Forum Posts for [READY] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] BarnBridge

[READY] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] BarnBridge

lordtylerward - No Role

July 5, 2022, 2 p.m.

Project Name: BarnBridge Author Name: Tyler Ward Number of OP tokens requested: 600 , 000 $OP Timeline for distribution: 8 months L 2 Recipient Address: Relevant Usage Metrics: (TVL, transactions, volume, unique addresses, etc.) ~ 10 k BOND holders 1 , 000 DAO members $ 15 M in TVL across the BarnBridge protocol Optimism alignment (up to 200 word explanation): BarnBridge is moving its DAO to Optimism & will deploy its new Smart Yield v 2 product on both Optimism & Ethereum mainnet. We’re also planning to migrate our BOND token to Optimism. We believe Optimism will drastically reduce friction associated with using Smart Yield v 2 & enable a far wider range of our users to participate in governance (i.e., vote on proposals at far cheaper gas prices). Further, we’ve had our Smart Alpha product deployed on Optimism since Oct 202 . Smart Alpha has had about $ 30 m in exit transactions across all networks & Optimism was among the first L 2 networks we launched it on. Finally, we maintain a close relationship with the Synthetix ecosystem & have had early discussions around closer collaboration and opportunities for integrations on Optimism. Proposal for token distribution (under 1000 words): We hope to leverage an allocation from the $OP Governance Fund to 1 ) incentivize Smart Yield v 2 users, 2 ) bring sustainable liquidity to our platform on Optimism, 3 ) reward dedicated builders working to enhance the Barnbridge platform & 4 ) incentivize BOND holders to vote to migrate our DAO & governance fully to Optimism. How will the OP tokens be distributed? Total Ask: 600 , 000 OP Tokens SMART Yield Users: 33 . 33 % Optimism LP: 25 % Builders: 25 % Move BOND’s governance: 16 . 67 % How will this distribution incentivize usage and liquidity on Optimism? Even before the collapse of Luna we have spent almost 7 months completely rebuilding how fixed income and incentives for fixed income work in crypto. It was obvious that just printing more tokens for higher APYs/APRs was not going to end well so we wanted to reassess. This is also why our TVL dropped from its height of $ 600 m to $ 16 m (currently). We wanted to rebuild the entire system without focusing on ponzinomics. 1600 × 451 366 KB It’s obvious when we decided to pivot and focus on a new rewards mechanism that was more long term focused. However, utilizing tokens (or let’s call this unsustainable reward mechanisms) to attract original entrants is an age-old use case in both finance and the broader markets. So we still will be utilizing token rewards in our system, they will just result in more market driven fixed income rates. It would be amazing if we could use the OP token as well to jumpstart liquidity to a place where we won’t need ongoing liquidity longer term (which is the hope of variable income protocols and capital markets like AAVE and Compound). Upon launch, we believe BarnBridge on Optimism will be the MOST sustainable and MOST long term focused fixed income mechanism. This should make sense given that we were the first mainstream or major launch of fixed income in defi and we have been extremely focused on that vertical since launching SMART Alpha on Optimism last September. Why will the incentivized users and liquidity remain after incentives dry up? Incentivizing more capital allows the pool to earn more yield which gets distributed in the next epoch, therefore increasing demand for that epoch. This creates a positive liquidity loop where more capital = more earnings = more capital = … Over what period of time will the tokens be distributed? We would look to incentivize our pools for 6 months with the OP tokens allocations. How much will your project match in co-incentives? SMART Yield: This is difficult to estimate because we are bonding our token to liquidity providers on the LP positions of SMART Yield. In other words, our DAO will be accepting risk as the sole liquidity provider. Due to this, we will have a unique way of providing liquidity to this system. However, we expect our liquidity to far exceed the dollar value of this grant. LP (BOND/USDC [or LUSD]): We want the most liquid stablecoin on Optimism or WETH to pair with our longer term liquidity incentives. I think it’s our responsibility, within reason, to match or exceed the incentives. However, we will begin porting liquidity to Optimism when our main net pool (that we cannot turn off) ends. At that time, we have no idea what the value of the token allocated for this will be and it could potentially exceed our treasury. For that reason I think we need to use discretion but recognize that we should not solely rely on Optimism tokens. So there are scenarios that our incentives will be higher and vice versa but I think the people reading this will be very happy if ours are less at that time due to a run up in the OP token price. Edit: after reading this feedback we have changed the ask from 3 m tokens to 600 k tokens and changed the distribution to this: Total Ask: 600 , 000 OP Tokens SMART Yield Users: 33 . 33 % Optimism LP: 25 % Builders: 25 % Move BOND’s governance: 16 . 67 %

Likes: 7 Replies: 2

Replies:

OPUser: Hey @lordtylerward , thank you for the update. Few comments my side to understand this proposal better. lordtylerward: bring sustainable liquidity to our platform on Optimism how do you define this ? and how are you planning to do this ? Optimism LP: 25% any specific pair ? Would you consider adding a OP token pair ? Builders: 25% who will decide this part of distribution ? Move BOND’s governance: 16.67% Please also explain, why do you need fund to move your DAO to OP chain ? SMART Yield Users: 33.33% what would a user need to do be part of this ? e to this, we will have a unique way of providing liquidity to this system. Could you share this “unique” way as this will give value to your proposal. However, we expect our liquidity to far exceed the dollar value of this grant. How ? do you have a plan or its just an intuition ? LP (BOND/USDC [or LUSD]): We want[…] This complete statement is not clear or uncertain.
lordtylerward: Okay so I’m kindof replying to quotes of quotes so the formatting is bonkers but here goes: I bolded my answers to help. OPUser: Hey @lordtylerward , thank you for the update. Few comments my side to understand this proposal better. lordtylerward: bring sustainable liquidity to our platform on Optimism how do you define this ? and how are you planning to do this ? **This is basically our side of this bargain and what Optimism is ultimately giving incentive for us to do. The entire mechanism of our new product intends to do this. ** I.e. the entire BarnBridge V2 does this. It’s what we’ve been building the past 10 months. Optimism LP: 25% any specific pair ? Would you consider adding a OP token pair ? I thought about doing OP but it’s kindof reflexive if we are giving OP as a token reward and then the pool is OP because it requires you to sell OP to buy BOND to increase your holding in the pool. Builders: 25% who will decide this part of distribution ? We should put a council in place on the BarnBridge side with active community members. If OP wants people on it we are fine with that. Move BOND’s governance: 16.67% Please also explain, why do you need fund to move your DAO to OP chain ? Because of incentives. If it is half moved it creates a scenario where the funds could get locked on one chain or the other by not being able to meet quorum. So we are using incentives to prevent this. I also think people who actually vote on chain on Optimism will want a say in governing where BarnBridge’s governance lives. SMART Yield Users: 33.33% what would a user need to do be part of this ? To deposit into our SMART Yield protocol. e to this, we will have a unique way of providing liquidity to this system. Could you share this “unique” way as this will give value to your proposal. So the DAO provides liquidity to the LP side (originally our Junior side is what we called it). It pushes forward earned yield from the past month to be bid on in the upcoming month so you can ultimately take any type of variable annuity and change it into a fixed income stream. You could also, instead of depositing to AAVE, deposit into Curve or even Velodrome AMMs of stablecoin pairs to lock in a fixed rate from those variable annuities. This is what “using smart yield” would mean in this context. However, we expect our liquidity to far exceed the dollar value of this grant. How ? do you have a plan or its just an intuition ? **I think if you look at our original TVL, the reason it dropped was turning off incentives. I don’t see with adding back incentives in a more sustainable structure that the TVL would not increase. ** So yes it is an intiution but there is at least some basis rationally for the intuition where it isn’t just hopes and dreams. LP (BOND/USDC [or LUSD]): We want[…] This complete statement is not clear or uncertain. Yeah I’m not sure what I was saying here either. Right now we are leaning towards and ETH/BOND pool on Velodrome.

ScaleWeb3 - No Role

July 5, 2022, 3:29 p.m.

Easy no in current shape. Extremely high Ask ( 1 / 10 maybe okay to ask) for short-term incentive … Easy no in current shape. Extremely high Ask ( 1 / 10 maybe okay to ask) for short-term incentive distribution, small project. The split in token distribution could also be higher for builders.

Likes: 2 Replies: 1

OPUser - No Role

July 5, 2022, 3:47 p.m.

