We are going in circle here, I feel.
Owning the LP address and related responsibility that will come with it will be a task for OP foundation.
In order for us to recommend this, we need approval from Both house.
1 Like
For sure. Youāre making this assertion, and Iām trying to determine whether itās true. Will research and consult.
But questions about process shouldnāt limit discussion on this proposal on its merits.
Yes please, supporting document will help.
My source of knowledge is OPerating manual. This is what comes under gov funding proposal.
āOPerating Manual of the Optimism Collective (v0.1.2) [OLD]ā
And I dont see this proposal fitting in any catorgy mentioned there, So this requires updating the OPerating manual which need to be done by OP Foundation.
But questions about process shouldnāt limit discussion on this proposal on its merits.
Sure.
2 Likes
Yeah for example I think this proposal falls clearly under Phase 1 because it entails a use of distributable tokens for a specific purpose, and these tokens are matched. This is simply talking about what to do with the Phase 1 tokens, no? Seems pretty neat.
1 Like
Think weād need an authoritative voice to make this claim; thereās already mention of OP treasury actions in scope for the Token House, so custodying tokens to provide a service doesnāt seem to be an issue.
Questions around actual governance operations could maybe wait for the Foundation/Citizens, but at worst waiting for them to clear those sorts of actions doesnāt prevent the first step here.
1 Like
thanks for your considerate reply, more of a general note on tone.
For example:
Is this explicitly stated in any of the rules around OP governance or delegation? I cannot find any mention of it, and therefor disagree that this is a norm that should be considered a rule to be followed.
I am not sure if this pointed towards me or just an open question to everyone but I got notification so replying. I would really appreciate if you could tag me if a question is directly pointed towards me.
I think we can agree to disagree, you dont see this as an issue and I do.
Not that I support of this proposal but I like that you are quite motivated about this and want to have a discussion. So, my suggestion would be,
- update the proposal with exact words, who will own the LP address, OP foundation ? or someone else ? This need clear answer.
- What would you suggest to do with the LP rewards. Give some of your suggestion ?
- How long will this LP last ? Who will make a call do dilute the LP and /or its rewards.
- Do you see Impermanent loss as a problem? What would you recommend to mitigate this ?
Assuming we have other project token and want to participate in their DAO
- How this will work ? Lets say OP foundation has the token owned by multi-sig, now who will vote and participate in the DAO ? will it be foundation or the delegates ?
Update this to the proposal, if you have already answered them, please link them to the proposal.
and please remember to tag me if any comment is pointed directly towards me.
No, its not mentioned anywhere in OP manual as this is normal and expected behavior in gov voting.
and therefor disagree that this is a norm that should be considered a rule to be followed
Understandable, I would not insist you to be on an agreement with me. I was merely sharing what I believe and would expect others to do so, its not a must to agree with my view and opinion.
2 Likes
I am someone who was drawn to the Vision Optimism laid out several months ago. Impact resonates with me very deeply and I have been quite engaged with the rollup since learning about the plans and Public Goods and thinking of new ways to contribute.
I believe this is not a good Proposal and would not benefit Optimism.
If what you say is true about your very close collaboration and relationship with OP Labs; I really donāt understand or know what to say because it seems so at odds with the stated Vision.
Iāve noticed lately that nearly evey time I read a post like this whether in the Optimism discord or forum, I Ieave feeling more pessimistic about DeFi; and Iāve never had this experience.
I am definitely not in favor of this in any capacity.
3 Likes
Yes it is true, we have worked closely with Optimism Foundation, they funded the launch of our project with a grant and Partnership team reviewed this proposal prior to publication and deemed it appropriate for consideration under current frameworks.
can you please provide context as to how you arrive at this opinion?
I am personally a delegate and will be participating in governance discussions and do not have this belief in the slightest. Ty!
hey @gabagool I am happy that you are curious but I dont see how sharing my opinion will change your belief and ideally it should not.
One approach would be to discuss this as a new idea, you can create a tread and involve other users to get their feedback and opinion on this. feel free to quote any comment that i have mention if you need it as an example.
1 Like
hey @bobby @vonnie610 , is this true ? I thought pre-check of proposals from OP foundation was only for Phase 0.
1 Like
how do we know if you are not trolling us by saying that op team reviewed this proposal and supported it @gabagool @jackanorak
1 Like
This is a conflicted post by a member of a competing dex on Optimism, on whose own active proposal
I made a factual statement and offered no opinion or judgment. The facts I offered are inconvenient for his cause.
In response, heās maligned our protocolās intent and commitment to the Optimism Collective with no meaningful statement on this proposalās merits. I hope readers will consider his post with this in mind.
Some additional context is provided in that other thread, and I donāt wish to drag out any ugliness by commenting further.
The Velodrome team did share this proposal with members of the Optimism team before posting on this forum. This is not an endorsement or āpre-checkā of the proposal contents, but their statement is true.
