[DRAFT] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Beefy

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