Aave DAO request an extension for its LTIPP Grant, in order to be able to distribute the remaining ARB.
This extension will run from September 2nd 2024 until 2nd November 2024, ensuring Aave DAO has enough time to distribute the allocated ARB without negatively impacting users.
Aave DAO was granted a total of 750K ARB, as part of the LTIPP Grant.
Around 375K ARB have been distributed through GHO liquidity Pools, and the remaining were to be distributed through LM on Aave Protocol. These emission programs are in place to be implemented, but need additional time to distribute ARB at reasonable reward rates.
Due to some internal delay in launching GHO Safety Module and GHO Bridge, rewards for LM on Aave Protocol started later than expected, causing a delay in time and not being able to spend the amount allocated for ARB as planned.
The currently implemented program has seen amazing success with over 5 million GHO bridged to Arbitrum that represents net new TVL for the ecosystem. Aave DAO plans to continue our incentive matching program with Merit once ARB incentives are fully utilized.
However, due to the deplayed deployment in launching GHO Safety Module and GHO Bridge, rewards for LM on Aave Protocol started later than expected, causing a delay in time and not being able to spend that amount ARB as planned.
As a result, Aave DAO has not utilized the total amount of 375K ARB from the proposal earmarked for GHO deposit incentives and would like to seek an extension to avoid undue miscommunication and missed rewards for Arbitrum users. The distributed ARB will still retain a 3 month schedule from (the delayed) GHO deployment, in line with the initial program goals to do short term incentive programs.
The extension will utilize the remaining ARB tokens from our original proposal for LM on Aave Protocol.
The extension utilizes the remaining ARB tokens from the originally approved 750K ARB grant. Over the 8 week period, this amount will be fully distributed as per our original LTIP grant.
No additional funds are being requested beyond the original grant allocation.
Aave DAO request an extension for its LTIPP Grant, in order to be able to distribute the remaining ARB.
This extension will run from September 2nd 2024 until 2nd November 2024, ensuring Aave DAO has enough time to distribute the allocated ARB without negatively impacting users.
Aave DAO was granted a total of 750K ARB, as part of the LTIPP Grant.
Around 375K ARB have been distributed through GHO liquidity Pools, and the remaining were to be distributed through LM on Aave Protocol. These emission programs are in place to be implemented, but need additional time to distribute ARB at reasonable reward rates.
Due to some internal delay in launching GHO Safety Module and GHO Bridge, rewards for LM on Aave Protocol started later than expected, causing a delay in time and not being able to spend the amount allocated for ARB as planned.
The currently implemented program has seen amazing success with over 5 million GHO bridged to Arbitrum that represents net new TVL for the ecosystem. Aave DAO plans to continue our incentive matching program with Merit once ARB incentives are fully utilized.
However, due to the deplayed deployment in launching GHO Safety Module and GHO Bridge, rewards for LM on Aave Protocol started later than expected, causing a delay in time and not being able to spend that amount ARB as planned.
As a result, Aave DAO has not utilized the total amount of 375K ARB from the proposal earmarked for GHO deposit incentives and would like to seek an extension to avoid undue miscommunication and missed rewards for Arbitrum users. The distributed ARB will still retain a 3 month schedule from (the delayed) GHO deployment, in line with the initial program goals to do short term incentive programs.
The extension will utilize the remaining ARB tokens from our original proposal for LM on Aave Protocol.
The extension utilizes the remaining ARB tokens from the originally approved 750K ARB grant. Over the 8 week period, this amount will be fully distributed as per our original LTIP grant.
No additional funds are being requested beyond the original grant allocation.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/9?u=castlecapital
same reason for disapproving other projects extensions
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/36
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/35?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/9?u=castlecapital
same reason for disapproving other projects extensions
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/36
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/35?u=ocandocrypto
Since incentives detox has been passed, it is not necessary for the extension.
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/seed-latam-delegate-communication-thread/13895/47?u=seedgov
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/32?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/13?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/30?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/31
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/30?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/28
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/25?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/24?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/5?u=0xdonpepe
Abstaining as an LTIPP Council Member
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/19?u=duokongcrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/18?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
Aave is key DeFi infrastructure. Reasoning for extension is valid. Data gathering reasons for incentive detox are less important.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/15?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/14?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/11?u=jojo
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/10?u=mcfly
Since incentives detox has been passed, it is not necessary for the extension.
