- Uniswap Foundation requested $63 million worth of UNI tokens for innovation and funding
- There is debate over the amount of money and control being given to the foundation
- The proposal aims to remove the need for DAO approval for grants over $2 million
- The accountability structure and potential misappropriation of funds are concerns
- The market is currently in a bear market, raising questions about the timing of the request
- The Arbitrum Grants Program received over 100 applications, with most coming from the perp sector
- The process of reviewing and evaluating the applications is challenging and time-consuming
- There are concerns about the complexity and effectiveness of the proposed incentive mechanisms
- The top sectors requesting grants are perp platforms, DEXs, yield optimizers, lending protocols, and bridges.

- The speaker believes that the protocols in the ARB ecosystem are beneficial to DeFi, particularly liquid staking.
- They express surprise at the number of applications and the voting process for allocating capital.
- The speaker sees potential in the Uniswap Foundation vote model and the efficiency of having a service provider allocate capital.
- They highlight the presence of both good and bad proposals, such as bridges asking for ARB to pay for users' gas fees.
- The speaker plans to read through the proposals to find the best opportunities.
- They discuss the need for incentives in a bear market and the importance of betting on teams rather than products.
- The speaker acknowledges the need for protocols to play the incentives game to stay competitive.
- They mention the need for data and reporting requirements for the selected protocols.
- The speaker expresses interest in liquidity as a service and lending out liquidity rather than giving it away.
- They mention specific protocols like Mux and JonesDAO as potential opportunities.
- The speaker highlights the DYDX proposal for $20 million in incentives over a 6-month period.

- The DYDX proposal suggests $20 million of incentives over a 6-month period, which is only 1% of the token supply.
- The low float, high FDV tokens may not be as bad as people think and can have long-term value.
- Founders and investors need to have a long-term mindset to avoid sudden supply increases.
- The DYDX team is optimistic about the success of DYDX v4 and its potential as a cash cow.
- Atom has seen a significant increase in usage as a gas payment token on the Osmosis chain.
- The Cosmos ecosystem may benefit from having one dominant asset as a form of money.
- The connection between security and money is important for a flourishing economy.

- The Hub in the Cosmos ecosystem is the most secure chain and will start renting out its security
- The Atom cryptocurrency could become a major asset and currency for the Cosmos Hub
- GMX core contributors are requesting 250,000 tokens to continue funding protocol development
- MakerDAO has seen significant growth due to a refreshed narrative and focus on real-world assets
- AUX token has experienced a significant decline following the arrest of Suzu and Kyle
- There is debate over whether issuance is a cost to a network, but it is generally agreed that it is a cost
- L1s are seen as both a business and a decentralized central bank

- The perspective of issuance as a cost is discussed in relation to blockchain protocols.
- The revenue generated by the chain through transaction fees is internalized through burn or treasury allocation, with the rest going to entities responsible for securing the network.
- The argument is made that issuance is a cost because it is equivalent to a business issuing new shares of equity to pay for services.
- The idea that issuance is not a cost because it is a closed loop system is challenged, as token holders need to take on additional risks, pay for hardware, and potentially become illiquid.
- Validators view issuance as income and must pay taxes on it, leading to its eventual exit from the system.
- The value of blockchains is derived from being a yield-bearing asset, in-demand gas token, medium of exchange, and store of value.
- Using an income statement is a useful way to understand the flow of funds through a blockchain ecosystem.
- The sustainability of a blockchain is not solely dependent on profitability, and inflation should be considered as an expense.
- Looking at fees and issuances as indicators of economic sustainability can reveal the true value flow within a protocol.

- The speaker questions the need for continued token issuance if everyone is staked to the network and earning rewards.
- They argue that inflation has costs and should be considered when analyzing blockchain and business models.
- They believe that while crypto is a new paradigm, it is still important to leverage best practices and historical analysis.
- The speaker discusses the importance of understanding block space profitability and value flow in analyzing a blockchain.
- They express excitement over Coinbase launching retail perps to non-US customers, highlighting its potential impact on the company's revenue.
- The speaker also mentions Coinbase's international expansion plans and the potential for it to become a major player in the next crypto cycle.
- They note the market's initial lack of response to Coinbase's announcement and suggest that Wall Street may not fully understand the significance of the move.
- The speaker mentions the USDC deposit program on Coinbase, which offers 5% APY and highlights the platform's focus on scaling to a larger user base.

