• General
  • OIP-XXX: Approve distribution of LayerZero Aidrop

Summary

To be eligible for the airdrop, LayerZero is requesting a RFP from every eligible project.


The Protocol RFP (Request for Proposal) is the first step in the TGE allocation process, which gives each project the ability to establish its own allocation criteria relative to its overall token allocation.

Motivation

We are expediting the following OIP to have the community vote on the preferred distribution allocation for tokens that the Olympus Protocol is entitled to. Following the discussions made in the community discord, we must now formalize and vote as a community before submitting to LayerZero.

Proposal:

The distribution criteria has certain restrictions as qualified in Clarified RFP Criteria.

  1. The developer allocation (maximum 10%) can be used for any purpose chosen by the developers, including expenses, audits, future community incentives, etc.

  2. Protocols cannot request an allocation for their treasuries; any such request must come from the 10% developer allocation.

  3. The remaining 90% allocation is intended as retroactive rewards for the users and community members of the protocol.

Based on this criteria we propose the following for community consideration:

Option 1.

10% allocation to Devs / Olympus Treasury.
45% weighted distribution to those that bridged 10 ohm or more before the snapshot.
45% to ohm/gohm holders (cooler loans count) based on how much they own with 10 ohm minimum

Option 2:

10% allocation to Devs / Olympus Treasury
60% weighted distribution to those that bridged 10 ohm or more before snapshot.
30% to ohm/gohm holders (cooler loans count) based on how much they own with 10 ohm minimum)

Option 3:

10% allocation to Devs / Olympus Treasury
30% weighted distribution to those that bridged 10 ohm or more before snapshot.
60% to ohm/gohm holders (cooler loans count) based on how much they own with 10 ohm minimum)

Option 4:

10% allocation to Devs / Olympus Treasury
90% to coolered loans ohm.

Submit RFP to Layer Zero

This poll has ended.

Thanks for putting this together Apollo! Interested to see what communities thoughts are on this allocation.

  • Edited

I really hope people vote for one of the first 3 options because the spirit and intent of LayerZero for this airdrop is to reward users of their technology so I think bridgers should get some allocation to just them. Holders are important as well and should get a share since we would not be where we are without them but please honor the intent behind this airdrop by letting bridgers have a little extra. Also if LayerZero wants they could reject our RFP for any reason and if we don't reward bridgers any they may not like that.

I also kind of wish there was an option for:
10% devs/treasury
10% weighted distribution to those that bridged 10 ohm or more before snapshot.
80% to coolered loans ohm.

By making the amount given to bridgers lower some of the ones voting for max to cooler users might vote for it since they may want bridgers to have something but not as much as the other options.

    4848 Thanks. I agree with the spirit. The goal is to give the community the space to debate and share their opinions. This is not the final vote, but a temp check for then do the snapshot. As we are close to submit the RFP, we should expedite the process.

      Apollo_ Yeah, snapshot is next and agree on moving quicker with voting since we have less time to get it done than most other proposals.

      • Edited

      Maybe choose the top 2 options for snapshot. I would normally want more than 2 options for some proposals but in this case I think having only 2 makes sense because it is basically the bridgers vs everyone else when it comes to voting so having only 2 options helps the bridgers have a more fair fight and not lose because of having their votes spread out on 3 options when they could have been on one.

      lost access to @rfveth account (ree), so had to make a new one.

      Echoing my thoughts from Discord:

      Option 4 is my preferred route;

      As someone who bridged a lot of OHM back and forth, so might actually on balance benefit more from one of the first 3 options, I still don't think anyone who used OHM but didn't bridge (or bridged it over as gOHM via Synapse) is any less valuable, most of its usecase on other chains was arbitrage and borrowing, just the same as has been available on mainnet.

      My biggest issue with 1-3 is this: Who has been more valuable to LayerZero, the person using OHM on mainnet in a way that makes it profitable (and therefore viable) for another party to bridge over and execute an arb, or the arber themselves? LZ wouldn't have been used without the first person's action, despite them not being the bridger here. I think for this reason alone, it's possible to get into qualitative and philosophical arguments which complicate the matter, and should be a sign to push us towards simplicity.

      I also think there could be complications with either of the first 3 options with regards to the data:

      We'd need to gather all the bridge data, decide whether to exclude anyone bridging back and forth without any organic activity (another qualitative issue that would take time to reach consensus on)

      Then gather all the data of bridgers that used aggregators, parse out the original bridger's address rather than the aggregator's address

      Then give an opportunity for challengers to find edge cases with the dataset

      etc.

      Whereas option 4 uses a dataset that we already have familiarity with, is extremely simple and standardized, and IMHO is also the fairest distribution which sets the best precedent going forward.

      4848

      I agree with the proposed distribution of 10% to treasury, 10% to bridgers, and 80% to coolers.

      Bridgers get a slightly bigger piece of the pie for their efforts, while our most entrenched protocol owners still reap the majority of the benefits from the Dao's cross-protocol activities.

      • Edited

      Here is what I think the next steps should be after this forum vote.

      We do the snapshot vote.
      We then use LayerZero's snapshot date to determine the addresses that are eligible for our portion of the airdrop.
      Then submit the RFP to LayerZero using their format they told us to use. Should be submitted before may 31st in order to allow more time to get feedback.
      Then respond to any feedback they give us.
      Then hopefully receive the airdrop.

      I'm assuming allocation to Coolered OHM would be a snapshot prior to this proposal?

        Deez it would need to be prior to LayerZero's Snapshot 1, per their criteria

        Write a Reply...