[READY] [GF: Phase 1] rotki

Ah don’t mind it. I suck at expressing myself in written form and almost always sound like I want to strangle the counterparty :sweat_smile:
I have to work on that. My colleagues also sometimes get the wrong idea in my code reviews.

I see what you meant now.

Yes definitely if the team has past work to showcase they are capable of delivering then this would definitely be a big plus as it gives you a confidence boost.

In case 2 perhaps releasing the funds in milestones is what would be really cool as then you can be sure that work will be achieved and only iff they complete the first milestone would second one be paid out, then third one and so on and so forth.

So if the first milestone is never done then a very small amount of funds would be wasted, as opposed to wasting the entire budget.

EDIT: As for this specific proposal I believe rotki has shown it can and does deliver with a product that is used by many users and being improved continuously with frequent new releases.


avalo esta propuesta a darle accion

1 Like

It is very mush aligned… Developers shouldn’t be the only ones contributing to Open Source development… yes, they are the only ones that can do the LABOR… but capital contributions to pay for that labor are also valid contributions… The idea isn’t that open source code should be built for free, the idea is that open source code should be free to reuse. Paying devs just shifts the heroism from the devs to the funders.

Let’s be the heroes this time, and spare the devs, let them feed their kids (and not have to sell out to FAANG).


1 Like

Yes, you are and I have corrected myself in my reply to lefterisjp, I was referring to timing of the fund rather than the fund itself.

1 Like

Great proposal i will support

1 Like

Voted : Yes.


  1. Open source i.e public good
  2. Amount request is justified by proper distribution plan
  3. Application is already live on other chain
  4. Privacy…hell yeah.


I was that you have already shared you view on Phase 0/Phase1 funding.

I am afraid, I will have to bother you one more time, this I was thinking since past few weeks and I would love to hear your opinion on this Accountability of Phase 0/1 Funds given to projects

That is not a proposal but rather I request from both, OP /Project, team, If I get a positive response, I will reach out to the Team and would also encourage upcoming project proposal to consider this.

1 Like

Thank you for your support @OPUser!

I will comment on the thread you posted to keep things here on topic.


Honestly, I am still to trying to understand how Rotki will bring long term value to Optimism. There are many portfolio management Apps out there that have a much heavier focus on UX, UI and features with a far larger user base.

I see the open source side may make it a public good, but does your project provide something new to warrant funding your venture with 100% for development? That I have seen it doesnt, unless you could point out some core differences?

We are not asking for 100% of development funding.

We are asking for funding the development of a specific set of features that are solely optimism related.

I see the open source side may make it a public good, but does your project provide something new to warrant funding your venture with 100% for development?

Yes. I already answered this above. I believe it was you who asked this.

Also keep in mind rotki is not only a portfolio tracking app, but also historical PnL analysis and account which is something that can be used for taxes.

How does rotki get all wallet information without communicating with a server. Since there is always a server or API involved which is centralized so I don’t see how this is unique?

Thank you for the question!

The answer is by providing the choice to the user. The user can run their own node or customize a set of open nodes to which to connect to. For example I run my own node and use it with rotki, with metamask and with otterscan (a local blockchain explorer: GitHub - wmitsuda/otterscan: A blazingly fast, local, Ethereum block explorer built on top of Erigon). That is for blockchain data.

For most other data it’s all calculated locally. For whatever we need to query external services we query multiple and try to randomize them so as to not leak data (in case user is not just privacy aware – but paranoid). For example historical forex prices etc.

Let me give you an example. Say you use zerion/zapper.

Just by you using the centralized website, they know (1) your location (2) your entire crypto networth and your (3) spending habits and possibly more depending on other factors such as having an ENS associated with the wallets you track etc.

That easily puts a target on your back if any of this data leaks, especially combined with say the ledger data leak which contains a gazillion of home addresses.

Now of course … they all say the same thing. They “respect” your privacy and refer you to their privacy policy. If you have ever worked in software you know that’s a big load of bull. And I am not necessarily assuming malice. All it takes is one intern making a mistake.

That’s the web2 way. Trust should be out of the equation. Can’t be evil is better than don’t be evil.

