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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.