[REVIEW] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Overnight.fi

I have now counted six times in this thread that you or members of your committee have misunderstood or misrepresented details of the protocol or proposal and have had to be corrected by the proposing team. This makes it difficult to take your objections at face value or trust in the wisdom of your recommendation, even as I too believe more details in a few areas would be beneficial.

@_Max_plus would you be willing to speak in a bit more detail to @OPUser’s suggestion that over half of the grant is going directly to the team and 16 wallets?

Nono-Opuser looked in-depth at USD+ and ETS and understands it deeply and greatly. I had not specified ETS would go to Velodrome and be incentivized via bribes. That’s the best way, but not obvious to figure unless I’m specific about it - that’s on me.

We are in direct contact with Nono

@_Max_plus I’m referring to this portion. Delegates are actively voting right now and I’m trying to understand if you believe this is accurate as it is why he is recommending a no vote.

As I understood, the biggest issue was our ask for grant for development activities. Overall, I have been encouraged to reapply for LM incentives.

Although, obviously not waiting is better than waiting

Thank you, Max. Like discussed, with words changed and few additional information we will be at better position.

Its just sad that others are trying to drag you and your proposal in mud just to bring me down. Alex expressed his view and I expressed mine. I have seen your LinkedIn profile and you are in business for some time, think of this a office politics just more worse and sadly they are using your shoulder.

Anyway best of luck with the voting, I am seeing gatekeeping by Velo team and i pointed it out but now I will stay away from commenting further. If you get approval, stay with us and participate in gov as we we are in dire need of support from community and if not, tty in 8 days.

1 Like

The proposal as written is currently being voted on in Snapshot and could still potentially pass. As we are seeing with the Overtime and Dope War proposals looking likely to pass, the delegates are the final say and not the committees.

Your proposal has earned the support of both the Shadow Committee and at least one major member of DeFi Committee A. They did not share same point-of-view as Committee B rejection. That is why I’m encouraging you to clarify if you think OPUsers statement is accurate. Voters will no doubt check this thread before casting a vote, so if they read that it may inform their decision.

You are also free to simply concede the committee’s recommendation and resubmit if that is your preference.

I must say I sent the review by Jack and Alex to our VCs:) I am very flattered, but also share key points. Feel we will get there in due course

I obviously prefer to get support in this round and willing to clarify key points.

Who is doing this and how? I was not playing office politics. I voiced my support for their proposal. Just like Katie did. Why are you making me the subject of the conversation?

If you are going to use another protocol’s thread to attack us, at least have the courage to back it up. Innuendo is cowardice. I intentionally didn’t reply to your first jab as I didn’t want to pile on, but by all means find a place to air your grievances. This is insanely immature behavior.

For the record, Max that review came from the Shadow Committee which includes a bunch of folks (none of which are me). :wink:

1 Like

If you do want the proposal to have a chance at passing this cycle, you should address this directly.

Is 200k OP going directly to the team?
Are 16 addresses getting 100k OP?

If it is accurate, it does sound like a reason for concern. But, if it is not, that will be good for delegates to know before voting.

We had asked for 200k of development funding

The ETS incentives are not going to just 16 addresses. We look to distribute all coincentives via DEXes, primarily Velo and Balancer

With OP falling, I feel our request has been 'downsized by the market’s; with 250 k USD+ of coincentives our original request is now appropriately sized 1:1 grant/coincentives

1 Like

Thank you for that clarity.

So in a way, the grant going to help development costs for the new products is helping you all to divert funds to match incentives on a 1:1 basis (which most proposals do not do). That makes sense to me and I can see why others have been willing to support it even if every detail of it is not perfectly defined.

It is also good to hear that OPuser was mistaken about the 16 wallets. I would like to see him be more careful with such statements in the future as that misinformation being floated while voting is underway could’ve impacted the outcome.

I have no votes, but wish you luck and thank you for your patience with this process.

Since I’ve been tagged - I’m happy to go against committee recommendation (see: Overtime) but I don’t see an exceptionally compelling proposal here and find committee’s recommendation well-reasoned. Beyond that, I don’t have the bandwidth to keep up with the 53 replies here and Discord chats and whatnot for nuances, sorry - which is why committees were created in the first place. I hope to support a future proposal by Overnight - being a few weeks late isn’t a big deal.


Hardly surprising when the totality of their DeFi “experience” amounts to zero.

This thread is a perfect example of why more robust selection processes should be in place for committees; the grownups support the proposal, whilst the “hallpass monitors” recommend against, mostly to maintain relevancy (and thus continue their grift for multiple salaries from multiple committees).

FWIW I actually suggested the committee seek to bring on some DeFi expertise prior to the vote. It seemed like it would be trivial to find folks in the ecosystem to join them. Rather than entertaining it, they launched a series blistering and inaccurate series of attacks on my project. Something that seems to be becoming a bit of a pattern for them as seen above.

Is 200k OP going directly to the team?
Are 16 addresses getting 100k OP?
I guess that’s not your reason for supporting it

I’m sorry. I don’t follow.

@_Max_plus clarified above that 200,000 OP is going to support development costs, but that the team is matching the same value in direct incentives.

He also clarified that @OPUser was incorrect when he stated 16 addresses were getting 100,000 OP. That OP will be used for incentives on DEXs like Velodrome.

That helped me understand why some delegates from the Shadow Committee and Committee A supported it over the despite the official recommendation. I wanted to clear the confusion.

Parts of the grants are earmarked for development and R&D work and are difficult to assess and control. Makes people think this team, eeeeee, you know

1 Like

My understanding of @OPUser’s position; he is saying 200k OP for development is like giving the project team free money to use at their discretion as they have full control as to how it will be used. And there is possibility of not using it for development. @OPGovWatch I hope you agree that that possibility exist? Well, this proposal is already on snapshot and most delegates would have voted, so the argument ‘could’ be medicine after death.

General note:
If I may ask, Is it possible that the community revisit the idea of allowing projects/proposals the use of GF for development, maintenance and all that? I see it as giving free money to projects to use as they like and I believe there is that possibility for them using it for something other than development; my opinion though.

I think Optimism Foundation or any other unit within Optimism should co-control any GF going for development/maintenance/audit etc.