Yes, 33% (250,000) each.
Delegation is not the primary purpose. As mentioned we would be holding for up to a year with the hopes of incentivizing alOP in the future (requires some updates on the OP side, and we are working on an update that would make launching separate alAssets feasible). If that use case never comes to fruition then after a year, we would fold the OP into the first two use cases, to extend their life. In the meantime, we were thinking we would delegate OP. In this scenario if we want a voice in governance beyond a year we would still have to purchase OP, but at least it gives us some say while we build up the funds / TVL to justify doing so. We also figured delegating/voting would be better than LPing the tokens somewhere (ALCX/OP or something), since thatâs effectively a limit-sell order on OP if it goes up, but if LPing those tokens would be more preferable we can do that.
Lastly, if more people voice concerns with delegation or LPing (hard for me to know if your opinion reflects a large portion of voters / past precedent in voting - if you have any insight there please let me know), then we can just fold those OP tokens into the first two use cases.
You donât necessarily have to apply for all the funds now, you can apply for the funds needed for your plan right now, show results and reapply for another OP token grant. If the results are good, you should have no problem getting a second approval.
1 Like
Reminding people here that self-delegation has been determined to be in scope so long as the intention to do is made explicit. @AxlVaz is entitled to their belief, but this is not the official position as outlined on the grant proposal template.
âExpectationâ doesnât mean that self-delegation shouldnât be granted â it means that the assumption is that it is not granted unless a project specifically asks for it.
1 Like
Depending on how it is proposed it can be well seen or not, that is what the forum is for. It does not mean that all projects that want to delegate or self-delegate grant tokens must be approved.
In my personal opinion I donât see it at all healthy for governance. In this case I see speculation when you could ask for the necessary amount and then reapply for a second grant.
Hi @Ov3rkoalafied,
Last I remember someone from your team was willing to the KYC, has this been finalized ?
Please also change the Voting Cycle to 7.
Relatively liquidity seems sticky, from peak of 800M to 62M as of writing but this might be because of current market condition.
would you consider waiting for one more cycle ? this will give us time to see how your OP deployment is received by community.
This is also something to consider, if you are only going to use the token next year why not submit another proposal when you are ready next year ? Distributing OP from grant to sit in another wallet is not a good use imo.
is this already deployed to OP chain ? How can i verify this ?
Last I remember someone from your team was willing to the KYC, has this been finalized ?
Please also change the Voting Cycle to 7.
Iâll modify this to cycle 7. For KYC, Iâve gotten a few different answers, still none with absolute clarity. Most recently, from talking with some folks on the Optimism legal side of things, it seemed like our entire multisig may need to KYC which isnât really feasible, but the wording was not clear. Waiting to hear back. I think it may be easier to just go to vote, with the intent to try to meet the KYC requirements, and if for some reason we canât, we would just have to pull out of the grant.
Relatively liquidity seems sticky, from peak of 800M to 62M as of writing but this might be because of current market condition.
Sorry, are you saying liquidity is sticky or isnât here? And yes collapsing defi yields / less TVL in defi as a whole in general are the biggest factor, yearn was something like 40% APR when Alchemix launched. Liquidity is definitely mercenary to incentives though, whereas a depositor only needs liquidity for their initial loan, then a future re-up of their loan a while later.
would you consider waiting for one more cycle ? this will give us time to see how your OP deployment is received by community.
I think that could make sense, depending on when we are able to officially launch. But if we launch soon and TVL fills up quickly, it may not matter as much. Is their precedent for going to a vote, failing the vote, and then re-applying with modifications in the next cycle?
This is also something to consider, if you are only going to use the token next year why not submit another proposal when you are ready next year ? Distributing OP from grant to sit in another wallet is not a good use imo.
With what we know now about delegation and how it is perceived, this probably makes more sense. We will likely update to split the tokens 50/50 and remove use case #3. Iâm going to let more feedback continue to roll in since we have the time, as well as stats once we launch, then make the changes in one revision/revision narrative.
is this already deployed to OP chain ? How can i verify this ?
I believe so, let me track that down and follow up.
EDIT: Address is DeBank | The Web3 Messenger & Best Web3 Portfolio Tracker
But debank doesnât seem to track VELO liquidity, trying to find a tracker that does show it. It could also be viewed with rabby: https://rabby.io/
Totally agree with this. I will wait for open question to get some more clarity.
