250 Github Stars: Superfluid’s developer adoption is going vertical.
$35m Streamed in the last 12 months
Superfluid is designed to minimise its TVL and transaction volume in favour of token velocity
If you estimated streams’ volume as incurring a single transaction a day, then we would be one of the top apps on both Gnosis Chain and Polygon.
Composable Superfluid streams turn the velocity of tokens up to its absolute max - frictionless forwarding of streams.
Optimism alignment (up to 200 word explanation):
Superfluid is builder-centric. We are a developer tool and all of our focus is on onboarding more developers to build more apps. As such, we are additive to Optimism’s own goals.
Superfluid is supporting long term, real world use cases, like Salaries, Subscriptions, Memberships, Rentals and Lending.
Proposal for token distribution (under 1000 words):
How will the OP tokens be distributed?
We would use the allocation to help treasuries move to L2, and start streaming salaries to their teams (in this case we would stream them the rewards, so we can keep the expenditure fairly controlled!). This will bring TVL, but also real-world use-cases
We’d also put aside a small amount for grants for apps in our ecosystem to deploy on optimism (i.e. Ricochet, Diagonal, future apps)
How will this distribution incentivize usage and liquidity on Optimism?
Salaries and real-world payments like subscriptions are a continuous source of usage, beyond market cycles.
Composable Superfluid streams turn the velocity of tokens up to its absolute max - frictionless forwarding of streams
Why will the incentivized users and liquidity remain after incentives dry up?
Payments like subscriptions or salaries aren’t short-term minded. An incentive to move a treasury to L2 will get people over the initial mental and organizational hurdle (moving off L1), but they’ll stick around for the utility!
Over what period of time will the tokens be distributed?
We will be running the above incentives for 6 months and hope to return with a future request based on measurable successes
How much will your project match in co-incentives?
At the moment we aren’t able to monetarily co-incentivize or we would have already! We believe L2s are the future, and have been campaigning with many teams to move their treasuries to L2 for over a year now.
Hey, you’re absolutely right, however it seems that the Phase 1 Proposal forum has been inadvertently locked, or otherwise I don’t have the right to move my post there.
@AxlVaz thanks for policing this - lots of madness on the forum and hard to sort through.
Seems like there was a lack of update on the forum for both projects and community members alike. In the original post Governance Fund Phase 0: How to Create a Proposal, it outlines an earlier date:
This date, 5/24, leads to confusion when evaluating Phase 0 proposals.
As delegates we aim to bring more transparency and simplicity to the forum.
We beleive Superfluid is a strong product and encourage it to participate in Phase 1.
@vijay I’ve added [DRAFT] to the title above. To get this proposal ready for a vote, you should:
Circulate this proposal in #gov-temp-check on Discord for community feedback.
When you feel like this proposal has good buy-in (from feedback here and in Discord), you can update [DRAFT] in the title to [READY] and we’ll include it in the next voting cycle on Snapshot.
The first voting cycle for GovFund Phase 1 proposals will run June 22 – July 6.
I really like Superfluid and have used it for a few small projects. I think the L2 / OP solution will also gain a lot of traction as more large scale projects deploy here with teams / treasuries / DAOs etc to manage and motivate. A little more clarity on the use of the OP tokens would be helpful in the proposal above though please: Are the OP tokens going to be rebated to users to cover transaction fees? How are the tokens to be distributed? TIA
Superfluid is a solid product and has a lot of nascent use cases. The two proposed uses for the OP tokens are consistent with the spirit of Phase 1, but please provide more detail on how the rewards will be structured. Will the rewards only be available to users who close streams on other chains and move to optimism? Include all users who are streaming at the time? If the former, will the gas fees from bridging be reimbursed?
Granting to dapps built on superfluid is a good idea too. What % of the tokens will you allocate to that? And how will you decide to whom to grant, and how much? Will release of the tokens be contingent on deploying to Optimism?
100K OP won’t go very far over the course of a year. Compared to other proposals, your 100,000 token request is relatively modest despite incentivizing the type of behavior that the governance fund is designed to support. I’d encourage you to elaborate on your token distribution plan and increase your token request.
Also consider allocating a portion of the tokens to marketing/outreach activities. Not enough people know about streaming - if you can stimulate a bunch of lightbulb moments, the halo will extend to optimism and there’s value there too.
Reward Structure: We’ll be spending the salary incentives in proportionate streams directly to teams paying salaries on Optimism with Superfluid who notify us, manually approved.
Switching: For simplicity, we would look to keep the incentive equal for movers as for native optimism teams, but of course we will only allocate to teams on Optimism
Breakdown: 75% will be allocated for our community of builders and 25% for salary incentives, being paid in constant flow streams which will minimise price impact
Token amount: This price was input before any discovery took place on OP, at the current price I would increase our proposal to 300k
Marketing: We will be spending our own capital on marketing and outreach activities and expect our builders to spend their OP received partly on marketing
Hey @OPUser! We would allocate to teams building on top of Superfluid to help them move to Optimism. (i.e. Ricochet , Diagonal , many others) per the original post.
I am thinking about this, you are increasing the amount as the price of token has gone down which kinda make sense. Price is volatile and we dont know where it will be in next 6-8 Months, lets say that price doubled then you are not gonna return half of the token and similarly if the price goes down 50%, you will need more.
Point being, as you are targeting a time frame of 1 year, does it make more sense to ask for half token now for 6 months and submit a new proposal again ?
It’s a good question and observation - when I first drafted the proposal there was no price at all for OP tokens so it was a finger-in-the-air guess, now a price exists.
I would still feel comfortable allocating this many tokens compared to the total number that exist for this round and we could think about requesting a further amount if we are able to show results that justify it. I wouldn’t want to create additional overhead for Optimism Governance just for the sake of it though.
we dont need to necessarily distribute all of them in this Phase, from what i understood, its an ongoing event.
we could think about requesting a further amount if we are able to show results that justify it
That is why I am favor or breaking it down into two or three Phase , if needed.
Reason being, you are not going to distribute all the token in first month, its will be done gradually, you take half, use it and submit a new proposal with more information and data to support your proposal.
Doing so will not only increase the chance of getting approval for this proposal but for upcoming proposals as well.
Sure, with Superfluid the set up time is one-off for each stream and we can top them up at a later stage all at once with a single transaction!
More than happy to hear suggestions on what kind of total amount makes sense for this proposal, as long as we aren’t introducing additional work for Optimism Governance for Superfluid that doesn’t exist for other projects. AFAIK most projects are planning for a year’s worth of expenditure.
Vijay, lets just take few steps back as we are going into different direction. I am not talking about number of token, you know more about that than me, other delegates might also help with with that.
What I trying to understand is why you need 12 Months of funding at once. Reduce it, may be 3 or 6 month, and submit another proposal with more data and statistics on what you have done with the first fund.
Why I am bugging you is because you have a solid proposal, I see a niche and I do see that your project will add value of OP ecosystem, so getting this proposal passed will benefit us both.
But its good to take input from others delegates as well, I know two of them are quite active here, tag them and get the opinion. They can also give you some input on number of token, let me know if you want me to tag them.
As other users expressed, the use of incentives to push teams to use optimism generates some doubts. just some questions, how will Superfluid prevent incentives from being farmed without a valuable sense? by example, how Superfluid describes a team as Optimism Native?