StableNode - Delegate Communication Thread

This thread is intended to provide a record of StableNodes’ voting and reasoning for each vote.

Name: StableNode
Address or ENS: stablenodegov.eth

Our view on the Optimistic Vision:

At StableNode, we believe that public funding is essential to developing a non-financial-driven web3. We believe that the focus should be on encouraging developers to take a different approach to web3 and focus more on public goods where a lot of development is made. Even though public goods are necessary to the space, there is a lack of funding, making it a less attractive role for developers.

Initially, the blockchain space was born out of a need to change the current financial and political standards that we have. The Optimistic vision details a necessary future and sets a new standard for public funding that is sustainable and will encourage new developers to focus on this field while not sacrificing the financial gain they would gain elsewhere.

Our view on the first three articles of the Working Constitution:

  1. This is a “Working” Constitution.

Currently, we are in the exploration stage of governance, and it is refreshing to see a protocol acknowledge this and encourage continuous experimentation throughout the next few years.

Decentralized governance is relatively a new field within Web3. It is an important topic that we need to continue working on. Many problems such as voting mechanisms, delegate incentives, and plutocracy need to be tackled. We believe that the best way to succeed is to practically try new governance methods in protocols and understand what is successful or detrimental to a protocols governance framework. The theory is essential, but it can only get you so far. We are excited to be a delegate for a protocol that prioritizes experimentation.

  1. OP Citizens and OP Holders will equally coexist within the Collective.

This experimentation hopes to tackle problems such as misaligned incentives through token holders or plutocracy. Such issues are prominent in the space and allow token holders to prioritize their financial gains over long-term improvement. With the citizen house maintaining control over the retroactive public funding it realigns incentives in a more fruitful manner.

Those individuals from the token house might be against public funding as this means reduced financial gains for themselves, but those from the citizen house who have no financial incentives for OP would want to see the space move forward and see those actors developing public goods be compensated fairly.

  1. The Optimism Foundation will be a steward of the Optimism Collective and its early governance model.

We favor the foundation initially leading the governance front while the framework and structure of the OP governance are being built. With token holders and delegates initially not having a financial incentive to contribute, it is most likely that progress would be slower without a foundation. Over time as the structure and framework are built, as mentioned in the working collective, it would be expected that the foundation would slowly release the responsibilities to the DAO.

Our Web3 interests:

DAOs, Data and analytics, DeFi, Governance, Social impact

Our skills and areas of expertise: Governance and Growth

We are currently delegates at Element Finance, Balancer, MakerDAO, and others.

What voters can expect from StableNode:

We will use our expertise to import the most promising practices within governance to guide Optimism governance to a more sustainable approach.

We want to help facilitate discussions where we can identify the best practices and recognize how to tackle core problems within governance such as plutocracy, voter apathy, and lack of experimentation.

As delegates, we pursue:

  • Active participation in votes
  • Transparency for each vote
  • Open discussion and contribution to the DAO forum
  • Contribute to the innovation and development of governance frameworks

Conflicts of Interest

StableNode acts as delegates on other protocols. All of our governance participation is public.

4 Likes

Voting Cycle 1

Proposal A

Vote: No

It doesn’t make sense to vote for all 24 projects in one vote. Most users are unlikely to read all 24 proposals and thus can’t make an informed opinion. It would make sense to approve each individual proposal as each proposal is unique.

Proposal B

Vote: No

Deadlines are deadlines. Even though uniswap is an important partner, there are rules to follow and it is important that there are no exceptions to this rule. We are open to approving their application for their next cycle but it is unfair to give them special treatment.

An individual vote also makes it more likely to be passed so this might encourage other protocols in the future to purposely miss a deadline since uniswap got this treatment.

Proposal C

Vote: Yes

We believe grants are a great way to help the community.

Voting Cycle 2

Proposal A: Optimistic Railway - No
Proposal B: dForce - Yes
Proposal C: GYSR - No
Proposal D: Mean Finance - No
Proposal E: Raptor - No
Proposal F: Balancer & BeethovenX - Yes
Proposal G: Summa - No
Proposal H: WardenSwap - No
Proposal I: Pickle Finance - Yes
Proposal J: Ooki Protocol - No
Proposal K: Infinity Wallet - Yes
Proposal L: Beefy - No
Proposal M: 0xHabitat - No
Proposal N: Thales - No
Proposal O: ParaSwap - Yes
Proposal P: Rotki - No
Proposal Q: Candide - Yes

We provided brief feedback in their respective threads and will update our reasonings in this thread soon.

1 Like

Voting Cycle 3

Proposal A: Superfluid - Yes
Superfluid has a great product and track record. We prefer that superfluid has opted for 150k of $OP to last 6 months and would encourage them to apply again when they have more evidence of their success.

Once we can evaluate the success of superfluid adoption on Optimism it will be much easier to request further tokens or even a larger amount (if necessary).

Proposal B: Kromatika - No

We aren’t in support of using such a large percentage of the tokens for influence marketing. 50% is too large of an amount and could be spent better elsewhere such as grants for educational content or refunds for bridging. If the % spent on influencer was reduced or spent on educational content for users then that is more ideal.

Proposal C: Hundred Finance - Yes

We are in support of this proposal for numerous reasons. The hundred finance team aligns themselves greatly with optimism and they have shown this behavior with their promise to return the OP tokens if they identify that the extra OP tokens aren’t contributing to an increased TVL.

Not only that but it is a reasonable request of 300k tokens and they have been active on Optimism for a few months. Albeit there is only $400k on Optimism they have shown signs of success and this grant can help boost TVL.

