Our focus is on making the proposal process straightforward for DeFi projects by providing a clear framework and support along the way. Our approach of engaging with proposers, performing solid due diligence & sharing qualified assessments, should help proposers make stronger proposals, facilitate decision-making for other delegates and strengthen the Op ecosystem.
We consider all kinds of DeFi applications and liquidity mining schemes to fall under this category.
Example proposals that would fall under this category:
- Perpetual Protocol: (Liquidity, Building) [GF: Phase 0 Proposal] Perpetual Protocol - #7 by tiandao.eth
- Paraswap: (Liquidity, Building) [READY] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] ParaSwap
- Liquity: (Liquidity, Borrowing, Bridging, Building) [DRAFT] [GF: Phase 1] Liquity
We are interested in making the proposal flow straightforward and offer to be the go-to committee for DeFi proposals. We look forward to collaborating closely with the 2nd DeFi committee to share a similar assessment framework & offer proposers a similar experience.
So far, most proposals do not differ fundamentally as they include liquidity mining, builder and ecosystem incentives. Hence, we could split proposals in the following 3 simple ways
- Alphabetical: (A-M, N-Z; tbd)
- In alternating order (A, B, A, B; tbd)
- Small-size vs. large-size ( A < 450K Op < B; tbd)
In the future, we look forward to more active proposal guidance to achieve lasting Op ecosystem growth. This could benefit from committee expertise in different DeFi areas. tbd
- Committee 1: Derivatives, Trading, Liquidity & Asset management
- Committee 2: Lending, Stables, DEXs, Aggreagtors
Summary - 449 comments / 4 days read time on
I from a Tradi-fi background, started as a developer and now working as a PM mostly focusing on consulting and slowly moving into web3 space, mostly active on this gov forum and our gov-general channel on our Discord.
Apart from this, I have contributed to two projects on Optimism, I was alpha tester of Lyra platform and the second project is Layer2DAO where I participated at the initial step of their Phase 0 proposal.
Finally, I like my cute bunny pfp. Optimistic Bunnies are the very first NFT project on the OP chain and I do hangout in their discord from time to time.
Who will be the committee reviewers?(please link to bio and explain their involvement in Optimism to date)
Summary - 69 comments made / 1 day read time on governance forum
My background is engineering and materials but interested in cryptocurrencies and Ethereum in 2017 since hyperinflation came to my country. Since then I have been active in various blockchain communities as a user.
Since 2021 I’m part of DeFi LATAM (first as a member, then as part of the team), a top latam community focused on Web3 for education and adoption purposes, providing a platform with high quality content and research on blockchains, DeFi, scalability. Since months ago I have also led a new community called ‘L2 en Español’ to study and educate everything that has to do with Ethereum scaling solutions. I also help the initiative called Optimism Español to push the adoption of this solution to the region and I have a role as part of the Polygon Advocate Program.
Last but not least as delegate I’m not working alone, we are currently exploring the sum of contributors in shared representation of the DeFi LATAM community and others in the region alongside honorable contributors with dedicated channels, governance calls and more, so you can also see how we work collectively for decision-making and participation in different instances.
Summary - 103 comments made / 1 day read time on governance forum
I come from a background in physics but have been interested and active in the Ethereum ecosystem since 2016, though as a user not a builder.
I’ve been an active participant in the online Ethereum community r/ethfinance, which gave me the confidence in my knowledge of the space to become a delegate for Optimism.
Over the first season, each of us in this committee have been among the most active participants in the governance discussions and proposal reviews. This is shown in the forum data, for example with two of us having reached Trust Level 3 (Regular badge on Optimism Collective).
Summary - 37 comments made / 12h read time on governance forum
I come from game design and architecture (construction and real state) with the pandemics I switched into crypto and since then I coordinate EthernautDAO where we bridge web2 senior devs to web3. My background in game design helps me understand tokenomics, usability, design, narrative and some code while construction taught me how to coordinate big projects with lots of people.
I’ve been an active user and preacher of Optimism as it is the only L2 using ETH as their gas token which is in my opinion the best way to provide value to the mainnet. We deployed all our smart contracts from EthernautDAO in optimism since we started and I have good relations with some of their devs (they are all good mentors).
