Why wait? Ask now before we find out about another “Perp” cash grab.
it absolutely does - thank you!
i’d like to see more of this kind of breakdown from protocols going forward
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.
Op distribution: Okay
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.
I support this proposal
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.
Snapshot vote - passed
@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 email@example.com