- The speaker suggests the idea of having a native token that earns yield, like S-Dai version of USDC.
- The speaker acknowledges that Coinbase has incentives to keep USDC on their platform for more value.
- It is mentioned that Circle has a 50/50 revenue partnership with USDC.
- The speaker believes that there is still value in people depositing money and new capital coming in.
- Thorchain, a decentralized finance project, is praised for its success with savers and lending protocol, with strong adoption and good traction.
- The speaker expresses support for Thorchain and their native asset swaps.
- There has been continued growth in swap volume since the launch of the lending protocol.
- The conversation ends due to technical issues and voice fatigue.

- The Uniswap Foundation requested $63 million worth of UNI tokens for innovation and funding, sparking debate over the amount of money and control given to the foundation.
- The proposal aims to remove the need for DAO approval for grants over $2 million, but concerns about accountability and potential misappropriation of funds have been raised.
- The timing of the request is questioned due to the current bear market.
- The Arbitrum Grants Program received over 100 applications, with the majority coming from the perp sector. Reviewing and evaluating the applications is challenging and time-consuming.
- Concerns exist regarding the complexity and effectiveness of the proposed incentive mechanisms.
- The top sectors requesting grants are perp platforms, DEXs, yield optimizers, lending protocols, and bridges.
- The speaker believes that protocols in the ARB ecosystem, such as liquid staking, are beneficial to DeFi.
- The speaker expresses surprise at the number of applications and the voting process for allocating capital, but sees potential in the Uniswap Foundation vote model and the efficiency of having a service provider allocate capital.
- The speaker plans to read through the proposals to find the best opportunities.
- In a bear market, incentives are important, and betting on teams rather than products is crucial.
- The speaker acknowledges the need for protocols to play the incentives game to stay competitive and mentions the need for data and reporting requirements for selected protocols.
- Liquidity as a service and lending out liquidity are mentioned as areas of interest, with specific protocols like Mux and JonesDAO highlighted.
- The DYDX proposal for $20 million in incentives over a 6-month period is discussed, with the speaker noting that it is only 1% of the token supply.
- The speaker believes that low float, high FDV tokens may have long-term value and emphasizes the importance of a long-term mindset for founders and investors.
- Atom, the cryptocurrency of the Cosmos ecosystem, has seen increased usage as a gas payment token on the Osmosis chain. The speaker suggests that having one dominant asset as a form of money can benefit the Cosmos ecosystem.
- The speaker mentions various projects, such as GMX, MakerDAO, and AUX, and discusses the debate over whether issuance is a cost to a network.
- Blockchain protocols are seen as both a business and a decentralized central bank, and the value flow within a protocol is analyzed through fees and issuances.
- The speaker questions the need for continued token issuance if everyone is staked to the network and earning rewards, arguing that inflation has costs and should be considered in blockchain and business models.
- Leveraging best practices and historical analysis is important in the crypto industry, and understanding block space profitability and value flow is crucial in analyzing a blockchain.
- Coinbase's launch of retail perps to non-US customers is seen as significant for the company's revenue, and the speaker mentions Coinbase's international expansion plans.
- The speaker highlights the USDC deposit program on Coinbase, the potential for a native token that earns yield, and the value of new capital coming in.
- Thorchain is praised for its success with savers and lending protocol, with strong adoption and continued growth in swap volume.
- The conversation ends due to technical issues and voice fatigue.

In this week's analyst table Dan and Sam are joined by Blockworks research analysts EffortCapital and Westie. In this week's news round-up the analysts cover Uniswap foundation's funding request of $62m, Arbitrum grants program "STIPs", and dYdX $20m incentives on V4. The team also covers this week's top mover MakerDAO and biggest loser $OX. To finish out today's show the team takes the gloves off and unpacks whether token issuance  is a cost to PoS networks. 

