Can you elaborate why 1m is far too large of an ask when at least one Phase 0 project with comparable stats received just as many?
But that’s exactly what most projects in Phase 0 are doing, i.e. let it sit in their treasury.
I can’t really speak to phase 0 as that was approved in one giant batch. I respect the view that I may be applying different conditions or rules than were applied in phase 0. Just trying to make sure OP is used responsibly is all. You could remove the treasury portion and perhaps this proposal enters more reasonable territory.
Thanks for the comments
To address you concerns about
The address being used to receive the funds is a multisig wallet controlled by 3 of Dope Wars longest serving community members. All funds have been used for development and is only released after a successful Snapshot heat check and a Tally proposal by the community and voted by the Dope Wars DAO.
No fund are spent without a vote by the Dope Wars DAO.
please check-out our Tally page… It shows how Dope Wars DAO has to vote to execute any treasury transactions.
I hope this addresses your concerns.
1 Like
Hey there. DOPE DAO Dev here.
We’re really trying to make Optimism a destination for on-chain gaming; like MAGIC has done with Arbitrum. We are the biggest and most well known NFT project on Optimism; and the proposal is designed to incentivize both new developers to join us, and for users to engage in the platform.
We believe the token distribution is quite fair, and will provide us the resources necessary to retain more active devs as the project matures.
Many of us have worked on this project being undercompensated, or not compensated at all. We need resources to grow our team and really make an impact in the next cycle, and we believe that Optimism is the place to do it. We believe in the team, the platform, and the ecosystem.
If you’re not familiar, here’s what we are already building today and have code and designs for.
Voting FOR this proposal is a vote for on-chain gaming on Optimism, which will only be great for the network in the long run.
3 Likes
One more thing…
Everything we’re building is OPEN SOURCE, and is a public good. So the frameworks we will develop will be available for all Optimism developers in the future.
Check out our Github if you need more convincing: GitHub - dopedao/dope-monorepo
2 Likes
As cool as Dope Wars is, 446K OP for development is an unreasonable ask at this stage, so I’ll vote Against. Phase 1 is aimed primarily at incentivizing growth on Optimism. A better target would be RPGF in the future if it proves to be a valuable public good.
Thanks for the comment.
I agree with this statement, and we feel our development allocation is to do just that. We are building directly on Optimism and incentivizing development with-in Optimism. This aids growth and provides Optimism network with Fun to Play games brining new users to the Optimism network. We feel Incentivizing our development is one of the best way to incentivize growth on Optimism. Building a strong gamming product will lead to a flood of new users joining and transacting with-in the Optimism eco-system.
Most gaming projects have millions of dollars in their budget to develop games. Dope Wars DAO has been developing with far less than that eg Yuga labs raised $450 million to fund their development of building a metaverse.
So we feel it is reasonable for Dope Wars to ask for 450K OP.
1 Like
It took me some time to read through all the link you have provided and what you are trying to build. Thank you for that.
25% (255,440 $OP) of $OP will be distributed to a smart contract
This does add some value in from of on-chain activity
25% (250,000 $OP) will be utilized in the DOPE MMO metaverse experience
this too, might motivate users to be actively participate in game.
45% (446,140 $OP) will be sent to Dope Wars treasury to aid with development of games and smart contracts.
This is where I dont agree with your proposal, providing 440K OP to your treasury for a community based project development is not a good idea.
I would still recommend you to make 2 or more proposal, remove the dev funding and I will be happy to support this. Will be voting No.
1 Like
I knew that someone will point to my last voting as I was typing my last comment and thank you keeping the track of last approvals and for the same reason I encourage everyone to write at least one sentence on why they are supporting a proposal, it encourages open communication.
Now, back to topic:-
From my last comment
treasury for a community based project development is not a good idea
- What you are saying is, give us the 440K OP token, we will keep it our multi-sig and use it for dev, this means uncertainty. We dont know what you will build.
- Community owned project are hard to build, direction and pace can change anytime which give me more doubt.
- You are focusing more on "development " word in my sentence and that is wrong, I support Dev project and I pretty vocal about it but I need to see the goal along with a precise plan and a timeline. Reading POC and providing sing-off for funding is part of my 9-5 job and when I see your 4 line sentence, I see these things are missing and they are most important.
- Focus on “treasury” ," community based project" and then “development is not a good idea”.
My suggestion would be to decide what you want to build, make plan for that, include how you see it will add value of OP ecosystem with a proper timeline and I will support you.