I am not sure if this is a satire post or serious proposal. but few comments from my side, if this … I am not sure if this is a satire post or serious proposal. but few comments from my side, if this is a serious proposal. $ 15 M in TVL across the BarnBridge protocol could you please provide data on OP chain ? BarnBridge is moving its DAO to Optimism & will deploy its new so its not live yet ? 1 m for Smart Yield users (Fixed income on Optimism) are you planning to give the reward in OP you are expecting from gov funding ? 1 m Optimism LP (BOND/USDC) - to move all BOND liquidity to Optimism longer term Only work short term and bring artificial liquidity. 500 k for builders This make sense 500 k to move BOND’s governance fully to Optimism How this will add value to OP chain ? Upon launch, we believe BarnBridge on Optimism will be the MOST sustainable and MOST long term focused fixed income mechanism Do you have any expected date? Does it make more sense to submit the proposal once you are live on OP chain? Do you think it will make your proposal stronger We would look to incentivize our pools for 3 months with the OP tokens allocations is there a typo with 3 ? do you want to spend 2 M OP token as yield and LP reward in just 3 months ? This is difficult to estimate because we are bonding our token to liquidity providers on the LP positions of SMART Yield Its fine if you cant give exact number? Could you give a park figure ? LP (BOND/USDC [or LUSD]): We want the most liquid stablecoin on Optimism or WETH to pair with our longer term liquidity incentives. I think it’s our responsibility, within reason, to match or exceed the incentives. However, we will begin porting liquidity to Optimism when our main net pool (that we cannot turn off) ends. At that time, we have no idea what the value of the token allocated for this will be and it could potentially exceed our treasury. For that reason I think we need to use discretion but recognize that we should not solely rely on Optimism tokens. So there are scenarios that our incentives will be higher and vice versa but I think the people reading this will be very happy if ours are less at that time due to a run up in the OP token price. I have nothing to add here as I dont see any factual information here. Let me summarize this. 3 M token requested that will be used in 3 months, out of which 2 M will be on LP/yield for a project that is not live on OP chain yet and no co-incentives, right ?

Likes: 5 Replies: 3

Replies:

lordtylerward: Its not satire. We can obviously drop the amount being asked if people don’t think we are there yet. I’m not sure how to use the quotes like you did so I’ll go one by one. We stopped all incentives for BarnBridge while we worked towards a more sustainable product. At our peak we actually had over $600m in TVL if that helps. Wait, are you talking about posting the DAO on chain? It is all currently in audit. No it is not live yet, it is in audit and will launch in the next 30 days. Yes I think we would match a large portion in BOND though. We can put locks in place. Our liquidity is currently on main net and is incentivized for a few more weeks, at which point we would want short term liquidity to move any liquidity over to Optimism from main net. Since it is shorter term, I am fine with this number being lower. Expected date is early August (or earlier) depending on audits. We’ve been building it for almost a year and its very very close. Well, like I said earlier this is probably the most negotiable part of this proposal but we do need to move as much liquidity as possible to Optimism because that is where governance and our DAO will live. I’m a little lost here - a ball park figure for what? I don’t want to sound flippant here… I’m just a little lost on the quotes and which piece you are asking for harder figures on. Right now, we do have our product on Optimism (our SMART Alpha product). The 3M can obviously be lowered but I do think it is better if we have some portion of tokens in order to ensure that the DAO is activated on Optimism in an environment where less people are paying attention to defi.
mauvaison: I like the proposal, the Barnbridge has a proven track record and has delivered 3 dapps to promote risk management. I would like to see an updated proposal for a longer terms, say 6 months to 12 months instead of 3, and possibly working with Velodrome to make the LP incentives flow back to the protocol and creating a flywheel effect, where the protocol can reverse the earn fees back into the liquidity pool.
lordtylerward: We reduced to 600k OP ask.

lordtylerward - No Role

July 5, 2022, 6 p.m.

Project Name: BarnBridge Author Name: Tyler Ward Number of OP tokens requested: 600 , 000 $OP Tim… Project Name: BarnBridge Author Name: Tyler Ward Number of OP tokens requested: 600 , 000 $OP Timeline for distribution: 8 months L 2 Recipient Address: Relevant Usage Metrics: (TVL, transactions, volume, unique addresses, etc.) ~ 10 k BOND holders 1 , 000 DAO members $ 15 M in TVL across the BarnBridge protocol Optimism alignment (up to 200 word explanation): BarnBridge is moving its DAO to Optimism & will deploy its new Smart Yield v 2 product on both Optimism & Ethereum mainnet. We’re also planning to migrate our BOND token to Optimism. We believe Optimism will drastically reduce friction associated with using Smart Yield v 2 & enable a far wider range of our users to participate in governance (i.e., vote on proposals at far cheaper gas prices). Further, we’ve had our Smart Alpha product deployed on Optimism since Oct 202 . Smart Alpha has had about $ 30 m in exit transactions across all networks & Optimism was among the first L 2 networks we launched it on. Finally, we maintain a close relationship with the Synthetix ecosystem & have had early discussions around closer collaboration and opportunities for integrations on Optimism. Proposal for token distribution (under 1000 words): We hope to leverage an allocation from the $OP Governance Fund to 1 ) incentivize Smart Yield v 2 users, 2 ) bring sustainable liquidity to our platform on Optimism, 3 ) reward dedicated builders working to enhance the Barnbridge platform & 4 ) incentivize BOND holders to vote to migrate our DAO & governance fully to Optimism. How will the OP tokens be distributed? Total Ask: 600 , 000 OP Tokens SMART Yield Users: 33 . 33 % Optimism LP: 25 % Builders: 25 % Move BOND’s governance: 16 . 67 % How will this distribution incentivize usage and liquidity on Optimism? Even before the collapse of Luna we have spent almost 7 months completely rebuilding how fixed income and incentives for fixed income work in crypto. It was obvious that just printing more tokens for higher APYs/APRs was not going to end well so we wanted to reassess. This is also why our TVL dropped from its height of $ 600 m to $ 16 m (currently). We wanted to rebuild the entire system without focusing on ponzinomics. 1600 × 451 366 KB It’s obvious when we decided to pivot and focus on a new rewards mechanism that was more long term focused. However, utilizing tokens (or let’s call this unsustainable reward mechanisms) to attract original entrants is an age-old use case in both finance and the broader markets. So we still will be utilizing token rewards in our system, they will just result in more market driven fixed income rates. It would be amazing if we could use the OP token as well to jumpstart liquidity to a place where we won’t need ongoing liquidity longer term (which is the hope of variable income protocols and capital markets like AAVE and Compound). Upon launch, we believe BarnBridge on Optimism will be the MOST sustainable and MOST long term focused fixed income mechanism. This should make sense given that we were the first mainstream or major launch of fixed income in defi and we have been extremely focused on that vertical since launching SMART Alpha on Optimism last September. Why will the incentivized users and liquidity remain after incentives dry up? Incentivizing more capital allows the pool to earn more yield which gets distributed in the next epoch, therefore increasing demand for that epoch. This creates a positive liquidity loop where more capital = more earnings = more capital = … Over what period of time will the tokens be distributed? We would look to incentivize our pools for 6 months with the OP tokens allocations. How much will your project match in co-incentives? SMART Yield: This is difficult to estimate because we are bonding our token to liquidity providers on the LP positions of SMART Yield. In other words, our DAO will be accepting risk as the sole liquidity provider. Due to this, we will have a unique way of providing liquidity to this system. However, we expect our liquidity to far exceed the dollar value of this grant. LP (BOND/USDC [or LUSD]): We want the most liquid stablecoin on Optimism or WETH to pair with our longer term liquidity incentives. I think it’s our responsibility, within reason, to match or exceed the incentives. However, we will begin porting liquidity to Optimism when our main net pool (that we cannot turn off) ends. At that time, we have no idea what the value of the token allocated for this will be and it could potentially exceed our treasury. For that reason I think we need to use discretion but recognize that we should not solely rely on Optimism tokens. So there are scenarios that our incentives will be higher and vice versa but I think the people reading this will be very happy if ours are less at that time due to a run up in the OP token price. Edit: after reading this feedback we have changed the ask from 3 m tokens to 600 k tokens and changed the distribution to this: Total Ask: 600 , 000 OP Tokens SMART Yield Users: 33 . 33 % Optimism LP: 25 % Builders: 25 % Move BOND’s governance: 16 . 67 %

Likes: 8 Replies: 2

Replies:

OPUser: Hey @lordtylerward , thank you for the update. Few comments my side to understand this proposal better. lordtylerward: bring sustainable liquidity to our platform on Optimism how do you define this ? and how are you planning to do this ? Optimism LP: 25% any specific pair ? Would you consider adding a OP token pair ? Builders: 25% who will decide this part of distribution ? Move BOND’s governance: 16.67% Please also explain, why do you need fund to move your DAO to OP chain ? SMART Yield Users: 33.33% what would a user need to do be part of this ? e to this, we will have a unique way of providing liquidity to this system. Could you share this “unique” way as this will give value to your proposal. However, we expect our liquidity to far exceed the dollar value of this grant. How ? do you have a plan or its just an intuition ? LP (BOND/USDC [or LUSD]): We want[…] This complete statement is not clear or uncertain.
lordtylerward: Okay so I’m kindof replying to quotes of quotes so the formatting is bonkers but here goes: I bolded my answers to help. OPUser: Hey @lordtylerward , thank you for the update. Few comments my side to understand this proposal better. lordtylerward: bring sustainable liquidity to our platform on Optimism how do you define this ? and how are you planning to do this ? **This is basically our side of this bargain and what Optimism is ultimately giving incentive for us to do. The entire mechanism of our new product intends to do this. ** I.e. the entire BarnBridge V2 does this. It’s what we’ve been building the past 10 months. Optimism LP: 25% any specific pair ? Would you consider adding a OP token pair ? I thought about doing OP but it’s kindof reflexive if we are giving OP as a token reward and then the pool is OP because it requires you to sell OP to buy BOND to increase your holding in the pool. Builders: 25% who will decide this part of distribution ? We should put a council in place on the BarnBridge side with active community members. If OP wants people on it we are fine with that. Move BOND’s governance: 16.67% Please also explain, why do you need fund to move your DAO to OP chain ? Because of incentives. If it is half moved it creates a scenario where the funds could get locked on one chain or the other by not being able to meet quorum. So we are using incentives to prevent this. I also think people who actually vote on chain on Optimism will want a say in governing where BarnBridge’s governance lives. SMART Yield Users: 33.33% what would a user need to do be part of this ? To deposit into our SMART Yield protocol. e to this, we will have a unique way of providing liquidity to this system. Could you share this “unique” way as this will give value to your proposal. So the DAO provides liquidity to the LP side (originally our Junior side is what we called it). It pushes forward earned yield from the past month to be bid on in the upcoming month so you can ultimately take any type of variable annuity and change it into a fixed income stream. You could also, instead of depositing to AAVE, deposit into Curve or even Velodrome AMMs of stablecoin pairs to lock in a fixed rate from those variable annuities. This is what “using smart yield” would mean in this context. However, we expect our liquidity to far exceed the dollar value of this grant. How ? do you have a plan or its just an intuition ? **I think if you look at our original TVL, the reason it dropped was turning off incentives. I don’t see with adding back incentives in a more sustainable structure that the TVL would not increase. ** So yes it is an intiution but there is at least some basis rationally for the intuition where it isn’t just hopes and dreams. LP (BOND/USDC [or LUSD]): We want[…] This complete statement is not clear or uncertain. Yeah I’m not sure what I was saying here either. Right now we are leaning towards and ETH/BOND pool on Velodrome.

ScaleWeb3 - No Role

July 5, 2022, 7:29 p.m.

Likes: 2 Replies: 1

OPUser - No Role

July 5, 2022, 7:47 p.m.

Likes: 5 Replies: 3

Replies:

lordtylerward: Its not satire. We can obviously drop the amount being asked if people don’t think we are there yet. I’m not sure how to use the quotes like you did so I’ll go one by one. We stopped all incentives for BarnBridge while we worked towards a more sustainable product. At our peak we actually had over $600m in TVL if that helps. Wait, are you talking about posting the DAO on chain? It is all currently in audit. No it is not live yet, it is in audit and will launch in the next 30 days. Yes I think we would match a large portion in BOND though. We can put locks in place. Our liquidity is currently on main net and is incentivized for a few more weeks, at which point we would want short term liquidity to move any liquidity over to Optimism from main net. Since it is shorter term, I am fine with this number being lower. Expected date is early August (or earlier) depending on audits. We’ve been building it for almost a year and its very very close. Well, like I said earlier this is probably the most negotiable part of this proposal but we do need to move as much liquidity as possible to Optimism because that is where governance and our DAO will live. I’m a little lost here - a ball park figure for what? I don’t want to sound flippant here… I’m just a little lost on the quotes and which piece you are asking for harder figures on. Right now, we do have our product on Optimism (our SMART Alpha product). The 3M can obviously be lowered but I do think it is better if we have some portion of tokens in order to ensure that the DAO is activated on Optimism in an environment where less people are paying attention to defi.
mauvaison: I like the proposal, the Barnbridge has a proven track record and has delivered 3 dapps to promote risk management. I would like to see an updated proposal for a longer terms, say 6 months to 12 months instead of 3, and possibly working with Velodrome to make the LP incentives flow back to the protocol and creating a flywheel effect, where the protocol can reverse the earn fees back into the liquidity pool.
lordtylerward: We reduced to 600k OP ask.

vaevictus - No Role

July 5, 2022, 9:18 p.m.

I support the proposal as stated. Barnbridge has been an early supporter and adopter of Optimism. T… I support the proposal as stated. Barnbridge has been an early supporter and adopter of Optimism. The Smart Alpha product has been available on Optimism since 4 th quarter 2021 . The second iteration of Smart Yield, V 2 , is soon to be shipped on both L 1 and Optimism. Given the significant impact of moving the entire governance of Barnbridge to Optimism and cost to the retail user it would be both a sign of good will to support such an undertaking as well as giving support to a project that has already invested in Optimism as an early adopter in the DeFi space. Barnbridge has been battle tested and continues to thrive during market headwinds and deserves the support of the Optimistic ecosystem. Thank you.

Likes: 3 Replies: 1

vaevictus - No Role

July 6, 2022, 1:18 a.m.

Likes: 3 Replies: 1

Justin - No Role

July 6, 2022, 2:34 a.m.

That’s a very large token request to be distributed in a short amount of time, which could just be … That’s a very large token request to be distributed in a short amount of time, which could just be a flash in a pan. If you trim down the token quantity significantly, this proposal is likely to incentivize usage and liquidity.

Likes: 3 Replies: 1

Justin - No Role

July 6, 2022, 6:34 a.m.

Likes: 3 Replies: 1

lordtylerward - No Role

July 6, 2022, 11:40 a.m.

Its not satire. We can obviously drop the amount being asked if people don’t think we are there yet… Its not satire. We can obviously drop the amount being asked if people don’t think we are there yet. I’m not sure how to use the quotes like you did so I’ll go one by one. We stopped all incentives for BarnBridge while we worked towards a more sustainable product. At our peak we actually had over $ 600 m in TVL if that helps. Wait, are you talking about posting the DAO on chain? It is all currently in audit. No it is not live yet, it is in audit and will launch in the next 30 days. Yes I think we would match a large portion in BOND though. We can put locks in place. Our liquidity is currently on main net and is incentivized for a few more weeks, at which point we would want short term liquidity to move any liquidity over to Optimism from main net. Since it is shorter term, I am fine with this number being lower. Expected date is early August (or earlier) depending on audits. We’ve been building it for almost a year and its very very close. Well, like I said earlier this is probably the most negotiable part of this proposal but we do need to move as much liquidity as possible to Optimism because that is where governance and our DAO will live. I’m a little lost here - a ball park figure for what? I don’t want to sound flippant here… I’m just a little lost on the quotes and which piece you are asking for harder figures on. Right now, we do have our product on Optimism (our SMART Alpha product). The 3 M can obviously be lowered but I do think it is better if we have some portion of tokens in order to ensure that the DAO is activated on Optimism in an environment where less people are paying attention to defi.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

lordtylerward - No Role

July 6, 2022, 11:42 a.m.

What do you think a reasonable number is then. We’re obviously fine dropping the number substantia… What do you think a reasonable number is then. We’re obviously fine dropping the number substantially but we’ve also been working with the Optimism team for along time and have been very dedicated to ensuring its our primary focus going forward. The TVL is currently extremely low but we purposefully stopped all incentives while we built for a more sustainable product that would be a long term mainstay on Optimism. So I expect the TVL to be higher than $ 15 m once we get everything up and running smoothly which we expect to happen in the next 30 days.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

lordtylerward - No Role

July 6, 2022, 11:43 a.m.

So less for LP, more for builders? We have been working with people on the Olympus team to bring ov… So less for LP, more for builders? We have been working with people on the Olympus team to bring over the Proxy contracts from Default to Optimism so I do think we will be able to attract builders through that framework… in which case I’d rather stack it higher for builders and less for LP which I think is the main pushback here.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

lordtylerward - No Role

July 6, 2022, noon

Bump and thank you. :smiley: Bump and thank you. :smiley:

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

SerLink - No Role

July 6, 2022, 1:16 p.m.

