This analysis evaluates the efficacy of ARB incentives in driving key performance metrics across LTIPP grantees and the broader Arbitrum ecosystem. We focus on protocols with significant market share, prioritizing those that provided comprehensive and reliable data through our data onboarding platform (as required by the LTIPP application).
To assess the impact of the incentive program, we compared observed performance metrics on Arbitrum against expected metrics derived from control groups. For protocols operating on multiple chains, we compared their performance on Arbitrum with their performance on other chains. For sector-wide analyses, we conducted vertical-level comparisons of Arbitrum's performance metrics against those of other chains. This approach allowed us to isolate the effect of the ARB incentives and determine how the Arbitrum ecosystem performed relative to typical market conditions.
For a fair comparison, we also normalize metrics by the value of ARB each protocol utilized, using the average daily ARB price during the LTIPP period (June 3 to September 2). This approach emphasizes gains per ARB dollar utilized, allowing us to assess each incentive program's cost-effectiveness.
Please note that some protocol-level analyses in this report do not include accompanying visuals due to limitations in cross-chain data availability or quality. In some cases, protocols launched during or right before the LTIPP period, resulting in a lack of pre-LTIPP data necessary for our comparative models.
Significant inflows of stablecoins and liquid staking tokens were retained in the ecosystem after the incentive program ended, whereas a substantial amount of ETH was bridged back to Ethereum post-LTIPP.
Incentivized DEXs showed superior growth in TVL and fees during LTIPP, exceeding expectations based on TVL and fees on other networks.
Incentivizing stablecoin deposits had a stronger positive impact than other lending activities, leading to significant and "sticky" TVL growth that persisted well after LTIPP ended.
Yield farming protocols like Beefy and Yearn attracted substantial TVL during LTIPP but faced significant withdrawals afterward, indicating that their impact is less sustainable compared to lending or DEX incentives.
We analyzed flows across three large bridges (Arbitrum’s bridge, Orbiter, Circle CCTP), accounting for ~68% of Arbitrum’s monthly bridge volume.
We focused on Ethereum, stablecoins, and LSTs/LRTs. Looking at the USD value of the flow of these tokens, we saw strong net inflows before and during the incentive period. However, a series of large withdrawals at the end of LTIPP removed more USD value than the total amount added through the incentive program.
They were withdrawals on the Arbitrum native bridge that brought the ETH back to the Ethereum network.
The incentive program may have attracted ‘sticky’ stablecoin deposits.
We compared DEX TVL and Fees for Arbitrum against TVL and Fees on other ecosystems.
While TVL was roughly flat through LTIPP, it was elevated relative to what we would expect based on correlations between Arbitrum DEX TVL and DEX TVL of other ecosystems – suggesting that LTIPP may have helped to offset a broader downtrend in DEX TVL.
Similar to DEX TVL, we saw DEX Fees that were higher than expectation based on the historical relationship between Arbitrum’s DEX fees and fees realized in other ecosystems.
The rolling 7d impact on DEX fee revenue was around +$100k/day through LTIPP.
Gross revenue for DEXs during LTIPP was approximately $17.5M (black line at the end of LTIPP).
Cumulative incremental revenue (revenue above expectation) for DEXs from beginning to end of LTIPP was approximately $7M.
We assessed the efficacy of each protocol’s strategy on their target metrics, and compared the 7d average TVL relative to the protocol’s performance on other chains.
Derivatives TVL was roughly flat on Arbitrum despite a slight downtrend in other related chains. Relative to expectations influenced by this downtrend, Arbitrum Derivatives TVL was higher by around $200M at the end of LTIPP (9/2).
We compared TVL in lending protocols on Arbitrum to the same protocol’s TVL across other chains.
We saw overall lending TVL oscillating around expectation through LTIPP, and underperforming expectation after LTIPP.
TVL in CDP protocols remained flat, but this was better than what we would have expected based on a declining trend in CDP TVL on similar chains. At the end of LTIPP, CDP protocol TVL was about $15M above expectation.
Compound increased their 7d rolling average TVL by around $200M by the end of LTIPP.
We compared TVL in yield farm protocols on Arbitrum to the same protocol’s TVL across other chains.
We find that TVL in yield farms is highly sensitive to incentives – Beefy and Yearn both showed an impressive increase in TVL during LTIPP. However, most of this TVL has been leaving these protocols after LTIPP ended.
Leveraged farms saw declining TVL across most chains during LTIPP. Conversely, Leveraged Farm TVL on Arbitrum grew to around $60M by the end of LTIPP, which was $40M higher than expectation based on this category’s performance on other chains. However, following LTIPP TVL in leveraged farms dropped quickly below pre-LTIPP levels.
TVL in liquidity managers declined less on Arbitrum during LTIPP relative to the decline expected based on this category’s performance on other chains. The expectation here might be less accurate due to the large drop in April, and the large jump on a comparison chain around the start of July.
TVL in Yield protocols dipped early in LTIPP but ended slightly above expectation, then underperformed relative to increasing TVL on other chains following LTIPP.
Similar to the trend in leveraged farming, yield aggregator protocols saw increased TVL on Arbitrum during LTIPP that declined after LTIPP ended. TVL increased from around $90M when LTIPP began to around $150M at the end of LTIPP, then returned almost entirely back to $90M after LTIPP.
However, TVL was still around $20M above expectation over a month after LTIPP had ended.
Liquid staking protocols underperformed expectation in the middle of LTIPP by around $3M, but recovered almost to expectation by the end of LTIPP.
