Summary of incorporated feedback
After the first week [DRAFT] of submitting our governance fund proposal for community review, we have constantly been gathering feedback from discord, Optimism team discussion, and the community. Here is the summary of the feedback and how we act In response to them accordingly.
1. Add the specification on which committee type Homora proposal will fall under: Homora is the DeFi’s first leveraged yield farming and lending protocol
2. Reduce the number of requested OP tokens: We benchmarked our protocol organic traction (TVL) to similar protocols and their granted OP tokens from previous voting cycles and decided to lower the number of requested tokens by 20% to reflect our best interest to grow along other protocols on Optimism
3. Adjust allocation of OP tokens: We pushed back the allocation % for contingency usage to only 3% and decided to add that to allocation for builder’s grants instead. The reason is that we agree with the feedback to focus more on allocating the requested tokens to acquire new integration partners in order to leverage synergies between protocols rather than using the granted tokens on operation costs. Also, we refined this section to be more aligned with the previous distribution reflection from the last cycle retrospective.
On this second week [REVIEW] of proposal submission, we have been actively reaching out to the delegates on both discord and telegram to gather more feedback on our proposal. Here is the summary of the delegate feedback and how we act in response to them accordingly.
1. Reduce the number of total requested OP tokens from 1M to 800k: We received feedback from the delegates regarding the too many OP tokens being requested in one round. Therefore, we decided to break down the requested amount into different requests to reflect different milestones acheived.
As a result, we lowered the requested tokens in this 6th voting cycle by another 20% (to 800k OP) to kickstart the first phase of using requested tokens to drive usage on the Optimism ecosystem to show our fairness and sincere intention to grow alongside the Optimism community.
2. Adjust allocation of OP tokens: We cut off the allocation % for contingency usage and distributed the allocation to 80% (640k OP) to be used as Liquidity Mining Incentives on the pools with OP tokens instead to ensure that the OP requested tokens used will be circulating and benefiting back to OP community, delegators, and holders. Another remaining 20% (160k OP) will be used to support new integrations on top of Homora, emphasizing the usage growth even more.
3. Update all the statistics and relevant metrics (ie. Public Grafana dashboard, no. of positions, etc …) to be up to date on a daily basis and include the link to public dashboard ie. DeFillama and DeBank for more transparency
4. Extend the distribution period from 8 weeks to 10 weeks to encourage a more sustainable usage and tractions from requested tokens
could you also update the excel screenshot too, correct me if i am wrong but 3.40TVL increase was possible when 1.12M OP token was requested. How much you expect now ?
I would suggest to reduce the weekly distribution significantly. It seems liquidity on protocol is sticky which is a plus point but you are burning token too fast for my taste.
Not being open source is also a point to consider here, I am more aligned towards OSS. This is my personal view and not of committee, committee is reviewing your proposal and once you have approval from 2 delegate and included in snapshot, we will share our recommendation.
As mentioned earlier, really appreciate your engagement.
Liquidity is sticky, new innovative approach, focused on V3, good tvl in short time after your launch along with liqduity on main net.
I dont like that the protocol is not OSS and high weekly distribution. I assume, we cant do anything about OSS but token distribution still need improvement and I am talking about 5-7K/weekly. Adjust accordingly and focus on 6 month distribution period or even shorter, you can always submit another proposal in future once current incentives are over.
Homora has potential to grow OP ecosystem but not being OSS is against my personal opinion so I will most likely abstain from voting but only if token distribution is adjusted.
Most important, remember that I am really small delegate so making change according to my suggestion does not necessary mean bigger delegate will share the same thought. Check with them too and decide.
From committee stand point, if you feel that your proposal need to be reviewed by DeFi committee A please let me know and I will talk to them.
Hi, appreciate your feedback. We agree to lower the distribution per week to the suggested number and extend the allocation period as a response to that. We are also now finding potential workarounds to address the co-incentives matching and OSS concerns and will keep gathering more feedback from the delegates and incorporate into our proposal once ready.
For the final point, we would appreciate your support to consider and facilitate transferal of our proposal to be reviewed by DeFi committee A. Let me know if you need any more clarifications.
Regarding transfer, we are moving forward with initial distribution so transfer would not be possible.
But please join community call tomorrow, if possible, and raise this topic, always good idea to see what community think. From my side, whole point of distributing the proposal according to block height was to remove bias and distributing individually might raise more concern.
