I agree with @vale! This is a great way to reward early users
Yea cool idea. It’s always a good idea to reward easily users!!
Looks like a good proposal, hope it gets support.
Sounds like a solid idea, I support it, it would definitely support the growth of Optimism.
Call me anon but you guys really could use some good UI designers, where the heck is my vote button?
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.
Hey @Girellus thanks for the engagement! All of the smart contracts produced by Risk Labs (this includes everything by UMA and Across) are audited by OpenZeppelin. You can find the audit report for Across v2 right here
This is a really good talking point, though, and worth further discussion. The most recent bridge hack (at the time of writing) was Nomad. We put out a tweet thread with more information on this exploit, and I’d encourage anyone with high-level questions to start there.
The tl;dr is that the exploit was a result of a misconfiguration that was called out in an audit but not addressed. Importantly, it was not a weakness/vulnerability in the optimistic verification pattern that underlies both Across and Nomad.
Hey @britt, I just wanted to follow up about your idea to potentially incentivize relayers for Optimism as part of the distribution plan for this proposal? I noticed you haven’t included it in the proposal body and just wanted to check to see if it’s still something you intend to include in the final version?
The right decision and approach , each participant will be given the opportunity to choose .
Hi @britt !
Yes, thanks to reaffirm these points, let me return to the point expressed later by ScaleWeb3 here:
It’s true that a situation may arise in which many bridge projects are already being funded and others are in search of that (6 already passed, and 2, including this one, in discussion). With this I mean that (and only my vision) the more bridges we should start to see some initiatives that seek to solve particular problems of this ecosystem; by example a simple one, dedicate themselves to specific tokens. For example withdrawal waiting 7 days is always a problem to attract liquidity from non-top tokens into Optimism, and perhaps a coordination with other protocols will allow them to add other tokens, if the problem is identified (by example, in this case see this DeFi protocol assigning some bridge incentives). Again this is just an open idea that I think is an interesting opportunity and I share with you and everyone here.
For now, reducing amount would be appropriate, unless you want to share with us a more detailed spending plan or projected use.
I have seen that you have changed the proposal from Draft to Ready and I want to emphasize that the governance process is currently being revamped and an important point is a new template that projects will have to apply (it’s under discussion, so don’t make formal changes now and wait for their approval, but it’s good to keep an eye on it and be prepared).
Hey @millie - just wanted to let you know it is in there!
The tl;dr is this - 25% of tokens go towards non-RL relayers on OP at a roughly ~33% bonus to what they already receive as a relayer.
@DeFi_LATAM_Joxes I’ll tag you here as well since I think you may find this to be relevant.
There are a couple of other points you mention that I’d like to briefly respond to. First, can you help me understand what additional detail you’d like to see in the existing plan? In my opinion, one of the strengths of this proposal is that it’s pretty straightforward about how these tokens will be used.
Second, you mention that you’d like to see some initiatives that seek to solve particular problems in this ecosystem like onboarding more tokens. I completely agree with this sentiment. In fact, one of the other proposals we’re working on right now is one that would add BAL to Across. And while I believe these efforts are essential, I don’t see a particularly obvious tie-in that makes sense for a long-term initiative like this.
Having said that, I would encourage voters here to do their research and make sure the protocols receiving these tokens are seeking to improve the ecosystem in more than one way. I believe that we are. I also believe that there are great opportunities ahead for collaborative grants.
And finally, thank you for pointing out the updated template. I’ll keep an eye on it to see if it goes into effect during this voting cycle and update this proposal accordingly.
Thanks for sharing this proposal. It’s straightforward and I like the token distribution to bridge users transferring assets to Optimism and relayers operating on Optimism. This seems great for Optimism ecosystem growth. However, the amount requested is quite high especially relative to many of the other approved proposals so would prefer the requested amount get reduced.
Thank you for your engagement here @britt . I have two suggestion, you might need to move the proposal to the newer template and post it on our discord temp-check channel. As a second point, I would like to echo others view on reducing the duration to 6 month.
Looks like a sound idea and the execution looks straightforward.
I like the proposal, can be beneficial
IP address on the way to the way to the way to the way to the way to the way to the way
I like the proposal, can be beneficial good
Fena değil. You on the guy
I have used Across a few times to Bridge to optimism and it has always been a smooth and fast experience. I think it also pops up with lifi when aggregating bridges.
I believe that this request is reasonable but no the amount of OP requested. I think 200,000 OP at most would suffice or even a little less but 1,000,000 is just too much. Overall great community and team!