[REVIEW] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Overnight.fi

this logic is highly flawed - favours incumbents at the expense of innovators, regardless of the fundamentals. not to mention, that 1OP in the previous epochs was more than 1OP today.

ultimately, we commit to provide 250K USD of incentives from our side. thats the only objective benchmark that should influence the size of the grant. the rest is not as objective, can always be argued as comparing ‘apples and oranges’

1 Like

Recommendation from DeFi committee C


The proposal describes broad potential value-adds to Optimism and the Op distribution lacks some specifics. It was a late submission and the latest discussion & incorporation of feedback seems to lead to some positive changes.

Overnight is developing the USD+ stablecoin. USD+ is USD that pays you a return through a daily rebase. It is 100% collateralized with other stablecoins (USDC, BUSD, USDT, USDT, DAI, etc.) that are invested on-chain in “low-risk strategies” such as LPing on stables, lending & more. The integration of a yield-generating stable in the Optimism ecosystem can have benefits for Optimism users. Whether Overnight can help with better liquidity & trade efficiency on top stables is still unclear at this point in time.

Overnight is an early stage project that intends to make Optimism its ‘innovation hub’. It has gathered a total TVL of more than $7+ Mio, and since its launch on Optimism in early September there is a clear trend towards Optimism (55% of TVL).

The yield strategies have decent APYs but one is capped at 100K (133 users; cap due to liquidity of underlying protocol), and others have attracted only a few 1K$ and users; and strategies will likely not offer 10%+ APYs with larger TVL amounts.

With this funding they also want to work on extending their ETS product line (currently 16 users on Op) along other “+” features.

Overnight does not have all the contracts public, it has closed open source portfolio rebalancing algorithms behind ETS until at least the public sale of the OVN governance token.

50% for Overnight products liquidity mining on Optimism. Approx 8K $OP/week for 6 months.
25% for expansion of “”+""and ETS product lines
25% for building insurance product: this would de-risk entire Overnight ecosystem: both USD+ and ETS

200K $OP for LP reward and 200K for product and feature development.

Willing to match 100% of liquidity mining incentives along with llocating 50K USD worth of BAL received from Balancer for building boosted pool with USD+ on an L2 towards Beethoven’s USDC/DAI boosted pool.

Overnight is a protocol that is in its early stages. In the future we can evaluate if they are aligned to the Optismim ecosystem.


The protocol has not published its contracts and is in its initial stages. It is in an experimental stage, we are waiting for a bit more maturation, organic traction of the protocol where a better evaluation of product-market-fit can be made before incentivizing growth.

The co-incentives are solid, the trend towards building on Optimism and attracting TVL is also positive. Despite that, the positive impact on the Optimism ecosystem is still to be seen, for example whether incentives for Overnight and USD+ would cannibalize organic liquidity on Optimism DEXs and the success of the different yield strategies.

We recommend to possibly create two proposals: one for protocol incentives and another for development funding. A focus on the slightly more mature “+” product with a lower Ask, similarly good co-incentives & a clearly detailed LP / bribe distribution plan in a subsequent proposal could be a good starting point for spurring additional growth on Optimism for Overnight & Optimism.

Note :- This proposal was also an edge case at it was included in the cycle round up thread after the defined deadline. As there is no rule or process defined for such scenario, committee is considering this an exception.

cc @_Max_plus

Our past recommendation is available on committee recommendation thread.


We’re truly looking forward to get the best projects, teams on Optimism and to support new projects and innovative applications that can bring new users, liquidity or open up verticals for the Op ecosystem.

A larger project that has been around for some time, has 100s of Mio in marketcap and in assets under management, is likely to have a bigger impact in the near-term and give a better return on large co-incentives invested. On the other side, we don’t think you require millions in grant funding to launch an app and get initial traction to prove yourself - before co-incentivizing additional growth.

A comprehensive look at track record, AUM, active users, marginal value-add seems to make most sense.

These co-incentives look juicy. Hope to see a slightly adjusted proposal if you don’t get a YES this round. Good luck!

1 Like

The defi shadow committee which is not an official committeesupports this proposal.

Overnight have achieved strong organic growth by any measure on Optimism ($4.5M in a single month, several thousands of wallets, trading volume way above their weight), which is likely to continue as they launch their next wave of products across multiple partner protocols.

Their proposal is among the only ones to identify a target user segment, one that does indeed happen to remain active: the risk-averse stablecoin yield maximizer. We think there is plenty of meat on the bone here and see an opportunity to siphon a lot of interest from Mainnet.

More broadly, this is a killer team that’s hit the ground running on Optimism with little help, and they’re going after a user segment that remains active in crypto while promising to make more use of a range of DeFi protocols. Their core ask is one that we know lends enduring value-add to Optimism’s DeFi eco, and supporting ETS (i.e., increasing the headroom available) seems like a likely winner as well considering the consistent uptake.

They say they want to make Optimism an “innovation hub” — we take them at their word. We’ve seen an extraordinary amount of energy and engagement from them in the past month, seemingly everyone’s been hit up for a partnership, and they have a lot of ideas.

Sometimes it’s up to Optimism to show these standout teams that we’re open for business.


Voted yes - Although this is against the Defi Committee C recommendation, the co incentives and the token distribution look really good and would definitely drive OP growth. I don’t see a downside so I’m in support of this proposal.


I encourage delegates to follow @katie’s lead here in voting for the proposal, despite the official recommendation of committee b.

Overnight is a project that we helped attract away from Polygon and is definitely one we want to retain. They genuinely seem to have an innovative product on their hands and are a super sharp team. The “self-bribing” aspect of USD+ pairs on Velodrome is very impressive and will reduce the need in the long term for $OP or other incentives in order to attract significant stable TVL from L1 and competitive L2s.

