Project name: DefiLlama
Author name and contact info (please provide a reliable point of contact for the project): 0 xngmi (@Oxngmi on telegram, @ 0 xngmi on twitter)
I understand that I will be required to provide additional KYC information to the Optimism Foundation to receive this grant: Yes
L 2 recipient address: 0 x 08 a 3 c 2 A 819 E 3 de 7 ACa 384 c 798269 B 3 Ce 1 CD 0 e 437 (can be verified in defillama.com through our donate button or through this tweet)
Which Voting Cycle are you applying for?: Cycle 7
Grant category: Tooling
Is this proposal applicable to a specific committee? Yes, tooling
Project description (please explain how your project works):
DefiLlama: Tracks protocol metrics such as TVL, volume and stablecoin usage
LlamaPay: Payment streams that distribute payments by second
Project links:
Website: defillama.com
Twitter: @DefiLlama
Discord/Discourse/Community: DefiLlama
Please include all other relevant links below: DefiLlama · GitHub
Competitors, peers, or similar projects (please link):
For defillama the closest competitors would be defipulse and tokenterminal
For llamapay it would be superfluid
Is/will this project be open sourced? Yes, it’s all open source on DefiLlama · GitHub
Optimism native?: No
Date of deployment/expected deployment on Optimism:
DefiLlama added support for optimism the 14 th of July 2021 , days after optimism’s public launch. We were one of the first data dashboards to support optimism.
LlamaPay was deployed on optimism the 29 th of april 2022 , on launch
Ecosystem Value Proposition:
DefiLlama has been operating as a public good for the whole crypto space for over a year, maintaining metrics for > 1 . 9 k protocols and other products such as https://chainlist.org/, all while having received no investment, never charging users for anything nor having ads. Defillama has no revenue at all and offers all our products for free, covering current costs from only donations and self-funding.
On top of that, DefiLlama is a completely open source project, from all our code (we open source everything: frontend, backend, adapters, bots…) down to all our data, for which we offer full database exports so everyone can use it freely.
This fits quite well with optimism’s goal of funding public goods, as this grant would allow us at defillama to keep providing services that benefit the whole ecosystem.
All these services are commonly used by optimism users and help provide transparent metrics for the defi ecosystem on it, all while acting as a directory of defi apps on optimism. We believe that this will help optimism’s growth long term, as well as grow the overall blockchain ecosystem.
A great example is how the Optimism foundation used our data for their Phase 0 Governance Fund distribution, which was possible thanks to:
DefiLlama providing free exports of all our data so it could be easily analyzed
DefiLlama being completely open source, which allowed anyone that disagreed with out data to check exactly how it was calculated
A much more concrete explanation of the benefits to optimism is provided in the next section.
Number of OP tokens requested: 300 k
This amount of tokens represents the sum of the request for defillama analytics ( 170 k) and llamapay ( 130 k). Reasoning for both is explained below.
To determine grant amount i’ve looked at previous grants awarded:
Rotki: 190 k OP awarded to cover salaries for optimism integration into their product
Candide Wallet: 190 k OP awarded also to cover salaries
Superfluid: 150 k OP awarded
Now let’s consider the impact defillama has had on optimism compared to rotki and candide:
The Optimism foundation relied on DeFi Llama Analytics data for their initial Phase 0 Governance Fund distribution
Users regularly check defillama to find projects on optimism and check on the state of the chain, acting a s directory where users can find out what protocols are live on optimism
Our APY dashboard tracks optimism projects and it has brought users to optimism that wouldn’t have known about the yield there otherwise
Our volume dashboard is frequently quoted by optimism-native protocols such as velodrome to compare metrics against other projects
DefiLlama integrated optimism right after it launched, and have maintained metrics for optimism protocols since then, with no incentives at all
Our price API covers optimism tokens and is being used by multiple companies for their optimism integrations (eg: a tax company is using it to calculate taxes on optimism activities)
Given these, I think most people would consider that defillama had a higher impact than them, so I think it’s fair to request a grant amount of 170 k OP ( 20 k lower) for defillama analytics.
Something important to note is that the first two projects requested grants in order to cover costs of integrating optimism, but unlike them, defillama has already integrated optimism in all of our products since a year ago. For this reason the grant here would be given to continue our general work rather than integrating optimism (since we already did 1 year ago).
