I would love to support Velodrome this is sound great
V much appreciate the feedback. Reverted this to draft for this round and look forward to more discussion.
I support this! Velodrome is a Solidly fork, a clear winner!
Time for governance wars!
I really want to support Velo but I am also vocal against proposal focusing on spending dev and liquidity rewards. Seeking feedback from others is one way to go and amend the proposal as per their suggestion.
Given that sometime, few project as bound by their protocol and liquidity reward is only feasible option there and in that I would expect exact $ co-incentive match from their side.
To add to your point about traction, it looks like Velodrome has the highest activity on Optimism judging by data on Dexscreener. That’s all gas consuming. TVL might not be the best metric to look at when judging traction especially in a deep bear market.
I think it’s safe to say VeloDAO has a good track record of incentive matching by airdropping a portion of the initial VELO supply to $OP airdrops recipients. They also designed their tokenomics’ such that it emits at a rate of 3.75% in perpetuity to the gauges since launch day (decreasing linearly every week). All those emissions will make their way into hands of the communities of protocols on Optimism, regardless of whether this phase 1 proposal passes or not.
I’m still curious as to the plan around the largest allocation of the proposal though (to supply the $OP as liquidity in Velo pools). That part of the proposal is a bit of a question mark for me but other wise I would be in support of the proposal for the most part.
I agree with all your point, but help me understand this, Millie.
What they have done in the past or planning to do in the future, how is that related to Phase 1 proposal ?
Their airdrop was a initiative to attract user and I dont see how mentioning their VeloDAO is any supporting argument here ? Same goes to their token economics, should we discuss project internal structure here?. I love the project and I use it regularly, i also got the airdrop but i dont see a connection here.
From my side, I am only looking at the proposal and how a team is planning to use the requested token.
If they are planning to use the token as LP reward, it must be matched with Velo and that amount of dev is also no from me.
Of course, this is just my opinion and willing to discuss this more if needed.
(by VeloDAO I meant Velodrome DAO btw)
I think my point was that the emissions are going to pools on Optimism and increasing the liquidity on OP as a whole by allowing arbitrage opportunities which generate fees. So I’m not concerned that they won’t be matching incentives since the emissions are already set and will continue to reward Optimism LPs whether this proposal passes and long afterward as well.
That is just fine, it was just a suggestion and I am not gonna insist on that. May be I am missing something which others will see and support this proposal as it is.
- The amount of funding requested is very high.
- Incentivizing other protocols to integrate Veledrome does not seem appropriate to me, as those protocols could also apply for a grant through this government.
- Veledrome is a fork of Solidly, no audits yet. Knowing all the problems Solidly had in FTM they should at least be audited.
I think they need to rethink their proposal.
This is such a valid point.
code4rena coming live with its audits shortly, and the contracts are entirely open sourced on etherscan.
Incentivizing other protocols to integrate Veledrome does not seem appropriate to me, as those protocols could also apply for a grant through this government.
Sorry, this doesn’t make any sense. That logic would invalidate the roughly 20% of approved distribution of OP for ecosystem & integration (why give OP to protocol X to incentivize protocol Y to integrate and use its product when protocol Y could ask for integration subsidies itself) as well as a chunk of the 25% user incentives where the users also happen to be different protocols.
I also don’t understand what you mean by other protocols integrating Velodrome.
Would love to see a clearer explanation of what exactly the problem here is.
TVL now $34.5 million, overtaking Curve and $1.5 million from overtaking Uniswap on Optimism.
Now ahead of Perpetual Protocol ($32mm vs $28mm), which just received 9MM OP.
~600 DAU at Velodrome vs Perpetual’s ~200-300
They’re well ahead in volume, though, at ~10mm vs ~2mm last 7 day avg.
As I am writing this, Velodrone is the number 1 DEX on Optimism by TVL. So KUDOS.
Things I like about the proposal:
- Actual KPIs for each section
- Clear and defined percentages
Things I don’t like about the proposal:
- I think token amount is a bit too big for my taste, but I understand it’s based on 4 underlying requests. With Relay being the one I would be against.
- As I understand veVELO, it’s not clear to me how the incentives will be matched exactly. I think a great addition to the proposal would be having actual matched incentives from Velodrone Team. Checking Velodrone docs I see you have reserved 10% of VELO to the Team and 24% to Protocol/DAOs. The proposal would be superior with a very clear statement of matching incentives.
Follow up question to myself.
Since the template doesn’t include the information, did Velodrome receive in the past or will receive OP directly from OP Labs as part of their Partner Funds?
I see you already announced it on Twitter https://twitter.com/VelodromeFi/status/1545434763951017986
The Velodrome project is a good project i think it,s good for the users the get a drop off op
Velodrome is the number 1 DEX on Optimism !!! , This will bring a lot of TVL into OP I support Velodrome
Just checking in to see if you would like this proposal to be evaluated in Voting Cycle #6 according to the updated grant proposal template?
hey @lavande , thanks for the heads up. this one’s on ice indefinitely.