Thanks @Avantgarde and @citizen42 for putting this together and for coordinating across Liquity, Aerodrome and Velora. We are generally supportive of the direction; deepening VLR liquidity, utilizing the liquidity incentive program and the existing grants, but before we can comfortably support the proposal as written we would like to see a few missing points to be addressed:
Context on the existing OP/PSP POL and its mandate
The proposal reuses liquidity from the current OP/PSP pool and remaining Season 1 OP grant, but it does not restate the original mandate for that capital.
Could you explicitly reference and summarize the original ParaSwap Season 1 Optimism grant and POL mandate, including:
- How much OP was allocated to protocol owned liquidity on Optimism in the original plan (35% per the Phase 1 proposal) and how much of that is now being repurposed for this new strategy on Base.
- Whether there are any constraints or expectations from Optimism grants team about keeping that POL on OP Mainnet vs redeploying it to Base as part of the Superchain. (More on this later)
The proposal also does not mention the current farm configuration:
- Is the existing OP/PSP POL deployed via Balancer + Aura or similar, and if so, what happens to accrued Aura/BAL/OP rewards when the position is unwound?
- Will those historical and future rewards be claimed and returned to the Velora treasury, or are they already accounted for somewhere else?
A short “Current state of POL” section with numbers (current TVL, rewards, fees, realized APY, etc) would make this much cleaner for tokenholders and community members.
Why Liquity v2, BOLD and PIL, and how you evaluated them
We like the idea of pairing VLR with a credibly neutral, over-collateralized stablecoin. Liquity v2 and BOLD may very well be a strong choice, but the proposal lacks explaining the tradeoffs and risks.
Concretely, it would help to add:
- A short Liquity v2 / BOLD explainer
- A clearer description of Protocol Incentivized Liquidity (PIL) and how it works
- Risk and due diligence:
- What other venues and stablecoins did you compare against (e.g. USDC/USD-based pairs on Aerodrome, other BOLD venues, etc)?
- How did you assess smart contract risk, peg risk and governance risk for Liquity v2 relative to those alternatives?
Right now this reads as “Liquity v2 is innovative, therefore we should integrate”. Adding a short evaluation framework and a couple of key metrics or references would make the strategic rationale much more convincing.
Use of remaining Optimism Season 1 OP grant
It would be helpful to clarify:
- Has the Optimism Grants Council been explicitly consulted about using the remaining OP on Base (as part of a Superchain strategy) rather than strictly on OP Mainnet?
- If yes, can you summarize their guidance or link to the relevant discussion?
This is especially important for accountability on older grants where the original scope predated the current Superchain framing.
Expected impact, KPIs and exit criteria
The “Expected Outcomes” section is directionally correct but still quite high level. For treasury risk, it would be useful to see:
- Concrete targets:
- Target VLR/BOLD pool TVL and depth at different price ranges.
- Target slippage for a given trade size vs existing VLR pools.
- Target share of total VLR DEX volume that you expect to route through this pool.
- Expected BOLD incentive flow and LQTY staking yield under conservative and optimistic scenarios.
- Time bound review and exit:
- What are the quantitative thresholds or conditions under which the DAO would decide to reduce or unwind the position?
- Is there a clear commitment that this is an experiment that can be rolled back with defined checkpoints, rather than an open ended, permanent reallocation?
Without those numbers it is hard to judge “how much impact this initiative can make” relative to other potential uses of OP and POL.