[READY] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Socket

I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - #18 by katie] with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.

2 Likes

Hi, I have a few questions:

1- Do you have link from Dune about the metrics you mention in Optimism.

2- Can you list the number of Optimism projects that have already integrated your SDK?

3- What is the maximum and minimum amount of bridgning to avoid a farmeo? How will you avoid sybil attack?

4- Will the protocols that have already received Optimism grants participate in your grant to builders?

2 Likes

hey, I leave some doubts about your proposal

Do you mean any tool / service that can be considered a public good for Optimism? Could you elaborate a little more on this?

based on your statement; What do you think will happen after the subsidy ends?

Is the amount of tokens requested based on any metric? which is the reason

in the case of bridges such as Hop Protocol, which have incentives in $Op tokens; How would the double incentive of this interaction play out?

1 Like

Excellent point, i would include Li.fi as well to the list. Or in more general term, what is your approach toward protocol with already approved OP grant with respect to double incentives

3 Likes

1 - Do you have link from Dune about the metrics you mention in Optimism.

The stats were sourced from our internal on-chain analytics since we couldn鈥檛 use Dune as it doesn鈥檛 support all chains.

You can however refer to this Dune dashboard to track our daily activity on Optimism: https://dune.com/optimismpbc/Optimism-Project-Deep-Dive?1%20Project%20Name=Socket

2 - Can you list the number of Optimism projects that have already integrated your SDK?

There are different projects on Optimism that have done this:

  • DeFi apps: Synthetix, Lyra, dHedge, Polynomial, Rubicon Finance, Premia, Brahma Fi
  • Wallets/Portfolio Apps: Zapper, Zerion, One Key, Sequence Wallet, Ambire Wallet, Plasma Finance, Choise
  • Many more coming soon, including more top apps on Optimism & biggest Ethereum wallets

3 - What is the maximum and minimum amount of bringing to avoid a farming? How will you avoid sybil attack?

We are just rebating 90% of the bridging fees, hence it is by default sybil-resistant since it is unviable & a person trying to sybil just ends up with a net loss.

4 - Will the protocols that have already received Optimism grants participate in your grant to builders?

No, we only plan to reward builders/protocols that haven鈥檛 received an Optimism grant

1 - What do you think will happen after the subsidy ends? Is the amount of tokens requested based on any metric?

Running calculations on the historical txns for the users we onboarded we found that on average a user coming into Optimism spends $4 in gas + bridge fee

We are requesting 1M tokens with 60% allocated to onboarding = 600K $OP or roughly $600K based on average $OP prices
So with $600K we aim to onboard 150K users (4$ for 1 user) over 6-8 months which we think is a reasonable target since we have onboarded 30K+ users in just the last 2 months with zero incentives!

2 - In the case of bridges such as Hop Protocol, which have incentives in $OP tokens; How would the double incentive of this interaction play out?

Currently Socket supports the following bridges to Optimism, and here are our plans for each:

Optimism Native bridge - No $OP grant. Hence Socket OP incentives will apply

Hop - Have already committed in their proposal that they won鈥檛 consider bridge aggregators. Hence Socket OP incentives will apply

Across - Use a combination of referrals to know wallets to reward & also mentioned they are strongly against farming. We plan to request Across to blacklist Socket contracts, so no rewards are received. Hence Socket OP incentives will apply

Biconomy - Their incentives are towards builders and LPs. Hence Socket OP incentives will apply

Multichain - No $OP grant. Hence Socket OP incentives will apply

Celer - Has plans to use incentives for onboarding. We are in touch with Celer team and can ensure we get blacklisted here too. Socket OP incentives will apply after we do this.

3 -

Could you clarify this question, unable to get you?

Answer for other bridges answered here:

For LiFi, since they are just doing gas rebates which are also unviable to sybil, we feel their proposal & incentives are irrelevant to our distribution plan

Thank you. Appreciate your detailed response covering all point

1 Like

if you can tell us a little more about these plans; specifically if what you plan to build is only tied to Socket and its peer dapps or think it could be beneficial for projects not tied to the protocol?