I can understand that this might make funding defillama less interesting, since optimism support on our product is already live and not contingent on this grant, thus it may seem like theres no reason to award it.
However, choosing to fund projects that propose integrating the chain but not funding projects that have already done so incentivizes projects not to add support unless they receive a grant, since doing so prevents them from receiving a grant, all while punishing projects that already integrated optimism before of their own accord. This type of incentive goes against what optimism is trying to achieve with this grant program, so retroactive incentives make a lot of sense to avoid this.
Regarding llamapay, here’s a quick comparison against superfluid:
Llamapay is completely open source, while superfluid’s not (eg: neither their app frontend nor their liquidations bots are opensource)
Llamapay has no vcs, it’s purely funded through donations and self-funding. Superfluid raised 10 M.
Llamapay was deployed on optimism on launch, while superfluid took much longer since their launch.
Currently llamapay’s TVL on optimism is ~ 55 k while superfluid’s is ~ 36 k.
Llamapay is being used by optimism-native projects such as velodrome
For these reasons I think it could make sense to request a similar or higher OP allocation than superfluid but since we are mixing this with the defillama request we’ll just lower it to 130 k ( 20 k lower).
Did the project apply for or receive OP tokens through the Foundation Partner Fund?: No
How much will your project match in co-incentives? (not required but recommended, when applicable): We don’t have a token
Proposal for token distribution: The full allocation will go to cover operational costs, allowing us to continue delivering highly maintained/updated data.
The project called DefiLlama, run by 0xngmi, is applying for a grant in the Tooling category in Optimism's grant program. DefiLlama tracks DeFi protocol metrics and provides LlamaPay for payment streams. They have been supporting Optimism since its early days and have contributed significantly to the ecosystem by offering free, open-source services. The project seeks 300k OP tokens, justified by its positive impact on Optimism compared to other projects. The grant will be used to cover operational costs for maintaining and updating data services.
I am a big fan of Defi Llama, and what they have done for the Defi Space. Glad to have you guys her…
I am a big fan of Defi Llama, and what they have done for the Defi Space. Glad to have you guys here, and I support your proposal.
Project name: DefiLlama Author name and contact info (please provide a reliable point of contact fo…
Project name: DefiLlama Author name and contact info (please provide a reliable point of contact for the project): 0 xngmi (@Oxngmi on telegram, @ 0 xngmi on twitter) I understand that I will be required to provide additional KYC information to the Optimism Foundation to receive this grant: Yes L 2 recipient address: 0 x 08 a 3 c 2 A 819 E 3 de 7 ACa 384 c 798269 B 3 Ce 1 CD 0 e 437 (can be verified in defillama.com 9 through our donate button or through this tweet 2 ) Which Voting Cycle are you applying for?: Cycle 7 Grant category: Tooling Is this proposal applicable to a specific committee? Yes, tooling Project description (please explain how your project works): DefiLlama: Tracks protocol metrics such as TVL, volume and stablecoin usage LlamaPay: Payment streams that distribute payments by second Project links: Website: defillama.com 9 Twitter: @DefiLlama Discord/Discourse/Community: DefiLlama 2 Please include all other relevant links below: DefiLlama · GitHub 2 Competitors, peers, or similar projects (please link): For defillama the closest competitors would be defipulse and tokenterminal For llamapay it would be superfluid Is/will this project be open sourced? Yes, it’s all open source on DefiLlama · GitHub 2 Optimism native?: No Date of deployment/expected deployment on Optimism: DefiLlama added support for optimism the 14 th of July 2021 , days after optimism’s public launch. We were one of the first data dashboards to support optimism. LlamaPay was deployed on optimism the 29 th of april 2022 , on launch Ecosystem Value Proposition: DefiLlama has been operating as a public good for the whole crypto space for over a year, maintaining metrics for > 1 . 9 k protocols and other products such as https://chainlist.org/, all while having received no investment, never charging users for anything nor having ads. Defillama has no revenue at all and offers all our products for free, covering current costs from only donations and self-funding. On top of that, DefiLlama is a completely open source project, from all our code (we open source everything: frontend, backend, adapters, bots…) down to all our data, for which we offer full database exports so everyone can use it freely. This fits quite well with optimism’s goal of funding public goods, as this grant would allow us at defillama to keep providing services that benefit the whole ecosystem. All these services are commonly used by optimism users and help provide transparent metrics for the defi ecosystem on it, all while acting as a directory of defi