[DRAFT] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] ZZ Finance

Thanks for point out. We have updated our allocation, hope that clears the doubt.

1 Like

Good to see an Optimism native project in the making.

Vest and forfeit mechanism does have value, do you know if any other protocol is doing the same ?

Gas and trade rebate is clear along with referral program.

One challenge with focus on LP for a new protocol is that we dont get the see its natural and organic growth. How is governance incentives involved here ?

and I assume you will make the security and maintenance spending public.

Overall a good proposal.

1 Like

appreciate the added detail. as far as i know we’ve never funded an audit as governance, and i think this is a worthwhile discussion to have because they are high-cost but arguably necessary steps for full deployment of a promising protocol

there could be a thing where there’s actually a slate of approved auditors on retainer (perhaps on discount) and there’s a separate set of grants where proposals ask to get time with these auditors. or they could go through this particular set of grants and just are required to choose from a list of accepted auditors

In any case, current governance policy prohibits the outright selling of OP, which is what you propose in this section

20% (60,000) of our OP allocation will be used for security services, in terms of audits for our smart contracts and maintenance of protocol security. 20% (60,000 OP) would roughly be converted into 50,000-60,000 USDC, which will be used for future audits and on-chain monitoring services of our protocol. From the quotations we’ve gotten thus far, that would lasts us for about 3-4 audits/services.

There’d probably be another way to do this

1 Like

Thank you for your comment.

We should be the only protocol with this mechanism. We’ve seen protocol that locks assets and/or burn rewards. But we feel that the idea of sacrificing asset mobility for higher reward is too rigid for our liking. So we came up with our soft-lock, vest and forfeit mechanism whereby we still offer a high staking reward, but with added flexibility to withdraw anytime for whatever reasons, and the users will only have part of their reward slashed for forfeiting the agreed locking duration. We also thought it would be better to have these forfeited rewards redistributed to the remaining stakers as added incentives for staying long-term.

We foresee a high influx of users into our protocol during our initial launch, of which we aim to retain ~80% of the TVL we achieve through our Vault. The governance incentives is used to assist us as a kickstarter as our Treasury accumulates. As our ecosystem continues to expand and mature, we should see an organic growth in the overall adoption of our protocol. When we become fully self-sufficient, the incentive programs will be taken over by our Treasury.

Yes, we are open to share it if the Governance Fund can be used to pay for security and maintenance services.

1 Like

Thank again you for your comments.

Regarding the usage of Governance Fund for security & maintenance services. It was stated under Eligible Considerations that the ‘no sales’ rules include exceptions when OP are used to incentivize usage. I believe security & maintenance services does indeed falls under incentivizing usage. Security & maintenance services such as audits reduces the likelihood of hacks and exploits, thereby increases user confidence, leading to greater adoption of the protocol.

Taking reference from other established protocol, they are able to retain high user volume & TVL not because they offer insane returns but rather they are security-centered with minimal risks of exploits. At the heart of it, they take good care of their investors’ funds and in return the investors stay.

Did you all use the most recent template for this?

A few questions on that I’d like to see answers to:

  • What is the problem statement this proposal hopes to solve for the Optimism ecosystem?
  • How does your proposal offer a value proposition solving the above problem?
  • Why will this solution be a source of growth for the Optimism ecosystem?
    • What previous projects the team has meaningfully contributed to?

Additionally, might be helpful to better understand what makes ZZ Finance different or better than existing AMMs on Optimism.

2 Likes

Hi @theenlightened , @jackanorak
I would like to draw attention to something sinister happening here.

  1. The said Project ZZ.Finance seems to be internal work of MM.Finance team

Some knowledge about MMF team.

  1. They are based on Singapore.
  2. Claim to work with Biswap to implement trader rebates/rewards first on dexes.
  3. Drained Millions of Dollars when launched on Polygon from deployer wallet by saying that they will be launching on exchange starting with Name B.

How they both looks same?

  1. NFTs of both seems to be work of the same designer
  2. Checkout documentation of both platforms. Exact same features.

MM.finance becomes ZZ.finance
MadMeerkat becomes Zealous Zombie https://www.reddit.com/r/MMFinance/comments/uf8s30/personal_take_on_events_and_existing_tokenomics/

MMOptimizer becomes ZZOptimizers

There is nothing wrong in launching on multiple chains. but It should not be by deceiving people.
Want few more coincedence both parties are from Singapore.
Another one?
There NFTs using the same teeth and earring designs which would be only be available with original artist.

I will share more proof soon

2 Likes

The allegation is serious

1 Like

@OPUser @Optimism.Goverance @katie @lavande @linda

Hello Folks, can this be looked into?

@scam_detector thanks, I am sure the appropriate folks will look into this.

So scary :slightly_frowning_face:

2 Likes

@Luthor the onus is now on you to controvert this HUGE allegations.

Let me add some more information regarding the similarity between both the platforms.

Let’s understand the chronology.

  1. This was exposed from one of the tweet yesterday
  1. Then after ZZFinance team said they are not the same.

  2. Then after MMF Admin put a post to dish ZZF (to look like its very natural that both are different entity)

  3. ZZF team puts MMF as fudders.

  4. Surprise everyone ZZF tokens will be airdropped to MMF holders :smiley:

  5. Compare frontend designs. Frontend is having options which are not in the roadmap (StableSwap, Limit Order) Just like it was not in MMF Roadmap.

2 Likes

It seems to me that it’s all from Pancake’s UI

MM is forked from Pancake,
Pancake doesn’t have stableswap, niether referral like MMF, and trading rebate like MMF.

MMF UI is not open source then how does ZZF has the same UI?

I appreciate your concern. Our DEX/AMM is forked and modified from Pancake. We never said we made something entirely new and distinct. It was stated in our docs too. And you should know that Pancake was also forked from Uniswap.

UI is also from Pancake

Have you gone through the original allegations? It’s not only about UI. Did you fork MMF too? Just asking.

Regarding all the allegations on MMF Team. We do agree on some of it, it was also mentioned in our medium why we are giving Airdrops to MMF investors. We are ex-MMF investors ourselves that got burned badly by MMF.

But we are NOT the devs behind MMF.

We did not fork MMF. We forked Pancake (DEX/AMM) & Bunny (Vault). Stated in our Docs.

Our DEX/AMM function are fundamentally similar as to all other forks, but we are modifying our Vault functions as described in our proposal.

In your proposal, you omitted information about team members’ details.

“Regarding all the allegations on MMF Team. We do agree on some of it,…”

Pls which and which do you agree with?

The initial liquidity they obtained via launchpad was removed and transferred to a Binance Wallet. MMF Devs claim it was passed through voting, and it was never mentioned again.