[READY] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Summa

Hi @OPUser

As I said in discord, thanks for your input. I really appreciate you trying to understand more about what I’m proposing. There’s no such thing a bad question, right?

To answer your Q1 I will refer you to my Reply to Robor2b102’s own question above. I wrote both a TLDR version and a Full Response version to questions that are similar to your Q1.

To answer your Q2 I will again refer you to both my Draft Proposal and my Reply to Robor2b102. If you need any clarification (from either of your Q1 or Q2) then perhaps you could ask a more acute question or refer to my earlier proposal/reply and explain what I’m not making clear? The new forum content I add here, in regards to Q2, is that:

  • My end users will be accountants, their clients and small businesses (but will also involve accounting professional associations and accounting software providers).
  • This will add value to the OP ecosystem as these end users will either hold, or ideally buy to hold & transact with OP for use with the built apps (in the case of the products) or for to create custom ‘value creating’ marketing offers & benefits for their own firms (in the case of the accountants community currency). A second-wave benefit is that a whole new cohort of mainstream society will become exposed to OP and become adept at working with Web3, Ethereum and Layer 2 solutions, and this will ideally give them reassurance to integrate these technologies into their everyday businesses, and in the case of accountants, their client advice.
  • EDIT: Yes, these ideas might be a little hard to grasp at the start, as they are indeed unique (if you’re not a bookkeeper or accountant). They are not just another DEX, another Lending Protocol, another Yield product, or just another Aggregator of these. Not that Defi isn’t potentially the most disruptive and transformative tech sector of our generation, but these app and Dapp ideas I have in my Roadmap are a whole new product category. And this is another reason why they will add value to the OP ecosystem. That is, they will onboard a whole new demographic to OP and Ethereum, and not just appeal to, or cannibalize, the same group of crypto enthusiasts.

To answer your Q3 and Q4 I will refer you to my, as yet unwritten, Reply to solarcurve. Both of you have implied the same idea, so I will address the size and timing of the token request in my Reply to his post.

Thanks again for your question. I can pick up that your hesitant about my Proposal but you appear to be seeking more info before making a final decision, and I can’t really ask for much more of a chance than that. So thanks, and have a good day.

Kind regards,

Hi @solarcurve thanks for your patience with my reply. I’m going to frame my response, and why my Tokens Requested isn’t too high, but breaking it down into 4x Sections.

1) The Governance Fund as a whole

The Governance Fund has 230,000,000 OP that it will be distributing over the next six months (Optimism Gateway). Now that equates to about 13 fortnightly Phases. Which in turns means that each Phase should allocate approx 17,500,000 OP, if the Governance Fund is to meet its objectives. You’ll see from the Proposals in Phase 0 and 1 that this target isn’t being met at the current rate of allocations. Thus, my argument is that 2,000,000 fits neatly into the targeted allocation rate over the 6-months Governance Fund. And it doesn’t really make sense to argue that the full 230,000,000 shouldn’t be allocated. What, do we just burn the unallocated OP?! Because if that’s the best argument not to allocate all OP from the fund then why don’t we just cancel the whole process and burn the lot? It would make the current holders much wealthier in the short term, but it would fundamentally counter the Optimism Collective’s vision. That is, let’s make sure we allocate all these OP in the next 6-months as was, and is, the goal of the Fund.

Secondly, my Token Request is 0.87% of the total Governance Fund. This means that approx 115 other projects with a similar sized token request could be successfully proposed to the Governance Fund. That’s a great deal of start up investments in that quasi-portfolio. My argument is that 0.87% of the total fund, allowing 115 other equivalent investments, is not overweight or too high for one proposal. In particular when you add this argument to the one from the prior paragraph about the rate of Governance Fund OP allocations.

2) Seed (or Pre-Seed) Funding for Start Up Projects

You said…

And my shortest response is: “Kind of, yes”. But I view this as a seed funding round. I don’t believe I myself am totally unproven. I’m a mature, middle aged person, with more than a decade of professional experience in my field, I have very high levels of both academic and professional qualifications and credentials, and I have founded and run multiple small businesses that put me through studies and support me and my family now. So, I’m not exactly a a kid with no life experience but a bright idea asking for a bucket of others people’s money. But I’ll concede that my proposal is based on a concept. A concept that needs Seed Funding, or Pre-Seed Funding (whatever terminology you prefer).

