[READY] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Summa

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

Good morning OP Community!


If you did not engage at all with my Proposal for the past three weeks since it first went into Draft mode, whether here in this forum or the #gov-temp-check Discord channel, then please, I request you to NOT provide negative Replies here, in particular after you’ve already committed your vote.

This request is aimed at not receiving harsh news delivered fresh to my Gmail inbox on a semi-regular basis.

The time to provide your wisdom, insight and feedback was during the two weeks that this proposal was up online as a Draft, i.e. so I could possibly incorporate your views and possibly improve the proposal. The time for your first ever engagement with me or this Proposal is not now, after it has been set as Ready and is being voted on.

If however your feel particularly important and must share, influence other voters, or justify (to me?) why you’ve voted No, then please use the following thread: Voting Cycle #2: Roundup - #40 by nogahev839 If you use this suggested thread to eviscerate my Proposal, then at least I won’t get your Reply pop up in my work Gmail and punch me in the gut.

Thank you in advance if you could adhere to this request :slight_smile:

Note: If you have positive news/feedback or did indeed engage with me and my Proposal while it was still in Draft mode, then this request does not apply to you. You’ll either let good news be sent to my inbox or we’re already mates and I can handle your frank feedback.


If you have not already voted and want a TLDR review of everything above, everything throughout this forum, the Discord, the web, my CV, my business experience, etc then here is all you need to know:

  • Poor build
  • Skinny
  • Lacks great physical stature and strength
  • Lacks mobility and ability to avoid the rush
  • Lacks a really strong arm
  • Can’t drive the ball downfield
  • Does not throw a really tight spiral
  • A system-type player who can get exposed if forced to ad-lib
  • Gets knocked down easy.

Thanks for your time.

Kind regards,

I’m opting to Abstain. While the amount requested is certainly very high, it could be that an accounting platform on Optimism has the potential to be disruptive - I just don’t have in-depth knowledge in this field. As governance funds are ongoing, I’d recommend considering requesting smaller amounts instead of one permanent fund until a product-market fit is proven.

1 Like

Hi Axel,

I haven’t commented on this proposal so far, so I apologize for the notification that this will give you, but I just wanted to clear up what may be a misunderstanding.

The fact that your proposal in phase 1 isn’t getting much support doesn’t mean that your project won’t get support in future rounds. You’re clearly very motivated by the idea and have put in a decent amount of time explaining it, but it is equally clear that it is very unique and from a specialized field that most of us delegates have very limited understanding of. You may well be able to educate us further on how this would work and why it would be beneficial, take on board some suggestions and resubmit in a couple of weeks or months.

Just wanted to reassure you really that this isn’t a ‘one chance’ type operation and lack of success on this phase should have little or no bearing on your opportunities for future proposals. Learn from this process, bring us along with your vision, and try again in the future.



I will abstain from this proposal as my own project (rotki) can also be used to solve accounting and tax questions (not in any professional capacity – I am not a tax advisor) in Optimism and crypto in general and as such I could be perceived to have a conflict of interest here.

If not for that I would have voted NO since the amount is very high (~$1,040,000) and since I am not really sure what the proposal wants to achieve as I only see some product concept proposals and no indication you have the ability to deliver on them.

1 Like

I’ll vote NO :x: I suggest RPGF

Project quality: ? - really hard to asses. Seems to be useful.
Team quality: ? - no crypto track record.
Amount requested: Very high
OP distribution: Mixed

1 Like

Snapshot vote - Not passed

Hello OP Community,

Now that the vote has concluded, I wish to express my dear thanks for all those that voted ‘Yes’ to this proposal. While the final count was a bit of a landslide, I did note that many individual voters had backed the Summa project. For this I can’t thank you enough! I really appreciate the support you showed me and the project. I’ll never forget it, and will continue to work hard to repay the faith you showed me.

On the whole though, it has been a hard loss in the final count. I’m only left to thank all those that participated and took the time to vote and understand the project, even if you did vote ‘No’ or ‘Abstain’. The final result, and the accompanying feedback has been noted, and will be taken on board for any future ventures inside or outside the Optimism Collective. So while I couldn’t convince a majority of you, I hope there are no hard feelings from either of our ends. And if other web3 projects are pursued down the track then we might still be able to work positively together in the community in the future. One vote & one project should never dictate a relationship or friendship in perpetuity.

Ultimately, while the loss was difficult (and I think I’ve passed through the 5 stages of grief by now, ha!), I wanted to thank the Optimism Collective as a whole. I’ve had a few ventures in the past that have been shot down before, by powerful people who held the purse strings. But I can honestly say that this process, while not perfect, has given me the fairest chance to get backing that I’ve ever received. There were open forums, over 1000 words to explain my concept and it wasn’t 4 or 5 people deciding my fate behind closed doors in a boardroom. Instead, I had 5,385 have their say on whether this project should proceed :grinning: So when I reflect on this, it’s much easier to ‘stay optimistic’ for the future, whether it’s for my own ideas or any other high-impact decisions that could benefit from bottom-up governance.

Thanks for your time, and best of success!
Kind regards,

1 Like

Thanks for the feedback @polynya
It’s taken me 24 days to regain consciousness and get back off the canvas, ha, but I appreciate you explaining your reasoning.

Cheers @MinimalGravitas that’s actually a pretty inspiring reply. I’ve only just read it now, 23 days later, after quickly deleting all those inbox notifications later in that voting cycle :stuck_out_tongue:

But it’s a very apt piece of advice considering I’ve just worked up the courage to log back in tonight.

I’m taking on board your feedback, along with all others, and might come back with a later proposal with the (often repeated) issues addressed.

Thanks again, and always feel free to chime in.

1 Like

Thanks for your feedback @lefterisjp

After checking out rotki myself, you needed have worried about a conflict. I don’t think there would have been the crossover to warrant you forfeiting your vote.
As for the NO voting reasons, thanks for giving me an understanding of where you’re thinking was at. At least now if I return with another proposal, I’ll know how things can be improved for you.

Also I should mention, I got lost one evening reading your epic debates/discussions about open source projects. I was very intrigued and it left a mark on me, so thanks :slight_smile:

Have a good day,

Thanks @krzkaczor for your voting feedback and advice.
Your evaluation criteria is useful for any future proposals by myself or others.
It’s been noted, cheers.