[READY] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] BarnBridge

Voted: No.


  • Its still not clear why you need 16% for Bong gov movement, explain your reason, what action you will need to do there ?
  • You still did not answer my last query on LP pair

We should put a council in place on the BarnBridge side with active community members

means council is not active, yet ?

This proposal need improvement on many sides. Looking forward to updated proposal in next cycle.

1 Like

I think because we had delegate support. We’re gearing up for BarnBridge V2 so we may have just missed marks on a few timelines in working directly with the Optimism team who was naturally busy as well with a lot of growth and excitement happening on the network.

I’m ultimately fine putting this into the next Phase of rewards if that is what people are looking for. I think it is clear that there are a lot of people AGAINST this and i think it is because of the edits. At this point, I think we have made all of the final edits so the Snapshot reflects the settled changes.

By the next rewards cycle we will already be on Optimism with all of the changes made it will just make it more difficult on our end to move to Optimism due to the delay. But ultimately, I understand that and am still committed to moving to Optimism as we were one of the first protocols that originally started putting our products on Optimism over a year ago.

I think I did respond to this. We drastically reduced rewards that went into our protocol because we thought the mechanism was unsustainable. It took longer than we expected to rebuild the protocol but at this point, with us moving things over, we have encouraged people not to make long duration deposits (year long locks) before we release SYV2.

I think both the reward reduction and active advice not to deposit long lock periods… it would be like if Curve turned off rewards and actively encouraged people not to deposit.

So our plan would be to start rewards back now that we have a sustainable mechanism. This grew our TVL to $600m in the past.

I answered the 16% in another answer.

We are ultimately moving our entire DAO to Optimism that has $30m of assets in it (with a lot being front weighted to our own token but still, millions of dollars in non-BOND delineated assets. In my opinion, this component is the largest reason I’m concerned with moving our DAO to Optimism because you create an issue where we may not have a quorum worthy amount to bring those users onto Optimism. We won’t be the first DAO to want to move to a Layer 2… and this is going to be the largest barrier to moving over is the incentive to do so vs. just staying put and incurring gas fees (especially for smaller BOND deposits who it can end up costing as much as their entire bag to move over).

I think this should exist as a case study in how we actually are getting people to move over in the first place. It will become a much larger problem as gas fees increase for projects if L2s want to alleviate barriers in moving over. I think gas fees on main net will eventually get to $5k/transaction (not just myself… but people like Kain and Stani say the same thing). It’s not an issue right now, because I’m being proactive in moving to Optimism for this reason but the L2s helping projects with this large migration so DAOs don’t get gridlocked or exist in two separate places is going to be something that we aren’t the first ones to deal with.

Since there isn’t a framework for it and we are one of the first protocols to launch a DAO on Ethereum and migrate it to an L2… I’m not sure I have a bulletproof answer on why 16% vs. wanting to ensure we had enough. At this point, if we get gridlocked we’ll have to double our own incentives and cost so the intention here is we thought Optimism might want to support us in this migration. While it’s off the docket for this phase and our DAO will already be moved over by the next phase… I can help with ensuring BarnBridge acts as a use case for this going forward. I actually think this is the most important part of this proposal & we’re too far down the rabbit hole of moving to Optimism that we’ll do it with or without incentives.


We are in active talks with the Velodrome team. We have main net LP incentives running for another 8 weeks so this is something we are in active communication about (which LP exactly). We also need to vote on this on our end but the proposal should be ready this week or the week after.

Someone asked if we would pair OP to make a BOND/OP pool. The reason I’m hesitant to do this is it will cause sell pressure on the OP price if rewards are getting dropped in OP (people receive and pair it back down). For us to pair it with BOND so incentives are in OP and BOND, that alleviates that issue but I don’t think we will have Optimism rewards by the time we migrate so I think we chose the most liquid pair and go with what our governance and community asks for the initial pair to be.


