You can find the DAO wallet easily, it’s the top paper holder, that’s why I only linked etherscan.
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
State of product, financials, etc.
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.
3 Likes
[Final]
Voting: No
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.
- Contribution: Standard
- OP distribution: Neutral
- Co-incentives: No
- 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.
1 Like
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.
Tally | Dope Wars Proposal (3 ETH) Tally | Dope Wars Proposal (3.5 ETH)
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.
1 Like
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.
See all of our past draft proposals
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.
We’ll be back with something better soon 
1 Like
Looking forward to it! Thank you for coming on the our Twitter Spaces to discuss!
1 Like