No, itās sincerely been a good exercise. Hope itās been meaningful for you.
Unfortunately, yes. This demands constitutional change which need both house approval, as @Netrim has mentioned.
But I am not from OP team and if you feel its something urgent and time sensitive matter, please jump in our discord and check with them.
One thing i like about DAO is chautic co-ordination and just because we have different opinion does not mean either of us a wrong, it just that we see differently.
I would suggest you two thing, jump in to our discord(gov-temp-check channel) and seek feedback on this, that might help you move things faster and second would wait until you have some support here from other users and/or delegates.
1 Like
Sure thing. But the OP Team already viewed this proposal at several levels and deemed it appropriate for review under the current structure, so seems like an unnecessary step.
Still havenāt seen anything definitive indicating that what weāre proposing entails a constitutional disruption.
1 Like
We are going in circle here, I feel.
Owning the LP address and related responsibility that will come with it will be a task for OP foundation.
In order for us to recommend this, we need approval from Both house.
1 Like
For sure. Youāre making this assertion, and Iām trying to determine whether itās true. Will research and consult.
But questions about process shouldnāt limit discussion on this proposal on its merits.
Yes please, supporting document will help.
My source of knowledge is OPerating manual. This is what comes under gov funding proposal.
āOPerating Manual of the Optimism Collective (v0.1.2)ā
And I dont see this proposal fitting in any catorgy mentioned there, So this requires updating the OPerating manual which need to be done by OP Foundation.
But questions about process shouldnāt limit discussion on this proposal on its merits.
Sure.
2 Likes
Yeah for example I think this proposal falls clearly under Phase 1 because it entails a use of distributable tokens for a specific purpose, and these tokens are matched. This is simply talking about what to do with the Phase 1 tokens, no? Seems pretty neat.
1 Like
Think weād need an authoritative voice to make this claim; thereās already mention of OP treasury actions in scope for the Token House, so custodying tokens to provide a service doesnāt seem to be an issue.
Questions around actual governance operations could maybe wait for the Foundation/Citizens, but at worst waiting for them to clear those sorts of actions doesnāt prevent the first step here.
1 Like
thanks for your considerate reply, more of a general note on tone.
For example:
Is this explicitly stated in any of the rules around OP governance or delegation? I cannot find any mention of it, and therefor disagree that this is a norm that should be considered a rule to be followed.
I am not sure if this pointed towards me or just an open question to everyone but I got notification so replying. I would really appreciate if you could tag me if a question is directly pointed towards me.
I think we can agree to disagree, you dont see this as an issue and I do.
Not that I support of this proposal but I like that you are quite motivated about this and want to have a discussion. So, my suggestion would be,
- update the proposal with exact words, who will own the LP address, OP foundation ? or someone else ? This need clear answer.
- What would you suggest to do with the LP rewards. Give some of your suggestion ?
- How long will this LP last ? Who will make a call do dilute the LP and /or its rewards.
- Do you see Impermanent loss as a problem? What would you recommend to mitigate this ?
Assuming we have other project token and want to participate in their DAO
- How this will work ? Lets say OP foundation has the token owned by multi-sig, now who will vote and participate in the DAO ? will it be foundation or the delegates ?
Update this to the proposal, if you have already answered them, please link them to the proposal.
and please remember to tag me if any comment is pointed directly towards me.
No, its not mentioned anywhere in OP manual as this is normal and expected behavior in gov voting.
and therefor disagree that this is a norm that should be considered a rule to be followed
Understandable, I would not insist you to be on an agreement with me. I was merely sharing what I believe and would expect others to do so, its not a must to agree with my view and opinion.
2 Likes
I am someone who was drawn to the Vision Optimism laid out several months ago. Impact resonates with me very deeply and I have been quite engaged with the rollup since learning about the plans and Public Goods and thinking of new ways to contribute.
I believe this is not a good Proposal and would not benefit Optimism.
If what you say is true about your very close collaboration and relationship with OP Labs; I really donāt understand or know what to say because it seems so at odds with the stated Vision.
Iāve noticed lately that nearly evey time I read a post like this whether in the Optimism discord or forum, I Ieave feeling more pessimistic about DeFi; and Iāve never had this experience.
I am definitely not in favor of this in any capacity.
3 Likes
Yes it is true, we have worked closely with Optimism Foundation, they funded the launch of our project with a grant and Partnership team reviewed this proposal prior to publication and deemed it appropriate for consideration under current frameworks.
can you please provide context as to how you arrive at this opinion?
I am personally a delegate and will be participating in governance discussions and do not have this belief in the slightest. Ty!
hey @gabagool I am happy that you are curious but I dont see how sharing my opinion will change your belief and ideally it should not.
One approach would be to discuss this as a new idea, you can create a tread and involve other users to get their feedback and opinion on this. feel free to quote any comment that i have mention if you need it as an example.
1 Like
hey @bobby @vonnie610 , is this true ? I thought pre-check of proposals from OP foundation was only for Phase 0.
1 Like
how do we know if you are not trolling us by saying that op team reviewed this proposal and supported it @gabagool @jackanorak
1 Like
This is a conflicted post by a member of a competing dex on Optimism, on whose own active proposal
I made a factual statement and offered no opinion or judgment. The facts I offered are inconvenient for his cause.
In response, heās maligned our protocolās intent and commitment to the Optimism Collective with no meaningful statement on this proposalās merits. I hope readers will consider his post with this in mind.
Some additional context is provided in that other thread, and I donāt wish to drag out any ugliness by commenting further.
The Velodrome team did share this proposal with members of the Optimism team before posting on this forum. This is not an endorsement or āpre-checkā of the proposal contents, but their statement is true.
Sharing my own opinion as an individual: I think this is a valid Phase 1 proposal because itās still describing a potential token allocation from the GovFund ā but instead of distributing those tokens to a project, theyāre held for liquidity pairing.
5 Likes