This could be a good approach.
This could be a good approach.
I agree that avoiding negative impacts to the network is good for Optimism, however if we approve token spend on any activity that could potentially avoid a negative impact, then we could conceivably fund all kinds of activities that may not be in the spirit of the governance fund.
I have been a purist when reviewing these proposals and have been focused narrowly on incentivizing usage and liquidity. However, most of the proposals have components that do not incentivize usage and liquidity - so clearly it is acceptable to the community.
The question for me is: how much is reasonable? Safety + Builders + Early users = 48.5%, too big of a % in my opinion. My pragmatic advice would be to reduce or, better, eliminate the security % and allocate to subsidies. Since DCA is really only possible on L2, then marketing activities that promote Mean’s capabilities also promotes Optimism’s capabilities - so i think it could make sense to also spend more on marketing as you proposed with the 11.5% that you already allocated there.
As a user and fan of Mean Finance, I think that once you use it once you are going to use it a lot. That’s why i personally believe that the best use of funds is to spend 100% on incentivizing users to open their first position or first few positions. I’d encourage you not to do what Ricochet did and offer up n amount of tokens per day per stream - that clearly was used by mercenaries who didn’t stick around. But if people can learn about DCA and try it with a position or two - you are going to create users for life.
This is all my personal opinion and my opinion only. I appreciate everyone else’s comments as well.
for what it’s worth, I do enjoy reading your thoughts, clear, precise, full of information and input. Thank you for that, Justin.
Thanks @OPUser. I’m trying to find my lane in blockchain and governance is interesting. I appreciate your comments as well.
Thanks everyone for the comments - I’ll be looking to editing the proposal before June 22 and set it up as live and not draft.
I’m happy that you guys are going through the proposals, thanks for helping us make our proposal more truthful to what the purpose of the Phase #1 is.
@Justin I’m really happy you are using our product - as always, more feedback welcome in our discord.
After taking all community comments into consideration, we’ve re-defined token distribution. Since Safety section was taken out due to discrepancies about the value alignment with this phase of the grant we’ve decided to reduce the amount of OP tokens requested.
Thanks everyone that helped with their feedback, through this forum or our Discord!
Not a bad plan, I support this. I think it could be BETTER, but there are certainly worse proposals out there too.
Hey kyros! Thanks. Although we’ve already submitted the proposal I’d love to have your feedback, even in our discord so the community can comment too, or wherever.
I think most proposals aim to do liquidity mining incentives, which we do not still have, and also we do not have a token (at least yet), so matching incentives (which is something really important to signal commitment) could not be done.
Hopefully we can prove this (and us, Mean Finance) add positive value to the Optimism Network, which I think we will through different public goods, infrastructure and tooling deployment.
Have taken a quick look and I’m unsure about the value of this in the current environment. Would like to see more traction or a lower ask amount given relative TVL
Hi @0xged and community. As a representative of DeFi LATAM and communities in the region, the majority spanish-speaking, Mean Finance is quite a popular protocol and even a reference when talking about Optimism here. It’s natural because the community follow its progress from its very early stages, as mentioned in the proposal. As DCA protocol is a very genuine and convenient case at this stage. In fact, I shared some ideas with team before the publication of the proposal, such as subsidies, understanding that this would arouse even more interest, knowing the needs of the users.
Then, I’m OK with supporting the proposal, I agree with the feedback that others exposed and improvements made to it, optimistic that it will attract another class of user not only interested in DeFi, but ppl also thinking of acquiring long-term exposure in their favorite assets, through this and future (?) other strategies.
Mean Finance has a different value proposition compared to other protocols (Dexes, Lending, metaverse, etc). Mean can attract many retail users, just look at the number of positions they have built in OP. This is not necessarily related to TVL.
And most do not exceed $1K, it is a low risk tool ideal for non degen users, no whales with big bags. Mean Finance users are another target and I include myself, I usually put together monthly (when I get paid) a small position to buy ETH as savings.
On the other hand the team is totally aligned with Optimisim’s vision. Look at the contribution they have made to the Optimisim ecosystem, surely many protocols will benefit from it.
To conclude I think it is a great project that can capture a market that the cryptodegen ecosystem has not been able to do yet.
Number of token request are reasonable. I do see that giving subsidies to DCAer would help bring liquidity as the asset will be locked in the chain. 45% is little t much but that also distributed between swap fee and DCAers .
Rest 70% is well distributed.
Will be watching this closely.
Now, I am requesting your feedback on these of my ideas. Feedback is two-way approach, you help us and we help you.
This proposal fits into Gov Fund Phase 1 and adds value to Optimism: Voting Yes
Op distribution: Good
Mean Finance is well-aligned with Optimism and we see good value in the proposal, generally in DCA in a low-transaction-cost environment, and the specific adoption of it throughout the Optimism ecosystem. There are no monetary co-incentives but the project’s initial steps on Optimism as well as the overall incentive distribution and marketing will be beneficial to Optimism growth. Looking forward to additional projects building(-in) DCA &or on top of Mean Finance.
Thanks for the proposal. I like that you are enabling easy dollar cost averaging for users but I don’t think the metrics (e.g. TVL, trading volume) are at a place where it would be the best use of funds for Optimism at this stage especially relative to the amount requested.
Hey linda! Thanks for taking the time to read our proposal. The only comment I’ll make is (and not directed only at you, but all delegatoorrrrs): Please, try to look a bit further and not only into metrics. Look into novel protocols, dedicated teams that are going to hustle their way and become a key part on Optimism.
Having said that, although you are probably going to pass on our proposal I appreciate your work! I’ll keep being Optimistic
Mean Finance is a good project for DCA
Cheap ways to DCA with on-chain security is an interesting usecase. Happy to support the proposal, but I’d suggest that the main challenge here would be to on-board CEX users.
Yeap. For sure. We do have on our roadmap adding some fiat-on ramp like mtpelerin, but also know that CEX users will “only” join if UX is top notch, since probably they are not savvy DeFi users.
We hope that also our new upcoming products help on decentralizing trading tools, improving our capital efficiency (let your assets gain yield while dcaing) and more stuff coming soon.
Thank you for your support polynya, and also for your work!
Very good project, I have used it a few times, and I feel that it is of great use to many people who invest
I have a similar vision, DCA protocol seems to me a very attractive area (and more so these days), it would be good for Optimism to become the home of this new type of user.