I think every grant at our current stage requires a lot of trust in the grantees as insofar as I know there is no real monitoring or accountability mechanisms in place. Development funds aren’t unique in my eyes in terms of the risks of them being diverted or misused. That is just the inherent risk of our current system.
to me the simple part of the answer is to make sure the dev grant is for a specific deliverable outlined in the proposal
the more complicated part entails potentially staging funding for milestones or reducing asks to where the r/r on taking a risk on a team’s stewardship of funds is favorable (i.e., a known team gets more leeway than a less known one). we haven’t gotten there yet as a community but it’s a good one to review
I do not see how you explaining you have a personal feud with Committee C gives you any credibility when disputing their recommendations.
This is getting seriously tiresome. This absurd PVP power struggle between the “Shadow Committee” and Committee C is now using proposals as political footballs, as I predicted.
Now it’s being dragged onto the forums in topics where a snapshot has already happened.
Enough of this.
Ser -
You seem to be the only person in these conversations not even trying to engage on the substance of the reviews and proposals. I haven’t seen you offer any feedback this round or actually detail what you like or don’t like the various proposals or recommendations. It’s like you are projecting this idea of a PVP power struggle because that is how you see the world while the rest of us are just trying (vigorously ofc) discuss the matters at hand.
My advice would be to stop focusing on who is talking and start engaging with the substance of what they are saying. If you think TSC (officially coining that for the shadow committee) is writing biased reviews to win points for uh reasons (?), write your own review or a detailed response to theirs. That will go a much longer way in helping people see your POV than your endless innuendos of maleficence.
I thought the note @jackanorak just posted on the Overtime proposal was a great example of that, detailing where he thought the official review missed things without once attributing any ill-intent to it’s authors. That is how you disagree in a constructive and positive-sum way.
I haven’t seen you offer any feedback this round or detail what you like or don’t like the various proposals or recommendations.
This has nothing to do with you being unprofessional and detrimental to the governance process. Trying to make it about “me” doesn’t change you engaging in a personal feud with Committee C, inappropriately.
My advice would be to stop focusing on who is talking and start engaging with the substance of what they are saying.
I just did. The substance of what you’re saying is awful. You should delete it and learn to live in a world where you can disagree with people respectfully.
I thought the note @jackanorak just posted on the Overtime proposal was a great example of that, detailing where he thought the official review missed things without attributing any ill-intent to its authors. That is how you disagree in a constructive and positive-sum way.
If you feel that way, then you should probably write that kinda stuff, too, rather than attempting to attack a committee’s credibility on a unrelated thread.
You’re out of line. Stop posting your personal problems with Committee C.
So even after all that, you’re just going to remain laser focused on attacking me rather than say using that energy engage in any ways substantively with the proposal here? Cool cool cool.
I offered my perspective on the proposal (just as Katie did), responded only when OPUser twice attacked me for “gatekeeping” (still no idea what he meant), and then responded to @daoism suggestion that a lack of DeFi knowledge might be to blame for all the earlier misstatements.
Until you actually start contributing something of substance to governance, I’m just going to assume you are the PVP troll you seem to accuse everyone else of being and do my best to ignore you.
If I remain such a big trigger for you, I encourage you to do the same.
I think people will appreciate not having to see garbage like this.
I think people will appreciate not having to see garbage like this.
You should probably just delete the post where you were out of line and get over it. I’m not asking for your diary. No one wants to see that.
I support their proposal. Overnight has been a very transparent protocol with on chain tracking of their funds. The protocol has been launched on Optimism with a steady increase in TVL while incorporating many OP protocols.
1 Like
I am voting against the proposal following the DeFi committee C recommendation. Especially strong push to no is closed source contracts.
I will respond not to argue but for our reputation purposes: this point is where what I had written was profoundly misunderstood - I assume noone looked at the contracts per se.
All contracts are verified, so open!
There is one math-library that includes our proprietary methods for ETS portfolio rebalancing which we intend to keep confidential. Those are pure mathematical methods not affecting security of user funds. No portfolio manager (e.g. Gamma.xyz) would disclose their rebalancing algorithms; thats industry practice
[Final]
Voting: Against
Following our own DeFi C committee recommendation, we’re aware of the current status of Overnight, current usage and more. Also, we aren’t sure that 25% to build an insurance product for protocol itself is something that Phase 1 funds must do (100K) or would glad to read more details hereinafter.