Contrax LTIPP Council Recommended Proposal

Link to Application

https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/contrax-ltipp-application-draft/21707

Council - 3/4 Yes Votes

Feedback

404 DAO Feedback It was clear the Contrax spent a lot of time thinking about their application and execution strategy. We think their UI/UX focused product will bring in new users and like their incentive design that bases the ARB emissions on TVL growth. A small grant ask that we think is properly justified.

Wintermute Feedback Contrax’s application was well written and provided a good amount of justification and calculation of their grant size and execution strategy. Their adoption thus far has been underwhelming, however, their product looks decent.

We like their intended execution strategy that focuses on adoption and retention. Ultimately, the incentives also carry a second-order effect by increasing TVL across other Arbitrum protocols.

While their grant size is greater than their current TVL, we believe that they have a good enough execution strategy and product that focuses on driving users to Arbitrum.

We support this application.

Karel Feedback Vote AGAINST Contrax's proposal.

Decent proposal that scored well on rubric. Like the cross-protocol partnerships they have in-place with other Arbitrum protocols. However, minimal product differentiation (beyond web3auth/social sign-on), has shown minimal adoption/demand for the product in contrast to peers, and requested grant size exceeds their TVL. Risk that incentives and APR boost will not lead to organic, long-term/renteitve usage. Believe they should prove out further traction first and resubmit proposal at a later grants window.