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

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


As promised, the authors of the Kromatika proposal have done an extra effort today to review the notes from the shadow unofficial committee and provide some non-bias professional answers.

We still believe that our feedback will not change the bias intention of the shadows review and at least that review should have been provided a lot earlier (since Kromatika proposal was created 6 weeks ago).

However, we are here to discuss it with cool heads and no hard feelings all that for providing more insight and transparency to the OP delegates and community that we are all part of


Thanks for the info.
I see you have started this initiative a month ago with $50. Your ask is for +/- $30,000 to test an unproven marketing strategy leaves me with concerns and more questions.

Unfortunately I feel this could have been better defined with-in the proposal.
Thanks again


Thanks for the feedback; Please note this is only a third-party tool for hosting competitions/bounties, not a full marketing strategy. It is a tool that many are using it for competitions/bounties so it is not an unproven strategy. some of top daos are using it.

Unfortunately, not sure if a full detailed marketing strategy can be made in advance and describe in a details within the proposal. We added in the proposal how the OP incentives will be used as bulletpoints, what is the intention of the incentives, the type of incentives (educational, content writing, research) etc.

Usually, a detailed and exact marketing strategy with exact execution is building progressively up over time, but please correct us if we are wrong and point us out to a detailed marketing grant strategy in order to improve ourselves.

Thank you


You must have misread, I didn’t ask for a fully detailed marketing strategy…?
All I meant is it could be better defined eg… this is the first time you have mentioned public bounty and Dework, this could have been included within your proposal. The only example on the proposal is for youtube content creators, So it requires some assumptions to be made to fill in the gaps in how you will run this initiative.
No point in addressing this now as your proposal is already up for voting.
Good luck


I am going to vote against committee A’s recommendation here.

The reason is I really don’t like seeing the distribution of 20% to marketing and referrals.
This number should have been much smaller or better yet not existing at all.


repasting Aristokrates’ thoughtful response to our review in this thread so readers can have proper context

First thank you for reviewing Kromatika proposal. Based on what is written we see that you have spent a lot of time reviewing how the Kromatika protocol works internally and we are really glad about that, so we can explain ti in details how it works.

Please find our initial feedback below.
We still believe that our feedback will not change the bias intention of this review and at least it should have been provided a lot earlier (since Kromatika proposal was created 6 weeks ago).
We believed this review is on the edge of rough review and not an objective review.
However, we are here to discuss it with cool heads, all that for providing more insight and transparency to the OP delegates and community that we are all part of it


This actually is on the edge of FUDing saying team likely have multiple wallets doing limit orders without any support.

Fees charged correspondent to the gas needed to pay for filling the limit orders;
the Optimism gas fees are lower, so the fees are 0.1$ per limit order.

This is also a dump assumption without any support. The keepers pay the gas fees for filling limit orders and get KROM as compensation in the same $ value. Since gas fees are low on Optimism, we dont see a sell pressure from keepers.
If a fee for filling limit order costs 0.1$ order limit order, it would take 10.000 filled limit order to even get to 1000$ fees. that confirm the no sell pressure coming from the Keepers.

This actually will drive adoption and more users to it, since more users will be inclined to use limit order more often. Please note that limit orders are UniswapV3 position, so by placing limit orders on Kromatika, users are placing liquidity on UniswapV3 and increase the liquidity depth on Uniswap pairs.
This benefits the UniswapV3 liquidity depth for any trading pair, which means it benefit the entire Optimism ecosystem and one of the DEX protocols with higher volume there, reducing the price slippage on Uniswap as well.

Gasless trading means users will DONT need to pay any ETH gas when performing swap via Kromatika. Since Kromatika is a DEX aggregator, it pulls liquidity from different liquidity sources.
At the end, this feature benefit the END users, since they are the ones that can do swaps without paying ETH gas at all == FREE ETHLESS swaps with low price slippage.

The gasless mode will work on Kromatika as well without subsidising with $OP (when the gas subsidising period is over), however, the gas fees are then charged from the output amount from the swap.

We are really glad that we have the chance to explain our proposal in depth. Please let us know if we can clarify other aspects of it.


Vote Abstain

Since there is no official committee recommendation for this and I did not have time to review thoroughly enough to provide an independent assessment I abstained here. Defi shadow committee B recommendation was however very helpful in my decision to abstain.