This is a snapshot-only proposal for the Hop Community Multisig to redirect its veNFT voting power on Velodrome (on Optimism) to the WETH/HOP volatile pair.
Now that $HOP is a multichain token, incentives are needed to bootstrap liquidity, volume, and price discovery on L2s. Velodrome is a protocol owned AMM on the Optimism Network. Hopâs community multisig already owns a Velodrome veNFT (granted by Velodrome) with significant voting power. This veNFT voting power can and should be directed toward the WETH/HOP pair on Velodrome in order to incentivize liquidity at effectively no cost to the Hop DAO. Currently, Hopâs veNFT is voting on a OP/USDC pair which does not directly serve Hopâs interests. A veNFT vote for WETH/HOP also would accrue HOP and ETH trading rewards from the pool to the community multisig. This proposal only allows for the execution of a veNFT vote on the WETH/HOP pair and does not discuss what should be done with HOP and ETH proceeds. What to do with these fees would be decided at a later point in a separate vote.
NOTE: As this is a snapshot-only proposal, the results of this vote grant power by the Hop DAO to the community multisig to execute all necessary transactions related to this proposal.
Vote options :
Yes - Authorize the community multisig to direct its veNFT voting power to the WETH/HOP volatile pair on Velodrome Finance (Optimism)
No - No action
We can also use this topic/RFC to begin the conversation of when a proposal warrants the full HIP governance process and on-chain vote via tally.xyz vs. when a proposal should be âsnapshot-onlyâ and executed by the community multisig only after a snapshot vote.
this is an important vote for multi-sig operation and is the product of lengthy discussions about appropriate policies and procedures. in my opinion, we (multi-sig signers) need a mandate from the DAO to carry out our function, even for things as minute and administrative as voting on Velo liquidity pools, as we shouldnât be deciding ourselves to push any sort of transaction without the authorization to do so.
Strongly agree that a snapshot vote is more than enough with such a âlow impactâ decision. In my opinion the multisig should be granted full discretion of the veNFT until another snapshot vote decides to reverse the delegation. Most importantly is to get this vote up asap so that we get some price discovery on velodrome imo
Just as clarification, did you intend this to be narrowly interpreted as requiring voting power go to WETH/HOP and nothing else? Or simply to authorize WETH/HOP as an acceptable choice along with past choices?
It might be worthwhile to go ahead and authorize a menu of options (or even any option) to avoid another vote to shift to, say OP/HOP, in the future.
You could add some flexibility with something like:
Authorize the community multisig to direct its veNFT voting power to any HOP volatile pair on Velodrome Finance (Optimism)
I donât think past choices should be considered if they donât have HOP in the pool - I understand that there wasnât a HOP pair prior to this decision, but that makes little sense moving forward.
I think this is where we need to be having the discussion of how we should define what a âlow impactâ decision is. Although this clearly is one, what aspects of the decision make that distinction so clear? The better we can define that, the less murky these governance decisions become. In this case, it seems like itâs:
no change being made to the core Hop Protocol
a transaction being executed by the community multisig that does not directly beneficially reward any person/entity outside of the Hop DAO itself
I intended for this to be narrowly interpreted as solely to vote for WETH/HOP (which I believe will also require a transaction to unvote the OP/USDC pool) and nothing else. I think any additional decisions or actions would require a separate vote especially until we can come up with clear guidelines for why this is a snapshot-only, low-impact decision.
This proposal makes sense and is ofcourse a good move for HOP, so will be voting for it.
Now as for just a snapshot being enough I agree. Canât pass everything through votes, let alone on-chain votes. Some times itâs a bit too much and we must not ignore the operational costs.