If you haven’t already check out the shadow committee’s review here: DeFi Shadow Committee: Season 2 Recommendations - #14 by jackanorak

cc: @quix @linda @polynya @lefterisjp


We at ScaleWeb3 would like to share a bit more insight to our reasoning - especially as @katie mentions there is no downside. We’ll just briefly focus on Op distribution:

  • 50% for Overnight products liquidity mining on Optimism (spread between Velodrome and Balancer)

→ one can discuss the value of liquidity mining but we are largely supportive of this part for a product that is currently gaining traction.

  • 25% for expansion of "+"and ETS product lines:

→ these products are very new & we’d like to see more traction before potentially incentivising products that may loose users money.

  • 25% for building insurance product

→ this is very abstract so far, probably makes more sense to resubmit in a follow-up proposal.

We felt strongly about this proposal not being at the standard of other proposals when reviewed. Part of this distribution is for products not well-specified and 400K Op is a very large Ask for a new project.

Meanwhile we joined a Discord AMA of Overnight which gave us more confidence in the team and we are sure a resubmission for the next cycle focusing on the first product & LM campaign somewhere in the region of 200K OP and future proposals re other products will be better for Overnight and Optimism.

That said, good seeing these discussions when they focus on the contents, seeing delegates not blindly following committee decisions and seeing generally support for Overnight from other builders in the ecosystem.


Thanks. Great that you joined the community - we would welcome more people to our Ama on - it is every Monday at 3 pm UTC. Also would be glad to conduct the Ama for OP collective in OP discord

One point why considering why voting now could be an option is, unfortunately, OP price decline. We are offering 250k USD+ in coincentives and requested 400 OP, when it was very close to 400K USD. With current OP price, 400k OP grant just slightly exceeds the amount of coincentives.

With the market ‘reducing our appetite’, maybe, you can see it as request which has already been downsized by >25%.

1 Like

Thank you for doing the gatekeeping.

I want to mention that 100K on ETS was filled in a single day with just 16 address, all the rewards dedicated for ETS will go to them. 100K OP distributed to just 16 addresses . We request that ETS need some maturity.

50% or 200K OP is going towards development, to teams pocket without any plan of accountability. This was discussed with Max and he agreed to provide more information but as of now it will be major mistake to approve 200K OP going directly towards Team and 16 addresses getting 100K OP.

I don’t mind resubmitting, but just for the record: you are referring to OP/USDC ETS, which had to be capped to 100k.because of lack of borrowing options for OP (Granary has major liquidity constraints, creating very serious interest rate risk if we alleviate the cap and/or promote that ETS). It is so high yielding, that it needs no promotion and won’t be promoted.

we have multiple ETSes, including ETH/USDC based, with no caps at all. The plan is to promote those. For ETS, as it is a rebase token, we will establish pools of USD+/ETS on Velodrome, with no limitations to participate, and will promote ETS via bribing those pools. No club deals and no limitations. All will be super transparent and in your full control

1 Like

I have now counted six times in this thread that you or members of your committee have misunderstood or misrepresented details of the protocol or proposal and have had to be corrected by the proposing team. This makes it difficult to take your objections at face value or trust in the wisdom of your recommendation, even as I too believe more details in a few areas would be beneficial.

@_Max_plus would you be willing to speak in a bit more detail to @OPUser’s suggestion that over half of the grant is going directly to the team and 16 wallets?

Nono-Opuser looked in-depth at USD+ and ETS and understands it deeply and greatly. I had not specified ETS would go to Velodrome and be incentivized via bribes. That’s the best way, but not obvious to figure unless I’m specific about it - that’s on me.

We are in direct contact with Nono

@_Max_plus I’m referring to this portion. Delegates are actively voting right now and I’m trying to understand if you believe this is accurate as it is why he is recommending a no vote.

As I understood, the biggest issue was our ask for grant for development activities. Overall, I have been encouraged to reapply for LM incentives.

Although, obviously not waiting is better than waiting

Thank you, Max. Like discussed, with words changed and few additional information we will be at better position.

Its just sad that others are trying to drag you and your proposal in mud just to bring me down. Alex expressed his view and I expressed mine. I have seen your LinkedIn profile and you are in business for some time, think of this a office politics just more worse and sadly they are using your shoulder.

Anyway best of luck with the voting, I am seeing gatekeeping by Velo team and i pointed it out but now I will stay away from commenting further. If you get approval, stay with us and participate in gov as we we are in dire need of support from community and if not, tty in 8 days.

1 Like

The proposal as written is currently being voted on in Snapshot and could still potentially pass. As we are seeing with the Overtime and Dope War proposals looking likely to pass, the delegates are the final say and not the committees.

Your proposal has earned the support of both the Shadow Committee and at least one major member of DeFi Committee A. They did not share same point-of-view as Committee B rejection. That is why I’m encouraging you to clarify if you think OPUsers statement is accurate. Voters will no doubt check this thread before casting a vote, so if they read that it may inform their decision.

You are also free to simply concede the committee’s recommendation and resubmit if that is your preference.

I must say I sent the review by Jack and Alex to our VCs:) I am very flattered, but also share key points. Feel we will get there in due course

I obviously prefer to get support in this round and willing to clarify key points.

Who is doing this and how? I was not playing office politics. I voiced my support for their proposal. Just like Katie did. Why are you making me the subject of the conversation?

If you are going to use another protocol’s thread to attack us, at least have the courage to back it up. Innuendo is cowardice. I intentionally didn’t reply to your first jab as I didn’t want to pile on, but by all means find a place to air your grievances. This is insanely immature behavior.

For the record, Max that review came from the Shadow Committee which includes a bunch of folks (none of which are me). :wink:

1 Like