As there is no update on your documents and the current TVL $15M is so small in DEFI world, what’s the business model and plan of your V2 ?
Great move! That and leveraging Velodrome should provide adequate liquidity for a $BOND pair on Optimism.
Hey @lordtylerward , thank you for the update. Few comments my side to understand this proposal better.
how do you define this ? and how are you planning to do this ?
Optimism LP: 25%
any specific pair ? Would you consider adding a OP token pair ?
who will decide this part of distribution ?
Move BOND’s governance: 16.67%
Please also explain, why do you need fund to move your DAO to OP chain ?
SMART Yield Users: 33.33%
what would a user need to do be part of this ?
e to this, we will have a unique way of providing liquidity to this system.
Could you share this “unique” way as this will give value to your proposal.
However, we expect our liquidity to far exceed the dollar value of this grant.
How ? do you have a plan or its just an intuition ?
LP (BOND/USDC [or LUSD]): We want[…]
This complete statement is not clear or uncertain.
Very excited to see Barnbridge move to Optimism and thank you for the proposal @lordtylerward and also for incorporating valuable feedback from the community. I think the proposal is getting close to being ready.
A few minor things from me:
- Can you edit the post so that the headings are bold it makes it much easier to read.
- Can you clarify the rough length of time these tokens will be distributed over. Seems like for a proposal of this size, 6-9 months would be reasonable.
- I would also like to understand why OP is necessary to fund the DAOs movement to OP.
Okay - I updated it to include the bolding and the 8 month clarification of distribution.
For point 3 - that ultimately is up to Optimism. We are not only bringing over our governance and DAO but also an entirely new framework called Proxy to test and implement that I think will be a general framework for how DAOs should work on Optimism.
You can read more about that here while we work on official BarnBridge documentation:
The amount demanded is still high compared to the distribution time and I find the budget allocated for the builders a bit absurd.
Okay so I’m kindof replying to quotes of quotes so the formatting is bonkers but here goes: I bolded my answers to help.
Yeah I’m not sure what I was saying here either. Right now we are leaning towards and ETH/BOND pool on Velodrome.
What do you think the ask/timeline should be then?
Since the proposal seems to still be discussed and actively edited can someone tell me why this is actually on a snapshot vote right now?
- 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.
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.
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.
Hopefully this provides clarity.
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.
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.
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.