GFX Labs - Delegate Communication Thread

This thread is intended to provide a record of GFX Labs’ voting and communication around the reasoning of each vote. Subsequent voting communications will be added to this thread over time.

3 Polls Ending June 26

Proposal A
Summary: This is a batch vote for 24 grants, ranging from Chainlink to Synthetix to Gelato. It includes 23 different protocols, and a full list with requested amounts of OP and individual spending plans can be found here. This vote is to approve or deny all 24 grant requests together.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. Batched approvals of grants are poor governance, as they remove oversight, overload voters, and generally bundle together spending in a way such that many stakeholders get a turn at funding. Optimism is in early days and requires developing a strong ecosystem for users, but we feel strongly that unrelated spending proposals should not be bundled together like this again in the future.

Proposal B
Summary: This proposal would distribute a 1,000,000 OP grant to Uniswap. 200,000 OP of which would be earmarked for grants from Uniswap to builders on Optimism. The remaining 800,000 would be earmarked for liquidity mining on Uniswap Optimism.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. While the pools to be incentivized have not yet been specified, Uniswap is core infrastructure and it is difficult to imagine a successful Optimism without a robust adoption of Uniswap, which also has a proven network effect that makes users and liquidity sticky after incentives eventually end.

Proposal C
Summary: This proposal would distribute a 300,000 OP grant to 0x. The entirety would be earmarked for the 0x grants program, with an intent for at least 50% to be directed to NFT/gaming projects on Optimism.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. Like Uniswap, 0x is known as an important piece of on-chain infrastructure. It also has a grants program with an established history and ability to channel funding. The focus on non-financial uses of Optimism hold the potential to create more diverse use cases for Optimism, and 0x’s recent shift into NFT infrastructure strongly suggest they have the expertise to distribute grants in that industry effectively.

NB: GFX is having difficulty voting on Snapshot, which does not currently support multisig voting on Optimism. We use best practices for handling assets internally – including voting power that has been delegated – and utilize a multisig on our delegate address. We are attempting to find a workaround, but ultimately, Snapshot needs to support voting from multisig addresses.

7 Likes

I was looking for place to share thoughts on votes and in general related to proposals. I like this approach, will create one for me too.

3 Likes

17 Polls Ending July 6, 2022

Proposal A: Optimistic Railway
Summary: This proposal would distribute 400,000 OP to Optimistic Railway. Optimistic Railway is an early stage development and self describes its project as: “We are building the 4 dimensional railway of the metaverse - the infrastructure to connect social dapps and enable massive on chain gaming.”

90% of the tokens would go to “core team & operations” with the remaining 10% being distributed to users.

Recommendation: Vote No. This project does not appear to have a web site, few concrete deliverables are offered, and it’s unclear to what extent the 90% is going to individual compensation vs operating expense. This project appears to be in seed or pre-seed stage, and (at writing) a grant of nearly a quarter million dollars requires some demonstration of work already underway, product-market fit, or allocation of equity to Optimism Foundation. We encourage the applicants to reapply once there is more of their product to showcase.

Proposal B: dForce
Summary: This proposal would distribute 300,000 OP to dForce, a lending platform that issues the overcollateralized stablecoin USX. 50% of the allocation would be earmarked for liquidity incentivization on Optimism, 30% for grants to developers working on or around dForce protocols, and 20% for marketing events related to Optimism and dForce.

Recommendation: Vote No. The 30% for developers does not appear to be restricted to Optimism, and could be used to fund dForce on other chains while still adhering to the proposal application. It’s also unclear how 20% for marketing Optimism would be done, and this looks like it would simply be used to advertise the liquidity incentives. Given that no new building appears to be proposed, the funds will not be restricted to use on Optimism-related purposes, and incentives are largely just Optimism subsidizing a private business over its competitors rather than increasing overall Optimism ecosystem growth.

Proposal C: GYSR
Summary: This proposal would distribute 400,000 OP to GYSR, a platform focused on helping protocols distribute incentives for users that perform on-chain activities. 35% of the allocation would be general subsidization of its users’ incentives pools on Optimism, 35% used to incentivize existing users to migrate to Optimism, 25% to support development of Optimism-specific GYSR technology, “5% as incentives for projects to use Optimism over other networks as part of their deployment.”

Recommendation: Vote Yes. This grant’s focus is not merely offering an Optimism-provided subsidy to the applicant’s business because it includes allocations to both further develop on Optimism and to migrate existing user base to Optimism. Both of these are reasonable efforts to support with grants targeting ecosystem development.

