[WITHDRAWN] Development of onchain Sports Markets infrastructure and Integration Kit

How would $750k justify 2 contracts and a deployment script? They keep defending this but the actual proposal doesnt show any of what theyre saying. They wanted $1.5m. Tbh this isnt personal, didnt say they were, said this proposal was. I base this on whats in it obj not by some vision.

As far as I understand the whole Missions initiative, the mission request draft emphasizes a request and focuses on rationale, motivation, and it is up to the mission applicants to provide detailed specs and architecture on their application.

This is NOT a grant proposal and a request for 250,000 OP; This is a mission request and Optimism-wide open tendering.

This has a spec which grants will meet for that OP.

What is required to execute this Delegate Mission Request?

  • Development of permissionless Market Making and Collateral smart contracts on Optimism for Sports Markets that preferably use decentralized oracle solutions for getting Sports Data on chain
  • Development of API or SDK Integration Kit that communicates with the previously mentioned smart contracts backend that can be used to deploy the supported Sports Markets on any integrating platform

A request will be met with a prop to do this and needs to only do this for 750k.

Come on Pr0, engage with others with patience, kindness, and extreme civility.

2 Likes

Dont see why you’d not be able to say a proposals a scam if its charging 750k for 2d of code, which btw they wanted 1.5m for before. It wasnt personal it was about the proposal, my reasoning is clear why believe this to be the case. If a proposal is made with tiny actual deliverables, uses comms to over-sell the effort required, then makes claims about it that arent in the scope, then do we really need to support them as we would real proposals. If you are only allowed to be positive and never honest then this process will guaranteed not only continue to have bad actors which we all have seen many of but it takes funds away from real proposals.

I am optimistic but if see reason to call a proposal out, note never mention any personal aspect, should i not? The high roads why this space has so many grifts and scams and why they do so well and why crypto has the rep it does outside. If the CoC is that tight that you have to only be positive then tbh dont see why I am here as a del to approve these on behalf of a token house, because its not in the interest of token holders to only be supportive, because itll create more bad actors, leak more tokens to fund them to continue, deepen influence and let others know its worth a shot to do.

Dont understand why everyones so scared for any conflict when we’re dealing with what was 1.5m in funds. Theres been a buncha times have gone out of my way to clarify shit that seemed could be exploited, only to see others already doing it, its the reason noone knew that grants were being commited to others, that services were taking cuts from grants with no disc. Tbh have been a full time builder in this space for long and built more projects than most people in crypto have interacted with, and people have called them a scam many, many times but didnt take it personal because i always can back it up so like when its done because lets me show and usually convince them. This proposal does not, it oversells very small deliverables, claims unrelated scope/misdirects outside the deliverables, claims that i didnt do ‘basic reading of the mission request.’ which is a personal misdirect.

‘this proposed infra to build a collateralized user friendly sports markets application (mobile or not) with out-of-the-box on-demand market making for 100s of individual sports games.’

Do you see this in either of these?

What is required to execute this Delegate Mission Request?

  • Development of permissionless Market Making and Collateral smart contracts on Optimism for Sports Markets that preferably use decentralized oracle solutions for getting Sports Data on chain
  • Development of API or SDK Integration Kit that communicates with the previously mentioned smart contracts backend that can be used to deploy the supported Sports Markets on any integrating platform

This is a mission request not a grant application.

The discussion in this topic should be whether such a mission brings value to Optimism, and if yes, whats a fair evaluation of funding needed to execute such a mission.

If you disagree with the estimates, that’s totally fine, but calling proposers a scam, is totally unfound for…

If voted in, the mission will be available for anyone to apply.

I do find it baffling why such a superstar, who can code entire protocols end-to-end in 2 days and bring them to market, chooses to spend his time in this forum arguing and insulting proposers…

On the mission proposal itself, there is no doubt that sports betting, as a 42 billion dollar industry, with known issues around accessibility and centralized trust factors in web2, is a great fit for decentralized blockchains and smart contract application.

Vitalik himself reiterates his belief that prediction markets and sports betting might just be the catalyst needed to take blockchain usage to next level in his latest blogpost https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/1752291413503729751?t=S2ypBnfDwFYezM7mcywamQ&s=19.

