In Latin America PoolTogether is a very popular protocol and used by users:
That is really encouraging to hear! Please reach out to me if you have any ideas on how we can continue to grow protocol usage in Latin America!
I have a question, could you please detail how you are going to manage these funds, will they be linked to PoolTogether governance or will they be selected by the team?
Good question! This grant request is ultimately for PoolTogether Inc, the company. So at the end of the day we (meaning the company) will be in charge of managing their distribution.
However, I do anticipate that process will have a lot of input from the broader PoolTogether community.
Let me know if you have any other thoughts or questions!
Hey, not Leighton but a PT Community member
The USDC incentives come from the PT treasury (https://info.pooltogether.com/), the network APR currently is 3.42%, that means a 1000$ depositor wins on average 34$ and that is better than what he would get on Aave directly!
The current prize distribution on Optimism is:
1 x 1000$
32 x 20$
and 512 x 5$, per day!
We especially want to reward small depositors, thatâs why there are so many small prizes and there is a prize cap of 1 prize per wallet.
But my doubts are not clear to me;
What is your treasury fund distribution policy?
I understood that these funds are sent today, right? that is, regardless of the $OP grant
The $OP factors in and without the $OP prizes would be reduced significantly. The finance team that sets the prize distribution has committed to keeping the average USDC yield rate at least 50% higher than Aave USDC yield assuming the $OP incentives stay. This has been based on the assumption of the last couple of months of having $OP incentives.
I canât speak to exactly how that would change if the $OP incentives did not stay but it would certainly be less.
I can say overall, the whole PoolTogether community sees the $OP incentives as a super important and limited window to maximize growth.
Itâs good to see your alignment with Optimism, initial growth on Optimism & reaching set goals.
We believe that easy-to-use products with product market fit such as Pooltogether can onboard a significant amount of real users & liquidity - even though yield hunters may dominate currently.
Consequently, itâs also reasonable to phase out OP rewards over time after a kickstarting period to ultimately achieve sustainable growth on Optimism
The core KPIs are also very clear and make sense - not 100% sure about the necessity of new frontends / builder incentives in the near-term for a project that can, in our opinion, contribute most to the success of Optimism with user/liquidity onboarding in the near-term.
That said, we also see potential in future collaborations on specific co-marketing campaigns, user onboarding funnels, better UX etc.
As we get closer to the voting period, Iâd like to highlight the OP Rewards part of this Dune Dashboard.
As a background: The current rewards on PoolTogether accrue in real time and are claimable every Tuesday for the previous week, based on a users TWAB.
So far, more than 5,400 unique wallets have claimed the OP rewards on PoolTogether, while we can still see several hundred new claimers every week.
The increase in claims in week five and ten suggest that some users wait for the end of a distribution period to claim the full amount at once. The third distribution period will end on November 15th. I expect a similar increase in claims the week after that.
Overall this verifies the thesis that $OP distributed via PoolTogether goes to a wide set of users and not just to a few whales. The marketing around the incentives continues to be effective, attracting new users and creating awareness.
While these rewards go out to many new Optimism users, we make sure to keep educating them about their rights in token house governance. The claim process in the PoolTogether app includes a prompt to delegate your $OP:
@Leighton
Very clear proposal; the statistics are specific, and I am enthusiastic about the results achieved; PT is a great project for Optimism, its track record and simplicity is impeccable
As some members have already commented, I donât agree with the grant to projects, much less to user interfaces; would you be willing to change this?
@Netrim advice, to diversify the source of income (new alliances) seems key to the joint and organic growth of the ecosystem
I would like to echo this as well. PT has clear use case, last distribution plan and its impact is clearly visible, both from TVL and user activity side.
Not that I am against better UI but in given the market condition, shouldnât we focus more towards user incentives.
Netrim warned me that they should no longer change the proposal, it was approved as such, I did not notice this; With which my advice is useless in this instance, would you be willing to change this for the next cycle? @Leighton
Weâve carefully timed this proposal to avoid an ending of the deposit incentives. Right now, if this current vote fails then $OP rewards for PoolTogether will end on November 15th (two weeks from today).
