[DRAFT] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Mover

Project Name: Mover
Links: Website, GitHub

Author Name: Anton Mozgovoy (mozgovoy.eth)

Number of OP tokens requested: 100,000

L2 Recipient Address: 0xf4B03870807059042B98C7abe889d5E9ed787371

Relevant Usage Metrics:

  • 1,500+ users have ordered and using the card.
  • $100,000+ settled since the card launch (this quarter).
  • 30+ protocols are already partnered with Mover.
  • The only multichain DAO-friendly crypto debit card.

Optimism alignment (up to 200 word explanation):

  • First Optimism native debit card. Mover is currently live on Ethereum and Polygon. Optimism support will allow the network to have the first native off-ramp via the debit card.
  • Mover is supporting and connecting long term real world use cases: like salaries, subscriptions, memberships, rentals, lending, yield aggregating and more. Any project on Optimism benefits on a protocol and on a network level.
  • Mover focuses on DAOs, protocols and native web3 support. Open infrastructure allows any project to plug-in and benefit from the payment rails. Open source and open license project also aligns with Optimism values.

Proposal for token distribution (under 1000 words):

How will the OP tokens be distributed?

  • 60% of the tokens will be used to subsidise legal, compliance and operations. As a reminder, right now there is no debit card that natively supports Optimism assets and supports all on-chain assets.
  • 40% of the tokens will be used on the development (including bug bounties). As a reminder, all integration, contracts and infrastructure code will remain open source and open license.

How will this distribution incentivize usage and liquidity on Optimism?

  • Native off-ramp and native Optimism debit card attracts users and allows them to stay on the network without bridging off the network.
  • Integration of streaming and lending protocols increases protocol/hence network usage by adding real-world service use cases.
  • Mover is taking all off-ramp pain from projects allowing them to focus on their web3 value and product offering. Easier to build = more projects created

Why will the incentivized users and liquidity remain after incentives dry up?

  • Payments is a real-world use case. It is a service that removes usage friction and allows users to “stick” to a network. Transacting on L2, settling on L2 makes it even easer for users creating a positive feedback loop.
  • Users come for rewards, but stay for utility. Which only strengthens with every new project added.

Over what period of time will the tokens be distributed?

  • 3 months

How much will your project match in co-incentives?

  • We cannot match with token co-incentives, but we can match with value-add to all projects and protocols building on Optimism. Our open infrastructure will allow for all Optimism projects to benefit from:
  1. Native Optimism asset support on the card (every native token can be used on the card)
  2. Payment off-ramp rails: support creators, DAO contributors and users directly on Optimism
  3. Work with us to allow for custom payment flows, and allow tokens with on-chain path to liquidity (not directly liquid e.g. vault, vested, wrapped etc).

Projects will have an open-source and on-chain friendly way to onboard themselves and users will only benefit from the network effect with the more projects are supported.


Mover sounds very cool, but it is not clear how this incentives users and liquidity on Optimism. Can you elaborate a little more on that?

1 Like

@Justin Justin, thanks for reading through the proposal! In this response I will try to clarify the question about the growth factor of our proposal.

Let’s step away from Optimism. How do we onboard users on any network? The best option is to onboard developers. The logic is the following: developers create something → that something creates value → that value attracts users. All features of the network, now specifically, the optimistic approach are additional factors: speed, low costs, etc. are additional factors, but do not define the usage.

Major L1 networks started to focus on payment rails very early on: Solana - has an FTX card, BSC - has a Binance card, and Cronos - has a crypto.com card. Payment rails are a standard “real-world use case”. But, how does that service add value to builders? It doesn’t, to be honest. There is no value-add and no integration path. Payment rails are typically a closed-loop system. But our approach is 180 degrees different.

We say: let’s create an open infrastructure that will allow native projects/protocols on the network to create new payment primitives that do not exist otherwise. Streaming contracts? Let’s stream transactions to a card. Lending protocols? Let’s create a native credit card. Yield protocols? Let’s automate interest rewards to the card and so on.

Our approach is not as effective as printing immediate rewards. Immediate rewards provide immediate activity. But, rewards dry out, and capital moves away. So instead, we suggest focusing on building sustainable ways to attract users, and it is through creating unique, new, crazy, and useful payment primitives. Users come to Optimism to try that, and stay for the utility.

Hopefully, this explained my vision and approach a little bit better. Once again, thank you for reading through this, Justin.


I read in your proposal that OP tokens will be used to subsidize operations… but I don’t understand how this incentives users and liquidity on Optimism. Could you elaborate more why users will remain after the incentives have dried up?

Sure! To answer that shortly. We create an infrastructure for payment primitives. What we do allows other projects to build on/with us (again: lending, options, dexs etc) to create the payment flows to the card. And with more utility users stay on Optimism.

Users will remain after the incentives dried up because they can get the features unavailable elsewhere.

You want to spend 60% of the OP on subsidizing operations? This proposal is a straight no from me.

Hi @Oppa thank you for expressing your voice. If you could please elaborate a bit more here, it would be very helpful to understand your reasoning. Thanks

That is not really a reason for why users would stay.

Also this entire proposal looks more like a proposal to fund your venture which is not the point of the grants!