LTIP Feedback

Here's our main comments:

• Section 2

• Please clarify on “On what other networks is the protocol deployed”: if Arbitrum is the only protocol where Tradao is live, then the protocol is Arbitrum native.
  • For “Protocol Performance” we recommend you highlight key metrics and include standout charts to help the reviewers of the application — you want to make their lives as easy as possible.
    • Have the MAU (12,000) and unique addresses (6,500) listed performed onchain actions?
      • You mention having contributed over $48m to GMX — in what timeframe have you achieved this and with how many user actions? Could you provide a breakdown of the channels through which this volume was achieved?
    • Any dates that can be added to the roadmap would strengthen the application

• Section 3:

• Justification for Grant Size and KPIs — The justification for your grant size should be much more robust and arrived at through detailed calculations — Please refer to our guidance document when completing these.
  • We would like to see more granular breakdown of current and target metrics for each incentive bucket (rewards, competition, wallet), why these are realistically achievable, and how it will impact your protocol and the wider ecosystem.
    • How is the protocol arriving to a $738.5M expected volume with 240k ARB incentives?
      • Please explain the ‘lucky bag’ in more details — would this not encourage multiple small positions to be opened for 30 ARB reward? We would prefer to see incentives tied to fees, and rebates not larger than fees paid. Please explain how this will not be game-able.
• In light of the oversubscription to the program (by 200%), when conducting your justification calculation methodology, please also reconsider your grant ask, ensuring it is at a realistic level
  • It is not clear the timeframe in which your current or target volumes are taking place in (daily, monthly, etc.). Therefore we cannot assess your targeted growth and whether this is realistic. You need to fully justify why you think this is achievable, possibly demonstrating it as such from previous incentive campaigns or from other campaigns in other ecosystems. Without this supporting evidence, we recommend lowering your ask accordingly to have better chances to be considered by the council.
    • Provide details on funding, contracts addresses and treasury addresses.

• Section 4:

• We advise you use specific, measurable, achievable and realistic objectives (linking to grant justification)
  • Execution strategy is lacking in detail as with the justification of the grant size.
    • For the verification method we advise the provision of a Dune dashboard for all the relevant KPI monitoring.
    • Re: Stickiness design → We recommend you make more of an effort to include mechanisms to incentivize stickiness after the grant program is over. One example could be, distributing an escrowed or vested ARB, but many other mechanisms exist that can drive continued usage of the platform.
    • Please ensure you have estimated your growth success with respect to your KPIs along the length of the program. We advise the inclusion of clear KPI milestones and distribution targets at each of them (e.g. how much ARB is unlocked at which milestone, and where your performance should be).
• Overall we commend your protocol and application design. You need to focus on highlighting your protocol’s unique positioning for you specific niche in the ecosystem. Additionally, you can talk more about how you will add value to the entire chain, creating second-order benefits to neighbouring protocols.