The discussion can be around whats a fair estimate, but there can hardly be a justified argument that such a mission, if executed successfully, does not bring huge potential value to Optimism chain.

Fully support this and I think sports markets have potential to onboard more and more users, theres definitely an external market here. Seems to expand the general TAM for Optimism/other appchains within the OP stack.

1 Like

Interesting that the first protocol mention by this mission creator ‘From the top of my head, the most prominent projects building in this infrastructure direction already and probably capable of applying and executing on this missions requirements on the Optimism network are: Thales Protocol’, that theyhavelinks to this protocol, that now you also from this protocol join in. Many of these are grant requests just being shown as missions but usually with a team in mind.

‘proposers a scam’, no, just the proposal and said why.

On the mission proposal itself the deliverables are a few h of dev.

there is no doubt that sports betting, as a 42 billion dollar industry, with known issues around accessibility and centralized trust factors in web2, is a great fit for decentralized blockchains and smart contract application. This is not rel atall its like saying oh the USD has 40tn supply, heres a usd synth contract, now thatll be
$750k pls.

This is all just sales bs trying to make it look like this mission creates a deep market. Which this proposal does not, its

  • Deliverables on smart contracts development required as a sports trading base layer
  • Deliverables on API or SDK development required to have easily integratable sports trading base layer for all developers on Optimism.

The discussion can be around the just estimate, but there can hardly be a justified argument that such a mission, if executed successfully, does not bring more than 2 contracts and a deployment script since ‘What is required to execute this Delegate Mission Request? 2 contracts and a deployment script’.

I do not find it baffling why such a protocol who has already gotten $4m in OP, $500k in arb and now attempts to get another 500k in OP (now 250k) continues to try extract funds. Because u keep getting it.

The proposer and myself are not shying away from the fact that we are in a related niche as the mission request.

I believe most missions should be and are written and proposed by those understanding what it takes to fulfill those missions.

You have no high ground to call bias as you have admitted to be a founder of a similar protocol.

Your claim that building and delivering an automated liquidity, market making and resolution layer for sports betting with decentralized oracles is 2 smart contracts and a script just shows lack of fundamental understanding of what it means to build a successful protocol, which one can easily see by checking the protocols you have listed in your bio.

Yes, every mission proposal and every line written here has an agenda. It’s in the synergies of proposers, applicants and voters that best missions and results can be expected for Optimism ecosystem.
Your own agenda here of being loud and calling grifts and scams is nothing else than a poor attemp at bringing attention to yourself and leaching potential paid positions or airdrops within OP.

Thales has a known history of building tools and products that have been used and benefited thousands of users on Optimism. It has been widely praised for its efficient, fair and productive usage of previous grants. Do your research before you choose where to larp for attention.

If you want to flex forum links, you should also be well acquainted with this one that objectively analyzes and praises how Thales has used previous grants OP Reward Impact Analysis: Thales(Phase 0).

That said, this is not a grant request and Thales is in no way guaranteed to have direct benefit from this mission request, so get your facts straight.

Being a founder is def why can call out bias. Alright now you are personal which is a red flag.

‘and leaching potential paid positions or airdrops within OP.’
What paid positions or airdrops, am here completely for free as a del, because want to contribute

Your claim that building and delivering an automated liquidity, market making and resolution layer for sports betting with decentralized oracles from

  • Development of permissionless Market Making and Collateral smart contracts on Optimism for Sports Markets that preferably use decentralized oracle solutions for getting Sports Data on chain
  • Development of API or SDK Integration Kit that communicates with the previously mentioned smart contracts backend that can be used to deploy the supported Sports Markets on any integrating platform

shows lack of fundamental understanding of what it means to build any protocol.

GM! Please note that this is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect the views of GovNerds or the Anticapture Commission.

I appreciate the insights from both sides, and I believe your concerns stem from your deep appreciation for Optimism. I encourage both of you to express your differing opinions respectfully, as you are both valuable members of the Collective.

Regarding the mission…

First, I would like to inquire if the proposer is interested in applying themselves? I believe the sports market holds great potential and would like to see more teams exploring it. Are you open to reducing your budget and considering multiple applicants? I think a lower budget would be beneficial, allowing projects to apply for RetroPGF based on the impact they contribute to the collective. The total budget for the entire intent is 1.33M OP, so I believe this allocation may consume a significant portion of it, limiting the opportunity for different teams to propose their approaches.