apps on optimism. We believe that this will help optimism’s growth long term, as well as grow the overall blockchain ecosystem. A great example is how the Optimism foundation used our data for their Phase 0 Governance Fund distribution, which was possible thanks to: DefiLlama providing free exports of all our data so it could be easily analyzed DefiLlama being completely open source, which allowed anyone that disagreed with out data to check exactly how it was calculated A much more concrete explanation of the benefits to optimism is provided in the next section. Number of OP tokens requested: 300 k This amount of tokens represents the sum of the request for defillama analytics ( 170 k) and llamapay ( 130 k). Reasoning for both is explained below. To determine grant amount i’ve looked at previous grants awarded: Rotki: 190 k OP awarded to cover salaries for optimism integration into their product Candide Wallet: 190 k OP awarded also to cover salaries Superfluid: 150 k OP awarded Now let’s consider the impact defillama has had on optimism compared to rotki and candide: The Optimism foundation relied on DeFi Llama Analytics data for their initial Phase 0 Governance Fund distribution Users regularly check defillama to find projects on optimism and check on the state of the chain, acting a s directory where users can find out what protocols are live on optimism Our APY dashboard tracks optimism projects and it has brought users to optimism that wouldn’t have known about the yield there otherwise Our volume dashboard is frequently quoted by optimism-native protocols such as velodrome to compare metrics against other projects DefiLlama integrated optimism right after it launched, and have maintained metrics for optimism protocols since then, with no incentives at all Our price API covers optimism tokens and is being used by multiple companies for their optimism integrations (eg: a tax company is using it to calculate taxes on optimism activities) Given these, I think most people would consider that defillama had a higher impact than them, so I think it’s fair to request a grant amount of 170 k OP ( 20 k lower) for defillama analytics. Something important to note is that the first two projects requested grants in order to cover costs of integrating optimism, but unlike them, defillama has already integrated optimism in all of our products since a year ago. For this reason the grant here would be given to continue our general work rather than integrating optimism (since we already did 1 year ago). I can understand that this might make funding defillama less interesting, since optimism support on our product is already live and not contingent on this grant, thus it may seem like theres no reason to award it. However, choosing to fund projects that propose integrating the chain but not funding projects that have already done so incentivizes projects not to add support unless they receive a grant, since doing so prevents them from receiving a grant, all while punishing projects that already integrated optimism before of their own accord. This type of incentive goes against what optimism is trying to achieve with this grant program, so retroactive incentives make a lot of sense to avoid this. Regarding llamapay, here’s a quick comparison against superfluid: Llamapay is completely open source, while superfluid’s not (eg: neither their app frontend nor their liquidations bots are opensource) Llamapay has no vcs, it’s purely funded through donations and self-funding. Superfluid raised 10 M. Llamapay was deployed on optimism on launch, while superfluid took much longer since their launch. Currently llamapay’s TVL on optimism is ~ 55 k while superfluid’s is ~ 36 k. Llamapay is being used by optimism-native projects such as velodrome For these reasons I think it could make sense to request a similar or higher OP allocation than superfluid but since we are mixing this with the defillama request we’ll just lower it to 130 k ( 20 k lower). Did the project apply for or receive OP tokens through the Foundation Partner Fund?: No How much will your project match in co-incentives? (not required but recommended, when applicable): We don’t have a token Proposal for token distribution: The full allocation will go to cover operational costs, allowing us to continue delivering highly maintained/updated data.
I am a big fan of Defi Llama, and what they have done for the Defi Space. Glad to have you guys her…
I am a big fan of Defi Llama, and what they have done for the Defi Space. Glad to have you guys here, and I support your proposal.
Great product, but I think this would open up a slippery slope of retroactively rewarding protocols…
Great product, but I think this would open up a slippery slope of retroactively rewarding protocols via the grant program. As you mentioned, DeFiLlama has already done the hard work, so this is more suited to the retroactive fund.
millie: I don’t think it’s a slippery slope at all, I think that’s the point of the comparison made in the proposal. The two projects he mentions, both used the funding similarly, only they did it before delivering anything. In the case of DeFi Llama we can probably expect a ton of more features added as a result of this funding.
