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

I read through the contracts, docs, and dug into the yield strategies and position sizes before commenting. Correct me if I’m wrong on this summary:

What Optimism stands to gain:

  • Liquidity and support for the USD+ stablecoin token
  • Some cross-polination of defi users from your dapps on other chains
  • Verbal promise to use Optimism as a test bed for new features before other chains

What Optimism must give up:

  • 400,000 OP, most of which will be liquidated for other stables behind the scenes for funding and yield rewards

On the face of it, this is a critical comment. I’m still not a fan of mercenary incentives, but it DOES bring users. I’m just not convinced it’s users that anyone actually wants or gets to keep in the long-term.

I always prefer incentives that bring in users who are doing something. This does look like a repackaging of existing value – but you’re hardly alone in that!

A money market fund is actually somewhat useful. I would be more receptive to this proposal if USD+ innovated more on the backing / stability side. We really need stablecoin innovators

If this were just a safe play to get people into your ecosystem so that you can later convert them into your really exciting product ideas, that would also be more enticing. Could you share some of the experiments you’re considering trying on optimism?

Thanks for submitting and deploying on Optimism. Congratulations on the launch. This network is special. I just want to see our dapps mirroring that ethos too


I would point to ETS, a delta neutral quasi stable strategy, as a truly innovative product - we deployed it already on OP, in particular, OP/USDC ETS (it is live on our dapp and you can try investing in it). The vision is to build ETS that’s sustainable long term, independent of rewards. That can only be accomplished on Uni V3. We have deployed 4 prototypes on OP and are collecting performance data - contrasting various liquidity mining strategies. So it is not just a promise, but proper R&D. Surely, getting both Gamma and Arrakis very nervous:)

What we look to do is to bring from prototype to production the quasi-stable ETS based on UNI-V3, then build insurance for it, then have insured parts of ETS underlie USD+. This way we would arrive to a stablecoin that has sustainable, native source of yield, low-risk and insured. That’s what we have been building on Polygon, but could be much more exciting to accomplish on OP.

Last but not least: once OP is available on Aave, we will build a truly scalable ETS based on OP/USDC (we are currently limited by Granary’s very shallow liquidity) and potentially OP+ in case there is demand for it. So that certainly would create more demand for OP than we ever dump.

Ah. I didn’t really look into ETS. That’s on me. I’ll go back through the docs in a bit

1 Like

I like that this will attract users to OP that are looking for high yield on stable coins and then the collateral will be invested in other protocols on OP like Pika and Rubicon. Win-Win-Win

I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - #42 by solarcurve ] with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.

1 Like

I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - #136 by jackanorak ] with sufficient voting power. I believe this proposal is ready to be reviewed and voted on.

1 Like

@jackanorak @solarcurve thank you so much for supporting!

An update on Overnight metrics since proposal submission:

  • USD+ has reached 3,83M in TVL, 281 users
  • ETS OP/USDC has reached its maximum cap of 100K, provoking the OP borrowing rates on Granary to exceed 52% APY, attracting meaningful deposits into granary
  • Overnight has provided close to 4M of Liquidity to various OP protocols: Pika, Rubicon, Beethoven, Velodrome (most in OP/USDC pool), Granary

@OPUser @jackanorak @solarcurve @StevenSchrembeck

1 Like

Hi @_Max_plus , Thank you for tag tag and update. I just notice that your proposal is there on the roundup thread. Did you add it after the deadline ? When I collected all proposal assigned to DeFi committee, your proposal was not there hence its not assigned to any defi committee.

I published the proposal more than a week prior to the deadline, also submitted it via discord. I added the proposal to the thread Maybe, 1-2 hours after deadline - the process has changed vs. what was there before so there is some confusion with how to move it forward. Is it possible to assign it please?

Given this is a new / confusing process and DeFi Committee B has 1-2 open slots it does not feel unreasonable to extend a grace period to projects like Overnight and Abracadabra.

Thank you so much. Really appreciate it.

The process is totally fine - I got confused as I had not clarified the changes to the previous one upfront

I totally understand your position but rules and process should apply to each proposal equally and including a proposal now will not be a good idea.

My suggestion is to wait for next cycle which will start in just 2 weeks.

1 Like

I submitted proposal 2 weeks ago, submitted to discord 10 days ago, wrote to multiple committee members 1 week ago asking what I was doing wrong - I was pointed to cycle 7 thread only 1 hour after deadline, and submitted it 1 hour after… I know it is my fault, but maybe, some moderator on the forum, or in discord could have commented that I had been following the old process, as well as point to this critical deadline

You can send in the next cycle. We must understand as governance that we must be orderly and fair to all equally. I understand that some delegates have an interest in moving some projects to cycle 7, but this can bring disorder to governance. As we move forward the processes will be more fluid.

Changes or exceptions should be for everyone equally, we should not mix our own interests whether delegate or protocol with governance.

I am not the proposer. I am an advocate for effective OP governance.

Everyone who has weighed in on Discord so far does not see an issue in allowing them to proceed. Please join the conversation there.

We are here to support builders and grow Optimism, not recreate a rigid bureaucratic state.

I am in discord and follow the conversations.

I always support the builders so I think it has to be equal for everyone at all times.

I think if you think order and neatness is bureaucracy you are wrong.

You can check that not everyone has given their opinion yet.

this was posted on the 22nd of september, on the 26th i asked for feedback, when noone answered - i followed up with 4 different delegates in direct messages, including @OPUser, asking what i was doing wrong and why discussion of our proposal was not taking place. i was not aware the process changed so much

but indeed, rules are rules and we will wait 2 more weeks - thank you


It seems as if there is popular support for moving your proposal forward amongst delegates. Your project should not be punished for a governance system that is still working out the kinks.