2 Likes

Thank you for the constructive feedback!

I can be considered a novice in the realm of Mission Requests, Intents and Collective Trust Tiers and this is exactly the guidance and feedback I need. I think your suggestion makes perfect sense and perhaps the highest impact from this mission might be achieved via allowing multiple applicants to fulfill this Foundation Mission. I must admit that I was not familiar with the exact total budget of this intent and considering this fact, I think lowering the amount further makes perfect sense.

For your inquiry on if the proposer is interested in applying themselves, the answer is yes. We share your vision of the high potential of sports markets and are on the active initiative to invite more focus on that specific niche from the Optimism ecosystem and the collective.

Further on the topic of allowing multiple applicants to apply and fulfill this mission, there is also a potential in starting a healthy competition within the Sports Markets niche in the Optimism ecosystem via this Mission Request alone. It can also potentially motivate projects native to other networks to consider Optimism deployment to be a part of this initiative? All this can only benefit the end goal of this mission, which is to cultivate a healthy Sports Markets industry growth on Optimism both for developers and users.

I propose the following changes to the draft:

  • Reduce Baseline grant amount from 250,000 OP to 150,000 OP
  • Change the value of Should this Foundation Mission be fulfilled by one or multiple applicants from One to Multiple

CC: @mastermojo

Seems pretty aimed right? One of the team are even in here. Tbh no matter who does it the scopes not worth more than 10k. Why does this need $400k

  • Development of permissionless Market Making and Collateral smart contracts on Optimism for Sports Markets that preferably use decentralized oracle solutions for getting Sports Data on chain
  • Development of API or SDK Integration Kit that communicates with the previously mentioned smart contracts backend that can be used to deploy the supported Sports Markets on any integrating platform

I was a pretty enthusiastic supporter of previous grants issued to Thales and Overtime so I hope everyone recognizes this as an attempt to bridge the gap here.

Sports betting is an enormous vertical to tackle—in TAM, in difficulty, in regulatory burden, the list goes on. It seems unlikely that putting out a generic call for “sports betting” as an RFP will yield much good, and I suspect that the thing being proposed here is too narrow in scope to amount to much of a moved needle. Ultimately for something like this, instead of taking one of these two directions on a Mission Request, we’re probably better off just making Optimism a generically good place to launch projects and seeking out promising projects to attract.

I think we should just do away with the pretense and have Thales submit a properly scoped application through the Grant Council. Despite their protests, this mission request is pretty transparently geared for them, and they can get more latitude to design a proposal that is actually suited to them as opposed to a mission request whose actual deliverable has been credibly called into question. How’s that sound?

A big problem I see with governance is that not enough builders actually spend time in here helping to shape the direction of the ecosystem instead of coming around once every few months simply to ask for grants. Let’s not shame people for actually putting the work in through helping sift through Mission Requests or through providing useful tooling for the ecosystem—all uncompensated, no less.

Respectfully, I was responding to very aggresive language going as far as calling proposers/proposal a scam.

I feel that whether a proposal is concise enough and estimated properly can be discussed without using such an approach.

On top of that, the efforts that many projects put into usurping one of the biggest and fastest growing retail industries are constantly ridiculed using the “2 contracts” or “2 days” guesstimates.

Projects have spent years and million in investments and still barely scratch the surface of this industry that I personally find a great fit for decentralization ethos.

While I might not be regularly active on the governance forum, it does not mean that I dont invest a lot of my time and energy continuosly working on improving and expanding the Optimism ecosystem. Granted, I am more active in tech aspects than governance.

On the mission itself, our understanding was that those potentially applying are invited to help shape exact missions.
There are a number or projects that may choose to leverage such a mission and expand on Optimism (besides Overtime):

  • Azuro
  • Goal3
  • SXbet
  • BookieBot
  • Purebet
  • Spongly
  • Polymarket (yes, they want to expand more in sports)

Frankly, we were encouraged to write such a mission by active delegates.

This mission is in no way intendent as a replacement or otherwise “grant in disguise”.
If thats how some prominent delegates choose to deem it, then yes, it should be retracted so we dont continuosly argue around that perception going forward.

2 Likes

Based on all the received feedback and advice, I am formally withdrawing this mission request.