It’s a win for Optimism and for DeFi Llama, I’m fully in support!
This might be an excellent example of RPGF proposal. You already had done the work and now you get …
This might be an excellent example of RPGF proposal. You already had done the work and now you get reward. Impact = profit.
On proposal:-
Which Voting Cycle are you applying for?: Cycle 6
This should be 7 .
Ideally, this should be two proposals, one has nothing to do with another. You are comparing with superfluid but forgot to mention the token distribution, value proposition and project metrics.
Also, this proposal starts well but more I read it seems you are submitting the proposal because a similar project has received a funding.
OPUser:
Ideally, this should be two proposals, one has nothing to do with another.
it’s just…
OPUser:
Ideally, this should be two proposals, one has nothing to do with another.
it’s just easier for me to do a single proposal than do 2 of them, and since funding will go to the same entity it made sense
OPUser:
Also, this proposal starts well but more I read it seems you are submitting the proposal because a similar project has received a funding.
It’s just that I found it quite hard to argue for why we should get a specific amount, since all protocols use different metrics we don’t have, and we don’t have a specific goal such as “integrating optimism” that has a cost associated with it, since again we’ve already done the work, so we can’t use the same logic that other proposals used, and using comparisons against other proposals seemed like a good idea.
OPUser:
RPGF proposal
Are these live?
OPUser: Agree, either both get approved or none.
This also make sense, but I mean you dont need to mention them through out the proposal, its a proposal not a comparison report, it gives you a negative image. You have a huge market presence and widely used, DeFiLama does not need comparison to prove its worth.
Not yet. RPGF will become active with launch of Optimism Citizen house. There is not officially date announced.
Agree, either both get approved or none.
This also make sense, but I mean you dont need to mention…
Agree, either both get approved or none.
This also make sense, but I mean you dont need to mention them through out the proposal, its a proposal not a comparison report, it gives you a negative image. You have a huge market presence and widely used, DeFiLama does not need comparison to prove its worth.
Not yet. RPGF will become active with launch of Optimism Citizen house. There is not officially date announced.
OPUser:
This also make sense, but I mean you dont need to mention them through out the proposa…
OPUser:
This also make sense, but I mean you dont need to mention them through out the proposal, its a proposal not a comparison report
I quite understand why DefiLlama is making a point here. I don’t see it as comparing since they really don’t need to be compared. They could change the proposal to fit the narrative saying they already made plenty of integration but they “need” funds to keep rolling integrations nevertheless that’s not really how they work since integrations will continue to be made with or without this funds.
I don’t think they should wait more time for funds. They don’t need to prove anything, we all know and use DefiLlama and it’s about time to vote on this, even if it would be better for RPGF.
Great product, but I think this would open up a slippery slope of retroactively rewarding protocols…
Great product, but I think this would open up a slippery slope of retroactively rewarding protocols via the grant program. As you mentioned, DeFiLlama has already done the hard work, so this is more suited to the retroactive fund.
millie: I don’t think it’s a slippery slope at all, I think that’s the point of the comparison made in the proposal. The two projects he mentions, both used the funding similarly, only they did it before delivering anything. In the case of DeFi Llama we can probably expect a ton of more features added as a result of this funding.
It’s a win for Optimism and for DeFi Llama, I’m fully in support!
This might be an excellent example of RPGF proposal. You already had done the work and now you get …
This might be an excellent example of RPGF proposal. You already had done the work and now you get reward. Impact = profit. On proposal:- Which Voting Cycle are you applying for?: Cycle 6 This should be 7 . Ideally, this should be two proposals, one has nothing to do with another. You are comparing with superfluid but forgot to mention the token distribution, value proposition and project metrics. Also, this proposal starts well but more I read it seems you are submitting the proposal because a similar project has received a funding.
OPUser: Ideally, this should be two proposals, one has nothing to do with another. it’s just…
OPUser: Ideally, this should be two proposals, one has nothing to do with another. it’s just easier for me to do a single proposal than do 2 of them, and since funding will go to the same entity it made sense OPUser: Also, this proposal starts well but more I read it seems you are submitting the proposal because a similar project has received a funding. It’s just that I found it quite hard to argue for why we should get a specific amount, since all protocols use different metrics we don’t have, and we don’t have a specific goal such as “integrating optimism” that has a cost associated with it, since again we’ve already done the work, so we can’t use the same logic that other proposals used, and using comparisons against other proposals seemed like a good idea. OPUser: RPGF proposal Are these live?
