Hi @britt, thank you for adding an example of how incentive will work.
One quick question, are you planning to do the incentive dynamically or will it be fixed? Imagine for some reason L1 gas is high(100gwie+ for example) then moving to OP chain will expensive. So how are you planning to tackle such situations? Full gas refund or is there a max limit?
This is a simple but effective idea to refund bridge fees. We like the idea that you are only refunded for going to optimism.
I suggest clarifying in the main post that users are only refunded for the bridge fee, not the destination fee. Not sure whether 1,000,000 is completely necessary since itās still somewhat a new protocol and a smaller amount is more ideal. And do you currently subsidize the fee in $ACX?
Not sure if these comments are from your community, but these comments arenāt exactly helpful.
Very excited and looking forward to the future!
The suggestions are great. OPās future is bright
Weāve got to cool it on the fake accounts. Itās going to be hard to follow the discourse here.
Looks like a sound idea and the execution looks straightforward.
This agreement really won my heart, and I hope to develop better and better.
I think the values of acorss and Optimism are similar. Across the pursuit of extreme safety and low rates, which is optimism, which is also what Optimism strives for, and the two are culturally aligned, which is a great proposal.
Support, make the op ecology bigger and stronger
Across is my favorite L1/L2 bridge. This proposal look good, definitely bring more volume to OP eco. Good for OP & Across.
totally agreedļ¼ I like the proposal, I believe it will also be beneficial to the ecology of Optimism!
hello Britt!
I want to share this information with my community. If each of the lowers make a bridge for example Ethereumā>Optimism for $1000, how many rewards in OP and ACX tokens will they get?
Great ! Support it!
It is a good begining!
Hey @OPUser good question! It would be dynamic, so this question still applies, but we actually break it down in our UI to show 2 different types of fees - the gas fee and the bridge fee. And weād be applying this to bridge fees rather than gas fees, so fluctuations in gas shouldnāt make an impact here.
Hereās a link to where we discuss that in our docs, but the tl;dr is that the bridge fee isnāt reliant on network conditions. Instead, the bridge fee is based on liquidity pool utilization.
Weād only expect to hand out crazy numbers of tokens if we were experiencing crazy numbers of transfers to OP - like 100s of millions in volume just to OP.
I donāt actually have an immediate answer here for you, but Iāll check with the giga brains and get back to you!
Hi @Bobbay_StableLab Iāve asked the community to only participate with meaningful contributions - sorry for the excess noise!
I will update the main post accordingly - thank you for that feedback.
We do currently subsidize with $ACX for anyone using our referral link program (you can self refer). So this would be complementary to those efforts.
I also agree that 1mm is a lot! I think one path forward could be to reduce that amount, but we might also consider adding in a second mechanism by which the tokens could be distributed. For example, our system relies on a network of relayers. If we were to incentivize relayers to operate on OP, that would serve a few purposes. It would make the bridge to OP able to support larger volumes, increase the security of the bridge, and encourage these parties to keep funds on OP rather than directing them elsewhere.
Iām curious if you think this addition to the proposal would be well received? Weāre pretty keen on getting creative with this grant, and using it to benefit as many of the users that exist in the Across+OP ecosystem as possible. So Iād be really happy to get any feedback on that!
Well written proposal, thanks Britt!
I think the proposal is well designed and I appreciate the fact that there will be matching incentives. Across has already integrated two versions of its bridging architecture with Optimism so thatās a bonus also.
I do find the duration of the program to be long dated and the amount of $OP being requested is quite significant. I think however the length of the proposal and size of the $OP allocation is reasonable in light of the following facts:
With those points in mind, I would still suggest possibly shortening the proposal to a 6-9 month target length instead of 1 year, then propose a continuation/extension as the OP distribution gets close to finishing. I say this because it gives Optimism governance reassurance when a program brings successful results on shorter timeframes (indicating itās effectiveness), after which projects can always propose a continuation/extension or even a whole new proposal, with a much higher likelihood of being approved a second time given previous positive results.
I do not feel too strongly about this change however, and would still approve the proposal the way it is, if Across really feels a 1 year program is warranted.
Yes. Me likey. This is a great simple proposal for a great bridge.
The protocol is great, I love this, hope it will be better in the future.
Thatās helpful feedback @millie, thanks! Iād be keen to hear your thoughts about also incentivizing [non-Risk Labs] relayers that operate on OP. It would benefit the Across ecosystem by diversifying our relayer network, and it would benefit OP by providing another incentive for folks to keep their funds on OP.
With that in mind, it probably still makes sense to shorten the duration (and associated amount). But Iām wondering if you think that adds unnecessary complications to it, or if it makes it more well-rounded.