Just because the committee voted against the proposal, doesn’t mean it’s dead in the water. I plan on still voting for it in cycle 7 and invite other delegates to join me. Optimism has a lot of momentum on the NFT front right now, and it’s a bummer to see one of the most innovative NFT projects on the network getting yanked around by the governance process to the point that they are considering moving to another network. I really think this is a case of perfect being enemy of the good.
Voted yes - Although this is against the NFT and Gaming Committee recommendation, I really like this proposal. I believe gaming is undervalued in the space and the proposal provides gaming incentives which will increase traction on OP. I also really appreciate that 50% of the tokens will be used for developer incentives, which is also something I would love to see more of. Overall, I don’t see a downside and support this proposal.
We voted in support of this proposal, as we did with their original proposal, and encourage other delegates to do the same. The Dope Wars team was the first major NFT project to move from L1 Ethereum to Optimism (before there was even a marketplace or standard bridge). They have a strong track record of technical development and community building. We believe it’s important to support novel use cases of NFTs, and funds given to Dope Wars are likely to support the type of interesting experiences that bring new users to Optimism.
Love the positive vibes and not blindly following a recommendation this is how governance should be.
I actively encourage this sort of discourse
Very well said, perfect vs good was one of the reasons we as a committee were split down the middle initially on this one
Awesome! Happy to see the support coming in to push this proposal through despite the split vote. I agree that this is one of the origin projects from the Optimism ecosystem and there is a lot of potential here with a very dedicated community. I am very excited to see how this turns out.
@salparadise @Butterbum: First of, we haven’t looked at the project in-depth. Our impression is that the proposal is detailed, incorporated previous feedback and can help with growth on Optimism.
The committee decision:
We also want to mention, that the committee seems to have made a very detailed review and we 100% agree on the approach of the committee.
After evaluating the proposal and value-add of the project once more, we have decided to vote against the recommendation of the committee and voted YES as the distribution of funds is granular, well-specified & we believe Dope Wars & the games can help onboard users to Optimism.
General take on heated debates, grants, co-incentives:
Of course, we understand the disappointment raised in this thread and on Discords when a proposal is not approved multiple times. (We’ve experienced that also a few times in the past years.) Hence, the threat of leaving Optimism is understandable from your disappointment but neither supporting the cause nor convincing - especially as the committee only asks to slightly adjust the proposal.
We also see that various (good, alternative) ecosystems incentivize teams to build on their chain, and we believe Optimism should be competing for the best teams - that are aligned builders for the long-term.
That said, there is a big difference in giving out 100K Op, 200K Op or 300K Op in one grant and not in several follow-up grants and milestone payments. Optimism seems to develop into a multi-billion $ project and a large l2 ecosystem within the Ethereum ecosystem. However, today, Optimism is an early-stage project with a $150M marketcap, with significant upcoming selling pressure (-> less $Op value to spend), somewhat undefined ecosystem growth strategy while traction & Op demand is yet to be seen.
We’ll finish this post with a comment from one of the best researchers in Web 3 that should make clear that co-incentives are good-to-have but should not be the key decisive factor where you build.
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.)
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.
Part of committee and going with committee decision. With changes suggested, happy to support in next cycle.
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 was followed up by relinquishing ownership of the PAPER contract
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.
Vote to remove paper mint function