Couple of points:
- 36M that was distributed in Phase 0 was for liquidity and user on-boarding so I dont see a problem if those token are sold out or dumped. That was their sole purpose, on board liquidity according to their proposal
Yes, this assumption is wrong.
If we assume the ~40mm distributed OP to be sold evenly over the next six months, we’re looking at 6.7mm OP sell pressure – two thirds of all the OP in liquidity pools – every month.
Not all of the token will be sold, token distribution plan from their proposal is from 6-24 months and few of them are not using their token as an LP reward, so token distribution will be gradual.
This is nice idea but will not work
Delegates can now vote not just on Optimism-specific proposals but also on individual protocols’ proposals
It will cause bias, if I have a say in project X and they submit a proposal here on GF fund, only option for me to abstain from discussion.
This will work out just fine on organizational and/or project level, just as you mentioned below
Velodrome took the initiative to grant Optimism 5% of our initial token share. This has proven to be one of our best decisions yet
And going back to last point, I dont expect anyone from OP foundation to comment on your proposal because I will see bias.
We are mixing two things here, price of OP and Public Good.
why we have OP the token in the first place
For public good we have dedicated 20% fund and its distribution is based on different logic which I am really excited about.
We suggest that new grants be frozen until we consider this proposal
Again, in my opinion, this we should not do. Pausing will only hurt our progress we have made so far.
Few point because this proposal is mixing couple of things.
-
In Phase 1, we are not just focusing on LP, we are also looking into user on boarding via different approach, application migration and integration, marketing and even development support if idea is unique. Now we are asking projects to submit KPI based proposal if its based on LP incentives and we are working on making sure that its sustainable, long term. Again, opinion varies according to delegate but from what I see, we are looking beyond just LP.
-
This seems to be focused on price of token with a mask of public good. We should keep them separate.
-
Personally, I dont see a proposal if token are being dumped as long the reason is justified in their proposal. Again, depends on proposal. At the end of day, 1 OP will always has 1 voting power as it should be, after all its a Gov token.
-
If you feel project proposal need improvement, join us and help us improve it.
-
Pausing will not help but asking question and providing feedback to project proposal will.
-
I see, you have marked it as Ready, unfortunately, I am not in favor of this proposal.
I want to mention few things. We have an excellent gov model(token house and citizen house) which motivated me to join this gov and I think, it need feedback and suggestion.
We are in dire need of community engagement, if i look at the stats on this forum, user involvement are going down each passing day. What can we do for that ?Last voting cycle, we had 17M vote count on proposal.
I think liquidity will see some boost once fraud proof and bedrock is implemented, current market sentiment is also having some impact on that.
Again, I might be in minority here, liquidity is not “critical” problem here but lack on user involvement is.
Resolving bias is another concern but that need a separate thread.
We have few thoughts and thread going on to improve overall gov process. Please join us there.