I appreciate your clarity in the other answers.

I have voted against this proposal.

My reason for voting against, is the 40% allocation is simply providing a team with a lot of working capital.

I refer to鈥

What we鈥檙e building would be beneficial for all protocols & the broad Optimism ecosystem as a whole.

Here are a few examples of how different apps use Socket & how it鈥檚 already benefiting the broader ecosystem:

  • Wallet & Portfolio Management apps (Zapper, Zerion, One Key, Sequence Wallet, Ambire Wallet & more): Use Socket to allow web3 users to seamlessly bridge into Optimism & interact with the ecosystem. Thus bringing Optimism within reach of users right from their wallets.

  • DeFi apps (Synthetix, Lyra, dHedge, Thales & more): Use Socket to make it easier for users on non-Optimism chains to start using their app immediately by seamless onboarding into Optimism. This ensures users get a great first onboarding experience to Optimism, and get to try out the secure, fast & cheap Optimism experience, which encourages them to explore the broader ecosystem

  • There are also apps like Bungee (built by Socket team itself), Via & more using Socket to provide an excellent bridging experience & also solve major pain points like being stuck without gas. These apps enable cross-chain swaps, so users can go from a token on any chain to the required token for the Optimism app in one transaction!

Across all these examples, by enabling a great onboarding experience & narrowing the gap for a non-Optimism user to interact with an app, we have continuously strived to reduce the major problems hindering web3 users from participating with the broad Optimism ecosystem!

2 Likes

Cycle 8 Recommendation made on 11/3/22. This recommendation pertains to the Cycle 8 proposal found here.

1. Presentation

We are an officially recognized Tooling Governance Committee, responsible for assessing proposals related to tooling and infrastructure (wallets, bridges etc.).

To begin with, for this proposal we identified a possible conflict of interest between our team members:

These individuals were excluded from assessing this proposal.

2. About the project

Socket plans to be an 鈥渋nteroperability protocol鈥, which means that it allows the passing of messages (and therefore assets) between Optimism and other chains for different dApps and using different primitives to make it possible.

For now, their released products, Bungee, a bridge aggregator; is based on bridges and DEXes they route the best parameterized alternative with aspects such as latency, costs and security. Additionally, Refuel allows users to send gas for transactions to other chains, with the advantage of not receiving any fee or charge beyond the transaction cost.

External links:

Similar OP Governance proposals:

3. About the following

The proposal was presented in a previous cycle, and this committee emiting a No because high amount requested, receiving other recommendations and applying again. The new proposal just made changes in the amount request and duration.

4. About the proposal valuation

  • Added value (good to bad): good. Through the Socket, users and dApps could potentially benefit from their crosschain services in the same way that DEX aggregators are often the basis within the interactions of multiple DeFi applications.
  • Impact or expected usage (high to low): medium. For now its bridge aggregator is seen as a plugin and suitable for less experienced users. However, the presence of multiple bridges with grants awarded focused on a better experience for users could overshadow the current target of its main application. On the other hand, the usability of future Socket tools in dApps is undetermined, which will depend on which ones and their user base (as they suggest some good ideas).
  • Current Status [Development stage/Open Source?] (early to ready): almost ready. For now, they have two functional products focused on bridging assets and several integrations, but developers are encouraged to use the Socket bases for new use cases.
  • Expenditure plan and distribution (appropriate to inappropriate): standard. Subsidies are seen as a standard in terms of encouraging the use of bridges (60%). One remaining for development, this bucket would be destined for future ideas and third party teams working around Socket, there is no way to estimate the success of it and it is at the complete discretion of the Socket team.
  • Amount requested (high to low): standard. At the moment there is a considerable number of bridges and the like beginning to make use of the OPs granted by the governance (by example, implementing some sort of builder grants and user subsidies). For this reason we requested a reduction of amount of this proposal in a previous attempt. The team was responsive with these considerations and cut by a half.

5. FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Yes

The proposal seems reasonable. After they have addressed our request about reducing the amount, all the rest of valuations remain as they were determined in the recommendation of the previous cycle.

