[REVIEW] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] LI.FI

Updated the proposal to follow the latest template update. Would be great to still get it in for the current cycle. :pray:

@OPUser @jackanorak would you be willing to give a delegate approval to us so we can join this cycle?

sure thing.

I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - #136 by jackanorak ] with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.

I’ll also add that this is one of the few proposals that have made it to review to be precise with their KPIs, which I see as being necessary for inclusion – though in general these (and i’m not referring specifically to this proposal) ought to more fully consider the intended outcome, as outlined in the prompt.

1 Like

Sure thing, let me find the exact text to write.

Editing to provide the reasoning.

Li FI has a good market presence, OSS and audit, amount of token requested and distribution plan is good with long term growth in sight.

I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - #26 by OPUser] with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.

1 Like

Will you consider protocols that have already received a grant from this gov?

@Defi_LATAM_axlvaz Do you mean projects which have already received grants through an Optimism Governance proposal?
Usually such projects won’t necessarily need the financial support anymore but we are happy to still support them on other fronts, e.g. provide technical support to them. We don’t want to make a hard cut-off rule here though but would rather look at them on a case by case basis.

1 Like

my suggestion is to do whatever is most likely to add the most incremental value to the ecosystem, regardless of what the protocol may have received from governance. it could be, for instance, that they received a grant for something entirely separate from what you’d be offering them.


hello @cshg and you for your proposal. LiFi brings value to Optimism through its bridge aggregation widget tool and this proposal fits well with the goal of incentivizing usage on Optimism. You have adjusted to feedback that was given, so I believe your proposal is strong enough and ready for review.


thanks @marc for your feedback and encouragement. Changed the status to [REVIEW].

1 Like

I’m abstaining from this proposal since my fund Scalar Capital is an investor in LI.FI.

1 Like

LIKE li.fi , ui is more beauty, do more to make better.

Voted For

Number to token requested, its distribution plan and KPI defined are aligned with user on-boarding and protocol integration.

1 Like

1. Presentation

We are an officially recognized Tooling Governance Committee, responsible for assessing proposals related to tooling and infrastructure (wallets, bridges etc.).

To begin with, for this proposal we identified a possible conflict of interest between our team member (@cryptotesters involved in Hop protocol) and thus that individual was excluded from assessing this proposal.

2. About the project

There is plethora of bridges of various designs out there**.** There is also vast amount of tokens, some with native cheap bridging solutions. Bridge aggregators try to find the best path to move (and possible exchange) tokens from one chain to another and are important primitive.

In a nutshell, LiFi works in a way that a centralized backend provides routing information that is fed to and executed by decentralized smart contract system. LiFi itself doesn’t operate a bridge but rather aggregates already existing solutions.

LiFi supports Optimism for a while now. As far as we can tell, there are no plans for LiFi token.

Similar OP Governance proposals:

3. About the following

Proposal was posted back in August and recently updated to fit new template. LiFi team was quick to answer any additional questions asked by community members.

4. About the proposal valuation

In this part, we focus on the following aspects:

  • Added value (good to bad): good. Bridge aggregators are the best products to use for many types of users.
  • Impact or expected usage (high to low): medium. Aggregators are important but it’s a crowded space with many competing solutions.
  • Current Status [Development stage/¿Open Source?] (early to ready): ready.
  • Expenditure plan and distribution (appropriate to inappropriate): standard. Funds will be used to subsidize product usage as well as fund more integrations. This is quite in line with similar proposals.
  • Amount requested (high to low): low/medium

5. KPIs and impact tracking

We suggest tracking following KPIs:

  1. Users bridged
  2. Users who bridged and stayed active

Same KPIs should apply to subsidised integrations. Further more, gas stipends should be monitored to detect any sybil-like behaviour.


We apologize for the delays during this cycle. Our work was mostly done on time but we had delays with the final confirmation from each member to properly publish our recommendations with the proper consensus (this was due to devcon week, but we recognize this is not an excuse). We promise that this situation will not happen again and we will carry out the respective improvements of the process and we will share our learnings received during this cycle.

Thank you for patience.


Voted yes - Following the Tooling Committee recommendation, this is also a reasonable amount requested and well written proposal with solid KPIs.

1 Like

Voting YES following the recommendation we published with the tooling committee of which I am a member.


Voting: Yes

Following our own Tooling committee recommendation.

Snapshot vote - passed

@cshg 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 DM or email palash@optimism.io