Project name: Messari Protocol Services
Author name and contact info (please provide a reliable point of contact for the project):
Jack Purdy (Director of Business Development, Messari)
Telegram: @jackpurdy
Twitter: @jpurd 17
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 xd 17474 f 5 C 808 B 7978 cfbc 073 c 256 aCdE 2 Ab 6 e 7 Ce
Which Voting Cycle are you applying for?:
Season 2 : Cycle 8
Grant category:
Tooling
Is this proposal applicable to a specific committee?
Yes, the Tooling Committee.
Project description (please explain how your project works):
We are proposing that Messari provide the Optimism community with quarterly governance, ecosystem, and financial reports while continuing to build out subgraphs for the ecosystem. This would serve to better inform existing stakeholders as well as attract new ones while building out the open-source data infrastructure for the community.
These reports would live as free resources on Messari and would be distributed through our newsletter ( 250 k subscribers), social channels, and third-party distribution partners including Bloomberg, S&P Global, and Thomson Reuters.
Governance Services
Governance Season recaps
Track OP distributions across Ecosystem Funds, retroactive public goods funding, and airdrops.
Category breakdown of Governance Fund distributions.
Delegate analysis looks at how voting power distribution and delegate participation rates have changed.
Governance process analysis aggregates individual proposal results and provides structural analysis on process pain points, community feedback, and potential improvements
Investor Relations
Quarterly reporting
Present and analyze major KPIs and fundamental metrics (transactions, fees, protocol revenue)
Network-level stats ( contracts deployed, developer activity).
Distribution across Bloomberg terminal, S&P Capital IQ, Refinitiv
Continued subgraph development for Optimism ecosystem projects
image 1103 × 827 94 . 5 KB
Initiation of coverage
Our standard protocol deep dive that breaks down what Optimism is building and why it matters, while contextualizing it within the broader crypto landscape.
It will also delve into a comparative analysis and breakdown of the token economics.
Ecosystem report
Ecosystem report highlighting the major project’s building across various verticals such as DeFi, NFTs, gaming, etc. contextualizing why they are built on Optimism compared to other base layers.
Project links:
Website: https://messari.io/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/MessariCrypto
Discord/Discourse/Community: N/A
Please include all other relevant links below:
Additional team member info (please link):
Ryan Holloway (Messari Governor Team)
Traver Normandi (Messari Governor Team)
Please link to any previous projects the team has meaningfully contributed to:
Quarterly Reporting:
Solana
Avalanche
Subraph Development
Optimism subgraphs (Aave v 3 , Curve, Uniswap v 3 , QiDAO)
Governance Services
The State of Optimism Governance: Season 1
Initiation of Coverage:
Polygon
Oasis
Ecosystem Report:
Polkadot
Filecoin
Relevant usage metrics (TVL, transactions, volume, unique addresses, etc. Optimism metrics preferred; please link to public sources such as Dune Analytics, etc.):
N/A
Competitors, peers, or similar projects (please link):
Llama - Aave Q 3 Financial Report
Steakhouse - MakerDAO September Financial Report
Is/will this project be open sourced?
Yes, all reports generated on behalf of this grant will be open-sourced on Messari.
Optimism native?:
No
Date of deployment/expected deployment on Optimism:
The release dates will vary by report.
Governance Services: Published prior to the beginning of each season, for the next four seasons.
Investor Relations:
Initiation of Coverage: One-time report released end of Nov/early Dec 2022 .
Quarterly Reporting: Quarterly reporting for the next four quarters beginning Q 4 2022 .
Ecosystem Reporting will be released in Q 1 2023 .
1600 × 900 181 KB
Ecosystem Value Proposition:
What is the problem statement this proposal hopes to solve for the Optimism ecosystem?
There are two main problems this proposal addresses: a lack of full-spectrum reporting and standardized data infrastructure. While projects often have scattered data dashboards, analytics pages, or other resources to better understand the protocol and the economic activity around it, there remains a need for standardized reporting so that anyone can analyze it like they would a company’s annual financial statement.
The standardized reports mentioned above are arguably more important in an environment committed to ‘relentlessly iterating’ on experimentation, where iterating on the impact of past decisions is the driving force behind future decisions. Without a full view of which aspects of past experiments worked (or didn’t), the community faces an uphill battle in making the optimal decision for future iterations.
Additionally, there is no readily available data infrastructure to pull relevant metrics to assess the network as a whole and individual ecosystem projects. This makes proper analysis difficult for any developers or analysts looking to pull raw data.
How does your proposal offer a value proposition solving the above problem?
Messari’s team of Data Scientists and Research Analysts are committed to providing credibly-neutral, data-driven reports to assist the broader Optimism community in making high-impact decisions. By combining our protocol and ecosystem deep-dives along with our recurring governance and quarterly reports, the community can easily remain informed on all aspects comprising Optimism.
Additionally we’ll be improving the tooling available to facilitate a more robust developer community through the creation and maintenance of subgraphs that bootstrap the open-source infrastructure for anyone to create powerful tools. While we recently became core subgraph developers we’ve already seen this in action with third-party developers using our subgraphs to build dashboards to track liquidations across top lending platforms.
Why will this solution be a source of growth for the Optimism ecosystem?
This proposal is designed to grow the Optimism ecosystem by attracting new stakeholders through better surfacing of fundamental data, governance initiatives, and core developments. Without adequate investor relations services and standardized reporting, it can be difficult for new entrants to find reliable data with the necessary context to make sense of it in order to make informed decisions. We aim to create the 10 Q equivalent in the same way anyone can go to Apple’s financial statements to learn more about the company and its performance, anyone can publicly see Optimism’s reports to learn more about the protocol and observe it’s performance. Over time, this will bring more stakeholders into the ecosystem who will be more likely to contribute value to the DAO, allocating their time and money to grow the network.
Not only are we creating these reports but we’re ensuring they get sent out to a wide audience that can consume them. This is done through Messari’s channels of over a quarter million crypto-natives, which reach most of the active professionals in the industry as well as through our distribution relationships with Bloomberg, S&P, and Refinitiv. This goes a long way to further professionalize Optimism to the vast majority of major funds, banks, financial service companies, and large corporates in the world that will better grasp the magnitude of economic activity generated by the protocol. There are trillions of dollars in AUM represented by these platforms so even a small percentage of users consuming this information and acting on it can drive meaningful volume to Optimism and its ecosystem projects.
Has your project previously applied for an OP grant? If successful, please link to your previous grant proposal and provide a brief update on milestones achieved with the grant.
No.
Number of OP tokens requested:
365 , 000 OP (updated from 420 , 000 k to reflect 30 -day TWAP)
Did the project apply for or receive OP tokens through the Foundation Partner Fund?:
No
If OP tokens were requested from the Foundation Partner Fund, what was the amount?:
N/A
How much will your project match in co-incentives? (not required but recommended, when applicable):
N/A
Proposal for token distribution:
How will the OP tokens be distributed? (please include % allocated to different initiatives such as user rewards/marketing/liquidity mining.)
The OP tokens will be used to fund internal resources. Which include:
Research - Our analysts spend several weeks each report along with an extensive internal editing and review process by the broader team. We also have protocol specialists working with engineering to create the schema for subgraphs (ex: standardizing what protocol revenue look like for different sectors on Optimism ecosystem projects)
Data science - Each report will have its own dedicated data scientist tasked with providing all the relevant raw data
Marketing - We have several members of the team working on distribution for these reports across all of Messari’s channels along with the third-party partners
Over what period of time will the tokens be distributed for each initiative? Shorter timelines are preferable to longer timelines. Shorter timelines (on the order of weeks) allow teams to quickly demonstrate achievement of milestones, better facilitating additional grants via subsequent proposals.
N/A
Please list the milestones/KPIs you expect to achieve for each initiative, considering how each relates to incentivizing sustainable usage and liquidity on Optimism. Please keep in mind that progress towards these milestones/KPIs should be trackable.
Each milestone will be trackable by the timely release of each report, as outlined above.
Why will incentivized users and liquidity on Optimism remain after incentives dry up?
N/A
Please provide any additional information that will facilitate accountability:(smart contracts addresses relevant to the proposal, relevant organizational wallet addresses, etc.)
N/A
The post details a grant proposal submitted by Messari Protocol Services for the Optimism ecosystem. The proposal aims to provide governance, ecosystem, and financial reports to the Optimism community. It includes a detailed plan on reporting, investor relations, subgraph development, and establishing data infrastructure. The project seeks to attract new stakeholders, improve decision-making, and enhance transparency within the ecosystem, ultimately fostering growth. No previous OP grant applications are reported, and the requested amount is 365,000 OP tokens. The project will allocate the tokens for internal resources such as research, data science, and marketing. Milestones will be achieved through the timely release of reports.
jackanorak: Really happy to see you all here.
Just to get facts right, if I understand this correctly, the deliverables are the following:
JackPurdy_Messari:
Governance Services: Published prior to the beginning of each season, for the next four seasons.
Investor Relations:
Initiation of Coverage: One-time report released end of Nov/early Dec 2022.
Quarterly Reporting: Quarterly reporting for the next four quarters beginning Q4 2022.
Ecosystem Reporting will be released in Q1 2023.
And I see four types of roles working on these: research analysts, protocol specialists/engineering, data science, and marketing.
