We’re going to roughly target 35% Granary and 65% Reliquary, but we’ll be adjusting interest rates on a weekly or bi-weekly basis in response to demand and user inflows/outflows. Our goal is to drive liquidity where it’s needed without over-emitting tokens.
We have a lengthy research paper coming out in the next month or so on the subject, but in the meantime you can check out this Learn column and the spreadsheet at the bottom to get a good idea of how we think about incentive distribution: Incentives Article Lrn.Fi
If you’re interested in our technical emission strategy, read further. Don’t mean to be pedantic, just thorough
Emissions through Granary are designed to ensure the market stays efficient, and will be distributed on the borrow side for key assets such as OP and USDC/DAI. Interest rates rise for borrowers as they utilize a greater % of the assets supplied to the market, so we will emit tokens in an attempt to drive utilization toward an optimal rate of ~70%, which will ensure lenders are able to receive real APR in the range of 6-12%. This means lenders are getting competitive interest rates without the need for emissions and borrowers have a much better experience. Because we’re earning real revenue, the cost of emissions is subsidized and we can do it for longer.
Emissions through Reliquary are designed to incentivize Reaper crypts, which are automated investment strategies. Its purpose is to give long term liquidity providers the best deal possible compared to their mercenary counterparts and be the “path of least resistance” for yield seekers, with a ton of unique features and zappers. The nice thing about Reaper is that it behaves optimally in all conditions, so it allows our markets to be much more predictable, which is extremely valuable when trying to model incentive strategies (hence why we prefer to emit through Reliquary).
Reliquary, Reaper, and Granary yield will all layer together, so incentives on one of them is, to a certain extent, incentives for all 3. I hope this was useful and thank you for the question.
We’re doing production testing and will be moving to closed beta within the next 2 weeks. We have extremely high quality standards so a lot of boxes need to be ticked before we’re live across our ecosystem, but as a user I’d expect to see something toward the end of this month.
Software estimates are hard but I’m being very conservative here. At this point the product is fully baked and we’re polishing up UX.
Big fan of Byte Mason’s work on Fantom! I would love for them to launch on Optimism! I am so hyped for these products. These guys build for the long-term, and I expect more products would follow knowing these guys. Seems like a win-win for the ecosystem!
Hey @bebis, Thank you for the explanation and the link.
I see 900K is quite a lot but you are seeking the funding for two projects, approx 600K for one rest for others which is still a big number but again you are matching dollar value of OP as a co-incentives with your token that does support your proposal.
My suggestion would be wait until your project is live on OP chain and update the proposal to show the matrices on OP chain.
I have had the pleasure of getting to know this team through the avenue of different products they have created. Every Byte Mason product has been crafted with passion to help foster a more secure, safe, and educated world for DeFi.
I believe that any ecosystem will benefit hugely from having this team residing in the network; not only are they pioneering the future of DeFi through their innovative technology, but they are also placing a fundamental focus on educating the masses.
The Byte Masons are the whole package, I believe that Optimism’s ethos will perfectly align with this team’s goals, and personally look forward to using their products in the ecosystem.
We’re discussing adjusting timescales and asks for future proposals, as the average price of $OP over the course of our emission schedule would probably be much lower than current market rate (thus the 925k we’re asking for now seems like a much higher amount than we’re projecting).
I think being able to engage with the OP community has been really valuable and will shape our B2DAO efforts going forward. I’m still hopeful our proposal passes but you’ll see more of us no matter what I hope you give Reaper and Reliquary a try once they’re live.
Based on feedback we’ve received so far we are making the following changes to the proposal:
Incentive distribution timeline: Reduce from 18 months to 9 months
$OP Request: Reduce from 925,000 to 490,000
465,000 $OP to be used as incentives:
65% - Reliquary (300,000)
35% - Granary.Finance (165,000)
25,000 $OP to be used as compensation to Optimism community contributors to Lrn.fi
We hope that our plan to match incentives 1:1 (dollar per dollar) with $OATH emissions demonstrates our strong commitment to deploying and building on Optimism. Additionally, $GRAIN rewards will be added to incentivize borrowing / lending on Granary.Finance once $GRAIN launches.
The team is currently exploring top DEXs in the Optimism ecosystem. Initially $OATH liquidity will be split between BeethovenX and Velodrome to allow for low slippage trades. We will continue to explore other DEXs to add protocol owned liquidity in the upcoming months.
Please let us know what you think of the proposal update, feedback is welcome!
in proposal you have mentioned “The distribution of incentives is to take place over the next 18-24 months and will be regulated based on TVL flow and competing interest rates.”
which one is true ?
and where do we stand on this
We’re doing production testing and will be moving to closed beta within the next 2 weeks.
