This is the best approach and something I would like to see considered in all proposals. So far Across is doing well and I wouldn’t have many issues voting yes for the 1M token allocation but I definitely support a lower ask (with the adjusted time frame). It reduces risk for everyone and it will make the approval easier.
That’s the thing, with a smaller allocation and smaller time frame you could include this in the current proposal as an experiment or in the continuation/extension. I think the first proposal should focus on what gives more direct impact to users, what is easier to measure and evaluate. From there, the next proposal (continuation/extension) can include more complexity/diversity/changes considering the previous proposal effectiveness/impact.
hey Britt, had a chance to think about it and I think incentivizing [non-Risk Labs] Relayers is a great idea, I just wonder how confident Across is in incentivizing the Relayer role permissionlessly at its current stage? IMO it would be make sense to allocate OP for Relayers once Across feels confident enough to begin directing ACX to [non-Risk Labs] relayers. From what I understand the Relayer role isn’t currently incentivized but there are plans to incentivize it in the future, I’d have no problem supporting OP incentives for relayers when ever Across thinks it’s time to permissionlessy incentivize that role!
I propose to use 5% of that amount requested to rebate the fees spent by early OP-through-across bridgers(the fees would be rebated partially).
I think it is always nice to reward true early users, and i think that 5% of the requested tokens is a fair amount.
Elegibility: every users who bridged to optimism with across will have an $OP reward proportional to the fees spent. Applicable to everyone who performed such action before today 7th august 2022.
My opinion about tokens requested + distribution looks a big ask if you only plan to cover this portion of fees mentioned. Reducing the amount to 400k can be more reasonable, at least you have some analysis about expected expenditures to share and discuss with us. Even don’t worry about reducing the time of distribution (let’s say, six months) we will happy to see the results after (in case of approval) and then reapply.
(Suggestion) as we can see, there’s so many projects applying to Phase 1 and incentiving liquidity in so many assets, don’t you think it would be positive (this is the moment) to join an alliance with some other projects and thus increase the list of available tokens? Some I’d love to see stETH Rocket Pool, or Aave token, other stablecoins, etc. Let us know what do you think or if this makes sense.
@Joxes thanks for reading and providing feedback! I wanted to provide a little bit of context on what it takes to support a new token. It’s not super relevant to this proposal, but might be useful for anyone else wondering.
tl;dr - we’re happy to add new tokens, but it requires a good amount of capital to do.
When we support a new token, we have to make sure there are sufficient funds in the Hub pool to support the anticipated volume (without compromising the UX), AND at least 1 funded relayer on each supported chain to be able to support transfers. This is something we hope will become less of a barrier as more tokens are onboarded and more people start running relayers.
I’ll also use this as a chance to reply to @millie in regard to relayers
The code for relayers has been open source this whole time, and technically anyone could have spun up a relayer if they wanted to (so it’s not a permissioned role as it is in some other bridges). Risk Labs has been doing lots of work to make it easier and more profitable for folks to run a relayer, and we’re at the point now where we’d like to see people start trying it out. We have a few external relayers now, and are providing ongoing support to anyone interested in doing this. I’m happy to report that it’s been really smooth so far! In terms of ACX incentives for relayers, I’ll pass this feedback along for consideration, and thank you again for the feedback.
No problem and yes you’re right the relayer is fully open source and any one could potentially relay their own transactions as well.
The relayer role is an extremely important part of Across’s bridging architecture so I think it’s a great idea to incentivize relayers on Optimism. Relayer’s are basically responsible for making the bridging experience seamless for the end user and the more liquidity that relayers can support for fast bridging, the faster and smoother the UX for bridging to/from Optimism is.
Fast bridging is vital for a rollup to gain mass adoption and allows for healthy arbitrage, so to sum things up, yes I would support this proposal if there was a carve out for Relayer incentives included in the pitch as well!
As an early optimism and across user i support this change on the initial proposal. I think it is a good way to reward early users an i do agree that a 5-10% is an okay amount.
i’ve seen many other protocols(meanFi, perp,clipper, polynomial rewarding early users with a small percentage(5-10%) of their OP requested.
Generally speaking, we don’t believe the most effective use of OP funds is giving large grants to 50+ bridge projects. (50 * 1Mio Op * 1.5$…)
That said, we like the effective mechanism described (cost-covered onboarding) and we support the proposal - though a lower ask and potential refill would be more appropriate after evaluation of a trial.
Really interesting and i want agree with this. I read few feedbacks that I approve:
OP for liquidity provider;
OP for early users+retroactive reward around 10/15% (not more because after is too much).
I want add something new that it is related the Audit of the protocol. All we know about the exploits that happened, mostly related bridges; so what i wanna say is that i would push also in this direction doing a really good audit.