gm
Thanks for moving forward with this more general proposal for DeFi applications. I think it makes sense.
I served as an advisor (proposal reviewer) in two of the incentive programs conducted by Arbitrum DAO to date.
Here are some recommendations based on my experience.
I recommend defining this very clearly and not leaving it to the discretion of either the applicants or the reviewers. If there will be multiple review stages, the deadlines should also be well-defined.
Applicants tend to submit at the last minute (which makes sense if they’re focused on building), leading to a sudden influx of proposals. This, in turn, lowers the quality of the reviews.
I suggest setting clear and staggered deadlines to mitigate this issue.
I also recommend being strict about this—something like: If the application is incomplete, it will not be reviewed or receive feedback.
Otherwise, you might encourage laziness or incomplete submissions. It may seem like a minor issue, but when a large number of applications come in, wasting time reviewing incomplete ones becomes frustrating.
I also recommend refining the criteria for projects applying to the two tiers. When is something considered a PoC, and when is it already an MVP?
The answer may seem obvious, but in practice, many gray areas arise. At the very least, providing a clear definition of what is meant to be incentivized will help.
The quality will depend on the program’s objectives. Is the goal to onboard new applications or new teams? To incentivize those already building on Scroll? Both?
And how do you define DeFi applications? That’s another one that may seem obvious but often leads to gray areas—like a social app with some integrated DeFi features.
Will this be in charge of the evaluation committee?