As Dhantee says, the proposal CAN be changed but you need your delegates to maintain their endorsement.
It does thank you! I’ll support this proposal.
It seems like people are generally in favor… however, I will default to our original sponsors, @jackanorak and @mastermojo if you would like me to lower or remove the OP allocated towards yield source integrations and interfaces, let me know and I will do so.
@OPUser asked a further question via Discord and I wanted to answer it here for visibility.
What you want to built is clear from your last comment, but could you break this cost estimate, how did you reach to this number ? are you calculating Dev hours * hours rate, if so then how much.
There isn’t an Apples to Apples comparison since the OP tokens won’t be sold and generally shouldn’t be viewed as money. However, I do have some stats on past expenses of related activities.
I know Pool Grants paid $25,000 for phase 1 development of the Web3 Savings card interface. This specific project was one developer working on a part-time basis. Ideally, what we would like to achieve on Optimism is much bigger… A direct to Optimism on-ramp with fiat conversion making it simple to use PoolTogether for someone who owns crypto but has never used a dapp. We anticipate this being a multi-person project because it would include front-end, web designer, and also back-end / smart contract integration work. So we are targeting having enough resources for a single large grant that can motivate a talented team. If the total amount requested (110,000 OP) wasn’t needed then I would anticipate any remainder could be used for some OP on-boarding incentives specifically for that interface. I believe that would be very effective.
In terms of yield source’s integration our ideal path here would be working closely with a team to get them done. We’ve generally paid $15,000 per yield source integration. Yield sources always need a good audit which generally will cost about $30,000. I don’t expect an auditor would accept OP tokens as payment so likely that will be paid for by PoolTogether Inc and then OP tokens will incentive the actual integration work + the launch of the new pool. When new pools with new yield sources are created, they need to bootstrap deposit growth, so any tokens not needed for the actual growth can be used towards that.
Hopefully this helps create some clarity! Let me know if it does!
This proposal and the team’s answers are clearly from people with a lot of time in crypto and they know what they are doing. Thank you for all your answers I’ll vote Yes on this proposal
It took some time to study the proposal; nonetheless, direct fiat on-ramp is a welcome addition to the protocol and to the L2 chain, and development effort is not the best use of OP funds.
Recommendation from DeFi committee C
Clear and simple plan for usage of 70% of the OP requested for user rewards, with sufficient detail of the reason for the additional segments for UX and integrations. The proposers have responded to queries and shown willingness to expanded on sections that delegates have queried.
Pooltogether offers slightly better APRs than Aave and can attract significant TVL and users - similar as with their first grant proposal. TVL should stay & improve on Optimism and potentially more users should be attracted
Pooltogether has been a top project on Ethereum moved most of its liquidity ($35M) from Eth l1 to Optimism. They are used by thousands of addresses on Optimism daily.
550K OP is a reasonable amount for the size of Pooltogether, further incentivizing liquidity & phasing out rewards. 385K OP (70%) will be spent on liquidity incentives over 19 weeks at a rate of 20K Op/week. The rest will be used for builder incentives, incl. 110K OP (20%) for new UIs and better onboarding of users & 55K OP (10%) for integrations on Optimism.
The variable co-incentives are based on Pool Governance and likely amount to 500$ - 2000$ USDC per day which would in AVG result in 170K USD over 19 weeks. This is slightly low for the requested OP liquidity but Pooltogether is also open to fund additional grants for teams building on Pooltogether/Optimism.
Great, moved their project & liquidity to Optimism and plan to further build there
Our past recommendation is available on committee recommendation thread
I’m abstaining from this proposal. I feel like much of the bootstrapping has already been done by the Partner’s Fund. At the same time, you have made an effort to mix things up by somewhat reducing incentives and allocating funds towards improving user experience. Still, it’s not enough - I want repeat proposals to be bolder, or at least come after a brief period to assess the effects without incentives. As an example, I would like to see much more focus on user acquisition through better user experiences and marketing, rather than liquidity mining.
Thanks for the input!
As a point of general feedback on the process. It’s quite difficult as different voters clearly have different priorities. All the pushback we’ve gotten thus far is that we’ve allocated too much to building better user experiences… to the extent we almost completely cut out all the request for OP allocated towards it.
One thing that would be helpful is if people put their voting weight in their names on discourse… that way feedback could be weighted appropriately based on voting power.
That’s a good idea. Meanwhile, you can find out here: Optimism | OP Token House - Delegate Voting Weight Tracker (dune.com)
I can provide some input here, initially token allocated to builders was not clear. What you want to build, how did you reach to that specific number and how it will add value. Once you provided information to those, it was easy to support your proposal.
Understood. Your issue wasn’t with the request type but rather the lack of details.
Voted yes - Following Defi Committee C recommendation and appreciate the report back on the effectiveness of the previous grant. Also a big fan of Pool Together and personally own 4 Poolys
I really love PoolTogether and the Poolys but I am going to have to vote this proposal down and go against committee recommendation here, following a similar logic to my vote on Velodrome.
The project has already received $450,000 $OP tokens from the foudnation partner fund and is now asking for another $550,000.
I would love to see them stand in optimism on their own legs, see how the protocol fares without external incentivization help and make any further decisions from there and on.
Snapshot vote - passed
@Leighton 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 firstname.lastname@example.org
Grant update here