What i’m generally asking here is: is there a way you can connect the 420k OP ask directly to the resources required to generate the intended work product?
And is the idea that in effect what Optimism is ‘buying’ is Messari following through on these deliverables, i.e., that they would not generate them at all otherwise? Or only offer them to paying subscribers? Or would this have all happened regardless?
OPUser: Thank you this proposal.
Echoing what jack has mentioned above.
JackPurdy_Messari:
There are two main problems this proposal addresses: a lack of full-spectrum reporting and standardized data infrastructure.
This would be helpful but who is the audience, only 15-20 members are active on this forum and other projects are doing their own analytics. On top of that, foundation is working on preparing the report from their side.
7th OP Community Governance Call [October 25th @ 10am PT / 1pm ET / 7pm CET]
Community Calls
We’ve heard a lot of requests for analysis on grant distributions to date, so we’d love to share a short presentation on some analysis the team has done on this topic if there is time
AxlVaz: Hi, I really like Messari’s work. I have some questions.
Could you give more details about the use of the 420k OP. Such as how much is paid to internal resources and the time frame this grant covers.
JackPurdy_Messari:
Research - Our analysts spend several weeks each report along with an extensive internal editing and review process by the broader team. We also have protocol specialists working with engineering to create the schema for subgraphs (ex: standardizing what protocol revenue look like for different sectors on Optimism ecosystem projects)
Data science - Each report will have its own dedicated data scientist tasked with providing all the relevant raw data
Marketing - We have several members of the team working on distribution for these reports across all of Messari’s channels along with the third-party partners
And another question, will the Optimism reports be available to all the public, will there be information that is only available to Messari subscription?
katie: JackPurdy_Messari:
Number of OP tokens requested:
420,000 OP
It looks like the amount requested still needs to be updated.
mastermojo: JackPurdy_Messari:
erly Reporting:
I am one of the Synthetix Ambassadors, and a member of the Defi Shadow Committee.
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.
Really happy to see you all here.
Just to get facts right, if I understand this correctly, the deli…
Really happy to see you all here.
Just to get facts right, if I understand this correctly, the deliverables are the following:
JackPurdy_Messari:
Governance Services: Published prior to the beginning of each season, for the next four seasons.
Investor Relations:
Initiation of Coverage: One-time report released end of Nov/early Dec 2022 .
Quarterly Reporting: Quarterly reporting for the next four quarters beginning Q 4 2022 .
Ecosystem Reporting will be released in Q 1 2023 .
And I see four types of roles working on these: research analysts, protocol specialists/engineering, data science, and marketing.
What i’m generally asking here is: is there a way you can connect the 420 k OP ask directly to the resources required to generate the intended work product?
And is the idea that in effect what Optimism is ‘buying’ is Messari following through on these deliverables, i.e., that they would not generate them at all otherwise? Or only offer them to paying subscribers? Or would this have all happened regardless?
JackPurdy_Messari: Our general cost breakdown is as follows:
Quarterly reports x4: $25k/per
Governance season recaps x4: $25k/per
Initiation of coverage: $30k
Ecosystem report: $50k
This brings the total to $280k to cover the various roles involved as outlined above. Add on a 5% premium we use when accepting native tokens to account for added costs to do so and we back into the 420k OP
The idea is Optimism is paying for an investor relations service with these deliverables. We only produce these types of freely available reports with DAOs where we’re able to receive funding since they’re not monetized behind any paywall (like Messari Enterprise which is totally separate; ie. more subjective, thematic research compared to this objective reporting)
Project name: Messari Protocol Services Author name and contact info (please provide a reliable p…
Project name: Messari Protocol Services Author name and contact info (please provide a reliable point of contact for the project): Jack Purdy (Director of Business Development, Messari) Telegram: @jackpurdy Twitter: @jpurd 17 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 xd 17474 f 5 C 808 B 7978 cfbc 073 c 256 aCdE 2 Ab 6 e 7 Ce Which Voting Cycle are you applying for?: Season 2 : Cycle 8 Grant category: Tooling Is this proposal applicable to a specific committee? Yes, the Tooling Committee 10 . Project description (please explain how your project works): We are proposing that Messari provide the Optimism community with quarterly governance, ecosystem, and financial reports while continuing to build out subgraphs for the ecosystem. This would serve to better inform existing stakeholders as well as attract new ones while building out the open-source data infrastructure for the community. These reports would live as free resources on Messari and would be distributed through our newsletter ( 250 k subscribers), social channels, and third-party distribution partners including Bloomberg, S&P Global, and Thomson Reuters. Governance Services Governance Season recaps Track OP distributions across Ecosystem Funds, retroactive public goods funding, and airdrops. Category breakdown of Governance Fund distributions. Delegate analysis looks at how voting power distribution and delegate participation rates have changed. Governance process analysis aggregates individual proposal results and provides structural analysis on process pain points, community feedback, and potential improvements Investor Relations Quarterly reporting Present and analyze major KPIs and fundamental metrics (transactions, fees, protocol revenue) Network-level stats ( contracts deployed, developer activity). Distribution across Bloomberg terminal, S&P Capital IQ, Refinitiv Continued subgraph development for Optimism ecosystem projects image 1103 × 827 94 . 5 KB Initiation of coverage Our standard protocol deep dive that breaks down what Optimism is building and why it matters, while contextualizing it within the broader crypto landscape. It will also delve into a comparative analysis and breakdown of the token economics. Ecosystem report Ecosystem report highlighting the major project’s building across various verticals such as DeFi, NFTs, gaming, etc. contextualizing why they are built on Optimism compared to other base layers. Project links: Website: https://messari.io/ 5 Twitter: https://twitter.com/MessariCrypto 4 Discord/Discourse/Community: N/A Please include all other relevant links below: Additional team member info (please link): Ryan Holloway (Messari Governor Team) Traver Normandi (Messari Governor Team) Please link to any previous projects the team has meaningfully contributed to: Quarterly Reporting: Solana Avalanche 1 Subraph Development Optimism subgraphs (Aave v 3 3 , Curve, Uniswap v 3 3 , QiDAO) Governance Services The State of Optimism Governance: Season 1 6 Initiation of Coverage: Polygon 2 Oasis 2 Ecosystem Report: Polkadot 3 Filecoin Relevant usage metrics (TVL, transactions, volume, unique addresses, etc. Optimism metrics preferred; please link to public sources such as Dune Analytics, etc.): N/A Competitors, peers, or similar projects (please link): Llama - Aave Q 3 Financial Report 7 Steakhouse - MakerDAO September Financial Report 3 Is/will this project be open sourced? Yes, all reports generated on behalf of this grant will be open-sourced on Messari 5 . Optimism native?: No Date of deployment/expected deployment on Optimism: The release dates will vary by report. Governance Services: Published prior to the beginning of each season, for the next four seasons. Investor Relations: Initiation of Coverage: One-time report released end of Nov/early Dec 2022 . Quarterly Reporting: Quarterly reporting for the next four quarters beginning Q 4 2022 . Ecosystem Reporting will be released in Q 1 2023 . 1600 × 900 181 KB Ecosystem Value Proposition: What is the problem statement this proposal hopes to solve for the Optimism ecosystem? There are two main problems this proposal addresses: a lack of full-spectrum reporting and standardized data infrastructure. While projects often have scattered data dashboards, analytics pages, or other resources to better understand the protocol and the economic activity around it, there remains a need for standardized reporting so that anyone can analyze it like they would a company’s annual financial statement. The standardized reports mentioned above are arguably more important in an environment committed to ‘relentlessly iterating’ on experimentation, where iterating on the impact of past decisions is the driving force behind future decisions. Without a full view of which aspects of past experiments worked (or didn’t), the community faces an uphill battle in making the optimal decision for future iterations. Additionally, there is no readily available data infrastructure to pull relevant metrics to assess the network as a whole and individual ecosystem projects. This makes proper analysis difficult for any developers or analysts looking to pull raw data. How does your proposal offer a value proposition solving the above problem? Messari’s team of Data Scientists and Research Analysts are committed to providing credibly-neutral, data-driven reports to assist the broader Optimism community in making high-impact decisions. By combining our protocol and ecosystem deep-dives along with our recurring governance and quarterly reports, the community can easily remain informed on all aspects comprising Optimism. Additionally we’ll be improving the tooling available to facilitate a more robust developer community through the creation and maintenance of subgraphs that bootstrap the open-source infrastructure for anyone to create powerful tools. While we recently became core subgraph developers we’ve already seen this in action with third-party developers using our subgraphs to build dashboards 5 to track liquidations across top lending platforms. Why will this solution be a source of growth for the Optimism ecosystem? This proposal is designed to grow the Optimism ecosystem by attracting new stakeholders through better surfacing of fundamental data, governance initiatives, and core developments. Without adequate investor relations services and standardized reporting, it can be difficult for new entrants to find reliable data with the necessary context to make sense of it in order to make informed decisions. We aim to create the 10 Q equivalent in the same way anyone can go to Apple’s financial statements to learn more about the company and its performance, anyone can publicly see Optimism’s reports to learn more about the protocol and observe it’s performance. Over time, this will bring more stakeholders into the ecosystem who will be more likely to contribute value to the DAO, allocating their time and money to grow the network. Not only are we creating these reports but we’re ensuring they get sent out to a wide audience that can consume them. This is done through Messari’s channels of over a quarter million crypto-natives, which reach most of the active professionals in the industry as well as through our distribution relationships with Bloomberg, S&P, and Refinitiv. This goes a long way to further professionalize Optimism to the vast majority of major funds, banks, financial service companies, and large corporates in the world that will better grasp the magnitude of economic activity generated by the protocol. There are trillions of dollars in AUM represented by these platforms so even a small percentage of users consuming this information and acting on it can drive meaningful volume to Optimism and its ecosystem projects. Has your project previously applied for an OP grant? If successful, please link to your previous grant proposal and provide a brief update on milestones achieved with the grant. No. Number of OP tokens requested: 365 , 000 OP (updated from 420 , 000 k to reflect 30 -day TWAP) Did the project apply for or receive OP tokens through the Foundation Partner Fund?: No If OP tokens were requested from the Foundation Partner Fund, what was the amount?: N/A How much will your project match in co-incentives? (not required but recommended, when applicable): N/A Proposal for token distribution: How will the OP tokens be distributed? (please include % allocated to different initiatives such as user rewards/marketing/liquidity mining.) The OP tokens will be used to fund internal resources. Which include: Research - Our analysts spend several weeks each report along with an extensive internal editing and review process by the broader team. We also have protocol specialists working with engineering to create the schema for subgraphs (ex: standardizing what protocol revenue look like for different sectors on Optimism ecosystem projects) Data science - Each report will have its own dedicated data scientist tasked with providing all the relevant raw data Marketing - We have several members of the team working on distribution for these reports across all of Messari’s channels along with the third-party partners Over what period of time will the tokens be distributed for each initiative? Shorter timelines are preferable to longer timelines. Shorter timelines (on the order of weeks) allow teams to quickly demonstrate achievement of milestones, better facilitating additional grants via subsequent proposals. N/A Please list the milestones/KPIs you expect to achieve for each initiative, considering how each relates to incentivizing sustainable usage and liquidity on Optimism. Please keep in mind that progress towards these milestones/KPIs should be trackable. Each milestone will be trackable by the timely release of each report, as outlined above. Why will incentivized users and liquidity on Optimism remain after incentives dry up? N/A Please provide any additional information that will facilitate accountability:(smart contracts addresses relevant to the proposal, relevant organizational wallet addresses, etc.) N/A
jackanorak: Really happy to see you all here.
