Itâs been a year since DopeWars was awarded a grant. I have not seen a game on Optimism yet as they promised so I think its a fair question to ask what is happening here?
I have found concerning transactions that would indicate that they have sold a massive amount of OP tokens violating the no-sale rule that was inplace before their grant. More concerningly the projects most recent tweets shows they made a game on another ecosystem. Is OP being dumped to fund their game on Starknet?
If you take a look at the proposal above you will see that DopeDAO is utilising the funds mentioned in the transactions above to build what we said we would on Optimism.
Yes we are building a game on SN too, we have never made a secret of that fact. That has been funded by SN grants and $Paper, not one drop of OP.
This is a clear violation of the no-sale which was defined here This would have been applicable to the grant. The âdaoâ vote you are linking has only 12 addresses voting. I think this is right to be flagged by the community.
@jamesbond007 I have replied in the Dope Wars - Accountability + Feedback Thread and discord
The Game you referring to âRYOâ was a game funded by DopeDAO and Starkware before OP token even existed⌠games take time to make and that particular game has been in the making for nearly two years. It was never apart of the Dope Grant proposal.
You are making accusations with 0 facts this is a lie you dont even know what you are talking about.
@AxlVaz Thatâs a cheap shot⌠you making judgements with little to no facts! We are a DAO and anybody can propose anything just like this forum where anybody can make false accusations like this thread
The DAO voted to use OP to pay developers to build a game on Optimism. How else are we supposed to use this dev fund?
When we were discussing this grant a year ago we understood that the intention of the No Sale rule was prevent treasuries from just Stabling OP when it felt like it.
We have progressed with nothing but good faith and good intentions. With the 300k OP tokens we had, when OP was close to $3. We had approx $900k worth of OP in our treasury!! We did not stable any of it then!! Despite some serious serious temptation!! Instead we did the right thing and rode it back down to $1.10 and to where it is now.
You probably have an understanding on how difficult it is to build things via a DAO, and DopeDAO is exceptional in this sense. We have a pure on chain treasury system, we are properly autonomous. DopeDAO has no way in which we can guarantee anything beyond what happens when 8000 DOPES vote on what should happen for DopeWars.
Now we have managed to organise (an on-chain) DAO, in a grueling bearish market, to actually build something cool. An epic feat IMO.
We have honoured the No Sale policy. Come November we will have honoured it for our designated 1 year period.
The DAO vote has only 13 votes because itâs an on chain Tally vote (i.e it costs gas to vote). So is actually a super high number of delegates to vote! We only need a quorum of 500 votes to pass an on-chain vote. We could have passed it with 2 votesâŚ
Our governance system is set up whereby the democratic (and free) voting is conducted off chain (snapshot). Where 1 dope = 1 vote, no delegated voting. Then we stamp it on chain using delegates (minimum required often to save gas. The 13 you see here is because people were so hyped that they were ok with spending gas to support.
If you check out the snapshot vote you would see a lot more than 13 addresses voting!
I am not accusing Dope Wars of anything. When I referred to the vote, I was referring to the approval of the Dope Wars proposal in the Optimism snapshots. Esta: Snapshot
The comment on the snapshots is from a member of yours truly. Iâm just quoting what happened.
I didnât mean to be so combative towards you,I am just frustrated and canât believe there has been no effort to communicate with me about Mr bonds and Mr Fractal 's accusations.
Hi everyone, Iâm one of the delegates that voted in favor of this grant. I liked the project and their proposal. As long as the grant is being used as intended, I donât see any issues. Guidelines were much more unclear in season 2 regarding no sale and overall grant use. As long as the team is still building and working towards the milestones they outlined in the proposal, I have no issues.
That being said, I love to see due diligence and proactive accountability measures being taken by community members and hope to see more of these types of endeavors in the future.
Your website has not been updated in 2 years and the Discord link posted is broken. Questions are perfectly reasonable given their was stipulations in the grant that there would be user incentives which we have not seen. I havenât heard of any ways for users to earn or even seen a game but you guys are mad shilling Starknet. OP community has seen nothing. Maybe the developer you paid 84,616 OP can fix your website.
At least we agree on one thing lol!
I have been trying to persuade someone to update the website for a long time now!
The website was the responsibility of an old contributor who has not been in a position to contribute this year. Such is the nature of DAOs.
You have interpreted our intention exactly - the new development push will look to refresh the website.
The Dope Wars grant was made in Cycle 7, before we had defined the grant policies for builders grants versus growth experiments grants. While this transaction would otherwise violate the no-sale policy, the Token House did approve 50% of this grant to be used for developer incentives to promote the development of new games. Therefore, a future grant freeze proposal would not be appropriate. Additionally, since this grant was made before we implemented token locks and milestone based dispersements, a grant clawback proposal is not applicable.
We have learned a lot from the grants made prior to Cycle 10, when many accountability measures were implemented. We may request updates from Phase 0 and Phase 1 grant recipients for transparency purposes, but the focus should be on learning from the past to improve the future, rather than on enforcement actions that are unlikely to be applicable to past actions.
I didnât mean to be so combative towards you,I am just frustrated and canât believe there has been no effort to communicate with me about Mr bonds and Mr Fractal 's accusations.
