[Ready] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal Cycle 6] Kromatika

Kromatika proposal has been reviewed by the DeFi Committee A with a voting recommendation: Yes.

Rationale: This is a clear and well-thought-out plan for distribution. It is a reasonable request in size. We appreciate Kromatika taking previous feedback into consideration and revising their proposal. We are happy that the marketing allocation is going towards Optimism and would like to see a follow up on in the future.

Please find the full committee A Recommendations below:


Voted : For

Agree with the committee decision.

Precise and well written proposal focused on growing the ecosystem.


Defi Committee A Recommendation

Voting recommendation: Yes

Rationale: This is a clear and well-thought-out plan for distribution. It is a reasonable request in size. We appreciate Kromatika taking previous feedback into consideration and revising their proposal. We are happy that the marketing allocation is going towards Optimism and would like to see a follow up on in the future.

Note: Linda Xie abstained from this committee decision since there is a potential conflict of interest with 0x / Matcha which Linda’s husband co-founded.


Thank you @OPUser

Kromatika is looking forward to working with Optimism more closely.

1 Like

Thank you @katie

Kromatika looks forward to working closely with Optimism. :slight_smile:

1 Like

The defi shadow committeewhich is not an official committeeadvises against voting for this proposal.

We’d need to see substantial changes before supporting this proposal. There is overreliance on supporting a native token without any clear benefit to users (including the gas fee subsidy, which is a subsidy for the protocol, not users), the product hasn’t achieved obvious product-market fit on Optimism or on other chains, and the asks are disproportionate to anticipated user growth or welfare on Optimism.

We understand that this has already gone through a round of revisions, and the Kromatika team have been more than flexible in following these revisions, but the guidance has in our opinion been ill-advised in the face of some unaddressed fundamental issues. We’d be happy to advise on an additional round of guidance if this proposal doesn’t pass.


Thanks for the unofficial committee feedback.
As one of the Kromatika proposal author,I believe this advice is too much biased and is not an objective advise, probably due to conflict of interest with other protocols and especially a “fight” between the official DeFi A committee within Tarrot proposal on the committee recommendations for Tarrot, resulting into Tarrot proposal supporters going against the committee decisions as a rage option.

As Kromatika author speaking on behalf of the other authors,I would kindly request to take the committee “fight” elsewhere with the official DefiA committee and not do it on Kromatika’s proposal back.
We are supporting your case on the Tarrot proposal, but please leave Kromatika out of it. It was already referenced in some of the Tarrot proposal replies.
Thanks for the consideration. No hard feeling.


Do you have any comments on the content of our recommendation?

We reviewed Kromatika as part of our effort to provide our perspective on all DeFi proposals. We had constructive feedback on all these proposals, including Tarot’s, which was set for 12 months when we think it should’ve been more of a 3-month program.

We have no fights or issues with DeFi Committee A - we simply disagree with elements of their review, which we’ve outlined fairly directly. That had no bearing on the content of our recommendation, which we preliminarily had several days ago before refining it to ensure an evenhanded, fair tone.

We even said that we’d be supportive of working with you to come to a proposal that made sense. Our position is to find a way to get to yes with all teams wanting to participate here.

1 Like

Thanks for your reply.
Kromatika was referenced twice time in the Tarrot proposal replied that it does the same as Tarrot and the official DeFi committee has recommended Yes for Kromatika and No for Tarrot (and you doing the same but in opposite recommendation to go against the DeFiA committee)

We would love to answer and reply to some of your review, when they are more objective ones.
Quote below point out that the Kromatika review was done not objectively and it was targeted directly at Kromatika rather than the proposal. It is a biased and would even say a rage review to proof something to the DeFi A committee. We would not go into explaining reviews that were designed to be biased and negative from start.

We think there is certainly space (and probably desire) for a Uniswap v3 limit order protocol of this type, but there isn’t enough evidence here that Kromatika is the one to achieve PMF, nor is there evidence laid out that this proposal makes this protocol more likely to be the one to do so.

Thanks anyway for the effort. No hard feeling though. Cheers


That’s correct, both proposals do the same thing, incentivize the native token, to achieve different outcomes.

Tarot’s is definitively user-friendly and directly encourages more borrowing and lending in a cost-efficient way, whereas Kromatika’s own use of it is to avoid ultimate fee receivers — that is, not users — dumping the mixed governance/fee token to zero. As far as we can tell, a stronger coin does relatively little as a use incentive – but a weak token is potentially destabilizing for the protocol. I’m sure together we could think of some more user-friendly approaches.