We haven’t voted to put a council in place. With voter apathy and the cost to vote on main net we are bundling a lot of this up into 1 or 2 large votes before voter costs are cheaper. So as we gear up for the launch of BarnBridge v2… most of this stuff will be put in place. We’ve had conversations in the community and generally know the answers to all these questions but we need to do our large vote before these #s are hard numbers because ultimately I’m not the CEO of BarnBridge so I can just signal what the expectation is but I can’t promise exactly who will be on the council. I think across the board this should explain why some of this feels disorganized vs. we can only be so organized with hard expectations until around 3 weeks from now.

Final thoughts

Some of the outcome of this proposal were what would solidify answers in our community proposals so part of why we were waiting was to get clarity on what we were distributing as a # of OP and then building it into our proposals to move.

We ultimately have more to lose here than Optimism by moving our entire DAO over and risking the gridlock that would be pretty existentially bad for our project which is why we wanted to know the # on the OP end before we solidified those #s on our end.

I think some of the original asks were that the amount was too high and we amended it down but not as many people came back and talked about it after seeing the higher # OP ask, unfortunately. So I wasn’t sure what the main hangups were. :grimacing:

Hopefully this provides clarity.

1 Like

Please follow the proposal process properly next cycle and provide us with a finalized proposal to review. I will have to vote against this one in this cycle as I am not even sure what the final form of the proposal I am voting on is supposed to be.

1 Like

The proposal is finalized right now.

As others have mentioned, it seems like this wasn’t really [READY] when it was put to SnapShot, has it changed since the voting started, because if so then surely that invalidates the process?

I guess I will wait until the last day of voting for this one so that it definitely won’t be amended after I vote!

It’s good that you seem to be responding to discussion here, so even if the proposal doesn’t end up being accepted in this round it may be better received once it has ossified…


Voted no - It looks like this proposal was edited after the voting cycle had begun. Please resubmit for the next round and don’t edit your proposal after submitting for a vote.

1 Like

I will also be voting no for this specific proposal since it was still being edited but will definitely review the next proposal that is up.

We voted no on this proposal because the number of OP tokens requested was changed after voting began.

1 Like

After reading this thread, and looking through the history of the project, I’m more confused than ever. I’m voting Against as the proposal seems to have been changed, hope to see a consolidated one in the future. Also request you to include a background & brief history of the project as it’s relevant information.

Voting No for the reasons given above. Thanks for incorporating early feedback. Looking forward to a finished proposal in the next round.

Re Proposal:

The updated 600K is still a high ask for the size of the project but more reasonable. Seeing the product and DAO on Optimism is nice and some incentives for users to move over make sense too.

We still see a large focus on short-term incentives and at the same time we don’t believe fixed income will be a huge growth driver in the next year(s) - hence, we welcome more building initiatives.

We agree that LPing for Bond-USDC/ETH makes more sense than coupling Bond with OP as it’s most important to make your token accessible through the Optimism network.

General note: Lots of proposals try to move TVL to Optimism which does not equate to growth of the Op ecosystem and economy. Liquidity is definitely one of the keys to jumpstart and run ecosystems but we hope to see differentiated proposals that outline positive effects on Optimism growth.

Barn Bridge didn’t take off during the last bull cycle, I didn’t see if there’s a product-market fit.

I voted against it.


Voting: No

Doing echo of other delegates, editing the proposal invalidates your previous marked as ready; also we think 600k still being a big ask. For now:

  • Contribution: Standard
  • OP distribution: Neutral
  • Co-incentives: Not confirmed
  • Impact in LATAM: Neutral
1 Like

I would like to see an updated proposal for a longer terms :star_struck:

Snapshot vote - not-passed

Hey everyone! I saw why this was voted against.

I’ll work on it and improve it next time.

Yeah exactly. I didn’t quite understand the process and know why it was rejected. I also went into the Discord and had conversations.

I’ll come back with a much different proposal for the next round. I appreciate all of the feedback in general on this.


Yes - this has been the general REALLY GOOD reasons I’ve seen this was rejected.

I’ve been heads down launching BarnBridge V2 but I understand where I got this wrong and I’ll do everything to make my 2nd swing better.

1 Like