Just to get facts right, if I understand this correctly, the deliverables are the following:
JackPurdy_Messari:
Governance Services: Published prior to the beginning of each season, for the next four seasons.
Investor Relations:
Initiation of Coverage: One-time report released end of Nov/early Dec 2022.
Quarterly Reporting: Quarterly reporting for the next four quarters beginning Q4 2022.
Ecosystem Reporting will be released in Q1 2023.
And I see four types of roles working on these: research analysts, protocol specialists/engineering, data science, and marketing.
What i’m generally asking here is: is there a way you can connect the 420k OP ask directly to the resources required to generate the intended work product?
And is the idea that in effect what Optimism is ‘buying’ is Messari following through on these deliverables, i.e., that they would not generate them at all otherwise? Or only offer them to paying subscribers? Or would this have all happened regardless?
OPUser: Thank you this proposal.
Echoing what jack has mentioned above.
JackPurdy_Messari:
There are two main problems this proposal addresses: a lack of full-spectrum reporting and standardized data infrastructure.
This would be helpful but who is the audience, only 15-20 members are active on this forum and other projects are doing their own analytics. On top of that, foundation is working on preparing the report from their side.
7th OP Community Governance Call [October 25th @ 10am PT / 1pm ET / 7pm CET]
Community Calls
We’ve heard a lot of requests for analysis on grant distributions to date, so we’d love to share a short presentation on some analysis the team has done on this topic if there is time
AxlVaz: Hi, I really like Messari’s work. I have some questions.
Could you give more details about the use of the 420k OP. Such as how much is paid to internal resources and the time frame this grant covers.
JackPurdy_Messari:
Research - Our analysts spend several weeks each report along with an extensive internal editing and review process by the broader team. We also have protocol specialists working with engineering to create the schema for subgraphs (ex: standardizing what protocol revenue look like for different sectors on Optimism ecosystem projects)
Data science - Each report will have its own dedicated data scientist tasked with providing all the relevant raw data
Marketing - We have several members of the team working on distribution for these reports across all of Messari’s channels along with the third-party partners
And another question, will the Optimism reports be available to all the public, will there be information that is only available to Messari subscription?
katie: JackPurdy_Messari:
Number of OP tokens requested:
420,000 OP
It looks like the amount requested still needs to be updated.
mastermojo: JackPurdy_Messari:
erly Reporting:
I am one of the Synthetix Ambassadors, and a member of the Defi Shadow Committee.
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.
Thank you this proposal.
Echoing what jack has mentioned above.
JackPurdy_Messari:
There are t…
Thank you this proposal.
Echoing what jack has mentioned above.
JackPurdy_Messari:
There are two main problems this proposal addresses: a lack of full-spectrum reporting and standardized data infrastructure.
This would be helpful but who is the audience, only 15 - 20 members are active on this forum and other projects are doing their own analytics. On top of that, foundation is working on preparing the report from their side.
7 th OP Community Governance Call [October 25 th @ 10 am PT / 1 pm ET / 7 pm CET] Community Calls
We’ve heard a lot of requests for analysis on grant distributions to date, so we’d love to share a short presentation on some analysis the team has done on this topic if there is time slight_smile
Really happy to see you all here. Just to get facts right, if I understand this correctly, the deli…
Really happy to see you all here. Just to get facts right, if I understand this correctly, the deliverables are the following: JackPurdy_Messari: Governance Services: Published prior to the beginning of each season, for the next four seasons. Investor Relations: Initiation of Coverage: One-time report released end of Nov/early Dec 2022 . Quarterly Reporting: Quarterly reporting for the next four quarters beginning Q 4 2022 . Ecosystem Reporting will be released in Q 1 2023 . And I see four types of roles working on these: research analysts, protocol specialists/engineering, data science, and marketing. What i’m generally asking here is: is there a way you can connect the 420 k OP ask directly to the resources required to generate the intended work product? And is the idea that in effect what Optimism is ‘buying’ is Messari following through on these deliverables, i.e., that they would not generate them at all otherwise? Or only offer them to paying subscribers? Or would this have all happened regardless?
JackPurdy_Messari: Our general cost breakdown is as follows:
Quarterly reports x4: $25k/per
Governance season recaps x4: $25k/per
Initiation of coverage: $30k
Ecosystem report: $50k
This brings the total to $280k to cover the various roles involved as outlined above. Add on a 5% premium we use when accepting native tokens to account for added costs to do so and we back into the 420k OP
The idea is Optimism is paying for an investor relations service with these deliverables. We only produce these types of freely available reports with DAOs where we’re able to receive funding since they’re not monetized behind any paywall (like Messari Enterprise which is totally separate; ie. more subjective, thematic research compared to this objective reporting)
Thank you this proposal. Echoing what jack has mentioned above. JackPurdy_Messari: There are t…
Thank you this proposal. Echoing what jack has mentioned above. JackPurdy_Messari: There are two main problems this proposal addresses: a lack of full-spectrum reporting and standardized data infrastructure. This would be helpful but who is the audience, only 15 - 20 members are active on this forum and other projects are doing their own analytics. On top of that, foundation is working on preparing the report from their side. 7 th OP Community Governance Call [October 25 th @ 10 am PT / 1 pm ET / 7 pm CET] Community Calls We’ve heard a lot of requests for analysis on grant distributions to date, so we’d love to share a short presentation on some analysis the team has done on this topic if there is time slight_smile
Thank you this proposal. Echoing what jack has mentioned above. JackPurdy_Messari: There are t…
Thank you this proposal. Echoing what jack has mentioned above. JackPurdy_Messari: There are two main problems this proposal addresses: a lack of full-spectrum reporting and standardized data infrastructure. This would be helpful but who is the audience, only 15 - 20 members are active on this forum and other projects are doing their own analytics. On top of that, foundation is working on preparing the report from their side. 7 th OP Community Governance Call [October 25 th @ 10 am PT / 1 pm ET / 7 pm CET] ? Governance We’ve heard a lot of requests for analysis on grant distributions to date, so we’d love to share a short presentation on some analysis the team has done on this topic if there is time slight_smile
Hi, I really like Messari’s work. I have some questions.
Could you give more details about the use …
Hi, I really like Messari’s work. I have some questions.
Could you give more details about the use of the 420 k OP. Such as how much is paid to internal resources and the time frame this grant covers.
JackPurdy_Messari:
Research - Our analysts spend several weeks each report along with an extensive internal editing and review process by the broader team. We also have protocol specialists working with engineering to create the schema for subgraphs (ex: standardizing what protocol revenue look like for different sectors on Optimism ecosystem projects)
Data science - Each report will have its own dedicated data scientist tasked with providing all the relevant raw data
Marketing - We have several members of the team working on distribution for these reports across all of Messari’s channels along with the third-party partners
And another question, will the Optimism reports be available to all the public, will there be information that is only available to Messari subscription?
JackPurdy_Messari: This covers a 12-month period with the cost breakdown noted above.
And all of these reports will live as free resources on our site, distributed through our newsletter, social channels, and third-party distribution partners (Bloomberg, S&P, etc.)