As always remember this podcast is for informational purposes only, and any views expressed by anyone on the show are solely our opinions, not financial advice.
- -
Follow Sam: https://twitter.com/swmartin19
Follow Dan: https://twitter.com/smyyguy
Follow EffortCapital: https://twitter.com/EffortCapital
Follow Westie: https://twitter.com/WestieCapital
Follow Blockworks Research: https://twitter.com/blockworksres

Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3foDS38
Subscribe on Apple: https://apple.co/3SNhUEt
Subscribe on Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3NlP1hA

Get top market insights and the latest in crypto news. Subscribe to Blockworks Daily Newsletter: https://blockworks.co/newsletter/
- -
Hexens is the premier cybersecurity provider in web3 with an essential focus on blockchain technologies. Always exceeding clients’ expectations, Hexens is a trusted security partner of the most prominent web3 projects like Polygon & zkEVM, 1inch, Lido, Nubank, TON, Risc0, EigenLayer, Mantle, Celo and more.
https://hexens.io/
- -
Timestamps:
(00:00) Introduction
(01:52) Uniswap Foundation Requests $62M
(07:35) Arbitrum Grants Program "STIPs"
(18:32) “Hexens Ad”
(19:36) $20M dYdX Incentives on V4
(31:18) Top Movers & Losers of The Week
(32:08) The MakerDAO Bull Narrative
(36:27) RIP $OX Token
(38:23) Is Issuance a Cost to a Network?
(54:13) Coinbase Retail Perps
- -
Resources:

dYdX V4 incentives
https://dydx.forum/t/dydx-v4-launch-incentives-proposal/1075

Arbitrum STIPs 
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrums-short-term-incentive-program-arbitrum-improvement-proposal/16131
- -
Check out Blockworks Research today! Research, data, governance, tokenomics, and models – now, all in one place

Blockworks Research: https://www.blockworksresearch.com/
Free Daily Newsletter: https://blockworks.co/newsletter
- -
Disclaimer: Nothing said on 0xResearch is a recommendation to buy or sell securities or tokens. This podcast is for informational purposes only, and any views expressed by anyone on the show are solely our opinions, not financial advice. Dan, Sam, and our guests may hold positions in the companies, funds, or projects discussed.

$63 million in this market, come on guys.

After essentially telling LPs that they're getting screwed over and over and that we're just going to create a whole off-chain market for liquidity provision and the users of your protocol are also really going to get arbed away through toxic flow.

Like, I don't know, it's not a good look.

All right, everyone, welcome back to another episode of 0 X Research.

We have a great analyst episode lined up for you today, because as a reminder, we did change up the format a bit just to split out the analyst round table from the interview segment.

You know, the comments were saying that you guys were loving the analyst section and we love just talking about this space.

So we figured why not bring some more content to the people?

Definitely keep letting us know your thoughts on this.

If you prefer it, if you hate it, let us know in the comments or the DMs.

Before we jump into the thick of today's episode, a quick word from our sponsor, the Hexens, the most hardcore security team in Web3, pioneering in ZK and novel cryptography.

Hexens is trusted by tier 1 projects like Polygon, including new work on their ZK EVM, Mantle, Risk 0, Lido, 1inch, NewBank and more.

So recording this on the Friday, the episode goes out on the following Wednesday.

So put down the pitchforks If something we say gets a little bit stale, we're just giving you our thoughts on the matter given the information currently available to us.

I wish we could try time travel but haven't figured that 1 out yet.

So today we're joined by Effort Capital and Westy to jam on the latest market happenings.

But Sam, I'll throw things over to you to kick us off with a governance update.

Absolutely, so just as a reminder, all of these updates go live in real time, practically into GovHub on blockworksresearch.com and you can get 10% off of that subscription service using code 0xResearch10 at checkout.

But yeah, anyways, on to the governance updates.

This week we saw Uniswap Foundation, the independent nonprofit for Uniswap, request $63 million worth of UNI tokens to fund innovation around Uniswaps, likely in relation to hooks, 30% for developers, 15% for research, 10% for LPs and institutions to encourage routing trades through Uniswap, and 10% for governance engagement, which I found particularly interesting.

This proposal also looks to remove the UF's need to get a DAO approval for grants greater than $2 million, which was another interesting caveat.