Proposal D: Mean Finance
Summary: This proposal would distribute 300,000 OP to Mean Finance. Mean Finance is a decentralized, dollar-cost-averaging protocol deployed to both Polygon and Optimism. 45% would be used for user subsidies on Optimism, 30% for grants and bounties to expand use cases of the Mean protocol, 20% for community and growth initiatives, and 5% as a retroactive reward for early adopters.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. This protocol adds quality-of-life services to users on Optimism. While we would prefer to see the funding explicitly used only for Optimism and a TVL that’s at least several million dollars in value, the novel and practical use case of the Mean protocol on Optimism overcomes our objections.

Proposal E: Raptor
Summary: This proposal would distribute 800,000 OP to Raptor. The OP would be sold to finance 10 ETH2 validator nodes. Raptor offers to use 50% of the rewards from those nodes to buy back and verifiably burn OP.

Recommendation: Vote No. This is a large amount of OP that would need to be sold entirely to finance the 10 nodes, and the current APR suggests a very long time to see a return on this investment. Long time horizons on a handshake deal are not a recipe for success. It does not directly grow the Optimism ecosystem.

Proposal F: Balancer & BeethovenX
Summary: This proposal would distribute 500,000 OP to BeethovenX, which is being advised by Balancer. “OP will likely be used to bribe in veBAL gauges for pools on Optimism, primarily boosted pools.”

Recommendation: Vote Yes. This proposal does not commit to a particular use of the OP, and the only use mentioned is basically liquidity incentivization. That being said, boosted pools would also spread liquidity to other protocols on Optimism. In this case, it’s not an ideal proposal, but the second-order effects should ensure contribution to the overall ecosystem on Optimism.

Proposal G: Summa
Summary: This proposal would distribute 2,000,000 OP to Tracey & Associates Accounting to bootstrap bringing some bookkeeping, payroll, and other professional services online in order to use Optimism as rails.

Recommendation: Vote No. This project is ill-defined, still a concept, and has an enormous request. We recommend the applicants focus on some specific deliverables, establish their project, and then seek smaller amounts of funding in future rounds.

Proposal H: WardenSwap
Summary: This proposal would distribute 300,000 OP to WardenSwap, a DEX aggregator. Tokens would then be earmarked as 25% for grants/hackathons, 20% as subsidy to users, 10% for referral links, 35% to marketing, 10% to WardenSwap to pay for its own maintenance.

Recommendation: Vote No. Referral links and influencers (both covered in this request) are not high-value ways to spend OP, and WardenSwap should not be asking for Optimism to pay for maintenance on an existing protocol. WardenSwap is also notably not co-incentivizing. There are simply better ways to distribute OP to grow the Optimism ecosystem

Proposal I: Pickle Finance
Summary: This proposal would distribute 200,000 OP to Pickle Finance. The applicant estimates 1000 OP would be distributed per day to users as incentives alongside their own native token.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. Pickle was the first yield aggregator on Optimism, and so has contributed to the growth of the ecosystem. Whether future impact will be meaningful is somewhat open to question, but recognition that Pickle provided a new use or functionality on Optimism justifies the grant.

Proposal J: Ooki Protocol
Summary: This proposal would distribute 700,000 OP to Ooki Protocol, a margin trading platform. The tokens would be distributed as liquidity incentives to bootstrap the initial seed liquidity needed for traders to operate on the platform.

Recommendation: Vote No. This is a very large grant request, and the applicants have not made a compelling case that the liquidity seeded would remain after the end of incentivization. It’s also not clear that the applicant DAO itself has much skin in the game, which for a request of this size seems important.

Proposal K: Infinity Wallet
Summary: This proposal would distribute 500,000 OP to Infinity Wallet, a cross-chain browserless wallet. 15% would be distributed for marketing (airdrops and completing activities), 45% for developers to deploy to Optimism and work with Infinity Wallet, 40% to waive the applicant’s usual fee to integrate dapps.

Recommendation: Vote No. The stated use of the grant is focused solely upon developing Infinity Wallet’s business and does not provide or promise new functionality or growth to the overall Optimism ecosystem.

Proposal L: Beefy
Summary: This proposal would distribute 650,000 OP to Beefy, a multi-chain yield optimizer. 90% would be to provide incentives to users, with 10% earmarked for “strategic partnerships.”

