Grant programs create perverse incentives by rewarding activity, not utility. Teams optimize for grant committee checklists instead of solving user problems, leading to a proliferation of redundant tooling and empty testnets.
the-state-of-web3-education-and-onboarding
Blog
The Cost of Misaligned Incentives in Ecosystem Funding
An autopsy of how foundation grants that prioritize short-term TVL metrics over sustainable utility create fragile, mercenary ecosystems destined to collapse post-incentives.
introduction
THE MISALLOCATION
Introduction: The Grant-Driven Ghost Town
Ecosystem grants, designed to bootstrap growth, often fund low-impact projects that fail to create sustainable user value.
The funding model is fundamentally misaligned with long-term protocol health. Unlike venture capital or protocol-owned revenue, grants lack a direct feedback loop between capital deployment and real economic traction.
Evidence: The 'TVL-to-Grant' ratio is a telling metric. Chains like Avalanche and Polygon have deployed hundreds of millions, yet a significant portion of funded projects show negligible mainnet activity or user retention post-funding.
thesis-statement
THE MISALIGNMENT
The Core Flaw: Paying for Activity, Not Utility
Ecosystem grants and airdrops systematically reward artificial transaction volume instead of genuine user retention and protocol revenue.
Incentive programs are gamed. Protocols like Optimism and Arbitrum allocate funds based on raw transaction counts, which Sybil farmers exploit with automated, valueless loops. This creates a phantom economy that inflates metrics but starves real builders.
Activity is not utility. A user bridging via Stargate for a yield farm is counted, but a user paying for a Uniswap swap generates actual fee revenue. Funding models fail to distinguish between parasitic and productive capital.
The evidence is in the retention. Post-airdrop, protocols like Jito and Starknet see >80% user drop-off. The capital spent acquired empty wallets, not sticky users. Sustainable growth funds the latter.
key-trends
ECOSYSTEM FUNDING FAILURES
The Mercenary Playbook: Three Observable Patterns
Protocols pour billions into incentives, only to watch capital flee at the first sign of better yields. Here's how misaligned subsidies create extractive, not sticky, growth.
01
The Yield Farmer's Dilemma
Liquidity mining programs attract capital that optimizes for APY, not protocol utility. This creates a negative-sum game where the highest rewards go to the most sophisticated, fastest-moving bots.
- >90% of emissions are captured by mercenary capital that exits within 1-3 reward cycles.
- Creates phantom TVL that provides no meaningful liquidity depth during volatile market moves.
- Forces protocols into a subsidy arms race with competitors like Curve, Aave, and Compound.
>90%
Mercenary Capital
1-3 Cycles
Average Stay
02
The Grant Grinder
Ecosystem grant programs are gamed by teams that deliver minimal, checkbox-compliant work to secure funding, then abandon the project.
- Grant committees lack the bandwidth to conduct deep due diligence, leading to low-quality integrations.
- Funds projects that fork existing code with trivial changes rather than building novel primitives.
- Optimism's RetroPGF and Arbitrum's STIP are high-profile attempts to retroactively reward real value, but remain vulnerable to sybil and reputation attacks.
Low-Quality
Integrations
Fork & Fund
Common Tactic
03
The Airdrop Hunter Swarm
Sybil attackers deploy thousands of wallets to farm anticipated airdrops, diluting rewards for real users and poisoning community sentiment post-drop.
- LayerZero's sybil filtering and EigenLayer's intersubjective slashing are reactive attempts to curb this.
- Creates a data pollution problem where genuine user activity is indistinguishable from farmed interactions on zkSync, Starknet, and Scroll.
- Leads to mass sell-pressure events where >70% of airdropped tokens are dumped within the first week.
>70%
Initial Dump
Thousands
Sybil Wallets
ECOSYSTEM FUNDING
The Post-Incentive Collapse: A Data Autopsy
Quantifying the fallout from misaligned liquidity mining and grant programs across major L1/L2 ecosystems.
| Post-Collapse Metric | Arbitrum (STIP) | Optimism (RetroPGF) | Avalanche (Rush) | Solana (Ignition) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Peak-to-Trough TVL Drop | -68% | -52% | -88% | -94% |
Median Grant ROI (USD) | -42% | +15% | -81% | -95% |
Protocol Retention Rate (30d post-grant) | 31% | 45% | 12% | 8% |
Sybil Attack Prevalence | 22% of wallets | 8% of wallets | 47% of wallets | 63% of wallets |
Sustained Fee Revenue Growth (>6mo) | ||||
Developer Churn (6mo post-funding) | 55% | 40% | 78% | 85% |
Median Capital Efficiency (TVL/Fees) | $4.2k | $8.1k | $0.9k | $0.3k |
deep-dive
THE MISALIGNMENT
First-Principles Analysis: Why This Fails
Ecosystem funding models fail because they subsidize short-term mercenaries instead of building sustainable protocol usage.
Retroactive airdrops create mercenary capital. Protocols like Arbitrum and Optimism distribute tokens based on past activity, which incentivizes users to farm transactions for a one-time payout. This behavior inflates metrics without creating lasting user loyalty or protocol revenue.
Grant programs fund features, not adoption. Programs like Polygon's ecosystem fund or Avalanche's Multiverse pay builders to deploy, not users to transact. This creates a supply of applications with no corresponding demand, leading to ghost chains with high TVL and near-zero fees.
