[DRAFT] S02 Committee Proposal: Tooling Governance Committee

Non-transparent curriculum vitae

Voted yes.

Better tooling and infrastructure reduces friction for users. And this is clearly a team with a lot of experience and expertise within their category

Voted ‘yes’ I wish success to committee in their works


me and my team would love to help with smart contract security. We have large set of data and experience in cyber security. wish committee a good luck :crossed_fingers:t2:

Vote: Yes

Strong team with a diverse range of experience. A few of them have been very active in previous forum discussions, and I believe they will significantly aid delegates in making decisions.

1 Like

@krzkaczor any issues with L2beat voting yes on defi committee C given one of your members is on that committee as well? Not sure if that’s very fair.

With all due respect, what’s not fair about it? It’s not like I am voting for myself. I’d argue that voting against C, would be more beneficial for me as it would avoid spreading @SEED_LATAM_Joxes’ time too thinly. For all I care, I am doing a disservice to myself.

But seriously, I voted for committies with the most active members of the community. Especially @OPUser was often the very first person to interact with teams submitting proposals.


Not saying voting against im saying abstaining would make more sense, as there’s a direct relation. Also supporting having people in multiple committees goes against the core purpose of what we’re trying to accomplish. These committees are meant to have people in them who are strictly specialized in specific areas, selecting someone based on sheer activity doesn’t make much sense to me. That committee alone has two people already in other committees. If it does benefit you to vote against than you probably should though imo, it’s clear they already have less bandwidth and expertise.

one note on this: in fact people on team B have been just as active if not more so in helping advise protocols in shaping their asks.

I’ve personally helped shape several proposals before they’ve even gotten posted; it’s been a key lever I’ve used to draw protocols to Optimism in the first place.

forum participation really shouldn’t be the primary consideration here: it should be dedicated focus and expertise with regard to Optimism’s growth in Defi

I am going to vote abstain here as I am a suggested member of the committee.

This is not true…

I don’t know how many times I need to quote the original post but please don’t make me spam the forum.

what @MoneyManDoug is referring to is clearly spelled out in item 2 of what you’re quoting, “Purpose Mismatch,” and specialization is an operative concept several other times in that document.

Here’s just one example:

Delegates that specialize in a particular topic can defer to the recommendation of relevant committees on topics outside their area of expertise/interest. [emphasis mine]

This is explicitly the point of having these committees, for delegates to get the work they can best and most confidently weigh in on so they don’t have to be pulled in too many directions.

I’m not sure why you’re so adamant about not having qualified people be the first look on proposals relevant to their expertise, as there’s clearly no basis for this opinion in the motivating posts.

1 Like

Interesting… where I can find the minimum level of specialization required then? Who is validating that level of specialization?

Doesn’t mean everyone on the committee needs to be “strictly specialized”. What strictly specialized means anyway? Do people need a PhD?

In the quote you pulled, the minimum level of specialization is, bluntly, ‘more expertise than the other group’ for already-installed committees. Where it’s not clear, the groups would, in advance, split up protocol types to best address ‘information overload’ – that’s what’s getting called out here.

generally speaking, the minimum is, imo, ‘the best you can get’ – to address fears about ‘purpose mismatch’ and to make sure we’re funding and tracking things to the best of our collective ability. committees are asked in the template to substantiate their claims of expertise, which implies that voters ought to use their judgment given the requested information to determine who is most qualified to represent OP’s voice in issuing grants.

near-daily reminder, by the way, that people do in fact get PhDs to offer public grants, such as NIH grants. and the amounts they get to mete out annually are dwarfed by what OP has been issuing at a biweekly clip.

continue to be mystified by the line of inquiry you are pursuing

1 Like

This template? I still don’t see any evidence of “strict specialization” required…

yeah, i’m not gonna keep on this with you.

what are the bios for if not to substantiate claims?

as much as i’d like to sit around and parse the meaning of ‘strict’, which is almost where i see you going next, i don’t see much value in either of us going down this particular rabbit hole

do feel free to address any of the other points i’ve made, though

1 Like

Voting: abstain.

Our entire rational is posted here.

This was the easiest YES vote I have made as a delegate so far.

Super strong team with proven leaders in Ethereum tooling.

I am excited to see them guide the OP Collective’s decision-making in this realm!

My rationale.


snapshot vote - passed