[READY] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Socket

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 “interoperability protocol”, 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’t 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’s reasoning.

Since we have already reached quorum & wanting to ensure we don’t 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 → staggered milestone-based distribution)

If this is possible from the governance side, would love the committee’s 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’s 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 “interoperability protocol”, 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’t 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’t 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.