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/seed-latam-delegate-communication-thread/13895/47?u=seedgov
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/32?u=tane
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/13?u=blockworksresearch
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/30?u=euphoria
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/31
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/griff-green-delegate-communication-thread/25040/30?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/28
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/25?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/24?u=0x_ultra
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/5?u=0xdonpepe
Abstaining as an LTIPP Council Member
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/19?u=duokongcrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/18?u=0xtalvo.eth_mty
Aave is key DeFi infrastructure. Reasoning for extension is valid. Data gathering reasons for incentive detox are less important.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/15?u=ezr3al
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/14?u=larva
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/11?u=jojo
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-aave-dao-ltipp-grant-extension-request/26612/10?u=mcfly
The ACI on behalf of the Aave DAO acknowledge Arbitrum DAO decision and will sent back unspent funds to provided wallet.
The ACI on behalf of the Aave DAO acknowledge Arbitrum DAO decision and will sent back unspent funds to provided wallet.
Today alone:
DeltaPrime has returned unused ARB: https://arbiscan.io/tx/0x68c1e3a8b21df69e7025c1038953f684ee6fd286e026168e16b14ebd78700e12
Buffer Finance has returned unused ARB: https://arbiscan.io/tx/0x7df7da678c953c54f0ed7819382135126868dc2599075b57e05c663d5720c5dc
Gearbox has returned unused ARB: https://arbiscan.io/tx/0xc454794676c82a9964dc485c4b84cef67448f42c55580ce86788df1422444ac6
Today alone:
DeltaPrime has returned unused ARB: https://arbiscan.io/tx/0x68c1e3a8b21df69e7025c1038953f684ee6fd286e026168e16b14ebd78700e12
Buffer Finance has returned unused ARB: https://arbiscan.io/tx/0x7df7da678c953c54f0ed7819382135126868dc2599075b57e05c663d5720c5dc
Gearbox has returned unused ARB: https://arbiscan.io/tx/0xc454794676c82a9964dc485c4b84cef67448f42c55580ce86788df1422444ac6
HOP has returned all unused ARB: https://arbiscan.io/tx/0xd5a5b53a179457d8ac25c7fcb7daee9f099c6ec85c83ae15b1611a33aba70d4d
Index Coop returning all unused ARB: https://arbiscan.io/tx/0xcc36427ea2d67efba62ab323f4889721958f8bc5ae8a0d9d2becb17ff71a4498
Formally and fully against any extension. Aave has had months to figure this out - they provided milestones with set weeks and must stick to them. Why would they get special treatment, when every other project stuck to the deadline and will be returning the excess funds?
Gm, gm :sparkles:
The results are in for the [Aave DAO] LTIPP Grant Extension Request off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1370
Today alone:
DeltaPrime has returned unused ARB: https://arbiscan.io/tx/0x68c1e3a8b21df69e7025c1038953f684ee6fd286e026168e16b14ebd78700e12
Buffer Finance has returned unused ARB: https://arbiscan.io/tx/0x7df7da678c953c54f0ed7819382135126868dc2599075b57e05c663d5720c5dc
Gearbox has returned unused ARB: https://arbiscan.io/tx/0xc454794676c82a9964dc485c4b84cef67448f42c55580ce86788df1422444ac6
Today alone:
DeltaPrime has returned unused ARB: https://arbiscan.io/tx/0x68c1e3a8b21df69e7025c1038953f684ee6fd286e026168e16b14ebd78700e12
Buffer Finance has returned unused ARB: https://arbiscan.io/tx/0x7df7da678c953c54f0ed7819382135126868dc2599075b57e05c663d5720c5dc
Gearbox has returned unused ARB: https://arbiscan.io/tx/0xc454794676c82a9964dc485c4b84cef67448f42c55580ce86788df1422444ac6
HOP has returned all unused ARB: https://arbiscan.io/tx/0xd5a5b53a179457d8ac25c7fcb7daee9f099c6ec85c83ae15b1611a33aba70d4d
Index Coop returning all unused ARB: https://arbiscan.io/tx/0xcc36427ea2d67efba62ab323f4889721958f8bc5ae8a0d9d2becb17ff71a4498
Formally and fully against any extension. Aave has had months to figure this out - they provided milestones with set weeks and must stick to them. Why would they get special treatment, when every other project stuck to the deadline and will be returning the excess funds?
