Thanks for your proposal. I voted no on it though since the amount requested is very high compared to the current metrics so I don’t think this would be the best use of funds for Optimism.
Summary TL;DR (pls correct if wrong)
-currently on Algorand exclusively (which isn’t an EVM chain, so you would have to start from scratch?
-100k-200k $OP for the team, quote “small portion of the funds received to development and security is essential (10-20%)”
-Protocol owned liquidity, quote “LP Token Buying (80-90%): A key feature of our protocol is its ability to buy up its own liquidity”
-no distribution schedule, quote “The tokens will be distributed in accordance with community appetite”
Definite no from me. A massive ask of 1 million OP with 10-20% going directly to the team with no timeframes of any distributions.
In addition, the remaining 80-90% will be used to buy up liquidity of their token so the granted OP will be also immediately dumped.
As other have suggested, amount requested is too high and proposal is not aligned with gov fund.
Please proposals from last gov phase, modify your proposal and submit again.
Thanks for your feedback! This is a hard comparison to make given that we will be launching a V2 with a much more robust product suite, better UI, and as EVM compatible. Comparing EVM native protocols to one that has not yet made it cross-chain or to a chain with more active users is not analogous.
We are attracted to Optimism thanks to the robust community support and technological advancements it brings to EVM. We believe that our protocol would be a good addition and that’s why we propose giving back the tokens we request to the community.
Thanks for bringing up your concerns.
The 10-20% is not going to the team, but rather, to get audits of the web app and smart-contracts to ensure what we are bringing to the OP community is totally safe and secure. Why trust only us and our internal audits/due diligence when you can also have an unbiased third party also ensure we’re being safe and taking the adequate steps to protect our users and our assets.
Until OP finds a more stable price it will be hard to know exactly how long or how fast the supply of OP tokens will last. We pledge to use these tokens to buy up LP tokens for the OP/GARD (stablecoin) trading pair which will effectively be locking up OP tokens as the LP tokens will be locked in our treasury. These locked tokens will encourage trading in perpetuity as well as ensure TVL for our Protocol, the DEX used, and of course all of Optimism. These tokens will not be dumped at all but rather strategically used to grow the protocol and reward the earliest users who will be taking the greatest risk to promote the growth of our protocol and DeFi on Optimism in general.
This is a standard ask given the parameters outlined by the foundation.
Thanks for your feedback! Your TLDR is a solid start, however, I don’t feel like it’s totally accurate or all encompasing so I’ll respond below:
We won’t be starting from scratch as we already have team members with extensive EVM experience and have smart contracts written/in progress. It’s also worth noting that our protocol is battle tested and that the new features we are bringing for V2 will only be additive. Finally, our new web app is almost complete and will work regardless of chain we are associated with.
The 100-200k $OP will indeed be used by the team to contract out a third party auditor so that we can ensure the product we bring forward is as safe to use as possible and independently verified. These audits aren’t cheap.
We will be dedicating a massive portion of our protocol’s ownership i.e. DAO tokens to buying up LP tokens from a OP/GARD pair to ensure there is ample liquidity behind our stable. In order to build up the very first liquidity on OP we believe there will need to be extra incentives to get active users to take the plunge and try out our protocol.
We will post a longer response about distribution schedule soon to add clarity here.
This is one of the issues I believe future proposals need to avoid at all costs. Adding clarity after tagging the proposal as ready isn’t very useful (for the proposal). I already made my mind no matter what is added.
Once it’s ready it’s ready, I’m not waiting for more clarity unless I really care about the project/proposal.
Voted no - The amount requested is very high and the proposal is not aligned with the use of the Optimism governance fund. Thank you for your proposal!
This will be a no from me: 1M OP for a protocol that isn’t even EVM-native is totally inappropriate and not aligned. Not to mention the ~150k OP that will be insta-dumped because your team needs funding to port code.
A lot of words but really vague… maybe a bit too early?
If you declare being a funded team wouldn’t allocating funding to auditing the EVM implementation be one of the first things to do?
we will commit 10-50% of the tokens … after setting aside tokens for advisors, team members, and early backers.
Could use more insight on this number - with the range given it is really not saying much
The amount requested is far too high, and the project is not currently on optimism.
Voting no. 1m $OP tokens is an extravagant amount and we have actively tried to not approve proposals of this size.
Also the description of how the entire thing works leaves a lot of question marks. It sounds as if you want to get people to buy into your governance tokens and use OP tokens to do it? So you would dump OP to buy your token?
Also you are not yet on Optimism?
- We will post a longer response about distribution schedule soon to add clarity here.
This should have been done before the proposal goes on a vote. This proposal has been up for a vote for a week already. Please finalize proposals before sending them up for a vote. Talk a bit with delegates, both here and in discord to gather feedback so that you can adjust your proposal before it goes on a vote.
You may find that this way it would do a lot better.
Unfortunately the reasoning on this one is simple, the amount is far too large for the metrics presented.
We voted no on this proposal because the request amount of tokens is too high for a protocol that has yet to be deployed on Optimism.
Voting No due to high ask, little value for Optimism.
Amount requested is considered unreasonable, taking into account that the protocol is not deployed in Optimism yet and track record is not impressive, so it does not fit with the potential benefits to the ecosystem.
- Contribution: Standard
- OP distribution: Neutral
- Co-incentives: Not confirmed
- Impact in LATAM: Neutral
Suggestions: a further deployment showing utility with some TVL, community interest and lowering the requested amount can help in a possible next round.
pls modify your proposal and submit again
Snapshot vote - not-passed