And I think,@Netrim looks like seeking fault on purpose
I agree @Mingyue .
This 257M Velo will diluted to market putting sell pressure on Velo. We need $OP to motivate protocol and users to buy and lock those token by giving them $OP incentives.
Over the next 6 months, Velodrome will distribute ~257M VELO
$VELOvesting for 12 months, 6-month lock in a
$veVELOfollowed by a linear 6-month unlock period. 0.5% of total emissions, taken from emissions to treasury, will be added to this bucket for dilution control.
Velo is 6 months old now. As team token are started to dilute now, velo price going down is not good for Optimism ecosystem.
I am with Revest Finance . This about sums up my thoughts on this as well ^^. Velodrome incentivizes liquidity to remain on Optimism as they have clearly shown throughout the first grant - on top of that they have provided sound data that shows the ROI back to the Optimism Chain. Outside of this, in my personal dealings with the Velo team, they are amazing ambassadors for the Optimism Chain - whether it be advice on Op Governance for their (many, many) partners or brainstorming very innovative and creative strategies to lock liquidity on Optimism for the long term.
This proposal is well thought out and back up data provided - fundamentals are all there as well - should be a no brainer to pass this in my opinion - will definitely be keeping an eye on how this plays out!
I have mostly just lurked around the OP governance, but wanted to comment/ask additional information about this proposal and thus I am a new user here.
First, the data is great, but I feel some of it is a bit skewed. For example, do I understand correctly, that in the following paragraph Velodrome metrics are being mostly compared to projects without prior incentives? If so, then this comparison seems pretty unfair, since Velodrome’s metrics are obviously pumped up with the existing grant.
"Number of OP Tokens Requested: 4,000,000 OP
- 98% less than average OP granted per $ in TVL
- 80% less than median OP granted per $ in TVL
- 98% less than average OP granted per $ in Volume
- 65% less than median OP granted per $ in Volume
- 98% less than average OP granted per transaction
- 86% less than the median OP granted per transaction
- 91% less than the average OP granted per user
- 51% less than the median OP granted per user"
Additionally, I see great emphasis put on TVL, Volume and # of transactions. TVL is obviously buffed up with the first grant and Volume and # of transactions is pretty much an automatic product of the TVL and low fees of the protocol, but that does not describe how sustainable the model itself is. Maybe you are able to provide information such as protocol revenue (or fees earned) per OP used? Even better if that could be provided in comparison to other DEX projects that have had successful grants. That would be great information to show that what you are building is sustainable (or at least more sustainable than other DEX projects that are/have been applying for grants).
All in all, I am wary that most of the data shown in this proposal and current success of the project is mostly based on the first grant and unsustainable in the long-run. Information that proves otherwise would be much appreciated and well received.
These are very interesting ideas, ser. I would love to explore them, but simply do not see any way to do so without putting the proposal at risk given the conversation around this topic so far. I think it’s probably best to discuss in the period between seasons (when no proposals will be live) to see if we can get guidance from the Foundation for a universal solution that can benefit all protocols equally. I hear they may be working on something already.
Exactly right. VELO emissions to boosted pools will represent a 1.6x multiple on the underlying value of the grant alone. This will reduce the need to lean on direct OP grants alone to incentivize liquidity and help the grant programs sustain for a longer period.
Are you talking about bribe matching in their cases or treating their pools as “public goods”?
Again, I think we’re already seeing a ton of composability on Velodrome without needing to offer targeted grants to create it. Every incentive we offer is (in many ways) a builder grant. In fact, I would guess that after Synthetix we are probably the most built upon protocol on Optimism at the moment. My opinion is that it is much more equitable efficient to do this by reducing costs universally to protocols versus issuing prescriptive / restrictive grants. I’m also skeptical that we have seen any real results from any protocols who included “builder grants” as part of their requests, though maybe @jackanorak would know.
Hey @0xkmack.lens @Mingyue , thank you productive response backed by on-chain data. Could not agree more with you, we should support Velodrome as an Optimism native project and not support those multichain projects. What they have to offer, nothing.
For example. AAVE got 5M $OP as incentives and did not even force any user or protocol to buy their native token to get the $OP reward. Shame. What kind of marketing is this? And on top of that, they only manage to push their TVL to 600M and now its down to whopping 400M. And its seems their liquidity is not moving much. This is clear, we should not support AAVE as multichain project.
Same with Uniswap, they didnt even start their incentives even after getting the fund, its been 4 months. This does not look good, we should ask why?. They are not trying to spend their incentives in hurry to bring liquidity. This raises a question on their long term vision. And you know what, they are also asking for community feedback on their funding distribution, why to do this when selected few team members are capable of deciding how to spend the incentives on behalf of “community”
And look at their daily volume on Optimims. Just 36M, this in unacceptable from a multi-chain project. They dont deserve any OP incentives. https ://dune(dot)com/msilb7/Uniswap-v3-Usage-Comparison-on-Ethereum-vs-Optimism-(OVM-2.0)
just look at their trade per day, 70K transaction. Totally unacceptable.
and how can we forget Curve. Have you look at their logo, seems like a kindergarten drawing.