Recommendation: Vote No. Beefy is not yet deployed to Optimism, and the request is large. Additionally, nearly all of the grant would be used to subsidize users for Beefy, and it is unclear how this would add any value or use to the Optimism ecosystem once those incentives dried up.

Proposal M: 0xHabitat
Summary: This proposal would distribute 400,000 OP to 0xHabitat. 45% would be streamed to the 0xHabitat treasury, 45% for developer grants focused on 0xHabitat, and 10% for marketing.

Recommendation: Vote No. 0xHabitat is not yet deployed to Optimism, and the request largely leaves the grant’s use up to 0xHabitat DAO. Because of this, it is unclear whether or how these funds would contribute to the overall Optimism ecosystem.

Proposal N: Thales
Summary: This proposal would distribute 2,000,000 OP to Thales. The allocation would incentivize Thales users and ETH/THALES liquidity.

Recommendation: Vote No. Thales just received 900,000 OP in the previous governance cycle. Another large distribution is unnecessary and would crowd out other projects that can contribute to the ecosystem.

Proposal O: Paraswap
Summary: This proposal would distribute 450,000 OP to Paraswap. 50% would be allocated to dapps integrating Paraswap on Optimism, 35% to Paraswap-owned liquidity, 15% to DexLib integrations.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. The majority of the funding is going towards development and integration rather than simple liquidity incentivization. Increased composability, integration, and development is exactly what these grants are for.

Proposal P: Rotki
Summary: This proposal would distribute 190,770 OP to Rotki. The grant would fund development of open-source software by Rotki. Note that this is one of the only two grants to be accompanied by an actual budget breakdown.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. Rotki provides useful services in tracking and accounting, and is open source. It provides utility to a wide variety of users, is planning to use the grant to exclusively fund development of further functionality and utility. It also has the distinction of providing one of the only two budgets with much detail amongst all the grants, and should be rewarded for that. The size of the grant is also small relative to many very large requests.

Proposal Q: Candide Wallet
Summary: This proposal would distribute 190,000 OP to Candide, which is developing a cross-rollup noncustodial wallet. Candide has not yet launched, and code is open source. A detailed breakdown of the budget the grant request is based on is available at the proposal link.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. The request is modest relative to many grant requests, and the budget includes actual estimates to support the number of OP requested. Additionally, the funding is for development of new utility, and not merely for incentivizing users of a protocol at Optimism’s expense.

NB: GFX is having difficulty voting on Snapshot, which does not currently support multisig voting on Optimism. We use best practices for handling assets internally – including voting power that has been delegated – and utilize a multisig on our delegate address. We are attempting to find a workaround, but ultimately, Snapshot needs to support voting from multisig addresses.

3 Likes

loved this, can i also for some extra information or you are planning to use this page only to broadcast your view on voting.

This is a great place to ask or discuss anything. DMs are also open to anyone who wants them, and we can be found on Discord under Getty or PaperImperium.

1 Like

Amazing work guys. I’ll take a note on your feedback regarding “funding explicitly used only for Optimism”, which is a completely valid concern and we will do our best not to use Optimisms’ funds to add value to other networks.
We would also love to have at least several million dollars in value locked haha, but, to be fair, we are pretty new and will work on new products to enable new behaviors in Optimisms’ users.
Thank you for taking the time to read our proposal!

1 Like

9 Polls Ending July 20

Proposal A: Superfluid
Summary: This proposal would disburse 150,000 OP to Superfluid, which provides tools to stream payments such as salaries. The funds would be used to incentivize some movement to Optimism as well as some grant funding around Superfluid on Optimism.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. The request is modest and Superfluid provides utility through a service. Given the size and nature of the request, this is easy to approve.

Proposal B: Kromatika
Summary: This proposal would disburse 300,000 OP to Kromatika, a DEX that provides the capability to place automated limit orders. The majority funds would be used for marketing, with a breakdown of categories provided in the proposal, with around 20% for user incentives, and 10% for an airdrop to past users.

Recommendation: Vote No. While it’s nice to see a DEX with more than vanilla utility, the heavy use of OP on influencers seems difficult to justify. It’s acceptable (and intended in many ways) for OP to be sold by grant recipients, but influencers’ impact is ephemeral and not a good use of Optimism funds.