Which is why local-first apps like rotki are the only true dapps. All else is simply web2 centralized apps masquerading as “dapps”. Sure they are easier to start with as a user since they are centralized webapps but to what cost?

I will refer you to: Local-first software: You own your data, in spite of the cloud for an explanation of our development approach.

And just one of many questions you should be asking yourself when you use centralized apps: https://twitter.com/martinkl/status/1540971616347250688

Keep in mind. Your financial data is probably one of the most sensitive data about yourself. Protect yourself.

Finally all those centralized apps, zerion and zapper included, are completely free to use. Yet they have had millions invested on them by VCs in multiple rounds. Doesn’t take a genius to understand that the product of a centralized service like that is eventually you, the user. Those VCs are expecting a return in their investment. They did not invest out of charity.

As for us, we don’t have any investors. We also seek none. We are idealists. We have had a big initial investment by me (I have been around crypto for a while) and then it’s all organic income from donations and development grants like this one. Thus rotki is not capturable by external interests.

I just can’t even…
you were the steward who was proposing global wage arbitrage by hiring boatloads of devs off upwork for 10$ an hour…and now here completely different tune with others funds…
you gitcoin stewards need to have more consistency…you guys are one day talking about lofty ideals of open source funding (with others funds) and then on gitcoin wanting to enact the fiverr dev meme Lol

This proposal fits into Phase 1 but does not add significant value to the growth of Op: Voting No

Value-add: Small (Privacy-protected tracking but small impact on Op growth)
Amount: Reasonable
Op distribution: Bad - internal development
Co-incentives: None

Thank you for your product, detailed proposal, transparency and quality engagement as delegate. In our view, this funding round’s goal is primarily in increasing liquidity and users on Optimism. Supporting public goods is at the core of the Op retroactive public goods funding but we doubt the positive impact & return for the Optimism ecosystem with this proposal. (Funding Rotki support for Op with $100K will likely not add many users to Optimism as you don’t have a large user base & platform support for Op will not offer network effects). Ultimately, we are not very supportive of funding internal developments - especially when they don’t have a meaningful impact on the stated goal.

Sidenote: That said, we believe a bigger focus on privacy and your support for Optimism are important. On one hand, we hope to see another proposal from you that puts more focus on co-growth initiatives and the Op ecosystem. On the other hand, if the Optimism community clearly stated that they’d also want to improve user privacy in one of the next Phases, this would be an easy yes too. Right now, we feel we can’t make that call as delegate.


Hey ScaleWeb3 thanks a lot for your feedback on why you voted no!

I disagree with your overall assessment on the impact of the proposal for optimism and hope the proposal passes so we can build this for the Optimism ecosystem but I really appreciate your feedback on why you voted negatively :+1:

This is something all delegates should be doing!


Rotki is an open-source product so in our opinion it is a public good. Not only that but the proposal details the exact amount of $OP spent, which makes it easy to understand the amount of $OP requested.

Even though it does not add a large amount of value to the Optimism ecosystem, it is an essential product. Privacy and open-source goods are important to both web3 and optimism and supporting products similar to Rotki, is something we should focus more on.


I am writing this post as Lefteris the OP delegate and not as the proposer.

I opted to vote to ABSTAIN from this proposal as I have a conflict of interest as a delegate here since rotki is also the project I have founded.

I am not sure if this is the right thing to do, since many rotki users who would like to see this implemented have delegated to me and asked me to vote with a YES. But it just does not feel correct to do so. I am torn on this.


Flipside Crypto will be voting YES in support of rotki.

We applaud @lefterisjp for the detail of his proposal and staunch attention to budget and expenses.

Despite the size ~$90,000 - he shows important care of the Collective’s funds and rationality.

A delegate and OG among a myriad of Web3 communities we entrust Lefteris to build a product that furthers Optimism and the greater L2 ecosystem.

Also - this transparency is important for the forum.

Follow your gut - best of luck building.


great ideas from the team

I will be voting NO because I didn’t like your biased attitude to another project which was very clear and unprofessional.

Thank you for your feedback. You are entitled to your vote. But what is unprofessional is voting out of spite and not on the merit of a proposal