Gm, gm :sparkles:
The results are in for the [Aave DAO] LTIPP Grant Extension Request off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1370
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 .
DAOplomats voted against this proposal on Snapshot.
We voted against this proposal for the same reasons we didn't support Pyth and Synthetix.
I support this proposal as it involves no additional cost and simply extends the timeline to complete the distribution of ARB as originally planned. It ensures the grant is fully utilized without any extra expense.
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 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 .
DAOplomats voted against this proposal on Snapshot.
We voted against this proposal for the same reasons we didn't support Pyth and Synthetix.
I support this proposal as it involves no additional cost and simply extends the timeline to complete the distribution of ARB as originally planned. It ensures the grant is fully utilized without any extra expense.
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.
Voted Abstain - While Aave is a strong protocol, it should take very robust reasoning to extend for a single project while others do not get the same opportunity. That being said, if Aave could have presented more significant reasoning, there may be room to wiggle.
Vote: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> Aave DAO LTIPP Grant Extension Request
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/20
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
Vote: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> Aave DAO LTIPP Grant Extension Request
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/20
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
While we understand the concerns raised about fairness and adherence to the Incentives Detox, Aave’s delay was due to technical challenges with the GHO and CCIP. Extending the LTIPP program allows Aave to fully utilize the ARB that has already been allocated without requesting additional funds. However, moving forward, clearer contingency plans for delays should be in place to avoid setting a precedent for extensions and to ensure consistent treatment for all protocols. This extension will help Aave continue contributing to Arbitrum’s growth, which is critical for long-term ecosystem success.
we will voting against as the Detox proposal just passed
I mentioned this before when related it to LTIPP proposals, but I’ll be voting against it as I’m following a DAO detox.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Unfortunately, while we understand the reasons for the delay, we share several concerns with the other delegates that prevent us from supporting these requests:
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Unfortunately, while we understand the reasons for the delay, we share several concerns with the other delegates that prevent us from supporting these requests:
We vote AGAINST the proposal on Snapshot.
While the request itself seems totally valid, we respect the decision made with the Incentives Detox period and we believe all the extension requests should be treated the same.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@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 Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting AGAINST this proposal.
Our reason remains the same as in previous extension requests of Pyth and Synthetix. This extension comes during the "Detox of Incentives" phase and also puts other projects at a disadvantage, especially those who didn’t know extensions could be requested.
We believe that the right course of action for now would be to return the unused funds to the DAO. Following the original LTIPP timeline will allow us to assess the program's effectiveness properly and make better decisions for future grants and incentive programs.
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.
We also voted against similar proposals by Synthetix and Pyth for the same reasons (outlined below) but we’re also commenting here for visibility.
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.
We also voted against similar proposals by Synthetix and Pyth for the same reasons (outlined below) but we’re also commenting here for visibility.
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.
On behalf of the UADP, we are leaning against this proposal, similarly to prior extension requests.
As many other community members have highlighted, allowing an extension of incentives for one protocol, after the main incentive period has ended, sets an unfair precedent when it's the full amount. For extensions were to be considered, we think the appropriate time to address the terms for such extensions would have been during the original drafting of the program (e.g., through LTIPP or other governance proposals).
On behalf of the UADP, we are leaning against this proposal, similarly to prior extension requests.
As many other community members have highlighted, allowing an extension of incentives for one protocol, after the main incentive period has ended, sets an unfair precedent when it's the full amount. For extensions were to be considered, we think the appropriate time to address the terms for such extensions would have been during the original drafting of the program (e.g., through LTIPP or other governance proposals).
Overall, we like L2Beat's comment about attending the incentives working group. A possible avenue could be going to Aave DAO and starting discussions around if it would be beneficial to incentive match this ARB with Aave, which we think would definitely warrant a rediscussion of this proposal.
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.
The FranklinDAO/Penn Blockchain Team voted to Abstain this proposal on Snapshot. We believe that growing Aave/GHO on Arbitrum is an important partnership that the DAO should invest in.While the ARB incentives on Aave have helped bring $9.7m of supply onto Aave, the other half of proposed ARB incentives on DEX LPs have been less successful, with only $160k of GHO liquidity on Balancer. We want to see increased growth of GHO, and believe it may be best for Aave to potentially find new strategic ways to increase usage and liquidity of GHO on Arbitrum, rather than simply continue ARB incentives.