Proposal C: Hundred Finance
Summary: This proposal would disburse 300,000 OP to Hundred Finance. The OP would be released over multiple tranches, each connected to a milestone of TVL.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. Given the modest size of the request, and the schedule linked to milestones, this seems reasonable. It would be best if Hundred Finance offered some novel utility that is lacking or scarce in the Optimism ecosystem, but bringing a Compound fork to Optimism is acceptable given the relatively small funding request.

Proposal D: Biconomy
Summary: This proposal would disburse 750,000 OP to Biconomy. 250,000 OP would be earmarked for liquidity mining, while 500,000 OP would be earmarked for migrating existing usage to Optimism.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. The request is fairly large, but a modest liquidity incentives program coupled with migration of existing usage seems accretive to the Optimism ecosystem.

Proposal E: Dope Wars
Summary: This proposal would disburse 1,000,000 OP to Dope Wars, a play-to-own metaverse project that is a Loot fork. 45% of the tokens would be sent to the Dope Wars treasury, with the remaining OP earmarked for various types of user incentives.

Recommendation: Vote No. It is inappropriate to request funds for general purposes. These grants are to increase utility and depth of the Optimism ecosystem, not to seed a treasury. We recommend the applicant reapply for a smaller amount, and without the treasury component.

Proposal F: Infinity Wallet
Summary: This proposal would disburse 500,000 OP to Infinity Wallet. Note that this proposal is substantively the same as one that just failed a vote in the previous cycle.

Recommendation: Vote No. This is basically the same proposal that failed last cycle. We don’t wish to encourage repeatedly pushing the same proposal each cycle until it passes. Until a cooldown period is required formally, we will simply vote against any proposal that was already defeated in the preceding cycle.

Proposal G: DexGuru
Summary: This proposal would disburse 300,000 OP to DexGuru, a data platform. 100% of the request is earmarked for grants around DexGuru’s ecosystem.

Recommendation: Vote No. There is not an obvious alignment between the suggested use of this grant and the Optimism ecosystem.

Proposal H: Overnight.fi
Summary: This proposal would disburse 250,000 OP to Overnight.fi. OP tokens would be used to incentivize LP pairs on Velodrome.

Recommendation: Vote No. This would not provide any unique utility to Optimism, and benefits accrue primarily to Overnight and Velodrom users. The applicant should consider a strategy to incentivize users to migrate to Optimism, or provide a novel service for the Optimism ecosystem.

Proposal I: Saddle Finance
Summary: This proposal would disburse 500,000 OP to Saddle Finance. Tokens are earmarked as liquidity incentives for various stablecoin and ETH pools.

Recommendation: Vote No. This grant would not fund any unique utility for users of Optimism, nor is it directed at migrating new users to Optimism.

NB: GFX continues to have difficulty voting on Snapshot. Finding an alternative platform for Optimism governance seems urgent.

3 Likes

Thanks for your voting feedback on my proposal, Summa. It was succinct & clear.
It has been noted, and taken on board.

Kind regards,
Axel

2 Likes

Good job ,thanks!!!

2 Likes

Good, it’s clear! !!

1 Like

Hi @raho. You deleted your comment, but it’s a great question so we wanted to respond. You wrote:

"Hello, quick question for you all…

What is the point of being a delegate if you are not actually going to vote on any proposals? According to this delegate profile, you have voted for a total of 1/39 proposals so far, even while recommending several proposals as ‘Vote Yes.’"

Unfortunately, Snapshot did not support voting by Gnosis safes that originated on Ethereum. This was not known until after delegation took place, and extensive communication with Snapshot has still not yielded a resolution. Optimism governance has been informed for all voting cycles that several major delegates have been unable to vote due to the incompatibility with Snapshot. Note that it is not unusual for professional governance organizations to utilize Gnosis safes to safeguard delegated voting power.

However, a recent test through Boardroom.io’s user interface allowed GFX to vote on a proposal, which is the 1/39 you saw! We are hopeful this will allow voting going forward. Consider the lack of voting by GFX and other Gnosis safe delegates as evidence of centralization risk by relying upon a single voting interface.

3 Likes

Thank you very much for clarifying this for the community! This makes more sense now, as I was looking through delegate voting history and was surprised to see some of the larger delegates inactive. After posting, I read your note at the bottom of a post stating it was a snapshot issue, which is why I deleted my question… Happy to hear the issue is recognized and there is a potential fix!

