Ultimately agree and def would be more supportive of a 1:1 grant → 300K Op Ask.
Generally been thinking about OP price & mcap in the following way (napkin math, very simplified)
- Large sell pressure from all the incentives and potential future airdrops given out
- Growth of ecosystem, OP usage & investor mindshare will offset some-most of the sell pressure
- There is a bottom price that larger investors may pick up based on interesting FDV (0.5$?)
- Tech expansion & economics advances, overall move to l2, short-term narratives can lead to (deserved?) price breakouts to 2-5$ but will be sold off by Op recipients so that price fluctuates around ≈1$ while marketcap grows towards FDV.
For proposals, we’d expect to follow more or less the following template
- Current Price
- 30-day TWAP should be pretty fair, updated when it moves to voting
- 7-day TWAP at payout day would be better; but would require Ask in USD & Foundation input
- Comparable Proposals / Project Size / Return for the Optimism ecosystem
- -10K USD: Instant grants for small tools, bounty work, etc.
- 10K-50K USD: Small grants for teams/startups/dev funding
- 50-300K USD: Growth program for early-stage, smallcap project with significant value-add
- 300K-1M USD: Onboarding top teams/projects, co-initiatives w/ significant growth expectations
- 1M+ USD: Exceptional growth opportunities
Obv would be great to judge proposals purely by outcomes but many are early stage, public goods, nice-to-have tools and outcomes will be multi-dimensional (team, liquidity, user, building block onboarding, etc.).
Really looking forward to more data like this, this and this for learnings from past initiatives but you’d need to control again for all the projects (Galxe’s temporary OP Quest boost, Internal Settlement TXs, etc.)