I am OK with these changes. Glad to see protocols from other L1s migrate to Optimism.
After discussing our proposal with other delegates, it was decided our timescales are too long, and that we should adjust our ask accordingly. Not sure what you mean by “which one is true.”
We’ve been live with Reliquary for about a week now poking and prodding at it internally, and everything is running smoothly. Most of the testing is on the front end since it’s heavily gamified to ensure graphics and state changes are all working properly.
Since our multi-strategies are up and running as well (see below) there’s not much to inhibit us from deploying Reliquary relatively soon. Granary’s multi-incentive controller is also on chain currently and we can flip that on when needed.
Proposal Status moved to READY. Thank you for the feedback / support!
I should have chimed in here earlier so it was clearer that this proposal does indeed have buy in from a delegate. Unfortunately it was marked “not approved” on snapshot but this was my fault. I’ve been working with the Byte Masons on this and gave them a few rounds of feedback before they ultimately landed at what I think is a solid proposal (and I fully support it).
Balancer & BeethovenX plan to work closely with the Byte Masons to roll out Granary & Reaper boosted pools (liquidity pools where most of the tokens are deposited elsewhere to earn a yield, in addition to swap fees). Aave can be a bit slow to add new tokens - meanwhile Granary already supports OP and they can move quickly to add other tokens like MAI that we can then leverage on the LP side. Reaper also recently rolled out multi-strategy single asset crypts which can be used in a similar way.
The expertise the Byte Masons bring to the table cannot be overstated. The brain power Optimism stands to gain here is massive and when you combine that with Balancer’s technology it’s going to unlock a ton of cool integrations.
I would like to see a lot more details regarding the distribution of OP before voting. How will it be distributed?
Additionally, I disagree with the recent edit of shortening the time frame of distribution as the goal is promote Optimism, not distribute OP to mercenary farmers in a short time frame. I would suggest keeping the distribution period to the original proposal of 18 months.
Finally, the Byte Masons have a phenomenal track record of strong security. However, with the recent departure of Andre Cronje and Andre directly attributed one of the reasons was due to Reaper’s greedy actions in abusing Solidly. What would prevent another similar situation?
- token duration is good with respect to number of token request.
65% - Reliquary (300,000)
35% - Granary.Finance (165,000)
- Co-incentives matched 1:1 in $
- Both project has user and liquidity
Voted yes - I like the 1:1 matching, the Optimism alignment and the requested amount is reasonable. Thank you for a well thought out proposal!
Are there any dashboards the Byte Mason team monitors or some shareable usage metrics?
It’s not 100% clear to me which of the protocols are already live on Optimism vs which will launch soon, trying to understand the current lay of the land. For example, I don’t think I see any activity in the last 30 days on Top Optimism Dapps | DappRadar for any of the protocols in question…correct?
I’ll be abstaining from this proposal. It certainly seems like a strong one, but having looked at it over the last couple of days I don’t have the bandwidth to dive deep into your suite to assess exactly how it’ll drive usage on Optimism. As a small cap, I’m also concerned by your ability to match incentives that are a significant fraction of your market cap over a relatively long term in a very volatile market, that too partially with a token which does not yet exist. I wish you the best of luck, and hope it works out, but I neither have the confidence right now to vote For; but at the same time I definitely don’t think this proposal has anything problematic to warrant an Against.
Fan of your work, a very measured response as I’d expect.
Our firm has been around for over a year and we have millions of dollars in market liquidity even at these low valuations, along with plenty of cash & assets to cover the incentives promised in the proposal many times over. We have a team of 35 with 20 supremely talented engineers & a couple years of runway.
We waited until after the bull market to launch our token unfortunately but our fundamentals are very strong. Reached 300m TVL with no VCs or token in 2021 which I believe is some kind of record. Fair launched with some cool sybil-resistant tech you can read here. We have the UX still up for posterity’s sake over on https://oath.sale.
Long story short, we’ve been around the block and can back up this proposal 1000%. We’re very mature as a company (by crypto standards) and quite large.
Hey @Crypto_A_S thank you for the proposal.
I have the same question as @rasmuky. I tried to dive a bit deeper into what you guys do and can’t find good statistics that would help me see the adoption of your protocol and what is live in optimism yet and what not.
Good to see you adjusted the proposal amount down.
But why did you reduce the token distribution from 18 to 9 months? I liked the long term distibution idea more.
I agree, we will work on a dashboard to show TVL across products more clearly, I really liked @rasmuky’s idea.
Here is a quick rundown of the status of the Product Suite:
The Reliquary is in production testing on Optimism. Everything looks good and our Security team is comparing performance against expectations + reviewing our new deployment process. I’m really excited to show everyone it’s gamified front end once it’s approved to release to the public. It’s really cool, shouldn’t be much longer before it’s ready to go.
Right now Reaper.Farm is live on Optimism, if you hover over our TVL metric in the top left hand corner it shows ~$400k Optimism TVL. We just released a batch of 15 Velodrome crypts yesterday, still working on incorporating all their yield offerings and gaining market share. Also excited to see the power of the multistrategies continue to grow as we incorporate more Optimism projects. There’s a lot to be said about having no deposit or withdrawal fees on those.
