[DRC] dYdX Short-Term Boost Program (STBP)

Proposals
21

ok. the top 3 validators should be in council

2 Likes
22

I’m supporting this proposal, 2 reasons:

  1. short term cycle thats easily to track and evaluate, also not costly one as DEP.
  2. make more competition to existing one DEP

Hopefully after 6-month period we have tangible output from both programs so we can compare and see which one is more productive and helpful to dydx community, then we can make decision better then.

5 Likes
23

This is the purpose of our proposal. Work hard for six months. Document what happens. Make sure it counts.

3 Likes
24

Excited Lets Go GIF by Mind Pump Media

1 Like
25

Despite providing our early support for the program, we think a critical area of potential concern has not be erased yet. We think the discussion will be much healthier if could shed light on this particular overlap problem. It feels essential to have a joint agreement between @rspa and @Reverie in order to remove all remaining uncertainties.

If we intend to have this short-term program running along an existing grant system, we need to have them both clearly separated in their mandate and a public statement between the two parties is essential to us. We want to see a symbiosis relation at play here!

2 Likes
26

Thanks for pushing further on this. We’re definitely interested in making this as clear cut as possible.

Apart from ensuring that no applicants double dip into both grants programs, which areas would you like to have clear separation on?

1 Like
27

First of all, this is simply what we would like to see in this joint statement, assuming that the wider the topics covered the better. But the bare minimum to us would be to set a clear separation of mandates to ensure one doesn’t step up into the other’s footsteps and that applicants can also be transferred to the relevant grants program if it knocked the other door instead. Basically we recommend to emphasize this statement into two categories:

  • Mandate separation (one short term the other long-term but this has to be defined clearly).
  • Mutual acknowledgement on a transparent cooperative framework. This would remove the assumption some may have toward competition between the two program executives.

These are the main areas that we see fit for improvement in the current proposition. If addressed then we will definitely support both on and off chain.

3 Likes
28

Amazing and perfectly reasonable. Will reach out to Reverie to knock something out. Seems this is in everybody’s best interest.

29

We understand your worry about overlap between Stable Labs and Reverie’s grant programs. Yet, this program is completely separate, with its own team, innovative ideas, and contributors, focusing on areas Reverie doesn’t cover. This ensures its goals and funding are distinct. With transparent and independent application process, it’s very unlikely for someone to get funded for the same project by both programs. We’d like to know more about why an agreement seems necessary when this setup already avoids any overlap.

2 Likes
30

Hello, @Govmos I do not quite understand what exactly is expected for Reverie to approve, as they seem to believe they are performing their work flawlessly. From my perspective, StableLab is more than willing to cooperate, and their openness to all questions and suggestions is a clear indication of this.

If the community foresees any potential issues arising from the operation of two parallel programs, then these should be discussed to prevent any such problems. I am a bit unclear regarding the notion of competition. Healthy competition typically leads to an improvement in service quality; the only downside I see is if the programs begin to overbid for grants to secure them for their respective program.

However, judging by the number of applications in the current program, there isn’t exactly a line of grants waiting, and the programs are compelled to proactively search for suitable projects. A mere increase in such efforts will likely lead to a greater number of high-quality projects.

2 Likes
31

Here is a joint answer to @RealVovochka and @CipherLabs to explain the reason why we think further clarification is needed before proceeding in a healthy manner. We tend to align with @antonio 's statement:

This argument is straightforward and we see only one viable way to remove any uncertainty around the potential duplicate issue. This is why we proposed a joint statement from the two parties involved. We think the two key aspects needed to be covered are the ones we cited in this post.

We would also like to remind that we are actually supporting this short-term program’s idea, we just want to see it handled the right way all throughout the process.

3 Likes
32

Yourself and Antonio might be missing the essence of the STBP’s objectives. This program is designed to address specific gaps within the ecosystem that Reverie’s program doesn’t—making it a necessary expansion rather than duplication. Specifically, the STBP aims to:

  1. Enhance Community Growth by supporting initiatives that significantly increase the dYdX community’s engagement, participation, and vitality, areas not fully explored by Reverie.

  2. Develop Trader-Specific Tooling, funding the creation of resources tailored for traders on the dYdX platform. This is to substantially improve their trading experience and success, a niche Reverie isn’t catering to.

  3. Governance and Security Research, dedicating resources to projects that strengthen the dYdX Chain’s governance and security—critical areas that demand attention beyond what Reverie provides.

These focused efforts aim to strengthen parts of the community and infrastructure previously left untouched, emphasizing the STBP’s role as a strategic complement to existing programs. It’s not about being inefficient or causing overlap; it’s about addressing unmet needs to bolster the dYdX community’s overall strength and cohesiveness.

In addition to this, consider the potential for the STBP to outperform what Reverie offers. We’re looking at the possibility of a program that could be run 10x better, more efficiently, with enhanced results, cost-effectiveness, openness, and transparency. Such an outcome would undoubtedly benefit the community, and perhaps, after the two-year period with Reverie, the STBP or a similar alternative could take the lead. This isn’t just about supplementing what exists; it’s about exploring how we can evolve and improve upon the current model. The dYdX ecosystem has room for improvement, and without exploring alternative solutions like the STBP, we limit our potential for growth and efficacy. We won’t know the full extent of what can be achieved unless we’re open to trying different approaches beyond the sole program that has, thus far, fallen short in a couple of key areas needed by the ecosystem.

