Although not a strict requirement, the Optimism Foundation recommends that each project submitting a Governance Fund proposal include a commitment to match OP token incentives with their own project incentives (when the project has the capital and capacity to do so). Governance Fund Overview | Optimism Docs
This is a valid point. We can modify the proposal to leave this as an option to the foundation. We will be submitting a second proposal to unlock those either way, so if this is too cumbersome, we don’t need to make it overly complicated with the extra staking.
I agree, you are giving them an option, if they want to take it or not, its their call.
I would suggest change the proposal from Draft to Live so that other delegate can also provide their feedback, remember that you are seeking full funding for development and I believe they will have own comment on this.
OP token has a market value - your proposed matching strategy sounds like you’ll be matching with tokens that only have “value” in your game which does not cost you anything to do. There is effectively no match here if my understanding is correct.
Locking the funds for 6 months is a lot more operational overhead than simply you returning here in 6 months to make a new proposal and update us all on your progress. You do mention supplying liquidity on BeethovenX so much love for that
The problem here is it’s very difficult for me to assess whether paying your salaries to make this game(?) is a good use of funds. If you work for 6 months and realize this is not a good idea anymore we’ve wasted OP. You could make the game then no one plays it and you realize it wasn’t such a good idea - again we’ve wasted OP.
The much cleaner way to do this in my mind is you find backers willing to support you during development - whether that’s raising through gitcoin, seed round, whatever. Then you return here with a working product ready for Optimism users and we simply sprinkle some OP incentives on what is already working and showing traction. There’s just too high of a risk we spend 400k OP on this proposal and it ultimately leads to no new Optimism users or usage, thus I don’t think I can support it.
We know this is a new project, and one of the few proposals on here that isn’t already built, hence the accountability section. The concept is not a game, it is the underlying infrastructure to connect games, dapps, and metaverses. A major feature is allowing players to move as a group, rather than an individual between these worlds. We will be demonstrating the capabilities of the system through a mario-style world-map of connected experiences, but the free play incentive can be applied to any dapp built on the system.
There is some cost to run transactions through the Optimistic Railway, as with anything on the blockchain. We will use tokens to pay these costs as well as allowing hub operators to collect a small fee if desired. Whether using our token or a native token like ETH, “free play” is essentially the same as paying gas plus these operator fees. Our system is designed to minimize gas for many users doing the same type of transaction, however this will never be a free operation on the blockchain so our proposed incentive will translate into real value, and can be adjusted to match the market value of OP received.
Hey @OPUser, Mostly I have been putting significant weight into two main understandings:
there are two questions in the proposal template that ask specifically about usage and liquidity, but do not mention any other goals.
A central aspect of Optimism is the retroactive public goods funding. Given the spirit of not trying to pick future winners that i’ve read in Vitalik’s and optimism’s writing on the subject, i am concluding that the governance fund also isn’t designed to speculatively fund founding teams in the way that an angel or early round venture would. Rather, the incentives are intended to stimulate usage and liquidity of protocols that are already operating.
I am making assumptions because despite effort, I have not found much guidance. This is part of the reason why i added the post below. What is your take?
seems a bit overambitious without any additional outside funding, would certainly like to see a poc or some early concept to prove the team can achieve what they are aiming to do. otherwise it just seems like it would go to bad use.
Hey @MoneyManDoug , here is an early tech demo showcasing some of the capabilities of the Optimistic Railway. The contracts in the video are available in our public repo to checkout and explore. Hopefully this helps give some confidence in our ability to achieve what we have set out to build.
This proposal does not fit into Gov Fund Phase 1: Voting No
Value-add: Very small Amount: High for an early project Op distribution: Bad - Almost only internal development Co-incentives: Not applicable
We don’t see OP Phase 1 as the right place to get very early project funding - especially if there is no direct value-add as you’d get from fundamental infrastructure, new tooling or apps that grow the ecosystem.
We are building contract-level tooling and infrastructure that connects dapps of all kinds. This is in alignment with the governance fund and we are directly adding the value that you just mentioned, which indeed grows the ecosystem.
In response to your topics:
We very much disagree that is a small value add. Our railway will allow dapps of all kinds to talk to one another and transport users in new and useful ways. This will improve the development experience as well as the user experience for countless dApps to come. Connected metaverses has been a promise of web3 that has yet to be realized, and this is a component that can move that forward in a big way.
The amount received is contingent upon us actually delivering what we say we will. This is based on early feedback we received and is specifically to address the worry of these funds being misallocated or our team being unable to deliver what we promise.
We believe the biggest value we can presently deliver is in actually building this infrastructure, since it doesn’t yet exist, which is why 90% of the distribution is allocated to core team and services. However, this doesn’t mean we don’t plan to give back in a big way to our community (see co-incentives below).
These are absolutely applicable. The Optimism foundation recommends matching as follows:
the Optimism Foundation recommends that each project submitting a Governance Fund proposal include a commitment to match OP token incentives with their own project incentives (when the project has the capital and capacity to do so).
We 100% plan on delivering at least 2X the value of what we receive in this grant back to the community, as soon as the project has the capital and capacity to do so, namely after this initial phase of development is complete. One of the primary ways we will contribute this is through by paying user fees (such as gas) to travel through hubs (dApps) along the railway.