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.
As I have limited myself to one vote per committee category
Abstained, as I have a defi committee proposal of my own.
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.
How would there be a conflict of interest? Everyone in my committee is strictly dependent on optimism’s success? Glad you see an issue with our committee yet see nothing wrong with committee C which has two people already on other committees.
it is indeed unfortunate. would love to hear more about how our collective interests would be in favor of anything other than aggressively growing the pie for everyone.
one note, by the way: @solarcurve and I are competitors (both dexes) and yet we’ve already started up a great working relationship. There’s little self-serving I could do, for example, that others in the committee couldn’t themselves veto.
would encourage you to reconsider a bit more deeply. the goal here is expertise and dedication.
Indeed I recognize this committees expertise.
I made my decision based upon, two members being SNX ambassadors and two from DEXs. I felt this left room for bias behavior. I am not saying anyone here would act unfavorably. My decision was to mitigate the possibility of such event occurring.
so i’m clear, what if this committee had comprised all members of totally different protocols - would this have enabled further bias? or would the competing interests within the group have negated themselves out?
is the problem for you that it’s protocol members at all?
I am not sure how I should vote here. I am favoring abstaining at the moment as I already voted for another DeFi proposal (C). I don’t have anything against this proposal, and the members also seem capable but I guess I should only vote for 1 out of the 3 DeFi committees unless I misunderstood the process.
For what it’s worth @lefterisjp, there haven’t been any clearly followed standards with regard to abstention. Some have refused to vote on their own proposal, some have voted for their own proposal but abstained from others in their category, some have abstained from all committee voting. The net effect in my view has been some level of confusion.
As far as I can tell there hasn’t been any third party who has publicly abstained from voting for more than one group in the defi committee. Another thing to keep in mind is that two defi committees would pass, so there’s no real principle for abstention unless your intention (which would ofc be legitimate!) would be to advance one past others because you believe their group ought to ‘win’.
Hey @jackanorak this is what the people in Group A told me, so it seems okay to vote for 2 DeFi commitees.
In which case I changed my vote for this one to positive.
Our entire rational here.
Voted FOR this committee.
I think their decision framework is very strong, I look forward to the risk and growth assessments for upcoming grants! The only concern for this committee would be neutrality but they have already addressed this at length.
I actually think it’s important to have Dapps from the ecosystem represented on a DeFi committee. This is a strength of this team compared to some of the others.
truly appreciate your support, @forrest , even as we’ve disagreed bitterly in the past. means a lot to be able to come back to the table with people even past these episodes.
I had chosen this proposal to vote for i wish i held more tokens to help
snapshot vote - not passed