Hey, are you familiar with veVELO? Locking veVELO is not the same as LP incentives.
this sounds great to me, I strongly support all of the work that Velodrome is doing to onboard protocols on Mainnet to Optimism.
Velodrome is an OP native protocol, and unlike many of the applications I’ve been reading, are driving tangible, measurable value back to the Optimism team itself (in the form of veNFT airdrop, and ongoing revenue from txn fees and emissions.)
Velodrome is a protocol’s protocol, and will be a key player in getting sufficient liquidity for new protocols without unsustainable yield farming emissions. This aligns quite well with Optimism’s support of public goods - Velodrome is one of the few applicants that is actually a public good!
I will support with my personal OP, and the tokens that have been delegated to me by others.
my address is public, you can cross check and verify that I am indeed using your protocol and loved it from day one. Also, I am aware of differences veVELO and LP incentives, my point is both only work short term and that is why i am against it.
The veVELO locking incentives in fact have a very long-term effect, the locking of tokens for four years and participation in VELO voting. And then if lockers go on to delegate to relay, we’re now talking about delegating more votes to pools best for Optimism. This would represent high, enduring ROI for the OP community.
A reminder to others reading that incentivizing a dex is unlike incentivizing most ecosystem protocols: there are many positive knock-on effects for the ecosystem when you support the liquidity hub. This isn’t speculative benefit; it’s real, and it’s immediate.
Understood and it might work in bringing long term liquidity but we dont know for sure.
My suggestion would be
-break this into 2 or more proposal
-remove the relay development token as Phase 1 funding is not for dev work and
-provide more information on co-incentives(are you willing to allocate equal amount of Velo as a co-incentives).
We’ve seen other proposals include this or some cleverly designed attempts to funnel (eg retro rewards for ‘early users’ of a 10-DAU protocol) and as far as I can tell the limitations were more stringent for Phase 0 (which, btw, we did not participate in). Could you please direct me to the guidelines for this phase? We looked and could not find anything.
What’s your rationale for breaking into two proposals, and what is your implied ‘limit’ for number of tokens that ought to be requested? We’ve seen some pretty sizeable asks go through.
here’s one you yourself approved, for instance, Infinity Wallet, for 500k OP – plenty of development and marketing costs embedded here, including an outright airdrop to the tune of 3 OP per wallet
from proposal side you right, you have followed the template and there is nothing that needs to be changed and you read more about Phase 1 here:- Governance Fund Overview | Optimism Docs
What’s your rationale for breaking into two proposals
great question, your first proposal will act as base for your second proposal, it will be easy to judge if the funds were indeed used in a valuable way.
and what is your implied ‘limit’ for number of tokens that ought to be requested
frankly hard to say and that is why i focus on multiple proposal, data is best evidence
We’ve seen some pretty sizeable asks go through.
I am not which one you are referring to but max i have seen is 1M, apart from yours and barn bridge, i havent any others
regarding Infinity wallet, you can read my comment why i supported it. But i am happy to write it one more time as you have spend some time going though my approvals.
Its a desktop wallet, we dont have that many desktop wallet in the market which support complete defi integration.
45% is not for dev of the wallet but rather for DApps development on top of their own wallet.
40% is for fee rebate to those DApps and for user on boarding.
sure, they will use few Ks for their own dev but their market is totally different, their user base is different and comparing them with Velo is like comparing potatoes with onions
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.