I will abstain for this one as i see both a need to push DEFI adoption forward in Arbitrum but also AAVE extension feels unfair to other LTIPP recipients.
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.
Agree with the proposal, for the very good reason that the delay in deployment when launching the GHO security module and the GHO bridge, while contrary to the overall liipp's planning and principles, can continue to be supported in light of aave's impact on the arb ecology
I'm voting against this proposal for the same reasons that I expressed for the grant extension request for Synthetix. This is mainly due to the existence of the Detox period. Moreover, it would be unfair if this passed but not the other requests.
This request to extend Aave's LTIPP grant for an additional two months would allow Aave more time to complete their GHO incentives program, which has already contributed significantly to the Arbitrum ecosystem in attracting new liquidity, but we think it's not the most appropriate given the delays and similar precedent. We think in this case, this would be too much of an advantage while no other teams have this incentive.
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.
I voted for on this proposal, as the value is not that high and it would boost GHO adoption on Arbitrum.
Proposal: In favour. Reason: AAVE is the leading infrastructure protocol in the ETH ecosystem, it has far-reaching and significant significance to the whole defi market, a large number of Defi people have immense and deep trust, the GHO Security Module and GHO Bridge have delayed upgrades and updates, and this time, in their description of the meaningless incentives is meaningless, and I believe that their reasoning is correct. Also look forward to their more explicit effective use, and bring new effects to the arb ecology
Voted FOR on this proposal
Reasoning: -Incentives Detox makes sense from a "trim the fat" pov. but it makes less sense from a "clean data" or other points of view. Momentum of growth for an ecosystem and core Dapps is much more beneficiial than having clean data about incentives or being purist.
Voted FOR on this proposal
Reasoning: -Incentives Detox makes sense from a "trim the fat" pov. but it makes less sense from a "clean data" or other points of view. Momentum of growth for an ecosystem and core Dapps is much more beneficiial than having clean data about incentives or being purist.
-Stablecoins are the livelihood of every chain. When we analyze chain growth we actually consider stablecoin growth much more strongly than most other metrics.
-AAVE is core DeFi infrastructure that supports every ecosystem its on. AAVE users dont just use AAVE they use AAVE to use other protocols.
We consider AAVE and the GHO program a beneificial use of LTIPP incentive as we consider it core DeFi Infra that benefits the ecosystems its on.
Voted Abstain - While Aave is a strong protocol, it should take very robust reasoning to extend for a single project while others do not get the same opportunity. That being said, if Aave could have presented more significant reasoning, there may be room to wiggle.
Vote: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> Aave DAO LTIPP Grant Extension Request
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/20
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
Vote: FOR
Type and Proposal Link: Snapshot –> Aave DAO LTIPP Grant Extension Request
Voting Rationale Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/20
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
While we understand the concerns raised about fairness and adherence to the Incentives Detox, Aave’s delay was due to technical challenges with the GHO and CCIP. Extending the LTIPP program allows Aave to fully utilize the ARB that has already been allocated without requesting additional funds. However, moving forward, clearer contingency plans for delays should be in place to avoid setting a precedent for extensions and to ensure consistent treatment for all protocols. This extension will help Aave continue contributing to Arbitrum’s growth, which is critical for long-term ecosystem success.
we will voting against as the Detox proposal just passed
I mentioned this before when related it to LTIPP proposals, but I’ll be voting against it as I’m following a DAO detox.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Unfortunately, while we understand the reasons for the delay, we share several concerns with the other delegates that prevent us from supporting these requests:
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Unfortunately, while we understand the reasons for the delay, we share several concerns with the other delegates that prevent us from supporting these requests:
We vote AGAINST the proposal on Snapshot.
While the request itself seems totally valid, we respect the decision made with the Incentives Detox period and we believe all the extension requests should be treated the same.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@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 Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting AGAINST this proposal.
Our reason remains the same as in previous extension requests of Pyth and Synthetix. This extension comes during the "Detox of Incentives" phase and also puts other projects at a disadvantage, especially those who didn’t know extensions could be requested.
We believe that the right course of action for now would be to return the unused funds to the DAO. Following the original LTIPP timeline will allow us to assess the program's effectiveness properly and make better decisions for future grants and incentive programs.
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.
