DRAFT][S02 Committee Proposal: Category: Defi: Group B]

Committee Proposal Template

  • Committee category: Our committee has been formed with the main purpose of reviewing any proposals related to decentralized finance. Upon review we will provide a standard risk assessment, growth assessment as well as a summarized version of each proposal along with a voting recommendation for Token house delegates and voters. The aim of our committee is to relieve delegates and voters who may not be savvy or interested in defi from the burden of making uninformed decisions. As per the recommendation of the Optimism foundation two decentralized finance committees are recommended, as of writing we are the second proposed committee.
    Its worth noting there will be a clear overlap in the two committees, it would be efficient if relevant proposals are distributed fairly and if possible equally throughout the season.

  • Proposed number of committee members

Our committee consists of five members

  • Who will be the committee lead?

Doug - Doug has been following the development of optimism since late 2018, when governance launched he became a delegate. He has been involved in the decentralized finance sector since its inception, since then he has contributed to various projects such as Risk harbor, Deus, Wing Finance, Flamingo finance and Ontology.

  • Who will be the committee reviewers?

Jack Anorak - Jack is a founding member of Velodrome and Information Token, where he primarily contributes to defi strategy, investments, and general management. He came to crypto in 2017 by way of prediction markets and has been involved in a wide range of DeFi projects since 2020.

Solarcurve - Contributor at Balancer DAO and advisor to BeethovenX. These two projects recently deployed on Optimism in a 50/50 partnership. I’ve been a member of the Balancer community since before the token launched and was an active on-chain DeFi user during the ‘18-’19 bear market and ever since so I have a strong working knowledge of most DeFi applications.

MasterMojo - MasterMojo has been involved in the DEFI space since 2019, and the crypto space since 2017 as a trader/investor. He currently is one of three Synthetix Ambassadors for the Synthetix DAO where they perform governance activities/proposals, Dao2Dao relations, protocol integrations, community outreach, & growth strategies, he co-produces a community ran newsletter for Lyra Finance, has hands on experience in all aspects of Ethereum DEFI, including being an Optimism OG.

Matt - Matt is a long term SNX community member and SNX Core Contributor since November 2021 for Comms/Marketing. He is also one of the three SNX Ambassadors that has helped to promote Optimism and Optimism projects through weekly Twitter Space Calls, project integrations, community outreach, and also lobbies for SNX across all of DeFi by pushing for governance proposals and other important issues.

  • Please provide the voting participation rate and % of votable supply held by each committee member:

  • Jack Anorak - Voting weight 0.4%, participation 0% (new delegate)

  • Solarcurve - Voting weight 0.78%, participation 100%

  • MasterMojo - Voting weight 5.95%, participation 0% L2 multisig issue

  • Matt - Voting weight 5.95%, participation 0% L2 multisig Issue

  • Doug - Voting weight 0.93%, voting participation 100%

  • Please disclose any and all conflicts of interest committee members may have:

Jack Anorak - team member of Velodrome, which is likely to touch almost every protocol applying for grants. However, Velodrome’s centrality to Optimism makes it such that its success is tied directly to the growth of the entire layer; therefore, its interests are broadly aligned with the objectives of the Collective.

Solarcurve - very close relationship with Balancer/BeethovenX.

  • Please outline the decision making framework the committee plans to use to make recommendations: (this may include proposal scoring metrics and/or other frameworks)

  • Risk Rating determined by 6 factors, before rating all projects start with 10 Points those points are deducted using the guide below.

1- Has the project lost user or operational funds in an exploit? If yes -2 points

2- Has the project been around longer than a year? If not -2 points

3- Is the team reputable? If not -2 points

“The definition of this factor is flexible and quorum will be required among the committee to decide this”.

4- Does the proposal encourage or promote L2 outflow? If outflow -2 points

5- Does the project offer bug bounties? If not -1 point

6- Has the project conducted audits? If not -1 point

  • Growth Rating is determined by 5 factors, before rating all projects start with 10 growth points. These points are deducted using the guide below.

1- Does the project have significant L1 or L2 users? If not -2 points

2- Does the project have an appropriate TVL? If not -2 points

3- Does the project have active socials with engagement? If no -2 points

4- Will grant funds onboard/reward new users? If not -2 points

5- Will the project be matching incentives? If not -2 points

  • Please describe how the committee will operate: (general workflow, communication channels, expected outputs, etc.)

We will start our discussions in our public committee channel where we will work to establish a risk assessment along with a growth assessment after this we will provide a summary of what the proposal offers along with our voting recommendation. This will be done transparently for every proposal. Our committee voting recommendation will take into account other metrics such as number of tokens requested, usage of grant funds and other related metrics.

Risk/growth assessments include a score along with statements highlighting interests/concerns if applicable. We are using these assessments to fairly compare proposals to one another.

Phase 1 Committee Formation Proposal Template Link to proposal template.


Wow, what a group! This would make for an awesome DeFi committee!!


i see some good members here in this committee. had question about grading system say if a project has no things that fit the criteria they will get a bad score? any ways to circumvent this?

1 Like

Hey thanks for the feedback, yes we expect that a few proposals may have a few things they can’t meet criteria wise maybe due to project structure or project type, if we see this we will try to make note of why they are exempt from that specific criteria.

Big fan of this group. Looking forward to this DeFi committee.


