. I did a quick read of the original proposal and there was no mention of payment for these members.
In that case, I am in support of this. Should @Matt_StableLab payment be higher? It seems quite low right now IMO
This point will likely go, among others, into the new incentive program group, but compensation for contributors should be likely redesigned a bit:
While we should definitely align contributors to the dao's success, it's difficult to attract professional figures, and also make the current contributors stick around, if we don't find a way to have more predictability in payments.
Not too much to add to what was posted. Me, seedlatam, castlecap and Matt all jumped into stip.b trying to tackle the initial feedback of delegates, which at the time was: why we should replicate stip if we have had a better structure/experience with ltipp? Obviously the bridge wasn't possible to be fully adapted as ltipp was, but the idea at the time was still to guide and help protocols through advisoring that, while not strictly necessary for a vote and so not mandatory, were still provided.
I am glad to say that most protocols to which I chatted later said that there was a big difference in the overall experience between stip/stip backfdund and stip bridge, due to having "someone" to talk to to go more in depth regarding numbers, incentive mechanisms and other nuances that in previous rounds were not easy to dissect and discuss.
@AlexLumley one point of process is that the format of this proposal combines and changes the order of the subsections in the normal template of a proposal.
The Abstract and Specifications sections talk about funds, rather than explaining the high level purpose of the proposal, then the Overal Costs section has a graphic and no costs in it. I find piecing together and making sense of this hard on the reader.
@AlexLumley one point of process is that the format of this proposal combines and changes the order of the subsections in the normal template of a proposal.
The Abstract and Specifications sections talk about funds, rather than explaining the high level purpose of the proposal, then the Overal Costs section has a graphic and no costs in it. I find piecing together and making sense of this hard on the reader.
I am still unclear the final amount being asked for as the amounts in the abstract table are expressing a range, and there is not a final Total figure clearly expressing what's being asked for.
Would you be open to sharpening up the formatting of this proposal?
We are voting in favor of this proposal on Snapshot, as the necessary funds were already pre-approved and discussed prior. As the completion of the program has been achieved and the work fulfilled, it makes sense to pay the operators that took on the effort. Although, we are curious to know if there were any operational takeaways from the STIP.b management that you would be willing to share.
Firstly, thank you, @AlexLumley, for taking the lead on this.
From SEEDGov, we don’t have much more to add beyond what @JoJo and @CastleCapital have already stated. However, we would like to highlight that, in our role as STIP.b advisors, we have made efforts to provide maximum transparency throughout the process of assisting each applicant.
Firstly, thank you, @AlexLumley, for taking the lead on this.
From SEEDGov, we don’t have much more to add beyond what @JoJo and @CastleCapital have already stated. However, we would like to highlight that, in our role as STIP.b advisors, we have made efforts to provide maximum transparency throughout the process of assisting each applicant.
This approach involved, among other things, publicly sharing feedback in the forum for each protocol under our advisory and ensuring easy access to information for the broader DAO community.
In terms of the overall experience, we have received positive feedback regarding the benefits of having advisors' support, particularly when compared to the first STIP.
Fairly clear budget reporting
Voted FOR, a lot of work was put into the proposal and execution of the program.
I would argue that this is underfunding those that have contributed to the impact, thank you for all the hard work!
was added on tally and was quite generic: at the time we were in the place in which there was first the necessity of spinning up the initiative and iron out detail for compensation later.
I won't specifically say if payment for a single member is too high or too low; what has happened tho, is that at the time arb was valued i think around 1.15$, and this means that (unfortunately) the overall notional dollar amount for payments has slashed in half across the board. All payments for all members compared to the tasks and jobs achieved are quite low imho, but #itiswhatitis
Castle Capital was one of the STIP.b Advisors — this role was expanded based on the previous contributions as Advisors for the LTIPP program to support protocols with their STIP.b applications. This encompassed reflecting on STIP impact, setting realistic KPIs, and sparring on the incentive mechanisms and distribution of funds.
Each advisor was assigned about 20 protocols during the application phase and followed around 12 protocols each throughout the entire five-month program.
Castle Capital was one of the STIP.b Advisors — this role was expanded based on the previous contributions as Advisors for the LTIPP program to support protocols with their STIP.b applications. This encompassed reflecting on STIP impact, setting realistic KPIs, and sparring on the incentive mechanisms and distribution of funds.
Each advisor was assigned about 20 protocols during the application phase and followed around 12 protocols each throughout the entire five-month program.
During the initial STIP, protocols had no established actor helping them throughout the application, resulting in cumbersome processes, delays, and a higher degree of proposals being incomplete or insufficient to move forward.
Part of our STIP.b evaluation included studying previous results from STIP, which provided us (and the protocols) with a better understanding of what worked or did not from previous incentive campaigns. Protocols also had to follow an application template where they themselves were asked to provide their feedback on STIP, which will be invaluable for the development of future incentive programs and whether they would change their distribution strategy from STIP.
Based on this, we’d evaluate the Addendum and provide feedback on what worked and what should be changed based on the reports provided.
Castle Capital has continued supporting protocols throughout the distribution of the incentives, working as point of contact for general support and helping them in case of desired changes to their mechanism of distribution.
As part of our role, we received positive feedback on our contribution from protocols involved in this program, stating that our support has been instrumental in preparing and submitting a complete application and securing the grant.
Thanks to the combined efforts of all the advisors, over 39 protocols successfully received funds.
I'm voting 'FOR' this proposal because it ensures everyone involved in the STIP Bridge program gets fairly compensated for their hard work. The funds are already approved, so there's no extra ask—just paying the folks who made it happen.