We also voted against similar proposals by Synthetix and Pyth for the same reasons (outlined below) but we’re also commenting here for visibility.
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.
We also voted against similar proposals by Synthetix and Pyth for the same reasons (outlined below) but we’re also commenting here for visibility.
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.
On behalf of the UADP, we are leaning against this proposal, similarly to prior extension requests.
As many other community members have highlighted, allowing an extension of incentives for one protocol, after the main incentive period has ended, sets an unfair precedent when it's the full amount. For extensions were to be considered, we think the appropriate time to address the terms for such extensions would have been during the original drafting of the program (e.g., through LTIPP or other governance proposals).
On behalf of the UADP, we are leaning against this proposal, similarly to prior extension requests.
As many other community members have highlighted, allowing an extension of incentives for one protocol, after the main incentive period has ended, sets an unfair precedent when it's the full amount. For extensions were to be considered, we think the appropriate time to address the terms for such extensions would have been during the original drafting of the program (e.g., through LTIPP or other governance proposals).
Overall, we like L2Beat's comment about attending the incentives working group. A possible avenue could be going to Aave DAO and starting discussions around if it would be beneficial to incentive match this ARB with Aave, which we think would definitely warrant a rediscussion of this proposal.
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.
The FranklinDAO/Penn Blockchain Team voted to Abstain this proposal on Snapshot. We believe that growing Aave/GHO on Arbitrum is an important partnership that the DAO should invest in.While the ARB incentives on Aave have helped bring $9.7m of supply onto Aave, the other half of proposed ARB incentives on DEX LPs have been less successful, with only $160k of GHO liquidity on Balancer. We want to see increased growth of GHO, and believe it may be best for Aave to potentially find new strategic ways to increase usage and liquidity of GHO on Arbitrum, rather than simply continue ARB incentives.
I will abstain for this one as i see both a need to push DEFI adoption forward in Arbitrum but also AAVE extension feels unfair to other LTIPP recipients.
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.
Agree with the proposal, for the very good reason that the delay in deployment when launching the GHO security module and the GHO bridge, while contrary to the overall liipp's planning and principles, can continue to be supported in light of aave's impact on the arb ecology
I'm voting against this proposal for the same reasons that I expressed for the grant extension request for Synthetix. This is mainly due to the existence of the Detox period. Moreover, it would be unfair if this passed but not the other requests.
This request to extend Aave's LTIPP grant for an additional two months would allow Aave more time to complete their GHO incentives program, which has already contributed significantly to the Arbitrum ecosystem in attracting new liquidity, but we think it's not the most appropriate given the delays and similar precedent. We think in this case, this would be too much of an advantage while no other teams have this incentive.
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.
I voted for on this proposal, as the value is not that high and it would boost GHO adoption on Arbitrum.
Proposal: In favour. Reason: AAVE is the leading infrastructure protocol in the ETH ecosystem, it has far-reaching and significant significance to the whole defi market, a large number of Defi people have immense and deep trust, the GHO Security Module and GHO Bridge have delayed upgrades and updates, and this time, in their description of the meaningless incentives is meaningless, and I believe that their reasoning is correct. Also look forward to their more explicit effective use, and bring new effects to the arb ecology
Voted FOR on this proposal
Reasoning: -Incentives Detox makes sense from a "trim the fat" pov. but it makes less sense from a "clean data" or other points of view. Momentum of growth for an ecosystem and core Dapps is much more beneficiial than having clean data about incentives or being purist.
Voted FOR on this proposal
Reasoning: -Incentives Detox makes sense from a "trim the fat" pov. but it makes less sense from a "clean data" or other points of view. Momentum of growth for an ecosystem and core Dapps is much more beneficiial than having clean data about incentives or being purist.
-Stablecoins are the livelihood of every chain. When we analyze chain growth we actually consider stablecoin growth much more strongly than most other metrics.
-AAVE is core DeFi infrastructure that supports every ecosystem its on. AAVE users dont just use AAVE they use AAVE to use other protocols.
We consider AAVE and the GHO program a beneificial use of LTIPP incentive as we consider it core DeFi Infra that benefits the ecosystems its on.
Seems reasonable as it allows them more time to distribute the remaining ARB tokens, which were delayed due to technical issues. But how will they ensure future delays won't impact distribution? What contingency plans are in place for further setbacks?
We will vote "against" this proposal on Snapshot.
