also wouldn’t mind an update on IP’s deployment timing, actually
even better, to be honest
To Optimism? Quickly, but we don’t have the ability to promise a target date.
If this proposal passes, we would expect it to be deployed within weeks, but that is ultimately up to IP token holders and delegates over on mainnet and constrained by developer hours if they’ve already been booked for a given time period.
Hey GFXLabs, don’t we do it via committees now? I thought that you would have to apply to a committee now that they have formed.
Our understanding is that to advance to a vote two delegates (not the proposer) need to endorse its readiness. Committees will then make recommendations several days after voting begins.
That is correct, the Committees will issue a recommendation UP to 3 days after voting has started (I think the ideal is to happen before).
Regarding the mechanic as a value proposition for Optimism, I would lend OP to Interest Protocol and mint USDi, but I will keep my delegation power.
Will you also partner with a DEX to incentivize USDi/TOKEN liquidity? I am assuming USDi is a composable ERC20 token.
That would be up to IP governance. USDi can be freely converted to USDC held in IP’s reserves, so even if liquidity for USDi itself is limited, it can still be swapped – similar to Maker allowing DAI to be swapped permissionlessly for USDC and USDP.
We went through the whitepaper a while ago and liked a couple of innovative ideas:
- Different ICO sale strategy
- Efficiency (Potentially able to quickly scale with higher utilization rate)
- Possibility of voting/delegation
The project is at the earliest stage with the ongoing ICO which likely takes longer than the originally envisioned 32 days with currently 124 holders & few daily purchases and we’d like to see the protocol risk (management - especially liquidity risk) play out a bit.
Re: The proposal
Benefits for Op could be very strong: Op as Collateral, Op can still be used for governance, (Co-)Incentives can lead to strong initial & potentially sustained growth with IP efficiency
Risk: Similar to onboarding toxic assets in a lending protocol, Optimism should be cautious of incentivizing projects that potentially add significant risk to users in the ecosystem. We are a bit worried about the fractional reserve model which may lead to locked up user funds (+ bad debt in case of toxic assets, liquidation failures, other protocol bugs).
The size of this dev grant is small and a no-brainer. Despite not being fans of funding development, we’d support the 31,764 OP tokens for deployment.
The size of the other, main grant proposal (240K Op) is also reasonable for a new, value-adding project though we’d prefer to see the initial sale finish, more certainty around the date of deployment & Op distribution as well as protocol risk management before incentivizing growth with Op tokens.
(Not sure why there are 2 proposals on the forum.)
@GFXlabs wrote in the other thread:
Deployment to Optimism would likely not be prioritized to the same extent over other work (such as collateral onboardings) if the smaller proposal is not approved. Interest Protocol has decentralized token governance, so that’s obviously just a guess since any token holder with enough IPT or delegated votes could put forth a proposal to prioritize an Optimism deployment over other work.
These were broken into separate proposals to give governance the option to vote on each piece separately, since one is to defray deployment expenses and is quite small, while this proposal is targeted at more traditional co-incentivization and larger in size.
For what it’s worth, I do appreciate the option to consider individual asks separately like this. And I think funding development to move migration further up a project’s roadmap is absolutely the kind of thing we should be doing if our objective is to facilitate growth.
(Not sure why there are 2 proposals on the forum.)
You answered your own question. It’s an opportunity to get the ball rolling with a marginal ask. @GFXlabs reasons: doesn’t hurt to ask for incentives today. But if not having deployed is a nonstarter, the thinking is that splitting up the proposals helps devs get migration across the finish line faster.
As an Optimism delegate with voting power above the required threshold I believe this proposal is ready. Delegate Commitments - #71 by MoneyManDoug
I have voted against this proposal and the recommendation.
My reason for voting against, is the allocation is simply providing a team with working capital
I refer to…
Aside from the broader merits of the lending protocol, which we’re still discussing, we view this proposed grant as a low-cost means of delivering a clear value-add to OP governance: allowing collateral to be delegated.
We believe that deploying this capability will grant users more flexibility with their OP tokens while filling gaps in governance participation. We also commend @GFXlabs for splitting their initial proposal into two staged ones and suggest that other projects consider doing the same, depending on their asks.
Voted yes - Following Defi Committee C recommendation
Voted for the proposal after the Defi C committee recommendation
Rationale: Small request to help accelerate the onboarding of a strong protocol to Optimism.
They are going to use this fund for opening a new using area for $OP, the allocation request is seen as reasonable when we think of this purpose.
Snapshot vote - passed