Granary.Finance is also live on Optimism with about $800k TVL, the majority being the $OP token. We take pride in being the first place you can lend / borrow the $OP token. We’ve been networking with other teams in the Optimism ecosystem, should hopefully have some more integrations soon.
Lrn.fi has all kinds of in-depth Optimism content on the docket to get released about the $OP ecosystem. Looking forward to spreading the word about Optimism and helping onboarding new users.
The Byte Mason team decided to reduce the token emission timeline due to feedback we received stating that emitting over 18 months was too long and that other delegates would rather see us reduce our $OP ask + emit over a shorter timeframe + potentially come back with a second proposal once we can show product adoption by Optimism users.
I hope that answers your questions. The team is very excited to continue to build and grow on Optimism! Looking forward to seeing where we will be in the next 9 months
Hey @Crypto_A_S thank you for taking the time to answer my questions and generally for all the work you guys put in the proposal.
I spent some time doing due dilligence on your project and its history in Fantom.
What I came up with shocked me. I have a few builder friends whom I trust a lot and who used to be in the Fantom ecosystem and what they told me aligns very much with the comment by @FantomFunhouse above which is for some reason hidden? Why hide a contrarian view?
Link here: [READY] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Byte Mason Product Suite - #33 by FantomFunhouse
Posting a screenshot also to make it easier to see what I reference:
My friends basically told me that the way your team behaved in fantom was that of a value extractor who tried to exploit everything for financial gain. could not be trusted and in the end contributed to the fall of that ecosystem.
I don’t want the same to happen to Optimism and I don’t condone this kind of behaviour so I will be voting against.
I know only one person who was involved in the Fantom ecosystem but he made similar points about JB (which is one reason why I voted no to this proposal), however he wasn’t sure about the specifics and in particular hadn’t heard of PITAT. I’ve tried to fact check myself by basically only have familiarity with the Ethereum ecosystem so don’t really know which sources are more or less reliable. Please could you share which of the claims you’ve linked to you’ve been able to confirm?
Thanks for doing the deep dive though, with lots of delegates voting ‘for’ the proposal I was starting to have second thoughts about taking guidance from my friend on this one! Any more info you can share would be really valuable.
What @FantomFunhouse posted is what I also got told by my friend. Unfortunately that friend strongly asked to remain anonymous as they have left crypto for good. Said most of the stuff that happened is in chat groups and on-chain … but yeah I also have not dealt with the fantom ecosystem to be able to dig them up myself. But I greatly trust that friend so I simply can’t vote yes here.
Bebis explains exactly what he did with Solidly in this podcast.
Hear his own words and judge for yourself what you think of it:
The proposal looks well-prepared and interesting at first sight.
As we have not heard of Byte Masons or any of your products yet (hardly used Fantom), we did a brief check with conflicting results. It seems you’re tapping into various ecosystems at the same time right now? Projects are not yet / just launched? (-> would justify smaller Ask; or more info on co-incentives?)
Would love to see additional info on the Fantom story too as we’d like to welcome genuine, long-minded ecosystem partners to grow the Op ecosystem together.
Looking forward to hearing back soon and clarification to make a fair assessment!
I’m pinging anyone who has voted yes, as well as anyone who has shown interest in questioning this proposal, because this post is going to be flagged by astroturfing bots. Hopefully you all get an email notification/see this post.
Here is Reaper Farm’s multisig/treasury: 0x111731A388743a75CF60CCA7b140C58e41D83635
Here is their multisig/treasury listed on the airdrop recipient list of protocols who would be the launch partners of Solidly: GitHub - solidlyexchange/solidly
Here is the multisig/treasury address testing dummy tokens to LP with: Pain In The (PIT) Token Tracker | FtmScan
Here’s the pool they made on Solidly (still LP’ing it lmao, notice the few negative votes):
Here’s them dumping the first week’s emissions: Fantom Transaction Hash (Txhash) Details | FtmScan
I’m happy to answer any questions anyone has. I think it should be abundantly clear what kind of character Justin Bebis is. Giving him an OP grant, after he went out of his way to fuck over a protocol that was meant to be a public utility using GIFTED FUNDS is just beyond reason. These actions were the direct cause of the death of the protocol. I cannot implore you enough to change your votes to “no” if you have voted already, and if you haven’t voted yet, to vote against the proposal.
Give his proposal’s spot in the roundup to Tarot instead - they’re a high quality Fantom protocol.
I encourage those with influence to share this information with those who may find it useful.
Thanks for reading.
Thank you for trying to explain. I tried to watch the video but the guys were laughing too much and using too specific fantom lingo to understand. They just seemed to hint they did something nasty, but not super bad and laughed about it.
What would be useful is if you could specify exactly what happened and what it is that in your opinion their team did wrong and explain it in simple ethereum terms? Assume zero knowledge about how fantom works or what solidly is.