[DRAFT][SO2 Committee Proposal: DeFi: Group C]

I don’t see a conflict of interest here as the committee is in another category and it’s not as if I know any of those people personally and have anything to gain by this or another committee being voted on.

If more people or if someone from OP team thinks otherwise I would not mind changing my vote.

Too much drama in here lately.

1 Like

It seems to me that they would only gain monetarily, as that’s the only reason to put yourself on two committees. It also suggests they’ll have enough bandwidth to handle all proposals which I see as completely outrageous. This is the only committee which has decided this is acceptable. Clearly making a mockery of committees.

1 Like

@MoneyManDoug mate, is there any chance that your negative vibes are contributing to your committee proposal not doing so well…? You’re going round systematically telling everyone who’s voted for us that they should abstain or whatever. In discord you’re telling Polynya they shouldn’t vote because they represent too many delegators. Now you’re saying Lefteris and Kris shouldn’t vote for us because the DeFi LatAm team have a representative in Tooling as well as our DeFi committee… and at the same time in Discord you’re claiming that delegates should be able to vote for themselves.

Obviously you’ve realized that if you can convince everyone that voted for us and not for you to abstain, and at the same time allow your team to vote for their own proposal rather than abstain then you will win… but by doing so you’re coming across as being pretty underhanded and devious, which isn’t going to make you look good in the eyes of other delegates.

The hypercompetitive, win-at-all costs thing is pretty grim. The fact that your team are constantly in this thread putting us down and arguing with anyone who offers us their support just doesn’t seem very Optimistic.

It reminds me of the time soon after the airdrop when in Discord several delegates were trying to drum up support by stating their visions and posting links to their ‘commitments’, some of those links would immediately receive poo emojis from a bunch of sockpuppet accounts. I don’t think I ever posted my link there, as my Ethereum community is predominantly Reddit based and I didn’t think it made sense to try and get support from people who didn’t know me… however I did watch closely how the process went down and kept some records of it, as outside of crypto one of my other big interests is understanding and resisting disinformation and manipulation online (here’s an article featuring my efforts in that field: Meet the Redditors fighting 2020's fake news war). I wonder if you remember that and perhaps can see some parallels with the negative vibes that this committee selection process seems to be bringing out? If so then hopefully you might try a more positive approach to encourage more support.

In the end, even if you don’t get selected, you are still free to vote as you like on grant proposals and ignore the recommendation of committees that you don’t agree with, especially if you can share good reasons why the decision is in error or is missing some insight. Not ‘winning’ doesn’t mean you lose any ability to participate.


Since we share values on resisting disinformation and manipulation I will just add something since I can’t even participate in the #deletage-discussion on discord (I’m not a delegate and I don’t want to be, just saying I can’t reply there).

When people say “I’d like to think I can vote against centralization.” I would like to remember there’s always the possibility to vote against all committees (it’s exactly what I did, even if I respect many people on the committees). It’s nothing personal and it shouldn’t be personal. We don’t don’t need to diminish people to make our point but unfortunately not everyone agrees.


i respect you, but this is silly grandstanding.

people saying 1. that it defeats the purpose of committees to have the same people spread across several groups, 2. that there were several verticals other than DeFi that this particular group could have been better suited to, and 3. that abstention standards to date have been inconsistent and arbitrary – is not “bad vibes”. It’s an expression of disappointment at how groups have been constructed and an effort to make this structure actually work. We’re seeing the writing on the wall and are worried at how defi protocols are actually going to make good proposals stick.

couldn’t care less about vibes if optimism ends up being a sad, parochial has-been due to a lack of focus and professionalism in how its governance is managed. we need to bring the best builders here, full stop.

would like to mention that from the jump nobody from our group has had an issue with defi group A because they have a solid background in defi and have signaled their commitment to defi alone

to date i think OPUser had probably the only straightforward explanation for why this group doubled down on its construction and focus, which amounted to “because we wanted it” – and because of a handful of votes (due, again, to arbitrary abstention standards), Optimism is at risk of not taking the best foot forward in meeting the moment

Not ‘winning’ doesn’t mean you lose any ability to participate.

I’ve already seen how members of this group have handled proposals. Good proposals will die due to a lack of fundamental defi understanding. Good builders will get stymied in questions about process and confused by incoherent, inconsistent demands on defi-related matters. Projects looking at a (growing!) menu of incentive programs across ecosystems will dismiss Optimism as an impossible case.

1 Like

Voting: abstain.

Our entire rational here.


Hi @MoneyManDoug,

I was trying to avoid this political debate, wasting each others time without a proper goal in sight. But I believe you are taking this too far and I need to address few of your concern.

It seems to me that they would only gain monetarily, as that’s the only reason to put yourself on two committees

This is just sad that you think I am putting myself in more than two committee for this, I have no vested interest in Optimism and its true that I spend my significant amount of time here because I like our gov model, I see a working DAO with our two pillar gov model and I want to be a part of it. Anyone following my thoughts on committee knows that I was not in favor of this and because I was afraid that someone will come pointing finger and relating everything that the committee will do to money. This was one of the reason I suggested that instead of giving reward in form of money we should focus on different option. Better option was to put the committee in RPGF. Common problem with greed is that we underestimate it.

Foundation decision to reward the delegate engagement was a good idea and decision to form committee does have some pro and cons which we should discuss at the end of Season 2. Circling back to your comment on mo, its your opinion and I cant do anything about it but to anyone reading this, its true that getting reward for time and contribution will be an added motivation but let me be clear on one thing, I was here when there was no talk about money and I will be here even if foundation choose to remove the money part from coming season. Looking back on Season 1, we have made some progress and there are scope of improvement, second pillar of Gov is expected to be active in upcoming month(s) and I am super excited about it.