And I'm actually in for that considering how difficult it is to get token holders to vote yes on large spends But I'm curious.

Do you guys have any thoughts on this proposal or is this a skip?

I think actually right so People were I don't know it's funny whenever money goes from like the DAO to the foundation or vice versa, there's always controversy.

How much money is going, how many people have control over this, are token holders losing voting power control of the protocol to a centralized group?

And that's long been a debate for Uniswap especially given the fee switch argument, right?

Should the token holders, should the DAO accrue the value generated by the protocol?

And that's kind of what the core thesis of the debate going around here is, you know, we're giving more money, $63 million plus the first grant is over $100 million.

And like, do you really need that much money?

So some of the some of the flack they're catching is really just the size of the amount of money and the fact that the DAO is kind of yet again feels that they're losing control, still aren't earning any fees, our token holders just continually going to be getting gypped here.

And I guess there's like also this weird push and pull, or at least what appears to be a push and pull, I should say, between like Uniswap Labs equity holders and Uni token holders.

I don't know who's going to end up winning down that line but it's really like people love to say that there's even a debate there but you haven't seen any like concrete evidence in my opinion of the equity holders in Uniswap Labs being truly favored over the token holders.

Just because the fee switch isn't on isn't enough in my opinion, but I don't know if you guys feel differently.

I'm pretty against some of this proposal.

So as of today, especially with Uniswap X and Uniswap V4 with the singleton contract, there's really no way for the uni token holders to accrue value at this point.

You would have to probably do it on a pool by pool basis.

And even then, liquidity providers or pools can be forked and you can kind of remove any fee switch that I think uni token holders ultimately pass.

So I think uni holders have really gotten the short end of the stick time and time again.

And I'm also pretty, I don't know exactly what the accountability structure looks like between the DAO and UF, but the fact that they want to remove the need for DAO approval of grants, I'm in favor of that to a degree.

You want to allow agile execution of subject matter experts in certain areas.

So most uni token holders are not going to be subject matter experts on how to allocate grant capital.

But is it is it if it's so they like they have unanimous approval over grants of less than 2000000?

I think a part of the proposal basically is removing the need to go to the Dow when the grant is above 2000000 dollars.

Which I'm in favor of, but I think the problem is what is the accountability structure on the opposite side?

What if the Dow is not in favor of something that they...

What if there was actual misappropriation of funds does the Dow actually have the ability to veto and pull back funds from you at any point because if they don't I'm against this proposal but if they actually do have that where they have the ability to veto and clawback funds from you up and like that's how it should be.

Token holders should always have the right to veto, remove a service provider or clawback funds, but they might not necessarily need to approve every single type of expenditure that a foundation or another committee wants to allocate capital to.

I believe the funds get streamed to the UF on a basis in which they're requested because I think they got funded with 20 million UNI tokens a little while ago, about a year.

I don't know exactly the structure, I'll be completely honest, but I am pretty sure there are safeguards in place to make sure that they're not just willy-nilly spending money on nothing.

After essentially telling LPs that they're getting screwed over and over and that we're just going to create a whole off-chain market for liquidity provision and the users of your protocol are also really going to get armed away through toxic flow.

I guess this goes to, are you bullish or bearish DAOs in general?

And what does the future of DAOs look like?

You mentioned it earlier, is the DAO as a token holder more capable of allocating grant capital to the correct party or token holders.

Or if you look at something like a lending protocol, who can better set risk parameters?

A centralized entity that does this professionally or a DAO of token holders that may or may not even vote on the proposal.

It's, I don't know, it's hard not to be bearish DAOs in a lot of ways, but I think we just really need to see the evolution of DAOs continue.

That's the main takeaway here for me, at least.

That vote actually goes live on October 10th too, so we got some time to mull it over.

But moving on to the next 1 in the governance update, we have the Arbitrum Grants Program.

The short term incentives program is what they're calling it, STIP.

Most of the requests are coming from the perp sector, GMX with 14 million, MUX for 9, GNS with 7, Vertex with 4 and a half.

It's by far and away the largest category.

Not sure how I feel about that to be honest, but would love to get your guys' thoughts on the overall process and how you guys feel about their short-term incentives program.

