Thanks for sharing your proposal. Similar to other delegates, I feel the amount requested is too high and I would prefer this amount to be broken up into multiple batches based on the progress/traction of the fund usage so I will be voting no on this specific proposal. Happy to re-review for a future one!
Hey @Butterbum I will be forced to vote NO just like all other delegates for the same reasons I posted above.
This is a hard vote for me as a delegator has contacted me in Twitter and asked me to specifically vote YES here, and since I really like what you are building and how you are doing so.
But the amount is simply too high for a single proposal.
If you follow through again later with splitting this into multiple proposals as I suggested above, with each proposal representing a certain milestone of the project it will be much much easier for me to vote in favor. Which is something I really want to do.
I think the same applies for most other delegates.
Please don’t be discouraged and resubmit another proposal taking in all our feedback.
Have to vote NO, this project has not released anything in terms of the game (I checked the website Dopewars.gg and there were plans for Q2 releases that never happened) and asking for 1 million OP tokens for the current stage of development is way too much. The project launched in September 2021 and there is only a non-functional “swap meet” dapp and some NFT and token assets. It is also unclear to me what OP stands to gain for funding the NFTs of this project, I checked on Quixotic and they have had barely any volume at all in weeks, so it does not appear that people are using or trading them. Would reconsider with a more modest proposal that requests a realistic amount of tokens and has a relevant pitch, for example it appears the game is supposed to be on Starknet, so why fund with OP tokens? I would like to see the team show more advanced development in order to be funded, we have no evidence that they are capable of delivering anything. Furthermore, I checked etherscan and it seems the Dope Wars DAO only has $130,000 worth of ETH, which displays a lack of effective fund management; no doubt this proposal was given such a ridiculous amount of OP because the Dope Wars project didn’t manage their funds properly. I think there is a lot of work to be done to be worth voting yes on, I like the concept of the project but the extremely poor fund management, high expenses and no product delivery are big red flags. The point here is to fund something that benefits the Optimism ecosystem, and not simply to fund a microcap project that seems to be on shaky legs and not managing their funds in a responsible manner, for all we know they can squander the OP tokens they would be granted as they have with their existing funds. The high token amount requested seems to me like a cash grab to make up for crashed project assets (the Dope NFTs on opensea have no volume and very low floor price, the Quixotic NFTs have no volume, the token $PAPER is down 95%) and for poor fund management on part of the team, even if I like the concept of the game. The proposal must prove that the OP ecosystem benefits and that the project will manage the funds correctly, and that we know exactly what they will be used for (itemized expenses). I will vote yes if I see those improvements.
This roadmap seems to be the same items that previously had Q2 release dates on the official project website, is there any proof there is the manpower and developers to carry out these tasks on time? This seems to be something the project is having difficulty with. Also, it is not clear to me why these costs for products are justified, and what or who they will go to exactly.
It appears as well that the funds the project once had, when looking at the Dope Wars DAO wallet on etherscan, were mostly squandered and the project is now poorly funded. Therefore, I would like to see a more specific itemization and realistic costs, as there would be no way to guarantee that the same wouldn’t happen with OP tokens the project would receive.
@lefterisjp Thanks for your comments, we appreciate all the feedback. Dope Wars will definitely return with a proposal. We will take all suggestions and comments into consideration when discussing our next steps.
This is an interesting case bc so much is requested for developer costs for a game that’s already supposedly burned through its resources over like 9 months
The question we need to answer is whether these people can deliver a self-funding gaming experience that net increases ecosystem value. This amounts to something like a venture bet and probably requires a corresponding level of due diligence
We voted yes on this proposal. The Dope Wars team was the first major NFT project to move from layer 1 Ethereum to Optimism (before there was a marketplace). They have a strong track record of technical development and community building. We believe it’s important to support novel use cases of NFTs, and funds given to Dope Wars are likely to support the type of interesting experiences that bring new users to Optimism.
We are a little bit skeptical about the implementation of NFTs, metaverse and games in these stages given the low success. We’d like to see [more] positive signs of organic use, and then we’d be happy to help.
OP distribution: Neutral
Impact in LATAM: Neutral
Suggestions: lowering the requested amount and establishing different objectives in different proposals to drive growth step by step can be better seen by us.
Yes, exactly. Right now, the DAO is broke but spent tens of thousands on vanity expenses that never even manifested, especially funding a certain Michael Boyle (mboyle.eth) with a lot of ETH only to get…one (1) podcast in return and a 19 minute Youtube video.
It’s traceable in their DAO voting. If Optimism funds this project, how can we be assured that they don’t continue to waste money in such an irresponsible fashion, to such an extent that they can’t afford to fund game development anymore, which apparently is supposed to be the primary product?
Thanks everyone for the feedback and spirited discussion!
For anyone with questions about how we’ve collectively voted to spend our treasury you can find a history of expenses here. I categorize and track each amount after a proposal is passed on-chain.
It’s bizarre that someone would target @mboyle specifically about his proposal, when we have multiple other proposals currently in-flight with deliverables due. Hopefully people familiar with developing products understand some things take longer than others to be delivered, for various reasons.
I’m currently working with @Butterbum on a revised proposal that is more specific to Optimism. In the meantime, I’m also working with a small team to produce a proof-of-concept on-chain game using our assets on Optimism. With these things combined I believe our revised proposal will be more attractive to the OP DAO.
Working in a DAO is a new concept for many of us, which is extremely difficult at times. Personally, I have not taken funds from the DAO for development while also trying to be main project lead, product manager, treasurer, and lead developer. In hindsight, this was probably a mistake that paused our growth for a few months.
Historically I’ve tried to influence treasury spend towards contracting developers, producing artwork, marketing, and community efforts to scale the number of people involved in the project.
That strategy has been great to onboard new contributors, but as a few people have pointed out, has made it difficult for me to continue full-time on product management and development since about the March timeframe.
Producing sustainable revenue in a startup environment is hard. In a DAO it’s even more difficult. We are seeking any opportunity to keep pushing this project we all believe in, and thank you for considering this proposal.