[REVIEW][GF Phase 1 Proposal] Optimism 🤝 Tally Ho

thanks for this information. I already understand how Tally Ho wallet operate. Very impressive!

1 Like

Hi @mhluongo! congrats in developing this wallet extension.

I’m reviewing the proposal and I want to take some few points:

(100K) Can you specify more about what type of campaigns do the team in mind? any details?

(100K) Same here, please.

In the overall, the proposal makes sense (just offer more details) but the idea of experimentation combined with a 12-month distribution process may not be the best approach. My suggestions is reduce to ~seven months (and same for OP tokens requested, that is by a factor 7/12) and try to re-apply (in a new proposal) in the next year in case of success. For this, add to the proposal (see lastest template) a list of milestones/KPIs as reference.

1 Like

I agreed to proposal. Nice proposal

Hey @Joxes!

We’ve been fairly successful so far with Optimism-specific NFT campaigns, and want to riff on those with $OP giveaways. We’ve seen over 7k new Optimism x Tally Ho users from the last 3 campaigns.

I’m asking for a little flexibility here because I want our growth team to be able to optimize as we go, making sure we hit as many new users as possible per $OP distributed.

Updating now!

I’d rather stick with the same amount and shorten the distribution with a strong KPI. Updating the proposal to reflect that.

Thank you so much for the feedback!

I’ve updated the proposal to…

  • Clarify the sort of user acquisition campaigns we’d like to run, and the success we’ve had with them so far.
  • Clarify what I believe would be an acceptable minimum KPI at the end of the period (15k Optimism users via Tally Ho). I think we can outperform this by quite a bit, but until the first emission it’s hard to estimate more tightly.
  • Shorten the timeline to 6 months. It’s a bit easier to reason about with annualized numbers than 7 months.

We’d also be interested in sharing details on how each campaign is going on a bi-weekly cadence so the community can learn with us… let me know if you think there’s appetite, and whether here, Discord, or elsewhere would make the most sense!

This suggestion appears fine after the current revisions.
They are completely community-based projects that receive funding through public benefit initiatives like gitcoin grants.

There are two other proposals quite similar to this one:

What all three have in common is that they mean to incentivize wallet users to use Optimism (with the given wallet) and perform some special actions like swapping tokens or holding OP for a specific period of time.

However, all of them lack detailed plans on how they are supposed to distribute funds to the users. The Rainbow team mentioned that they are already working with some people from Optimism Foundation in order to come up with some incentive structure.

I believe that all wallets should have the same incentives structure or at least that their incentive structures should not be competitive - it wouldn’t make sense for Optimism to pay more for swapping tokens in one wallet than in another wallet (of course each wallet is free to additionally reward users for those actions apart from OP rewards). Moreover, Rainbow proposal introduces KPI milestone that needs to be achieved before releasing additional funds (only 30% of the requested amount is released upfront), I believe that the other proposals should also include similar KPI requirements. Given that I believe that a common incentive structure should be obtained before proceeding further with such proposals.

Furthermore, both TallyHo and Ambire proposals include using ~25% of the allocated funds in order to incentivize dApp developers to integrate with their wallets. I believe this part of the proposal should be excluded to a separate one so that community would be able to decide if OP should directly fund this (as this benefits more the wallet itself and not OP ecosystem) and those grants if separated would be substantial by themselves (~100k OP). To be clear - I’m not against OP funding this, just would like to see it separated from the grants to incentivize using Optimism with the given wallet (also to be able to compare those grants as apples to apples).

Moreover, it might be worth considering making sure that OP is not rewarding the same wallet for using Optimism across different wallets. Right now it feels like overkill to me, but from OP perspective it’s quite possible that a single user will farm OP rewards for the same Optimism activity in every wallet with an incentive structure (yet I’m not sure if that’s necessarily bad).

To summarise, what I propose would be to:

  1. Separate wallet integration into separate proposals.
  2. Streamline the work on incentive structure between Rainbow, Tally Ho, and Ambire to have a common incentive schema between wallets (or at least make sure that common parts between wallets are not competitive).
  3. Wait before proceeding with any additional grants related to incentivizing using Optimism in wallets until the common incentive structure is obtained.

Of course, in order for this plan to work it would be necessary to effectively work on the common incentive structure, but each of the projects needs to figure it out before implementing anything anyway, so it seems like a good milestone whatsoever.

I’ve posted a similar comment in the other mentioned thread.


Hey @kaereste, welcome to the forum!

I appreciate your comments, but at this point we’re pretty far along and waiting to hear from the Tooling Committee for voting cycle 8’s recommendations.

Maybe it’s worth starting a new post to talk about cross-proposal organization?

1. Presentation

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

2. About the project

Tally Ho is an open source wallet extension for desktop, introduced as an alternative to mainstream ones like Metamask and Coinbase Wallet.

It’s owned by the community in the sense that the project is in the process of creating a DAO for the continued development of its product. As of today the DAO is not ready and its last major update report was made in July this year.