Definitely think there's a lot to be learned from a process standpoint.

I mean there's 105, I think was the final count of applications that came through the door.

That is an absolute nightmare for token holders and delegates have to go through.

So thankful to the couple people at Blockworks Research that spent quite a lot of time aggregating these into 1 Excel sheet and giving those voting parties the ability to at least have a quick overview of what's going on.

But the reality is a quick overview is not enough.

Because there was no framework on, here's how you can use the incentives, now request the number, it's not as simple as just looking at a high level number and deeming whether or not this is like the protocol that requested that number of ARB is worthy of receiving it.

Like you have to actually tear into the mechanism they plan on using and like, Does this make sense?

Are they just paying users to use their protocol?

Are they kind of doing something a little more complex that has a bit more staying power and stickiness of the user that doesn't just immediately create ARB cell pressure?

Like again, 105 proposals, you're not gonna get the average person to do this.

You're not even going to get the upper quartile of token holders and delegates to meaningfully go through these things.

So again, this goes back to what I just said.

Are you bearish or bullish DAOs in the long term?

This is a full-time job to go through these proposals And that's kind of what freaks me out about DAO governance in a lot of ways.

But Sam, you mentioned that, you know, Perp's platforms led the way in the total grants requested.

And the DEX's, a yield optimizers, lending protocols, and bridges kind of rounded out the top 5 there.

And in total, the top 5 sectors that we just listed off accounted for 64% of the total applications and 77% of the total ARB requested.

So It's kind of like where the ARB is categorized in this case.

And quite honestly, I feel like the protocols in those sectors are probably the most beneficial to DeFi with the exception of liquid staking.

I think that's they're kind of a little underrepresented here.

And if you really want to kind of take that next form of like ETH is money narrative, like it kind of is LST.

So I was surprised that we only got what was I think 3 liquid staking protocols coming in with LIDO being the largest request there.

Yeah, I mean the first thing I pictured when I heard that there were over 100 applications was like a multi-sig trying to go 1 by 1 through each of these applications and vote.

And not only vote physically, but also you have to think long and hard about which ones you're voting yes for, which ones you're voting no for.

And so yeah, I see a lot of parallels with the Uniswap Foundation vote where having a service provider whose job it is to allocate that capital, I think is just like way more efficient.

And on top of the fact that, I mean, looking through these proposals, I see a lot of alpha between the different protocols.

Like, I know Ramses is 1 that asked for, I think, like 4 times as much ARB than their market cap.

And we saw it pump pretty quickly, despite the fact that, like, we don't know if it's actually going to pass or not.

But people are definitely jumping at the gun to find which of these proposals gives a good amount of ARB and is going to drive activity specifically.

But then also reading it, you can also see some of these proposals that I think are just like not good and not actually like a good use of ARB.

For example, like a lot of the bridges are just asking for ARB to basically pay for the gas fee of users that bridge to the chain.

Like I don't see how that actually helps in any way.

Like I don't think, you know, Synapse giving, you know, a little bit of ARB for someone to bridge over is gonna significantly increase the flow of funds, right?

And I think there's just better, you know, uses of that capital.

And so, Yeah, I mean, I've read through some of these, but definitely not all 105, but I'm definitely going to read through them and find where the alpha is.

Also on that point, Westie, like, okay, I'm a user, I just bridged this ecosystem.

You rebated me for the gas that it took to get there.

Now I have a token I didn't ask for and I still need ETH to pay transaction fees.

What am I going to do with that token I didn't ask for?

And this, I know, Efrat, you, I know how you feel on this, so maybe I'll tee you up here, but do we need to be giving an incentive program in the heat of a bear market?

Yeah, I'll say like, I do cut even though it's a pain in the ass, like 100, 105 rolls of that thing, you said something ridiculous.

I think that doing this is actually pretty interesting because instead of creating a framework saying, here's how we're going to accept a grant or here's how we're going to distribute capital across these certain metrics, you're creating an open source, innovative way of figuring out new ways to attract arbitrary capital and unlock, I guess, like the arbitrage from a monetary economy overall.

So like, I kind of like the idea of having like, almost no framework and like everyone throw a bunch of shit ideas at the wall and seeing like what sticks kind of thing.