This post will be restored to its original version after the completion of Voting Cycle #8. Cycle 6 recommendation currently at the end of this thread: [READY] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Socket - #30 by lavande

3 Likes

Voted No as per the recommendation of our tooling committee.

Hey thanks for recco tooling committee, we based the amounts based on similar bridges like Hop, Stargate who had received the same with similar metrics & impact. Since the recommendation, doesn鈥檛 find specific issues apart from the token amount & specifically since we have received it really late into voting stage, we have no room to modify it even though we understand and accept the committee鈥檚 reasoning.

Since we have already reached quorum & wanting to ensure we don鈥檛 burden the voters again for a minor modification involving a reduction:
We propose that we are ready to accept the suggestion of reducing the requested token by 60% for this voting cycle & receiving the requested rest based on milestones we produce(i.e go from receiving 1M upfront 鈫 staggered milestone-based distribution)

If this is possible from the governance side, would love the committee鈥檚 and delegates support in the current voting round!

1 Like

Vote: No

Rationale: Following the recommendation of the tooling committee. Token request should be reduced.

1 Like

Voted no - Following the Tooling Committee recommendation

Unfortunate to see this proposal not pass. I look forward to seeing the revised proposal with the reduced token allocation per committee鈥檚 recommendation.

Snapshot vote - not passed

Original post by krzkaczor on 9/27/22

1. Presentation

We are an officially recognized Tooling Governance Committee , responsible for assessing proposals related to tooling and infrastructure (wallets, bridges etc.).

To begin with, for this proposal we identified a possible conflict of interest between our team members:

These individuals were excluded from assessing this proposal.

2. About the project

Socket plans to be an 鈥渋nteroperability protocol鈥, which means that it allows the passing of messages (and therefore assets) between Optimism and other chains for different dApps and using different primitives to make it possible.

For now, their released products, Bungee, a bridge aggregator; is based on bridges and DEXes they route the best parameterized alternative with aspects such as latency, costs and security. Additionally, Refuel allows users to send gas for transactions to other chains, with the advantage of not receiving any fee or charge beyond the transaction cost.

External links:

Similar OP Governance proposals:

3. About the following

The proposal hasn鈥檛 had many consultations since it has been detailed enough, but the proponent responded to the few that have been made. No event or particularity to notice.

4. About the proposal valuation

  • Added value (good to bad): good. Through the Socket, users and dApps could potentially benefit from their crosschain services in the same way that DEX aggregators are often the basis within the interactions of multiple DeFi applications.
  • Impact or expected usage (high to low): medium. For now its bridge aggregator is seen as a plugin and suitable for less experienced users. However, the presence of multiple bridges with grants awarded focused on a better experience for users could overshadow the current target of its main application. On the other hand, the usability of Socket in future dApps is undetermined, which will depend on which ones and their user base.
  • Current Status [Development stage/Open Source?] (early to ready): almost ready. For now, they have two functional products focused on bridging assets and several integrations, but developers are encouraged to use the Socket bases for new use cases.
  • Expenditure plan and distribution (appropriate to inappropriate): standard. Subsidies are seen as a standard in terms of encouraging the use of bridges (60%). One remaining for development, this bucket would be destined for future ideas and third party teams working around Socket, there is no way to estimate the success of it and it is at the complete discretion of the Socket team.
  • Amount requested (high to low): high. At the moment there is a considerable number of bridges and the like beginning to make use of the OPs granted by the governance (by example, implementing some sort of builder grants and user subsidies) and we believe that the amount requested may be excessive given the expected usage, so we don鈥檛 want to lead to a saturation of grants and waste of resources. Currently there is no co-incentives.

5. FINAL RECOMMENDATION: No.

The requested amount is not reasonable according to the distribution plan and expected usage. In order to maintain a healthy distribution and accountability according to the progress and goals of the proposal, we consider it appropriate to request a reduction of at least 60% of the amount requested for the next cycle in case it is not approved in the current cycle.

We agree with the KPIs detailed in the proposal such as number of users and liquidity onboarded into Optimism, but also in the number of dApps and clearer goals set for integrations. This can be better addressed for the next cycle.