OPUser: Agree, either both get approved or none.
This also make sense, but I mean you dont need to mention them through out the proposal, its a proposal not a comparison report, it gives you a negative image. You have a huge market presence and widely used, DeFiLama does not need comparison to prove its worth.
Not yet. RPGF will become active with launch of Optimism Citizen house. There is not officially date announced.
Agree, either both get approved or none. This also make sense, but I mean you dont need to mention…
Agree, either both get approved or none. This also make sense, but I mean you dont need to mention them through out the proposal, its a proposal not a comparison report, it gives you a negative image. You have a huge market presence and widely used, DeFiLama does not need comparison to prove its worth. Not yet. RPGF will become active with launch of Optimism Citizen house. There is not officially date announced.
Glad to see you here.
Two things, I am not saying this proposal should not be allowed or be part of…
Glad to see you here.
Two things, I am not saying this proposal should not be allowed or be part of voting. Proposal is requesting funding from gov fund so by guidelines its should be.
Second, my believe is that public good funding should be done by citizen house, one soul = one vote. You have seen how voting power of a delegate fluctuate every cycle which mean something that could be seen public good in this cycle might not get approval in next cycle because of voting power change.
OPUser: This also make sense, but I mean you dont need to mention them through out the proposa…
OPUser: This also make sense, but I mean you dont need to mention them through out the proposal, its a proposal not a comparison report I quite understand why DefiLlama is making a point here. I don’t see it as comparing since they really don’t need to be compared. They could change the proposal to fit the narrative saying they already made plenty of integration but they “need” funds to keep rolling integrations nevertheless that’s not really how they work since integrations will continue to be made with or without this funds. I don’t think they should wait more time for funds. They don’t need to prove anything, we all know and use DefiLlama and it’s about time to vote on this, even if it would be better for RPGF.
Glad to see you here. Two things, I am not saying this proposal should not be allowed or be part of…
Glad to see you here. Two things, I am not saying this proposal should not be allowed or be part of voting. Proposal is requesting funding from gov fund so by guidelines its should be. Second, my believe is that public good funding should be done by citizen house, one soul = one vote. You have seen how voting power of a delegate fluctuate every cycle which mean something that could be seen public good in this cycle might not get approval in next cycle because of voting power change.
I don’t think it’s a slippery slope at all, I think that’s the point of the comparison made in the …
I don’t think it’s a slippery slope at all, I think that’s the point of the comparison made in the proposal. The two projects he mentions, both used the funding similarly, only they did it before delivering anything. In the case of DeFi Llama we can probably expect a ton of more features added as a result of this funding.
It’s a win for Optimism and for DeFi Llama, I’m fully in support!
I don’t think it’s a slippery slope at all, I think that’s the point of the comparison made in the …
I don’t think it’s a slippery slope at all, I think that’s the point of the comparison made in the proposal. The two projects he mentions, both used the funding similarly, only they did it before delivering anything. In the case of DeFi Llama we can probably expect a ton of more features added as a result of this funding. It’s a win for Optimism and for DeFi Llama, I’m fully in support!
I agree they deserve some compensation for their hard work and its a win for both. I say slippery s…
I agree they deserve some compensation for their hard work and its a win for both. I say slippery slope because it might encourage other protocols to apply for retroactive grants when RGPF should be tackling that.
I am not against the proposal and appreciate that they compared it to other grants to decide on a token amount. However, some further insight into the breakdown of the team and the expected operational costs would provide some transparency on how long the grant will last. Ideally, we are going to follow up with grants in the future, so it’d be ideal to know how long this grant is supporting them and what has come out of it too.
I agree they deserve some compensation for their hard work and its a win for both. I say slippery s…
I agree they deserve some compensation for their hard work and its a win for both. I say slippery slope because it might encourage other protocols to apply for retroactive grants when RGPF should be tackling that. I am not against the proposal and appreciate that they compared it to other grants to decide on a token amount. However, some further insight into the breakdown of the team and the expected operational costs would provide some transparency on how long the grant will last. Ideally, we are going to follow up with grants in the future, so it’d be ideal to know how long this grant is supporting them and what has come out of it too.
