To my knowledge, our investors have not been contributing to our TVL. If they have, it’s not coming from any of their official ENS accounts or wallet addresses, and it would have been without our knowledge. However, I don’t think that’s a likely scenario.
More than half of our TVL to date have been sourced via partnerships with DAOs and protocols that we manage liquidity on behalf of. These include Liquity, Ribbon Finance, Index Coop, Friends with Benefits DAO, etc. We have made countless announcements on our Twitter page. The other portion has come from public LPs, mostly on Ethereum Mainnet and Polygon thus far; however, we are focused in growing Optimism at the moment, both from a partnership standpoint and public LP standpoint.
The TVL that has been incentivized on our end came from partnering protocols such as H2OData. But that makes up a minor portion of our overall TVL, and we do plan to keep partnering with protocols on Optimism that will incentivize pairs on Optimism. This should work in favor of the Optimism ecosystem as liquidity incentives not from $OP are driving liquidity to Optimism.
To clarify, this governance fund is not for funding public goods, it is for growing the Optimism ecosystem. @vonnie610 clarified in Discord:
"The governance fund is actually NOT FOR FUNDING PUBLIC GOODS. It is for growing the ecosystem. The Citizen house (which is not live yet) is for public goods funding.
The token house is for fostering and growing the ecosystem."
I appreciate the clarification and would like to rephrase. We are currently in a bootstrapping stage, and the priority is growth rather than aid – which certainly doesn’t put privately funded protocols out of scope.
That doesn’t mean we don’t consider opportunity costs when considering well-resourced projects; we want to make sure OP goes toward proposals that offer outsized growth potential, and my belief is that, all else equal, less funded projects with traction have more to offer from active support, whereas better funded projects have a higher bar to demonstrate additional growth potential from even more funding.
That we’re still in growth mode lends all the more reason to ensure that the protocols seeking resourcing have demonstrated some clear ability to add value and grow the ecosystem, particularly if we are offering large sums with little followup. If they haven’t shown traction, even with a lot of funding (which is a reason people cited in voting down Dope Wars), that weakens confidence in their growth potential.
Voting Yes as the proposal adds quality projects, professional & passive users to Optimism.
Value-add: Good Amount: Okay Op distribution: Okay Co-incentives: None
It’s great to see projects collaborate on Optimism ecosystem building proposals.
Co-incentives are a nice-to-have but not a must-have in our opinion. If smaller projects add real value, cannot match incentives but distribute the Op funds in a meaningful way (not only internal development, own token liquidity, but for Optimism growth), this is a better use of Op funds than throwing match funding at large projects with their undifferentiated, short-term LM campaigns.
That said, we haven’t seen a top top Uni v3 liquidity management protocol and we would rather/also like to see funding for multiple cycles of 4-6 weeks to try different liquidity mining incentives (see early Balancer liquidity experiments); potentially even liquidity mining competitions and accompanying analytics of best user behavior - instead of 1, 2 bulk liquidity mining campaigns.
We voted yes on this proposal. With the total amount being distributed across three providers, we believe that this proposal offers a good range of incentives for increased usage and liquidity on OP.
This is good feedback and information I generally look for, but ultimately where else they have raised funding for doesn’t really matter - the goal of Gov Fund is to incentivize usage on Optimism.
In consultation with our community, this proposal the requested amount looks too much.
Contribution: Positive
OP distribution: Neutral
Co-incentives: No
Impact in LATAM: Neutral
Suggestions: proposals seem reasonable if the amount were reduced by 50% for example, although always willing to see other forms of distribution or a greater diversity of proposed pools, focused on the ecosystem.
Yes. Even though amount is high, it will be distributed to 3 different protocols. Liquidity is important for OP token.
Project quality: Mid - 10M in joint TVL
Team quality: Mid
Amount requested: Mid - 300k per project for 6 months
OP distribution: Reasonable - It’s gonna be farmed to the ground but liqudity for OP token is important so I think it’s acceptable. Furthermore, the LM program benefits Uniswap LPs not xToken or Gamma users, so again, I think it’s fine.
@ben_xtoken can you provide a Telegram handle or other contact method so the Optimism team can get in touch about paying out this grant! Feel free to comment on this thread, DM, or email justine@optimism.io
Upon approval, xToken Terminal began its incentive program. After xToken’s incentive program elapsed, Gamma began our incentive program for the same time interval. The program for The Univ3 Staker program was never set up. Later, sadly, xToken closed its active operations in 2023.
