Retroactive funding distorts priorities. Protocols like Optimism's RetroPGF reward past work, which incentivizes developers to chase trends that look good in retrospect rather than solving unproven, high-impact problems. This creates a narrative-first development cycle.
layer-2-wars-arbitrum-optimism-base-and-beyond
Blog
The Future of L2 Funding is Meritocratic, Not Democratic
Survival in the L2 wars demands grant allocation by technical experts assessing hard ROI, not by popular vote or decentralized theatre. An analysis of why Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base must evolve.
introduction
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Grant Graft
Retroactive public goods funding creates a perverse incentive for builders to prioritize narrative over utility.
Meritocracy beats democracy for capital allocation. Community-led grant voting, as seen in early Uniswap governance, suffers from popularity contests and voter apathy. A technical merit panel, similar to how Ethereum Foundation grants operate, identifies and funds foundational work like cryptographic libraries that lack immediate appeal.
The evidence is in the output. Compare the developer tools and core infrastructure funded by EF grants to the proliferation of meme-coins and copycat DeFi apps on L2 grant leaderboards. The former has a multiplier effect on ecosystem growth; the latter is financialized noise.
key-insights
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
Executive Summary
Current L2 funding models prioritize voter turnout over protocol performance, creating a broken incentive loop. The future is direct, performance-based allocation.
01
The Problem: Governance Theater
Retroactive airdrops and grant committees create misaligned incentives. Voters chase short-term rewards, not long-term security or innovation.\n- Sybil attacks dilute real user rewards\n- Grant committees are slow and politically captured\n- Voter apathy leads to low-quality delegation
<10%
Voter Turnout
$1B+
Misallocated
02
The Solution: Programmable Treasuries
Smart contracts autonomously allocate capital based on verifiable, on-chain metrics, removing human bias and political games.\n- Direct yield to stakers from protocol revenue (e.g., EigenLayer, Espresso) \n- Automated grants triggered by milestone completion\n- Real-time slashing for poor performance or downtime
24/7
Allocation
0
Committee Overhead
03
The Mechanism: Verifiable Performance Oracles
Objective data feeds (latency, uptime, capital efficiency) become the source of truth for funding decisions, not subjective proposals.\n- Chainlink Functions or Pyth for off-chain data\n- EigenDA for attestations on restaking yield\n- On-chain analytics from Dune, Flipside
~500ms
Data Latency
99.9%
Uptime SLA
04
The Precedent: DeFi's Efficiency Engine
DeFi protocols like Uniswap, Aave, and Compound already run on algorithmically determined incentives (liquidity mining, borrow rates). L2s are just catching up.\n- Liquidity follows yield automatically\n- Capital efficiency is the primary KPI\n- Failed incentives are iterated out in weeks, not governance cycles
$50B+
TVL Managed
10x
Faster Iteration
05
The Obstacle: Captured Foundations
Existing power structures (L2 foundations, core dev teams) resist ceding treasury control to code, as it eliminates their political leverage and grant-making authority.\n- Vested token allocations create entrenched interests\n- Legal liability fears around autonomous spending\n- Narrative control is harder with transparent algorithms
2-3 years
Vesting Schedules
>60%
Treasury Locked
06
The Endgame: L2s as Public Utilities
The most secure and useful chains will attract capital algorithmically, turning governance into a maintenance function. Success is measured in TPS/$, not forum posts.\n- Usage-based revenue sharing (like Optimism's RetroPGF but automated)\n- Security-as-a-Service paid to restakers (e.g., EigenLayer)\n- Protocols compete on hard metrics, not marketing
TPS/$
New Metric
-90%
Gov. Overhead
thesis-statement
THE INCENTIVE SHIFT
The Meritocracy Mandate
Future L2 funding will prioritize measurable protocol performance over token-holder voting, creating a competitive market for capital allocation.
Protocols compete for capital. Retroactive funding models like Optimism's RPGF and Arbitrum's STIP prove that grants follow proven utility, not speculative promises. This inverts the traditional VC model where capital precedes product-market fit.
Meritocratic funding is non-dilutive. Successful protocols earn rewards from a shared treasury, avoiding the equity dilution of traditional fundraising. This creates a direct feedback loop where protocol revenue and user growth become the primary fundraising metrics.
Democracy creates misaligned incentives. Token-holder voting in DAOs like Uniswap or Compound often devolves into bribery ("vote-buying") or apathy, allocating capital to marketing over core infrastructure. Meritocracy aligns incentives with the network's actual utility.
Evidence: EigenLayer's restaking market is a live meritocracy; operators earn fees based on slashing risk and performance, not a governance vote. This model will extend to L2 sequencer funding and cross-chain messaging security.
