[DRAFT] [GF: META] Proposal to reserve a share of GF distribution for liquidity backstopping and stronger governance

If the Optimism Collective wants to create such endeavor, they would need to create such a proposal and go thru both houses.

Responded to OPUser with this, but sure. Whatever the process ultimately has to be, we can follow it to get the job done.

Napkin math here. Of the 40M to be distributed over Phase0, around 18M have been done so far. Those protocols havenā€™t started with their incentives. The End.

Not really sure the point youā€™re trying to make other than that the entirety of the sell pressure is ahead of us, though weā€™re certainly excited to see the uptick in activity!

On a side note: Itā€™s clever to frame the discussion here for price since discord has a strict no price talk.

Not really sure how this is relevant; we never even considered going to Discord first, as this proposal sits outside the scope of any individual grant. The only reason we posted in this section vs others was that it pertained to the GF program as a whole and we didnā€™t want to be presumptuous in posting in a top-level forum.

There is a governance apathy because people being people)) , will only look at their own short term incentives. The second issue is the delegation/voting excludes all but OP sitting in a wallet. You canā€™t LP it and you can do anything remotely composable for it. If you want to create a meaningful or different product that will have an outstanding backlash from the community, create a wrapper for OP, make it composable for yield and/or money market, and used the underlying OP for delegation to yourself.

ā€œPeople being peopleā€ is exactly why increasing the stakes ought to increase participation. Weā€™re not at all at odds here. And Iā€™d love to see wrappers enabling governance rights for tokens in these other forms; one of the consulting devs on the Velodrome project has been banging on that drum for years. In the meantime, why not focus on immediate possibilities that can get results and participation for this highly critical time?

As a final note, this forum is very active on the topics that draw interest (not counting the users that create an account to make one comment at the behest of some protocolā€™s proposal).

If youā€™re referring to dcao above, he is an independent (though friendly) trader who was trolling us in an attempt to undermine our proposal because he is publicly very short OP. His posts are very obviously ridiculing us. If youā€™re referring to some other protocols, ya thereā€™s evidence of that.

That your proposal has garnered 29 responses in less than 24hs, BUT all of them are rebutals, should tell you everything you need to know on why itā€™s incorrectly framed.

The majority of these responses are three people separately going in a back and forth with me. I hope you donā€™t call that governance, consensus, or even signal. And OPUser (donā€™t want to speak for them), while pushing back, has suggested an openness and curiosity, which is what any person making a proposal would hope to see!