Current Status
Gamma is currently in the last two weeks of distributing its share of its liquidity incentives.:
The 300,000 OP tokens allocated to the UniV3 Staker remain unclaimed due to a lack of activity and development. With xTokenTerminal closed, and Gamma’s incentive program ending, incentives on this pool will end entirely, and this proposal will be left only partially executed.
Due to these circumstances and given the current $5.7M of capital-efficient liquidity that already exists on the Gamma pool, we think it would be cost-effective and strategic to distribute the unused 300,000 OP tokens from the grant to the current liquidity providers of the Gamma-managed pool. There are currently 887 unique depositors who have contributed liquidity to the Gamma pool. These incentives provided a critical supply of actively managed liquidity for OP-WETH at a relatively low cost per incentive.
Please feel free to ask any questions below. We’ll do our best to answer with our current available data.
I am not sure how this should be processed; technically, those tokens were approved to xTokenTerminal. Perhaps asking for feedback from other delegates should be enough, given none veto.
Hypothetically speaking, if those unused tokens were to be used in the Gamma managed pool, would you consider matching the timeline with your soon to start Arbitrum incentives.
I spoke with @david on this months ago while chasing down the use of funds here and it seemed that the UniV3Staker team wasn’t even notified about this grant application when it was made. So Gamma or xToken asked for OP on that project’s behalf without the project’s even being in active development at that time.
I suggest this OP simply go back to the Foundation. It should never have been allocated in the first place.
xTokenTerminal received their allocation of 300,000 OP and used them as incentives per the grant terms. They have since closed down. That is why they are not part of the current report and proposal. The allocation to UniV3 Staker was unclaimed.
Our arbitrum incentives have already begun, but the terms of our ask are to continue the same successful incentive of OP-WETH 0.3%. We’re of course, open to suggestions, but by default would be following our own proposal’s terms (six months).
Mandatory (Violation 7): Must execute the grant in accordance with what is outlined in the approved grant proposal. Grant recipients that wish to change the use of the grant from what is outlined in the proposal must submit a new proposal requesting approval for the change. To do so, they must follow the grants process in place at the time. If the change is not approved, the recipient must execute the grant as outlined in the original proposal or return the portion of grant funding affected by the unapproved change.
That means if you want to change the usage of the grant originally outlined in the proposal, the change must be approved by the Grants Council (cc @Gonna.eth)
On this point here, xToken received 300K OP, Gamma received 300K, and 300K was reserved for the use of the Uni v3 Staker. We have spoken with David Mihal quite a few times while authoring not only this proposal, but a couple proposals suggesting the use of the Uni v3 Staker, which we had understood that the Uniswap DAO was building at the time. See here for David’s post on the Hop forum: HOP Liquidity Incentives on Uniswap V3 - #3 by david-mihal - 🐰Hop Ecosystem - Hop
It was widely assumed at the time that the Uniswap DAO would be building a frontend for widespread use, as Lito Coen’s proposal had passed, and the Uniswap DAO had assigned both frontend and backend work specifically around the Uni v3 Staker.
Lito, Ben (from xToken), and I, in good faith, did our best in chasing down and asking for updates regarding the Uni v3 Staker. Unfortunately, scheduling/priority conflicts arose among the devs assigned by Uniswap to build this, and things didn’t quite work out to nobody’s fault.
I would just add here that both xToken and Gamma co-authored this proposal, and we had both received 300k OP separately from the OP Foundation, so that may alleviate procedural concerns there.
We actually did start the Arbitrum campaign, but the unused tokens could certainly be used during and after this period as well. We’ve had an increase in user base from Arbitrum, the exposure to which has resulted in increased LPs on our Optimism pools as well. Our recent partnership with popular DEX’s like Camelot has additionally brought forth many more eyes to all our pools, including OP-WETH.
Thanks for the information, and we certainly want to abide by the Code of Conduct here. We are currently the midst of communicating with the Grants Council for this change.
Thanks again for your assistance with this matter, and we look forward to working with the Optimism community in potentially continuing this program, which has provided a crucial source of liquidity for OP-WETH since inception.
