I understand the calculation; the question is whether they would use the available tokens, momentarily until they are used for the purpose of the proposal? you should include a detail of this, since it is of impact for optimism.
I understand where the fees for the $Spell stakers come from; my question is how does Abracadabra get $Mim token (protocol property)?
Doing some follow up again.
Apart from what others has mentioned here about performance on Arbitrum, I would appreciate if you could help me with below point:-
Please add this 20% in proposal.
any update on this ?
Please update the proposal to reflect the feedback you have received so far. This will save you from answering the same question again and again. 
$MIM tokens are minted by a 5/9 Multisign, deposited in the our cauldron smart contracts, and then sent into circulation when a user opens a borrow position.
The current plan is do a 50/50 split between $OP and $SPELL, but we will revisit this split as token prices fluctuate.
Yep! We’ve made some progress here. After much discussion last week, the Abra team has decided to continue using the AnySwap version of the $MIM token. We will, however, be implementing a messaging adapter to unlock some of the benefits I mentioned above (e.g., letting users repay positions from any chain, ability to work with multiple bridges, etc.). An announcement is coming soon.
Can you expand on why you think protocols using a portion of their grants to have a voice in governance is a bad use of the token?
Seems like it would be a great way to deepen their engagement in the ecosystem while the tokens would otherwise just sit idle.
Sure, I think main objective of token distributed by gov funding is to be liquid, used in some form to onboard user and/or liquidity. I believe doing this will increase engagement from users. Give the token to users and let them decide who to delegate.
Seems like it would be a great way to deepen their engagement in the ecosystem
Depends on how you define engagement and how it will bring value of the ecosystem. How is their engagement different from mine ?
@OPUser @OPGovWatch if you’re going to continue to discuss the broader question of protocols self-delegating I suggest moving it out of abracadbra’s proposal discussion and doing so in this thread instead Let's settle once and for all the question of grantees self-delegating
Thank you @jackanorak but i will sit in audience corner for now. Personally I dont see us making a progress here, So i will wait until i see some other opinion around it.
Just following up on this. In the last two weeks, we’ve launched the $MIM token and the $SPELL token on Optimism and we’ve begun the bribing process on Velodrome and we’re currently in the top 10 pools for bribe amounts. We will continue ramping up this amount as we see changes in our LP pool and changes in LP APY (as per the plan outlined above). Happy farming, y’all!
I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - #65 by mastermojo ] with sufficient voting power, and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote
I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - #136 by jackanorak ] with sufficient voting power. I believe this proposal is ready to be reviewed and voted on.
Abracadabra is a project founded by Daniele Sestagalli who also founded Wonderland and Popsicle Finance. All the projects were started around the same time and all the projects had their ATH in the same month.
Daniele’s word on Abracadabra: Abracadabra.Money is a spell book that allows users to produce magic internet money.
“Magic internet money?” Optimism space is not your regular CT frog space. Either you explain the math or get out.
When he was asked if wonderland was a Ponzi he answered “Well I guess”
Go to 0:40 on this vid:
Even if Wonderland is unrelated to Abracadabra, I will not promote a known Ponzi builder on any project he touches.
We have hundreds of proposals looking to do good that never ever saw 100k USD in funding. And we are considering giving 800K $OP to a well-known Ponzi?
Even if Daniele is out of the project (I don’t know), this will be exit liquidity for those rugged by SPELL. I am sorry for the honest people trying to build behind what started as a Ponzi even if it’s not now. But I can’t have any certainty that Daniel or even 0xSifu don’t have SPELL tokens and won’t rug the community and OP as they did in the past.
My vote for this proposal is no.
I feel like I really have to weigh in on this one.
Not sure if you know me, my name is Romy and I have been involved in Abra since the beginning through community management, QA and BD.
First of all, I really don’t see why Wonderland matters in this discussion about bringing the Abracadabra products onto Optimism. Wonderland has not been involved in Abra in any way, other than the fact that we offered leverage on their token in the same way as we do for many other protocols.
The fact that one of our founders also worked on a controversial project should not be the primary decision criteria for judging our protocol. And more importantly, this does not affect the positive effect that having MIM and our leverage engine on Optimism could bring to the community.
Even if that mattered, the Abracadabra team is composed of many individuals that have been working non stop to improve the DeFi ecosystem. As a proof of that, you can see the amazing relationships we have with bluechips protocols such as Curve, Yearn and Sushiswap. In addition, we have been also closely working with a pillar of defi on Optimism such as Velodrome.
Judging our product, and what we do, just because of past actions that were not even related to us seems unfair.
If you have concerns or feedbacks on what we do, we are more than happy to address them, but if you are judging us for the characteristics of another product with a different business model and a different team, this is simply wrong and offensive to all the people that work everyday to have MIM on the edge of DeFi innovation.