This point will likely go, among others, into the new incentive program group, but compensation for contributors should be likely redesigned a bit:
While we should definitely align contributors to the dao's success, it's difficult to attract professional figures, and also make the current contributors stick around, if we don't find a way to have more predictability in payments.
Not too much to add to what was posted. Me, seedlatam, castlecap and Matt all jumped into stip.b trying to tackle the initial feedback of delegates, which at the time was: why we should replicate stip if we have had a better structure/experience with ltipp? Obviously the bridge wasn't possible to be fully adapted as ltipp was, but the idea at the time was still to guide and help protocols through advisoring that, while not strictly necessary for a vote and so not mandatory, were still provided.
I am glad to say that most protocols to which I chatted later said that there was a big difference in the overall experience between stip/stip backfdund and stip bridge, due to having "someone" to talk to to go more in depth regarding numbers, incentive mechanisms and other nuances that in previous rounds were not easy to dissect and discuss.
@AlexLumley one point of process is that the format of this proposal combines and changes the order of the subsections in the normal template of a proposal.
The Abstract and Specifications sections talk about funds, rather than explaining the high level purpose of the proposal, then the Overal Costs section has a graphic and no costs in it. I find piecing together and making sense of this hard on the reader.
@AlexLumley one point of process is that the format of this proposal combines and changes the order of the subsections in the normal template of a proposal.
The Abstract and Specifications sections talk about funds, rather than explaining the high level purpose of the proposal, then the Overal Costs section has a graphic and no costs in it. I find piecing together and making sense of this hard on the reader.
I am still unclear the final amount being asked for as the amounts in the abstract table are expressing a range, and there is not a final Total figure clearly expressing what's being asked for.
Would you be open to sharpening up the formatting of this proposal?
We are voting in favor of this proposal on Snapshot, as the necessary funds were already pre-approved and discussed prior. As the completion of the program has been achieved and the work fulfilled, it makes sense to pay the operators that took on the effort. Although, we are curious to know if there were any operational takeaways from the STIP.b management that you would be willing to share.
Firstly, thank you, @AlexLumley, for taking the lead on this.
From SEEDGov, we don’t have much more to add beyond what @JoJo and @CastleCapital have already stated. However, we would like to highlight that, in our role as STIP.b advisors, we have made efforts to provide maximum transparency throughout the process of assisting each applicant.
Firstly, thank you, @AlexLumley, for taking the lead on this.
From SEEDGov, we don’t have much more to add beyond what @JoJo and @CastleCapital have already stated. However, we would like to highlight that, in our role as STIP.b advisors, we have made efforts to provide maximum transparency throughout the process of assisting each applicant.
This approach involved, among other things, publicly sharing feedback in the forum for each protocol under our advisory and ensuring easy access to information for the broader DAO community.
In terms of the overall experience, we have received positive feedback regarding the benefits of having advisors' support, particularly when compared to the first STIP.
Fairly clear budget reporting
Voted FOR, a lot of work was put into the proposal and execution of the program.
I would argue that this is underfunding those that have contributed to the impact, thank you for all the hard work!
was added on tally and was quite generic: at the time we were in the place in which there was first the necessity of spinning up the initiative and iron out detail for compensation later.
I won't specifically say if payment for a single member is too high or too low; what has happened tho, is that at the time arb was valued i think around 1.15$, and this means that (unfortunately) the overall notional dollar amount for payments has slashed in half across the board. All payments for all members compared to the tasks and jobs achieved are quite low imho, but #itiswhatitis
Castle Capital was one of the STIP.b Advisors — this role was expanded based on the previous contributions as Advisors for the LTIPP program to support protocols with their STIP.b applications. This encompassed reflecting on STIP impact, setting realistic KPIs, and sparring on the incentive mechanisms and distribution of funds.
Each advisor was assigned about 20 protocols during the application phase and followed around 12 protocols each throughout the entire five-month program.
Castle Capital was one of the STIP.b Advisors — this role was expanded based on the previous contributions as Advisors for the LTIPP program to support protocols with their STIP.b applications. This encompassed reflecting on STIP impact, setting realistic KPIs, and sparring on the incentive mechanisms and distribution of funds.
Each advisor was assigned about 20 protocols during the application phase and followed around 12 protocols each throughout the entire five-month program.
During the initial STIP, protocols had no established actor helping them throughout the application, resulting in cumbersome processes, delays, and a higher degree of proposals being incomplete or insufficient to move forward.
Part of our STIP.b evaluation included studying previous results from STIP, which provided us (and the protocols) with a better understanding of what worked or did not from previous incentive campaigns. Protocols also had to follow an application template where they themselves were asked to provide their feedback on STIP, which will be invaluable for the development of future incentive programs and whether they would change their distribution strategy from STIP.
Based on this, we’d evaluate the Addendum and provide feedback on what worked and what should be changed based on the reports provided.
Castle Capital has continued supporting protocols throughout the distribution of the incentives, working as point of contact for general support and helping them in case of desired changes to their mechanism of distribution.
As part of our role, we received positive feedback on our contribution from protocols involved in this program, stating that our support has been instrumental in preparing and submitting a complete application and securing the grant.
Thanks to the combined efforts of all the advisors, over 39 protocols successfully received funds.
I'm voting 'FOR' this proposal because it ensures everyone involved in the STIP Bridge program gets fairly compensated for their hard work. The funds are already approved, so there's no extra ask—just paying the folks who made it happen.
