[Gauntlet] Rewards Contract Top-Up for Arbitrum and Unichain
01Summary
Gauntlet proposes adding 2,200 COMP tokens to reward contracts across two chains: 1,606 COMP for Arbitrum and 594 COMP for Unichain. The proposal involves granting COMP to a configurator contract and bridging the tokens to their respective destination contracts.
- Type
- treasury allocation
Key changes
- Allocate 1,606 COMP to Arbitrum reward contract via token bridge(medium)
- Allocate 594 COMP to Unichain reward contract via token bridge(medium)
- Grant 2,200 COMP tokens to configurator contract (0x3d9819210a31b4961b30ef54be2aed79b9c9cd3b)(high)
Notable concerns
- This is a resubmission due to a payload error in the original proposal
- The proposal utilizes cross-chain bridging mechanisms which introduces execution complexity
Generated by Kvorum
02Description
[Gauntlet] Rewards Contract Top-Up for Arbitrum and Unichain
Simple Summary
Note: This proposal has been resubmitted due to a payload error in the original version.
Gauntlet recommends adding additional COMP to the Arbitrum and Unichain reward contracts.
- Arbitrum: 1606 COMP
- Unichain: 594 COMP
Motivation
Full proposal and forum discussions can be found in the following post.
Specification
The proposal updates the parameters by using the respective methods on the Configurator.
By approving this proposal, you agree that any services provided by Gauntlet shall be governed by the terms of service available at gauntlet.xyz/tos
03Mismatch analysis
The proposal claims two COMP top-ups: 1606 COMP to Arbitrum and 594 COMP to Unichain, totaling 2200 COMP. The decoded calldata shows exactly this: action 0 grants 2200 COMP (1606+594) from the Comptroller to a holding address; actions 1-2 approve the exact same amounts (1606 and 594 COMP) to the respective bridge contracts; and actions 3-4 execute the bridging transactions to Unichain and Arbitrum respectively, matching the amounts and destinations named in the description. No numeric mismatches were found after accounting for the split/aggregation of the grant into two bridge legs. The only gap is that the description does not explicitly call out the initial grantComp step, but this is a routine mechanical prerequisite for funding a cross-chain transfer and is consistent with how Compound Configurator-based top-up proposals are typically summarized, so it does not rise above a low-severity omission. Overall the description accurately and completely represents the on-chain actions with high confidence.
Discrepancies
- lowomitted in description
The description does not explicitly mention the initial _grantComp call that mints/allocates 2200 COMP before it is bridged. This is a mechanical step required to fund the top-up and is standard for this type of proposal, so it is only a minor omission rather than a hidden or contradictory action.
Generated by Kvorum
04Actions
- Target
- 0x3d98…cd3b
- Value
- 0 wei
- Function
- _grantComp(address,uint256)
- Arguments
{ "amount": "2200000000000000000000", "recipient": "0x6d903f6003cca6255D85CcA4D3B5E5146dC33925" }- Calldata
- Target
- 0xc00e…6888
- Value
- 0 wei
- Function
- approve(address,uint256)
- Arguments
{ "amount": "1606000000000000000000", "address": "0xa3A7B6F88361F48403514059F1F16C8E78d60EeC" }- Calldata
- Target
- 0xc00e…6888
- Value
- 0 wei
- Function
- approve(address,uint256)
- Arguments
{ "amount": "594000000000000000000", "address": "0x81014F44b0a345033bB2b3B21C7a1A308B35fEeA" }- Calldata
- Target
- 0x8101…feea
- Value
- 0 wei
- Function
- bridgeERC20To(address,address,address,uint256,uint32,bytes)
- Arguments
{ "_to": "0x6f7D514bbD4aFf3BcD1140B7344b32f063dEe486", "_amount": "594000000000000000000", "_extraData": "0x", "_localToken": "0xc00e94Cb662C3520282E6f5717214004A7f26888", "_minGasLimit": "200000", "_remoteToken": "0xdf78e4F0A8279942ca68046476919A90f2288656" }- Calldata
- Target
- 0x72ce…31ef
- Value
- 826428000000000 wei
- Function
- outboundTransferCustomRefund(address,address,address,uint256,uint256,uint256,bytes)
- Arguments
{ "_to": "0x88730d254A2f7e6AC8388c3198aFd694bA9f7fae", "_data": "0x000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000260477678e40000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000400000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000", "_token": "0xc00e94Cb662C3520282E6f5717214004A7f26888", "_amount": "1606000000000000000000", "_maxGas": "315236", "_refundTo": "0x3fB4d38ea7EC20D91917c09591490Eeda38Cf88A", "_gasPriceBid": "500000000" }- Calldata
05Tally
Summed from votes
06Voters
No votes recorded yet.
07Forum
- [Gauntlet] Rewards Contract Top-Up for Arbitrum and Unichain ↗discourse · high confidence
Arguments for
- Both Arbitrum and Unichain reward contracts face imminent depletion with runways under 30 days, requiring top-up to maintain uninterrupted incentive distributions.— Gauntlet
Arguments against
None surfaced.
Notable participants
- GauntletProposer presenting the rewards contract top-up recommendation with runway analysis for Arbitrum and Unichain.
Generated by Kvorum
08Similar proposals
- compoundcanceled[Gauntlet] Rewards Contract Top-Up for Arbitrum and Unichain98%
- compoundexecuted[Gauntlet] Rewards Contract Top-Up for Arbitrum and Unichain97%
- compoundcanceled[Gauntlet] Rewards Contract Top-Up for Arbitrum and Unichain97%
- compoundexecuted[Gauntlet] Rewards Contract Top-Up for Arbitrum and Unichain96%
- compounddefeated[Gauntlet] Rewards Contract Top-Up for BASE, Ethereum, and Arbitrum (05/27/24)89%
- compoundexecuted[Gauntlet] Rewards Contract Top-Up for BASE, Ethereum, and Arbitrum (06/03/24)89%
- compoundexecutedRewards Contract Top-Up for Arbitrum, Base, and Unichain87%
- compoundexecuted[Gauntlet] Rewards Contract Top-Up for Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base and Optimism (4/18/25)86%
- compounddefeated[Gauntlet] Rewards Contract Top-Up for Ethereum and Base (11/26/24)86%
- compoundexecuted[Gauntlet] Rewards Contract Top-up for Ethereum84%