We share the same opinion as expressed here.
While we acknowledge the valuable contributions of all the projects requesting extensions so far, our decision from the previous proposal remains unchanged, and we do not expect it to change during the Detox period.
We will vote "against" this proposal on Snapshot.
We share the same opinion as expressed here.
While we acknowledge the valuable contributions of all the projects requesting extensions so far, our decision from the previous proposal remains unchanged, and we do not expect it to change during the Detox period.
We encourage all projects seeking an extension of their incentives to wait until at least the date suggested by the Detox proposal.
Aave had a delay with GHO and CCIP. If we do not extend the LTIPP a major chance to build a real decentralized stablecoin will be gone. Arbitrum needs anything and everything that can help to grow transactions and drive value. Aave as a leader in lending could help boosting this. Voting with yes.
While we appreciate Aave 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 Aave 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.
As the largest DeFi lending protocol, AAVE has a large number of users and complex data. In order to ensure security and justice, it is completely understandable to extend the time for distributing rewards, and the proposal does not involve any new budget, so I fully support it!
Blockworks Research will be voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.
The difference between this proposal and the Synthetix/Pyth proposals is that those parties had came to the DAO a week prior to the program termination (September 2nd) to ask for additional time, and Synthetix tried to work with a few delegates to talk this through as well. This proposal, along with the Gyroscope proposal, had been submitted at the very last minute, making it more challenging for us to appropriately recognize such timing.
Blockworks Research will be voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.
The difference between this proposal and the Synthetix/Pyth proposals is that those parties had came to the DAO a week prior to the program termination (September 2nd) to ask for additional time, and Synthetix tried to work with a few delegates to talk this through as well. This proposal, along with the Gyroscope proposal, had been submitted at the very last minute, making it more challenging for us to appropriately recognize such timing.
We are saddened to respond in this manner, and we find that Aave is a value-contributor to the entire industry, and we would like to provide similar advice to what others have said, to use the following detox period for preparations.
love AAVE and the ACI, but will be voting Against since this extension, at this time, is unfair to the other LTIPP recipients and overrides the detox proposal if it passes.
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. Please note that since September 2nd, the majority of LTIPP recipients have started the return of the unused ARB to the Arbitrum DAO. Everyone is invited to do the same.
Voting against. Let me first report a previous feedback released for synthetix, and still relevant here.
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.
Voting against. Let me first report a previous feedback released for synthetix, and still relevant here.
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.
And I'll be honest, I am quite said of not seeing the full fledged program about GHO going live in arbitrum, especially after being the LTIPP advisor for AAVE. I can see value + utility for the ecosystem.
My strong advice here, is prepare in the next quarter everything that is needed, from a tech/audit standpoint on the GHO ecosystem. Whatever the next iteration of the program is going to be, I don't see AAVE not being part of it as one of the main lender, and not being part of it as stablecoin facilitator in the ecosystem, including GHO. I think it will be a no brainer a collaboration between arbitrum and AAVE, also on the diffusion and adoption of gho and increase of stablecoin liquidity in the ecosystem. So, while I understand this vote can be a frustrating, I am definitely keen to see AAVE here as a constant presence in crypto and in Arbitrum specifically, as well as an important participant to any relevant incenive program we might spin up in future.
Having discussed it in our community, we came to the conclusion that there would be no harm from extending the time for this grant.
However, there are several negative aspects:
Having discussed it in our community, we came to the conclusion that there would be no harm from extending the time for this grant.
However, there are several negative aspects:
We have the same opinion on other applications for extension
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 believe GHO holds a lot of potential, and its continued adoption on Arbitrum is important. Recent developments have positioned GHO to become the preferred decentralized stablecoin, especially as DAI transitions to USDS and adds a freeze function. This makes it important for Arbitrum to boost its usage within the network. Therefore, we support the extension.
Given the unforeseen delays in launching the GHO Safety Module and GHO Bridge, it makes sense to extend the deadline. AAVE has been a cornerstone of the DeFi ecosystem, by granting this extension we're not just supporting AAVE but also reinforcing the DeFi space on Arbitrum.
I believe that tese types of delays are worth to consider an extension.
Seems reasonable as it allows them more time to distribute the remaining ARB tokens, which were delayed due to technical issues. But how will they ensure future delays won't impact distribution? What contingency plans are in place for further setbacks?