Our general cost breakdown is as follows:
Quarterly reports x 4 : $ 25 k/per
Governance season rec…
Our general cost breakdown is as follows:
Quarterly reports x 4 : $ 25 k/per
Governance season recaps x 4 : $ 25 k/per
Initiation of coverage: $ 30 k
Ecosystem report: $ 50 k
This brings the total to $ 280 k to cover the various roles involved as outlined above. Add on a 5 % premium we use when accepting native tokens to account for added costs to do so and we back into the 420 k OP
The idea is Optimism is paying for an investor relations service with these deliverables. We only produce these types of freely available reports with DAOs where we’re able to receive funding since they’re not monetized behind any paywall (like Messari Enterprise which is totally separate; ie. more subjective, thematic research compared to this objective reporting)
This covers a 12 -month period with the cost breakdown noted above.
And all of these reports will …
This covers a 12 -month period with the cost breakdown noted above.
And all of these reports will live as free resources on our site, distributed through our newsletter, social channels, and third-party distribution partners (Bloomberg, S&P, etc.)
Hi, I really like Messari’s work. I have some questions. Could you give more details about the use …
Hi, I really like Messari’s work. I have some questions. Could you give more details about the use of the 420 k OP. Such as how much is paid to internal resources and the time frame this grant covers. JackPurdy_Messari: Research - Our analysts spend several weeks each report along with an extensive internal editing and review process by the broader team. We also have protocol specialists working with engineering to create the schema for subgraphs (ex: standardizing what protocol revenue look like for different sectors on Optimism ecosystem projects) Data science - Each report will have its own dedicated data scientist tasked with providing all the relevant raw data Marketing - We have several members of the team working on distribution for these reports across all of Messari’s channels along with the third-party partners And another question, will the Optimism reports be available to all the public, will there be information that is only available to Messari subscription?
JackPurdy_Messari: This covers a 12-month period with the cost breakdown noted above.
And all of these reports will live as free resources on our site, distributed through our newsletter, social channels, and third-party distribution partners (Bloomberg, S&P, etc.)
Our general cost breakdown is as follows: Quarterly reports x 4 : $ 25 k/per Governance season rec…
Our general cost breakdown is as follows: Quarterly reports x 4 : $ 25 k/per Governance season recaps x 4 : $ 25 k/per Initiation of coverage: $ 30 k Ecosystem report: $ 50 k This brings the total to $ 280 k to cover the various roles involved as outlined above. Add on a 5 % premium we use when accepting native tokens to account for added costs to do so and we back into the 420 k OP The idea is Optimism is paying for an investor relations service with these deliverables. We only produce these types of freely available reports with DAOs where we’re able to receive funding since they’re not monetized behind any paywall (like Messari Enterprise which is totally separate; ie. more subjective, thematic research compared to this objective reporting)
This covers a 12 -month period with the cost breakdown noted above. And all of these reports will …
This covers a 12 -month period with the cost breakdown noted above. And all of these reports will live as free resources on our site, distributed through our newsletter, social channels, and third-party distribution partners (Bloomberg, S&P, etc.)
It’s a hefty amount coming to around $ 23 k per month but Messari provides high-quality service and…
It’s a hefty amount coming to around $ 23 k per month but Messari provides high-quality service and looking at the internal resources mentioned & channels included (Bloomberg, S&P etc.) it makes sense for the cost.
Looking at the previous work done for Optimism, such as the gov fund by the named gov analysts, I believe that these types of reports will bring much-needed transparency to Optimism.
Messari also provides quarterly reports to Balancer (we are delegates in Balancer), which are always of high quality. I’d expect to see a similar outcome here.
It’s a hefty amount coming to around $ 23 k per month but Messari provides high-quality service and…
It’s a hefty amount coming to around $ 23 k per month but Messari provides high-quality service and looking at the internal resources mentioned & channels included (Bloomberg, S&P etc.) it makes sense for the cost. Looking at the previous work done for Optimism, such as the gov fund 4 by the named gov analysts, I believe that these types of reports will bring much-needed transparency to Optimism. Messari also provides quarterly reports to Balancer (we are delegates in Balancer), which are always of high quality. I’d expect to see a similar outcome here.
Given that this is around $ 360 k, can you provide some references that have been happy with a comp…
Given that this is around $ 360 k, can you provide some references that have been happy with a comparable package, as well as the materials produced and price they paid?
If Optimism feels like it needs to bring in outside consultants to create quarterly reports, it seems like it should put out a Request For Proposals. If Optimism governance decided it wanted quarterly reports published and that it was unable to have an internal affiliate create them, then it seems prudent to get multiple offers to shop around.
Thanks for sharing this proposal. I think that each of the reports you listed would provide useful …
Thanks for sharing this proposal. I think that each of the reports you listed would provide useful information for the ecosystem and from what I’ve seen with past work, it seems that Messari puts out high-quality content. My only feedback is it seems the pricing is steep ($ 357 k at the time of my post). Are you open to a reduced amount? I would also imagine that once the initial infra is set up for some of the reports (e.g. pulling in metrics, network stats, etc) that future reports might require less time.
Given that this is around $ 360 k, can you provide some references that have been happy with a comp…
Given that this is around $ 360 k, can you provide some references that have been happy with a comparable package, as well as the materials produced and price they paid? If Optimism feels like it needs to bring in outside consultants to create quarterly reports, it seems like it should put out a Request For Proposals. If Optimism governance decided it wanted quarterly reports published and that it was unable to have an internal affiliate create them, then it seems prudent to get multiple offers to shop around.
Hey Messari team, big fans of everything you do! These reports sound useful overall but the prices…
Hey Messari team, big fans of everything you do! These reports sound useful overall but the prices seems pretty steep. It sounds like you are asking for 420 , 000 OP for 5 quarters total of reporting, is that accurate? Would it be possible to share what you have charged other projects for similar reports in the past?
Thanks for sharing this proposal. I think that each of the reports you listed would provide useful …
Thanks for sharing this proposal. I think that each of the reports you listed would provide useful information for the ecosystem and from what I’ve seen with past work, it seems that Messari puts out high-quality content. My only feedback is it seems the pricing is steep ($ 357 k at the time of my post). Are you open to a reduced amount? I would also imagine that once the initial infra is set up for some of the reports (e.g. pulling in metrics, network stats, etc) that future reports might require less time.
Hey Messari team, big fans of everything you do! These reports sound useful overall but the prices…
Hey Messari team, big fans of everything you do! These reports sound useful overall but the prices seems pretty steep. It sounds like you are asking for 420 , 000 OP for 5 quarters total of reporting, is that accurate? Would it be possible to share what you have charged other projects for similar reports in the past?
To share pricing we’ve provided other projects, you can see our proposals for Balancer and Venus t…
To share pricing we’ve provided other projects, you can see our proposals for Balancer and Venus to fund similar quarterly reporting.
In terms of the governance recaps, the first one we did was OP Season 1 so this is the first time we’re looking to fund it on an ongoing basis. The resources going into it are on par with the quarterly reporting which is why they are priced the same.
Since we posted the proposal the OP price has increased fairly substantially so we’d be okay using a 30 -day TWAP which would bring the total to 365 , 000 $OP.
To share pricing we’ve provided other projects, you can see our proposals for Balancer 5 and Ven…
To share pricing we’ve provided other projects, you can see our proposals for Balancer 5 and Venus 1 to fund similar quarterly reporting. In terms of the governance recaps, the first one we did was OP Season 1 5 so this is the first time we’re looking to fund it on an ongoing basis. The resources going into it are on par with the quarterly reporting which is why they are priced the same. Since we posted the proposal the OP price has increased fairly substantially so we’d be okay using a 30 -day TWAP which would bring the total to 365 , 000 $OP.
@katie @linda @Bobbay_StableLab Thank you so much everyone for the feedback! With the deadline appr…
@katie @linda @Bobbay_StableLab Thank you so much everyone for the feedback! With the deadline approaching, we’re curious if the revised OP amount ( 365 , 000 OP) warrants a move to the next step. If so, can two delegates with > 0 . 5 % of votable OP please state their approval?
JackPurdy_Messari:
Number of OP tokens requested:
420 , 000 OP
It looks like the amount re…
JackPurdy_Messari:
Number of OP tokens requested:
420 , 000 OP
It looks like the amount requested still needs to be updated.
I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - # 18 by katie] with sufficient voting power and …
I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - # 18 by katie] with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.
JackPurdy_Messari:
erly Reporting:
I am one of the Synthetix Ambassadors, and a member of th…
JackPurdy_Messari:
erly Reporting:
I am one of the Synthetix Ambassadors, and a member of the Defi Shadow Committee.
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.
@katie @linda @Bobbay_StableLab Thank you so much everyone for the feedback! With the deadline appr…
@katie @linda @Bobbay_StableLab Thank you so much everyone for the feedback! With the deadline approaching, we’re curious if the revised OP amount ( 365 , 000 OP) warrants a move to the next step. If so, can two delegates with > 0 . 5 % of votable OP please state their approval?
JackPurdy_Messari: Number of OP tokens requested: 420 , 000 OP It looks like the amount re…
JackPurdy_Messari: Number of OP tokens requested: 420 , 000 OP It looks like the amount requested still needs to be updated.
