I think @lefterisjp knows that since your proposal is clear, I dont think he cares since he is actually doing something similar to you with portfolio management. This is why he would of voted NO as he is biased, which he should of voted abstain or yes like others did in these situations. Also his excuse for voting NO clearly means he didn’t read your proposal xD
I dont think this current delegation model will work as some delegators seem to much focused on their own interests rather then the interest of the OP ecosystem and seem misaligned with the OP mission
you should not make assumptions like this. My own proposal has nothing to do with infinity wallet as rotki is not a wallet and as such there is no conflict of interest.
You can disagree with my view on the infinity wallet proposal that’s fine. But be careful with unfounded accusations.
I’ll vote NO - beacuse it’s closed source and thus a custodial wallet. I would personally never use such software.
Project quality: Mid - Wallets for cross-chain world seem to be important but the fact that this wallet is closed source is a huge red flag. Team quality: ? hard to assess Amount requested: High OP distribution: So, so - mostly to development costs
@InfinityWallet you proposal caught my eye because its similar to something I have been saying for awhile is needed.
Today I checked out your wallet and I have to say it’s superb! The main thing that stands out is the quality and that you provide a more curated experience, also you are not a browser extension wallet
I have been saying for a while this space needed a intuitive wallet solution on desktop to access web3, something that could bring a higher focus on quality (UX/UI) and provide a more curated experience, to actually allow for easier adoption. Because browser extension wallets like MetaMask and other extension wallets are really bad, they are not made for mass usage due to terrible UX/UI and are time consuming to use or know where to start, also they don’t feel natural to use or secure.
You guys have quite a few nice features, but my favourite feature is your web3 browser. It makes the use and UX of web3 100x easier.
I really like how you have kept the UI very intuitive, the biggest thing for me is that it feels natural to use rather then when using a browser extension. It actually feels like how web3 should be if that makes sense in terms of UX, I applaud you guys on doing such a great job.
I like how you can click the arrow in the top right to hide the side bar and wallets (even changing a wallet or chain is way more easier then anything used before ). The only thing I would like to suggest is when pressing f11 it should hide the top bar, at the moment it just grows the screen.
I was wondering, does the blue badge have some use other than to say a dapp is integrated? I would like to suggest that you add screening to block known scam or dangerous contracts, you could even use the badges to indicate the security of a dapp.
I am glad you enjoy using the Infinity Wallet @coyaj21.
Regarding your question about badges and dangerous/phishing DApps, there are many additional badges.
Blue badge = Integrated DApp;
Green badge = Non-integrated DApp but SSL secure;
Yellow badge = Non-integrated DApp and possibly not secure;
Red badge = Reported to be a dangerous DApp (In this case it also pops up a warning to inform the user before choosing if they want to use it anyway)
We have a directory of known phishing projects and will be making it open for public contribution from DApp projects, to help make interacting with DApps as safe as possible.
Thanks for taking the time to share the proposal and respond to comments/questions.
I voted to abstain since after reviewing over a few days, I am still very on the fence and don’t feel strongly enough or feel I am an expert on wallets specifically to sway the vote in a yes or no direction given where voting is at right now (my vote would be the determining factor in this case).
The metrics sound good but since I can’t verify on-chain (I understand the reason), it’s difficult for me to assess this fully. I like that a large portion of funds go towards devs deploying on Optimism. On the flip side I’m not a fan that this is closed source.
@linda from the voting guideline it mentions that a 51% YES proportion is required, meaning abstaining has the same effect as voting NO in diluting this yes %. If my interpretation is accurate then your voting of abstain would be the deciding factor since you flipped from majority YES of over 51% to now 42% yes.
I had assumed that abstain would not be counted in the voting total, I will check with the Optimism team on how this is counted as my intention was not to sway this in a direction.
I also don’t think it’s fair for you to say that many of these delegates above voted no because of wrong info or lack of review. For example, you specifically stated that @lefterisjp voted no because he is biased with his own project when they are doing separate things. I’m not a fan of this accusatory style of communication toward others and hope that we can work towards having a more open conversation with constructive feedback.
I am not referring to only this proposal, I am talking about the majority of proposals. There is a clear issue of delegates not researching, showing a lack of understanding or simply not asking questions before voting, leading many to vote based on an incomplete or assumed basis. As an example I will point out on this project alone some cases:
Quixotic reason “Proposal K: Infinity Wallet - No, we’d like to the Optimism integration happen first.” - Their decision was to vote NO because they thought this project didn’t support OP when it does. I actually downloaded the wallet to try it a few days back and it does support OP. An example of not asking questions, reviewing correctly and presuming.
lefterisjp - He has a direct conflict of interest with this project as his project is similar to it in terms of what it offers (Portfolio Dashboard, Transactions, NFTs, Stats and etc…). This is why his decision to put NO is biased, then to add on top they replied to him and he ignored their reply which defunct his own comment.
In this project alone if you changed Quixotic which voted based on wrong information and lefterisjp if he done the correct thing and abstained, then this project would be 9.5 million YES to 2.4 million NO. This is just based on 1 delegate presuming and another having a conflict of interest.
My point is that many delegates have based their decisions off of presuming, showing a clear lack of reviewing proposals or asking projects questions. The other issue is that there are far to many projects applying and its only going to grow, leading to even more of these issues. There needs to be a committee in place to decide on proposals that are ready and also there needs to be rules set out which can be enforced to ensure delegates are kept to standards.
"Ok – Operating Manual was drafted with the assumption that there would be no option to explicitly vote “abstain” reflected in snapshot totals. We will push a minor version update to the Manual today to clarify:
Approval Threshold (minimum % of votes cast to approve relative to total votes cast)
to
Approval Threshold (minimum % of votes cast to approve reletave to total non-abstaining votes cast)
In the meantime, you can leave your vote as-is. Votes where yes votes make up 51% of yes+no votes will be considered passing."
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.
Hey @InfinityWallet I hope that in future they will give us an option to see the edited changes but as of now I dont know what has changed from last proposal.
Could you please share the changes you have done in form of a comment? Just to make it more visible to all of us. Thanks.
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
Forgot to chime in here during the last vote it seems but I’ll vote Yes (again). Distribution of incentives seems aligned to further the growth and usage of Optimism in my view.
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.
- beacuse it’s closed source and thus a custodial wallet. I would personally never use such software.
for this proposal