Infinity Wallet is a non-custodial wallet where your seed phrase is your wallet. You can generate your seed phrase while offline or import it from/to other non-custodial wallets such as Trust wallet or Metamask, and it is stored locally on your device encrypted. Additionally you can access all your private keys in your wallet to export those for use in another wallet if desired. Your seed or keys never leave your device which you can easily verify by monitoring the wallets network usage.
We respect your preference to only support open source projects, however your comment that Infinity Wallet is a custodial wallet is incorrect.
We would like to ask have you tried the Infinity Wallet? We are the first platform of our kind on Desktop to provide access to the world of DeFi and Web3, with the majority of our users coming over from Web3 browser extension wallets and loving our much more user friendly experience.
Regarding provable metrics/evidence of Infinity Wallets success, please see the following:
Regarding not being open source, this is quite normal for premium platforms focusing on innovation and user experience. Being open source is far from a guarantee that the platform is safe to use, and comes with additional problems such as enabling cloning and phishing, working against our goal to provide the most user friendly and safe environment for all kinds of users. Additionally I don’t think this would be a disadvantage to our proposal as we have already integrated Optimism support and are not asking for funds for development, but to grow the Optimism ecosystem with additional awareness and providing rewards to developers that build on optimism and integrate with us.
Thank you to all that provided your feedback and/or support for our proposal!
The first vote was very close and it was great to see the vast majority of delegates voting Yes, with only a few large delegates flipping the vote in the last hours. We have taken on everyone’s feedback and have updated the proposal with additional information, provable metrics and clarity, which we hope will satisfy any previously uncertain delegates into voting Yes in the next cycle.
Since the initial proposal we have also launched live and announced our Optimism support, and we welcome everyone to try out our unique experience with their favorite Optimism DApps. Remember, as a non-custodial wallet you can easily import your existing wallet via its seed phrase from most other wallets.
We have left the title as “READY” as we have had support from multiple delegates, and also have over 0.005% OP delegated to ourselves. If there is anything else required to be entered into the next cycle please let us know.
Project value: Strong, wallets are the building blocks for the entire space and the main factors for chain and cross-chain usage. Another plus is they are providing a unique wallet solution, this project can drive long term value to OP
Amount: Good, for the size of the project and usage of funds
OP distribution: Good, majority is for dapp developers integrating on OP and the amount for incentives will bring awareness to OP and like Biconomy rewarding bridging will incentivize more people to onboard to OP.
Btw @InfinityWallet you have my deepest respect in regards to how you handled last round with the behaviour of some delegates
Hello @OPUser, I have added to the bottom of the proposal some notes regarding improvements/changes to the proposal. Additionally, you should be able to see the edits by clicking the orange edit icon in the top right of the original post.
Thanks for the feedback. Although as an electron project you can actually quite easily view the source code!
Also this proposal is not about supporting the Infinity Wallet but about supporting the growth of the Optimism ecosystem in line with the Optimistic vision. Restricting Optimisms avenues of growth based on arbitrary preferences, rather than judging each individual proposal based on its prospect for growing the ecosystem could be seen as counter to this goal.
Open-source, closed-source or partially open-source really should have no effect since the proposal is not to fund our development.
@lefterisjp dude, your conflict of interest with this proposal is on fire
I downloaded your platform and it offers similar stuff to this project, the fact you have not ABSTAINED and that the comments you are making towards it are on the offensive/attacking is not a good look.
Btw Optimism outlined what the aim of the funds is for, and this phase is not only for open source projects which actually fall more under the Retroactive Public Goods Funding as public goods. The actual aim of the current phase is to spur sustainable growth and activity on the Optimism network to kick start the ecosystem with strong projects and companies.
I do not have a conflict of interest with the proposal. At this point you are simply making things up.
I am not going to be engaging with you any longer in the forums since you have a combative attitude if the counterpart of the conversation does not agree with you. If you don’t like how I vote don’t delegate to me and ask people to not delegate to me.
I don’t need to make anything up when I have tested/reviewed your project and this project. Also I have seen multiple people pull you up regarding this on Discord and across this Gov Forum. A little strange don’t you think when other delegates are mentioning your name related to issues of conflict of interest across a couple of projects!
You are saying this project is not a conflict to you, but many features are the same or similar across you both. You may not be a direct competitor to them because your not a wallet, but offering similar features is still a conflict of interest.
The other issue is you attitude which from following the chat has been completely different in the way you interacted with them compared to other projects.
Also @lefterisjp I have not even delegated to you, you need to not guess and base on facts or ask me first before stating something. I am a delegate to my self and several others that delegate to me.
Also for this to be true you would of first of had to reply to me and since I have never even mentioned this to you before then it makes what you stated hard to be true. There is no need to be aggressive or attack projects, delegates or anyone else here, we are all in here for the common success of Optimism and I hope everyone can point out weaknesses to each other so we can all improve together as a collective.
While I appreciate the concerns about open sourcing, I believe this proposal is directly aligned with promoting growth on Optimism. There are other important protocols like Uniswap V3 which are also not open source but will drive significant growth to Optimism. Further, Optimism is itself a closed platform today, and we’re a long ways away from aligning with Ethereum’s decentralization ethos. Over time, I’ll be stricter with my votes, but in this early stage happy to focus on what drive users to Optimism.
The metrics are good but we can’t check them 100% as there is no data in the chain. The amount requested is too high and we still can’t be sure how many of those users will convert to Optimism. It also seems to me that allocating 40% to maintenance is too much. The wallet market is large and competitive. I have a hard time supporting this proposal.
Thank you for your response but the additional metrics/evidence you shared does not quite push me in the direction of a yes still as users, transactions, $ secured metrics that you provided in the initial proposal are more relevant in my review (again, I understand why this is the case that it can’t be verified) and I will be abstaining for the same reasons as I provided in the last cycle.