Poolside LTIPP Council Recommended Proposal

Link to Application

https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/poolside-ltipp-application-draft/22060

Council - 3/4 Yes Votes

Feedback

Wintermute Feedback) Poolside provided a solid application that scored decently across most criteria. They have a clear vision of how their product intends to bring benefits to Arbitrum with straightforward KPIs and milestones. Their grant request is sufficiently justified and their project is quite composable. They didn’t score well in protocol activity, age, and usage on Arbitrum and other chains, and lastly, there was not much innovation in the incentive mechanism. Overall, it was a solid application with a reasonable grant request that attempts to solve an inherent DeFi problem. We will be supporting this application.

GFX Feedback) This protocol aims to solve a pain point for rebasing tokens, though this is noticeably more of a pain point for issuers whose products suffer than it is for users who may simply opt into different tokens. The protocol is relatively young, with modest success in attracting users. This proposal would be considerably strengthened if the applicants identified clear mechanisms that have led to some initial success or momentum, and then craft the grant program around expanding or leveraging those mechanisms for sustained growth, rather than simply putting an APY target on LPing the major assets they already support without much differentiation.

GMX Feedback) Poolside is a recently established protocol that has yet to gain significant traction. It aims to streamline the integration of yield-bearing assets within the Arbitrum DeFi ecosystem while safeguarding Liquidity Providers against foreseeable losses, addressing a prevalent concern in DeFi. We appreciate their strategy to incentivize participation in their pools, fostering increased TVL and potentially generating a favorable feedback loop to enhance pool efficiency. The rationale behind their grant request is sound, and we support this application.

Karel Feedback) Vote FOR Poolside's proposal.

Well-written proposal that scored well across the rubric. While it's a young protocol, it has shown modest traction and the potential to grow/scale further with the right incentives in place (albeit Arbitrum adoption has been lacking). The proposal presents a relatively straightforward incentive structure but provides a detailed plan on how it hopes to achieve their goals. Would have liked to see more detail behind stickiness post-program and greater detail on their Points system + how that could potentially feed into the proposal. Grant size could have been slightly reduced given current traction but a worthwhile experiment for the DAO.