[REVIEW] [GF: Phase 1, Voting Cycle 7] Overtime Markets

Couldn’t agree more. This is a great proposal from Overtime and I’m excited to see it pass. I invite other committees to reconsider their recommendations with this new information.

Thanks @Red and @jackanorak


Great update Red; The Synthetix Ambassadors also support this proposal.

Bringing Sports Markets on-chain and making it unique to Optimism is a huge win.

Voting yes can help them flourish on the Optimism ecosystem, and bring new users to the ecosystem.


There are three reasons cited here for the “no” recommendation:

  • the fee rebates would largely accrue to current top users
  • they would likely last a lot longer than 6 months
  • the Thales team still has almost 100% of funds for ecosystem projects

Were these flagged as potential deal breaking details by committee members prior in the two weeks prior? Or are they being raised here for the first time?

the fee rebates would largely accrue to current top users

That argument would make much more sense for a pro rata volume driven incentives, but fee rebates are fee rebates - every trader gets those. Its actually the only distribution mechanism that is impossible to be sybiled or drained by whales.

they would likely last a lot longer than 6 months

I guess this assumption is made by taking into account the historical volume for a protocol that is released two months ago and was in beta with relatively low liquidity caps. We have huge plans for the next month, including releasing Parlays and opening up the Sports AMM to anyone to provide liquidity on the sports they choose, which is likely to 10x the volume and also increase the TVL on Optimism. We hoped these plans would be backed by this grant for max impact.

the Thales team still has almost 100% of funds for ecosystem projects

Idk what this is trying to say, but if its about the Phase0 grant, well Thales distributed almost 50% of it, and in that process it achieved an amazing increase in volume and unique users for the Crypto AMM product, while ensuring the rewards go to the hands of organic users (not sybilers, farmers, etc). I fully believe that Thales is one of the firsts, if not the first protocol that has actually used the majority of Phase0 grant for what it was actually intended, while keeping Optimism’s best interest in mind, instead of hording the tokens in treasury, self-delegating those in governance, paying grants to its developers, or whatever other governance mockery we’ve seen other projects pull to date.

Also, to reiterate a fact said many times: Overtime did not exist during Phase0 allocation.

In general, I do feel like pointing out that this recommendation goes against the sentiment of the Optimism’s community, which was demonstrated both here and in discord’s temp check. And it does so for some wrong assumptions, which makes me wonder if the said DeFi committee has tried the product, watched it grow, or understands the potential of the 50 billion dollars industry we are tapping into here. Ultimately, if this committe does not see the value in supporting Overtime as an Optimism native project, well thats a clear signal by itself.


Pretty baffled by the committee’s recommendation and honestly think this spurs an important conversation around improving Optimism’s governance system.

The summary so far is that a popular Optimism-native protocol - with a unique usecase on the network, that’s already working well and has strong community support - gets turned down based on criticisms and “data” pulled from god knows where that simply doesn’t hold true.

Moreover, all questions and concerns have been answered well by the Thales team IMO.

I don’t understand the reasoning at play in this committee’s recommendation and hope to see them change their view. In any case, I look forward to the committee’s response to @OPGovWatch’s question and the Thales team’s commentaries.


Their recommendation on Overnight was similarly baffling.

They rejected all four proposals this cycle whereas Committee A recommended “yes” for 3/4, but only with a few sentences for each. This doesn’t look good at all.

Overtime Markets is an outstanding project with a terrific, supportive team. As an early adopter and daily user of both Optimism and Overtime Markets, I ask that you further synergize to help you both grow and thrive!

I’m very optimistic you’ll see what I see in Overtime (and Thales)!



refers to this,with respect to the allocation of phase 0

We at ScaleWeb3 would like to share a bit more insight to our (personal) reasoning:

Unfortunately, there was little time for feedback and discussion of this proposal as our committee took it over on a short notice. That said, I, Julian, personally looked into this proposal probably longer than into any other on this forum as we saw great value but were keen to understand the details.

First of, all committee members shared that they appreciate the Thales team‘s contributions, and have acknowledged the value proposition of Overtime and value-add of the current proposal on multiple occasions. (In fact, a committee member is satisfied enough to vote Yes. Prob you‘ll hear that reasoning as well soon.)

