I. SpecOps Roundtable
Spec Ops Roundtable - PoCKey PillarsSteward ElectionsIdeas
IDEAS: Exploring TiersIDEAS: New User AcquisitionIDEAS: Industry/Sector Groups?IDEAS: Exploring Pledge / Tithe
Should Arbitrum Projects be distinguished into specific Industry/Sector Groups for Grant Amount and Comparison purposes?
In the rapidly evolving world of Decentralized Finance (DeFi), the Arbitrum Polycentric Governance process plays a pivotal role in fostering innovation and growth. One of the key questions that arise in this context is whether the governance process should distinguish between projects in different sectors. This article explores the potential benefits and drawbacks of segmenting projects from different industries into separate groups.
Benefits of Distinguishing Projects in Different Sectors
Grant Allocation Efficiency
By distinguishing projects based on their sectors, the Arbitrum Polycentric Governance process can allocate grants more efficiently. Different sectors may have varying needs and requirements, and a one-size-fits-all approach may not be the most effective way to allocate resources. A tiered grant system can help allocate resources more efficiently and reward top talent[1].
Comparative Analysis
Segmenting projects into specific industry/sector groups can facilitate comparative analysis. This can help in evaluating the performance of projects within the same sector, using standardized metrics[3]. Such comparative analysis can provide valuable insights into the strengths and weaknesses of different projects, thereby informing decision-making and strategy development.
Resource Allocation
Distinguishing projects based on their sectors can also enhance resource allocation. Different sectors may require different types of resources, and segmenting projects can help ensure that each project receives the resources it needs to succeed[1].
Evaluating Sector-Specific Impact
Segmenting projects can help in evaluating the sector-specific impact of different projects. This can provide valuable insights into the contribution of different sectors to the overall growth and development of the Arbitrum Ecosystem[4].
Specialized Expertise
By distinguishing projects based on their sectors, the Arbitrum Polycentric Governance process can leverage specialized expertise. Different sectors may require different types of expertise, and segmenting projects can help ensure that each project has access to the necessary expertise[7].
Drawbacks of Distinguishing Projects in Different Sectors
While there are several benefits to distinguishing projects based on their sectors, there are also potential drawbacks. One of the key challenges is the risk of creating silos. Segmenting projects into specific industry/sector groups can lead to a lack of cross-sector collaboration and innovation. This can limit the potential for synergies and the cross-pollination of ideas.
Another potential drawback is the risk of bias. By distinguishing projects based on their sectors, there is a risk that certain sectors may be favored over others. This can lead to an uneven distribution of resources and opportunities.
In conclusion, while there are both benefits and drawbacks to distinguishing projects in different sectors in the Arbitrum Polycentric Governance process, the potential benefits appear to outweigh the drawbacks. By enhancing grant allocation efficiency, facilitating comparative analysis, improving resource allocation, enabling the evaluation of sector-specific impact, and leveraging specialized expertise, distinguishing projects based on their sectors can potentially enhance the robustness and vitality of the Arbitrum Ecosystem. However, it is crucial to manage the potential risks and challenges effectively to ensure a fair and inclusive governance process.
Citations:
Industry/Sector Types:
- Derivatives Dex
- Options Dex
- Swap Dex
- Lending
- Yield Products
- Bridge
- Liquid Staking Tokens
- Gaming & NFTs
- Gambling
- Community & Governance
- Services & Infrastructure
Examples:
- Derivatives DEXs - Allow trading of derivative products like futures, and perpetuals. Examples: Vertex, GMX, Perennial
- Options DEXs - Specialized derivatives DEXs for trading options contracts. Thales, Premia, Rysk, Hegic
- Swap DEXs - Decentralized exchanges for swapping tokens, like Camelot, Ramses, Uniswap, Balancer, Curve.
- Stables & CDPs - MIM, FRAX, DAI etc etc
- Lending - Protocols like Silo, Radiant, Lodestar, Aave allow lending and borrowing of crypto assets. Important primitive for DeFi.
- Yield Products - Platforms like Yearn, Umami, Jones generate yield through strategies like yield farming or advanced strategies. Key building block in DeFi.
