Layer3 Review
Quest campaigns with defined new-user and retention metrics
of 10
Layer3 scores 4.7 out of 10 among incentive program operators. Its Arbitrum application defines how it counts new and reactivated users and links its own public Dune dashboards, but no payout figure is published and nothing is said about ties to the chains it serves. Desk research, read November 6, 2026.
By Dan Reyes · Updated Nov 6, 2026
Role
Reward distribution
Overall score
4.7 / 10 (28 points ÷ 6 criteria), up from 3.8
LTIPP grant
400,000 ARB requested and funded; planned 0.2 to 0.4 ARB per completion
Metric definitions
New = no prior Arbitrum history; reactivated = inactive 3+ months
Open dashboards
dune.com/l3, per chain; users, transactions and fees, no reward amounts
Sources last read
2026-11-06
Scores
Each criterion carries equal weight. The overall score is the average of these 6 scores — (8.0 + 0.0 + 10.0 + 5.0 + 5.0 + 0.0) ÷ 6 = 4.7.
Pros
- Impact report 10: new, reactivated and downstream-fee metrics are defined and sourced to Dune
- Named programs 8: Onchain Daily on Base, Linea Park and LTIPP quests on Arbitrum, each with network and period
- Open data 5: Layer3's own Dune dashboards open without a login, with daily data to June 2026
Cons
- Disclosed volume 0: the 400,000 ARB LTIPP grant is a budget; no payout figure was found
- Independence 0: no statement on ties to the chains and apps that fund its quests
- Abuse protection 5: social-graph and holdings filters, with no sybil-detection mechanism described
How Layer3 scores in incentive program operators
Layer3 is rated in our incentive and grant program operators ranking in the reward distribution role. Chains and apps use it to post quests: short sets of on-chain tasks, with rewards paid from an escrow contract when a user mints a CUBE, Layer3's ERC-721 completion credential. The review is desk research, read on November 6, 2026. Layer3's own sites (layer3.xyz, its app blog and docs) returned a bot-check page to automated requests at this check. The marks therefore rest on Layer3's own posts on the Arbitrum governance forum and its public Dune dashboards.
The six criteria use fixed scales set out in our ratings methodology.
| Criterion | Mark | Finding | Source, date read |
|---|---|---|---|
| Named programs | 8 | Layer3's Arbitrum application names three campaigns with network and period: Base's Onchain Daily (from August 2023), Linea Park (a gaming campaign announced in February 2024, with results after its first two weeks) and its own 12-week, three-phase LTIPP quest program on Arbitrum. Arbitrum Adventure is named without dates. | Arbitrum forum, 2026-11-06 |
| Disclosed volume | 0 | The one amount Layer3 states is the 400,000 ARB it requested for LTIPP, which the program's funded list confirms. That is a grant budget, and the plan says it would be paid out at 0.2 to 0.4 ARB per completion, but no figure for what was actually distributed was found. The Questbook grant of 17,500 USDC was paid to Layer3, not used for rewards. | Arbitrum forum, LTIPP funded list, 2026-11-06 |
| Impact report | 10 | The application reports results with definitions. A new user is a wallet with no prior Arbitrum history before the quest. A reactivated user had been inactive for three months or more. Downstream fees are fees from those wallets afterwards. The figures (31,000 new and 6,600 reactivated users; 48 transactions per new user within six months) are sourced to Layer3's Dune dashboards. | Arbitrum forum, 2026-11-06 |
| Abuse protection | 5 | Layer3 says it targets users through the Farcaster social graph, NFT and POAP holdings and past on-chain activity, to find "genuine non-bot human activity". These are targeting filters. No sybil-detection mechanism is described. | Arbitrum forum, 2026-11-06 |
| Open data | 5 | Layer3's own Dune account (l3), linked from its application, publishes per-chain dashboards that open without a login. The Arbitrum one has daily active-user data from August 2022 to June 2026. They track users, transactions and fees, not reward amounts. | dune.com/l3, 2026-11-06 |
| Independence | 0 | No statement on ties to the chains or apps whose rewards Layer3 distributes. The application answers only that no grants consultant was used to draft it. | Arbitrum forum, 2026-11-06 |
The overall score is the plain average of the six marks: (8 + 0 + 10 + 5 + 5 + 0) / 6 = 28 / 6 = 4.7.
Three marks changed at this check, and the overall rose from 3.8 to 4.7. Open data rose from 0 to 5: the Dune dashboards cited in the application belong to Layer3's own account, not to third parties as the earlier review recorded. Impact report rose from 5 to 10 for the application's defined retention metrics. Disclosed volume fell from 5 to 0. Its earlier figures came from a Layer3 blog post that could not be reopened, and the amount that can be checked, 400,000 ARB, is a grant budget, which the category does not count as distributed volume.
