Dhannte - Delegate Communication Thread

These were my initial guidelines for the last 5 cycles:


  • Protocol usage incentives
  • Grants and 3rd party developer incentives
  • Retroactive allocations for early adopters


  • Bridging incentives
  • Paying for full project development.

Since then I come to realize most so-called “incentives” are mostly liquidity programs and financial tools for OP$ farming and it feels like no real value is added.

This is what changed for Cycle 6:


  • Incentivize Optimism usage
  • Live on optimism (for funding go to the Optimism partnership program)
  • Tooling and non-financial ideas have my attention
  • Open source (unless DeFi committee C approval)
  • DeFi project approved by committee C


  • Closed source projects (Unless DeFi committee C approval)
  • Paying for full project development
  • Ghost teams/projects with nothing deployed

As we move forward to the last committee voting cycle I felt it is a good time to give some feedback about this experience. I enjoyed both being a committee member and being a proposer at the same time as it gave me a full picture of how this worked and where improvements might go.

Time wasted
It blows my mind to see so many talented people gathered for such a good cause to be pulled into meaningless and repeating conversations. If you take only (Regular badge on Optimism Collective) you have the 18 most active readers. There you can find Karl, Kelvin, Katie, Polynya, and more. If you add up some of the strong delegates who give feedback and show up to the community call you have Lefteris or Linda Xie. You can quickly understand this is not people with free time. And yet here they are trying to push this forward.

I yearn for a 20 min talk with any of them to learn all the things they have and I struggle seeing how do they have to repeat themselves over and over until they leave the conversations.

Lack of Optimism Foundation Involvement
This is crystal clear, if the foundation is going to hold the last word, then we need someone from inside representing the foundation and at least saying something like “this is being analyzed by the foundation you will have an answer in 24hs” We cannot have 48hs of unstoppable harassment over a committee member without any word from the foundation. I’m not asking for fast answers I know they have a lot on their plate, but at least an acknowledgment to avoid confrontation. And if for that they need more people I’m all in to vote for an $OP fund.
By the way, I love the work the foundation is doing so far, this is just improvements on the amazing job they are doing already.

About my vote on cycle 8
I abstained from EthernautDAO proposal as I am the proposer and I wanted the rest of the community to decide, I’m sorry if those who delegated to me felt misrepresented we passed with 96%.

For all other proposals, I followed the respective elected Committee recommendation. When the committee recommended DYOR like Velo and Messari I did.

I voted Yes for Massari as I believe they come with a different proposal. I would love to have more clarity about the grant but at least the idea is new and I want to know the metrics that come from it.

I voted no for Velo I don’t think the second proposal repeating the first one makes much sense. (This applies to Gov and Partners fund). At the same time, the amount asked should be half of the first one and not more. This is a DeFi protocol, not a public good and they are profit-oriented, the project itself must consider a market acquisition of OP tokens if they need more to be sustainable and integrate this own demand in its own profit formula. Otherwise, they are just leveraging their own project with $OP. If other DeFi projects want to use Velo as their main liquidity stream and they need $OP for the bribes etc then those projects should be asking for the tokens and not Velo.