Aligned with committee decision. As said in committee proposal, I am more comfortable with Identity and P2E rather than judging a pure pfp nft project but this grant is going totally towards building community, distribution is done really well with less scope of farming.
Huge respect for @Dicaso for his engagement on this proposal on this forum as well as on discord. He took feedback from almost everyone and has incorporated in this proposal. Willingness to do manual validation, allowing non-nft holder to join the campaign and giving 50 native nft as reward, all this gives me confidence that we are funding the right project and I believe this proposal is setting high standard for upcoming nft and related project.
I can’t explain why but I feel like they won’t keep their promises on the Proposal for token distribution. I can’t blame them, just saying that I couldn’t convince myself to trust them. On the other hand, I like the proposal, made some quick research and it sounds logical that 1.8k holders and 50k OP has been requested.
We shouldn’t decide on our feeling here.should keep a reasonable ratio between risk/return to the ecosystem.
Am voting for this proposal. I’m increasingly skeptical of the efficacy of quests, especially in today’s environment, but this seems like a good opportunity to run an experiment, and it’s in the hands of someone who’s open-minded and transparent in how they’re running things.
Rationale: I am a fan of public funding and encouraging users to live healthier life. I would be intrigued to get a follow-up to see how the challenges work out. An accountability committee would be beneficial here, especially as this has a different path to DeFi protocols.
@Dicaso can you provide a Telegram handle or other contact method so the Optimism team can get in touch about paying out this grant! Feel free to comment on this thread, DM, or email palash@optimism.io
