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

let’s recap…


Diminishing people capacity, expertise, ability to work in a specific committee was completely pointless in the first place. I didn’t need to read all this BS but thanks. Now I know I don’t want to be part of this kind of DAO.


i read through the talk here and i can see where he is coming from on a few point. this is quoted from the team leads bio

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

not saying this guy isnt qualified but this isn’t much in the space the wallet activity is bad to. on the other hand i do like scale web3 and minimal gravitas only other issue is the jox guy is on multiple committee

I see absolutely nothing wrong in what I’ve said and appreciate your citing the exact problem, purpose mismatch, I’m helping to address by suggesting what I have.

This group has itself conceded that its value proposition lies not in defi expertise but in active governance, which is applicable and valuable in several verticals. This is brought up repeatedly. I am highly aligned with MinimalGravitas, whose beliefs on climate change, for instance, are in lockstep with my own. I think they are a towering, valuable influence on OP. I’ve looked in this thread and in the delegate commitment section and found not one mention of DeFi in their background. OPUser’s claim to DeFi knowledge was being an alpha tester of Lyra. I’m not saying these people shouldn’t weigh in at all - but where’s the actual argument for being specifically on the DeFi committee?

Rather, members have highlighted backgrounds in gaming (unaddressed vertical), devrel (infrastructure, also unaddressed), and advocacy & education (community, also wide open). I think it’d be great for these members to apply their expertise to proposals in these domains, of which there are already many. This is not a zero-sum situation. Please tell me exactly what is so inflammatory as to invite targeted ad hominem in making such a suggestion.

I am making this same reasonable point repeatedly to increasingly heated, adversarial, in some cases inappropriate responses. I don’t think this has to happen.

I know you can’t see, nonetheless I (and many people here) don’t need to read 2, 3, 4 times the same thing with different words.


Weather its feedback and/or criticism, both can be of positive and negative in nature. We can move towards a common goal of sustainable Gov either by taking everyone with us or by dragging someone down just to put yourself first.

You have already mentioned “argumentum ad nauseam”, apart from that common practice taught in B2B is “substitution heuristic”, same goes with political debate as well, rather than focusing on topic of discussion, they focus on opponent either by repeating the same thing or asking the same question again and again in different form just to divert the focus of discussion.

But its all good, its a nature of DAO Gov, beauty of chaotic co-ordination and it will pass too.

We had a chat in past on committee and you know where I stand on this, it has some cons but now with the committee guideline we all need to put the recommendation in written form which might be a biggest advantage so far as it can help counter biases.

I wrote all this because I think you are an active member of this gov from start and we need your contribution, good thing is that our gov is working on iteration and foundation is serious about it so my request to you would be to consider this statement if you were serious about it. If we mess something up, we can fix it in the next iteration but only with your contribution.


Thanks for sharing this great tweet. Below is the full screenshot. This explains why I’m participating in governance. Why Optimism? See Delegate Committment.


Governance is an iterative process, and progressive decentralization is the right path to take.

That said, it needs to be clear what communities and delegates can decide and what is ultimately decided by core teams. Core teams like Optimism should make most decisions and even have veto rights at this stage. Nonetheless, contributors should have a say over defined parts and be able to meaningfully add value - otherwise I’m sure you’d agree that there are better ways to spend your time.

Ultimate goal should be minimalistic governance for key protocols such as Ethereum & Optimism - that we genuinely like, want to support and strengthen.

I’ll just ignore your passive, aggressive tone though I must say the last week made me reconsider whether I + my companies should even support Optimism from here on out :slight_smile:

If you’re standing for a remunerated position you should expect to be questioned on experience and intent; if you can’t handle that in a good natured manner without rage-quitting, governance is perhaps not for you.

The expertise question is fair as we stated in our first comment.

Since then, unfortunately nothing was re: proposal, rather chit chat on he said this or that.

It seems we have different opinions on “rage quitting”, “good natured manner”, “governance”.

