<aside> <img src="/icons/map-pin-alternate_blue.svg" alt="/icons/map-pin-alternate_blue.svg" width="40px" /> Navigation - Home

I. SpecOps Roundtable

Spec Ops Roundtable - PoC

Key Pillars

Steward Elections

• Supplemental Documents

• II. Grant Framework Template

Ideas

IDEAS: Exploring Tiers

IDEAS: New User Acquisition

IDEAS: Industry/Sector Groups?

IDEAS: Exploring Pledge / Tithe

</aside>

<aside> 💡 Industry/Sector Groups?

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

</aside>