[DRAFT] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Beefy

I think even 650k is quite a rich ask considering you have not deployed yet, will not be matching, and the distribution method is vanilla “boost vault yield”.

Personally I’d like to see you deploy to Optimism and gain some initial traction THEN come back with a more reasonable proposal. I’m not against Beefy ever getting OP incentives, I just think we need to see a material effort from your side to justify the distribution.

I think you all could do well here considering there are no autocompounders that I know of atm. I do want to support this. Hopefully you can understand my position.

1 Like

Hello @solarcurve ! Thank you for answering. I can totally understand your point. I wanted to share another reason on why it will be important for both to have the incentives at the same time we launch. We are planning launch partnerships and activities with many protocols on the chain, (for example BeethovenX), and it would be way more impactful if we could announce a boost on a BEETS pair, while we list all of their pairs. We could track some metrics of both protocols and report it to the Optimism community showing the impact of the grant.

Thank you again for your thorough reply.

1 Like

i agree with you on this one. with a revised OP number and initial deployment i would gauge the interest and likely support.

I don’t really see the point of using 90% of the funds on incentives as generally its just short term fake TVL or volume. The funds would be best getting spent on other things to drive long term adoption and growth of your ecosystem in combination with Optimism

1 Like

I’m with @solarcurve on this. I want to support this but will be voting no until we see some form of co-incentives and Beefy deployed on OP

so, i am happy to hear that beefy wants to be with optimism eco.
i support you.

1 Like

Voted : NO

Reason:
I am not a huge fan of giving 90% to boost without a plan on “why a user will stay once the incentive are gone” but I would have even consider this in two scenario.

  1. Reduce the number of token as you not matching the incentive with your token.
  2. Submit two or more than 2 proposal.

Note: Launching your project on OP chain would really help us making a decision, in your favor.

That being said I am spamming all the proposal where I have voted my decision, So i will do the same here.

Now, I am requesting your feedback on these of my ideas. Feedback is two-way approach, you help us and we help you.

1 Like

Hello @OPUser, @solarcurve, @MoneyManDoug , @Cryptoz I appreciate your guys feedback and I will be reworking this proposal to get you guys onboard.

The first thing we will do is deploy on Optimism. That will happen this same Monday. We will start with BeethovenX vaults and planning to add Velodrome, wstETH (when live), Qidao stablepools, and more.

I will also make changes to the distribution of the OP tokens. Its completely reasonable that you don’t want 90% of the tokens distributed as boosts. After deep-diving into Optimism I realized that we will need custom strategies for some protocols (Velodrome and Perp for example), so we could direct a small part of the grant for developers to build on Beefy Optimism.

Also we will need liquidity for our BIFI token, so we are talking with Velodrome and Beethoven for this. The plan will be to use OP tokens, and match with BIFI co-incentives.

Again, thank you for your feedback and involvement in this.

Can you advise me in the best path forward with this proposal? Renaming it DRAFT and try to get it ready for Phase 2?

3 Likes

Glad to hear of all the changes, I think it will be a much improved proposal. I’m not certain on the rules for voting on this again but it seems to me if you make material changes in response to feedback it should be eligible to vote again in the next cycle.

1 Like

Really happy to see that you are taking feedback positively and making a plan to improve your proposal.

Can you advise me in the best path forward with this proposal? Renaming it DRAFT and try to get it ready for Phase 2?

This is not yet clear but I look at Phase 0/1 timeline, I expect once Phase 1 is complete, OP Team will open the gate for phase 2 proposal.

I liked Beefy its was at one time a decent project on BSC. I think it has mostly dropped off the market though over time.

Voting No for all of the reasons mentioned above by Solarcurve & OPUser, but look forward to supporting an improved/more appropriate proposal in Phase 2.

Beefy is a great protocol but 90% for boost incentives is far too much. There should be other ways to encourage adoption besides solely LM. Along with a high ask of 650k and little matching, we don’t think it is a fair request until there has been some adoption.

We believe that if you launch with incentives, it is a false metric as a lot of individuals are flocking for the boosts, not for actually using the protocol. In this case, we will be voting no but we encourage you to apply again in future rounds.

This proposal fits into Gov Fund Phase 1 but it’s very one-sided towards Beefy: Voting No

Value-add: Okay (Vault incentivization, project size)
Amount: High
Op distribution: Okayish-Bad
Co-incentives: None

This funding round’s goal is primarily in increasing liquidity and users on Optimism. Beefy has users and some liquidity on other chains. The current proposal would incentivize users to add funds to Beefy vaults but the value for Optimism is questionable. No matchfunding can be okay (especially for small funding, not this amount) but we’d at least expect more diverse, long-term, sustainable distribution of funds to value-adding ecosystem members. Looking forward to an improved proposal in another Phase.

Voting No for all of the reasons mentioned above

Voted : Yes
Positive track record: :white_check_mark:
Tokens requested in range comparable to other projects: :white_check_mark:
Expected to grow Optimism ecosystem: :white_check_mark:

Yield optimizers are important in any DeFi ecosystem. While spending 90% of the OP token allocation on liquidity incentives isn’t the most creative, it does align with the gov fund phase 1 objectives.

I am going to be voting NO on this proposal as it currently stands.

Reason is:

  1. It’s too big an ask
  2. Protocol is not yet deployed on OP.
  3. It seems that almost all of it is meant to go as yield boost to attract mercenary users which is not what I think we should be doing to get more users in Optimism.

Good thing I see is the OP is willing to collect all the feedback and resubmit in the next round.

Thanks for sharing this proposal and it’s great to hear that you focus on strict safety checks. However, similar to what other delegates mentioned, it is a high request of tokens and I’m personally not a fan of 90% of it being used to boost incentives for vaults as the best use of funds for Optimism at this time.

Hello linda! Thank you for your feedback and all the other delegates. Will draft another proposal based on your points and re-apply.

1 Like

Snapshot vote - Not passed