We will vote "against" this proposal on Snapshot.
We share the same opinion as expressed here.
While we acknowledge the valuable contributions of all the projects requesting extensions so far, our decision from the previous proposal remains unchanged, and we do not expect it to change during the Detox period.
We will vote "against" this proposal on Snapshot.
We share the same opinion as expressed here.
While we acknowledge the valuable contributions of all the projects requesting extensions so far, our decision from the previous proposal remains unchanged, and we do not expect it to change during the Detox period.
We encourage all projects seeking an extension of their incentives to wait until at least the date suggested by the Detox proposal.
Aave had a delay with GHO and CCIP. If we do not extend the LTIPP a major chance to build a real decentralized stablecoin will be gone. Arbitrum needs anything and everything that can help to grow transactions and drive value. Aave as a leader in lending could help boosting this. Voting with yes.
While we appreciate Aave 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 Aave 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.
As the largest DeFi lending protocol, AAVE has a large number of users and complex data. In order to ensure security and justice, it is completely understandable to extend the time for distributing rewards, and the proposal does not involve any new budget, so I fully support it!
Blockworks Research will be voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.
The difference between this proposal and the Synthetix/Pyth proposals is that those parties had came to the DAO a week prior to the program termination (September 2nd) to ask for additional time, and Synthetix tried to work with a few delegates to talk this through as well. This proposal, along with the Gyroscope proposal, had been submitted at the very last minute, making it more challenging for us to appropriately recognize such timing.
Blockworks Research will be voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.
The difference between this proposal and the Synthetix/Pyth proposals is that those parties had came to the DAO a week prior to the program termination (September 2nd) to ask for additional time, and Synthetix tried to work with a few delegates to talk this through as well. This proposal, along with the Gyroscope proposal, had been submitted at the very last minute, making it more challenging for us to appropriately recognize such timing.
We are saddened to respond in this manner, and we find that Aave is a value-contributor to the entire industry, and we would like to provide similar advice to what others have said, to use the following detox period for preparations.
love AAVE and the ACI, but will be voting Against since this extension, at this time, is unfair to the other LTIPP recipients and overrides the detox proposal if it passes.
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. Please note that since September 2nd, the majority of LTIPP recipients have started the return of the unused ARB to the Arbitrum DAO. Everyone is invited to do the same.
Voting against. Let me first report a previous feedback released for synthetix, and still relevant here.
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.
Voting against. Let me first report a previous feedback released for synthetix, and still relevant here.
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.
And I'll be honest, I am quite said of not seeing the full fledged program about GHO going live in arbitrum, especially after being the LTIPP advisor for AAVE. I can see value + utility for the ecosystem.
My strong advice here, is prepare in the next quarter everything that is needed, from a tech/audit standpoint on the GHO ecosystem. Whatever the next iteration of the program is going to be, I don't see AAVE not being part of it as one of the main lender, and not being part of it as stablecoin facilitator in the ecosystem, including GHO. I think it will be a no brainer a collaboration between arbitrum and AAVE, also on the diffusion and adoption of gho and increase of stablecoin liquidity in the ecosystem. So, while I understand this vote can be a frustrating, I am definitely keen to see AAVE here as a constant presence in crypto and in Arbitrum specifically, as well as an important participant to any relevant incenive program we might spin up in future.
Having discussed it in our community, we came to the conclusion that there would be no harm from extending the time for this grant.
However, there are several negative aspects:
Having discussed it in our community, we came to the conclusion that there would be no harm from extending the time for this grant.
However, there are several negative aspects:
We have the same opinion on other applications for extension
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 believe GHO holds a lot of potential, and its continued adoption on Arbitrum is important. Recent developments have positioned GHO to become the preferred decentralized stablecoin, especially as DAI transitions to USDS and adds a freeze function. This makes it important for Arbitrum to boost its usage within the network. Therefore, we support the extension.
Given the unforeseen delays in launching the GHO Safety Module and GHO Bridge, it makes sense to extend the deadline. AAVE has been a cornerstone of the DeFi ecosystem, by granting this extension we're not just supporting AAVE but also reinforcing the DeFi space on Arbitrum.
I believe that tese types of delays are worth to consider an extension.
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.”
For this reason, I will vote against the extension in case this proposal moves to Snapshot
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.”
For this reason, I will vote against the extension in case this proposal moves to Snapshot