Hello Prima, I don’t think proposals should be transferred to different committees upon request. Defi Committee C has been assigned your proposal, so it is appropriate for them to review and give a recommendation on your proposal in the next round. Transferring this proposal to a different committee for review doesn’t make sense and creates a bad precedent.
Key updates on Homora V2 on Optimism proposal (06 Oct 2022)
1. Proposal submission structure change
Homora V2 will apply the Optimism governance fund with our partner: Ironbank, which is a multi-chain protocol-to-protocol lending platform that provides excess liquidity for leveraging on Homora V2. Thus, the previous Homora V2 on Optimism proposal will now become a co-proposal between Homora V2 and Ironbank.
2. Protocol information update
As a result of (1), key information (contact person, website link) and all relevant metrics relating to the Ironbank protocol will now be included in the proposal.
3. No. of tokens request and allocation
We adjusted the number of tokens requested to the amount that we believe could attract more TVL and activities on Optimism given the contribution of both Homora V2 and Ironbank. We also add the allocation to bootstrap OP lending pools as an additional to only the borrowing side to help lower the amount of OP in circulation.
4. No. distribution period
We extend the distribution period from previous 16 weeks to a total of 50 weeks (roughly 1 year) to show lower the requested tokens burn rate and show our intention to support sustainable growth on Optimism.
Hi, thanks for the feedback. To clarify, we benchmark our protocol TVL contribution with other protocols applying for the grant, so we considered the ask a reasonable amount given that we are applying as a joint proposal between Homora V2 x Ironbank. However, we will take this to the team to reconsider our ask amount.
This update shows significant changes in the proposal:
Ironbank as co-proposer has already meaningfully contributed to (TVL) growth on Optimism incl. the liquidity mining campaign financed with IB tokens
Overall distribution of tokens will still be 80% towards liquidity and 20% for builders. Of the 80%, 15% go to OP lenders on IB which “might” cause less selling pressure than the 85% (680K Op) for liquidity mining of popular Uni V3 pairs.
IB offers co-incentives of 111K IB (current price 3$). Price of IB is trending down though and the marketcap is only $500K USD - hence the effective co-incentives might be much lower.
Distribution of LM rewards over 50 weeks instead of 16 weeks.
Ask increased again from 800K to 1M Op in total.
To summarize our thinking:
Alpha + IB demonstrated already value-add and potential to move significant TVL to Optimism.
6 months distribution of LM rewards would make more sense. (Follow-up proposal possible)
20% (200K Op) Builder incentives can spur additional, sustainable growth.
It’s great to have another place to take out a loan against Op on Optimism. (15% of 80% = 120K Op)
85% of 80% = 680K Op for liquidity mining incentives is still a huge ask.
111K IB as co-incentives on top of leveraged yield farms & lending pools show good will but there is a ? how much that will actually contribute.
→ Maybe reduce Ask by 50%+, stick to distribution over 6 months & create a new proposal when this co-growth program ends, success was demonstrated - incorporating lessons learnt.
Overall, this co-proposal looks stronger than the proposal before. Thank you for bringing in Ironbank. We appreciate the hustle for co-incentives though we are not confident they will be significant due to illiquidity and low floating supply.
Echoing @jackanorak’s comment, we don’t see a good reason for changing the distribution schedule towards 1 year and raising the Ask to 1M - still lacking significant co-incentives.
@prima You mention TVL contribution (see below): Liquidity is very important for protocols to enable traders and other protocols to build on. That said, we should look more at effective liquidity, marginal value added to the Op ecosystem and sustainable incentives, which also means that tokens should not be temporary APY boosters which are instantly sold & less Op incentives are left for the rest of the ecosystem. Some earlier proposals (xToken, Gamma, Uni Staker; all grants) might have gotten a larger amount but it’s important for Optimism to spend Op more wisely going forward to not waste resources, grow the overall ecosystem & not add risk without reward.
We’re seeing that this proposal received approval of these last two delegates. But in the last two days the proposal suffered a lot of changes (even in the title), so I think that its fair that at least @katie@mastermojo can review it again and ratify its approvals. This makes sense to avoid any type of gaming governance process. We know that these approvals doesn´t represent any sponsorship, but anyways this isn’t the proposal that the governance marked as ready to move to snapshot.