I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - # 136 by jackanorak ] and satisfied llamapay cus…
I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - # 136 by jackanorak ] and satisfied llamapay customer with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.
I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - # 136 by jackanorak 4 ] and satisfied llamapay…
I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - # 136 by jackanorak 4 ] and satisfied llamapay customer with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.
Just wanted to point out that if most people feel that it would be better to reword my original pos…
Just wanted to point out that if most people feel that it would be better to reword my original post to exclude the comparisons to previous grants I’d be happy to do so, only issue would be that the amount might lack some justification.
i agree that context helps tbh - there’s not a lot of precedent for what you’re proposing so some e…
i agree that context helps tbh - there’s not a lot of precedent for what you’re proposing so some extra justification is probably needed one way or another
I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - # 65 by mastermojo ] with sufficient voting powe…
I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - # 65 by mastermojo ] with sufficient voting power, and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote
Just wanted to point out that if most people feel that it would be better to reword my original pos…
Just wanted to point out that if most people feel that it would be better to reword my original post to exclude the comparisons to previous grants I’d be happy to do so, only issue would be that the amount might lack some justification.
i agree that context helps tbh - there’s not a lot of precedent for what you’re proposing so some e…
i agree that context helps tbh - there’s not a lot of precedent for what you’re proposing so some extra justification is probably needed one way or another
I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - # 65 by mastermojo 3 ] with sufficient voting …
I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - # 65 by mastermojo 3 ] with sufficient voting power, and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote
one cannot deny how useful is DefiLlama to Defi Community. and commitment of @ 0 xngmi is astonishi…
one cannot deny how useful is DefiLlama to Defi Community. and commitment of @ 0 xngmi is astonishing.
so yes for sure…
one cannot deny how useful is DefiLlama to Defi Community. and commitment of @ 0 xngmi is astonishi…
one cannot deny how useful is DefiLlama to Defi Community. and commitment of @ 0 xngmi is astonishing. so yes for sure…
In support of funding the team of DeFiLlama for their great work and support of Optimism.
As mentio…
In support of funding the team of DeFiLlama for their great work and support of Optimism.
As mentioned by others, the current proposal seems more suitable for retroactive funding once this is launched. As you add more and more DeFi services & tools, there’s definitely also room to submit another proposal that focuses more on spurring growth of Llama and the Op ecosystem :slight_smile:
In support of funding the team of DeFiLlama for their great work and support of Optimism. As mentio…
In support of funding the team of DeFiLlama for their great work and support of Optimism. As mentioned by others, the current proposal seems more suitable for retroactive funding once this is launched. As you add more and more DeFi services & tools, there’s definitely also room to submit another proposal that focuses more on spurring growth of Llama and the Op ecosystem :slight_smile:
Regarding the amounts requested @ 0 xngmi can you provide $ values? Since it’s salaries that you ne…
Regarding the amounts requested @ 0 xngmi can you provide $ values? Since it’s salaries that you need covered and since (as far as I understand they have already been paid – you should know exact amounts)?
The other grants requested OP was in $ amounts which later got converted to OP amounts at the time of the proposal.
As for the RPGF versus using this grant round I don’t know. It depends on what the OP foundation wants to do. If it’s okay with it and it’s up to community then it could just go to the commitee for the next voting round and also go to a vote.
But indeed the point of a grant is to incentivize something being built/done and not to reward for past work. That said I love the work you did/are doing and RPGF is still not open so we can’t even offer you an alternative but just tell you to wait if the proposal was to be rejected for this reason.
Small remark but I’d like to clarify that we will use this money to continue improving defillama an…
Small remark but I’d like to clarify that we will use this money to continue improving defillama and build products, it’s not purely retroactive funding where we are paid for previous costs. Instead, we are asking for money to keep improving defillama and launch new products that benefit everyone.
The way I see it, the only difference against other grants is that we cannot provide something like a “integrate optimism” milestone since we have already integrated Optimism into every aspect of our products, and providing milestones for new products wouldn’t be optimal since we keep a very close loop on products and keep our product lifecycle extremely flexible (so we don’t have a clear outline of everything we’ll be building over the coming months).