As a project that was one of the first to go “DAO first” BarnBridge has certainly had its share of … As a project that was one of the first to go “DAO first” BarnBridge has certainly had its share of ups and downs. I don’t think anybody expected what BarnBridge set out to do to be easy, but it is important for those who aren’t familiar with BarnBridge to recognize the important contributions it has made in the past and what it can do for the Optimism ecosystem going forward. BarnBridge committed to moving its governance to Optimism back when “there-is-no-token-there-never-will-be” was a channel on the OP Discord so was not doing this to get a grant. This highlighted an import benefit in that Optimism was a way for decentralized projects to make it economically viable for all governance holders to participate despite the value of their position. BarnBridge takes a long-term perspective and is here to stay because it is committed to building something sustainable and would not waiver from that position even when TVL was leaving the system because market driven rates weren’t good enough. At one point in time BarnBridge had over $ 600 M in TVL which I think is realistic again because the protocol is well positioned for serious investors who want yield that they can count on without taking outsized risks. I am familiar with the new governance framework and am confident that it will attract really smart people to focus on BarnBridge and Optimism. Also, I fully expect this DAO tooling to be something that others in the ecosystem borrow for their own protocols. Because of the above I believe BarnBridge is deserving of a large allocation of OP tokens. We need to use these grants to incentivize protocols who have made important contributions and to get them to continue doing so on Optimism. I think this proposal does a nice job of incentivizing TVL, BOND liquidity on OP, the move of an entire DAO to Optimism, and builders. If I had to make one change, I would probably take 250 k OP from the LP incentivization and give it to builders so both incentives are 750 k. I also see valid points that can be made to extend time period for the Smart Yield allocation to be spread over 6 months instead of 3 , but I think aggressively incentivizing liquidity early on will be the most effective way to increase and retain OP TVL.

Likes: 2 Replies: 0

lordtylerward - No Role

July 6, 2022, 2:16 p.m.

Thank you for your feedback here. I do want to say that I think everyone should know we will be ha… Thank you for your feedback here. I do want to say that I think everyone should know we will be happy to get whatever we can from the Optimism community we hope to be long term supporters of. We started building on Optimism and have vocalized our plans to move to Optimism for most of 2022 and this token allocation is really icing on the cake to something we wanted to do anyway. We had no idea there was ever even going to be a token involved. I also am not a seed round investor in Optimism and my interest in BarnBridge moving to Optimism is specifically because of the caliber in community there. When we saw other amazing projects like Synthetix, AAVE, Uniswap, and all of the projects within the Synthetix ecosystem moving to Optimism… we knew that was a place real builders were moving. I also think BarnBridge taking a strong focus on being a long term sustainable source of fixed yield on Optimism will position both us, and Optimism for increased usage. I think with what you saw from Luna/Terra… there is an absolute fit for fixed yield in crypto… however, the sustainability of that offering was always the question. While we can’t offer those types of rates sustainably… I think it still showed the product market fit for fixed income on L 2 s/side chains (i.e. not ETH main net).

Likes: 1 Replies: 1

mauvaison - No Role

July 6, 2022, 3:18 p.m.

I like the proposal, the Barnbridge has a proven track record and has delivered 3 dapps to promot… I like the proposal, the Barnbridge has a proven track record and has delivered 3 dapps to promote risk management. I would like to see an updated proposal for a longer terms, say 6 months to 12 months instead of 3 , and possibly working with Velodrome to make the LP incentives flow back to the protocol and creating a flywheel effect, where the protocol can reverse the earn fees back into the liquidity pool.

Likes: 0 Replies: 1

lordtylerward - No Role

July 6, 2022, 3:40 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

lordtylerward - No Role

July 6, 2022, 3:42 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

lordtylerward - No Role

July 6, 2022, 3:43 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

lordtylerward - No Role

July 6, 2022, 4 p.m.

Bump and thank you. :smiley: Bump and thank you. :smiley:

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

thierry1 - No Role

July 6, 2022, 5:10 p.m.

Thank you for the proposal.İ fully support and appreciate your work to port Barnbridge(SY,LP,DAO) t… Thank you for the proposal.İ fully support and appreciate your work to port Barnbridge(SY,LP,DAO) to layer 2 Optimism.İ think moving to Optimism,will definitely increase our TVL because many small investors cant make transactions because of high Ethereum fees.İ know some people who want to invest considerably small amount to fixed yield. About OP token allocation; it will incentivize people to move their LP and SY to Optimism.Also i support this 3 M amount of token allocation and 3 months time frame to attract investors to Barnbridge.Thanks again

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

SerLink - No Role

July 6, 2022, 5:16 p.m.

Likes: 2 Replies: 0

lordtylerward - No Role

July 6, 2022, 6:16 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 1

mauvaison - No Role

July 6, 2022, 7:18 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 1

thierry1 - No Role

July 6, 2022, 9:10 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

0xzenodotus - No Role

July 7, 2022, 10:44 a.m.

Happy to see the Barn shooting for an OP grant! It’s deserved. I don’t have critical input regardin… Happy to see the Barn shooting for an OP grant! It’s deserved. I don’t have critical input regarding the proposal structure.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

0xzenodotus - No Role

July 7, 2022, 2:44 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

lordtylerward - No Role

July 8, 2022, 11:54 a.m.

Thank you for this feedback. Thank you for this feedback.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

lordtylerward - No Role

July 8, 2022, 3:54 p.m.

Thank you for this feedback. Thank you for this feedback.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

Bobbay_StableLab - No Role

July 13, 2022, 6:08 a.m.

Rather than asking for a high amount of $OP, it is better to ask for a small amount and re-apply in… Rather than asking for a high amount of $OP, it is better to ask for a small amount and re-apply in the future. 2 mil is way too high and if you check some of the other proposals, the average is probs around 500 k or less. Not only that but 3 months is way too short, maybe consider extending it to around 6 - 9 months instead. I’d encourage you to check out previous successful proposals to see comments people made around the amount of OP tokens and length of distribution. We look forward to seeing a reviewed proposal!

Likes: 2 Replies: 0

Bobbay_StableLab - No Role

July 13, 2022, 10:08 a.m.

Likes: 2 Replies: 0

lordtylerward - No Role

July 13, 2022, 11:35 a.m.

Do you think the right idea is to drop it for 3 - 4 months hence cutting it down from 2 m? The r… Do you think the right idea is to drop it for 3 - 4 months hence cutting it down from 2 m? The reason for the short amount is we can incentivize liquidity on our end but this incentive is moving liquidity to main net.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

leivey - No Role

July 13, 2022, 11:57 a.m.

You request to many op!! You request to many op!!

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

lordtylerward - No Role

July 13, 2022, 3:35 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

leivey - No Role

July 13, 2022, 3:57 p.m.

You request to many op!! You request to many op!!

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

lordtylerward - No Role

July 23, 2022, 1:35 p.m.

We reduced it to 600 k We reduced it to 600 k

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

lordtylerward - No Role

July 23, 2022, 1:36 p.m.

We reduced to 600 k OP ask. We reduced to 600 k OP ask.

Likes: 2 Replies: 1

lordtylerward - No Role

July 23, 2022, 5:35 p.m.

We reduced it to 600 k We reduced it to 600 k

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

lordtylerward - No Role

July 23, 2022, 5:36 p.m.

We reduced to 600 k OP ask. We reduced to 600 k OP ask.

Likes: 2 Replies: 1

AXA - No Role

July 24, 2022, 5:12 a.m.

As there is no update on your documents and the current TVL $ 15 M is so small in DEFI world, what… As there is no update on your documents and the current TVL $ 15 M is so small in DEFI world, what’s the business model and plan of your V 2 ?

Likes: 0 Replies: 1

AXA - No Role

July 24, 2022, 9:12 a.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 1

mauvaison - No Role

July 24, 2022, 12:43 p.m.

Great move! That and leveraging Velodrome should provide adequate liquidity for a $BOND pair on Opt… Great move! That and leveraging Velodrome should provide adequate liquidity for a $BOND pair on Optimism.