I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - # 18 by katie 3 ] with sufficient voting power …
I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - # 18 by katie 3 ] with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.
JackPurdy_Messari: erly Reporting: I am one of the Synthetix Ambassadors, and a member of th…
JackPurdy_Messari: erly Reporting: I am one of the Synthetix Ambassadors, and a member of the Defi Shadow Committee. 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.
JackPurdy_Messari: erly Reporting: I am one of the Synthetix Ambassadors, and a member of th…
JackPurdy_Messari: erly Reporting: I am one of the Synthetix Ambassadors, and a member of the Defi Shadow Committee. I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - # 65 by mastermojo 4 ] with sufficient voting power, and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.
From DefiLlama I’d like to extend a counter-offer: we’ll provide reports on the same topics for hal…
From DefiLlama I’d like to extend a counter-offer: we’ll provide reports on the same topics for half the price, and on top of that we’ll open source all the dashboards and tools that we develop for these reports and maintain them
jackanorak: now we’re talking. @GFXlabs this follows your lead here, I think – seeming more and more like a vendor proposal and less an ecosystem one
Seems to me that one way or another we probably would need to do some shopping around, and we don’t have a week to sort that out. I think we might want to table discussion of this proposal and maybe even get some sort of single-purpose team together to look through some offers? Could put the creation of this team in this voting round. If people signal interest in this thought, we can draft something more formal.
Messari’s reputation is certainly very strong, but I don’t think this is one we rush into.
lefterisjp: Would you be able to draft a counter-proposal to at least have something to compare to when reviewing this proposal? As it seems that this proposal did make it in this cycle and as such needs to be reviewed.
JackPurdy_Messari: We’re excited to see alternate proposals as it showcases other builders looking to solve a pressing DAO need. We’re big fans of Defi Llama over at Messari and have used it to inform much of our research.
However, DL’s experience remains in the raw data ingestion and dashboard building I’m not sure adequate time was spent thinking through the full extent of the resources that go into this type of longer form reporting and building out a platform to ensure it reaches a wide audience. (We left additional thoughts in the comments on the counter-proposal)
Lastly, while it seems the goal was to undercut us on price DL is requesting 300k OP to build the underlying data infra and then 182k OP to write the reports. Our proposal is less than that to do both.
now we’re talking. @GFXlabs this follows your lead here, I think – seeming more and more like a ven…
now we’re talking. @GFXlabs this follows your lead here, I think – seeming more and more like a vendor proposal and less an ecosystem one
Seems to me that one way or another we probably would need to do some shopping around, and we don’t have a week to sort that out. I think we might want to table discussion of this proposal and maybe even get some sort of single-purpose team together to look through some offers? Could put the creation of this team in this voting round. If people signal interest in this thought, we can draft something more formal.
Messari’s reputation is certainly very strong, but I don’t think this is one we rush into.
From DefiLlama I’d like to extend a counter-offer: we’ll provide reports on the same topics for hal…
From DefiLlama I’d like to extend a counter-offer: we’ll provide reports on the same topics for half the price, and on top of that we’ll open source all the dashboards and tools that we develop for these reports and maintain them
jackanorak: now we’re talking. @GFXlabs this follows your lead here, I think – seeming more and more like a vendor proposal and less an ecosystem one
Seems to me that one way or another we probably would need to do some shopping around, and we don’t have a week to sort that out. I think we might want to table discussion of this proposal and maybe even get some sort of single-purpose team together to look through some offers? Could put the creation of this team in this voting round. If people signal interest in this thought, we can draft something more formal.
Messari’s reputation is certainly very strong, but I don’t think this is one we rush into.
lefterisjp: Would you be able to draft a counter-proposal to at least have something to compare to when reviewing this proposal? As it seems that this proposal did make it in this cycle and as such needs to be reviewed.
JackPurdy_Messari: We’re excited to see alternate proposals as it showcases other builders looking to solve a pressing DAO need. We’re big fans of Defi Llama over at Messari and have used it to inform much of our research.
However, DL’s experience remains in the raw data ingestion and dashboard building I’m not sure adequate time was spent thinking through the full extent of the resources that go into this type of longer form reporting and building out a platform to ensure it reaches a wide audience. (We left additional thoughts in the comments on the counter-proposal)
Lastly, while it seems the goal was to undercut us on price DL is requesting 300k OP to build the underlying data infra and then 182k OP to write the reports. Our proposal is less than that to do both.
now we’re talking. @GFXlabs this follows your lead here, I think – seeming more and more like a ven…
now we’re talking. @GFXlabs this follows your lead here, I think – seeming more and more like a vendor proposal and less an ecosystem one Seems to me that one way or another we probably would need to do some shopping around, and we don’t have a week to sort that out. I think we might want to table discussion of this proposal and maybe even get some sort of single-purpose team together to look through some offers? Could put the creation of this team in this voting round. If people signal interest in this thought, we can draft something more formal. Messari’s reputation is certainly very strong, but I don’t think this is one we rush into.
Would you be able to draft a counter-proposal to at least have something to compare to when reviewi…
Would you be able to draft a counter-proposal to at least have something to compare to when reviewing this proposal? As it seems that this proposal did make it in this cycle and as such needs to be reviewed.
Would you be able to draft a counter-proposal to at least have something to compare to when reviewi…
Would you be able to draft a counter-proposal to at least have something to compare to when reviewing this proposal? As it seems that this proposal did make it in this cycle and as such needs to be reviewed.
We’re excited to see alternate proposals as it showcases other builders looking to solve a pressing…
We’re excited to see alternate proposals as it showcases other builders looking to solve a pressing DAO need. We’re big fans of Defi Llama over at Messari and have used it to inform much of our research.
However, DL’s experience remains in the raw data ingestion and dashboard building I’m not sure adequate time was spent thinking through the full extent of the resources that go into this type of longer form reporting and building out a platform to ensure it reaches a wide audience. (We left additional thoughts in the comments on the counter-proposal)
Lastly, while it seems the goal was to undercut us on price DL is requesting 300 k OP to build the underlying data infra and then 182 k OP to write the reports. Our proposal is less than that to do both.
We’re excited to see alternate proposals as it showcases other builders looking to solve a pressing…
We’re excited to see alternate proposals as it showcases other builders looking to solve a pressing DAO need. We’re big fans of Defi Llama over at Messari and have used it to inform much of our research. However, DL’s experience remains in the raw data ingestion and dashboard building I’m not sure adequate time was spent thinking through the full extent of the resources that go into this type of longer form reporting and building out a platform to ensure it reaches a wide audience. (We left additional thoughts 15 in the comments on the counter-proposal) Lastly, while it seems the goal was to undercut us on price DL is requesting 300 k OP 6 to build the underlying data infra and then 182 k OP to write the reports. Our proposal is less than that to do both.
Some thought on this proposal and the counter-proposal from DefiLllama. It is true that Messari pr…
Some thought on this proposal and the counter-proposal from DefiLllama. It is true that Messari provides substantial value through their experience with reporting crypto ecosystems and their wide and influential audience. Being covered by Messari is a value in itself. Even though DefiLlama is a big brand in the crypto space (DeFi in particular) they’re not known yet for their reports, the quality of the work is more uncertain However, from the OP perspective the more coverage, the better. And more entities covering the Optimism ecosystem from different perspectives, the better. In that sense Messari and DefiLlama proposals are not mutually exclusive and thouldn’t be treated like this-or-that. Why not both? Even though the coverage in both services provides value for the OP ecosystem, it provides comparable (if not bigger) value to those services as well: The data and the reports will be available within those services exclusively and will attract lots of users, especially from within the OP community. Those services hold copyrights to those reports and can reuse them. While preparing the reports, those services build unique in-house know-how. Given that, I believe that even though Optimism Collective might incentivise those services to cover the OP ecosystem, it should not be expected to cover full costs of such coverage. Dunno what is the standard in other ecosystems but I believe that something like a 50 / 50 split of costs between the service and OP would be fair at the beginning (and should be expected to decrease later on if those reports gain popularity). And if OP is covering all the production costs, it should also hold all the copyrights to the produced reports and probably should consider doing such reports internally - providing licences, even for free, to all the interested parties to include their reports within their own services.
JackPurdy_Messari: Appreciate the thoughts @kaereste on that 3rd points some clarifications:
While more users on our site reading the report is great, we don’t have ads that would subsidize the cost of the reports
We don’t keep these reports exclusively on our site. We encourage projects to share them far and wide whether hosting on their site, distributing on newsletters, etc. Our goal is to get as many eyeballs on the reports as possible. Which is also why we enable 3rd parties such as Bloomberg and S&P to redistribute them for free.
Analyst expertise is also great and it enables us to provide additional value-add over time but again there’s no direct monetization form that that can subsidize the costs of these reports.
Messari Protocol Services exists as a business unit separately from the Enterprise (paywalled) portion and is therefore reliant entirely on grants to fund the significant resources that go into this work. If we were to only request 50% of the cost, this frankly wouldn’t be sustainable at all.
We have put a lot of thought into the pricing and feel we’ve been able to leverage our size and expertise having done this for over 30 DAOs to minimize costs as much as possible. For reference, this is the budget for the financial reporting arms of other DAOs:
MakerDAO has a Strategic Finance team doing their reporting for $1.3 million/year.
