I think you should be allowed to vote for other proposals as I don’t see any conflict of interest, as long as they are not batched like the last vote in phase 0
(post deleted by author)
It is meaningful enough to allow @solarcurve to vote on other proposals. I mean why exactly would he turn a delegate if he can’t vote just because his very own proposal is live for voting. As a delegate, perform your roles and be active in governance. It only makes sense not to vote on your very own proposal considering the amount of voting power he holds as a delegate. It’d be similar to rigging an election just because you are a part of the electorate.
Voted : Yes
Number of token are reasonable compared to TVL and project matrices.
Incentives are matched.
Proper plan to retain users once incentives are dried up.
Overall, an excellent proposal.
On different topic, thank you for your feedback on phase0/1 funding thread. I am gonna bother you once again, please share your thoughts on this too. Hearing from you is important not just because you are delegate but also because you are leading a project receiving the incentives.
This project will make Optimism more stronger… Full support from me
This proposal fits into Gov Fund Phase 1 and the value-add to Optimism is solid: Voting Yes
Value-add: Medium - Some Users and liquidity
Op distribution: Okayish - mainly bribes
This funding round’s goal is primarily in increasing liquidity and users on Optimism. Balancer is a top protocol on Ethereum with a community that is willing to leave liquidity in their pools for optimal yield management. We see value in incentivizing some of the money on Eth l1 & Fantom to flow to Optimism and we like your approach to kickstarting your Optimism deployment and veBal emissions.
Fyi, we are not the biggest fans of multiple layers of farming protocols to distribute revenues (bribing) and rather believe core protocols and their holders should manage revenue distribution with their long-term alignment and views. Nonetheless, this proposal is good for Optimism growth and we look forward to some sustainble incentives.
i dont know why this has balancer in its name when its not balancer and only has a partnership with them it seems an invalid proposal based on the name to try get everyone to vote yes
After the initial 2 month launch period the emissions (BAL) will be decided by veBAL voters. This is about as “Balancer” as you can be sir. But you are entitled to your fair opinion.
Voted : Yes
Positive track record:
Tokens requested in range comparable to other projects:
Expected to grow Optimism ecosystem:
Great to see the Beethoven team’s expansion on Optimism and driving TVL. While spending 100% of the OP token allocation on bribes isn’t the most creative, it does align with the gov fund phase 1 objectives.
Interesting reading this now. I see some big problems with this actually and I really dont like it. This kind of behavior doesn’t go unnoticed in corporate America and for good reason.
AFAIK Optimism TVL is hurting and is down about 40% from ATHs and nothing seems to be changing here. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see quite simply:
Need more protocols and distribution of incentives to encourage bringing more people to L2.
I did spend some significant time, having read every single other protocol’s proposal put forth, putting together a proposal myself that oddly enough was immediately pushed back on by @solarcurve and then cited a Proposal literally published by himself as the “right” way to make a Proposal.
I really believe in the Optimistic Vision still but the reality is that if the intent here is to keep aspiring protocols, looking to come and build here,
- out of Optimism - as opposed to the stated purpose of providing incentives to bootstrap growth, it’s logical to form the conclusion that the experiment that is Optimism does not end well. And more important; I think anyone taking the time to read through these forums is already demonstrating precisely who we all want to be in alignment with.
My point being work together. I think cooperation and collaboration is the answer right now.
I am going to vote a reluctant YES here.
- Established protocol.
- Good for Optimism as it will bring more users
- Good team
- Amount is on the high side.
- I am not a fan of mercenary usage. On the other hand I do understand how the veXXX model and that always needs bribes to work and the OP already explained that they intend to continue bribing even after OP incentives dry up from the protocol fees, so I can see how this could become sustainable.
I voted yes on this proposal. Balancer is an established project in this space and I like that they are collaborating with BeethovenX along with directing earnings towards matching OP incentives.
I’ll vote YES
Project quality: High - well-known project with high TVL
Team quality: High
Amount requested: Reasonable
OP distribution: So, so. Not clear to me how is this better than LM.
I am voting yes on this proposal. The project is well-articulated, provides value to the Optimism ecosystem, and will back tested projects. The grant size is large, but the ability for Balancer and Beethoven to provide scaling solutions within the Optimism ecosystem merits a larger grant size.
Snapshot vote - Passed
@solarcurve can you provide a Telegram handle or other contact method so the Optimism team can get in touch about paying out this grant
Feel free to comment on this thread, DM, or email email@example.com.
@solarcurve on telegram or solarcurve#5075 on discord
Hi @solarcurve! It’s been a few months since the OP grant distribution, would you mind sharing a grant update with the community here?