[READY][GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Mean Finance

I feel a lot of responsibility here as my vote seems to probably be defining the end result as one of the big delegates who has not yet voted.

I am a bit torn but I am leaning towards and will vote YES.


  • Very good match for optimism. I have not used mean finance myself but after reading the proposal I would like to give it a try. I believe DCA is one of the most effective strategies and do it myself outside of crypto too and I find it cool to see a crypto project geared towards it. And agree that DCA + L2 like optimism are a match made in heaven.
  • Good distribution
  • The team seems to be open to feedback, judging by what I read in this post, and adjusted the proposal already. This generally gives me a very positive feeling that they will be able to work with us and improve optimism.


  • Low usage/metrics
  • Not keen on the early adopters part of the allocation.

Hey @lefterisjp,
Thank you for trusting us and the value we might add to the Optimism ecosystem. We will do our best to execute this responsibly, and to the best of our abilities. We also hope to keep bringing public goods, quality and tools for all developers that might want to join.

After doing another review of this proposal (in response to CryptoChica’s tweet that Mean Finance “is a very well-known and used protocol in Latam”), I updated my vote from no to yes.

While the metrics/usage is early, I want to support Optimism’s ecosystem growth in Latam (it’s not a region for crypto adoption I have expertise on) and I recognize the early set of users might be retail and not necessarily higher volume.

As I commented above, I am a fan of enabling easy dollar cost averaging for users so this positive use case plus considering further adoption of Optimism in Latam and a reasonable token amount requested is something I can get comfortable with.


We’ve already thank you through twitter - but again: Thank you. We feel double the responsibility on your votes (changing a no for a yes, publicly, it takes courage), plus you are voicing a lot of delegated votes also.
We will do our best to make the best of it, and improve the Optimism ecosystem as much as we can.


I’ll vote YES :white_check_mark: (but I am not 100% convinced)

Project quality: Mid - DCA is important primitive but it’s not exactly ground breaking. Low TVL. Can’t wait to see what else team has in store.
Team quality: ? - Hard to asses, I think it’s mostly anon but GH is very active
Amount requested: Reasonable-High
OP distribution: So, so. Most OP spent on LM.

I am voting no on this proposal. The heavy use of $OP for subsidies is likely to create a market distortion that is unsustainable.

This is a lot of words and abbreviations.

Seems as if you deployed on Optimism at first in December and have migrated to full deployment with 18 pairs. Am I right in that understanding?

Sounds like you were close to hitting the Phase 0 requirements but were a bit below due to TVL.

Using this criteria projects with $1,000,000 TVL were entitled to 300,000 OP.

Mean’s TVL seems to be around half of this - $590,042 as of 7/7.

Would it be fair to use this initial-phase framework to better understand a fair amount of OP? If so, it seems a more appropriate and proportional ask would be 177,000 OP.

This is 59% of the 1,000,000 TVL allocation.

Snapshot vote - Passed

1 Like

@0xged can you provide a Telegram handle or other contact method so the Optimism team can get in touch about paying out this grant :pray:

Feel free to comment on this thread, DM, or email bobby@optimism.io.

1 Like

Contact me via @oxged on Telegram - shoot me yours via DM if needed :slight_smile:

Hi @0xged! It’s been several months since your OP grant was distributed, checking in to see if you have a grant update you can share with the community?

Update provided here: Mean Finance Grant Update 1