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.
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.
6. FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Abstain
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.