4 Likes
33

Got your position although I have different opinion.
Let’s ping @carlbergman @Derek. Cant ping Federico (it seems he is not registered on the forum or at least not in the DGP group). Since they are working full time on DEP I think we get their reply very soon.

3 Likes
34

@Govmos, this is the very thing we try to do.

Let me recap what makes the STBP special:

We will use on- and off-chain analytics to drill down into which tokens spent on grants had the biggest impact.

Our proposed scope and our duration is very different from the DEP.

We focus on short-term efforts in areas the community pointed out have not been addressed adequately until now.

And we will make sure that every $dydx goes to a tangible outcome.

Here’s what I propose to the community and especially to @Reverie.

We’re open to collaborating to ensure that no party double dips.
Every grant has to go through a community poll anyway, so they will all be out in the open, and it will be very easy to spot offenders. We will also actively seek out feedback here.

With regards to where grantees apply: That should be up to them.
We don’t think there’s a lot of overlap in the programs, maybe the community & growth track. But even there, we have a six-month horizon to DEP’s 24 months.

Let grantees choose where they apply. As long as they don’t try to play out one against the other or get paid double for the same deliverable.

Interesting edge case here: What if a grantee applies to STBP, gets a grant, delivers good results and after six months applies for a longer grant with DEP? That should be possible, IMO.

We’re open to suggestions on how this is best handled and welcome this discussion. It certainly is important.

8 Likes
35

I hope all the validators can see how much of an improvement this setup is compared to the current one with Reverie. The community poll idea is something we have been recommending every time Reverie make a proposal but it always falls on deaf ears. We are thrilled to see this included here.

5 Likes
36

Hey, @Govmos
As you can see, we all attempted to reach out to Reverie in a public and transparent manner, yet they did not even take the trouble to provide any sort of response. This is a prime example of what the alternative program seeks to change. Any program or organization that is funded by community treasury has no right to ignore constructive inquiries from those who pay their salaries. Such an approach stifles initiatives at their inception.

5 Likes
37

A prime example of multiple grant programs working in parallel is Arbitrum. It can be argued that they could promote greater synergies, which certainly has merit.

But overall, we feel the Arbitrum grants landscape creates a lot of excitement and activity, some of which will be sticky or create tangible innovation.

DAOs aren’t like centralized corporations in the regard that I feel they should be quite open to permissionless experimentation.

The potential downside of the STBP is extremely limited. The community will approve grantees, and their output will be measured and documented.
The program runs for six months only. No funds can be abused, thanks to rigorous safety controls, and a commitment to transparency.

All in all, I fail to see a lot of ways the dYdX ecosystem can lose or look bad because of it.

4 Likes
38

As we previously mentioned, we are neutral to this story, have no previous bias toward one program or the other. We definitely see people here making this a political matter, and we want to make it clear that we won’t enter this game. @Reverie’s input on this proposal seems like an obvious thing to have and we simply invite them to post here and share their point of view on this proposition. That’s all there is from our side.

3 Likes
39

I am not attempting to engage in politics here or to draw you into it. You mentioned that you would like feedback from Reverie. We have all publicly requested that they share their thoughts. They have ignored us.

4 Likes
40

Hey all! Thought I would give my input here as a member of the DEP, and especially as someone who has helped with community grants over the last 6 months and will continue to do so.

To this point, I personally see significant overlap between the goals that this program is seeking to achieve and those that the DEP has. DEP has funded, and will continue to fund, projects that touch all 3 of these tracks, especially under the new increased scope.

To the extent that there is an argument that the current program would somehow cover “gaps” in the existing DEP or fund specific initiatives that we have otherwise rejected in the past, I would echo the sentiment raised above by Antonio:

Just as the community as a whole should ensure that treasury spends serve a strong purpose, so too should a grants program (which manages community funds) ensure that grants and disbursements from the program serve an equally strong purpose, help grow the protocol and, ultimately, provide a strong ROI for the community.

When the DEP denies a grant application, we do so because we feel that this strong ROI doesn’t exist for the given application. This is either because:

  1. We’re not confident in the quality of the team or of the applicant, or of the application itself;

  2. The proposed project, while potentially interesting, does not justify the outsized funding request that the applicant is making, and the applicant is unwilling to reduce their funding request to a reasonable size;

  3. The proposed project is irrelevant to dYdX;

  4. The proposed can’t be successfully executed due to limitations of the protocol’s roadmap or development timelines (usually we like to stay in touch with applicants in this case, in the event that priorities change or the proposed project becomes feasible later)

The notion that we should add a second, overlapping grants program to the existing one to which DEP rejected applicants can turn for funding is highly likely to lead to wasteful community spending. It also defeats the purpose of having a grants program to act as a filter for quality funding recipients and as a gatekeeper to prevent runaway spending.

This not only increases the likelihood of wasteful spending on the grants side, but significantly increases the operational cost to execute that spending (to the tune of $35,000 per month).

While I greatly appreciate StableLab’s engagement with the governance process and willingness to try new things and put forth new ideas, I don’t believe that this proposal justifies the costs to the community.

3 Likes