FUNDING MODELS
The Democratic Deficit: L2 Grant Program ROI Audit
A comparison of funding mechanisms for Layer 2 ecosystem growth, contrasting democratic token voting with meritocratic, outcome-driven models.
| Key Metric | Democratic (Token-Vote) Grants | Meritocratic (RetroPGF / Results-Based) | Hybrid (Optimism's Citizen House) |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Funding Source | Protocol Treasury (e.g., ARB, OP tokens) | Protocol Treasury + External Donors | Protocol Treasury (Ring-fenced allocation) |
Decision-Maker | Token Holders (Whales & Delegates) | Expert Panels & Reputation Holders | Randomly Selected, Verified Citizens |
Voter Turnout / Participation | < 10% of circulating supply | 50-100 curated panelists | ~1,000 citizens per funding round |
Average Grant Size | $50k - $500k | $10k - $100k | $30k - $200k |
ROI Measurement Period | None (upfront funding) | Post-hoc, based on verifiable outcomes | Limited; focuses on intent, not hard metrics |
Accountability Mechanism | None (one-way capital flow) | Clawbacks & future funding tied to deliverables | Community reporting & badgeholder review |
Susceptibility to Sybil / Grift | High (whale dominance, vote-buying) | Low (expert curation, reputation at stake) | Medium (citizen selection reduces, but doesn't eliminate, collusion) |
Example Implementations | Arbitrum DAO STIP, early Optimism rounds | Optimism RetroPGF Rounds, Gitcoin Grants Stack | Optimism's Citizen House voting on grant proposals |
deep-dive
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
Why Popular Vote Grants Are a Protocol Liability
Democratized grant distribution prioritizes marketing over protocol security and long-term value.
Popular vote grants misalign incentives. They reward projects skilled at community mobilization, not those building critical infrastructure like a new ZK-prover or a sequencer-level MEV auction. The result is a treasury drained by marketing spend, not technical R&D.
Protocols are not democracies. A DAO's governance token represents speculative interest, not technical expertise. Granting $ARB or $OP to the loudest community campaign ignores the silent builders solving hard problems like state growth or cross-chain interoperability.
Evidence: The Arbitrum STIP demonstrated this flaw. High-profile DeFi protocols with existing treasuries captured significant funding, while foundational L2 infrastructure like shared sequencers or decentralized provers received minimal allocation from the popular vote.
counter-argument
THE GOVERNANCE TRAP
Steelmanning the DAO Purist (And Why They're Wrong)
Token-vote DAOs are structurally incapable of making the high-velocity, high-conviction capital allocation decisions required to win the L2 wars.
Token-vote governance is a coordination tax. Every funding decision requires a multi-week proposal, signaling, and voting cycle. This creates fatal latency against venture-backed competitors like Polygon or Base, which deploy capital in days.
Merit is not popularity. A one-token-one-vote system optimizes for the preferences of large, often passive, token holders. It does not identify the best technical builders, as seen in the misallocation of early Optimism RetroPGF rounds.
The future is specialized allocators. Successful ecosystems like Arbitrum delegate capital to domain experts via Arbitrum STIP and Arbitrum DAO's Grants Council. This mirrors a16z's model of funding technical founders, not running plebiscites.
Evidence: Compare the 6-month grant cycle of a typical DAO to the 72-hour deployment of a Base Ecosystem Fund allocation. Speed of capital is a non-negotiable competitive edge.
case-study
FROM VOTES TO VALIDATION
Case Studies in Meritocratic Allocation
Token-voting DAOs for protocol funding are failing. These systems show how capital follows provable execution, not promises.
01
Optimism's RetroPGF
The canonical experiment in rewarding past public goods contributions. It replaces speculative grant proposals with retrospective rewards for proven impact.
- Directs $100M+ across rounds to developers, educators, and tooling.
- Juried panels & badgeholders assess impact, moving beyond simple token-weighted votes.
- Incentivizes real work by paying for outputs, not funding inputs.
$100M+
Capital Allocated
Rounds 1-3
Iterations
02
The EigenLayer AVS Marketplace
A pure capital-allocation market for blockchain security. Restakers delegate stake to Actively Validated Services (AVSs) based on their proven reliability and rewards.
- Market-driven security pricing: High-demand, reliable AVSs command premium yields.
- Capital efficiency: Stake is allocated to services with the strongest cryptoeconomic guarantees.
- Forces meritocracy: Underperforming or insecure AVSs are starved of stake and fail.
$15B+
Restaked TVL
Yield-Based
Selection
03
Hyperliquid's Perp DEX Governance
A DEX where governance power (HYPE tokens) is earned solely by providing liquidity and generating fees, not purchased. This ties influence directly to platform contribution.
- Power = Proven Contribution: Governance share is a function of lifetime fees generated.
- Anti-whale mechanism: Prevents vote-buying; only sustained performance matters.
- Aligns incentives: Those who grow the protocol's core business control its direction.
Fee-Based
Voting Power
L1 Appchain
Architecture
04
The Failure of DAO Grant Committees
A counter-case study. Democratic grant programs like Uniswap's or Arbitrum's often fund low-impact projects due to voter apathy and political campaigning.
- Voter fatigue leads to low participation and delegation to insiders.
- Funds marketing, not building: Projects compete on proposal quality, not execution history.
- Creates grantpreneurs who are optimized for proposal writing, not product delivery.
<10%
Voter Turnout
High Overhead
Inefficiency
05
Celestia's Modular Data Fee Market
Block space is allocated purely by fee payment, creating a meritocracy for rollup sequencers. High-value transactions outbid spam, optimizing resource use.
