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.
I like this proposal a lot overall. Great way to get DAO’s/teams to use Optimism to pay people, thus making those people use Optimism. Good chance this leads to some of these users sticking around I think.
As far as whether it’s better to ask for a year of funding or reduce this proposal’s ask and return in 6 months for a top up, it’s a fair point. I’d personally support this proposal as written (giving 300k OP to use over a year). Cutting that to 150k OP over 6 months might win over some other people though.
Superfluid is a project that I’ve tested out a little bit on Polygon and so I think I see the merit in this proposal as a way to migrate teams that are currently paying their salaries on the platform via a different network (such as Gnosis or Arbitrum).
The amount of tokens requested is not large, but I do agree that it might make sense to reduce the initial period to 6 months and then reassess. If the number of people’s salaries that are being paid on Optimism through Superfluid has increased significantly then there’s no reason why the second allocation can’t be larger than the first.
Like SolarCurve said, I’d be support this as it is, but it might just be more flexible for the project itself if you change to 6 months /150k then provide some kind of metric showing the change in use in a few months time and then apply for more based on usage and the value of OP at the time.
Thanks for the inputs @solarcurve and @MinimalGravitas! It’s a fair suggestion and we’re more than happy to reduce the token request and the scope to 6 months’ worth of stream as you have suggested. I’ll go an update the header post.
If you have any other suggestions or comments before we remove the draft tag and prepare it for consideration let me know!
We are fans of Superfluid and like the proposal irrespective of your ask being 150K or 300K Op. Overall, we see value in moving over treasuries and bringing regular users with you but we’d be even more interested in (incentives for) projects building on top of you on Optimism. Phase 1 is closing soon, better hurry up
Looks like you’re a bit late and not live on Snapshot voting. (Many have already voted and some might not see it in the next 5 days.) Anyways, I will ask in the Discord governance chat to have you included for this funding cycle.
Hey @vijay thanks a lot for the proposal. I got to learn about superfluid thanks to your booth in ETHBarcelona.
Seems like a really interesting project and admittedly being in Optimism would make even more sense than L1.
At this point I have a simple question to only understand a bit better how the allocation will be used.
My understanding right now is:
You will use the tokens to incentivize building on superfluid (only in optimism) with 112,500 $OP (75%) and 37,500 $OP for salary incentives on the streams themselves. Question here. Salary incentives would be on both sender and receiver side of only one of them?
And this will be for the first 6 months and then you may come back with another request. Correct?
I’m voting For, given the reasonable amount and a clear usecase. However, I’d say the bigger opportunity is not just moving L1 treasuries to L2; but rather new projects that were cost-prohibitive and thus did not exist on L1. Hope to see the allocation used along those lines.
The salary incentives are intended to go to employees (not to employers).
Indeed, we’ve reduced our initial ask with the goal of being able to bring validating data to support a follow-up application after the first 6 months.
Hey @polynya, that is in fact a fundamental thesis of Superfluid, so it’s nice to see it echoed here! The ecosystem of projects built on top of Superfluid will hopefully help us prove this out with the aid of OP incentives to kickstart.
We changed our perspective from mainnet treasuries to L2 treasuries approx. 3 months ago— it’s much easier to handle. (Peace of mind that you can rebalance at a reasonable rate)
Just awaiting the right time to port over more liquidity.
I am not a delegate, but I am an active member of the DefiLATAM and OptimismESP community.
The amount you are asking for is reasonable and so is the distribution plan. In my opinion Superfluid is a good payment tool, useful for protocols and DAOs.
