The snapshot poll that made its way to this thread by a third party was intended as a heat check within our community to display our disagreement with the committee recommendation to reduce our ask for a 4th time. DW has a history of using snapshot as a whip for community input. As a community-owned protocol, we have found this an effective way to bring exposure to and spark discussion around things that otherwise may have only been discussed among the team and the more active members.
I see a difference between “entitlement” and “knowing your own value.”
We have been live on OP for just under a year. We are not hunting for grants to choose our network, we are looking for support from the network that we have chosen. Everything we have built thus far is designed to be implemented on OP, with the exception of one early mini-game.
Appreciate your thoughts, but as @salparadise has expressed, we simply use snapshot to take a heat check from our community. Nowhere in that snapshot, or this proposal does it say we’d take OP tokens to incentivize moving everything to another network.
After the very disappointing recommendation from the NFT + Gaming committee and what looked like a dead vote a number of our community members were very disheartened and action needed to be taken. The snapshot was created to bring attention to this situation, and really get a sense from our community what should be done assuming this vote fails.
Please understand we’ve been getting doors slammed in our face since March. First, failing to secure VC funds because we are a DAO with only tokens to offer. Next, trying and failing to secure a grant from the Optimism foundation in June, then finally going through this process yet another time and seemingly being rejected by the committee that should have our best interests in mind.
It’s horribly frustrating to keep adjusting the number of tokens downward. First 1M, then 500K, then 400K, now 300K…and still getting rejected with no clarity as to what the magic number is that will secure a yes. It’s easy to feel unwanted when we see DeFi projects easily securing 800K plus tokens for what feel like “more of the same”
Dope Wars offers an innovative, OP native project with excited builders who have been doing this for free since last year. We continually show love to Optimism through advertising, engagement on the network, and by supporting other projects. It’d be nice to get some of that love back.
Your frustration is understood, but like I said, lashing out at Optimism governance isn’t an appropriate response. Crypto is a brutal business - 99.99% DAOs will fail - playing the victim is unproductive. Heat check or not, I’m unimpressed by a community that wants to move to a different platform out of spite rather than a well thought out technical reason, and definitely not while there’s a vote to grant you OP tokens is ongoing.
Nobody is “lashing out” nor “playing the victim” here. You’ve made it clear that you don’t believe we bring enough value to the chain to vote for us. Thanks for explaining your reasons.
We definitely understand that business is brutal, crypto or not. Understanding that fact we’re trying to find the best situation that will provide us the highest chance of success.
It’s clear that you’re a savvy business person. Being that savvy business person I’m sure you can also understand us wanting to find a better deal if none exists for us here.
I’m abstaining from this vote. I acknowledge @quix’s points about the Dope Wars team’s track record and that they were the first major NFT project to move from L1 Ethereum to Optimism which is why I’m not following the committee recommendation of no (especially since the committee vote was initially split down the middle). However, I didn’t find the committee points to be unreasonable so I don’t feel strongly enough to vote against their recommendation.
I will keep it short as most of my thoughts were expressed throughout this thread. I am dissenting with my own committee as I have spoken with many builders involved with the Dope Wars project and even had them on The Web3 Experience Podcast before to discuss their first proposal in detail which I also voted for. I voted for because I trust the project (as Quix does too) and I feel gaming is going to be a massive opportunity that is under represented within this ecosystem at the moment.
However this vote turns out, I respect the productive discourse facilitated by everyone who has contributed to this thread.
These guys can’t be trusted with money. Diluted their token supply with a private youtube video of their founder on a beach in Bali. The vote is still up on Tally, it passed due to team member whales and now they deleted the video.
And they’ve never shipped anything other than pictures.
Hey there @philburrt, sorry you feel that way.
I have to disagree with you. the video was on discord for all active Dope holders to see and the discussion/debate around the topic was on going for months. The vote on Tally past by unanimous decision and not due to “team member whales”
And to say DW has only shipped pictures is humorous… Our interoperable fully customizable Hustlers are not just pictures. DW has been moving forward, slower in the bear market but still moving forward.
I am voting FOR this proposal and am going against the committe’s recommendation. My reasoning:
I think it is adding value to the OP ecosystem
It’s a unique approach to using gaming in play to earn and plans to progressively move to Optimism
We rejected them in a previous round and provided feedback. They incorporated that feedack quite nicely in my opinion so they deserve to be given the grant.
Commitee’s recommendation does indeed feel like moving the goal posts.
Unanimous decision. Which I think also shows the strength of our community that we were able to come together after such a contentious first fail on heat check months earlier. Truth is, its clear our free paper and nft distribution did not give us the building blocks to progress on the project. The project that most closely mirrored ours on token distribution was Magic, and the developers and community there likewise saw the need for an additional mint which you can read about here. There is no longer an ability to mint additional paper.
Tally vote on paper increase - You can see the vote passed with a number of individual wallets, many with little Dope held.
Thank you everyone who considered and supported this proposal. We can’t be more excited to bring this stuff to market and prove what a good bet you took on a scrappy, passionate, and truly decentralized team.
I am very excited to see history made here on Optimism with the first gaming proposal passing!!! I fully support seeing more projects receive this type of support and help provide a standard for governance moving forward in the future. There is something really special about optimism which can not be found in many other places that involves the overall ethos of seeing others who put in a ton of hard work over the course of the years succeed. Along with contributing to public goods as a main reason to help grow the network. Congratulations to the DW team!
Following the NFT & Gaming committee recommendation, we continue to agree that the blockchain gaming sector is under heavy review and we’re happy to believe that the adjustments provided by the committee are the right path for a fair grant in this category.
@salparadise can you provide a Telegram handle or other contact method so the Optimism team can get in touch about paying out this grant! Feel free to DM or email palash@optimism.io
I fully support seeing more projects receive this type of support and help provide a standard for governance moving forward in the future. There is something really special about optimism which can not be found in many other places that involves the overall ethos of seeing others who put in a ton of hard work over the course of the years succeed. Along with contributing to public goods as a main reason to help grow the network. Congratulations to the DW team!