Many in crypto still do not understand what community and governance means. Here’s our take:

  • 1000 random people are not “the community”, neither are “only” token holders or Discord members.
  • Finding 10 quality contributing companies, 50 valuable stakeholders and 100 motivated, smart individuals is something not many projects have ever achieved in crypto.
  • You need core devs, subject experts, groups that take on tasks (subDAO, metaDAO, xyz). Discussing with random people on the internet may be the job of a community manager in Discord but it is not part of this committee position. Its job is assessing DeFi projects, and we additionally offered helping projects craft the best possible proposals for their own project and Optimism.
  • Before optimizing for further growth & decentralization to “community”, you need these quality stakeholders. Otherwise, values & goals are lost, while discussing “governance”, “vision”, “price”.
    • Who are the top 10 DeFi projects / teams that Optimism should onboard?
    • Who are the top 20 community members so far with input to DeFi?
    • Which of the DeFi projects (soon-to-be) on Optimism will offer strong, lasting network effects?
    • Who has demonstrated a reasonable path between (TVL) growth and security?
    • What are the DeFi projects that make sense on Optimism but not on Ethereum mainnet or a Starkware implementation?

After all, I’ve been part of too many crypto communities to spend my time making anons happy. I prefer thinking about DeFi or here: discussing it in the context of Optimism. Would be happy to hear your thoughts on the posted questions. Cheers

the last week made me reconsider whether I + my companies should even support Optimism from here on out

This is what I would describe as rage-quitting (worse would be making the threat of with no real intent to do so).

Good natured manner would be responding positively to questioning citing your own experience, rather than breaking down why you don’t like a DeFi protocol.

Governance fairly nebulous for OP at this point, but if we consider the formation of committees a foundational element then it is fairly evident resilience is a key attribute for committee members or delegates to possess.

Many in crypto still do not understand what community and governance means

I appreciate your taking the time to explain your take, but it is supercilious language like this that creates an adversarial environment. Let me demonstrate…

Most people exaggerate their experience in the web3 space

Here is the entirety of information on Optimism from blockchain-comparison.com; yes, it is a single line in an AirTable.

The Telegram insights channel has posted 3 times since Oct 2021.

The Twitter has more activity, but has 1500 followers. Most of the content is not organic; it’s simply linked from outside sources. Links to research go to, again, Airtables.

I think it’s important to share some real evidence of experience and a little more transparency, you mention your companies; are you the sole owner? Where are they incorporated? Are they regulated? Under which umbrella? Are those entities the delegate, or you personally? Would remuneration flow to those companies, or to you personally?

glad you posted from @daoism account and not @jackanorak account this time. :rofl:

this is an actual embarrassment. imagine thinking i even felt a need to say something not from my own account. I thought I’d made my case pretty clearly and saw it confirmed repeatedly.

But since I’m here, I will add:

Discussing with random people on the internet may be the job of a community manager in Discord but it is not part of this committee position.

This group’s activity on the forums is literally the primary thing it points to in saying it’s best suited to be the first look on defi proposals

This will be my last message here. I don’t see much more need to litigate this

1 Like

I urge @OPUser to replace @ScaleWeb3 with a more suitable, and less emotional, reviewer.


Hey @daoism, thank you for taking your time reading our proposal and providing us your feedback.


I want to hop in to the fray a bit here. I think some of the points that the Velo team (@jackanorak @alexcutlerdoteth) is raising are completely valid.

These proposals involve some technical level of understanding of tokenomics, incentives, and the legitimacy of the protocol itself. I disagree that you need to work for a DeFi protocol in order to do this, but I DO think that this is one criteria that a committee should be judged on.

Trying to discredit these points by trashing Velo seems counterproductive.


Any point of view is valid, good questions and points of view make governance take shape. Beyond the tone of voice of these crosswords, it helps improve governance.

In my opinion @jackanorak point is completely valid, as well as @MinimalGravitas point at the beginning with the “conflict of interest” issue of having all committee participants working on different protocols that are involved in Optimism.

From my point of view I see these conversations as constructive and completely valid, it’s part of decentralization.


Thank you Michael, I think most of the feedback given by the Velo team was answered as they are valid points. We do not try to discredit the Velo team, just raise awareness of who is giving the feedback for those who lack context.

I do have to say it’s a sad thing the only feedback given is “you are not fit for this because of your background” when that can be solved just by voting against it. If this is the feedback the Velo committee and followers will give to future projects I don’t see too much future growth. It feels there’s no thinking process on how to evolve this into constructive feedback.


Hi @Gonna.eth! 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 C :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.

1 Like

Done! thank you very much! I think we are C but I’ll keep B because I’m not sure!


Sorry, that is correct, you are group C!

1 Like

Wow! This is the Dream Team committee.
Very happy to have just voted ‘For’ your Proposal.
Best of success with your work in the upcoming season(s).