Likes: 0 Replies: 1

Replies:

lordtylerward: Okay so I’m kindof replying to quotes of quotes so the formatting is bonkers but here goes: I bolded my answers to help. OPUser: Hey @lordtylerward , thank you for the update. Few comments my side to understand this proposal better. lordtylerward: bring sustainable liquidity to our platform on Optimism how do you define this ? and how are you planning to do this ? **This is basically our side of this bargain and what Optimism is ultimately giving incentive for us to do. The entire mechanism of our new product intends to do this. ** I.e. the entire BarnBridge V2 does this. It’s what we’ve been building the past 10 months. Optimism LP: 25% any specific pair ? Would you consider adding a OP token pair ? I thought about doing OP but it’s kindof reflexive if we are giving OP as a token reward and then the pool is OP because it requires you to sell OP to buy BOND to increase your holding in the pool. Builders: 25% who will decide this part of distribution ? We should put a council in place on the BarnBridge side with active community members. If OP wants people on it we are fine with that. Move BOND’s governance: 16.67% Please also explain, why do you need fund to move your DAO to OP chain ? Because of incentives. If it is half moved it creates a scenario where the funds could get locked on one chain or the other by not being able to meet quorum. So we are using incentives to prevent this. I also think people who actually vote on chain on Optimism will want a say in governing where BarnBridge’s governance lives. SMART Yield Users: 33.33% what would a user need to do be part of this ? To deposit into our SMART Yield protocol. e to this, we will have a unique way of providing liquidity to this system. Could you share this “unique” way as this will give value to your proposal. So the DAO provides liquidity to the LP side (originally our Junior side is what we called it). It pushes forward earned yield from the past month to be bid on in the upcoming month so you can ultimately take any type of variable annuity and change it into a fixed income stream. You could also, instead of depositing to AAVE, deposit into Curve or even Velodrome AMMs of stablecoin pairs to lock in a fixed rate from those variable annuities. This is what “using smart yield” would mean in this context. However, we expect our liquidity to far exceed the dollar value of this grant. How ? do you have a plan or its just an intuition ? **I think if you look at our original TVL, the reason it dropped was turning off incentives. I don’t see with adding back incentives in a more sustainable structure that the TVL would not increase. ** So yes it is an intiution but there is at least some basis rationally for the intuition where it isn’t just hopes and dreams. LP (BOND/USDC [or LUSD]): We want[…] This complete statement is not clear or uncertain. Yeah I’m not sure what I was saying here either. Right now we are leaning towards and ETH/BOND pool on Velodrome.

OPUser - No Role

July 24, 2022, 1:44 p.m.

Hey @lordtylerward , thank you for the update. Few comments my side to understand this proposal bet… Hey @lordtylerward , thank you for the update. Few comments my side to understand this proposal better. lordtylerward: bring sustainable liquidity to our platform on Optimism how do you define this ? and how are you planning to do this ? Optimism LP: 25 % any specific pair ? Would you consider adding a OP token pair ? Builders: 25 % who will decide this part of distribution ? Move BOND’s governance: 16 . 67 % Please also explain, why do you need fund to move your DAO to OP chain ? SMART Yield Users: 33 . 33 % what would a user need to do be part of this ? e to this, we will have a unique way of providing liquidity to this system. Could you share this “unique” way as this will give value to your proposal. However, we expect our liquidity to far exceed the dollar value of this grant. How ? do you have a plan or its just an intuition ? LP (BOND/USDC [or LUSD]): We want[…] This complete statement is not clear or uncertain.

Likes: 2 Replies: 1

Replies:

lordtylerward: Okay so I’m kindof replying to quotes of quotes so the formatting is bonkers but here goes: I bolded my answers to help. OPUser: Hey @lordtylerward , thank you for the update. Few comments my side to understand this proposal better. lordtylerward: bring sustainable liquidity to our platform on Optimism how do you define this ? and how are you planning to do this ? **This is basically our side of this bargain and what Optimism is ultimately giving incentive for us to do. The entire mechanism of our new product intends to do this. ** I.e. the entire BarnBridge V2 does this. It’s what we’ve been building the past 10 months. Optimism LP: 25% any specific pair ? Would you consider adding a OP token pair ? I thought about doing OP but it’s kindof reflexive if we are giving OP as a token reward and then the pool is OP because it requires you to sell OP to buy BOND to increase your holding in the pool. Builders: 25% who will decide this part of distribution ? We should put a council in place on the BarnBridge side with active community members. If OP wants people on it we are fine with that. Move BOND’s governance: 16.67% Please also explain, why do you need fund to move your DAO to OP chain ? Because of incentives. If it is half moved it creates a scenario where the funds could get locked on one chain or the other by not being able to meet quorum. So we are using incentives to prevent this. I also think people who actually vote on chain on Optimism will want a say in governing where BarnBridge’s governance lives. SMART Yield Users: 33.33% what would a user need to do be part of this ? To deposit into our SMART Yield protocol. e to this, we will have a unique way of providing liquidity to this system. Could you share this “unique” way as this will give value to your proposal. So the DAO provides liquidity to the LP side (originally our Junior side is what we called it). It pushes forward earned yield from the past month to be bid on in the upcoming month so you can ultimately take any type of variable annuity and change it into a fixed income stream. You could also, instead of depositing to AAVE, deposit into Curve or even Velodrome AMMs of stablecoin pairs to lock in a fixed rate from those variable annuities. This is what “using smart yield” would mean in this context. However, we expect our liquidity to far exceed the dollar value of this grant. How ? do you have a plan or its just an intuition ? **I think if you look at our original TVL, the reason it dropped was turning off incentives. I don’t see with adding back incentives in a more sustainable structure that the TVL would not increase. ** So yes it is an intiution but there is at least some basis rationally for the intuition where it isn’t just hopes and dreams. LP (BOND/USDC [or LUSD]): We want[…] This complete statement is not clear or uncertain. Yeah I’m not sure what I was saying here either. Right now we are leaning towards and ETH/BOND pool on Velodrome.

mauvaison - No Role

July 24, 2022, 4:43 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 1

Replies:

lordtylerward: Okay so I’m kindof replying to quotes of quotes so the formatting is bonkers but here goes: I bolded my answers to help. OPUser: Hey @lordtylerward , thank you for the update. Few comments my side to understand this proposal better. lordtylerward: bring sustainable liquidity to our platform on Optimism how do you define this ? and how are you planning to do this ? **This is basically our side of this bargain and what Optimism is ultimately giving incentive for us to do. The entire mechanism of our new product intends to do this. ** I.e. the entire BarnBridge V2 does this. It’s what we’ve been building the past 10 months. Optimism LP: 25% any specific pair ? Would you consider adding a OP token pair ? I thought about doing OP but it’s kindof reflexive if we are giving OP as a token reward and then the pool is OP because it requires you to sell OP to buy BOND to increase your holding in the pool. Builders: 25% who will decide this part of distribution ? We should put a council in place on the BarnBridge side with active community members. If OP wants people on it we are fine with that. Move BOND’s governance: 16.67% Please also explain, why do you need fund to move your DAO to OP chain ? Because of incentives. If it is half moved it creates a scenario where the funds could get locked on one chain or the other by not being able to meet quorum. So we are using incentives to prevent this. I also think people who actually vote on chain on Optimism will want a say in governing where BarnBridge’s governance lives. SMART Yield Users: 33.33% what would a user need to do be part of this ? To deposit into our SMART Yield protocol. e to this, we will have a unique way of providing liquidity to this system. Could you share this “unique” way as this will give value to your proposal. So the DAO provides liquidity to the LP side (originally our Junior side is what we called it). It pushes forward earned yield from the past month to be bid on in the upcoming month so you can ultimately take any type of variable annuity and change it into a fixed income stream. You could also, instead of depositing to AAVE, deposit into Curve or even Velodrome AMMs of stablecoin pairs to lock in a fixed rate from those variable annuities. This is what “using smart yield” would mean in this context. However, we expect our liquidity to far exceed the dollar value of this grant. How ? do you have a plan or its just an intuition ? **I think if you look at our original TVL, the reason it dropped was turning off incentives. I don’t see with adding back incentives in a more sustainable structure that the TVL would not increase. ** So yes it is an intiution but there is at least some basis rationally for the intuition where it isn’t just hopes and dreams. LP (BOND/USDC [or LUSD]): We want[…] This complete statement is not clear or uncertain. Yeah I’m not sure what I was saying here either. Right now we are leaning towards and ETH/BOND pool on Velodrome.

OPUser - No Role

July 24, 2022, 5:44 p.m.