And now that I am thinking about it, I also want to mention that its true that there are many delegate in other committee who is more versed than me but I also believe that if we ask the right question at right place to right person and with a learning attitude, we can solve many problems which also include doing valuation of proposals. But even with my limited knowledge, I would encourage you to look into my past review and tell me where did I do wrong, do you find any instance which need improvement, was I biased or aligned in any form ?

Was I selective in nature when doing valuation of proposal in the past? But you know what, Doug, I can say this about you. You did vote on almost all the proposal in the past but choose only to comment and interact with very few of them. Voting in dark is always a red flag in my book and this gives me less confidence in you.

Now that I am part of committee, I want to make it clear that this is my opinion and I am not writing on behalf of my committee. But on that topic, I do believe that combined power of knowledge and interest that my committee can bring on table makes us a suitable candidate to be part of DeFi committee and I was expecting support, in case I need some, from active members like you but I am not sure if I can expect that from you anymore. Rather than focusing on different way to contribute, you are more focused on making sure that my committee does not get final approval. May be you see us as a competition but I still disagree with your approach.
Creating a separate thread and discussing it there would have been a much better approach.

enough bandwidth to handle all proposals

Forgive my french but are you suggesting that I wont have enough bandwidth to review the proposal ? If yes, then I dont know how you can mention this ? Remember in Phase 1 we had close to 30 proposal, in season 1 we had more than 10, in some of them we had 15 How many proposals you expect we get per committee, 5 ? max 10 ? Those are rookie number my friend, given that now we have 3 week, I can review them alone, all of them and I will still have some time to learn new topic if a new proposal comes to my plate which is new and innovative. Just imagine what our committee can do, take some time and reflect on the bandwidth.

Coming back to your two concern:-

  1. Delegate Abstaining :- I believe that if I am part of a proposed committee, i should abstain . This is a best practice, I also believe by doing this we can avoid conflict and bias. There is no written rule on this so I am not gonna judge anyone not following this, if we see some major conflict because of this, we can discuss that too.

  2. One user being part of more than one committee:- I have said that in the past, we can discuss this and depending on the consensus, the documentation can be amended to reflect the changes. But I am questioning your approach and how you choose to address this point.

I was planning of creating a thread on this forum during reflection session of Season 2 to address this topic but if you feel that this is quite critical and need urgent attention, my suggestion would be to create a thread and discuss it there rather that chasing us on this forum and on discord.

Bring everyone to a thread dedicated to this topic and discuss it there, it will easy for all us to follow this topic, i can also put my view on this topic on one place rather than writing the same thing again and again on different channel.


Apologizes for not responding to your other points but could you please help me with this. where did we do poorly, I cant go in past and change my decision but if what you say is true then I will definitely work on your feedback.

1 Like

There is no political debate here. You decided to join two committees knowing you dont have relevant experience in either area you are also assuming this is an easy job which is clearly not the case. Not to mention two of your members are on a different committee and gained a large amount of voting weight from fellow committee members late into the snapshot cycle. My committee has 2m of voting weight and could vote against your committee if we had no standards. I’m glad to see you guys have made a complete mockery of committees. As far as I know you guys are the only ones with people on multiple committees. Not sure why this is flagged at all.

1 Like

DAOs don’t usually exclude people for lack of expertise or experience, meaning everyone can contribute. Some people seem to focus way to much on the expertise required without any sort of specification or eligibility rules on that matter. Anyway, proposals should incentive usage, they aren’t that technical, they shouldn’t be very technical (they don’t include code for instance) and as such they don’t require a deep understanding of coding or whatever. No one here needs 2, 3 or more years of experience doing whatever to ask good questions and to participate in a positive way. Everyone can and should be allowed to.


When we’re giving guidance on multi million dollar grants it’s probably best to have the most qualified candidates decide.

1 Like

Are you suggesting people need experience to vote on multi million dollar grants? At the end, with or without committees influence and power, voters (delegates and non-delegates) can do whatever they want, passing or not the proposal.

1 Like

Both statement are true but you see the problem, just because you find it wrong does not mean i should too.
But if you bring the community together on this, I will adhere to the consensus and that is why I am suggesting you create a separate thread.


Voting is different than giving guidance to all the delegates.

1 Like

Correct but you said…

The final decision (fund allocation or not) is made by voters, not committees.

1 Like

Valid point and quite frankly as there are no rule on this, you still have some time to change your decision.

1 Like

Most qualified committees should be giving guidance. You misunderstood

1 Like

Let’s be clear…

Committees have “super powers” but committees can’t decide if the proposal gets or not the funds they ask. Voters do. Committees can vet the proposal and pass the proposal to voting, meaning they can block or delay the proposal but they can’t give/distribute funds. Voters decide if the proposal receives the funds asked or not.

Meaning voters decide on multi million dollar grants and committees provide “guidance” with their “super powers”.

1 Like

Do you not understand that most voters and delegates will put trust into the committees recommendation and vote accordingly? That’s why it’s not smart to have a two people decide the entire outcome of whose selected. This means committees are forever doomed, they will always be voted in/out based on the voice of 1 or two people given the abstaining rule. Not only did they receive two votes from related committee members they got Polynias vote which is already absurdly large. I see over 3.5m in votes that should be abstained imo.

1 Like

I clearly understand that since day #1 and I expressed my opinion here: Introducing Governance Committees - #9 by Prometheus

If it’s not clear… I’m against committees.

Nevertheless you can’t require expertise without specification and proper intent. Smart or not… you can only blame yourself for not bringing the expertise requirements/specifications up to debate in early stages.