[DRAFT] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Dope Wars

Hi @faces , thank you for tag. Like I said, I have gone though all the link and read them all.

I will suggest you a different approach.

  1. Ask for user migration fund
  2. use it to on-board users to OP chain
  3. As your project is community run project without any VC or external funding, focus on RPGF, remember that the definition and scope of RPGF is yet not clear from OP team side so now is the time to make some noise there and try to get their attention. Step 2 will be a major factor here, you need to show the on-chain data.
  4. Focus on Mean-Test and connect it with no vc funding
  5. Not only I will join you in that battle as a Delegate but also a user.

next RPGF will be in next few month, just my guess, so its not that far. Check with your team and share the feedback.

1 Like

Hey @OPUser I just feel I need to make my voice heard here as I have heard a lot about opensource projects opting for RPGF instead of real funding via grants. Not only in this proposal but elsewhere. So let me grab this chance to write few words.

RPGF is a nice additional help for an opensource project. But it’s not a way to fund the development of any project in a sustainable way.

You can’t ask a project to do months of development work for free and then tell them that maybe if you are happy with what they do you will throw them some coins.

This is not directed at you specifically but I feel the need to clarify what RPGF can and can’t do – since many people seem to misunderstand.

RPGF is a nice thing for public goods and tends to reward already recognized and successful projects. But if a project seeks funding for a set of milestones, RPGF is not the way to go. This statement comes from my own experience of running an opensource project since 2017 (first as side-project – and then full blown opensource company) and having taken part in many different retroactive funding experiments.


You can’t ask a project to do months of development work for free and then tell them that maybe if you are happy with what they do you will throw them some coins.

Hey @lefterisjp, I agree with you on this and I want to see some change here, software development and management is resource intensive task and I hope with RPGF we can change people opinion on funding public good. But I also understand that it will not happen in first or second round, this will take time with iterative approach.

You can’t ask a project to do months of development work for free and then tell them that maybe if you are happy with what they do you will throw them some coins.

Imo, this we can change with the help of result oracle, RPGF will focus more on impact and support the project accordingly not just some “coin” but rather proper funding and support. I would like to see few public good reaching millions of people rather than focusing on multiple public at once and loosing traction at earlier stage and this we can avoid with proper funding.

Again, from what I see and feel, we are early in this phase, DAO is broken in current form, if there is no incentive people are not willing to contribute and sometime I feel, we, the so called web3 space is gonna turn this initiative of “public good” into just “good” because of greed.

RPGF is a nice thing for public goods and tends to reward already recognized and successful projects.

I dont agree with you on this one, I will apply Mean-Test here, successful projects might have other source of income/funding so we cant put them in same bucket with new project and/public good. Its not fair game and will raise this concern once we reach at that point.

This is not directed at you specifically but I feel the need to clarify what RPGF can and can’t do – since many people seem to misunderstand.

Dont worry about this, I am only active here on this gov forum because I have some hope that we(Token house/citizen house) can make some change with DAO based governance and feedback and open communication are two pillar of that, so i appreciate your input.

I wrote a few line on public good few days back, feel free to jump in with your thoughts.

1 Like

Appreciate the clarity on your position. I understand where you’re coming from, and will adjust the proposal in the event it does not pass this time around.


Voted : Yes
Positive track record: :white_check_mark:
Tokens requested in range comparable to other projects: :grey_question: (comparables for NFT project lacking)
Expected to grow Optimism ecosystem: :white_check_mark:

I went back and forth on this one, but in the end came down on the side of approving it. Optimism is really gaining momentum in the NFT/metaverse space, and we haven’t seen many proposals yet to help build that ecosystem. While I at first was taken aback by the large token ask for development, being that they are a community project those tokens will be shared with external contributors to incentivize project development and growth (from my understanding).

There’s a huge opportunity to put Optimism on the radar for NFT/metaverse/p2e gaming, so I think investing into a project like Dope Wars is the right thing to do at this juncture. I see so much criticism against DeFi projects using their OP tokens primarily for liquidity incentives, and here’s a project that really is going to use the tokens to help build the ecosystem. Let’s pass this and make Optimism a leader in the NFT space!


Too much op you request , I will vote for NO!

Thank you for your support and those kind words. :pray:

My only concern is that there are no specific resources mentioned for the 45% that goes to fund development or milestones. Would a portion go to the current game on OP and another portion to new game development on OP? Would it also be funding the Starkware build?


Thanks for the question.

This portion will be used for incentivizing game development on Optimism. Motivating users to improve and build onto Dope Wars MMO legos.

Our Starkware game has been completely funded by StarkNet and Dope Wars DAO and is not included in this proposal.

1 Like

I am not a delegate, but I am an active member of the DefiLATAM and OptimismESP community.

I don’t know much about the NFT/Mataverse/Gaming market. But I share this comment from @lefterisjp regarding the proposal.


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!

1 Like

Vote: No

We echo comments made by others about the amount requested.

1 Like

@AxlVaz, @linda, @Bobbay_StableLab , Thanks for your feedback We look forward to convincing you all, next time round.


I voted NO due to similar reasons as other delegates


Dope Wars will be putting the funds to good use in order to bring a new cohort (gaming) of users into the ecosystem

  1. 25%- incentivize L1 NFT holders to bridge to Optimism. Potentially bringing in a whole new subset of users into the ecosystem. *additional 5% to cover fees for those who have already bridged.

  2. 25% for in-game rewards. These in game rewards will bring new users into the OP ecosystem just to play the game

  3. 45% to help fund game development - understandable as games are the hardest app to build on the blockchain

1 Like

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.


Your etherscan link doesn’t appear to lead to a wallet address. It just opens up etherscans homepage.

@jrocki.bedrock Thanks for your support!

@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.