A very large ask given TVL + unsure of the value here to OP?
You should have tried 40,000 , some self reflection goes a long way <3
Hey @tongnk! GYSR is first and foremost a tool for builders. We talk a lot about benefits here in the docs, and I think the most important is time savings and focus. By providing an out-of-the-box/zero-code solution for incentives, we can help projects on Optimism build faster and more safely.
As a non-developer myself, I’m unable to gauge the value your project will bring to Optimism relative to the (as others have pointed out, large) amount requested, so I’ll choose to Abstain.
This proposal fits into Gov Fund Phase 1 but the value-add to Optimism is small: Voting No *
Value-add: LM out of the box - but few projects & small community so far
Amount: A big high
Op distribution: Good
Co-incentives: Small compared to Ask
We saw Gysr as an interesting middleware tool to kickstart projects liquidity and create sticky, long-term incentives. Adoption of Gysr has been small though for a variety of reasons which reflects in the current market cap and consequently also in the value-add (vs. the Ask) to the Optimism ecosystem.
Sidenote: We have been early users of Gysr, liked the gamified incentives for long-term sticky liquidity but saw crippling effects of l1 transaction costs. Hence, we see value in your push to Optimism. We generally like the proposal, would be happy to see Gysr on Optimism. We’d recommend collaborating with launchpads, other projects enganging in liquidity mining on Optimism (See Phase 0/1 Proposals such as the dForce Proposal) and potentially do another proposal with a smaller ask in one of the next phases.
*voted initially Abstain, and changed it to No to align this vote with our decisions on other proposals.
Voted : No
Token asked is little high compared to how the team is planning to distribute it. 30% to token migration is too much without a plan on how they are going to do this, I can bridge the token to OP and bridge back again…and repeat the same steps to farm the incentives.
Suggestion: Break it into two proposals
On feedback topic, would love your opinion here.
Hello @gysr, I have been thinking deeply about the proposal & use of the protocol, and what kind of projects will benefit next, it looks risky and very susceptible to gaming the incentive system. What do you think about lowering the amount and (assuming a better reception) see the results for future continuation of your plan. As it stands, my vote is no.
There is far too little adoption on Optimism and not much value added to Optimism either. The amount requested compared to the TVL on optimism does not correlate. For now, we will be voting no.
Thank you for sharing your proposal. I don’t believe the current metrics, particularly TVL, are at a point yet where it makes sense for Optimism to provide that level of funds.
Will be voting NO here.
The amount asked is very high, will mostly be used for incentives and the actual TVL of the protocol seems to be way too low for incentives to even make sense here.
Hey @madibaa08 thanks for the feedback! We will certainly be taking another look at amount requested, along with providing more budget details for the next round
Hey @polynya thanks for the response! GYSR is effectively a launchpad to help developers save time building/maintaining incentives tools. You can read more (non technical) info about benefits here
Hey @ScaleWeb3 thanks for the feedback and explanation!
We will be working on growing usage and taking another look at ask amount for the next round of proposals.
Glad to hear you had a positive experience with GYSR incentive mechanisms, and we agree it would be a great fit for Optimism! We think it is especially important to provide tooling for such a fast growing ecosystem.
And that’s a great suggestion, will reach out to connect with other projects launching incentive programs right now on Optimism.
Hi @OPUser thanks for the suggestions!
We will revise our requested grant amount and break usage down to be much more granular in our next submission. And we did provide some feedback on that accountability thread! Thanks for all your work and thinking here.
Thank you for the tag and just a heads up, there will be no phase2, phase1 its an ongoing process until the fund is over, so i would suggest you to go though all the suggestion and amend the proposal so that you have ample amount of time before the next voting round
I’ll vote NO
Project quality: ? - No PMF, low TVL
Team quality: ? - Hard to asses, low activity on GitHub
Amount requested: High
OP distribution: ? - Some of ideas to spent OP are questionable…, mostly LM…
I am voting no on this proposal. I read the white paper. I think the team has put in serious effort in developing their product. In the end, I have a hard time seeing how the grant is more of a public good than a subsidy. I think the rewards-based platforms are incentivized (and disincentivized) well by market forces. While there may be derivative public benefit, I do not see the need for a grant as a catalyst. I would be interested in seeing if the team develops further products.
Snapshot vote - Not passed
Thanks for all the great feedback everyone!
We have made some significant changes to refine this proposal. Most notably:
- lowered total grant ask to 160,000 OP
- added more granular details to distribution plan and criteria for incentives
- allocated a portion of the grant to fund development of a new bond sale mechanism for more permanent liquidity provision
- added a new section on reporting and accountability plan for OP token usage (see Accountability of Phase 0/1 Funds given to projects)
More generally, we also wanted to share our latest newsletter containing a brief recap of recent protocol developments (will have another to share soon)
@OPUser @vonnie610 @danelund.eth @ScaleWeb3 @SEED_LATAM_Joxes @krzkaczor @madibaa08 @Cryptoz @Takeshi_Kovacs @solarcurve
Reaching out to let you know that we have updated the above proposal in preparation for the next voting round. We would greatly appreciate any thoughts or feedback.