I like the diversity in this Defi group. Looking forward to this committee.


Thank you for your committee proposal. I try to provide constructive feedback to showcase that you can be part of a competing proposal, yet act in good faith for the better of the Op ecosystem.

Committee picks:

So far, I have only interacted with @solarcurve and @jackanorak.

  • I have seen @solarcurve engage proactively & in a value-adding way across governance channels of Optimism and other projects and even seconded our reach out in the IndexCoop forum to join the Optimism ecosystem & come up with a reasonable proposal.
  • @jackanorak has engaged in bad faith in governance twice afaik (Curve, our thread) and it might be a good idea to overthink whether he should be part of this committee.
  • Descriptions of team members include a.o.t Balancer & Synthetix. I have a lot of respect for both ecosystems, core contributors & communities as they managed to open up new primitives, build foundational contracts for DeFi and show a lot of long-termism (incl. the early move to Optimism). I also like the different governance systems and recommend other to check out SIPs & Ballers.

Re: Decision making framework

  • The framework includes questions that all assessments should include
  • Some of the questions (Reputation, Project size/users, Onboarding of new users) are much more important than others (for example: Socials)
  • The grading does not offer a meaningful value-add to assess risk/growth or compare proposals
    • Project proposals are different in nature & this grading framework does not fit all DeFi proposals
    • The equal weighting of factors in growth despite different importance for Op will make worse proposals look better than good ones sometimes
  • The rating framework considers project establishment a bit more than the proposal, its value-add and alignment with Optimism but you mention that you will look at that & other metrics too :+1:
    • In that regard, we would like to encourage all delegates (committees) to look a bit deeper than TVL as simply moving TVL to Optimism does not necessarily add value if it is not effective TVL and also focus on different KPIs when assessing different DeFi categories & projects.

General feedback on DeFi committee proposals

  • The 3rd DeFi proposal committee consists of gov participants with demonstrated value-add. They offer a basic framework incl. the most important questions and I have high confidence in their decision-making and would in most cases follow their qualitative assessment & recommendation.
  • Despite giving some critical feedback on this proposal framework (which is just a short summary of the full assessment process), I’m quite confident your committee would also offer solid recommendations on Defi proposals.

Sidenote Re: Ecosystem strategy for Op & DeFi (Follow-up from Discord message. See below)

We believe Optimism should not have a laissez-fair attitude but come up with an ecosystem-wide DeFi/economics strategy that can boost the whole economy (Price up → Grant reserves up → Incentives & Interest of projects up). Such a strategy as well as utilizing Op as a key trading pair can be implemented without hurting user experience but driving adoption - though the plan should in the best case be set when starting the ecosystem.

This is likely a task for Optimism or a service provider whose recommendation the committee should incorporate. (We’ll share more in our Delegate Thread to not spam this proposal)


ScaleWeb3 is posting here because I disagreed with him in his own committee thread. In response he’s in here making baseless claims about my intentions and suggesting my removal. I believe a response here is relevant.

Go back and read the Curve thread. I didn’t post once in there. You might be thinking of my colleague Alex, who made a clear, constructive suggestion that has been spun entirely out of context.

All I did in his other thread was suggest his proposed committee consider a vertical other than defi considering their stronger expertise in other areas, and here he is claiming i’m acting in bad faith. You can’t shout ‘bad faith’ just because someone disagrees with you.

It’s a shame, then, that ScaleWeb3, who is so committed to the health of Optimism, has evidently not seen my proposal attempting to do exactly what he’s hoping for regarding a layer-wise economic strategy. Perhaps he can read up: [DRAFT] [GF: META] Proposal to reserve a share of GF distribution for liquidity backstopping and stronger governance. I expect he’ll be in strong support.


Thanks for your honest feedback Scaleweb3. We will discuss internally.

I assure you we are about the growth and success of OPtimism!


Appreciate the feedback, yeah our growth rating and risk rating are just to give a basis for comparison. It’s hard selecting criteria that fit all proposals fairly. So most of our focus will be on other metrics as each proposal has its own uniqueness, these ratings will just be a bonus to our standard assessments.


Hey folks! Happy with the nature of the feedback thus far, as Mojo said we’ll review a bit of this internally to make sure all OP community members’ voices are heard.


Hi @MoneyManDoug! Would you mind updating this proposal title to reflect the below?

Please use the following title format: [DRAFT][S02 Committee Proposal: Category: Group Letter.] An example would be [SO2 Committee Proposal: DeFi: Group A]. Group letter should be alphabetical by category, based on time of original submission.

In this case, your group would be Group B :slightly_smiling_face:

The thought is that this should prevent confusion about the multiple defi committees heading into Voting Cycle #5. This language has been added to the committee formation proposal template as well.


i like this, Thank you for your committee proposal.

1 Like

MasterMojo and Matt have the same boardroom links in the proposal. Is this on purpose or a mistake?

This is because they are both on the Synthetix ambassadors council.


Abstaining from this vote since I have a defi committee proposal.

1 Like

Voted Abstain

As I have limited myself to one vote per committee category

Abstained, as I have a defi committee proposal of my own.

1 Like

Abstained from this vote since I’m part of another DeFi committee proposal.

After some careful consideration. Unfortunately I voted against. I felt there would be to much conflict of interest for this committee to give objective recommendations.

1 Like