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

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.

2 Likes

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.

2 Likes

I figured all delegates would be able to weigh in, it wasn’t until late that we decided abstaining was necessary. I also agree that committees are a mistake now funnily.

1 Like

I’m sure you can remember because of all the times i’ve given you feedback in the moment to little effect

what i say is true, that your participation has at times displayed a lack of core defi understanding and, more worryingly, intransigence and overreliance on process

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.

There is a track record of this not having been the case, though I do respect the time you’ve incorporated my suggestions, such as emphasizing OP as a pairing token, though even then that was applied haphazardly and without regard to routing considerations. A lack of defi knowledge will be a death by a thousand cuts, and the only thing i’m left with at the end of all of this is that your group, despite this, essentially doubled down on defi just because you wanted it, not because you were the best to do it.

Really feel bad for the protocols applying to Optimism if this group passes. I look forward to continuing to work with them off the books and hearing more of their complaints.

2 Likes

It’s actually the act of abstaining that caused our committee to be behind, we could easily come out on top if we could vote. Instead we have two people deciding the entire outcome. I would have zero issues with your committee if you guys played fairly. The only votes you have that are problematic are Polynias L2 beats and Leftaris there is no issue with any other vote you have. Saying they shouldn’t abstain is pretty foolish given two of them share a committee with joxes and one of them is the largest voting party by a long shot making it impossible to match voting power.

2 Likes

Hello Doug i raised the concern of having people on multiple committees early on. my concerns did not get much feedback to my surprise. i was aware of the issues this would cause and as i can see we are favoring centralization here.

2 Likes

i can see why committee B is upset the voting process here was set up to fail from the beginning. i think lots of work needs to be done in order to insure a more fair process, trying to catch up on all of this a lot to read through.

1 Like

@MoneyManDoug

For our part (DefiLatam and OptimismESP) we participate in two committees because we have the knowledge and operational capacity to meet the requirements for this type of participation.
At the beginning there were not many initiatives in the committees, you can see that only 5 committees participate and only one of them is from NFTs. Even the people who are against dual participation, which apparently are several, did not group together to propose a different or better idea.
For our part the diversity of committees is important for governance, so as it grows and there is more activity from other delegates/participants we want to minimize our participation in this governance. However, we believe it is time to be active and push the optimism to grow, so that more people will come forward to participate.

1 Like

Truly astounding, then, that, considering there was a huge void in the NFT vertical, this committee saw fit to remain in defi when it had better experience with NFTs. it would have addressed all of your concerns

Even the people who are against dual participation, which apparently are several, did not group together to propose a different or better idea.

In fact everyone has proposed a very clear alternative: simply do not have people in multiple groups.

1 Like

First of all, I am just pointing out the perceived void in the NFT committees, I never said we had experience on them. We do have experience and expertise on the committees that we ran on.
That is why we voted for the NFT committee, because we believe the committee has experience and expertise.

Here you can see how we voted

1 Like

I don’t follow all the discussions, you can show me what those proposals were.

Or you could even do what you did, go to different groups to ask for collaborators. I think what you raise is very well done and necessary. But participation is also necessary. As I said before, as the gov grows, our participation will decrease.

1 Like

If I remember I would have not asked at the first place. I request you to point me where do you think I need to improve.

I hear you on OP pair topic, it’s an open question for debate which Beefy took it quite naturally. I am open to more input here.

1 Like

someone who was genuinely concerned about improving and not challenging facts (‘if this is true’) would have taken up the feedback at least once out of the several times it was offered

think this’ll be my last comms on this thread

1 Like

That’s a better approach, either say it or stay away from it and my suggestion to you would be, have your evidence ready if you’re blaming someone.
Thank you.

1 Like