If you search around, you’ll find the current average Seed or Pre-Seed Funding Round is anywhere between USD $3,000,000 to USD $5,000,000 (The current state of 2022 pre/seed investing | by Trace Cohen | May, 2022 | Medium) (A Guide to Raising Seed Funding in 2022). At today’s OP USD price, I’m asking for the OP equivalent of USD $1,030,000. Thus my argument is that my seed or pre-seed funding request is well below the lower bands of the average Seed or Pre-Seed Funding round in 2022, and thus not too great an ask.

Finally in this section, I see that you, yourself via Balancer had raised USD $3,000,000 Seed Capital in March of 2020 (Balancer Labs Raises $3M to Supercharge Programmable Liquidity | by Fernando Martinelli | Balancer Protocol | Medium), when Balancer was still indeed “very much a beta product” (New Balancer Token More Than Doubles in Price as COMP Drops Sharply). So while I’ll try not to call it hypocritical when you do this type of seed raise, but then 2-years later say:

I will instead try to appeal to you as someone who was in my position only a few years ago. That is, you knew why you asked for $3,000,000 and not something smaller, or something that was conditional. You knew what you needed to make the numbers add up. You knew how a successful, decently sized Seed Round could assist you implement your vision and really make Balancer a success. My argument is that I now ask for the same faith from this Optimism Collective community that Accomplice and Placeholder showed you.

3) Risk

It was mentioned earlier that there would be a ‘hoping for the best’. Well, yes, that is true. It’s true for all Proposals in all Phases and indeed all investments. We all hope for the best once we hand over our funds, and have to accept our given level of risk. And yes, there is risk.

But I argue that a lower token request actually increases the risk of my and some other projects. Too few tokens actually incentivizes fly-by-night capital, where small to medium sums are handed over, it’s churned through in three to six months, nothing gets traction, and bang! All the tokens are gone, and the team moves back to their old lives, or to the next short-term, ticking runway/minefield. A higher token ask increases responsibility and incentivises longer term thinking and plans. It creates a state of permanent dedication, not a ‘well lets so how this goes, and I’ll just go back to my old job in the new year if it doesn’t work out’ mentality.

As for the risk of just vanishing with the OP, or rugging my tokens, or doing other dodgy stuff, etc I argue thats why I’ve doxxed myself. I have a professional and personal reputation to protect and I also don’t want to be the most hated person in crypto. There is a risk that my concepts fail, but by doxxing myself and being public & transparent means there is little to no risk of me acting nefariously.

And finally for this section. Yes all these concepts and project might still all just go to s*** in the end. I never want to convey a guarantee of success. I can though offer my dedication, my full effort and I won’t let this project fail without a hell of a fight :slight_smile: But if you want to help me minimise this risk of failure, please see the conclusion.

4) Conclusion

  • Based on all the above arguments I believe my token request is fair, reasonable and importantly will be effective.
  • In the same vein, I believe that other Proposals are asking for too few tokens. Tokens shouldn’t just be handed over as a bribe for established products to come over to Optimism, and new projects should fund themselves adequately for the long term and not just provide a quasi-salary to a lone developer to work on something for six months.
  • I’m no longer frightened of asking for the tokens that I am, because at its core, I really want my project to shake things up in a very big way for very many people. And if I don’t have the courage to make the initial ask, how will I ever change the accounting industry and the world at large the way I want to, if I can realise the Summa vision.
  • The Tokens Requested will also not be lowered to 100,000 as @solarcurve recommended, as even he admits that probably wouldn’t change his position on the vote. Note: I am open to others who have similar recommendations, but a different outcome. E.g. “Axel, I’m an Against at 2M, but at 1M I’d become a For”. So, I’m interested to hear feedback if anyone fits into this category.
  • And finally, if you want to help me minimise the risk of this new project, then get involved! I’m open to advice from people who have been there and done that. And there’s safety in numbers, so even if you can’t provide specialist advice, then please get involved and become a supporter or follower or whatever. Welcome aboard, it’s Summa time :smiley:

Thanks for your time with this long post.

