What is this about?

The discussion revolves around a project proposal named 'Artichoke Protocol' by user 0xCXXVIII and their team. The Artichoke Protocol is a single-sided liquidity protocol (SSLP) built on the Arbitrum Network, aiming to unlock yield opportunities in DeFi liquidity provision for everyone. The team has requested a grant of 370K ARB, which they plan to allocate for Liquidity Incentives, LP incentives, and future partner tail deployment & incentives. The primary aim of the Artichoke Protocol is to deepen liquidity for Arbitrum native projects and achieve sustainable and constant TVL growth across the Omnipool.

How is the community reacting?

The community has mixed reactions to the proposal. Some users, like Flindy and Matt_StableLab, raised concerns about the grant request, particularly the significant portion intended for audit costs, which is not in line with the application guidelines. They also pointed out that the funding address provided is not a multisig as required by the program rules. Other users, like Whereismymind and BorisTheBlade, criticized the grant breakdown, arguing that it does not benefit the ecosystem or engage users. Axlvaz_SEEDLATAM.eth and 0xCheeezzyyyy questioned the high subsidy request and the criteria for awarding incentives. However, 0xCXXVIII responded to these concerns, explaining the importance of the CHOKE/USDC and CHOKE/ARB LPs for their Omnipool, Tails, and synthetic asset tCHOKE. They also discussed the importance of partners for Artichoke's Omnipool and mentioned ongoing talks with several protocols that will deploy their own Tails and supply highly-liquid tokens.

Why this is positive?

The Artichoke Protocol aims to address the issues of idle treasury tokens and fractured liquidity faced by many projects. It has the potential to simplify and reduce risk in the Arbitrum ecosystem, attracting liquidity providers seeking new yield opportunities without the complexities of token pairs and impermanent loss. The team emphasizes the importance of security, advocating for audits by reputable providers and bounty programs to ensure user fund safety and foster trust in the protocol. They also propose that any grant funds not used for incentive programs should be dedicated to these security efforts.

Why this is negative?

Some community members have expressed concerns about the grant request. They argue that a significant portion of the grant is intended for audit costs, which is not in line with the application guidelines. They also point out that the funding address provided is not a multisig as required by the program rules. Some users criticize the grant breakdown, arguing that it does not benefit the ecosystem or engage users. Others question the high subsidy request and the criteria for awarding incentives. Some users voted against the proposal, stating that the incentives for CHOKE outweighed the benefit to the ecosystem and expressing dissatisfaction with the way the grant is to be used, as it seems to benefit the native token holders/stakers of the protocol rather than the Arbitrum ecosystem.