[DRAFT] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Ambire Wallet

It would be good to see more specific and measurable OP growth-focused plans for the grant. In its current form, this proposal seems to favour Ambire mostly.
Paying people to hold OP in your wallet is like offering staking rewards for self-custody.

1 Like

1. Presentation

We are an officially recognized Tooling Governance Committee, responsible for assessing proposals related to tooling and infrastructure (wallets, bridges etc.).

2- About the project

Ambire is an open-source smart wallet that has Optimism support since May 2022.

3- About the following

The proposal was published on October 25th asking for 425k OP tokens.

As a Tooling committee, the project was recently catalogued as “Tooling” in the Grant category, and so we’ve taken on the responsibility of issuing a recommendation.

4- About the proposal valuation

  • Added value (good to bad): average. Ambire is an opensource and really interesting project. But the added value to optimism is small since the incentives are mostly to using Ambire in optimism.
  • Impact or expected usage (high to low): medium. Ambire is free to use and all optimism users can try it. The proposal would probably increase Ambire usage in optimism but not sure if this will help Optimism itself in some way.
  • Current Status [Development stage/Open Source?] (early to ready): ready. The wallet is ready and
  • Expenditure plan and distribution (appropriate to inappropriate): reasonable. The incentivization distribution plan is reasonable though there is very strong sybil concerns.
  • Amount requested (high to low): medium. The requested amount is reasonable compared to other projects but bordering on the high side. The fact that they are willing to start a governance proposal to introduce matching with their $WALLET token is favorable.

5. KPIs and impact tracking

It would probably make sense to have a dune dashboard or some other kind of way to track how many users bridged to Optimism to use Ambire and how many devs built on Ambire compatible dapps, how many users held $OP for the duration of the incentives program (and how many dumped right afterwards).


The final recommendation comes from the fact, that as has been pointed out on the forum - there are many proposals approaching user incentivisation using OP rewards, but there is no common framework for user rewards structure across different projects. It would be unfair if the reward structure differed between projects, so we suggest delaying any further grants toward user incentivisation in wallets until such a framework is formed. After that, each wallet asking for a grant toward user incentivisation should follow this framework of rewards structure.

Furthermore, we recommend separating the work for integrating the wallet with specific dapps into another proposal, so that this aspect can be voted separately.

Once that’s done we would be more inclined to suggest a yes.

I voted abstain on this proposal consistent with the Tooling committee recommendation. I like that this is an open source wallet but I didn’t have a strong enough conviction to go against the committee recommendation and vote yes on this proposal (whereas I have worked with a Tally Ho team member on a prior project so there was significantly more for me to go off of in their wallet proposal).

The committee recommendation of the tooling committee of which I am a member is to abstain and leave it up to each delegate.

I will be voting against the proposal at this point though I am a fan of Ambire wallet. The reason is stated in the committee review.

I strongly urge them to reapply next round taking that feedback into account and would be glad to consider the amended proposal and with the user incentivisation framework figured out.

1 Like

Snapshot vote - not passed