Obviously we could re-start them but I think ending and then re-starting would lead to a big loss in momentum and diminish the overall effectiveness that we see.
We are happy to continue to work collaboratively on how to best leverage 170k OP allocated for yield source integrations and alternative interfaces. Yield source integrations will be very important as it will improve the overall Optimism ecosystem. As an example of alternative interfaces, here is one thing that Pool Grants recently funded. This wouldnât something funded using this grant but we do believe that ideas like this could help cement a larger community on Optimism and attract more people to try it out.
fwiw iâm in favor of advancing the proposal as is, tho couple qâs
thereâs an enormous amount of precedent in funding integrations so iâm not at all averse to encouraging more composability within the system. wanted to know, though â whatâs the process of integration look like, and howâs the dev burden distributed between you and the partner protocol? has there been friction in getting new yield sources onboarded?
iâd also comment that better UX in a world with generally bush-league interfaces is for my money a better source of user onboarding than any small incentive. paired with user incentives (which have been uniquely effective in PoolTogetherâs hands â the analysis last week showed that, broadly speaking, their efficacy has been mixed at best), Iâd say thatâs good, broad coverage for growth.
That said, though, hoping to get a brief sense of finances and why a grant at this stage would catalyze better UX â are you unable to move this forward otherwise?
wanted to know, though â whatâs the process of integration look like, and howâs the dev burden distributed between you and the partner protocol? has there been friction in getting new yield sources onboarded?
Good question! Over the years weâve tried many different approaches, weâve done them internally, weâve bountied them and then yield source teams have done them. Our best outcomes have been working directly with yield source teams to get them done. We also always audit them. So generally weâve tried to either get the yield source team to do them for free and we pay for the audit or provide some sort of grant to the yield source team⊠that would be the idea here.
That said, though, hoping to get a brief sense of finances and why a grant at this stage would catalyze better UX â are you unable to move this forward otherwise?
The PoolTogether Inc team is a total 5 people (was 4 people until yesterday when we added Ncookie). We have zero designers on our team and we only have one front-end. So internally, we are highly limited in terms of what we can do UI wise.
Iâve always felt like there is a big need for a UI that connects to the protocol but focuses specifically on people who have never used a dapp before (have a Cex account but never used DeFi). So thatâs something specifically Iâd love to see. Weâve also had a lot of good work done on instrumentation, things like prize notification bots, prize odds calculators, things along those lines.
Overall, these integrations and UIs are things that will move a lot slower but I thought having some allocation for them would be good as a longer term play rather than incentive focused stuff.
I love this proposal and PoolTogether is highly trusted in the space. But we asked every other proposal to either state exactly how teams/projects reserves will be distributed or to take it out of the proposal I feel I have to ask the same here.
Donât get me wrong I know 100% you will use this for new PoolTogether UIs. But if you can specify how that 20% distribution will be that would be perfect.
The same goes for the 10%.
I rather have to approve a second proposal asking for UIs core features individually than leave this 30% to the team will.
Again, I trust the PoolTogether team 100% but I want to keep the same conditions for all teams even if they earned my trust. thank you!
we asked every other proposal to either state exactly how teams/projects reserves will be distributed
What level of detail do you need beyond what is already shared? Do you need to know exactly who would be getting the grants?
I rather have to approve a second proposal asking for UIs core features individually than leave this 30% to the team will.
My understanding (via @Netrim) is at this stage, we canât change the proposal. Is that correct? If it is possible to adjust the current proposal before voting I would do so.
You can change the proposal. Tag your approvers to reafirm their position.
âWell if you say 10k Op will go to this team for this UIsâ that would be awesome. But if you have the UIs features in mind and you donât have the teams at least specify those features and approximate distributions.
âFeature 1 does this and we will allocate approx 10k OPâ
Sounds logical or is it too much work? Iâm trying to figure out how to approve this Iâm very fond of developer grants.