Strongest criteria: impact report and named programs
Impact report (10). Layer3's March 2024 application says how it counts a user. It separates new wallets from reactivated ones with a stated three-month inactivity window, and counts only downstream fees from those wallets. It also points every chain-level figure to a public Dune dashboard. The figures are self-reported and the application is a funding request, so the mark covers the method's disclosure, not its accuracy.
Named programs (8). Three campaigns carry a network and a period: Onchain Daily on Base, Linea Park on Linea and the LTIPP quests on Arbitrum. The application also describes ongoing quest activity on Optimism and Polygon since August 2022, but those are not separate programs with an end date.
Weakest criteria: volume and independence
Both zeros are disclosure gaps, not findings about how Layer3 handled the money.
- Disclosed volume (0). The Arbitrum DAO funded Layer3 with 400,000 ARB for quests. Layer3's plan split it 25%, 30% and 45% across three phases, but no published figure for what was paid out to users was found. Layer3's own blog may hold more, but it could not be opened at this check.
- Independence (0). Layer3 earns from quests posted by the same chains and apps it reports results for, and it publishes no policy on those relationships.
Abuse protection (5) stays partial. Social-graph and holdings filters choose who sees a quest, but Layer3 describes no detection of duplicate wallets or farming.
What the score does not cover
The rubric scores what Layer3 publishes about its programs. It does not cover the L3 token, staking, the Layer3 Wallet, or the contract risk of the third-party apps that quests send users to. Quest links are a common phishing lure, and our guide to wallet scams and phishing explains what to check before signing.
Layer3 vs the closest rated peers
At 4.7, Layer3 sits between the other reward-distribution platforms at this check: above Turtle (3.3) and Boost (1.7), and below Karma (5.0) and Galxe (5.8). Galxe, the closest like-for-like quest platform, scores higher on abuse protection, disclosed volume and named programs, where it publishes more.
Who it suits
The score suits chains and apps that want quest-based user acquisition with on-chain completion records, and that value a stated way of counting new and returning users. They should expect to track reward spend themselves, because Layer3 does not publish it.
How it compares
Castle Labs
Documented assessments and retention analysis of incentive programs
Gitcoin
Sybil-resistant matched funding rounds with public round reports
Metrom
A measured impact study and fully open campaign data
OpenBlock Labs
Program evaluations and sybil analysis that state their method
Questbook
Disbursed totals for every season and documented payout controls
Thrive Protocol
Milestone-gated grants with a stated review method
Galxe
Quest campaigns and airdrops with a documented anti-sybil credential
Merkl
Public reward files that anyone can check against the on-chain root
Karma
Public on-chain milestone tracking for named grant programs
Turtle
Vault review that is stated to be separate from sales
Boost
Self-serve on-chain reward campaigns with an open campaign API
Sources
Scored from published primary sources rather than hands-on use. Every figure above comes from one of the pages below, on the date shown. Manufacturers change prices and specifications without notice — if something here no longer matches the source, tell us and we will correct it.
- 1.Layer3 LTIPP application (Arbitrum forum) — checked
- 2.Arbitrum forum: LTIPP funded protocols update — checked
- 3.Dune (l3): Layer3 impact on Arbitrum — checked
- 4.Dune (l3): Base x Layer3 quests impact — checked
Frequently asked questions
Why does Layer3 score 4.7?
It gets 10 for its impact report, 8 for named programs, 5 for abuse protection and open data, and 0 for disclosed volume and independence. That is 28 points over six criteria, or 4.7.
Why did Layer3's marks change?
Open data rose from 0 to 5 because the Dune dashboards it cites are its own. Impact report rose from 5 to 10 for its defined retention metrics. Disclosed volume fell from 5 to 0, because the only checkable amount is a grant budget.
What holds Layer3 back?
No published figure for rewards actually paid out, and no disclosure of ties to the chains and apps that fund its quests. Its anti-bot measures are targeting filters rather than a described detection method.
What was measured for Layer3?
Layer3's posts on the Arbitrum governance forum and its public Dune dashboards, read on November 6, 2026. Its own website and blog returned a bot check to automated requests, so they were not used.
How does Layer3 compare with Galxe and Karma?
At 4.7, Layer3 is below Karma (5.0) and Galxe (5.8) at this check. Galxe publishes more on abuse protection and payout amounts.
Nothing here is financial advice. Editorial policy · How we score · How we're funded.