it’s a bit of a chicken & egg scenario, where we need a grant to prove we deserve the grant, but I believe the points above + the reduce total amount (from eliminating the delegated tokens) addresses the concerns.
I share this concern and think the focus always ought to be on evidence-backed expectation of growth unlocked by a grant – that is, what we think the grant catalyzes for the ecosystem-- rather than by existing TVL. One of the core purposes of the gov fund is to migrate protocols that have demonstrated PMF elsewhere, and Alchemix clearly fits this bill, even if it has yet to hit its ‘full’ numbers on Optimism.
This isn’t to say TVL isn’t irrelevant – it is a fine enough (but messy and manipulable) proxy for use, utility, and market acceptance – but there’s a risk in using it as a crutch as we have. Part of it is that it’s an easy thing to point to relative to other metrics, which is why we ought to be asking more from protocols in furnishing use data and perhaps pointing delegates to known resources on our end to help evaluate.
Thank you for the clarification. You make a solid case for Alchemix’s proposal and the adjustments you have made strengthens it. I encourage you to summarize the clarification for the CVX/CRV bribes in the original proposal post, as well as highlight changes that you have made throughout your proposal in the top (based on the feedback you received).
I am giving support for this proposal in its current form, both for Alchemix’s value going beyond simple DeFi primitives with its unique proposition as well as its proposal that is well revised to increase activity on Optimism.
We broadly support Alchemix’s proposal as written but advise halving their ask generally by time and size – there’s simply no good argument for running a grant past six months, and even that amount of time is a stretch.
They’re in the minority of proposals to date that have offered a bottom-up approach in outlining the size of their ask and explaining the additionality of the grant, and we’re inclined to agree with their view.
Another key piece is that Alchemix’s proposal is rare in that they are explicitly committing to move resources over to Optimism themselves — that is, they’re not just trying to draw users and capital, they’re moving the deployment of their own capital to encourage more use on Optimism. This goes beyond the simple idea of “incentive matching” — it’s a reflection that a grant can beget follow-on activity, and it’s exactly the kind of behavior we should be encouraging.
We think there is still some work to be done to determine KPIs, demonstrate migration from Mainnet, and discuss potential integrations with other ecosystem protocols, but these are nits in an otherwise well-presented proposal that seems advantageous for Optimism.
Rationale: We like the overall token distribution plan and value proposition. However, we would like to see the proposal resubmitted with the amount and distribution timeline split into 2 separate proposals. We would be happy to approve this proposal once these changes are made.
My interpretation of this request is that we would split it into 250k tokens for depositor incentives, and 250k tokens for liquidity incentives - is that accurate?
Additionally, can the split simply be a note in the proposal that the two 250k asks will be voted on separately, or you’d actually like us to split it out into two new forum posts?
We would like to see the distribution timeline and amount requested both reduced. The current ask is 500,000 over one year, so ideally we would like to see 250,000 over 6 months, so we can re-evaluate and make an additional grant based on performance metrics. Thank you for following up and please reach out if you have any additional questions.
Got it, so to verify - you are asking us to reduce the ask to 250k over 6 months for this proposal. Then, in 6 months, we can come back with another proposal for another 250k, or more, or less, if it makes sense to do so.
I believe it may be too late for these changes to be included in the current voting cycle. If that’s the case, we will be happy to support this proposal in the next voting cycle. Looping in @lavande for guidance
Since this proposal has received two delegate approvals, it may move to a vote in Cycle 7 as is.
Since approvals and committee recommendations were provided based on the proposal in its current form, and votes go to Snapshot today, I believe it is too late to make changes to the current proposal in this cycle.
The options would be to submit this proposal as is in Cycle 7 or to re-submit an updated proposal in Cycle 8.
Yes, I believe this proposal should go to Snapshot now in the same form in which it was originally submitted. @Ov3rkoalafied this means it could still be approved by delegate votes in its current form and you are welcome to reach out to delegates to solicit their support.
If it does not pass, you can resubmit to Cycle 8 with edits @Katie has suggested which sounds like it will earn their endorsement and will likely lead to easy approval then.
Voted no - Defi Committee A reasoning given here. I like this proposal overall but the team is going to adjust their amount requested and distribution timeline and resubmit for next cycle.
Voted No for this particular iteration of the proposal following DeFi committee A’s recommendation. The team will hopefully take the feedback and resubmit next cycle.