The core failure is subsidizing supply. Effective funding must subsidize demand. Successful models like Uniswap's fee switch or Ethereum's EIP-1559 burn directly tie value capture to user activity, creating a positive feedback loop between usage and sustainability.
case-study
THE COST OF MISALIGNED INCENTIVES
Case Studies in Misalignment: Arbitrum, Optimism, Base
Ecosystem funding programs designed to bootstrap growth often create perverse incentives that undermine long-term health. Here's how three major L2s illustrate the problem.
01
Arbitrum's Short-Termism
The $ARB airdrop and subsequent STIP (Short-Term Incentive Program) prioritized immediate TVL and volume over sustainable development. This led to mercenary capital farming protocols like PlutusDAO, with ~$2B in ARB distributed often to projects that failed to retain users post-incentives. The result was a massive sell-off and a community backlash over governance centralization.
$2B+
ARB Distributed
-80%
TVL Churn
02
Optimism's RetroPGF Complexity
Retroactive Public Goods Funding (RetroPGF) aims to reward past contributions, but its opaque, qualitative voting process creates political campaigning over measurable impact. This misaligns builders, who must now lobby delegates instead of focusing on users. While over $100M has been allocated, the system struggles to fund critical, unglamorous infrastructure versus popular dApps.
$100M+
Funds Allocated
~2 Months
Campaign Cycle
03
Base's Onchain Summer & The Sybil Farm
Base's Onchain Summer and subsequent quest campaigns attracted massive user growth but were gamed by sophisticated Sybil farmers. This diluted rewards for real users and created a shadow economy for bot services. While daily transactions spiked, it revealed a fundamental flaw: one-size-fits-all incentives are easily exploited and do not build genuine community.
2M+
Quest Claims
>60%
Sybil Rate
counter-argument
THE MISALIGNMENT
Steelman: "But We Need Bootstrapping!"
Ecosystem funding often creates short-term liquidity at the expense of long-term protocol health.
Incentive misalignment is structural. Grant programs and liquidity mining attract mercenary capital that exits after the last reward, leaving protocols with inflated metrics and no real users.
Protocols subsidize their own competition. Projects like Uniswap and Aave fund forks that cannibalize their own liquidity, creating a zero-sum game for user attention and TVL.
The evidence is in the data. Post-incentive TVL drops of 60-90% are standard, as seen in early Optimism and Avalanche Rush programs, proving the capital was never sticky.
takeaways
THE COST OF MISALIGNED INCENTIVES
The Builder's Pivot: Funding Sustainable Growth
Ecosystem funding is broken. Billions in grants and liquidity mining have created mercenary capital, not sustainable networks. Here's how to fix it.
01
The Problem: Liquidity Mining's Ghost Fleet
Programs like SushiSwap's early emissions created a $10B+ TVL illusion. Capital flees the moment incentives drop, leaving protocols with empty pools and inflated token supplies. This is yield farming, not ecosystem building.
- ~95%+ capital churn post-emissions
- Token inflation dilutes long-term holders
- Zero protocol loyalty from mercenary LPs
95%+
Capital Churn
$10B+
Ghost TVL
02
The Solution: Vesting-as-a-Service (VaaS)
Platforms like CoinList and Fjord Foundry enforce mandatory vesting for public raises. This aligns investor and builder timelines, preventing immediate sell pressure. The capital is patient by design.
- Enforced lock-ups (1-3 years typical)
- Linear unlocks prevent cliff dumps
- Attracts builders, not flippers
1-3y
Vesting Period
Linear
Unlock Schedule
03
The Problem: Grant Programs as Cash Burners
Optimism's early rounds and Arbitrum's initial STIP funded many projects that shipped nothing. Grants became revenue, not milestones. Accountability was an afterthought, wasting $100M+ across major ecosystems.
- Milestone-based payouts are rare
- Retroactive funding is gamed
- No skin in the game for grant recipients
$100M+
Wasted Grants
Low
Accountability
04
The Solution: Results-Based Retro Funding
Follow Optimism's later model: fund what already works. Ethereum's Protocol Guild and Uniswap's Grants Program vet impact first, pay second. This flips the incentive from proposal-writing to shipping.
- Pay for verified on-chain metrics
- Small committees, not DAO votes for speed
- Fund outputs, not promises
Retroactive
Funding Model
On-Chain
Verification
05
The Problem: Airdrops That Enrich Sybils
Arbitrum's $ARB and Starknet's $STRK airdrops were heavily sybil-attacked. Over 50% of wallets in some drops were fake, rewarding farmers over real users. This destroys token utility and community trust on day one.
- ~50%+ sybil rate in major drops
- Real users get diluted
- Token becomes a yield asset, not a governance tool
50%+
Sybil Rate
Diluted
Real Users
06
The Solution: Proof-of-Personhood & Continuous Distribution
Use Worldcoin's Proof-of-Personhood or Gitcoin Passport to filter bots. Adopt EigenLayer's model of continuous, merit-based distribution via restaking. Reward sustained contribution, not one-off interaction.
- Sybil-resistant identity proofs
- Continuous rewards for ongoing utility
- Aligns tokenholders with network health
Continuous
Distribution
PoP
Identity Layer
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall