I was going to vote for this proposal, but I’m abstaining.
I’m disappointed by the sense of entitlement displayed here. Relying on grants is not a sustainable business model, and this should not be a reason for being on Optimism. OP delegates have a responsibility to OP token house to be cautious and diligent - granting hundreds of thousands of OP is no trivial matter. Delegates vote with a reason, and if your proposal isn’t approved it’s because they didn’t think it was good enough - that’s all. “Optimism is not supportive” is an immature read on the situation. The correct response is to keep building on the platform best suited to your protocol, no matter what happens with the grants, all the while improving your proposal to the point delegates think it’s good - which ironically might happen this cycle.
I’m abstaining because there’s an ongoing vote going to “move to StarkNet” and I’m uncomfortable with granting OP tokens to a project that’ll use them on StarkNet or elsewhere instead.
(To be clear, I support both Dope Wars and StarkNet, but my responsibility here is as a delegate is to the Optimism Collective.)