We have recently voted in three governance issues, below we present what have we voted for with some explanation.
Special Voting Cycle #9a: Grants Council
We have voted for this proposal. Being involved in the grants processes in previous seasons, we see a big need for a better structured processes both for grantees and for delegates. We do have some comments that we shared during the Delegate Call (and we summarize them below), yet we still think that this proposal should be accepted and the details may be clarified during the upcoming Season 3.
Below are some of our comments on the proposal:
- the budget for Growth Experiments Sub-Committee is ~5x bigger than the budget for Builders Sub-Committee. Even though we understand the rationale behind this, and we agree that having more users in the ecosystem benefits the builders in the first place, still we think in the future rounds it should be more balanced
- we would like to see a broader OP strategy towards grants distribution programme so that most of the grants funded act together for the growth of OP ecosystem. In previous seasons we saw many proposals that were made by great teams and made a lot of sense individually, but we were not sure how they composed altogether into something bigger. That’s not necessarily bad, and it was probably the best way to bootstrap the whole programme, but as we already have some insights and experience, we might want to think about the bigger picture already. We’re seeing a good start with the planned RFPs created by sub-committees.
- with the grants council limited to very few people and no token holders voting we are afraid that there might be less public discussion regarding the proposals and their goals, we feel that sub committees should be encouraged to spark public discussion and to gather feedback from the community regarding the proposals (for example by organising AMA sessions with proposers, or public calls where each proposal is being discussed). We will be encouraging for such activities anyway.
- we feel that additional resources should be allocated towards preparing better framework for grants applications and monitoring already funded projects’ progress. We should have more resources towards how potential grantees should prepare their proposals and report on them later on.
However, we think that the Grants Council is a good step forward towards achieving better grants distribution, thus we are voting for this proposal and we will plan to be involved in the future works, we are also planning to self-nominate ourselves to the grants council…
Special Voting Cycle #9a: Protocol Delegation Program
We have voted for. We agree with the goals of the proposal and the proposed approach. We believe that having protocols with a lot of stake in Optimism more involved in the governance processes can only benefit those processes. We do share some concerns (that were already stated in the thread and during the Delegate Call by others) regarding the bonus for OP native protocols and those that already have an active delegate. But the reasoning behind those two bonues seems fair and it’s worth trying it out in the field and potentially adapting those parameters after first season. We’re looking forward to seeing PDP in action!
Badgeholder Nomination Voting
We have voted for Katie Garcia, Linda Xie, Bobbay, Lefteris, Polynya, Scott Moore and Joxes from DeFi LATAM. We have very good experience working with them previously and we are confident that they will make perfect Citizen House members.