Summary - 56 comments / 19h read time on gov forum
I, Julian Richter, have an academic background in finance & entrepreneurship. After studies & working for tech startups such as Hellofresh & Flixbus, I founded my first company and went full-time into Web3 in early 2018. Since then, I’ve led partnerships for NEM blockchain in the EU (2018), engaged in blockchain consulting (2019), launched blockchain-comparison.com (2020) to make crypto more accessible.
In 2022, I’ve founded ScaleWeb3 to elevate the top crypto ecosystems (l1s, l2s, Web3 & DeFi projects) more hands-on with ecosystem building, governance, product input - leveraging existing crypto & DeFi knowhow and quality distribution channels - and building new apps & tools for users, investors & projects.
Optimism is a top l2, we’ve been very active throughout the first governance phase, joined the workshop in Paris, and we look forward to support the ecosystem a lot more going forward.
Couple of proposals and ideas (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ) were submitted by the committee members during season 1, many of them received good feedback from the community and few of our recommendations were accepted by the Optimism Foundation which we really appreciate.
Please provide the voting participation rate and % of votable supply held by each committee member:
@ScaleWeb3 - Delegate Thread feedback on all 4 voting cycles, voting participation only in first 2 cycles due to l1 multisig issue some delegates experienced. Redelegate scaleweb3.eth → superdelegate.eth! - 0.3% of votable supply still in scaleweb3.eth
@MinimalGravitas - RocketPool Node Operator, abstained from RocketPool proposal (both discussion and voting), will abstain from any future proposals regarding RocketPool.
@Dhannte - EthernautDAO, I’ll abstain from any future proposals regarding EthernautDAO
@ScaleWeb3 - We’ll abstain from any future proposals regarding ScaleWeb3.
If additional conflicts of interest occur in the future we will abstain from votes and declare the potential bias in any relevant discussion.
Voting history can be verified for each committee member on Snapshot and voting rationale is mentioned in either their communication thread or on cycle closing thread.
@MinimalGravitas - Snapshot Profile ,no central delegate communication thread, example analysis from voting cycle 1 roundup: https://gov.optimism.io/t/voting-cycle-1-roundup/2619/34?u=@MinimalGravitas
@Dhannte - Snapshot Profile ,no central delegate communication thread, I do explain my logic here: https://twitter.com/@DhannteG/status/1543593278695677952
@ScaleWeb3 - Communication thread, Introduced a basic assessment framework during voting cycle 2 which consisted of value-add, reasonability of amount requested, quality of Op distribution and applicability of co-inventives (more extensive framework below)
Our decision-making framework can be seen in the following table. Some of the categories slightly overlap and decisions will likely never be fully quantifiable but we look forward to utilising the framework, making fair recommendations and offering other delegates good insights when making their own decision whether to follow our recommendation or not
Any other points not specified in the table that are circumstantially relevant will be duly addressed and noted in the report. This will depend on the particularities of each proposal.
As the committee accompanies proposers through the proposal process, proposal quality should rise. It should be clear when proposals are ready to get committee approval. Nonetheless, projects decide whenever they wish to move from “Draft” to “Ready” and we offer our recommendation in the forum.
The committee will pick one lead reviewer per proposal but all committee members should engage in each proposal. The committee will collaboratively assess the proposal and give one recommendation in the forum. Currently planned workflow, communication channels and expected outputs are detailed below:
- For us, open communication and transparency is important as can be seen in our season 1 voting. Our committee will continue this approach as we believe that it’s one of the important pillars of sustainable DAO Gov.
- We will have one “private” Discord channel for this committee to discuss internal processes, organisational improvements and launch of new proposal reviews.
- Our committee will offer proposers a point of contact and open a Discord channel on the Optimism Discord Server that is readable for other users to give continuous feedback to the team responsible for the proposal.
- Once the project wants to go from “Draft” to “Ready”, we will offer an official feedback within 3 days and share our formal recommendation according to our framework on the gov forum below the proposal and in our Committee thread.
- At the end of each cycle, we will share our learning on the gov forum and at the end of season 2, we will share a report which will include season feedback and recommendation for next season.
This offers extensive support to proposers, insights to committee-proposal discussions as well as a public track record for accountability of committee and members.