Voted: Yes like last time.
Voted: Yes like last time.
It’s for development of your community/user and integrations and features in Optimism of your product. Quoting your proposal:
I don’t want to support a closed source project and I strongly believe that Optimism should not be supporting closed source projects which is why I voted as I did.
Please don’t DM me asking me why I voted against. The entire discourse should be public.
I disagree with your assertions on what you think Optimism should fund and as a delegate I am entitled to vote according to my beliefs.
@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 will be voting YES again for the same reason as previously.
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.
What does “unparalleled security” mean exactly? Is there sth to back that statement?
Checked the page and didn’t find any detailed info - googled a bit and found Closed Application · Issue #1483 · ethereum/ethereum-org-website · GitHub which doesn’t answer any questions as well.
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.
Hi Linda, I’m not quite sure what other metrics you would be looking for, but if you let us know we will see if we can provide them. As it makes it very hard for proposals in these cases to take part if they are not smart contracts, hence why we provided metrics along with some evidence of success to prove our presence in the market. We are open to suggestions.
Same I am wondering how to validate or what is needed for my project if I make a proposal as a infrastructure project
We voted no for this proposal as we don’t believe it’s the best use of funds. With 40% going to on-going Optimism support, we’d like to see an in-depth breakdown of which Optimism-specific features will be developed given that Infinity Wallet is not Optimism-native. In addition, we believe it’s in a wallet’s best interest to support all major Dapps on a chain by default, so it’s not clear that waiving the integration fee would actually result in growing the Optimism ecosystem.
We echo the comments made by delegates above, such as distribution and status as wallet non-open-source. Community also took note of it and also showed no interest in its use.
Suggestions: none so far.
Snapshot vote - not passed