Likes: 2 Replies: 1

Replies:

lordtylerward: Okay so I’m kindof replying to quotes of quotes so the formatting is bonkers but here goes: I bolded my answers to help. OPUser: Hey @lordtylerward , thank you for the update. Few comments my side to understand this proposal better. lordtylerward: bring sustainable liquidity to our platform on Optimism how do you define this ? and how are you planning to do this ? **This is basically our side of this bargain and what Optimism is ultimately giving incentive for us to do. The entire mechanism of our new product intends to do this. ** I.e. the entire BarnBridge V2 does this. It’s what we’ve been building the past 10 months. Optimism LP: 25% any specific pair ? Would you consider adding a OP token pair ? I thought about doing OP but it’s kindof reflexive if we are giving OP as a token reward and then the pool is OP because it requires you to sell OP to buy BOND to increase your holding in the pool. Builders: 25% who will decide this part of distribution ? We should put a council in place on the BarnBridge side with active community members. If OP wants people on it we are fine with that. Move BOND’s governance: 16.67% Please also explain, why do you need fund to move your DAO to OP chain ? Because of incentives. If it is half moved it creates a scenario where the funds could get locked on one chain or the other by not being able to meet quorum. So we are using incentives to prevent this. I also think people who actually vote on chain on Optimism will want a say in governing where BarnBridge’s governance lives. SMART Yield Users: 33.33% what would a user need to do be part of this ? To deposit into our SMART Yield protocol. e to this, we will have a unique way of providing liquidity to this system. Could you share this “unique” way as this will give value to your proposal. So the DAO provides liquidity to the LP side (originally our Junior side is what we called it). It pushes forward earned yield from the past month to be bid on in the upcoming month so you can ultimately take any type of variable annuity and change it into a fixed income stream. You could also, instead of depositing to AAVE, deposit into Curve or even Velodrome AMMs of stablecoin pairs to lock in a fixed rate from those variable annuities. This is what “using smart yield” would mean in this context. However, we expect our liquidity to far exceed the dollar value of this grant. How ? do you have a plan or its just an intuition ? **I think if you look at our original TVL, the reason it dropped was turning off incentives. I don’t see with adding back incentives in a more sustainable structure that the TVL would not increase. ** So yes it is an intiution but there is at least some basis rationally for the intuition where it isn’t just hopes and dreams. LP (BOND/USDC [or LUSD]): We want[…] This complete statement is not clear or uncertain. Yeah I’m not sure what I was saying here either. Right now we are leaning towards and ETH/BOND pool on Velodrome.

mjs - No Role

July 25, 2022, 11:28 a.m.

Very excited to see Barnbridge move to Optimism and thank you for the proposal @lordtylerward and a… Very excited to see Barnbridge move to Optimism and thank you for the proposal @lordtylerward and also for incorporating valuable feedback from the community. I think the proposal is getting close to being ready. A few minor things from me: Can you edit the post so that the headings are bold it makes it much easier to read. Can you clarify the rough length of time these tokens will be distributed over. Seems like for a proposal of this size, 6 - 9 months would be reasonable. I would also like to understand why OP is necessary to fund the DAOs movement to OP.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

lordtylerward - No Role

July 25, 2022, 12:40 p.m.

Okay - I updated it to include the bolding and the 8 month clarification of distribution. For poi… Okay - I updated it to include the bolding and the 8 month clarification of distribution. For point 3 - that ultimately is up to Optimism. We are not only bringing over our governance and DAO but also an entirely new framework called Proxy to test and implement that I think will be a general framework for how DAOs should work on Optimism. You can read more about that here while we work on official BarnBridge documentation: Notion Notion – The all-in-one workspace for your notes, tasks, wikis, and databases. 1 A new tool that blends your everyday work apps into one. It's the all-in-one workspace for you and your team

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

Scriqtar - No Role

July 25, 2022, 12:46 p.m.

Voted: No The amount demanded is still high compared to the distribution time and I find the budget… Voted: No The amount demanded is still high compared to the distribution time and I find the budget allocated for the builders a bit absurd.

Likes: 0 Replies: 1

lordtylerward - No Role

July 25, 2022, 12:50 p.m.

Okay so I’m kindof replying to quotes of quotes so the formatting is bonkers but here goes: I bold… Okay so I’m kindof replying to quotes of quotes so the formatting is bonkers but here goes: I bolded my answers to help. OPUser: Hey @lordtylerward , thank you for the update. Few comments my side to understand this proposal better. lordtylerward: bring sustainable liquidity to our platform on Optimism how do you define this ? and how are you planning to do this ? **This is basically our side of this bargain and what Optimism is ultimately giving incentive for us to do. The entire mechanism of our new product intends to do this. ** I.e. the entire BarnBridge V 2 does this. It’s what we’ve been building the past 10 months. Optimism LP: 25 % any specific pair ? Would you consider adding a OP token pair ? I thought about doing OP but it’s kindof reflexive if we are giving OP as a token reward and then the pool is OP because it requires you to sell OP to buy BOND to increase your holding in the pool. Builders: 25 % who will decide this part of distribution ? We should put a council in place on the BarnBridge side with active community members. If OP wants people on it we are fine with that. Move BOND’s governance: 16 . 67 % Please also explain, why do you need fund to move your DAO to OP chain ? Because of incentives. If it is half moved it creates a scenario where the funds could get locked on one chain or the other by not being able to meet quorum. So we are using incentives to prevent this. I also think people who actually vote on chain on Optimism will want a say in governing where BarnBridge’s governance lives. SMART Yield Users: 33 . 33 % what would a user need to do be part of this ? To deposit into our SMART Yield protocol. e to this, we will have a unique way of providing liquidity to this system. Could you share this “unique” way as this will give value to your proposal. So the DAO provides liquidity to the LP side (originally our Junior side is what we called it). It pushes forward earned yield from the past month to be bid on in the upcoming month so you can ultimately take any type of variable annuity and change it into a fixed income stream. You could also, instead of depositing to AAVE, deposit into Curve or even Velodrome AMMs of stablecoin pairs to lock in a fixed rate from those variable annuities. This is what “using smart yield” would mean in this context. However, we expect our liquidity to far exceed the dollar value of this grant. How ? do you have a plan or its just an intuition ? **I think if you look at our original TVL, the reason it dropped was turning off incentives. I don’t see with adding back incentives in a more sustainable structure that the TVL would not increase. ** So yes it is an intiution but there is at least some basis rationally for the intuition where it isn’t just hopes and dreams. LP (BOND/USDC [or LUSD]): We want[…] This complete statement is not clear or uncertain. Yeah I’m not sure what I was saying here either. Right now we are leaning towards and ETH/BOND pool on Velodrome.

Likes: 1 Replies: 1

lordtylerward - No Role

July 25, 2022, 12:50 p.m.

What do you think the ask/timeline should be then? What do you think the ask/timeline should be then?

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

mjs - No Role

July 25, 2022, 3:28 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

lordtylerward - No Role

July 25, 2022, 4:40 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

Scriqtar - No Role

July 25, 2022, 4:46 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 1

lordtylerward - No Role

July 25, 2022, 4:50 p.m.

What do you think the ask/timeline should be then? What do you think the ask/timeline should be then?

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

lordtylerward - No Role

July 25, 2022, 4:50 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 1

lefterisjp - No Role

July 25, 2022, 6:25 p.m.

Since the proposal seems to still be discussed and actively edited can someone tell me why this is … Since the proposal seems to still be discussed and actively edited can someone tell me why this is actually on a snapshot vote right now?

Likes: 1 Replies: 1

AXA - No Role

July 25, 2022, 9:21 p.m.

Blockquote AXA: As there is no update on your documents and the current TVL $ 15 M is so sma… Blockquote AXA: As there is no update on your documents and the current TVL $ 15 M is so small in DEFI world, what’s the business model and plan of your V 2 ? No feedback?

Likes: 0 Replies: 1

lefterisjp - No Role

July 25, 2022, 10:25 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 1

AXA - No Role

July 26, 2022, 1:21 a.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 1

OPUser - No Role

July 26, 2022, 10:25 a.m.

Voted: No. Suggestion:- Its still not clear why you need 16 % for Bong gov movement, explain your… Voted: No. Suggestion:- Its still not clear why you need 16 % for Bong gov movement, explain your reason, what action you will need to do there ? You still did not answer my last query on LP pair We should put a council in place on the BarnBridge side with active community members means council is not active, yet ? This proposal need improvement on many sides. Looking forward to updated proposal in next cycle.

Likes: 1 Replies: 1

Replies:

lordtylerward: I answered the 16% in another answer. We are ultimately moving our entire DAO to Optimism that has $30m of assets in it (with a lot being front weighted to our own token but still, millions of dollars in non-BOND delineated assets. In my opinion, this component is the largest reason I’m concerned with moving our DAO to Optimism because you create an issue where we may not have a quorum worthy amount to bring those users onto Optimism. We won’t be the first DAO to want to move to a Layer 2… and this is going to be the largest barrier to moving over is the incentive to do so vs. just staying put and incurring gas fees (especially for smaller BOND deposits who it can end up costing as much as their entire bag to move over). I think this should exist as a case study in how we actually are getting people to move over in the first place. It will become a much larger problem as gas fees increase for projects if L2s want to alleviate barriers in moving over. I think gas fees on main net will eventually get to $5k/transaction (not just myself… but people like Kain and Stani say the same thing). It’s not an issue right now, because I’m being proactive in moving to Optimism for this reason but the L2s helping projects with this large migration so DAOs don’t get gridlocked or exist in two separate places is going to be something that we aren’t the first ones to deal with. Since there isn’t a framework for it and we are one of the first protocols to launch a DAO on Ethereum and migrate it to an L2… I’m not sure I have a bulletproof answer on why 16% vs. wanting to ensure we had enough. At this point, if we get gridlocked we’ll have to double our own incentives and cost so the intention here is we thought Optimism might want to support us in this migration. While it’s off the docket for this phase and our DAO will already be moved over by the next phase… I can help with ensuring BarnBridge acts as a use case for this going forward. I actually think this is the most important part of this proposal & we’re too far down the rabbit hole of moving to Optimism that we’ll do it with or without incentives. LP We are in active talks with the Velodrome team. We have main net LP incentives running for another 8 weeks so this is something we are in active communication about (which LP exactly). We also need to vote on this on our end but the proposal should be ready this week or the week after. Someone asked if we would pair OP to make a BOND/OP pool. The reason I’m hesitant to do this is it will cause sell pressure on the OP price if rewards are getting dropped in OP (people receive and pair it back down). For us to pair it with BOND so incentives are in OP and BOND, that alleviates that issue but I don’t think we will have Optimism rewards by the time we migrate so I think we chose the most liquid pair and go with what our governance and community asks for the initial pair to be. Council We haven’t voted to put a council in place. With voter apathy and the cost to vote on main net we are bundling a lot of this up into 1 or 2 large votes before voter costs are cheaper. So as we gear up for the launch of BarnBridge v2… most of this stuff will be put in place. We’ve had conversations in the community and generally know the answers to all these questions but we need to do our large vote before these #s are hard numbers because ultimately I’m not the CEO of BarnBridge so I can just signal what the expectation is but I can’t promise exactly who will be on the council. I think across the board this should explain why some of this feels disorganized vs. we can only be so organized with hard expectations until around 3 weeks from now. Final thoughts Some of the outcome of this proposal were what would solidify answers in our community proposals so part of why we were waiting was to get clarity on what we were distributing as a # of OP and then building it into our proposals to move. We ultimately have more to lose here than Optimism by moving our entire DAO over and risking the gridlock that would be pretty existentially bad for our project which is why we wanted to know the # on the OP end before we solidified those #s on our end. I think some of the original asks were that the amount was too high and we amended it down but not as many people came back and talked about it after seeing the higher # OP ask, unfortunately. So I wasn’t sure what the main hangups were. Hopefully this provides clarity.

lordtylerward - No Role

July 26, 2022, 10:48 a.m.

I think because we had delegate support. We’re gearing up for BarnBridge V 2 so we may have just … I think because we had delegate support. We’re gearing up for BarnBridge V 2 so we may have just missed marks on a few timelines in working directly with the Optimism team who was naturally busy as well with a lot of growth and excitement happening on the network. I’m ultimately fine putting this into the next Phase of rewards if that is what people are looking for. I think it is clear that there are a lot of people AGAINST this and i think it is because of the edits. At this point, I think we have made all of the final edits so the Snapshot reflects the settled changes. By the next rewards cycle we will already be on Optimism with all of the changes made it will just make it more difficult on our end to move to Optimism due to the delay. But ultimately, I understand that and am still committed to moving to Optimism as we were one of the first protocols that originally started putting our products on Optimism over a year ago.

Likes: 0 Replies: 1

lordtylerward - No Role

July 26, 2022, 10:51 a.m.

I think I did respond to this. We drastically reduced rewards that went into our protocol because w… I think I did respond to this. We drastically reduced rewards that went into our protocol because we thought the mechanism was unsustainable. It took longer than we expected to rebuild the protocol but at this point, with us moving things over, we have encouraged people not to make long duration deposits (year long locks) before we release SYV 2 . I think both the reward reduction and active advice not to deposit long lock periods… it would be like if Curve turned off rewards and actively encouraged people not to deposit. So our plan would be to start rewards back now that we have a sustainable mechanism. This grew our TVL to $ 600 m in the past.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

lordtylerward - No Role

July 26, 2022, 11:07 a.m.

I answered the 16 % in another answer. We are ultimately moving our entire DAO to Optimism that ha… I answered the 16 % in another answer. We are ultimately moving our entire DAO to Optimism that has $ 30 m of assets in it (with a lot being front weighted to our own token but still, millions of dollars in non-BOND delineated assets. In my opinion, this component is the largest reason I’m concerned with moving our DAO to Optimism because you create an issue where we may not have a quorum worthy amount to bring those users onto Optimism. We won’t be the first DAO to want to move to a Layer 2 … and this is going to be the largest barrier to moving over is the incentive to do so vs. just staying put and incurring gas fees (especially for smaller BOND deposits who it can end up costing as much as their entire bag to move over). I think this should exist as a case study in how we actually are getting people to move over in the first place. It will become a much larger problem as gas fees increase for projects if L 2 s want to alleviate barriers in moving over. I think gas fees on main net will eventually get to $ 5 k/transaction (not just myself… but people like Kain and Stani say the same thing). It’s not an issue right now, because I’m being proactive in moving to Optimism for this reason but the L 2 s helping projects with this large migration so DAOs don’t get gridlocked or exist in two separate places is going to be something that we aren’t the first ones to deal with. Since there isn’t a framework for it and we are one of the first protocols to launch a DAO on Ethereum and migrate it to an L 2 … I’m not sure I have a bulletproof answer on why 16 % vs. wanting to ensure we had enough. At this point, if we get gridlocked we’ll have to double our own incentives and cost so the intention here is we thought Optimism might want to support us in this migration. While it’s off the docket for this phase and our DAO will already be moved over by the next phase… I can help with ensuring BarnBridge acts as a use case for this going forward. I actually think this is the most important part of this proposal & we’re too far down the rabbit hole of moving to Optimism that we’ll do it with or without incentives. LP We are in active talks with the Velodrome team. We have main net LP incentives running for another 8 weeks so this is something we are in active communication about (which LP exactly). We also need to vote on this on our end but the proposal should be ready this week or the week after. Someone asked if we would pair OP to make a BOND/OP pool. The reason I’m hesitant to do this is it will cause sell pressure on the OP price if rewards are getting dropped in OP (people receive and pair it back down). For us to pair it with BOND so incentives are in OP and BOND, that alleviates that issue but I don’t think we will have Optimism rewards by the time we migrate so I think we chose the most liquid pair and go with what our governance and community asks for the initial pair to be. Council We haven’t voted to put a council in place. With voter apathy and the cost to vote on main net we are bundling a lot of this up into 1 or 2 large votes before voter costs are cheaper. So as we gear up for the launch of BarnBridge v 2 … most of this stuff will be put in place. We’ve had conversations in the community and generally know the answers to all these questions but we need to do our large vote before these #s are hard numbers because ultimately I’m not the CEO of BarnBridge so I can just signal what the expectation is but I can’t promise exactly who will be on the council. I think across the board this should explain why some of this feels disorganized vs. we can only be so organized with hard expectations until around 3 weeks from now. Final thoughts Some of the outcome of this proposal were what would solidify answers in our community proposals so part of why we were waiting was to get clarity on what we were distributing as a # of OP and then building it into our proposals to move. We ultimately have more to lose here than Optimism by moving our entire DAO over and risking the gridlock that would be pretty existentially bad for our project which is why we wanted to know the # on the OP end before we solidified those #s on our end. I think some of the original asks were that the amount was too high and we amended it down but not as many people came back and talked about it after seeing the higher # OP ask, unfortunately. So I wasn’t sure what the main hangups were. :grimacing: Hopefully this provides clarity.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

lefterisjp - No Role

July 26, 2022, 11:26 a.m.

Please follow the proposal process properly next cycle and provide us with a finalized proposal to … Please follow the proposal process properly next cycle and provide us with a finalized proposal to review. I will have to vote against this one in this cycle as I am not even sure what the final form of the proposal I am voting on is supposed to be.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

lordtylerward - No Role

July 26, 2022, 11:29 a.m.

The proposal is finalized right now. The proposal is finalized right now.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

MinimalGravitas - No Role

July 26, 2022, 1:48 p.m.

As others have mentioned, it seems like this wasn’t really [READY] when it was put to SnapShot, has… As others have mentioned, it seems like this wasn’t really [READY] when it was put to SnapShot, has it changed since the voting started, because if so then surely that invalidates the process? I guess I will wait until the last day of voting for this one so that it definitely won’t be amended after I vote! It’s good that you seem to be responding to discussion here, so even if the proposal doesn’t end up being accepted in this round it may be better received once it has ossified…

Likes: 2 Replies: 1

katie - No Role

July 26, 2022, 2:22 p.m.

