I think I know why you are asking that question! The answer is we are not going to be distributing $OP to veYFI holders. Just like in our proposal, we are going to distribute 100% of the $OP to yVault users.
If you don’t mind I want to avoid any potential confusion and not comment on veYFI in this context/thread.
Yearn needs almost a full year to get partners to build on it? I’d imagine at least a few would sign up more quickly. I mean, just off the top of my head, Resonate could get you set up in a day, probably @RobAnon? And then within 20 weeks we could collectively reassess needs.
A million OP for almost a year of runway strikes me as excessive, as much as I very much would like Yearn to come onboard ASAP.
And if your target is partners, why not earmark the funds specifically for partner or joint programs/pools rather than overall liq mining? That strikes me as having more follow-on benefits and allows you to sidestep the question of incentivizing too much mercenary capital.
We’re definitely working with @RobAnon at Revest already and he’s aware of these vaults. I’ve included them in my list of partners who already committed to building on top of our vaults on Optimism: Alchemix, QiDao, Swype, Rhino, Omni, Spool, Revest, Abra, DeFi Saver, Tapioca. There will be many more.
I’m trying to be realistic about development cycles. It takes time for things to be built. We’ve been working with @RobAnon on the ERC 4626 adapter he’s building for a few weeks now already and that’s just one part of what they’re building.
You bring up a good point about earmarking for specific protocols. I think the length and partners here will naturally be less mercenary. If we don’t earmark for specific protocols I think it could be a catalyst for development to get onboard the Optimism train. The levers we do have are to incentivize vaults that partners are using the most.
We view Yearn as a key DeFi building block that Optimism would greatly benefit from. However, 1M OP over 40 weeks seems excessive, and we believe reducing the duration and size of this proposal to 500k OP over 20 weeks is more appropriate. This should be sufficient time for Yearn to show some positive traction and integrations, and the opportunity would be there to present a second proposal for another wave of incentives.
Yearn has a stellar reputation in the Ethereum community as one of the original DeFi projects. Optimism stands to gain tremendously by helping Yearn grow a foothold here—not just from the TVL their vaults will bring but from the integrations that Yearn enables with other protocols. Other projects are likely to follow Yearn here to build on top of them. There is a great multiplier effect reaped from their mere involvement, which is not something we can say for every project.
Yearn would be a great addition to OP but without an OP vault and with the reward rate being so high at 25,000 / week, I think the grant size should be significantly smaller. I am voting no and would like to see a revised proposal.
I do agree with the commitee’s recommendation and believe yearn is a good match for this grant.
But I will abstain from this vote since I am a yearn multisign signer and though I get no benefit or get in any way compensated for this role, it could be seen as a potential conflict of interest which I would like to avoid.
Following the DeFi A committee recommendation,our members considered this proposal as valuable for the DeFi ecosystem and Yearn’s good reputation. We’re aware of OP’s high amount requested but in general terms this proposal seems reasonable. Please set up a L2 recipient address as soon as possible for everyone to see where funds are going for.