Going through the feedback above, I’m thinking about these doubts and risks particularly on the centralized staking situation, which is a layer 1 issue that affects the Optimism Network in the worst case. Particularly in Lido, I’m attentive in the lastest governance proposals (self-limiting isn’t being approved, and status of dual token proposal).
How about being a bit more meticulous (both Lido and OP governance) about reducing the amount of OP tokens (lets say 500k) and keeping the same expected period (6 months) and see what impact these services and stability have when the Merge finally happen and so on.
I’m passing this same idea to the Rocket Pool proposal.
Staking is key to the security of Ethereum > Optimism. General concerns re centralization are valid and need to be targeted from the overall Ethereum community. However, this proposal establishes liquidity on Optimism, enables Optimism users & especially small Eth holders to participate and benefit from staking rewards, and potentially other apps to leverage this yield stream. On top, the proposal includes matching co-incentives. We strongly support this proposal and will similarly support RocketPool’s proposal.
This has to be a difficult decision, from OP gov side I am in favor of this proposal as our goal is to support any project that can possibly bring users/liquidity and Lido does have a good proposal.
What MinimalGravitas said is truly justified as I do see Lido as a risk to main chain security, please dont mention their DAO voting, and I support and will support in way as I can to fight them but as a delegate I am in favor or them.
One suggestion and would like to hear other opinion too, looking at Mean-Test, do they need 1M OP token? They are well know project with enough funding and revenue of their own, is it just me or we can request Lido to reduce the number of token request.
Thanks for the comments. We ofc totally agree with you that stETH being available and liquid on Optimism will just strengthen OP’s DeFi product suite and ecosystem (a new sustainable yield source for users, a composable base money lego for other protocols to integrate and benefit from, etc).
Regarding the OP allocation:
As you saw, these are tokens that are going to be 100% given to Optimism DeFi users via the LM program. None of them are for Lido nor for grants nor for expenses nor for anything else other than distributing them to the community.
Furthermore, this allocation is supporting stETH on optimism but many other things too. It’s supporting general liquidity and trade volume on Optimism plus three important Optimism DEXes (Uniswap, Curve, Velodrome) as all OP tokens will go towards their LPs.
Finally, Lido will also incentivize on its own, alongside these OP rewards (which as measured in a previous post on this thread, are super important for Lido but small). This double incentivization will just bring more TVL, users and opportunities to DeFi on Optimism.
Not a fan of LM, I would not support this proposal if its not for stETH on OP chain.
Regarding token, again, I request you to consider reducing the number of token requested to 500K as Lido is well established project with a user base and revenue generating stream 1M is little high.
500K would be enough to give you a jump start.
these are tokens that are going to be 100% given to Optimism DeFi users via the LM program
I dont know why you have mentioned this as from where I see this statement, its giving me less confidence in your proposal. Just because you are giving 100% to OP DeFi users does not add value.
100 % interested in seeing LSDs on OP. 1,000,000 OP will be burned though quite quickly given the size and engagement levels of this community. Why limit only to wstETH, why not offer all Lido liquid staked assets ?