Aave is spending $1.5m on similar services
We recognize this is not apples to apples and these scopes are broader than just reporting/analytics but I think it showcases the substantial work that goes into these types of services.
100 % to internal resources not in the spirit of the fund designed to promote usage and liquidity.
100 % to internal resources not in the spirit of the fund designed to promote usage and liquidity.
Appreciate the thoughts @kaereste on that 3 rd points some clarifications: While more users on ou…
Appreciate the thoughts @kaereste on that 3 rd points some clarifications: While more users on our site reading the report is great, we don’t have ads that would subsidize the cost of the reports We don’t keep these reports exclusively on our site. We encourage projects to share them far and wide whether hosting on their site, distributing on newsletters, etc. Our goal is to get as many eyeballs on the reports as possible. Which is also why we enable 3 rd parties such as Bloomberg and S&P to redistribute them for free. Analyst expertise is also great and it enables us to provide additional value-add over time but again there’s no direct monetization form that that can subsidize the costs of these reports. Messari Protocol Services exists as a business unit separately from the Enterprise (paywalled) portion and is therefore reliant entirely on grants to fund the significant resources that go into this work. If we were to only request 50 % of the cost, this frankly wouldn’t be sustainable at all. We have put a lot of thought into the pricing and feel we’ve been able to leverage our size and expertise having done this for over 30 DAOs to minimize costs as much as possible. For reference, this is the budget for the financial reporting arms of other DAOs: MakerDAO has a Strategic Finance team doing 1 their reporting for $ 1 . 3 million/year. Aave is spending $ 1 . 5 m on similar services We recognize this is not apples to apples and these scopes are broader than just reporting/analytics but I think it showcases the substantial work that goes into these types of services.
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 Messari is a research and data analysis company with a mission to organize and contextualize information in the crypto space. Messari has become a reputable name in the ecosystem as an aggregator of information, data and research. With a high volume of daily visits, their website offers a data platform for graphs and advanced metrics for cryptoassets, offering a free tier and paid subscriptions. Similar OP Governance proposals: DeFillama reports 5 - 182 . 5 K OP tokens (as a counter-offer to Messari’s proposal, see original post here). 3 . About the following The proposal was published on October 20 , with a good level of interaction and questions from some committee members. 4 . About the proposal valuation Added value (good to bad): seems to be good. A pending issue for the ecosystem is governance and ecosystem reports. These data help the members of the governance to be updated. Impact or expected usage (high to low): medium. These reports would have a positive impact on the Optimism ecosystem, not only because they keep governance members up to date, but also because they can attract new players to the governance. The Optimism Collective would have a wider reach. Current Status [Development stage/Open Source?] (early to ready): ready. Messari has already produced 2 reports for Optimism governance: State of Optimism Governance and **Governance Fund Observations. also developed 4 subgraphs of the important Optimism protocols Aave v 3 , Curve , Uniswap v 3 2 , QiDAO. Expenditure plan and distribution (appropriate to inappropriate): standard. The OP tokens will be used to fund internal resources. Which include: Research, data science and marketing. The proposal has a brief description of how the funds will be used. Amount requested (high to low): high. the amount requested is 365 k token OP considering other similar proposals made by reputable DeFi analysts at the moment. 5 . FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Abstain We believe Messari is a great product and has a great reputation in the ecosystem. There is no doubt that their reports add a lot to the ecosystem. However, we have some dilemmas with their proposals, since, as Messari themselves clarify that optimism would be hiring a “service”. On the other hand, in case it is contracted as a service, we believe it should go through another governance process. Finally, the appearance of a counter-proposal reaffirms that it would be appropriate for governance to more calmly define the appropriate approach for this type of service and what it implies, considering the offers on the table.
Thanks for putting these thoughts together. While we do view this as an “investor relations service…
Thanks for putting these thoughts together. While we do view this as an “investor relations service” there is still a public goods infrastructure component we feel fits into the Governance Fund. As the docs state: 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. A clear gap in the Optimism ecosystem has been governance accountability 1 which we are planning to directly address in our recurring governance reporting. These aren’t just one-off reports but we’ll be open-sourcing the entire data layer to enable others to extract valuable insights from and build on over time. In terms of driving growth, it’s pretty clear how accessing over 250 k crypto natives and 1 million active users across three of the largest research platforms in the world will get Optimism in front of nearly every major financial institution and large corporate who are not only getting smart on crypto but increasingly committing resources to partner with and even interact on chain with various protocols. Lastly, we feel the counter-proposal shouldn’t be swaying the decision here as it was a last-minute copy/paste attempt to provide services we’ve spent over a year building with a team of ~ 50 employees working full-time in our Protocol Services arm. Not only is there no experience having done any type of long-form financial reporting or governance research but no detail was given as to who would be producing these reports nor any insight into the reach they would receive.
I feel this proposal is better suited to Partner Fund or RPGF. While there’s no doubt Messari’s rep…
I feel this proposal is better suited to Partner Fund or RPGF. While there’s no doubt Messari’s reports are valuable to Optimism as a whole, they are also valuable to Messari, and it doesn’t quite fit with Governance Fund’s spirit at this time of directly incentivizing usage and building applications & tooling on Optimism. I’ll follow the Tooling Committee recommendation and Abstain, for now, but will be monitoring feedback here.
JackPurdy_Messari: Thanks for the thoughts @polynya and @katie in terms of grants pipeline it still feels like this fits under:
proposals which would drive growth or address a gap in the Optimism ecosystem, including public goods projects.
While we went ahead and started the work to showcase our work to the DAO and make the deliverables more concrete, much of it would still be future work continuing to build out the data infrastructure and actually producing the reports. The resource expenditure is also significant enough where we wouldn’t be able to follow through on the entirety of this work and then hope to receive funding retroactively.
Lastly, there have been other non-protocol related tooling and information initiatives funded through the Governance Fund (Bankless Academy, Agora, Karma) that feel like are good comparables for thinking about our proposal.
Voted against - This was a tough one because I am a big supporter of Messari and personally find th…
Voted against - This was a tough one because I am a big supporter of Messari and personally find their platform very useful. However, I don’t believe this request is aligned with the purpose of the governance fund (see below). I understand that this is open to interpretation, but this proposal seems better suited for the retroactive public goods funding program imo. Thank you to the Messari team and I hope to see you in a different 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.”
Thanks for the thoughts @polynya and @katie in terms of grants pipeline it still feels like this fi…
Thanks for the thoughts @polynya and @katie in terms of grants pipeline it still feels like this fits under: proposals which would drive growth or address a gap in the Optimism ecosystem, including public goods projects. While we went ahead and started the work to showcase our work to the DAO and make the deliverables more concrete, much of it would still be future work continuing to build out the data infrastructure and actually producing the reports. The resource expenditure is also significant enough where we wouldn’t be able to follow through on the entirety of this work and then hope to receive funding retroactively. Lastly, there have been other non-protocol related tooling and information initiatives funded through the Governance Fund (Bankless Academy, Agora, Karma) that feel like are good comparables for thinking about our proposal.
Voted Against This is better suited for RPGF or partner grant. Shared similar comment on Defillama …
Voted Against This is better suited for RPGF or partner grant. Shared similar comment on Defillama proposal too.
During the community call the OP Foundation explicitly stated 5 that the Governance Fund was the …
During the community call the OP Foundation explicitly stated 5 that the Governance Fund was the right pipeline for us to be applying (reasons stated above) We ask that you reconsider @katie @polynya @Joxes @OPUser
katie: Changed my vote to abstain based on the guidance provided in the community call.
OPUser: Thank you for the tag.
I was in the call and after thinking this through decided to go vote against. Any project seeking grant from Gov fund can submit a proposal to the token house; public good, private funding, dev work or user incentive and any other type of token use falls under gov grant and OF said the same thing during the call.
I am not judging the quality produced by Messari but my major concern is need and importance. At this stage of gov, to me, accounting of fund is more important than the state of gov.
With new guideline in place, I would be happy to abstain or vote in favor given that number of token is more competitive or proposal is more aligned towards fund accountability.
Changed my vote to abstain based on the guidance provided in the community call.
Changed my vote to abstain based on the guidance provided in the community call.
TwoBitIdiot: Hi Katie - Ryan Selkis here. I wanted to provide some higher level context on why I believe this is important industry infrastructure, and how this falls under tooling and UX in particular.
For some context, Messari has been working on crypto community disclosures standards for five years. Our work informed SEC Commissioner Peirce’s “Safe Harbor” proposal, which was introduced as a bill in the US by the next Chair of the House Financial Services Committee (oversees the SEC). We believe designing bottoms up professional reporting standards will be an existential need for the industry in the coming quarters given an imminent regulatory crackdown. Proving that communities are invested in reducing information asymmetries by providing grant funding for financial reporting will be helpful in showing policymakers - in the US AND internationally - that the industry is taking steps to self-regulate and clean up some of the messy self-dealing that has plagued us for years.
The UX matters. We have analysts that cover: project descriptions and risk factors (human capital dependent), “corporate actions” and governance activity (human capital and taxonomy dependent), and descriptive overviews of quarterly performance and key milestones (human capital dependent). We also have a large team invested in creating and maintaining open subgraphs with common data structures (as Jack has mentioned) that is fully open source, and we ensure these reports and data are distributed broadly and freely. This grant is about providing scalable data and reporting standards, broad distribution, and consistent messaging to policymakers about standards setting work the industry is working towards.