Kind regards,

I appreciate you taking the time to write all that out. I believe you and I simply have fundamental differences of opinion - and perhaps you are actually correct that Optimism must give out all the tokens and thus needs large asks like yours to enable that.

I believe we are NOT under any pressure to spend all the tokens in a certain time frame. Thus, my advice to you would be to go raise a seed round, prove your idea works, then return here and ask for OP incentives to pour additional fuel on that fire so to speak.

Happy for someone from Optimism to chime in and say I’m totally wrong, we have a desperate need to give out tokens, and using these funds as “seed round investments” is a good idea. Barring that I have to continue to be against this.

1 Like

I think that blockchain certainly needs more integration with tradfi, however I generally echo @solarcurve comments and believe that perhaps Phase 1 token allocations are not the right fit for your startup funding. Have you checked out Aelin? You could potentially use that protocol to raise funds. I’d also vote against this proposal at this stage.

Thanks for your input @Justin, although it’s a shame I couldn’t convince you with my proposal or my replies.

But for the record, and anyone that sees your reply (and this one), the accounting industry is not TradeFi. We are not considered financial services. A more appropriate classification is professional services or business services.
This clarity is important as the roles, activities and qualifications are very different, as are the industry’s practitioners, clients, professional associations and connected software services. I.e. This proposal is not targeting or working with TradFi. We are targeting and working with an, as yet, untapped demographic, and thus can have a great deal of impact for Optimism and Ethereum.

But again, huge thanks for your time and thought if you read through in full the proposal and the all the replies. I can’t ask for much more than that.

Kind regards,

I’ll reply here to the message that you sent on Kromatika’s Phase 1 proposal. I do not think that my comments on Kromatika’s proposal are inconsistent with my feedback on your proposal. Here is why:

Kromatika’s proposal calls for marketing and LP incentives, along with a small retro to early users of an existing protocol (please note that I am not a Kromatika early user – I had not heard of it until I read their proposal). Your proposal calls for 25% toward incentivizing future users and the rest (numbers 2-5) on your proposal goes toward early business development activities and insiders of a protocol that you will develop in the future. The two proposals are fundamentally different proposals.

Please keep in mind that I am expressing my own candid evaluation of your proposal. I’m one person with small voting power and I do not speak for the Optimism team. My feedback is essentially my opinion - That’s part of the reason why I started a conversation thread here:

Hi @Justin thanks very much for the reply and clarification.

Firstly, I want to say sorry for my last reply, as it was a reactive response that wasn’t well thought it. So I really appreciate your tolerance and your time to explain your briefer replies in more detail.

I was initially confused when you said you were "particularly drawn to using the tokens for marketing campaigns" as I believed you were referring to the other proposal using 70% of their token request for affiliate & influencer marketing, but you have now clarified that you were referring to the other 30% for LP Incentives and the Retro to Early Users.

The final thing I’ll say, to again explain my poor reaction, is that I don’t think that:

is again not the best way to describe my allocation.

I think a better way to briefly describe the allocation is:

  • 25% is for "using the tokens for marketing campaigns to onboard new users…efforts could reach beyond the mercenaries and lead to increased adoption". The community currency is all about incentivising education about & the adoption of OP, Ethereum and crypto as a whole.
  • 20% is for the team and insiders.
  • 35% is for project stability, longevity and long-term planning (ring-fenced from the team/insiders).
  • And the final 20% is again for incentivising usage and liquidity by accelerating product development (via external/outsiders teams) for the onboarding of a whole new cohort of the business community.

Thanks for your time, and thanks for letting me again clarify (or at least have a right of reply) to the way things had been described.

All the best with your voting activities, and still feel free to AMA if you need any clarification or concepts fleshed out.

Kind regards,


I’m bumping my Draft Proposal here as I’ll be transferring it from DRAFT to READY tomorrow (Asia timezone).
Thus I’m seeking any (1) final suggestions for improvement, or (2) constructive criticism (if it hasn’t been covered yet).

Thanks for your understanding with the Bump, and if you reckon it’s ready to move from DRAFT to READY then please leave a positive reply or just give the Proposal a Heart :heart:

Thanks for your time again.
Kind regards,

Hi @Axel_T, Thank you taking the time to answer all the comment and queries. As I dont have any accounting knowledge, I dont see the niche for this and unfortunately dont have any suggestion to improve this so I am might abstain myself from voting.
I would still encourage you to reduce the number of OP asked, Phase 1 an ongoing event and you can always submit a new proposal once this fund is exhausted.