The wallet works like any other self-custodial wallet, it has features such as charging a 0.5% swap fee from its native application, directly to a multisig labeled treasury managed by 5 members involved in Tally Ho.

External links:

Similar OP Governance proposals:

3. About the following

The proposal was published on September 21 without any news to highlight.

4. About the proposal valuation

  • Added value (good to bad): good. Tally Ho’s spirit as a wallet that aims to be managed by the community is something worth seeing in line with the growth of Optimism, since in theory it is beneficial to have projects that share the same values nearby, and good for the average user.
  • Impact or expected usage (high to low): medium. The experience regarding the use of tally Ho is quite similar to that of other desktop extensions without any novelty that makes it sufficiently attractive over the rest. Despite this being an advantage for users accustomed to Metamask, it is also difficult to find reasons to switch from one wallet to another. It’s up to Tally Ho’s product and marketing strategy to earn its place among regular Optimism users.
  • Current Status [Development stage/Open Source?] (early to ready): ready. The wallet is ready to trade on Optimism, handle ERC20 tokens, NFTs and swaps. Also is open source.
  • Expenditure plan and distribution (appropriate to inappropriate): standard. Subsidies for swaps and bridging are standard incentives and the team has made a commitment to its sybil-resistant OP token distribution implementation, but there is no clear plan yet. It must be taken into account that the application of subsidies in this way will attract more users and more revenue for the treasury in a correlated way. On the other hand, incentives for dApps and growth campaigns are left to the discretion of the team in their strategy with their DAO. One year expected.
  • Amount requested (high to low): mid-high. In terms of time lapse expected, is seems as a intensive incentive program, a reduction would have been desirable.

5. KPIs and impact tracking

As usual, these type of proposals needs to track amount of users bridging and swapping inside the App, and properly doing a following about current status of integrations and opening the door to participation in terms of contributions.


In the same line of Ambire Wallet’s proposal, our final recommendation comes from the fact, that as has been pointed out on the forum - there are many proposals approaching user incentivisation using OP rewards, but there is no common framework for user rewards structure across different projects. It would be unfair if the reward structure differed between projects, so we suggest delaying any further grants toward user incentivisation in wallets until such a framework is formed. After that, each wallet asking for a grant toward user incentivisation should follow this framework of rewards structure.

Furthermore, we recommend separating the work for integrating the wallet with specific dapps into another proposal, so that this aspect can be voted separately.

Once that’s done we would be more inclined to suggest a yes.


Hey @krzkaczor! I appreciate the work you guys are doing here, and I know this season is tight. Thank you for the time you’ve all put in here.

It does indeed seem unfair that the other wallet that shared a proposal after we did — Rainbow — was recommended. Would it make sense if we used the same incentives they did, with the same KPIs? Or is there a reason that structure doesn’t make sense for other wallets?

If we believe Rainbow’s incentive structure is ideal, perhaps we already have a framework… a
pave the cow paths" situation.

This was recommended against by a couple delegates we’ve spoken to, but happy to make this change if it makes more sense to the committee!

I voted yes on this proposal. I’m a fan of open source wallets and like that the intention is to be community owned. I’ve had a positive experience seeing Matt’s work on Threshold / Keep / tBTC (my fund Scalar was an early investor in Keep but does not have ownership in Tally Ho). I think it would be beneficial for the Optimism ecosystem to have Matt and the team working on an open source, community owned wallet since I’ve seen they are mission oriented and long term focused builders.


The committee recommendation of the tooling committee of which I am a member is to abstain and leave it up to each delegate.

I will be voting against the proposal at this point though I am a fan of Tally wallet. The reason is stated in the committee review.

I strongly urge them to reapply next round taking that feedback into account and would be glad to consider the amended proposal and with the user incentivisation framework figured out.


For any other delegates coming here to decide what to do with the committee abstention, I’ll leave you some stats.

  • Over the past 30 days, Tally Ho has been the 7th largest 0x app on Optimism, with over $150k in volume, eclipsing Rainbow, a wallet that was recently voted more OP incentives.
  • Since launch, Optimism has been our most popular network by transaction count.
  • 0 OP will go toward development, which the team completed before our proposal. All incentives will go directly to users.
  • Since this proposal, over 10k new users have installed Tally Ho… >30% growth.
  • Since this proposal, another 60k+ people have signed the Web3 pledge… > 75% growth.
  • So far, we’ve brought over 7k Tally Ho users to Optimism, and we’d love to keep growing together.

Happy to answer questions for anyone on the fence!

1 Like

I voted FOR on this proposal in opposition to the tooling committee’s recommendation. I’ve personally been a user of Tally and have been impressed by their deep commitment to building open source and in public with the community. Additionally, they’ve been quick to support key Ethereum specs like SiWE + L2s like Optimism.

I see Tally as a legitimate alternative to Metamask and given this, their willingness to include and listen to community feedback could lead to an explosion of usage down the road, which in turn would be directed in large part to Optimism.


Snapshot vote - passed

@mhluongo 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 palash@optimism.io