So you probably should only need to do this 1 or 2 times because eventually you figure out the right mode of how to allocate capital in the future.

So it is a pain in the ass up front, but I kind of like it to figure out what works and what doesn't for future programs like this.

Do we need all these different perpetual future protocols.

Almost all of them copied like the GMX model initially.

I'm not saying I'm in favor of the 14 million for GMX but I can also see the point that's like look without GMX Arbitrum really had nothing going for it.

So many other protocols built on top of GMX's B1's initial model with the GLP vaults.

You can kind of see this as like a retroactive grant going to GMX for what they were able to do to jumpstart the Arbitrum economy.

You shouldn't be betting on a product per se, you should be betting on the team.

Teams ultimately, a lot of times, ideas don't work.

But if you believe in the team, they iterate, they go into a different direction, they ultimately find success.

And I think the GMX team has shown time and time again that whether or not you believe in the V2 model itself is like regardless of the point, but GMX was a first mover advantage in this space.

Everyone else ultimately copied their model and maybe made some very small design changes here and there.

I would not be giving a bunch of capital to anyone else outside of GMX, at least in the purpose space on Arbitrum specifically.

I will say within the purpose space, I can understand why they're asking for so much capital when you look at the biggest competitors in synthetics and DYDX and the fact that they've been so successful recently is because of incentives, because of token incentives, right?

Synthetics has been using a lot of OP rewards and will continue to do so when that program comes back up.

And so like, they kind of have to play the game in order to stay competitive, which is super annoying.

And it's definitely somewhat a waste of capital, but at the same time, like you kind of have to play.

And when you look at GMX, MUX, GNS, Vertex, they all have slightly different models.

I hear your point about GMX being that base layer that everyone kind of forked and iterated on.

So it's hard to pick which one's like, oh, this, you know, protocol A is more worthy than protocol B.

If you're just like taking the right now moments of being like, okay, like, you know, this model maybe is more sustainable than the other 1 or something.

Like it's going to be really, really tough for delegates and token holders to come to decisions here on how they feel.

Something I hadn't considered effort, which was this is actually a great way to figure out which is like the best way to incentivize activity in the most sticky way.

I didn't think about that at all and just thought about the headache it was creating, but that's a 10 out of 10 point.

They also have like data and reporting requirements that they have to submit every like 2 weeks, I think throughout the incentives period.

So it's going to be super interesting to see the data that these protocols all publish onto the forum, the ones that actually win the allocations, just to see like, are the incentives working?

And then also looking at that same data, you know, months after the incentives end.

So I think we're going to learn a ton, to be honest.

Something I would like to see more of, though, would be like ARB loans.

Things that get loaned out, get more liquidity for ARB, and then maybe return to the Dow Treasury, and then the service provider who borrowed that ARB gets to make trading fees on that.

I'd also like to see like more focus around who's actually generating revenue for the DAO.

Obviously, that would be gas consumers, considering the revenue for L2 is going to be the delta between L2 fees paid and L1 settlement costs.

So, I mean, LaraZero and Stargate make up like 20% of gas, yet they're a very small portion of the requested ARB.

So, I don't know, I think this is gonna be a great learning experience, but I also think there'll be some failures from it as well.

I'm really bullish on the idea of like liquidity as a service lending out liquidity not necessarily like handing it out.

I think this is 1 thing that like going to curve for example like I think curve their vote escrow model I think is right in the sense like you got incentivized liquidity.

But the problem is they're giving their liquidity away.

Whereas I wish, you know, I think Rari, they already tried to do this a little bit.

But I think like lending out your liquidity to jumpstart an economy but not necessarily giving it out is probably the right way.

I fully believe in the protocol and liquidity model.

Again, there's such a wide design space there that it hasn't been figured out yet, but I'm very bullish on the concept in general.

I'm interested in seeing if somebody actually figures it out over the next year or so.

Yeah, Mux has actually done some interesting stuff with protocol and liquidity that I stumbled across the other day.

I think that's pretty genius for a perps platform if you're thinking like really long term time horizon.

Another 1 I just want to shout out because I've seen people on CT talking about it is Jonesdale.

