[READY] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Superfluid

I understand that phase 0 is closed, it was closed on 27/05.

I think you should change phase 0 to phase 1, as they can submit in that phase.

I leave a link for you to see the details.


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.


Phase 1 is now open – category is unlocked, and this post has been recategorized as well.


Thanks! We’d love to answer any questions about our proposal or take suggestions.

1 Like

@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.

More details on the process above can be found in the Operating Manual or on Gov Fund Phase 1: How to create a proposal

1 Like

Thanks @bobby! Glad the channel is now open - will start a conversation there.

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

1 Like

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.


Thanks for the great questions @Justin and @Robor2b102!

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Token amount: This price was input before any discovery took place on OP, at the current price I would increase our proposal to 300k
  5. 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

this will be on OP chain or any chain supported by superfluid ?

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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?


Superfluid is a cool project. Used it a few times. Good luck to the team and proposal

1 Like

Great question - I’d call a team Optimism Native if their project and/or treasury was on Optimism primarily.

In general though, if a team starts paying a salary or vesting on Optimism we consider the chances pretty high they’ll stick around as their employees will have funds on Optimism and have sorted their own personal Optimism investment and off-ramp setups. Ideally the draw of other projects to use on Optimism will keep them around too!

For our ecosystem of projects, they will each have different models, but in general Superfluid doesn’t attract mercenary capital as it’s not “yield farming” and streams are long-term. Additionally we will be selective about who receives the OP tokens.

There isn’t much else that would make sense to do to lock people into Optimism from the Superfluid side IMO since we are a payment rail designed for maximum capital efficiency and minimum overhead.