Few additional points:-
I see you have one year distribution plan, could you provide some information on your plan. Will it done weekly /bi-weekly and is there a cap on max number of token distributed weekly ?
and how this will help with long term liquidity ? Do you mean bribing on velo with your voting power ? I am trying to understand the co-incentives and long term plan here. Would you consider matching co-incentives with your native token ? Apologies for many question here but there was some communication gap in last voting cycle and i want to make sure i have my doubt clear before we reach next voting round.
Personally I will enforce on KYC. and yes this is doable and quite easy. If a proposal does not get approval in current cycle, they can submit a new proposal in next cycle, there is no limit.
1 Like
There should be consistent guidance from the DeFi committees on whether or not using a portion of their grant for self-delegation to give them a voice in governance is acceptable. If it is true that it was approved for another project, it should be enforced consistently and not be removed from this proposal.
I also believe that the committees should be consistent on whether or not actively being deployed on Optimism is a pre-requisite for the approval of a grant request. I believe there is now a proposal being approved for a protocol not yet deployed, if true we should not ask that the proposers delay their asks.
1 Like
At this time it is feedback from the delegates and the community. Then the committee makes recommendations.
You can read it here:
The committee should separate itself from this talk. At this time it is feedback from the delegates and the community. Then the committee makes recommendations.
You can read it here:
It should also be noted that each committee has a criteria and each proposal is a different case.
@Ov3rkoalafied The most important thing is to know the KYC conditions and if the Alchemix team is willing to adapt.
I understand that. Iâm suggesting the committee members act on this guidance and make clear their positions on protocol self-delegation and deployment status so protocols can revise their proposals accordingly.
âCommittee members should do their best to be active in this process to ensure continuity for proposers throughout the voting cycle and since some committee members will need to provide the required approvals.â
The objective here is to create some âcontinuityâ between the feedback phase and committee recommendation phase. If there isnât, you create an impossible situation for proposers when faced with inconsistent feedback from different committees and their individual members.
I think you are confused, or at least I see it that way:
1- The gov members (they donât necessarily have to be delegates) can give the feedback they think is correct.
2- Delegates (they donât necessarily have to be committee members) can give the feedback they feel is correct.
3- Delegates who are members of a committee can give feedback that is likely to be aligned with the committee on which they serve.
4- Committees give recommendations according to what they believe is best for Optimism governance and for the protocol. With their criteria formed by a group of delegates.
The proposers adapt the comments to what they feel is necessary and within the recommendations of the members and the committee.
The approval of the next phases does not depend exclusively on the delegates who are members of the committee. Other delegates can and have already done so.
Personal opinion: For me self-delegation is not applicable, BUT if there is a proposal that convinces me that self-delegation in that proposal should be approved I will agree. In this particular case if Alchemix makes a long term bet on Optimim it can buy the token in the same way it did with the VELO token.
Lastly I think proposals that want to include self-delegation have every right to do so, the snapshot vote is the final decision.
1 Like
I guess itâs a gamble for proposers. If they want to self-delegate they will gamble the approval because voters may consider things they wouldnât if self-delegation wasnât on the table.
Acquiring voting power via grants is a risk for proposers in my opinion and should be avoided but proposers can try. As far as they make it explicit, people will vote accordingly. No matter what committees suggest. If voters donât like grants to be used for self-delegation they probably will not care much about the proposal or what the committee thinks.
3 Likes
At least so far, the committee recommendations seem to carry enough weight with delegates to push through or kill any proposal they weigh-in on.
Unless any committee member expresses openness to using self delegation to expand protocol representation in governance, it certainly sounds like they should remove them if they want a shot at a yes vote.
I guess itâs a gamble for proposers. If they want to self-delegate they will gamble the approval because voters may consider things they wouldnât if self-delegation wasnât on the table.
Sorry, i donât follow what you mean here. Are you saying that other asks may be in or out of scope depending on whether a proposal has included self-delegation?
I mean voters can vote considering self-delegation regardless of any merits or values of the proposal.
2 Likes
what changed for you?
Nothing has changed is what I think and what I have expressed.
There you say you think self-delegation is acceptable so long as itâs made explicit in the proposal, and in this thread you say itâs a threat to governance:
I am against delegation and self-delegation with tokens received through grants.
I think that if you want to give voice to Alchemix you can make purchase of OP tokens in the secondary market. Considering that in AIP-59 you make use of treasury (correct me if I am wrong) to buy VELO tokens, you can use the same resource to buy OP tokens.
In my personal opinion I donât see [self-delegation] at all healthy for governance. In this case I see speculation when you could ask for the necessary amount and then reapply for a second grant