You are correct.
However, if you look at the proposals that have passed most recently you will see that a 1,000,000 OP is an extremely high ask especially for LP incentives which have often been contentious. I think a lower ask would make it more likely the proposal will receive delegate endorsements and committee approvals.
Please review updated proposal, which changes distribution from liquidity mining to vote incentives, and reduces requested OP.
Thank you. I am reviewing now.
Would it be possible to add an Optimism gauge for a TriCrypto pool and ensure it is bribed as well? That would benefit the whole ecosystem.
How would these incentives appear within Votium? Would they appear as bribes? Would their auto-vote optimizer distribute votes accordingly?
Yes Tricrypto pool is going to be deployed soon, which Iām sure will quickly be followed by gauge vote, so will be eligible to receive bribes.
Incentives appear as rewards in Votium for voting on a specific gauge. Votium has two services, one pays to CVX and the other to veCRV. They have tens of millions of CVX delegated to them, so would auto optimize votes with CVX. But veCRV there is no delegation, so voters would have to actively vote. OTOH, bribes are more crowded on CVX, so itās possible you get a better deal going with veCRV. I donāt have a strong preference for one or the other, sounds like maybe Votiumās auto optimizer is more appealing to you?
Hi @OPUser, @MinimalGravitas, @katie: Iām not asking for officially Sponsorship or approval of proposal but I just need verbal delegate support so that my proposal can get proper committee review for cycle-7. Thank you
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.
Remember the Synthetix Ambassadors are Delegates too.
can make available address
I strongly suggest add an L2 recipient before going forward or receive any approval, just for safety. Thanks!
@Defi_LATAM_axlvaz @SEED_LATAM_Joxes Thank you, Iāve made recipient address available. Itās a gnosis safe composed of long time Cure community members who manage an organization called veFunder, which is a small scale grants org that creates bounties and compensates individuals for their work.
I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - #18 by katie] with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.
0x3AC79C427F2c6C015E791Cd6ad2578225ed5B6a6 (3/5 Multisig composed of Curve community members: Wormhole, Chanho, Naga, Amadeo, and Knows. Members are all involved with the veFunder Curve bounties program)
So this grant is not actually going to anyone associated with the Curve Team? Iām not sure there is a precedent for this. Why was this only disclosed at the last minute?
Is there a legal entity associated with the group requesting the grant? Are the members willing to KYC?
I think this proposal likely needs to edited to reflect that the project/team requesting the grant is actually veFunder not Curve.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a project requesting funds to support another project but I think that distinction needs to be clear in the proposal.
The risk profile feels higher to me if Curve is not reputationally on the hook for the proper management and distribution of the 720,000 OP.
Hi, Tommy from Votium here. The incentives would appear as voter rewards (commonly referred to as ābribesā). The depositing address would have the choice of rewarding non-Convex veCRV voters, and/or Convex vlCVX voters.
As WormholeOracle mentioned, we are able to optimize vlCVX votes through delegation, but we are unable to do the same for veCRV votes.
Currently we are deployed to mainnet for veCRV and vlCVX, and also on fantom for vlCVX. We havenāt deployed to other networks due to a lack of previous demand.
Thank you to the proposal authors and to the optimism team for your interest. We are on board to deploy on Optimism to help bring volume to Curve<->Optimism!
Hi Tommy, happy to see you here. will it be possible to put a estimate date on deployment ?
Deployment shouldnāt take more than a week or so. Changes to UI might be a tad bit longer due to scheduling, maybe about 30 days give or take.
I hope these concerns are well addressed at the committee review level since 2 delegates have already pushed it up.The reply from Tommy below in my opinion did not address the concerns raised. There should be a good precedence.
The proposal will be resubmitted as core details as to who the requesting parties were changed after the delegate approvals.
Iām changing the proposal back to [DRAFT] and going to update the recipient address. There has been confusion about the distinction between Curve team/community, who is veFunder and are they endorsed by Curve? Curve has tweeted a response to these questions that acknowledges the proposal and endorses veFunder multisig as a good recipient address:
However, weāve discussed more on the possibility of doing this with a trustless contract, which would alleviate any questions about who the recipient is. A Curve core dev is writing and deploying the contract. To be clear, the requesting party of this grant is Curve, and that wonāt be changed.
This method to receive grant funds trustlessly can also be referenced in the future for other teams who have legal concerns around custody of user funds, or who are unable to kyc.
I am withdrawing my approval of this proposal due to significant changes being made after receiving delegate approval.