I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.
3 Likes
I am one of the Synthetix Ambassadors, and a Optimism Badgeholder. I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - #65 by mastermojo ] with sufficient voting power, and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote
3 Likes
I am an Optimism commitments - #1 by Gonna.eth with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.
4 Likes
After discussion with Jack Anorak and explaining that this can be used for more than just velodrome projects I give the green light.
I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.
3 Likes
I am an Optimism delegate representing Lyra, with sufficient voting power, and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote
2 Likes
I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.
2 Likes
Will be voting against of this, nature of onchian voting cant be reversed so making it visible so that others can chime in if they have any query on my voting rational.
- Bigger project, like velo, with their own token should support and fund their audit from their own treasury. On going development support is one of main reason to have a project native token, which they already have.
As mentioned by @hen above, bug bounties are cost incentive and large amount of funds are needed, so I would rather support projects in incubation with no treasury or token.
And not directly related to this proposal but velodrome already has a 200K bug bounty program with immunefi.
Edit 1- In order not spam the thread, i will update my initial comment to provide more information from my side.
3% of token emission was reserved for continuous development, below text snippet as part of official token-economics. This is why I believe team should sponsor their own audit.
"To cover ongoing expenses and all the upcoming development efforts, 3% of the emissions will be going to the team address."
Fro defiLlama we can also see the current status of token vesting schedule.
1 Like
Hey @kaereste - thanks for the reply and feedback. Your thoughts are pretty in line as to what we’re trying to achieve from a broader picture perspective. Ideally, we would extend these funds to other protocols in the future but for now we are trying to prove this out initially with the Velodrome team.
The arguments of making it accessible to smaller projects is very much valid. We wanted to keep the proposal very focused and specific in terms of the results/scope of what we’re trying to drive. On the community call, I mentioned this bigger picture of extending these funds to not just Velodrome but also other protocols whether they’re smaller or even more bootstrapped. That is 110% the vision we are trying to drive towards with this proposal.
We believe this proposal is a step towards that vision since we effectively have to prove this out before fully scaling it out.
3 Likes
Hey @OPUser - thanks for the feedback and transparency. I believe the team has addressed the main question in terms of having Velo support this initiative with their own token. To reiterate @ZoomerAnon’s point, Velodrome gave away 90% of their token supply to the public/community, bootstrapped with a $100K grant, non-VC funded, etc. Feel free to refer to @alexcutlerdoteth image of token distribution for further details.
4 Likes
I think it would be beneficial if you took the time to ask questions to validate your understanding of the protocol and proposal you are evaluating before making broad factual statements. Velodrome does not “have their own token to support and fund their audit”. We are an immutable protocol, built as a public good, which distributed almost all of our initial supply to the ecosystem and to users through a predefined and unalterable emissions schedule. We cannot mint new tokens to fund things (it would be a disaster if we could) and the supply we do have is almost entirely locked.
If you think a protocol like this, which btw is exactly the kind of protocol this ecosystem is looking to attract and support, can fund on its own a bug bounty at this scale I think you are betraying a deep misunderstanding of how the leading protocol on Optimism is designed to work and the nature of protocol security at these scales.
You are basically saying that if a protocol of our size and scale wants to ensure that they (and thus the broader ecosystem) are secure, they should sell tokens / raise from VCs, grant themselves massive shares of their native tokens, or maintain an ability to mint their own token. That is the opposite of the ethos of this ecosystem and purpose of these grants.
The $200,000 bounty we have in place according to Spearbit and ImmuneFi is the bare minimum. We’ve put up $100,000 of it, and the Optimism Foundation has matched another $100,000 recognizing our constraints and the critical nature of this bounty for the security for the broader ecosystem. Another $100,000 would still be $200,000 short of the recommended amount for a protocol of our size, but it would help tremendously.
And most importantly it would send a signal that the broader ecosystem and prospective builders that in cases like these, Governance is here to help.
5 Likes
Love Spearbit and strongly believe in their ability to execute on this proposal to add value to the ecosystem. I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power, and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.
3 Likes
I voted yes on this proposal. I’m a fan of supporting bug bounties, also had input from my colleague Jordan Clifford and he came to the same conclusion.
3 Likes
Voted yes, as I also mentioned above I would like to see bounties included for smaller projects.
2 Likes
Great conversation here; I welcome the idea of having different bug bounty mechanisms.
As discussed above, well-established protocols may not be a priority in themselves more than community initiatives/public goods or small projects building innovatite applications focused on Optimism ecosystem. This is the so-called “targeted protocols”, do you already have a clearer proposed criteria or different possible scenarios?
1 Like
I wanted to offer some contrary opinions here to the idea that large protocols should fund their own bug bounty programs.
In my opinion, bug bounty programs should be funded proportional to the impact that protocol has on our ecosystem. At the end of the day, a bug in a protocol like Velodrome not only negatively impacts Velodrome, but also negatively impacts the ENTIRE OP ecosystem. Thus, it is in the OP Collective’s best interest to ensure Velodrome’s security, regardless of whether or not Velodrome has the capacity to do it themselves.
Even if you disagree with this though, as it has been stated multiple times before, it seems as though Velodrome has low resources compared to the impact it has on OP’s ecosystem, so either way, a bug bounty program should be funded.
I’m a representative of Blockchain@USC, and am in charge of reviewing this proposal. I’ll discuss with the other reviewer, but very likely we will be approving this proposal.
2 Likes
I would also like some clarity on what is meant by “targeted protocols” however.
2 Likes
Love this. Keep an eye out for something very soon 
1 Like
@chaselb Tagging you since you also wanted some more clarity.
Currently working with OP foundation in defining these “targeted” protocols. We’re already engaged with a ton of OP native projects but I’m working with the OP team to define this criteria since I want to ensure all parties are on the same page moving forward. Keep an eye out as we’re currently working on this.
4 Likes
As of right now, we do not have set criteria but qualitative criteria. OP native projects, bootstrapped teams, self-starter team. We’re trying to define what this means ultimately in terms of data and milestones but that’s where we started.
1 Like
As Season 4 draws to a close this week, we’re so excited to see how you’ve executed on your Mission! Please post an update for the community here outlining the milestones you’ve met this Thursday (9/20) by 19:00 GMT. Please include links to any final work products as we’ll create a final roundup linking to all Mission deliverables.
We also encourage you to sign-up for RetroPGF Round 3. You’ll be able to describe the impact of your Mission when you sign-up: RetroPGF Round 3 Applications Are Open
Thanks again for being part of this experiment and helping us build the Collective 
2 Likes