Oh, my apologies. You are talking about these chart.
These have nothing to do with the grant proposals. This is just an analysis of the relative effectiveness of when protocols incentivize liquidity on Curve or Uniswap with direct incentives versus when they incentivize on Velodrome with bribes. As you can see they get somewhere between 1.3x - 3.3x the ROI on Velodrome.
This is because bribes for emissions models have been proven to be more capital efficient that direct liquidity incentives and Velodrome is the only platform with native bribing on Optimism.
I don’t think this statement translated well. Could you try to restate it?
Velodrome would be fine. It is the rate of ecosystem growth that would suffer. The cost of liquidity incentives would increase, putting strain on ecosystem treasuries. Projects would need to increase the rate at which they are spending their granted OP to close the gap, depleting governance funds faster and increasing OP sell pressure. And it’d make it harder for new projects to bootstrap and onboard, slowing the growth in economic activity and losing builders to other networks. The opposite of what governance is supposed to be doing.
I think it is probably worth reemphasizing that we’ve onboarded over 32 net new protocols and projects to the ecosystem at a pace of about 5 per-month.
Those projects are bringing new users, capital, and activity to the network. We believe we need to continue to onboard new protocols at this pace and have proven methods for doing it. As @states_of_nature1651 so nicely put it (great post, ser), no legacy AMM is even suggesting that they’re interested in taking that work on.
But really, you don’t need to trust us on this, just listen to the builders.
Can you clarify this and provide some supporting data? Voters on Velodrome have earned more than voters on Curve for our entire existence.
Yes, this is correct. Assuming Curve’s proposal passes, governance will literally bribing main-net veCRV stakers to vote to direct CRV emissions to the Optimism network. It is yet to be seen what the ROI of this strategy will be.
Velodrome on the other hand is offering $6.5M in emissions for incentivized pools, 1.6x the total value of the grant we are requesting and over half of all $OP incentives projected to be distributed via governance over the same period. Think about this, for a 4M OP grant we’re basically going to give a 50% match on ALL the stimulus offered by Optimism Governance at large.
We are committed keeping these emissions on Optimism in the context of this grant because we’re ecosystem maxis who believe that it has a tremendous opportunity for growth. That does not mean that they must continue to go exclusively go to Optimism in the absence of such an agreement.
There is just no way to cut the data to suggest that Optimism is getting anything other than an incredible ROI from granting Velodrome.