This analysis evaluates the efficacy of ARB incentives in driving key performance metrics across LTIPP grantees and the broader Arbitrum ecosystem. We focus on protocols with significant market share, prioritizing those that provided comprehensive and reliable data through our data onboarding platform (as required by the LTIPP application).
To assess the impact of the incentive program, we compared observed performance metrics on Arbitrum against expected metrics derived from control groups. For protocols operating on multiple chains, we compared their performance on Arbitrum with their performance on other chains. For sector-wide analyses, we conducted vertical-level comparisons of Arbitrum's performance metrics against those of other chains. This approach allowed us to isolate the effect of the ARB incentives and determine how the Arbitrum ecosystem performed relative to typical market conditions.
For a fair comparison, we also normalize metrics by the value of ARB each protocol utilized, using the average daily ARB price during the LTIPP period (June 3 to September 2). This approach emphasizes gains per ARB dollar utilized, allowing us to assess each incentive program's cost-effectiveness.
Please note that some protocol-level analyses in this report do not include accompanying visuals due to limitations in cross-chain data availability or quality. In some cases, protocols launched during or right before the LTIPP period, resulting in a lack of pre-LTIPP data necessary for our comparative models.
Significant inflows of stablecoins and liquid staking tokens were retained in the ecosystem after the incentive program ended, whereas a substantial amount of ETH was bridged back to Ethereum post-LTIPP.
Incentivized DEXs showed superior growth in TVL and fees during LTIPP, exceeding expectations based on TVL and fees on other networks.
Incentivizing stablecoin deposits had a stronger positive impact than other lending activities, leading to significant and "sticky" TVL growth that persisted well after LTIPP ended.
Yield farming protocols like Beefy and Yearn attracted substantial TVL during LTIPP but faced significant withdrawals afterward, indicating that their impact is less sustainable compared to lending or DEX incentives.
We analyzed flows across three large bridges (Arbitrum’s bridge, Orbiter, Circle CCTP), accounting for ~68% of Arbitrum’s monthly bridge volume.
We focused on Ethereum, stablecoins, and LSTs/LRTs. Looking at the USD value of the flow of these tokens, we saw strong net inflows before and during the incentive period. However, a series of large withdrawals at the end of LTIPP removed more USD value than the total amount added through the incentive program.
They were withdrawals on the Arbitrum native bridge that brought the ETH back to the Ethereum network.
The incentive program may have attracted ‘sticky’ stablecoin deposits.
We compared DEX TVL and Fees for Arbitrum against TVL and Fees on other ecosystems.
While TVL was roughly flat through LTIPP, it was elevated relative to what we would expect based on correlations between Arbitrum DEX TVL and DEX TVL of other ecosystems – suggesting that LTIPP may have helped to offset a broader downtrend in DEX TVL.
Similar to DEX TVL, we saw DEX Fees that were higher than expectation based on the historical relationship between Arbitrum’s DEX fees and fees realized in other ecosystems.
The rolling 7d impact on DEX fee revenue was around +$100k/day through LTIPP.
Gross revenue for DEXs during LTIPP was approximately $17.5M (black line at the end of LTIPP).
Cumulative incremental revenue (revenue above expectation) for DEXs from beginning to end of LTIPP was approximately $7M.
We assessed the efficacy of each protocol’s strategy on their target metrics, and compared the 7d average TVL relative to the protocol’s performance on other chains.
Derivatives TVL was roughly flat on Arbitrum despite a slight downtrend in other related chains. Relative to expectations influenced by this downtrend, Arbitrum Derivatives TVL was higher by around $200M at the end of LTIPP (9/2).
We compared TVL in lending protocols on Arbitrum to the same protocol’s TVL across other chains.
We saw overall lending TVL oscillating around expectation through LTIPP, and underperforming expectation after LTIPP.
TVL in CDP protocols remained flat, but this was better than what we would have expected based on a declining trend in CDP TVL on similar chains. At the end of LTIPP, CDP protocol TVL was about $15M above expectation.
Compound increased their 7d rolling average TVL by around $200M by the end of LTIPP.
We compared TVL in yield farm protocols on Arbitrum to the same protocol’s TVL across other chains.
We find that TVL in yield farms is highly sensitive to incentives – Beefy and Yearn both showed an impressive increase in TVL during LTIPP. However, most of this TVL has been leaving these protocols after LTIPP ended.
Leveraged farms saw declining TVL across most chains during LTIPP. Conversely, Leveraged Farm TVL on Arbitrum grew to around $60M by the end of LTIPP, which was $40M higher than expectation based on this category’s performance on other chains. However, following LTIPP TVL in leveraged farms dropped quickly below pre-LTIPP levels.
TVL in liquidity managers declined less on Arbitrum during LTIPP relative to the decline expected based on this category’s performance on other chains. The expectation here might be less accurate due to the large drop in April, and the large jump on a comparison chain around the start of July.
TVL in Yield protocols dipped early in LTIPP but ended slightly above expectation, then underperformed relative to increasing TVL on other chains following LTIPP.
Similar to the trend in leveraged farming, yield aggregator protocols saw increased TVL on Arbitrum during LTIPP that declined after LTIPP ended. TVL increased from around $90M when LTIPP began to around $150M at the end of LTIPP, then returned almost entirely back to $90M after LTIPP.
However, TVL was still around $20M above expectation over a month after LTIPP had ended.
Liquid staking protocols underperformed expectation in the middle of LTIPP by around $3M, but recovered almost to expectation by the end of LTIPP.