[DRAFT][GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Galleon

This one I did not understood, isnt Phase 0 over ? Or you mean, you are OP native and that is why 300K token? Could you please help me with this ?

Idea of milestone based token allocation is a good move, with this proposal, are you asking 600K token for that and that will be distributed over 6-12 Months, right ?

Out of 600K, 300K will be distributed as an incentive(for ?? as a user what do i need to do get the incentive ?), again in next 6-12 month and your goal is reach 15M of TVL, right ?

(15%) potential extension of incentives

so now there is a chance that you will use more 45000 OP token to incentive the users. Total token used for incentives are now (345000) used during 6-12 month just an user incentive? When I see this number, I see artificial users rushing just for rewards.

1 Like

Hi @OPUser,

You’re correct, phase 0 is over, however we were using the below metrics for our proposal:

Therefore the initial “tier 3” criteria allocation of 300k tokens would be upfront and would be used in the same categories as highlighted previously:

  • 50% Incentives (6-12 months) either xtokenterminal or Arrakis (formerly sorbet finance) v3 vault.
  • 30% Development funding.
  • 15% Liquidity Provisioning.
  • 5% Potential Incentives Extension.

The remaining 600k will only be provided if the milestones are met, each allocation of OP when provided 50% will be added to the incentives pool, so again would only be distributed over 6-12 months.

Perhaps a longer distribution period of the incentives 12-24 months would be better suited? This way those who are interested in the incentives are more long term aligned with the Optimism Network, Perpetual Protocol and Galleon.

To clarify we would happily extend to 12-24 months, it is actually better for us. We originally only chose 6-12 months after reviewing a number of existing proposals on the forum and it seemed to be the standard timeframe.

As I mentioned to Justin, this figure is fluid and could quite easily be re-allocated to development funding and liquidity provisioning for our other Suite products. Perhaps if we adjusted to 5% you would be more comfortable?

With current market conditions, liquidity in the market is quite scarce but since our product is delta-neutral which removes market price risk we feel that the TVL is achievable within 6 months. That is an aggressive target, but ultimately should provide a reasonable time estimate for our milestone completion.

Hi @duck, Thank you providing detailed answer: -

I don’t think you can use Phase 0 metrics, if we allow this to one project other will follow the same. You need to check this with OP Team and provide us the evidence, also provide an evidence if its already allowed, in the current form, I would vote against it.

On milestones, if you are planning to only use the token once a milestone is reached, will it make more sense to ask for less amount of token, use it and come back again with new proposal, here the plus point is that you have data from your last proposal to support your new proposal.

Even if we give them to you, you are not gonna use it unless the milestone is reached, so the token will be sitting on your address. But if OP Gov has this token, there is a possibility that we will give this to next eligible project and that will encourage competition, which is a positive thing.

Regarding time frame, its highly depends on projects and person reading the proposal. If I see that this project does not need all the funding at once (especially new projects on OP chain or project having less amount of data to back their proposal), I will highly encourage them to submit multiple proposal. Again, my personal opinion, check with other delegates too.

Generally curious as to why you would vote against it, it seems like a fair, genuine metric to use.

I think there is some confusion here, the whole purpose of the milestones is that the additional tokens are only paid once each individual milestone has been hit. To clarify we’re not asking for 900k tokens upfront.

As previously mentioned milestones are a structure created to reward progress, and using this method in our proposal removes the need to submit multiple proposals.

If we hit the milestones, the additional OP tokens are awarded in their respective batches, if we do not hit the milestones then the OP tokens are not awarded. It’s really that simple.

I’ve also amended the above breakdown, reducing incentives extension from 15% → 5% and Development funding from 20% → 30%.

Additionally following this discussion I’ve amended the distribution of incentives from 6-12 months to 12-24 months, as this aligns over a longer term which is better for all parties involved.

Simply because its not mentioned in the guideline of Phase 1 proposal, Governance Fund Phase 1: How to Create a Proposal. Unless I am missing something here, 300K is a huge number and I would expect OP team to mention this if this was allowed. I would suggest ask this question on discord temp-gov-channel, you can also tag me there if you want. This will help all of us.

I think there is some confusion here

I agree, I understood it wrong. This is now fine with me.

You mention that this will be done in milestones, wouldn’t it be best to split this up into multiple proposals for each milestone when the time comes?

1 Like

Personally, I think the milestones approach is better for the main purpose that it requires actual delivery. If we don’t deliver, then we don’t get rewarded the OP tokens.

It’s also more straightforward, it seems unnecessary to run multiple proposals for the same objective outcome when it can just be covered with one proposal with required milestones deliverables.

The thing is these funds are given 100% of funds up front from my knowledge and there is know one to release/check milestones for delivery. Please someone correct me if I am wrong.

1 Like

Ah I see, I did not know this. Yes, perhaps the team can clarify.

I think I read somewhere that the delegates or team was going to check? I’m not sure, I’ve only seen a few on the forums but there would have to be some checking mechanism.

1 Like

hey @duck thanks for the well written proposal.

My main suggestion for this proposal is that it can be split into 3 separate applications based on the 3 milestones that are being referenced. Given that the expected timeline for distribution of the funds is between 12-24 months, I think it would make sense to break down the 900k requested over that period and apply for more funding after each milestone is achieved.

As mentioned by others in the forum, there is no means by which delegates can checkpoint the development of Galleon and approve or recall the funds after they’ve been distributed. In my opinion the correct way to go about this proposal is to prepare a unique application for each milestone that represents a request for funding and re-propose it when the corresponding milestone is met.


Thanks for your replay @millie very much appreciated.

Following the general consensus I think you’re right, and I will look to amend this application to just the initial 300k OP. We will re-apply for additional grants as we grow our TVL.

1 Like

I have amended the proposal to exclude the milestones as these will be put into separate proposal applications as we grow our TVL.

Proposal changes:

  • Request of 900k → 300k tokens, with milestones removed.
  • Removed the (5%) incentives extension and reallocated it to dev funding from (30%) → (35%).
1 Like

We’d be happy to see IndexCoop, Galleon and your innovative products on Optimism as we see big potential in simplified financial products easily purchasable for the masses (->l2, exchanges).

Your initial ask was way out of scope for the size of your project. The adjusted ask is on the high end compared to other funding amounts but more in line. When we consider funding small projects, we do not focus on co-incentives (nice to have) but mainly look for products/tools with value-add for the Op ecosystem, network effects, and long-term builders in the ecosystem.

Generally, we like milestone funding but in this early Optimism governance phase it’s easier to fully focus on a first proposal in Phase 1. More potential collaborations in the future incl. new proposals and co-growth initiatives show certainly good long-term alignment and faciliate our assessment :slight_smile:

1 Like

thank you for updating the proposal, this one look better.

I wanted to check where are you planning to spend 35 of Dev funding? Developing something new on OP chain?


Appreciate the feedback, the original ask was only ever to be realised once we had hit the milestones. Obviously that has been scrapped for now, however, we will be creating more proposals as we grow our TVL.

Our first product was actually launched in February and on Optimism long before any airdrop was announced. So we feel we’re fully long-term aligned with both Optimism and Perpetual Protocol.

That’s correct, we will be building a suite of these delta-neutral products and just in general will be launching more products on optimism utilizing PERP v2 (we’re fans of the protocol).

1 Like

Bumping this, would be good to know whether we can move to next steps.

This is pretty vague, can you please expand on this?

1 Like