9 Polls Ending August 3, 2022

Proposal A: Rocket Pool
Summary: This proposal would disburse 600,000 OP to Rocket Pool. 70% would be utilized for liquidity mining of rETH/wETH on Balancer/BeethovenX, and 30% would be utilized for liquidity mining of rETH/wETH on Velodrome.

Recommendation: Vote Abstain. While we are sensitive to the perception that Lido needs competition in the Ethereum staking market, it’s not clear that provisioning Rocket Pool with what amounts to a direct subsidy for their staked derivative would result in any meaningful market share. We also don’t feel Optimism should be in the business of choosing winners or losers, and would prefer to see some direct benefit to Optimism (however difficult to measure).

Proposal B: Boardroom
Summary: This proposal would disburse 100,000 OP to Boardroom. 80% would be utilized to reward OP holders that delegate or re-delegate for the first time through Boardroom, and 20% would be earmarked to subsidize staff that aggregate Optimism data onto Boardroom.

Recommandation: Vote Yes. GFX Labs provided the delegate “approval” to move this to a vote. Aside from the general quality-of-life improvements that Boardroom’s platform provides, utilizing their interface finally allowed the GFX Gnosis safe wallet to vote. This is after weeks of attempting to get Snapshot to fix the problem, and demonstrates that front-end competition is of clear benefit to the Optimism governance ecosystem.

Proposal C: dHedge
Summary: This proposal would disburse 500,000 OP over 6 months to dHedge. This would generally be directed towards staking.

Recommendation: Vote Abstain. This was not a proposal that we initially were excited about. Generally, directing OP to staking emissions for a protocol’s token is a nonstarter unless coupled with a clear justification. That being said, dHedge appears to provide a novel service to the Optimism economy, and we would like to support it. Unfortunately, subsidizing the liquidity of their DHT token doesn’t provide clear benefit to OP holders or Optimism generally. We strongly encourage the applicants to resubmit with a revised plan that more clearly provides benefit to OP holders, directly encourages migration to Optimism from other chains, provides a public good, or directly supports this new service. dHedge is in the business of provisioning a service otherwise unavailable on Optimism, but it’s just not clear how this grant is necessary for them to perform that service.

Proposal D: xToken Terminal and Gamma Strategies
Summary: This proposal would disburse 900,000 OP to xToken Terminal, Gamma Strategies, and Uniswap V3 Staker. Each platform would receive ⅓ of the allocation to provide liquidity incentives over 24 weeks to the wETH-OP 3 bps pool.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. More market making on the OP token is beneficial for the health of the Optimism ecosystem.

Proposal E: Byte Mason Product Suite
Summary: This proposal would disburse 490,000 to Byte Mason’s platforms. 95% would be earmarked for users, with 5% for OP educators.

Recommendation: Vote Yes. It’s not a small request, but it’s important to support protocols that utilize OP as collateral.

Proposal F: GARD
Summary: This proposal would distribute 1,000,000 OP to GARD Protocol. 10-20% would be earmarked for development and auditing expenses, 80-90% would be earmarked for buying back LP tokens.

Recommendation: Vote No. The request is quite large, and the use of the OP tokens doesn’t appear to provide any novel utility, services, or public good to the Optimism ecosystem. While a native decentralized stablecoin is nice, GARD’s existing deployment is not even on an EVM chain, so there’s not even an existing code base to rely upon any “lindy” for. Additionally, the intended use of the tokens doesn’t appear to provide much benefit to OP the token or Optimism the ecosystem. We recommend the applicants revisit this with a much smaller proposal and one that clearly benefits Optimism.

Proposal G: Beefy Finance
Summary: This proposal would distribute 650,000 OP to Beefy Finance. This is a revised version of an earlier proposal which failed. 35% would be used to incentivize BIFI-OP liquidity, 50% to incentivize farms of various Optimism protocols, and 15% for strategist developer/team incentives.

Recommendation: Vote No. As with our previous opposition, it’s unclear how this directly benefits Optimism as an ecosystem, while the subsidies clearly benefit Beefy. We appreciate the changes that were made (going to a BIFI-OP vs BIFI-ETH pool), but there should be some novel service or utility for the Optimism ecosystem, or else some sort of public good should be funded. Simple subsidies of yield farms are not enough.

Proposal H: BarnBridge
Summary: This proposal would disburse 600,000 OP to BarnBridge. These would be used for a variety of user incentives and to bribe BOND holders to migrate to Optimism.

Recommendation: Vote No. This simply seems like direct subsidization of BarnBridge’s business. That can be acceptable, but there needs to be a clear (and hopefully measurable) benefit to Optimism’s economy, governance, or user experience.