While their TVL is close to 6B in this market, TVL on Optimism is very low. Without any incentives from Optimism, they are not able to move beyond 50M.
I heard that reward for bribe will happen on Optimism chain with help of Votium, this is evident that they are not willing to work with Optimism.
We dontneed time tested and widely used multichain protocol when we have a native forked protocol from another ghost chain.
Thank you for your contribution. We need more un-biased opinion like yours. Appreciate it.
When creating dummy accounts in an attempt to derail a civil and fruitful discussion, you’ll want to be sure to remember to change your name. Otherwise, it is very easy to spot bad faith a mile away.
@lavande can we get some moderation in the house?
I believe Optimism governance is right to support multiple DEXs for a healthy ecosystem early on. As I see it now, grants are going to Uniswap, Curve, Beethoven, Sushi, Zipswap, and Velodrome.
They each have different strengths and weaknesses. Some are offering more investment in Optimism and some less. Everyone is proposing plans for incentives that are different in approach. This is a good thing.
We should give them all a chance to grow the ecosystem so we can see what works best. Velodrome seems to be working well. If other DEX incentives work well too we can support the extension of them as well.
This not zero sum, multiple strong DEXs on Optimism is good for all. More liquidity and volume is needed.
@FilterBySpam Friends,I’m just expressing my opinion,and one of my reply was also be hiddened.
If you have any different idea,you should post it and let me know my opinion probably wrong.However,your last reply seems sarcastically.
This topic is temporarily closed for at least 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.
Hello Friend - The issue is two new accounts who popped up with the same name around the same time that have no real engagement elsewhere coming into this proposal and saying negative things is just too coincidental. It makes it difficult for the community to take seriously the things they say. I recommend spending time adding value to other proposals so you can build trust in the community over time. Then people will be more open when you post your thoughts here. For now it does not feel constructive.
This topic is temporarily closed for at least 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.
Is there a way to trim this request? Your own metrics listed here could be used to argue Velodrome has hit “escape velocity” and does not need further grants. When speaking of millions of dollars’ worth of OP, perhaps it’s better to offer a proposal to sell VELO to governance rather than asking for a grant? Or break it into pieces so each area of large expense can be evaluated separately.
This is just a really big price tag, and I think you’d have better luck either reducing it, or breaking it into pieces that are more digestible – since you have at least 3 parts that could easily be broken out.
Alternatively, you could set it up so it’s delivered in monthly tranches after a required report, so governance has an opportunity to monitor the grant. The days of delivering large lump sum grants were not kind, so a sophisticated applicant like Velodrome can probably caress this into a package that sets a great example
Good to see this thread is open now.
This is not specifically to you @FilterBySpam as I see many new account focused on selected proposal but your sarcasm is defintly not adding value of this thread. Please read our code of conduct and contribute here to push this gov in right direction.
I appreciate the thoughtful response, ser!
I guess in some sense, we already see the ask as being trimmed relative to every quantitive measure of grants distributed so far as well as the demonstrated 2x-3x ROI / ecosystem growth we’ve demonstrated the initial grant was able to help us deliver. Our request is also unique in that we’re pairing it with a commitment to match 1.6x the grant size ($6.5m) in incentives as well as requirement other projects to match 4x-9x the amounts to access the rewards.
In other words, I think the ask only looks big in a vacuum. The ask is actually quite low relative to the matching investment, demonstrated 2x-3x ROI, and baselines from other grants distributed.
The goal of the grants are “to incentivize sustainable growth of projects and communities in the Optimism ecosystem.” The use of them on Velodrome creates a multiplier effect for all ecosystem participants as demonstrated by our onboarding of over 30 new protocols to the ecosystem as well as dropping the costs of liquidity across the ecosystem by 30%-70%. It’s less a question of “has Velodrome reached escape velocity” and more a question of “has the ecosystem reached escape velocity”… and if not, is extending incentives on Velodrome one of the most effective ways to get us there? I hope we’ve demonstrated that.
This is an interesting idea that may very well be worth exploring, but I don’t see how it would lead to the same kind of growth multiple for the ecosystem we’ve shown incentives can drive.
This I believe we would be quite open to! My only note would be that we perhaps do it in three month increments to ensure we’re able to gather enough data and control for all the other variables that I’m sure will come our way over a few crazy months in crypto.
I think one of the big differentiators here over the original large lump sum grants is that we now have a demonstrated track record as well as results on the programs we’re asking to extend. In many ways, we hope our initiatives being extended will be inspiration for the other big reciepants to start documenting their own efficacy so they have the same chance when it comes time.
What do you think?
Yessir, you can simply adjust the parameters in this query Velodrome $OP Airdrop to pull any epoch you’d like. Our first lock bonus distribution was July 14, 2022.
I wanted to proactively solicit the feedback of more the DeFi Committees so we might have a chance to incorporate any feedback ahead of the committee review period knowing this is the last cycle of this season.
I believe my post was somewhat buried due to the proposal having issues with being closed.
Still very interested knowing an approximate value of average revenue Velodrome has earned in comparison of the value of the OP tokens used during the first grant. I understand the tokens were used in multiple different ways, but it would still give a rough estimate to figuring out how sustainable the model is.