Lastly, I agree with you that in the video you linked Dani made a bad joke, but once again it is completely not related to Abracadabra.
If you wanna discuss more you can easily come on our Discord and speak with me directly, either in General or DMs, I will be more than happy to explain you everything you need.
This post reads like one you’d expect from a troll, not a delegate.
If you are unwilling or unable to meaningfully engage with a DeFi proposal on its merits you have no business sitting on a paid committee overseeing DeFi.
Judge the proposal and project in front of you, not Dani or Wonderland.
Thank you Romy for your reply.
Is Daniele still involved in the project? This is the main link between Abracadabra and Wonderland and it’s not a small matter. A funded project often follows the founder’s culture.
I did apologise in advance to the honest people working on the project.
I understand what you do, but if I know your founder is involved with a different cultural mindset to what Optimism vision proposes it’s my responsibility to bring it to the table.
I don’t want you to take offense if you, your team, and everyone honestly involved in the projects feel attacked by what I said. But everyone deserves to know who’s behind Abracadabra (if he still is).
I’ve seen projects like SushiSwap be rugged by people like Chefnomi and later (when the bad name goes away) the community builds something great behind it. If this is the case then you only need to confirm Daniele Sestagalli is not part of the project anymore.
I never said this is a committee opinion, this is my own. I’m not even a committee leader. I’m bringing my knowledge about the project founder to the thread for everyone to know who is behind it.
A project and an active founder have most of the time the same core values.
Hayden Adams is not Uniswap but represents its values
Stani Kulechov is not AAVE but it represents its values
Kain Warwick is not Synthetix but it represents its values
I’m here saying “Be careful, this project is founded by someone with values not aligned with the Optimism vision”
IF I’m trolling because I say “be careful with the founder of this project” then by all means I am a troll. I’m not here to make anyone happy, I’m here to provide the information I have. And this is my “meaning” to engage with this particular proposal and its founder merits.
If you don’t like I am getting paid for providing what I believe is relevant information by all means create your own committee proposal and vote me out. This is how this system works, but while I’m involved in Optimism governance (as a committee member or delegate) I’ll provide any information I believe is relevant to any project I see fit.
If you think a committee member or a delegate has to follow a code of conduct you can also make a proposal about it. Until then I will respectfully say what I considered relevant to say.
You are welcome to attack any team or proposal you want and I am welcome to say it is unbecoming conduct for a delegate paid to oversee DeFi proposals.
You didn’t even bother to ask a single question about their detailed proposal or the nature of Abracadabra’s relationship with Wonderland or Dani. Your note read as hit piece, not the beginning of an honest inquiry.
I agree that ultimately the wisdom and composition of these committees will eventually be revisited by governance at large. We can see what impact, if any, behavior like this has when we get to that point.
I’m gonna focus purely on numbers and product here and not past drama as this is not of interest to me and I don’t think it should affect the fate of that proposal.
As for Magic Internet Money, the stable coin is a CDP and it is overcollateralized, Abracadabra is definitely not a ponzi, the business model is very sound and simple, people pay for loans, leverage and strategies, and those fees are distributed to the community and the treasury.
As for the grant being used for “exit liquidity for those rugged by SPELL”, it is purely and simply not true. As explained in abracadabra’s proposal, those OP will be used to achieve deep liquidity on Optimism, which is beneficial to abracadabra’s partners on optimism, and optimism at large. It creates an alternative for the Optimism users which is critical to achieve healthy competition, lifting the whole community up.
First of all I appreciate your apology, I am sure your intentions are in the right place.
To reply to your question: yes, dani is still involved in Abracadabra, even though he is no longer involved in Wonderland. You can check his resignation here.
In addition, I would like to point out that Dani took a period of reflection after what happened with Sifugate, and the rest of Abracadabra team, like me, 0xEdwardo, Merlin and Wicked have stepped up and now handle most of the day to day operations. We have never been involved with Wonderland in any way.
I very much doubt that the philosophy with which Abra operates is misaligned with the vision you have for Optimism. Furthermore, it is important to note that Abracadabra is a DAO and any major decisions are taken by SPELL holders. The team mostly executes them.
To reply to your second question, behind Abracadabra there is a team of individuals who have the best interest of DeFi at heart. Actions speak louder than words and I hope that the actions that we have taken in the past months and going forward will prove this to you.
All of the technical questions were covered by others.
Implying an “attack” when someone is inquiring who’s the project founder and his/her past, seems like a way to change the topic. Are you trying to avoid talking about Danielle?
Again there is no rule book for what community, delegates, or committee members can ask about a proposal. I’m asking if he’s still involved.