Voted no - It looks like this proposal was edited after the voting cycle had begun. Please resubmi… Voted no - It looks like this proposal was edited after the voting cycle had begun. Please resubmit for the next round and don’t edit your proposal after submitting for a vote.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

OPUser - No Role

July 26, 2022, 2:25 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 1

Replies:

lordtylerward: I answered the 16% in another answer. We are ultimately moving our entire DAO to Optimism that has $30m of assets in it (with a lot being front weighted to our own token but still, millions of dollars in non-BOND delineated assets. In my opinion, this component is the largest reason I’m concerned with moving our DAO to Optimism because you create an issue where we may not have a quorum worthy amount to bring those users onto Optimism. We won’t be the first DAO to want to move to a Layer 2… and this is going to be the largest barrier to moving over is the incentive to do so vs. just staying put and incurring gas fees (especially for smaller BOND deposits who it can end up costing as much as their entire bag to move over). I think this should exist as a case study in how we actually are getting people to move over in the first place. It will become a much larger problem as gas fees increase for projects if L2s want to alleviate barriers in moving over. I think gas fees on main net will eventually get to $5k/transaction (not just myself… but people like Kain and Stani say the same thing). It’s not an issue right now, because I’m being proactive in moving to Optimism for this reason but the L2s helping projects with this large migration so DAOs don’t get gridlocked or exist in two separate places is going to be something that we aren’t the first ones to deal with. Since there isn’t a framework for it and we are one of the first protocols to launch a DAO on Ethereum and migrate it to an L2… I’m not sure I have a bulletproof answer on why 16% vs. wanting to ensure we had enough. At this point, if we get gridlocked we’ll have to double our own incentives and cost so the intention here is we thought Optimism might want to support us in this migration. While it’s off the docket for this phase and our DAO will already be moved over by the next phase… I can help with ensuring BarnBridge acts as a use case for this going forward. I actually think this is the most important part of this proposal & we’re too far down the rabbit hole of moving to Optimism that we’ll do it with or without incentives. LP We are in active talks with the Velodrome team. We have main net LP incentives running for another 8 weeks so this is something we are in active communication about (which LP exactly). We also need to vote on this on our end but the proposal should be ready this week or the week after. Someone asked if we would pair OP to make a BOND/OP pool. The reason I’m hesitant to do this is it will cause sell pressure on the OP price if rewards are getting dropped in OP (people receive and pair it back down). For us to pair it with BOND so incentives are in OP and BOND, that alleviates that issue but I don’t think we will have Optimism rewards by the time we migrate so I think we chose the most liquid pair and go with what our governance and community asks for the initial pair to be. Council We haven’t voted to put a council in place. With voter apathy and the cost to vote on main net we are bundling a lot of this up into 1 or 2 large votes before voter costs are cheaper. So as we gear up for the launch of BarnBridge v2… most of this stuff will be put in place. We’ve had conversations in the community and generally know the answers to all these questions but we need to do our large vote before these #s are hard numbers because ultimately I’m not the CEO of BarnBridge so I can just signal what the expectation is but I can’t promise exactly who will be on the council. I think across the board this should explain why some of this feels disorganized vs. we can only be so organized with hard expectations until around 3 weeks from now. Final thoughts Some of the outcome of this proposal were what would solidify answers in our community proposals so part of why we were waiting was to get clarity on what we were distributing as a # of OP and then building it into our proposals to move. We ultimately have more to lose here than Optimism by moving our entire DAO over and risking the gridlock that would be pretty existentially bad for our project which is why we wanted to know the # on the OP end before we solidified those #s on our end. I think some of the original asks were that the amount was too high and we amended it down but not as many people came back and talked about it after seeing the higher # OP ask, unfortunately. So I wasn’t sure what the main hangups were. Hopefully this provides clarity.

lordtylerward - No Role

July 26, 2022, 2:48 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 1

lordtylerward - No Role

July 26, 2022, 2:51 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

lordtylerward - No Role

July 26, 2022, 3:07 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

lefterisjp - No Role

July 26, 2022, 3:26 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

lordtylerward - No Role

July 26, 2022, 3:29 p.m.

The proposal is finalized right now. The proposal is finalized right now.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

MinimalGravitas - No Role

July 26, 2022, 5:48 p.m.

Likes: 2 Replies: 1

katie - No Role

July 26, 2022, 6:22 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

linda - No Role

July 26, 2022, 7:09 p.m.

I will also be voting no for this specific proposal since it was still being edited but will defini… I will also be voting no for this specific proposal since it was still being edited but will definitely review the next proposal that is up.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

quix - No Role

July 26, 2022, 8:44 p.m.

We voted no on this proposal because the number of OP tokens requested was changed after voting beg… We voted no on this proposal because the number of OP tokens requested was changed after voting began.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

linda - No Role

July 26, 2022, 11:09 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

polynya - No Role

July 26, 2022, 11:32 p.m.

After reading this thread, and looking through the history of the project, I’m more confused than e… After reading this thread, and looking through the history of the project, I’m more confused than ever. I’m voting Against as the proposal seems to have been changed, hope to see a consolidated one in the future. Also request you to include a background & brief history of the project as it’s relevant information.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

quix - No Role

July 27, 2022, 12:44 a.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

polynya - No Role

July 27, 2022, 3:32 a.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

ScaleWeb3 - No Role

July 27, 2022, 10:56 a.m.

Voting No for the reasons given above. Thanks for incorporating early feedback. Looking forward to … Voting No for the reasons given above. Thanks for incorporating early feedback. Looking forward to a finished proposal in the next round. Re Proposal: The updated 600 K is still a high ask for the size of the project but more reasonable. Seeing the product and DAO on Optimism is nice and some incentives for users to move over make sense too. We still see a large focus on short-term incentives and at the same time we don’t believe fixed income will be a huge growth driver in the next year(s) - hence, we welcome more building initiatives. We agree that LPing for Bond-USDC/ETH makes more sense than coupling Bond with OP as it’s most important to make your token accessible through the Optimism network. General note: Lots of proposals try to move TVL to Optimism which does not equate to growth of the Op ecosystem and economy. Liquidity is definitely one of the keys to jumpstart and run ecosystems but we hope to see differentiated proposals that outline positive effects on Optimism growth.

Likes: 0 Replies: 1

ScaleWeb3 - No Role

July 27, 2022, 2:56 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 1

zengjiajun.eth - No Role

July 27, 2022, 7:08 p.m.

Barn Bridge didn’t take off during the last bull cycle, I didn’t see if there’s a product-market fi… Barn Bridge didn’t take off during the last bull cycle, I didn’t see if there’s a product-market fit. I voted against it.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

zengjiajun.eth - No Role

July 27, 2022, 11:08 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

Joxes - No Role

Aug. 2, 2022, 11:50 p.m.

[Final] Voting: No Doing echo of other delegates, editing the proposal invalidates your previous ma… [Final] Voting: No Doing echo of other delegates, editing the proposal invalidates your previous marked as ready; also we think 600 k still being a big ask. For now: Contribution: Standard OP distribution: Neutral Co-incentives: Not confirmed Impact in LATAM: Neutral

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

lvlojei - No Role

Aug. 3, 2022, 2:31 a.m.

Hi I would like to see an updated proposal for a longer terms :star_struck: Hi I would like to see an updated proposal for a longer terms :star_struck:

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

Joxes - No Role

Aug. 3, 2022, 3:50 a.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

lvlojei - No Role

Aug. 3, 2022, 6:31 a.m.

Hi I would like to see an updated proposal for a longer terms :star_struck: Hi I would like to see an updated proposal for a longer terms :star_struck:

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

vonnie610 - This user is a moderator, Leader

Aug. 4, 2022, 8:52 a.m.

Snapshot vote 5 - not-passed Snapshot vote 5 - not-passed

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

vonnie610 - This user is a moderator

Aug. 4, 2022, 12:52 p.m.

Snapshot vote 5 - not-passed Snapshot vote 5 - not-passed

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

lordtylerward - No Role

Aug. 4, 2022, 3:29 p.m.

Hey everyone! I saw why this was voted against. I’ll work on it and improve it next time. Hey everyone! I saw why this was voted against. I’ll work on it and improve it next time.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

lordtylerward - No Role

Aug. 4, 2022, 3:32 p.m.

Yeah exactly. I didn’t quite understand the process and know why it was rejected. I also went int… Yeah exactly. I didn’t quite understand the process and know why it was rejected. I also went into the Discord and had conversations. I’ll come back with a much different proposal for the next round. I appreciate all of the feedback in general on this.

Likes: 2 Replies: 0

lordtylerward - No Role

Aug. 4, 2022, 3:33 p.m.

Yes - this has been the general REALLY GOOD reasons I’ve seen this was rejected. I’ve been heads do… Yes - this has been the general REALLY GOOD reasons I’ve seen this was rejected. I’ve been heads down launching BarnBridge V 2 but I understand where I got this wrong and I’ll do everything to make my 2 nd swing better.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

lordtylerward - No Role

Aug. 4, 2022, 7:29 p.m.

Hey everyone! I saw why this was voted against. I’ll work on it and improve it next time. Hey everyone! I saw why this was voted against. I’ll work on it and improve it next time.