Let‘s dive in to the content and why we‘d recommend a slight adjustment of the proposal before resubmission in the next cycle in 2 weeks:

  • Fee rebates: We see why they are needed, that they are hard to game and yet we are a bit worried that they may largely accrue to the current powerusers. Consequently, we are supportive of fee rebates but want to see their impact and how well they do in ONBOARDING NEW USERS FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD as that is the suggested KPI that would add tremendous value to Optimism (See first rewards on Overtime)
  • Co-incentives: This was not detailed enough in our opinion as it completely depends on your governance. From a young project, we don‘t expect huge monetary co-incentives but certainty on incentives, potentially a pre-approval from your community to match x% (or not), would help the evaluation of the proposal.
  • Go-to-market & Onboarding of users from Web 2: The comparison to centralized platforms is great, onboarding of Web 2 users is needed for real, sustainable growth but also a long shot at this early stage. In a comment above you mention web 2 users will learn about web 3 & EVM compatible wallets due to fee rebates (-> better rates on Overtime). If these users are indeed your target audience, you have to do a lot of education, wallet onboarding sessions and much more (also good use of grant money) - we lack a bit of fantasy to see the impact on non-existing crypto user onboarding. Besides that, we initially thought the event focus would include all kinds of online marketing campaigns (also good use of grant funding) but we ultimately came to understand that you want to rather focus on some monetary incentives for markets & competitions. Overall, each of these initiatives is good use of grant funding (and we don’t want to judge the merits of the different initiatives) but there was some detail missing to get a clear picture for the use of funds & onboarding.
  • Traction & Amount Asked: 60 active daily users & almost 950+ unique users are a great achievement for a new Op native project. It‘s important to note though that this behavior has been incentivized with OP and THALES tokens with a loss coverage program & fee rebate program. 300K Op is a significant amount for a project that’s less than 2 months live (!), especially with somewhat unclear co-incentives, distribution, runway.
  • Distribution: We strongly believe in running short incentive programs (up to 6 months) to learn, improve, potentially create another co-growth proposal. (We mentioned that Thales still has unspent tokens for ecosystem projects as we expect them to be spent & to help other delegates understand the full picture, that there are additional funds that could be utilised before offering a second grant - Yes, we know those are different grants, products & it’s totally fair to ask for a new grant!) besides that, Overtime mentioned some incentives would be committed until they are depleted and it was not possible to have a fixed timed emissions. (Totally true for gas tanks & fee reductions based on usage - potentially should be refillable IF campaign is successful?!) Hence, we looked at your current emission schedule or bi-weekly 8000 OP incentives → 100.000+ OP would allow you to run this experiment for 6 months - which is plenty of time to make learnings and draw conclusions to propose even better co-growth initiatives.

@danthales @Red thanks for your response and for the additional data. I can only repeat that we all are supportive of Overtime, genuinely liked the proposal and this was a close call where we were also torn between YES & NO. We understand all delegates who are already satisfied and vote YES. However, we recommend NO as we believe reducing the remaining uncertainties, getting buy-in from your community, and slightly adjusting the Ask will make the proposal better, help with future accountability (+ avoid setting a bad precedent), and resubmitting in 2 weeks (!) is the best way to go.

Good luck with the vote! :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

Hi @danthales and @Red , thank you for providing additional data. Will try to summarize my side on few question raised here as well as on discord.

You are correct, we looked into data and saw that rebates are aligned toward power users and consensus was that we should also focus on on-boarding new users.

On ecosystem fund, I think you are talking about something else because as per author’s comment, 90K $OP allocated for ecosystem project is sitting in the treasury.

We obviously dont want to spend the token furiously but our goal was to understand why its not being used to give a jump start to a new solution developed by the team. This was asked twice but we did not get an answer.

I understand that Overtime did not exist during Phase 0 and when reviewing this proposal we considered Overtime as an independent solution and that is why we are not talking about complete Phase 0 proposal. This is how I see it, an innovative protocol build by team with dedicated fund set aside for ecosystem growth.

Third point was co-incentives. Co-incentives are proposal and protocol specific and I tried to get my doubt clarified, twice.

After not getting a clear answer on the forum, I reached out to the author via DM to collect more information so that we can make an informed decision.

removing text as team might not want to make the detail public. summary is that information was provided on 30% allocation but co-incentives were still not clear

I see some people think I am against the protocol and attacking me. What I would like to insist is that, we are mixing the credibility of protocol with the recommendation of this proposal, we spent significant time reviewing this proposal and looked at it from all angle, one reason for publishing recommendation at the last was because I was waiting for additional information to my DM.

I believe that all proposal should get a fair review and chance to participate in this gov and we should welcome them to Optimism ecosystem through this governance funding. Apart from spending significant amount of time on the forum, usually I reach out to proposal’s author via DM and on discord to understand their side and to collect more information with a goal that final decision is not made in a hurry or on the basis on half-knowledge. Help me understand, what else I should have done from my side.

Like Julian from @ScaleWeb3 has mentioned, we are all supportive of Overtime and believe that its goals are aligned with Optimism and echo his view on resubmitting proposal in 2 weeks than rushing things and setting bad precedence.