Coping lines from proposal for reference.
will be sent to Dope Wars treasury to aid with development of games and smart contracts. Dope Wars DAO will utilize these funds in a responsible manner to allow Dope Wars to flourish into the communities vision. We are a community owned project so no external capital has been received and we have never sold treasury assets, only used them to fund development. This portion of the proposal will encourage builders to keep developing within Dope Wars. Inspiring new developers to join our Play to Own model and collectively produce many entertaining games.
Once again, thank you for keeping a tab on me and my last approvals. I appreciate that.
In the Dope Wars proposal It is clear that the community are building A MMO metaverse game that runs on Op. Games can create so much traffic within the eco-system. just look at what Axie and Magic have done for their respective chains.
I agree that
But I don’t agree with your reason as to not help fund development of community owend projects . To me it sound as if this proposal would do better if we were a centralized(tradfi) owned project rather than an Open Source community owned project. We are a DAO with an open source product and our vision is clear and publicly known and our community is on the path to making it a reality.
This page makes it clear what Dope Wars has and what we are building towards
I apologize if it is not clear but our goal is to create A Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game on Optimism that is completely owned by players and community members in a PLAY TO OWN model. It is Impossible for us to give you a precise plan of how the funds will be utilized as all treasury decisions have to pass a DAO vote on Tally.
I do not understand how any project will grow without a treasury funding development.
1 Like
@OPUser you voted YES for Optimistic Railway
This is an ultimate contradiction and I can’t believe you have the audacity to say what you are saying. whilst voting Yes for this OP distribution.
The track record of these two projects “Optimistic Railway” and “Dope Wars” are night and day. I am still confused as to the reasons you give for voting NO, as it does not apply to the other proposals you have voted YES for. Unless you have a vested interest in the other projects you have voted for.
FWIW I think every project and proposal are different and delegates are evaluating the sum of the parts on each one. Dope Wars are asking for more than twice the overall OP this other proposal is and as Butterbum stated above it’s impossible for the DAO to signal a precise plan because everything has to pass through a community vote. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for more specific timelines, deliverables, etc when the ask is 1MM OP.
I don’t think it’s a good look to make accusations and use combative language like this.
4 Likes
This I understood, I read it through the link you have provided but that is your end product goal, something that you want to build.
But you see how this proposal and other you are referring to is different. Without proper plan I cant support this, I would suggest you to make a plan and include the cost, dev cost, duration, infra and so on(I am not sure how you will do it as its your internal project matter and I should not comment on that). Once the plan is ready, I can comment on that but as of now, to me, its a black box.
Other approach could be user on-boarding in one proposal and another detailed proposal for dev.
1 Like
Hi @Rexi , Thank you for the tag.
I can understand your frustration but I would encourage you to go though both proposal and try to see other aspects of both proposals too, I will give you some pointers.
- Are they building same product
- Their target user group
- fund distribution plan
- co-incentives
- Number of token request
tag me if I can help you with additional information.
Thanks for the suggestions. We will take it into consideration splitting up our proposal and we will make a plan to better elaborate where the funds will be utilized.
I appreciate your time you have spent, your comments and suggestions on our proposal!
1 Like
Each proposal has a different context with many variables (other proposals in the same round, other proposals in the same field, alignment with Optimism and its values, timelines for growth incentives, clarity of roadmaps, co-incentives etc.) and are not comparable to each other - particularly from different cycles. I only leave brief comments, pointing out the key issue, but there’s obviously more to it. OPUser offers some prudent recommendations, so I hope to see a stronger proposal next time. If you’re unhappy with my decision, please do not vote for me, and encourage others to not do so.
4 Likes
Thanks for the feedback.
We too hope to present a stronger more precise proposal, that will convince you next time round.
3 Likes
I want to stress this splitting up the proposal. Even if you indeed need 1M $OP for 2 years of development, making 1 new proposal every 6 months is a much easier way to get this approved.
You could even mention in the initial proposal that you will in total need 1M $OP and plan to follow up with more as the milestones of your proposal are completed and that delegates should only approve if they are comfortable with you coming back for more in doses like that.
3 Likes
Thanks for this feedback appreciate the suggestion. We will definitely explore the idea of splitting the proposal and presenting multiple proposals over the course of the year.
Thanks for taking the time to go through our proposal and leaving your feedback!
1 Like
Hey @OPUser @polynya and others. A rough timeline and cost breakdown can be attached in the following slide.
If you’re interested in the details you can always follow along using our Objective and Task tracker here. I’m working this week to bring it up to date in-line with our latest priorities.
Perhaps these things can make you all more comfortable and help understand what’s actually being built. I also encourage you to look at this deck I put together which I believe spells all of this out in great detail.
4 Likes