- Bridges - Critical infrastructure for moving assets between chains, like Wormhole, Celer Bridge, Hop Protocol. (LZ, Axelar, CCIP)
- Liquid Staking - Protocols like Lido, Frax, RocketPool, Plutus? allow staked assets like ETH to be used in DeFi while still earning staking rewards.
- Gaming/NFTs - Key web3 vertical with platforms like the Treasure Ecosystem. Arbitrum’s low fees make it ideal for NFT minting and trading.
- Gambling - Online betting/gambling apps being built on blockchains.
- Community/Governance/Reputation - DAO platforms like Tally, CommonRoom, Snapshot facilitate web3 community coordination and governance. Reputation & Engagement like Galaxe & Rep3. Relevant across sectors.
- Infrastructure - Core services like RPC nodes, indexes, analytics. QuickNode provides Arbitrum nodes. The Graph indexes Arbitrum data. Wallets, etc
DeFi Llama Categories
Category | Protocols | Combined TVL | Description |
123 | $19.351b | Protocols that enable you to earn staking rewards on your tokens while also providing a tradeable and liquid receipt for your staked position | |
306 | $14.531b | Protocols that allow users to borrow and lend assets | |
1045 | $10.632b | Protocols where you can swap/trade cryptocurrency | |
46 | $9.314b | Protocols that bridge tokens from one network to another | |
107 | $7.684b | Protocols that mint its own stablecoin using collateralized lending | |
160 | $4.087b | Protocols that provide a service to the user | |
456 | $2.984b | Protocols that pay you a reward for your staking/LP on their platform | |
29 | $2.458b | Protocols that involve Real World Assets, such as house tokenization | |
168 | $1.211b | Protocols for betting with leverage | |
115 | $901.66m | Protocols that aggregated yield from diverse protocols | |
26 | $632.7m | Protocols that add interoperability between different blockchains | |
34 | $539.29m | Protocol that created a tokenized derivative that mimics the value of another asset. | |
41 | $499.82m | Protocols that launch new projects and coins | |
50 | $316.16m | Protocols that have a way to track/created the performance of a group of related assets | |
27 | $313.13m | Protocols that manage Liquidity Positions in concentrated liquidity AMMs | |
25 | $273.33m | Protocols that are designed to provide monetary protections | |
13 | $249.81m | Protocols that have the intention of hiding information about transactions | |
1 | $211.14m | ||
16 | $194.04m | Protocols that offer the ability to pay/send/receive cryptocurrency | |
15 | $175.85m | Refers to platforms where users stake their assets on native blockchains to help secure the network and earn rewards. Unlike Liquid Staking, users don't receive a token representing their staked assets, and their funds are locked up during the staking period, limiting participation in other DeFi activities | |
110 | $155.32m | Protocols that provide algorithmic coins to stablecoins | |
21 | $147.45m | Protocols that allow you to leverage yield farm with borrowed money | |
33 | $108.77m | Protocols where users can buy/sell/rent NFTs | |
27 | $107.18m | Protocols that allow you to collateralize your NFT for a loan | |
44 | $81.89m | Protocols that give you the right to buy an asset at a fixed price | |
15 | $47.26m | Social Finance Networks | |
13 | $33.01m | Protocols that allow you to deposit collateral into an options strategy | |
34 | $24.3m | Protocols that allow you to wager/bet/buy in future results | |
4 | $22.37m | Coins pegged to USD through decentralized mechanisms | |
85 | $16.89m | Protocols that allow users to lock money in exchange for a protocol token | |
9 | $9.75m | Protocol that allows you to lend against known parties that can borrow without collaterall | |
123 | $6.5m | OHM forks: Protocols that uses a reserve of valuable assets acquired through bonding and staking to issue and back its native token | |
3 | $2.98m | Protocols that bridge traditional finance and blockchain ecosystems by tokenizing real-world assets for use as collateral or credit assessment, enabling decentralized lending and borrowing opportunities. | |
39 | $1.91m | Protocols that have gaming components | |
8 | $< 0.0001 | Protocols that connect data from the outside world (off-chain) with the blockchain world (on-chain) |