I see the Velo team (@jackanorak + Alex) keeps spamming this thread and acting in bad faith.
Both are things I do not like to see when engaging with proposals and I would ask you to stop once more. The aggressive, unconstructive approach demonstrated is the exact behavior from “ecosystem thought leaders“ that will be mirrored by communities and ultimately turn off quality contributors.
Re: Defi expertise, importance of building new things & committee fit.
Let me simply summarize your Velodrome Finance project
Project itself
- It’s a copy paste project: you forked Solidly ve(3;3) with all its complexities
- DEX should be for most efficient trading, it should not be about
- amassing large amounts of liquidity (Unnecessary Total Value at Risk for Velo investors & the Optimism protocol which gains less from ineffective TVL(!) than it risks today)
- adding 3 layers of complexity with voting & (manual!) bribing which takes 50%(!) of the fees from LPs (LPs take IL risk, others receive money?!)
- Obscure token economic & governance model
- Velo’s initial token distribution has been a disaster and made it really hard for Optimism investors. Due to the setup, the only way the project will be successful is when Optimism sponsors incentives such as liquidity mining and trading incentives.
- Your implementation of Solidly is even more obscure than the original and will likely lead to an unneccessary redistribution of wealth from unsophisticated investors to insiders (Red Flag) and many investors are at risk of loosing a lot of funds through “wrong positioning“ in the money game, an exploit of the large TVL, dilution or LPing.
- Running a ve token model offers some long-termism and creates some token sink but it makes little sense for projects without serious revenues. (hence, also not interesting for Convex-style ecosystem projects)
- Having a non-aligned set of holders (for example other protocols & whales) decide on revenue distribution for pools is a pretty bad idea for the project as the most important pools get less bribes than they should (Ask @Solarcurve, Balancer will need to change this; at least pre-select pools & allow only small parameter changes)
Your involvement in Optimism
- You asked for an incredibly high amount of OP tokens (3M!) as a microcap (Red flag)
- You received a large amount of Op tokens from Op foundation – even though you had already a completely messed up token distribution & incentive design for new investors on Optimism (why?!)
- Due to Op incentives, you were able to grow TVL & veVelo
-
Your team engages in bad faith when talking to potential competitors (2x afaik)
- Aggressive Curve response across channels (whose veModel is the basis of your project)
- This thread
- Your team member steals funds in public (very bad look on judgement) - props on quick solution!
- Little quality governance involvement in Optimism until today
Is Solidly bad?
- Solidly optimizes token sinks & long-term alignment when implemented well
- Solidly can bootstrap growth
- The Solidly/bribing model requires smart parameter choice, risk management & well-aligned partner protocols, then it can lead to flywheel for a quality ecosystem (Revenues are needed!)
- Token economics & incentive design should not be mixed up with efficiency of a DEX protocol
Conclusion:
Instead of making random claims and swings at valuable contributors to Optimism, I’d recommend
- improving Solidly (soon 1 B AUM – a nice hacking prize pool!)
- acting in good faith in the Op ecosystem as you should be eternally grateful to Daddy Optimism
- helping the Op ecosystem grow by onboarding & welcoming stakeholders
@ all other delegates and community members
- Feel free to ask us any questions regarding the proposal, our expertise or whatever interests you and is relevant to pick a committee.
- I encourage you to take an active stance when seeing bad faith actors as that costs a lot of energy and will result in us & others not contributing anymore to the ecosystem (–> Code of Conduct)
Enjoy the weekend, stay optimistic 
