The Arbitrum DAO community made the decision to approve the expansion of the budget for its grant program, injecting an additional amount of $23 million. This increase brings the total budget of the program to over $70 million, intended to support a total of 56 emerging projects in the ecosystem.
The decision resulted from a vote that took place between November 18 and December 2, in which the proposal to distribute additional funds to previously approved but unfunded projects due to the Short-Term Incentive Program (STIP) limit was supported by a large majority. The additional distribution of 21.1 million ARB tokens, valued at $23.4 million, will be allocated to 26 additional projects.
This financial boost aims not only to support already approved projects but also to foster diversity and the emergence of new builders in the space. The Arbitrum community expressed its commitment to creating a conducive environment for the development of innovative initiatives.
Arbitrum, as a layer-2 network designed to scale transactions on the Ethereum blockchain, plays a crucial role in improving speed and reducing costs in fund transfers. Governed by ARB token holders, the protocol generates revenue through transaction fees.
Financial Performance of Arbitrum
In financial terms, the latest data provided reveals that Arbitrum experienced a notable performance in December, generating over $180,165 in fees and $43,342 in revenue on December 1 alone. November was also a solid month, with revenues reaching $5.93 million and fees totaling $1.47 million.
According to the latest data provided by CoinMarketCap, Arbitrum is trading at $1.13 after a 1.67% increase. Its market capitalization grew by 1.78% and is at $1,441.5 million, and its market volume experienced an increase of 3.38%, surpassing $333 million.
Among the specific beneficiaries of this budget expansion are projects like Gains Network, Wormhole, and Stargate Finance. However, it is important to note that not all initially proposed projects were accepted without controversy and resistance. Delegates from the MUX protocol argued against the decision, expressing concerns about the inclusion of projects of variable and questionable quality. Some DAO members also suggested that a full second round would have been a fairer option instead of additional funding.