We disagreed with DeFi Committee A’s assertion that native token incentivization is per se a bad thing and noted that they’d approved the same action in another proposal. They are critiquing the action - we are critiquing the functional outcome. This is an important point.

I felt the need to respond here because it helped to clarify this point going forward – the goal here is to find ways to charge growth in the ecosystem, whatever the means – but out of respect for the team here I’ll stop it here.


Thanks. We would love to go ahead and reply to your shadow recommendations once they are more objective and note a rage review against the DeFi A committee recommendation for the Tarrot proposal (as said, we dont have anything against Tarrot proposal)

We would like to discuss our proposal when it is not related to other proposals (Tarrot)…
and not when you are comparing which one is better than the other, or which protocol is more user-friendly or not. This is a huge conflict of interest here and a biased review.

As Kromatika, we would like to cooperate with all protocols within the Optimism delegates to grow it. We already went through one round of review and a not-passed proposal and implemented all delegates suggestion from the last failed proposal. We failed the first time in last cycle, learned some lessons and tried again this time in this cycle.

Kromatika proposal authors have been working on this new proposal in the last 2 months to incorporate all delegates feedback from the previous cycle. The proposal even contains a technical implementation for every feature and grant amount requested.

As OP delegates, we would love to see as many protocols evolving on Optimism chain and cooperating among each other in a more healthy way. We are all here to grow Optimism adoption at first place.


This is a disappointing response.

If you truly believe there is some sort of bias baked in the best way to demonstrate that is by engaging with the substance of the review, not trying to summarily dismiss it with personal accusations. That reads to me as evasion.

After reading both committees recommendations I personally find that of Committee B to be more substantive and persuasive.

I would happily reconsider if the conversation continues.


Yeah, that was my point,
the shadow unofficial review for Kromatika was made biased and intentional to defy the official DeFi committee A review for Kromatika.
This comes as a result and disagreement for the official DeFi A proposal for the Tarrot protocol and this is something that it is not hidden, since it was already referenced few times in the Tarrot replies.

We would be happy to answer to a constructive review, not for a raqe / defy review in correlations to other proposal which has nothing to do with this Kromatika proposal.

Right now, we feel that Kromatika proposal is a collateral damage between some disagreement between official DeFi A committee and unofficial shadow one around Tarrot proposal.

We will provide some constructive answers and feedback, once dust settles and with cool heads,

moreover that this unofficial review on Kromatika proposal came from nowhere while there was 6 weeks time for place any comment since its creation, from anyone from the unofficial shadow committee, please give us some time to review it as well.


I have voted against this proposal and the recommendation…
My reason for voting against is OP will be sold to pay your marketing budget.

I refer to…

I understand it’s only 10% of your ask but to my understanding this should not be done.


There is no reference in the proposal that the governance funds will be sold by the grant recipient;

Quote from the proposal:

We don’t see that the grant recipient will be selling OP, rather Op will be used to incentivize campaigns, so the grant recipient is not selling any OP, but dropping OP to the campaign contributors, which are not related nor affiliates to the grant recipient (since it is a public bounty competition)


To also quote from

Meaning $OP CAN be used to incentive usage.


I understand there is no reference in the proposal about Op to be sold but I’d imagine that’s what you need to do to pay some marketing bills regardless who does it.

I was unaware it was a bounty and wish you had wrote this on the proposal before voting started.

That is correct my issue with this proposal is not about incentivizing usage its with my understanding of how the marketing allocation will be used.

1 Like

Thank you for the feedback anyway.

Yeah I can agree, Unfortunately, we cannot put the precise wording and precise implementation in the proposal, we though by saying:

$OP will be used for incentivizing users to join the awareness campaign and contribute to the competition

it explicitly means OP will be used for incentivising, not sold and there will be a public competition for it.

That’s why the authors are here to clarify the exact wordings ((like laywers do with contracts)

Hope now it is more clear and your feedback can be reconsidered.


Thanks for clearing that up. So from what I understand this will be a contribution competition and won’t be just paying a youtube influencers for ad space…

I will reconsider.
Thank you for your time.


Yes, this actually goes a lot into implementation details and we are actually building the necessary infrastructure and tools for it. We are already hosting a small public bounties to try the tools and the infrastructure,.

To go deep into the actual implementation, we are using Dework for hosting public bounties and competitions. you can check the DEMO version of it