Because of how vague that is I thought the best way to just provide a reasoning for expenses based on previous grants (also helps since OP is quite volatile while amounts previously awarded are fixed).
This is important because retroactive funding carries a very different set of expectations (you are getting paid for previous work, so you can do whatever you want with the money received), whereas here we are instead committing to work on more crypto analytics and spend all money building the product. I can understand where the confusion is coming from since in this proposal I’m heavy leveraging our previous work to argue for receiving this funding, but its actually like “Look at all we’ve built, please fund us to build all these new cool things” rather than “We’ve built all this, please pay us retroactively”.
Regarding RPGF, for us it would be much better if we could proceed to voting, and in case the community rejects it we’ll just accept it and wait for RPGF rounds.
Regarding the amounts requested @ 0 xngmi can you provide $ values? Since it’s salaries that you ne…
Regarding the amounts requested @ 0 xngmi can you provide $ values? Since it’s salaries that you need covered and since (as far as I understand they have already been paid – you should know exact amounts)? The other grants requested OP was in $ amounts which later got converted to OP amounts at the time of the proposal. As for the RPGF versus using this grant round I don’t know. It depends on what the OP foundation wants to do. If it’s okay with it and it’s up to community then it could just go to the commitee for the next voting round and also go to a vote. But indeed the point of a grant is to incentivize something being built/done and not to reward for past work. That said I love the work you did/are doing and RPGF is still not open so we can’t even offer you an alternative but just tell you to wait if the proposal was to be rejected for this reason.
Small remark but I’d like to clarify that we will use this money to continue improving defillama an…
Small remark but I’d like to clarify that we will use this money to continue improving defillama and build products, it’s not purely retroactive funding where we are paid for previous costs. Instead, we are asking for money to keep improving defillama and launch new products that benefit everyone. The way I see it, the only difference against other grants is that we cannot provide something like a “integrate optimism” milestone since we have already integrated Optimism into every aspect of our products, and providing milestones for new products wouldn’t be optimal since we keep a very close loop on products and keep our product lifecycle extremely flexible (so we don’t have a clear outline of everything we’ll be building over the coming months). Because of how vague that is I thought the best way to just provide a reasoning for expenses based on previous grants (also helps since OP is quite volatile while amounts previously awarded are fixed). This is important because retroactive funding carries a very different set of expectations (you are getting paid for previous work, so you can do whatever you want with the money received), whereas here we are instead committing to work on more crypto analytics and spend all money building the product. I can understand where the confusion is coming from since in this proposal I’m heavy leveraging our previous work to argue for receiving this funding, but its actually like “Look at all we’ve built, please fund us to build all these new cool things” rather than “We’ve built all this, please pay us retroactively”. Regarding RPGF, for us it would be much better if we could proceed to voting, and in case the community rejects it we’ll just accept it and wait for RPGF rounds.
Voted against - This is hard to do because Defi Lama has done incredible things for the space. How…
Voted against - This is hard to do because Defi Lama has done incredible things for the space. However, I do not believe this proposal is aligned with the purpose of the governance fund (see below). I understand that this is open to interpretation but these types of proposals are better suited for the retroactive public goods funding program imo. Thank you to the Defi Lama team and I hope to see you in another grant pipeline. Governance Update # 4 Purpose: “The purpose of the Governance Fund is to incentivize sustainable growth of projects and communities in the Optimism ecosystem. This does not mean that all grants must be incentive programs. The Token House is welcome to consider any and all proposals which would drive growth or address a gap in the Optimism ecosystem, including public goods projects. However, it does mean that funding should come with an expectation of growth-related deliverables. It is not the intended purpose of the governance fund to retroactively fund public goods without an expectation of future work—there is a distinct OP allocation dedicated to this, which will be distributed via the Citizens House at a later date.”
