I don’t think it’s a slippery slope at all, I think that’s the point of the comparison made in the proposal. The two projects he mentions, both used the funding similarly, only they did it before delivering anything. In the case of DeFi Llama we can probably expect a ton of more features added as a result of this funding.
It’s a win for Optimism and for DeFi Llama, I’m fully in support!
I agree they deserve some compensation for their hard work and its a win for both. I say slippery slope because it might encourage other protocols to apply for retroactive grants when RGPF should be tackling that.
I am not against the proposal and appreciate that they compared it to other grants to decide on a token amount. However, some further insight into the breakdown of the team and the expected operational costs would provide some transparency on how long the grant will last. Ideally, we are going to follow up with grants in the future, so it’d be ideal to know how long this grant is supporting them and what has come out of it too.
Just wanted to point out that if most people feel that it would be better to reword my original post to exclude the comparisons to previous grants I’d be happy to do so, only issue would be that the amount might lack some justification.
In support of funding the team of DeFiLlama for their great work and support of Optimism.
As mentioned by others, the current proposal seems more suitable for retroactive funding once this is launched. As you add more and more DeFi services & tools, there’s definitely also room to submit another proposal that focuses more on spurring growth of Llama and the Op ecosystem
Regarding the amounts requested @0xngmi can you provide $ values? Since it’s salaries that you need covered and since (as far as I understand they have already been paid – you should know exact amounts)?
The other grants requested OP was in $ amounts which later got converted to OP amounts at the time of the proposal.
As for the RPGF versus using this grant round I don’t know. It depends on what the OP foundation wants to do. If it’s okay with it and it’s up to community then it could just go to the commitee for the next voting round and also go to a vote.
But indeed the point of a grant is to incentivize something being built/done and not to reward for past work. That said I love the work you did/are doing and RPGF is still not open so we can’t even offer you an alternative but just tell you to wait if the proposal was to be rejected for this reason.
Small remark but I’d like to clarify that we will use this money to continue improving defillama and build products, it’s not purely retroactive funding where we are paid for previous costs. Instead, we are asking for money to keep improving defillama and launch new products that benefit everyone.
The way I see it, the only difference against other grants is that we cannot provide something like a “integrate optimism” milestone since we have already integrated Optimism into every aspect of our products, and providing milestones for new products wouldn’t be optimal since we keep a very close loop on products and keep our product lifecycle extremely flexible (so we don’t have a clear outline of everything we’ll be building over the coming months).
Because of how vague that is I thought the best way to just provide a reasoning for expenses based on previous grants (also helps since OP is quite volatile while amounts previously awarded are fixed).
This is important because retroactive funding carries a very different set of expectations (you are getting paid for previous work, so you can do whatever you want with the money received), whereas here we are instead committing to work on more crypto analytics and spend all money building the product. I can understand where the confusion is coming from since in this proposal I’m heavy leveraging our previous work to argue for receiving this funding, but its actually like “Look at all we’ve built, please fund us to build all these new cool things” rather than “We’ve built all this, please pay us retroactively”.
Regarding RPGF, for us it would be much better if we could proceed to voting, and in case the community rejects it we’ll just accept it and wait for RPGF rounds.
Voted against - This is hard to do because Defi Lama has done incredible things for the space. However, I do not believe this proposal is aligned with the purpose of the governance fund (see below). I understand that this is open to interpretation but these types of proposals are better suited for the retroactive public goods funding program imo. Thank you to the Defi Lama team and I hope to see you in another grant pipeline.
We are an officially recognized Tooling Governance Committee, responsible for assessing proposals related to tooling and infrastructure (wallets, bridges etc.).
2- About the project
Defillama is a dashboard and analytics website that has supported Optimism data analytics since shortly after launch.
Llamapay is a payment streaming project that can be used to stream salaries and other payments. It’s been live in Optimism since end of April 2022.
3- About the following
The proposal was published on September 27th asking for 170k OP tokens for Defillama and for 130k OP tokens for Llamapay.
As a Tooling committee, the project was recently catalogued as “Tooling” in the Grant category, and so we’ve taken on the responsibility of issuing a recommendation.
4- About the proposal valuation
Added value (good to bad): good. Defillama is a staple of analytics in the space and has been active on optimism since the start. Regarding llamapay we are not sure but the comparison to superfluid is fair.
Impact or expected usage (high to low): medium. Defillama is definitely being used a lot in optimism/mainnet so the expected usage is definitely high. Llamapay usage in optimism low~ish but according to the TVL it’s sufficiently high compared to other solutions.
Current Status [Development stage/Open Source?] (early to ready): ready. Both defillama and llamapay are ready.
Expenditure plan and distribution (appropriate to inappropriate): reasonable. Both amounts are reasonable. We would have loved to see a more detailed expenditure report since the funds are supposed to cover work already done. Also it would have been much better if the proposal had been split in 2 different proposals since it concerns 2 different projects to give the committee judge each project in its own right.
Amount requested (high to low): medium. Again without a detailed expenses report it’s literally impossible to judge the amount here. The comparison to other projects that received OP tokens and paid salaries is reasonable but since there is no more details given we can’t determine if the amount is high or low.
5. KPIs and impact tracking
Defillama dashboard is already being used by people and projects in optimism.
For Llamapay the current TVL is around $61k(https://defillama.com/protocol/llamapay), 79 active streams and 39 payers with active streams (data provided by 0xngmi via DMs). To track progress and see if the grant was succesful in helping the project it would be nice to compare current and future metrics.
6- FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Yes
Both projects are already deployed and working on optimism. So this grant would not be to get something to optimism but to reward for work already done. There was suggestions in the forums to ask them to wait until RPGF is ready and apply there but we believe that since RPGF is not ready yet that should not be considered as an option now.
Both projects follow the opensource ethos, have no VC backing and are fully community based and open. We need more projects like this in the field, not less. So we should do everything we can to encourage people to build this way. For those reasons the final recommendation is YES.
Like mentioned earlier, this is better suited for RPGF
There was suggestions in the forums to ask them to wait until RPGF is ready and apply there but we believe that since RPGF is not ready yet that should not be considered as an option now.
Committee recommendation and rational are clear but I believe projects are already deployed and can continue to do the good work until citizen house is ready. Also, assuming in next 3-4 months citizen house will be ready, DefiLamma will have a better suited proposal for RPGF.
Sorry, I should have elaborated. I initially voted against both Messari and Defi Llama proposals because I believe they are not aligned with the purpose of the governance fund and would be better suited for the retroactive public goods funding program or a different grant pipeline. On the community call today, the Foundation clarified that the governance fund is the correct pipeline for these types of grants. I changed my vote from against to abstain since my initial reasons for voting against were invalid. However, I don’t feel strongly enough to support these types of proposals where 100% of funds are allocated to internal operations so I am voting to abstain.
I’m going with the committee recommendation - I believe this proposal is more relevant to UX & onboarding users and will have an immediate impact on growing Optimism, than the other RPGF candidates (which I do agree it’s more suited towards).