Hello again!
This tuesday we had our 5th Governance Call on DeFi LATAM with the collaboration of Optimism Español to discuss the proposals of voting cycle #6. In this call we shared our experience in this first cycle of season 2 as members of the Tooling and DeFi C committees. In this call we share our experience in this first cycle of season 2 as members of the Tooling and DeFi C committees, and settle our discussions as a community on the decision-making of the current proposals, as usual.
Participants: +35 (special thanks to Pacha for the design). Duration: 2h, 37min.
A summary about our performance during Cycle #6
Keeping our intention to work as a group, we established an initial team (@AxlVaz, @Netrim, @Jadmat) with contributors to our delegation on behalf of DeFi LATAM. First, through Joxes (me) as a direct member of the mentioned committees, we focus on organizing ourselves and dividing the tasks, doing the pertinent research and finalizing discussions in order to deliver our analyzes, follow up, and the committee to work as expected.
Additionally, our members have been active in the forum addressing different proposals and other topics, which has helped a lot directly or indirectly to obtain the respective clarifications on each one and going forward.
We’re really satisfied with the work done so far, and our lessons for the next cycle are quite obvious, work faster internally and have even more presence on the forum; by example, using our delegation to pass the appropriate proposals to the next snapshot round, in our own criteria.
Our voting procedure
Our procedure remains intact as previous Governance Calls, we encourage our members interested in Optimism to express their opinion and be an active part of the final decision-making, as a way of absorbing the expertise, criteria and preferences of all in a single voice, more beyond the views of direct contributors a Joxes.
In the first place, we ratify with a YES to take into consideration and as a priority the recommendations of all the committees, being a starting point to decide how to vote on each proposal. As part of two committees, this also allowed everyone to quickly get into context where needed and discuss how it should be.
As result, our vote for cycle #6 has been as follows:
-
Interest Protocol 2: For
Following DeFi C committee recommendation, one of the highlights is the improved lending model introduced in Interest, which would be good to see in this ecosystem.
-
Socket: Against
Following Tooling committee recommendation, we reiterate that the amount requested is seen as excessive, so we will be attentive in the next cycle to receive feedback and suggest the appropriate changes to make it favorable from the point of view of governance criteria. @khuranarishabh
-
OptiChads: For
Following NFT & Gaming committee recommendation, we see as positive some of the intentions of the project towards Optimism. However, we’re aware that the NFT ecosystem is plagued with a lot of skepticism and some of our members expressed doubts as to whether the proposal would really add value to Optimism. In the end, we will remain “optimistic” so that this project and proposal makes sense and is fulfilled for our ecosystem. @Dicaso
-
Kromatika: For
Following DeFi A committee recommendation, we’re pleased to know that your proposal has made the relevant changes compared to the previous cycle in season 1, where we voted against. Now the proposal was seen as reasonable.
-
Revert Compoundor: For
Following DeFi A committee recommendation, as a community we believe that Revert has an interesting implementation to take advantage of Uniswap on behalf of LPs. The proposal was seen as seen as reasonable.
-
Bankless Academy v2: For
Following Tooling committee recommendation, this academy is characterized by having a good reputation in the Ethereum ecosystem, additionally its added value will be potentially very beneficial for onboarding users in the globe. In particular, from DeFi LATAM we share many of these values that the Bankless community upholds and we’re pleased that communities like these are given the opportunity to promote initiatives such as the one in the proposal. The proposal itself is seen as reasonable. @Tetranome
-
Across Protocol: For
Following Tooling committee recommendation, from the community we want to emphasize that optimistically designed bridges are of our full interest and we have closely followed teams like this throughout the year. For this reason we believe that accepting proposals like this will be positive for the diversity of bridges with acceptable safety models for the future of the Optimism ecosystem.
-
Tarot: Against
Following DeFi A committee recommendation, the problem with this proposal is as the committee points out, we are happy that the Tarot team has already submitted a new draft based on the feedback received. @TigrisOfGaul
-
Otterspace: Against.
Following Tooling committee recommendation, some members of DeFi LATAM community expressed their knowledge of the work of otterspace, however, the niche in which this project tries to capture deserves a review of the proposal to adjust it to the likely impact it may have if the ideas presented are implemented. We will be addressing it again for the next cycle with the corresponding feedback. @Lukas
-
dHEDGE DAO: Against
Against the recommendation of the DeFi C committee, our community had a lengthy discussion near the close of voting and during this governance call about the impact and use of funds proposed by dHedge. Although the proposal can be seen as positive in terms of encouraging pool management and increasing its adoption, for the moment we were concerned about some points about its criteria, such as the lack of clearer parameters on which pools to benefit and under what regime. At the moment it’s specified that whitlisted pools will be supported and with their own governance procedure, of which we have observed a certain degree of centralization in decision making, so we encourage dHedge to allow its community to express itself genuinely about the pools to incentivize in Optimism. We believe that in this case the weight of conflict of interest should be avoided or clarified. Additionally, incentivizing this pool with its governance token is seen as a standard approach that doesn’t affect the evaluation of the proposal. Since the proposal has passed successfully, we encourage dHedge and its governance to have a fair criteria in favor of the users of the Optimism ecosystem when deciding which pools to incentivize. @Cyrus
We’re very happy with how the community has organized and shown interest in the future of the Optimism ecosystem and its governance. Alentamos a la comunidad hispanohablante y de latinoamérica a que se unan a nuestra travesía por el futuro de Optimism. 
_