This will be critical for the industry moving forward, and I hope this community will be cognizant that quality matters and shortcuts on research, data standards, and distribution won’t help where it matters in the next few years…among regulators. We know we’ll do a good job helping solve this broader problem, and in adding significant value for the OP community.
Thanks for your consideration!
I disagree with the OF in this regard, then; I’ll keep my vote as Abstain. As I’ve stated in other …
I disagree with the OF in this regard, then; I’ll keep my vote as Abstain. As I’ve stated in other places, IMO, we should be focusing on tooling, UX & non-liquidity-mining grants at this time. I’d recommend Messari to be in touch with OF for a Partner Fund grant.
JackPurdy_Messari: Between the open-source subgraphs and free data dashboards, there is definitely a component of tooling and UX. For example we have a Velodrome page charting TVL, trading volume, revenue, liquidity added/removed from both the macro level and on an individual pool basis.
I voted abstain on this proposal consistent with the Tooling committee recommendation. I believe th…
I voted abstain on this proposal consistent with the Tooling committee recommendation. I believe this would be beneficial work for the Optimism ecosystem since I’m a fan of Messari’s work but the token amount requested is quite high. I had stated the same thoughts on this earlier in the thread and it seems like the pricing reference got updated in response to the OP token price movement but the amount charged for the work itself did not get adjusted. Now when comparing to a reputable counter-offer, it makes it difficult for me to get to a yes.
JackPurdy_Messari: Reiterating my earlier comments on the counteroffer, while we’re big fans of DL I don’t believe their proposal was anything more than a last-minute copy/paste attempt to derail our efforts.
We’ve spent over a year building this offering with a team of ~50 employees working full-time in our Protocol Services arm. In contrast, they have zero experience having done any type of long-form financial reporting or governance research and provided no detail as to who would be producing these reports nor any insight into the distribution they would get.
Thank you for the tag. I was in the call and after thinking this through decided to go vote against…
Thank you for the tag. I was in the call and after thinking this through decided to go vote against. Any project seeking grant from Gov fund can submit a proposal to the token house; public good, private funding, dev work or user incentive and any other type of token use falls under gov grant and OF said the same thing during the call. I am not judging the quality produced by Messari but my major concern is need and importance. At this stage of gov, to me, accounting of fund is more important than the state of gov. With new guideline in place, I would be happy to abstain or vote in favor given that number of token is more competitive or proposal is more aligned towards fund accountability.
Reiterating my earlier comments on the counteroffer, while we’re big fans of DL I don’t believe the…
Reiterating my earlier comments on the counteroffer, while we’re big fans of DL I don’t believe their proposal was anything more than a last-minute copy/paste attempt to derail our efforts. We’ve spent over a year building this offering with a team of ~ 50 employees working full-time in our Protocol Services arm. In contrast, they have zero experience having done any type of long-form financial reporting or governance research and provided no detail as to who would be producing these reports nor any insight into the distribution they would get.
linda: To clarify, my decision was not primarily driven by the counter offer. My initial comments on pricing were from before the counter offer was shared. I mentioned in the earlier post, the amount appeared to be adjusted based on the OP token price but the amount charged for the work didn’t have an adjustment so wasn’t able to get to a yes before.
Between the open-source subgraphs and free data dashboards 3 , there is definitely a component of …
Between the open-source subgraphs and free data dashboards 3 , there is definitely a component of tooling and UX. For example we have a Velodrome page charting TVL, trading volume, revenue, liquidity added/removed from both the macro level and on an individual pool basis. image 3777 × 1635 438 KB image 3810 × 1630 259 KB
I am voting against the messari proposal at this time. The tooling recommendation was to abstain an…
I am voting against the messari proposal at this time. The tooling recommendation was to abstain and each delegate to decide on their own. Based on the feedback given by messari here and the description of the service I don’t see the value by hiring messari to do these reports for optimism at this time. But I ask to come again in the future with a revised proposal that may make more sense for optimism as a whole. Note: I edited the answer to remove reference to LLama as this is not what drove the decision and gave the wrong impression.
TwoBitIdiot: I hope you will note where we are in the industry right now, and acknowledge that there is value in the standards setting, distribution, and professional processes we have crafted in this realm over the past year+. We don’t cut corners on this, or angle to be the “cheap” provider, but we DO invest systemically in getting this right, cover our overhead so we can freely distribute this data, and your initial response explicitly called out a competitive bid from an entity with no infrastructure or experience in the types of financial reporting we do.
[Ready] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Messari
Governance Fund: Phase 1
Hi Katie - Ryan Selkis here. I wanted to provide some higher level context on why I believe this is important industry infrastructure, and how this falls under tooling and UX in particular. For some context, Messari has been working on crypto community disclosures standards for five years. Our work informed SEC Commissioner Peirce’s “Safe Harbor” proposal, which was introduced as a bill in the US by the next Chair of the House Financial Services Committee (oversees the SEC). We believe designin…
To clarify, my decision was not primarily driven by the counter offer. My initial comments on prici…
To clarify, my decision was not primarily driven by the counter offer. My initial comments on pricing were from before the counter offer was shared. I mentioned in the earlier post, the amount appeared to be adjusted based on the OP token price but the amount charged for the work didn’t have an adjustment so wasn’t able to get to a yes before.
While there’s been a lot of great conversation around this season of voting, I’d be remiss if I did…
While there’s been a lot of great conversation around this season of voting, I’d be remiss if I didn’t voice what feel like logical inconsistencies in terms of justifications for the Messari proposal relative to voting behavior*. The points made for abstaining/no have been the following: Gov funding is the wrong route: We’ve received clarity from the OP Foundation that GF is in fact the correct path for us. So in the case that delegates disagree with the mandate, I’d love to hear an explanation as to why DefiLlama’s retro funding for their dashboards does qualify while ours does not (especially when DLs is entirely retroactive while ours is for work to be completed in the future) Value vs. price Our ask is similar to what DeFiLlama has requested with the bulk being their data dashboards. While our free dashboards 3 are only a few months old and we’re continuing to grow the product, what we’re building is even more comprehensive tracking TVL, trading volume, revenue, liquidity added/removed not only from the macro level but on an individual pool basis as well (with the underlying infrastructure also open source-source) This is in addition to the long-form reports that reach > 250 k crypto natives and 1 m+ through 3 of the largest research platforms that get in front of nearly every major financial institution and large corporate who are not only getting smart on crypto but increasingly committing resources to partner with and even interact on chain with various protocols. (Think Polygon/Starbucks 2 or KKR/Avalanche 2 ) Alternate proposal I’ve outlined my concerns here 2 and in the above comments but the fact there has been not a response shows it was not a serious proposal with any thought put into actually executing on it *While this comparison is to DeFiLlama’s current proposal as that’s the closest comp, I’m not saying that is not worth funding, just that voting yes for DL while no to ours for reasons that apply to both is inconsistent.
OPUser: JackPurdy_Messari:
We’ve received clarity from the OP Foundation that GF is in fact the correct path for us
I would like to share my two cents on this. Lets look at description on gov fund in our Operating manual.
Operating Manual of the Optimism Collective v0.2.1 [OLD]
OP distributions to proactively incentivize future growth of projects and communities in the Optimism ecosystem. Proposals should follow
This roughly translate to; any proposal is eligible to submit a grant request as long they are seeking fund from gov and believe that their proposal will grow OP ecosystem. Its not OP foundation job to evaluate each proposal and pass their judgement, any one can reach out to OP Foundation and ask if their proposal falls under gov fund or not and as long they are using the right proposal format and using $OP from gov fund, they will say Yes. And, in my opinion, that is what happened during the call.
At the end its delegates duties to decide and make a call on the proposal. While comparison is good, we also need to understand that each proposal is different is one way or another. I dont have anything new to add one other points, though.
Hope this help
lefterisjp: Hey Ryan as I wrote to you in DM too I really appreciate all Messari is doing for this industry and thank you for mentioning it here too.
Regarding this particular proposal as I said I am not convinced that in its current iteration it’s in the best state for the optimism ecosystem governance fund to vote for it.
Perhaps as others stated the optimism partner fund would be a better fit?
Perhaps it’s best for the foundation to handle this at the foundation level as @MattL suggested above?
Perhaps more time to discuss the proposal, make more suggestions and rethink on the next round/s?
Grants approval process is an iterative process and going through back and forth and feedback process only serves to strengthen grants and make them better both for the proposer but also the optimism ecosystem.
JackPurdy_Messari:
While this comparison is to DeFiLlama’s current proposal as that’s the closest comp, I’m not saying that is not worth funding, just that voting yes for DL while no to ours for reasons that apply to both is inconsistent.
The DL counter proposal has not been considered at all during this round. It did not make the cut.
