Deploy a HOP bridge to Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, and Gnosis Chain.
HOP has the potential to be a uniquely efficient bridge token. A HOP bridge can be deployed without AMMs, improving capital efficiency and eliminating slippage. Instead, the hToken produced by the HOP bridge that would be known as hHop can be enshrined as the canonical HOP on each supported network. With this setup, the HOP bridge can directly mint and burn the canonical HOP tokens on each network, and there is no need to swap between hHOP and HOP.
A HOP bridge will need a HOP bonder with enough liquidity for efficient bridging. Hop Labs would be willing to temporarily fill the role of the bonder until another bonder is available or the bonder role is fully permissionless.
Make HOP available for bridging on all supported networks for broader availability.
Yes - Deploy a HOP bridge
No - No action
I think establishing a HOP bridge is a no-brainer. We need to get HOP on L2. The question becomes for how long Hop Labs will commit to temporarily filling the bonder role, which in itself raises the question about progress towards Hop v2 and permissionless bonding.
It’s difficult to make a hard commitment but I don’t see any reason we’d need to pull out of this role. That being said, if someone else comes forward and is willing, we would want to turn it over as soon as possible. I think it’s difficult for anyone to accrue enough HOP to run the bonder efficiently right now though since the circulating supply is quite low.
Regarding a Hop V2, it would be best for the DAO to engage us formally as a service provider before timelines are laid out. This will help clarify the relationship from a legal perspective. We also don’t have funding of our own to support operations indefinitely and will rely on a budget from Hop DAO to support this work, grow the team, etc. should the DAO choose to grant us one. We’ll get a dedicated discussion going for this since it’s important and ties into other important discussions like treasury diversification.
This, to be useful for end users requires HOP to have decent liquidity against other tokens (stablecoins, eth) Any plans for market-making efforts?
I agree with the others on at least starting the process to find someone else to fill in the bonder role in the future. But yes having a HOP bridge sounds like a no-brainer.
Also something a bit more on meta-governance process.
Do we have a proper governance process yet? I see a temperature check post from 2 days ago, has 2 commentators apart from the OP and then now it’s already in snapshot. And the snapshot lasts only for 3 days.
This is all way too fast. I suggest looking up other governance processes (gitcoin/ens/optimism) and adapting something similar.
You can find the current governance process here: Community Governance Process
And some proposed minor adjustments here: ## Establishing clear structure / naming to HOP proposals
I do agree, the request for comment period could have been followed more strictly here and I will make sure to do that in the future. The discussion for the mission statement was started a month ago here as well as in discord. All feedback was incorporated into the temperature check post. The HOP bridge discussion and the foundation authorization could have used dedicated discussion/RFC threads too though.
In the current governance process, the Temperature Check step is a Snapshot vote. These were actually posted at the same time.
It’s currently set for 5 days total but only 3 days are left.
I know you have a lot of experience getting in the weeds with other DAOs so if there’s learnings or processes you think Hop DAO should consider, I think it would be really helpful.
There’s been some discussion around HOP liquidity incentives here: Joint Plan for HOP Liquidity Incentives on Uniswap v3
The Velodrome team also granted Hop DAO a veNFT that has the power to control some VELO rewards on Optimism. This could be used to incentivize a HOP pool but HOP needs to first exist on Optimism.
Left some comments in the post you linked to keep things on topic: Community Governance Process - #8 by lefterisjp
Other than that for this particular proposal I don’t think I have any more questions and generally agree.