Sharing my own opinion as an individual: I think this is a valid Phase 1 proposal because itās still describing a potential token allocation from the GovFund ā but instead of distributing those tokens to a project, theyāre held for liquidity pairing.
5 Likes
Thank you for keeping the feedback channel open and being transparent.
1 Like
(I work for OP Labs, but this reflects my own opinion. I have worked closely with the Velodrome team.)
I think this proposal makes a lot of sense.
For obvious legal reasons, OP Labs & employees do not discuss token value, but I donāt think I will rock anyoneās socks if I say that a strong token opens more possibilities for governance to make an impact. I love to see a proposal in this direction, even just as a side effect.
I will also second the fact that liquidity is a real need. I often hear from the bizdev team that liquidity is one of the main concerns of projects. The situation has largely improved already, but itās still possible to do much better.
Giving the collective governance power in protocols is also something you like to see. Itās a good way to maintain alignment. I think there can even be a discussion about projects having the ability to use their LP funds to vote in Optimism governance. Projects are important and valued actors whose voice should carry weight (though this should be made very carefully, to avoid projects having a disproportionate governance weight). My take away from the recent situation with the delegation of Perpetual Protocolās OP allocation is that weād like to give protocol a voice, but we have to be mindful that it does not take over the voices of other token holders.
Finally, we have to be cognizant that there are many dexes on Optimism, and we canāt be playing favorite. On the other hand, this is not Optimism, not Communism and I would like to see the market play a role. I think a fairly simple solution is to let projects decide on which dex they want to deposit their liquidity (subject to governance approval to avoids griefs such as creating a new dex specially for the occasion). They will do what is in their best interest, competition will play its role, and hopefully all will be well. (To be fair, this is implied in the proposal, which mentions Velodrome and Curve, I think itās worth spelling explicitly though.)
Velodrome did indeed draft this, so I do expect they are confident theyāll be able to benefit from the proposal (though I do think everyone in the ecosystem benefits from it becoming stronger). They donāt have to be the only dex benefitting however.
Thereās been a lot of back-and-forth in this thread between the Velodrome team and other parties from other dexes. Iād love to see what less directly involved member of the community think as well.
4 Likes
Appreciate the clarifications earlier. Now that weāve settled questions about process, Iāll turn to the individual qās you posted earlier, as theyāre similar to the open questions we laid out in the original proposal. There is enough overlap where Iād rather post them here, and then once weāve discussed, we can amend.
Excited to get back to the proposal at hand.
Who will own the LP address, OP foundation ? or someone else ? This need clear answer.
Foundation multisig is probably the most low-friction way to custody this while final governance is sorted out.
What would you suggest to do with the LP rewards. Give some of your suggestion ?
In our initial proposal, we left this an open question and invited thoughts. The three primary actions are:
- Sell LP rewards to compound LP positions, possibly through autocompounder
- Compound LP rewards into more capacity to influence broader liquidity
ā if v3, possibly buy back OP for more public good distribution or acquire votepower in a veDEX
ā if veDEX model, such as Velo or Curve, accumulate voting tokens to gain general votepower - Sell LP rewards for some other purpose
āBuy back OP for public good investment
āAcquire more governance of partner protocols
ā(pending legal clearance, lol) general treasury mgmt
As you can see, there are a few different paths, but each of them presents an interesting opportunity for the Collective.
My personal suggestion would be some combination of compounding voteshare and buying back OP, both of which directly free up Governanceās hand to facilitate more funding, but this is very much an area where Iād invite some other perspectives.
How long will this LP last ? Who will make a call do dilute the LP and /or its rewards.
Our thinking was that this would be more or less permanent until the protocol signaled a lack of need, at which point the funds would be at Optimismās disposal. We could say that Optimism commits to holding protocolsā governance tokens in perpetuity while reclaiming its OP for more public goods distribution.
Do you see Impermanent loss as a problem? What would you recommend to mitigate this ?
As an impediment to passing this proposal, no. The analogy I used above is that itās silly to refuse to accept $100 of free money because youāre worried you might lose $10 of that.
The primary reason for doing this in the first place is to take OP you were already going to give away and put it to work for the same purpose it was originally being requested forābut also put it to work for you. How efficiently it works for you is secondary because your alternative is getting 0 value for yourself.
As an operating matter, yes there are possibilities to mitigate this, but I believe itās downstream of getting something like this passed.
How this will work ? Lets say OP foundation has the token owned by multi-sig, now who will vote and participate in the DAO ? will it be foundation or the delegates?
This is a super exciting area where I donāt have a clear direction! I think this is a much, much bigger question on which I would be thrilled to have this proposal spark discussion.
Fortunately, even if this passed we would have some time to sort it out. Of primary importance is meeting protocolsā liquidity needs, which currently represent over 1/3 of all approved OP distributions.
2 Likes