JackPurdy_Messari: We’ve received clarity from the OP Foundation that GF is in fact the correc…
JackPurdy_Messari: We’ve received clarity from the OP Foundation that GF is in fact the correct path for us I would like to share my two cents on this. Lets look at description on gov fund in our Operating manual. Operating Manual of the Optimism Collective v 0 . 2 . 1 [OLD] OP distributions to proactively incentivize future growth of projects and communities in the Optimism ecosystem. Proposals should follow This roughly translate to; any proposal is eligible to submit a grant request as long they are seeking fund from gov and believe that their proposal will grow OP ecosystem. Its not OP foundation job to evaluate each proposal and pass their judgement, any one can reach out to OP Foundation and ask if their proposal falls under gov fund or not and as long they are using the right proposal format and using $OP from gov fund, they will say Yes. And, in my opinion, that is what happened during the call. At the end its delegates duties to decide and make a call on the proposal. While comparison is good, we also need to understand that each proposal is different is one way or another. I dont have anything new to add one other points, though. Hope this help
Hey guys, I’m one of the Synthetix Ambassadors, and I support this proposal. However, I am only 1 …
Hey guys, I’m one of the Synthetix Ambassadors, and I support this proposal. However, I am only 1 of 5 elected ambassadors, so this is not an indication of a yes vote (we currently have voted abstain, following the committee). Optimism GREATLY lacks an official DeFi media presence, so this proposal is an excellent step in the right direction. I’d go further and say that Optimism should have these sorts of agreements set up with other media groups. Though I will say that I’m afraid I massively have to disagree with this decision being pushed onto Delegates. The OP foundation’s marketing + comms CCs should handle this internally (alongside other media agreements similar to this one). It’s a tough decision to push onto delegates whose typical mandate has strayed far from this one. I know the OP foundation has advised that this is the correct path, but I disagree. They should handle this one internally and use the pot of OP they have to pay for it, or even do some 50 / 50 split. But anyway, this proposal is still up in the air, and I think it is helpful and a step in the right direction for OP. The Ambassador vote is still the same (abstain), but I just wanted to drop my thoughts here as other delegates decide.
Hi Katie - Ryan Selkis here. I wanted to provide some higher level context on why I believe this is…
Hi Katie - Ryan Selkis here. I wanted to provide some higher level context on why I believe this is important industry infrastructure, and how this falls under tooling and UX in particular. For some context, Messari has been working on crypto community disclosures standards for five years. Our work informed SEC Commissioner Peirce’s “Safe Harbor 1 ” proposal, which was introduced as a bill 2 in the US by the next Chair of the House Financial Services Committee (oversees the SEC). We believe designing bottoms up professional reporting standards will be an existential need for the industry in the coming quarters given an imminent regulatory crackdown. Proving that communities are invested in reducing information asymmetries by providing grant funding for financial reporting will be helpful in showing policymakers - in the US AND internationally - that the industry is taking steps to self-regulate and clean up some of the messy self-dealing that has plagued us for years. The UX matters. We have analysts that cover: project descriptions and risk factors (human capital dependent), “corporate actions” and governance activity (human capital and taxonomy dependent), and descriptive overviews of quarterly performance and key milestones (human capital dependent). We also have a large team invested in creating and maintaining open subgraphs with common data structures (as Jack has mentioned) that is fully open source, and we ensure these reports and data are distributed broadly and freely. This grant is about providing scalable data and reporting standards, broad distribution, and consistent messaging to policymakers about standards setting work the industry is working towards. This will be critical for the industry moving forward, and I hope this community will be cognizant that quality matters and shortcuts on research, data standards, and distribution won’t help where it matters in the next few years…among regulators. We know we’ll do a good job helping solve this broader problem, and in adding significant value for the OP community. Thanks for your consideration!
katie: Hi Ryan, thanks for reaching out and providing additional context. I was originally against this proposal because I don’t think it’s aligned with the purpose of the governance fund (same with the Defi Lama proposal) and would be better suited for the partner fund or the retroactive public goods funding program. The Foundation clarified that the governance fund is the appropriate pipeline for this proposal, but governance is not really equipped to handle decisions around this type of vendor proposal at the moment. @JackPurdy_Messari has done a phenomenal job of addressing concerns and answering questions. Ultimately, I don’t think this is the right time for this particular proposal type and standby my decision to abstain, and not vote against. I have massive respect for the Messari team and everything you guys do!
I hope you will note where we are in the industry right now, and acknowledge that there is value in…
I hope you will note where we are in the industry right now, and acknowledge that there is value in the standards setting, distribution, and professional processes we have crafted in this realm over the past year+. We don’t cut corners on this, or angle to be the “cheap” provider, but we DO invest systemically in getting this right, cover our overhead so we can freely distribute this data, and your initial response explicitly called out a competitive bid from an entity with no infrastructure or experience in the types of financial reporting we do. [Ready] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Messari Governance Fund: Phase 1 Hi Katie - Ryan Selkis here. I wanted to provide some higher level context on why I believe this is important industry infrastructure, and how this falls under tooling and UX in particular. For some context, Messari has been working on crypto community disclosures standards for five years. Our work informed SEC Commissioner Peirce’s “Safe Harbor” proposal, which was introduced as a bill in the US by the next Chair of the House Financial Services Committee (oversees the SEC). We believe designin…
Hey Ryan as I wrote to you in DM too I really appreciate all Messari is doing for this industry and…
Hey Ryan as I wrote to you in DM too I really appreciate all Messari is doing for this industry and thank you for mentioning it here too. Regarding this particular proposal as I said I am not convinced that in its current iteration it’s in the best state for the optimism ecosystem governance fund to vote for it. Perhaps as others stated the optimism partner fund would be a better fit? Perhaps it’s best for the foundation to handle this at the foundation level as @MattL suggested above? Perhaps more time to discuss the proposal, make more suggestions and rethink on the next round/s? Grants approval process is an iterative process and going through back and forth and feedback process only serves to strengthen grants and make them better both for the proposer but also the optimism ecosystem. JackPurdy_Messari: While this comparison is to DeFiLlama’s current proposal as that’s the closest comp, I’m not saying that is not worth funding, just that voting yes for DL while no to ours for reasons that apply to both is inconsistent. The DL counter proposal has not been considered at all during this round. It did not make the cut.
Hi Ryan, thanks for reaching out and providing additional context. I was originally against this p…
Hi Ryan, thanks for reaching out and providing additional context. I was originally against this proposal because I don’t think it’s aligned with the purpose of the governance fund (same with the Defi Lama proposal) and would be better suited for the partner fund or the retroactive public goods funding program. The Foundation clarified that the governance fund is the appropriate pipeline for this proposal, but governance is not really equipped to handle decisions around this type of vendor proposal at the moment. @JackPurdy_Messari has done a phenomenal job of addressing concerns and answering questions. Ultimately, I don’t think this is the right time for this particular proposal type and standby my decision to abstain, and not vote against. I have massive respect for the Messari team and everything you guys do!
Voting against. Mostly to make sure this gets more against votes than for votes in snapshot. Also I…
Voting against. Mostly to make sure this gets more against votes than for votes in snapshot. Also I value Messari’s work, but i don’t think the service they are offering quite fits the scope of the program.
In the spirit of transparency would you mind sharing how DeFiLlama’s current proposal that you vote…
In the spirit of transparency would you mind sharing how DeFiLlama’s current proposal that you voted for does in fact fit the scope of the program? The charter states The Governance Fund may make grants to support either private or public goods, so long as there is also an expectation of future work And yet you’re agreeing to fund purely retroactive funding for DLs data analytics work while simultaneously saying no to a similar initiative that provides more expansive data dashboards on top of the reporting and distribution in our proposal. I’ve yet to see a single explanation for why that falls under the scope while ours does not. cc: @lefterisjp @linda @polynya (I understand the case you’ve all made and we’re happy to pursue other routes but the inconsistency with how you’ve voted elsewhere hasn’t given us any clarity into your rationale)
polynya: As I’ve noted in the DefiLlama proposal (not the counter-offer, but their current Cycle 8 proposal) - their proposal is more directly aligned with improving user experience and aiding with immediate user onboarding. Also, please note that different proposals have multiple nuances and are not directly comparable.
linda: I didn’t refer to anything about scope so that was not an issue for me personally. Although I do agree with @MattL’s points around this probably would have made more sense for OP Foundation to handle internally (but again was not what the issue was for me).
As I’ve noted in the DefiLlama proposal (not the counter-offer, but their current Cycle 8 proposa…
As I’ve noted in the DefiLlama proposal (not the counter-offer, but their current Cycle 8 proposal) - their proposal is more directly aligned with improving user experience and aiding with immediate user onboarding. Also, please note that different proposals have multiple nuances and are not directly comparable.
I didn’t refer to anything about scope so that was not an issue for me personally. Although I do ag…
I didn’t refer to anything about scope so that was not an issue for me personally. Although I do agree with @MattL’s points around this probably would have made more sense for OP Foundation to handle internally (but again was not what the issue was for me).
Great engagement on this thread! Since there has been a lot of discussion about the various funding…
Great engagement on this thread! Since there has been a lot of discussion about the various funding routes this type of work could take, I wanted to provide some additional clarity about my comments on the last community call. My intention was to clarify that the best route through Token House was through the Governance Fund as there is not another proposal type (to contract service providers, for example) that is applicable at this time. Our next round of RetroPGF would be a good avenue for funding something like this (more details to be shared soon!)
JackPurdy_Messari: Given the large resource lift for a service like this, retroactive funding would not be feasible.
Therefore, we’d have to go the Partner Fund route as numerous delegates have suggested.
Given the large resource lift for a service like this, retroactive funding would not be feasible. T…
Given the large resource lift for a service like this, retroactive funding would not be feasible. Therefore, we’d have to go the Partner Fund route as numerous delegates have suggested.