1 Like

On DM-s I just gave an example (still non-public unannounced FIFA World Cup promotion) on how the 30% allocation towards Event Driven promotions would look like to support our claims of it being a powerful tool in this type of industry.

The other point of DM is reassuring that any OP token emissions are matched with THALES tokens, but that it is better to not throw numbers before it’s time, because it is impossible to find a perfect balance of co-matching before it’s time to deploy the programs. Co-incentive numbers we say now may not be in balance when the time comes to deploy the said programs, and this claim is in benefit to the guidelines of co-matching and should not be seen as uncertainty. I am kind off confused how you folks managed to see it under that lens.

The 90k OP allocation is reserved as grants for third party builders on top of Thales Protocol, and that is how it is cemented ever since Phase 0 allocation. We take our commitments to Optimism Governance seriously and would feel like doing bad by the community of builders and evading Phase 0 promises by using these 90,000 OP tokens towards a product that is not built by Third Party Community builders but by the core team. Again, confuses me that this also is taken as a flaw in our commitments instead of a positive precedent.

Hope this gives more context to both @OPUser and @ScaleWeb3 messages above.


Thales has matched all OP incentives to date with 1 to 1 THALES incentives in dollar value at the time. Given that’s more than 400k OP tokens distributed already, we likely felt there is some empiric trust already established, as we are known good actors within this ecosystem, and that we dont have to throw in specific numbers as we already said we will be co-incentivizing.

But as that seems very important to committee members, I am happy to commit that we are to match all Overtime OP incentives with equal dollar value of THALES tokens taking a 7 days twap dollar value.


Respectfully, this proposal was not taken on short notice. This was one of the one of three proposals originally assigned to the committee.

The other two (Curve and Homora) both made last minute changes, had delegates remove their support, and withdrew. This was technically the only proposal the committee was obligated to review.

Keeping our recommendations brief is intentional. The purpose of committees was to limit the workload on other delegates. As a delegate myself, I don’t find posts that repeat the components of a proposal helpful. We keep our recommendations short and concise in order to limit the burden of information overload on fellow delegates.

1 Like

This is really good of the team.

But I also understand that they used the tokens for incentives from the same phase 0, to incentivize Overtime.

Why not continue to incentivize Overtime with Phase 0 funds?

  1. Because phase0 allocation has been 50% distributed already with the remaining allocation reserved for other buckets long before Overtime came to life
  2. Who is to say that we wont try to reallocate more of remaining OP tokens towards Overtime? We strongly believe in Overtime and you better believe we will try our earnest to make it a huge success story for both Thales and Optimism.

300k OP tokens ask was made with the aim to avoid contention for smth that is clearly a promising product. I am not making a case that 300k is a trivial amount, but so many projects with much less to show in both traction and aligned interests have been endorsed, and you are throwing a fight against allies here.

Many chains are eager to have Overtime and have reached out, but I speak at least for myself in saying that I want to maintain it Optimism native for the foreseeable future. However, we have a governance in place that is watching this proposal very closely, so I feel some committee members should zoom out a bit from their typical poorly written NPC AI questions and consider the community’s sentiment, PR and the bussiness side of their recommendations.

Respectfully, we went above and beyond with details in this proposal and in replying to your questions, so I dont feel there is value in more of the same arguments.
I will leave you to your best judgement.


I think it could potentially be helpful to take more of a hybrid approach where you provide a short TLDR with a link to a more detailed review of the proposal.

That way someone who just wants a thumbs up or thumbs down can get it and anyone looking for more details on how you arrived at you conclusions has that option.

As I mentioned in Discord today, I think it’s important to make sure that protocols feel their work was understood, accurately represented, and fairly evaluated. Especially in the context of a “no” recommendation. I think this would help.

This could also help the two committees to ensure there is a reasonable degree of consistency in their evaluations so the current delta in their approval rates (currently 75% for Committee A vs 33% for Committee B) doesn’t become more egregious.

1 Like

There is no requirement that the DeFi Committees have similar approval rates or that even such a metric should concern people. It’s very plausible their approval/denial ratios are different because they’re evaluating different projects. Calling differences in outcomes “egregious” is just an invented metric used to discredit the work of one or both committees.


I read this threat from beginning to end and I’am puzzled and pretty disappointed how you end up thinking requested amount is too high for Overtime product and rejected maybe the best written and deserved project on OP.

I mean I do not get what they need to provide you to get additional funding ?

One of a kind product which does not existing anywhere else on blockchain, they give you growth numbers which no other project has and you are simply questioning how the numbers would be if there is no incentives at first place ? really ?

I thought all purpose of OP token was to drive new users and volume

I think this decision is a disgrace for OP platform and you guys really should think again about how your committee give their decisions and what their real intentions are