I think they applied for a pretty hefty sum of ARB.

I'm not sure exactly how much it is, but they just initiated a buyback program and that thing's up like 2 times over the last week alone.

JonesDAO requested a maximum of 3000000 ARB.

I want to give a quick shout out to Hexens.

As we explore today's blockchain landscape, let's take a moment to recognize them as a premier cybersecurity provider in Web3.

Hexens is trusted by tier 1 projects like Polygon, including a security review on their new Polygon ZK EVM, Mantle, Risk 0, Lido, OneInch, NewBank, and more.

Get a deep dive into your technology stack with the most comprehensive analysis and cyber security consulting.

Hexens not only uses widely known methodologies and flows, but discovers and introduces new ones on a day-to-day basis.

With over $55 billion secured, they cover everything from smart contracts to blockchain to Web2 pen tests.

Yeah, there's been nearly $7 billion of total value hacked in crypto's nascent history, so it's safe to say your team has a lot on the line.

Don't skimp out, take your security seriously and reach out to Hexens.

Don't forget to mention ZeroX Research for a free web2 pen test with your partnership and reach out to Hexens at hexens.io.

Find them in the links in the show notes or reach out to them at permissionless.

But without further ado, let's get back to today's episode.

In my opinion, the DYDX proposal for $20 million of incentives over a 6 month period once V4 is deployed at current prices, that's only 10 million tokens, assuming a $2.00 DYDX, which is only 1% of the supply and only like 17 to 20% of that is circulating with the caveat that there are some large investor unlocks in December.

My takeaway from this, honestly, I think high float or sorry, low float, high FDV tokens got a lot of slack from the FTX Alameda era.

But I do think there's a serious argument to be made for like really long vesting schedules, really low float, gradually increasing that float.

So the value of your incentives can go a lot longer.

And they don't have any dry powder of incentives which is why they need 14 million ARB.

It's like DYDX set themselves up in this position where they can now incentivize with just 1% of the supply and it's going to be $20 million over 6 months and that's going to have a very meaningful impact.

So My biggest takeaway from this prop is just like don't hate or fade the you know, the meme of you know Low float high FDV coins.

I think that's really not the as bad as people make it out to be

Well to Westies point You got to play the game if you're a perps platform and here we see it again.

I don't know if I completely agree with you Sam that the low flow high FDV can be a good thing.

I think you just need to sort of manage that ratio and that if it's too big, you almost have too much capital to use as incentives.

And as you keep giving those out, it just drives the price down and no 1 wants to hold a token that they know is going to continue to emit basically almost what feels like to infinity like over many years.

So you have to strike a balance, but at the same time, I think you are correct in that having a portion of the supply used for incentives and figuring out which buttons you need to push to get sticky users, I think is a good thing and shouldn't be overlooked.

But again, you sort of have to strike a balance there.

Yeah, my 1 addition I would say there is, I think with those longer term time horizons, with the low float high FDV setup, like you need founders and investors to also have the same long-term mindset.

Like obviously you don't want 10% float and then all of a sudden 20% of investor and founders supply hit the market.

So I think the challenge there is just getting a team that actually wants to build and not get paid for a decade, honestly, because right now everyone starts vesting in 1 or two-year cliffs.

I think it's gonna be such a killer product and I'm like really excited to see you actually mess around with it.

Citizen, I guess I'm not allowed to say that, but I'm definitely going to be using that product.

And honestly, an incentive program makes so much sense.

Going back to the Arbitrum grant program really briefly, all that money, all that liquidity, all that capital to be allocated to these dows mostly is going to come from exit liquidity because Arbitrum doesn't really have like a sink.

It doesn't have a supply sink for all that new supply comes onto the market.

If people are smart, they should notice that DYDX is going to be a cash cow.

You're going to be able to take those DYDX incentives, restake it back to the DYDX chain, and then get additional issuance plus trading revenue.

I hope it's as good of a product as I think it's gonna be.

And if not, then the AppChain thesis is probably TED.

But I really hope that the DYDX team knocks out of the park.

You're gonna be using it on test net there.

See all 0xResearch transcripts on Applepodcasts

Analyst Table: Is Token Issuance a Cost?