[READY] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] GYSR

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.

1 Like

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

1 Like

I’ll vote NO :x:

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.

1 Like

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)


Hey folks!

@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.

Thank you!


Thank you for the tag.

This is much better compare to last one. Let wait for the new template changes for Season 2 and then we can start the discussion again.


Thanks @OPUser - sounds great, will look out for that!


hey friends, pinging, want to gauge whether there’s still interest here - if not, maybe set this to [draft]

1 Like

hey @jackanorak thanks for the ping! Yes, we are certainly interested in continuing to push this proposal for the next round of voting. Happy to chat further and provide any more details


here is the new template :slight_smile: Still think you are missing a couple of sections


Thanks @Bobbay_StableLab! We have updated our proposal in accordance with the new template. Please let us know if there is any other information we can provide!


hey @gysr – glad you’re firing back up.

I’m still having a rough time understanding the full scope of what you all do. But doesn’t xToken Terminal do something similar to the easy liq mining setup? I think one thing that could be helpful would be to break down your product line and at least share a close analog for each for reference.

With regard to distros

60,000 OP (37.5%) to set up incentives for 3rd party Pools deployed on GYSR (on Optimism) for distribution over a year

My personal belief is that a year’s too long for these types of things – even three months are plenty of time for LPs to get in place, and saying it’s not enough is essentially admitting that the rewards aren’t sticky.
In addition, you say “By offering side-by-side rewards and incentives on Optimism, it will encourage users to move their assets to Optimism for better return rates.” What would be helpful would be some numbers demonstrating how this would be the case, expected rates, pool of capital likely to move, etc.

I’d almost say that #2 should be the only reward of the two offered, as that’s the only one guaranteeing new capital moving in in the first place – but am more than open to some data here.

  1. 40,000 OP (25%) towards new bond sale incentive mechanism tooling
    a. 15,000 OP towards development
    b. 25,000 OP towards audit costs

Would love a description of this intended tool. Is this similar to Olympus Pro? And if so, what will the fee breakdown be?

  1. 20,000 OP (12.5%) as bounty referral incentives
    a. 1000 OP per referral over 50K USD in rewards locked

I think there’s an opportunity here to spell out how this piece of the grant adds value to the Optimism ecosystem.

Think what you’re offering is great – I’d at least personally love to see some more detail in what you’re offering and in how OP grants unlock growth for everybody.


Hey @jackanorak thanks for the feedback!

Yeah you’re right, their solution does overlap with one use case for GYSR (our Uniswap v3 liquidity mining solution with Arrakis). But GYSR pools can be configured for a very wide variety of use cases.

Here’s a page that outlines some common mechanisms and use cases on GYSR

Agreed, one year is on the longer side. Most liquidity mining programs we see start ~90 days (and usually extend). This is just being conservative with the OP part of the distribution. Another approach we’d be open to is aligning the OP funding schedule with whatever period the project uses.

So we can give a lower bound on rewards here inherent to criteria for the distributions

  • worst case: 50K USD per qualifying project
  • 100,000 / 5,000 = 20 projects
  • overall lower bound: 20 * 50,000 = 1,000,000 USD (non OP) rewards
  • adding the OP incentive: 1,000,000 + 0.85 * 100,000 = 1,085,000 USD rewards

Then we can estimate increase in staking value tied to those rewards

  • attractive staking APRs usually sit between 10% and 200% (depending on LP, single asset, risk, etc) - let’s call it 80%
  • assume an average funding schedule of 90 days
  • define apr = (rewards / staked) * (365 / period)
  • then staked = rewards * (365 / period) / apr
  • staked = 1,085,000 * (365 / 90) / 0.80 ~= 5,500,000 USD

This would bring the estimate to a total of 6.5M USD

We would also propose that any liquidity incentives not earned within 1 year are returned to Optimism. This gives a guarantee on at least the rewards locked side.

Beyond migration from other chains, I would say there’s also a lot value in encouraging the use of safe/standard tooling for new and existing projects.

The bond sale mechanism will allow users to purchase project tokens at a discount priced on a bonding curve. This lets projects acquire permanent protocol owned liquidity and other valuable assets.

For technical context, within our modular pool architecture, it will be made up of a “bond staking module” + “fixed reward module”

Similar to Olympus Pro, but totally open access and a bit more flexible on configuration, vesting, access controls, etc. We plan to start with zero or low protocol fee (~1%).

Thanks for all the great questions @jackanorak - have incorporated some edits into the original proposal based on the above.


Glad to see the next iteration of your proposal, @devin. I believe these revisions address previous concerns. I look forward to supporting it in voting cycle 7.