1 . Presentation We are an officially recognized Tooling Governance Committee 1 , responsible f…
1 . Presentation We are an officially recognized Tooling Governance Committee 1 , responsible for assessing proposals related to tooling and infrastructure (wallets, bridges etc.). 2 - About the project Defillama is a dashboard and analytics website that has supported Optimism data analytics since shortly after launch. Llamapay is a payment streaming project that can be used to stream salaries and other payments. It’s been live in Optimism since end of April 2022 . 3 - About the following The proposal was published on September 27 th asking for 170 k OP tokens for Defillama and for 130 k OP tokens for Llamapay. As a Tooling committee, the project was recently catalogued as “Tooling” in the Grant category, and so we’ve taken on the responsibility of issuing a recommendation. 4 - About the proposal valuation Added value (good to bad): good. Defillama is a staple of analytics in the space and has been active on optimism since the start. Regarding llamapay we are not sure but the comparison to superfluid is fair. Impact or expected usage (high to low): medium. Defillama is definitely being used a lot in optimism/mainnet so the expected usage is definitely high. Llamapay usage in optimism low~ish but according to the TVL it’s sufficiently high compared to other solutions. Current Status [Development stage/Open Source?] (early to ready): ready. Both defillama and llamapay are ready. Expenditure plan and distribution (appropriate to inappropriate): reasonable. Both amounts are reasonable. We would have loved to see a more detailed expenditure report since the funds are supposed to cover work already done. Also it would have been much better if the proposal had been split in 2 different proposals since it concerns 2 different projects to give the committee judge each project in its own right. Amount requested (high to low): medium. Again without a detailed expenses report it’s literally impossible to judge the amount here. The comparison to other projects that received OP tokens and paid salaries is reasonable but since there is no more details given we can’t determine if the amount is high or low. 5 . KPIs and impact tracking Defillama dashboard is already being used by people and projects in optimism. For Llamapay the current TVL is around $ 61 k(https://defillama.com/protocol/llamapay), 79 active streams and 39 payers with active streams (data provided by 0 xngmi via DMs). To track progress and see if the grant was succesful in helping the project it would be nice to compare current and future metrics. 6 - FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Yes Both projects are already deployed and working on optimism. So this grant would not be to get something to optimism but to reward for work already done. There was suggestions in the forums to ask them to wait until RPGF is ready and apply there but we believe that since RPGF is not ready yet that should not be considered as an option now. Both projects follow the opensource ethos, have no VC backing and are fully community based and open. We need more projects like this in the field, not less. So we should do everything we can to encourage people to build this way. For those reasons the final recommendation is YES.
Going against committee recommendation. Like mentioned earlier, this is better suited for RPGF The…
Going against committee recommendation. Like mentioned earlier, this is better suited for RPGF There was suggestions in the forums to ask them to wait until RPGF is ready and apply there but we believe that since RPGF is not ready yet that should not be considered as an option now. Committee recommendation and rational are clear but I believe projects are already deployed and can continue to do the good work until citizen house is ready. Also, assuming in next 3 - 4 months citizen house will be ready, DefiLamma will have a better suited proposal for RPGF.
Changed my vote to abstain based on the information provided in the community call.
Changed my vote to abstain based on the information provided in the community call.
Sorry, I should have elaborated. I initially voted against both Messari and Defi Llama proposals b…
Sorry, I should have elaborated. I initially voted against both Messari and Defi Llama proposals because I believe they are not aligned with the purpose of the governance fund and would be better suited for the retroactive public goods funding program or a different grant pipeline. On the community call today, the Foundation clarified that the governance fund is the correct pipeline for these types of grants. I changed my vote from against to abstain since my initial reasons for voting against were invalid. However, I don’t feel strongly enough to support these types of proposals where 100 % of funds are allocated to internal operations so I am voting to abstain.
I’m going with the committee recommendation - I believe this proposal is more relevant to UX & onbo…
I’m going with the committee recommendation - I believe this proposal is more relevant to UX & onboarding users and will have an immediate impact on growing Optimism, than the other RPGF candidates (which I do agree it’s more suited towards).
I am voting for this project, following also the tooling committee recommendation of which I am a m…
I am voting for this project, following also the tooling committee recommendation of which I am a member. I am a strong proponent of opensource and following the decentralization ethos and doing things right. DefiLlama is doing all these things right and have done a lot for the optimism ecosystem. Software is not free and salaries are not paid with promises of an undisclosed RPGF amount that will come later. Hope more funds go towards such projects in the future.
@ 0 xngmi can you provide a Telegram handle or other contact method so the Optimism team can get in…
@ 0 xngmi can you provide a Telegram handle or other contact method so the Optimism team can get in touch about paying out this grant! Feel free to comment on this thread, DM, or email palash@optimism.io