Proposal I: Qi DAO
Summary: This proposal would disburse 750,000 OP to Qi DAO. 20% would be reserved for bounties for building on Qi DAO on Optimism, 20% would be for borrowing incentives, and 60% to subsidize MAI liquidity on Optimism.

Recommendation: Vote No. As with other proposals, this looks like a direct subsidy to Qi DAO without a clear benefit to OP holders or the Optimism ecosystem. Optimism governance cannot be in a position to choose winners and losers in the Optimism economy, so applicants must bring some novel service that is not presently available on Optimism, have clear methods of attracting new users to Optimism (and track that metric), or have provided some form of public good where private compensation simply is difficult to extract.

Note To All Applicants & OP Holders:

Making proposals can be a time-intensive activity, and often frustrating if feedback is not made available prior to the submission deadline. We are sensitive to that, and have an open-door policy for those soliciting feedback. We cannot speak for other delegates, and you may get conflicting input from different delegates, but GFX prides itself on being accessible and transparent with communities where it holds delegations. Our inbox here on the forum is always open (or you can find PaperImperium on the Optimism Discord) if you wish to discuss anything related to Optimism governance.

5 Polls Closing September 7

Tooling & Infrastructure Committee [Group A]
Summary: This proposal would establish an official committee of delegates to provide recommendations to OP voters and other delegates with regard to future grants/proposals related to tooling or infrastructure. The proposed committee members are: Kris Kaczor (L2BEAT), Joxes (DeFi LATAM), Lefteris Karapetsas, Lito Coen (Hop Protocol), Scott (Gitcoin).

Recommendation: Vote Yes. The proposed members are well known in this area, and many have a history of being active in crypto. We have full faith that this group will provide quality insights.

Disclosure: GFX Labs is a delegate at Hop Protocol, which several of the members are associated with in various roles.

DeFi Committee [Group A]
Summary: This proposal would establish an official committee of delegates to provide recommendations to OP voters and other delegates with regard to future grants/proposals related to decentralized finance. The proposed committee members are: Katie Garcia (UDHC), GFX Labs, Flipside Crypto, StableNode, Linda Xie (Scalar Capital).

Recommendation: Vote Yes. GFX Labs is one of the proposed members. We fully support this proposal, or would not have participated in bringing it forward.

DeFi Committee [Group B]
Summary: This proposal would establish an official committee of delegates to provide recommendations to OP voters and other delegates with regard to future grants/proposals related to decentralized finance. The proposed committee members are: Doug, Jack Anorak (Velodrome; Information Token), Solarcurve (Balancer), MasterMojo (Synthetix), Matt (Synthetix).

Recommendation: Abstain. GFX Labs is promoting a competing committee and will abstain from voting on alternative DeFi Committee proposals.

DeFi Committee [Group C]
Summary: This proposal would establish an official committee of delegates to provide recommendations to OP voters and other delegates with regard to future grants/proposals related to decentralized finance. The proposed committee members are: OPUser, Jokes (DeFi LATAM), MinimalGravitas, Dhannte (EthernautDAO), ScaleWeb3.

Recommendation: Abstain. GFX Labs is promoting a competing committee and will abstain from voting on alternative DeFi Committee proposals.

NFT & Gaming Committee [Group A]
Summary: This proposal would establish an official committee of delegates to provide recommendations to OP voters and other delegates with regard to future grants/proposals related to NFTs or gaming. The proposed committee members are: Jrocki (Web3 Experience Podcast), Butterbum, FractalVisions, Michael (The Blockchain Guy YouTube channel), OPUser.

Recommendation: Vote Abstain. Only FractalVisions (an NFT artist collective) has obvious expertise in this area based on the descriptions provided of committee members. We would prefer more information on why these members are able to provide other delegates with insight on NFT or gaming proposals. That said, no obvious red flags have presented themselves.

Note To All Applicants & OP Holders:

Making proposals can be a time-intensive activity, and often frustrating if feedback is not made available prior to the submission deadline. We are sensitive to that, and have an open-door policy for those soliciting feedback. We cannot speak for other delegates, and you may get conflicting input from different delegates, but GFX prides itself on being accessible and transparent with communities where it holds delegations. Our inbox here on the forum is always open (or you can find PaperImperium on the Optimism Discord) if you wish to discuss anything related to Optimism governance.

2 Likes