- Usage-based allocation: Pays for data, not promises. The most valuable rollups secure space.
- Prevents governance capture: No committee decides which rollup 'deserves' resources.
- Scales with demand: Fees naturally rise with contention, funding further network capacity.
Pay-Per-Byte
Model
No Votes
Governance
06
Gitcoin's Transition to Protocol Guild
Moving from a centralized grant round operator to a sustainable, on-chain funding mechanism for core Ethereum developers. It automates recurring funding based on contribution.
- Streams funding to recognized contributors via smart contracts, not grant votes.
- Mitigates public goods free-rider problem by creating a direct patronage model.
- Proof-of-Impact: Membership in the guild itself is a meritocratic signal.
Streaming
Funding Model
Core Devs
Focus
future-outlook
THE INCENTIVE SHIFT
The 2024 Pivot: From Governance Theatre to Growth Engine
Layer 2s are replacing token-vote governance with programmatic, results-based funding mechanisms to drive sustainable growth.
Token-vote governance is a distraction for scaling protocols. Voting on grants and treasury allocations is slow, political, and fails to measure real user adoption. The Arbitrum DAO's early struggles with proposal spam and voter apathy exemplify this inefficiency.
Meritocratic funding mechanisms are the new standard. Protocols like Optimism with its RetroPGF rounds and Arbitrum with its STIP-B program now allocate capital based on verifiable on-chain metrics, not promises. This creates a direct feedback loop where builders are rewarded for delivering measurable value.
The future is programmatic growth. Funding follows protocol revenue and user activity, not forum posts. This model mirrors the Blast airdrop strategy, which rewarded early depositors and developers who generated real yield, aligning incentives with network effects from day one.
Evidence: The Arbitrum STIP distributed 50M ARB based on provable metrics like TVL and transaction volume, directly funding protocols like GMX and Camelot that already demonstrated product-market fit.
takeaways
THE END OF ONE-TOKEN-ONE-VOTE
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
Current L2 funding models are broken, prioritizing token-weighted votes over actual network utility. The future is a shift from democratic tokenomics to a meritocratic system that rewards provable contributions.
01
The Problem: Token-Voting is a Governance Attack Vector
Democratic token voting creates misaligned incentives where capital, not contribution, dictates protocol direction. This leads to treasury looting, protocol capture, and stagnation.
- Vote-Buying & Bribes: Platforms like Paladin and Votium turn governance into a yield market.
- Stagnant Capital: $10B+ in governance tokens sits idle, providing no operational security.
- Low Participation: <10% voter turnout is common, making protocols vulnerable to small, motivated blocs.
<10%
Avg. Turnout
$10B+
Idle Capital
02
The Solution: Retrofittable Contribution Scoring
Protocols must implement a Soulbound contribution score (e.g., Gitcoin Passport for L2s) that measures on-chain utility, not wealth.
- Prove, Don't Propose: Score based on tx volume, contract deployments, MEV burn, or bug bounties.
- Sybil-Resistant: Leverage Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) and proof-of-personhood.
- Modular Design: Can be layered atop existing Optimism Collective or Arbitrum DAO structures without a hard fork.
Soulbound
Identity
EAS
Base Layer
03
Mechanism: Funding Pools with Contribution Weight
Replace one-token-one-vote with a quadratic funding model weighted by contribution score. This directly ties treasury distributions to proven value add.
- Quadratic Funding: Like Gitcoin Grants, but for L2 ecosystem projects. Dilutes whale power.
- Automatic Payouts: Use Safe{Wallet} modules and Chainlink Automation for trustless execution.
- Realigns Incentives: Developers and active users gain influence proportional to their provable work, not their speculative bag.
Quadratic
Funding Math
Safe{Wallet}
Execution
04
Case Study: Optimism's RetroPGF as a Primitive
Optimism's Retroactive Public Goods Funding (RetroPGF) is the blueprint, but it's manual and slow. The future is a continuous, automated meritocracy.
- Current Scale: $40M+ distributed over 3 rounds to ~500 contributors.
- The Evolution: Automate attribution using Covalent for data and Hyperlane for cross-chain proof.
- The Goal: Move from biannual rounds to a real-time fee-redistribution engine.
$40M+
Distributed
~500
Contributors
05
Architectural Primitives You Need
Building this requires a stack for attestation, scoring, and execution.
- Attestation Layer: Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) or Verax for on-chain reputation.
- Data Layer: Covalent or Goldsky for querying granular on-chain activity.
- Execution Layer: Safe{Wallet} modules with Celestia-settled fraud proofs for payout legitimacy.
EAS
Attestation
Celestia
Settlement
06
The Endgame: L2s as Credential Networks
The ultimate competitive moat for an L2 won't be TPS or cheap gas, but the quality of its contributor graph. A meritocratic system turns your chain into a verifiable talent and capital magnet.
- Composable Reputation: Contribution scores become collateral in Arcade.xyz-style lending or grant matching.
- Protocol Capture-Proof: Makes hostile takeovers economically irrational.
- Sustainable Flywheel: Attract builders → fund builders → improve chain → repeat.
Credential
Network Effect
Capture-Proof
Governance
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