1 Like

Thanks @OPUser I’ve always appreciated your constructive feedback and probing for more info.

For the record, while I’ll sleep on it, I’m looking into incorporating a Lock Up Period for 50% of the Requested OP, similar to Optimistic Railway & what we discussed earlier. This will be to increase transparency, incentivise cost control within Summa, and (ultimately) to calm the nerves and lower the risks of my comparatively large number of OP Requested. I’m going to sleep on it (it’s 10.20pm here now), and if I update the Draft tomorrow I’ll post it in #gov-temp-check on Discord to ‘ping’ anyone that the Draft had been changed.

Thanks again for all your input over the past week or so. If I’m successful in the vote then I look forward to bringing lots of accountants onboard into the ecosystem, and I’m sure they’ll help you get up to speed with your accounting knowledge :grinning:


1 Like

As an OP holder and (self) delegate with more than 0.0005% of voting power myself, I am now going to change this Proposal from DRAFT to READY.

As per my earlier discussed ‘overnight thinking’, I’ve decided against trying to offer a 50% Lock Up Period. This is because of the centralisation implications of trying to manage this. What would originally be a straight up & down vote would transform into a negotiation with 1 or 2 Delegates, or Optimism Foundation members, etc. It would be best to let my proposal stand or fall on its own, letting the community decide this, and not have 50% decided by the community and 50% decided by OP insiders only.

Overall, thanks for all you feedback. Here we go!
I’m still here to answer questions until Voting closes.
And if the Proposal in successful, then I definitely plan to be active in the community.
I hope we can all Stay Optimistic in our voting, and allow the realisation of the decentralised Web3 future (including all possible impacted industries) that we’re aiming for!

Kind regards,
:grinning: :handshake:


i an happy to hear the news that you, summa takes part in op eco.
i support you

1 Like

Thanks mate! I really appreciate the support @jjlee710 :smiley:

The voting results coming in today have been tough, but your personal comment has put me in a much better mood. Cheers!

Have a great day. Make sure you vote, if you haven’t already. And feel free to ask any questions or otherwise get in touch :slight_smile:

Kind regards,

Voted: No

Huge thanks to Axel for taking his time to answer all the comment and queries.

I was planning to abstain from this as I dont have any accountability experience, even after Axel’s detailed explanation, but voting No as I think number of token is huge for a project that is yet not live.

Highly encourage to submit a proposal with less amount first and increase gradually if needed.

Also, appreciate your participation in this gov forum.


If you read the full proposal, and all the replies, and asked questions or conducted independent research where you were unclear, then I quite simply can’t ask for much more than that.

Thanks for the opportunity, mate :slightly_smiling_face:

Kind regards,
PS, based on the voting records, I think I can isolate which address you are. You gotta love the transparency (and thus the inherent accountability) that this system provides. Hooray for blockchain and Ethereum :smile:

1 Like

I am a delegate and my address is public. You can read more about my view here :-Delegate Commitments - #26 by OPUser

1 Like

Thanks @OPUser I’d reviewed the Dune directory, but had not read up on that Delegate Commitments page. Cheers for the heads up! Although the transparency appreciation thoughts still hold :slight_smile:

1 Like

This proposal does not fit into Gov Fund Phase 1: Voting No

Value-add: None
Amount: High
Op distribution: Bad - mainly venture building
Co-incentives: Personal funds - small compared to Ask

This funding round is meant to grow liquidity and users on Optimism. This proposal describes an early-stage venture that may or may not add value at some point - and consequently does not fit into Gov Phase 1. Maybe the VC route is a better option for you but tbh there is still a lot of work to be done on the pitch. Thanks for the proposal, appreciate your engagement here.

ScaleWeb3 opinion mirrors our own and we will be voting no. This is not the aim of this governance fund and you should focus on raising capital somewhere else.

Thanks for sharing. I appreciate you trying to disrupt the accounting sector. However, the amount requested is quite large and given it is a new project, I don’t think this would be the best use of funds for Optimism at this time.

1 Like