Proposal D: Biconomy - Yes

Biconomy has a great track record and after diving deeper into your statistics and work with other protocols, it would be great to support this project. Even though the OP request is quite large, we feel that it is a suitable amount since a majority will be spent on the ecosystem and gas grants.

It would be great to see more of their blogs similar to this in the future that showcase gas savings in projects that use their products as it would help highlight how the OP grant is helping users onboard.

Proposal E: Dope Wars - No

The amount requested (one million) is far too large and would be better if it was split up into batches rather than an all-in-one grant.

Proposal F: Infinity Wallet - No

In the previous cycle we voted yes, but we had a change of mind as we share a similar concern about open-source and a lack of metrics to support the proposal.

Proposal G: Dexguru - No

DexGuru is a helpful project but the token distribution is not clearly tied to supporting the optimism ecosystem. The grant explanation is very vague and doesn’t help us understand where 500,000 OP is going.

Proposal H: Overnight - No

It is an interesting idea but there is no live product + no co-incentives. Using USD+ isn’t a co-incentive as its daily yield is part of the aspect but it is an interesting experiment. As the OP request isn’t too high we are going to vote yes.

Proposal I: Saddle Finance - No

It is a very short term focus as as it focuses solely on LM and only across 3 months.

2 Likes

Hi @Bobbay_StableNode - would you be willing to please take a moment to review the posts I have made in regards to this and Saddle?

I don’t think the incentive structure was communicated clearly enough across Discord to here; and so my hopes are this may help shed further light on how Saddle is committed to a long term collaboration and LM program.

Weston

1 Like

Yeh sure happy to review. Probably better to @ me in that thread than here because this is just for voting updates btw

1 Like

A: Rocket Pool - Yes
Rocket pool has a large name and is known for its staking. Great way to support liquidity in the op ecosystem. It lasts six months, which is a suitable amount of time too.

B: Boardroom - Yes
This is a great product to simplify the workflow for delegates. We have used boardroom multiple times and find it to be a great tool.

C: dHedge - No
We do not agree with artificially raising the value of DHT in this manner.

D: xToken - Yes
We will support this. Since it is being split across 3 different projects, it is essentially 300k each. Not too hard to digest.

E: Byte Mason Product Suite - Yes
Co-incentives are matched, last a good time, and have a good track record.

F: GARD - No
Far too large, not launched on optimism.

G: Beefy - Yes
It is live now, and they have gained a large amount of TVL. Overall, the proposal looks strong, and we will support it.

H: BarnBridge - No

Changes were very last minute, so not sure what happened here. Going to vote no, but happy to see a reviewed proposal in the future.

I: QiDAO - Yes

We appreciate that they changed their proposal based on feedback. They matched with x1.7 incentives, allow OP as collateral, and have been live for a while.

We will post our reflection of season 1 in a few days.

Season 1 Reflection

Season 1 has come to an end, and we at StableNode, would like to take the time to reflect on the past four voting cycles.

There we 38 proposals over four voting cycles, with the initial cycle being a batch vote.

Voting cycle #1 - 3
Voting cycle #2 - 17
Voting cycle #3 - 9
Voting cycle #4 - 9

We voted 16 Yes’s and 22 No’s. To see our voting history and the reasons, check out our delegate thread.

Governance Update #2 provides a good overview of the problems faced by the community, and we echo these concerns as there were too many proposals to work your way through, both in terms of voting and providing feedback. Specifically, voting cycle #2 was a large number of proposals, and we believe that such a large amount can act as a deterrent for individuals to get involved in the governance process.

Voter apathy is a prominent issue within decentralized governance, and when possible, we should minimize the obstacles that come with participating in decentralized governance. We don’t necessarily mean to reduce the workload/number of proposals but to find a more effective way to allow voters, especially individuals, to continue to participate in OP governance.

We also recommend using a tool like Messari governor keep track of the proposals in preliminary discussions and the active vote. The discourse and discord can get a bit overwhelming sometimes, so a quick check there to find the preliminary discussion is short.

Regarding the proposals, we recommend that future applications use previous successful proposals to help write their application. Proposals should be clear and detailed, updated post-community feedback, and contain all relevant links.

Using Boardroom’s voter track record and cross-referencing it with the history of some of the Optimism votes, it seems that even a few large delegates have stopped voting. Voting cycle 4 hasn’t concluded yet, so not everyone would have the 38 votes (the first vote was a test).

We aren’t sure of the reason for the reduced participation, but it could be due to many proposals, lack of incentives, or other reasons. We encourage delegators to re-delegate to those delegates who actively participate in Optimism governance.

One reason is that Snapshot does not support voting via Gnosis Safe, so delegates using a Gnosis Safe would be unable to vote. There is no solution yet.

6 Likes

S02 Committee Proposal: Decentralized Finance Governance Committee: Group A

Vote: Abstain

We are involved in this committee and abstain from all DeFi committee proposals. With our diverse range of experience, we will bring various perspectives to the table, ensuring a fair outlook on each proposal.

[S02 Committee Proposal: Category: Defi: Group B]

Vote: Abstain

StableNode is part of another DeFi committee proposal [Group A]

[SO2 Committee Proposal: DeFi: Group C]

Vote: Abstain

StableNode is part of another DeFi committee proposal [Group A]

[SO2 Committee Proposal: NFTs & Gaming: Group A]

Vote: Yes

They have relevant experience and have been active in the Optimism ecosystem. It does seem a bit rushed to get this committee out, so we would be open to a re-vote if another proposal was put forward soon.

S02 Committee Proposal: Tooling Governance Committee

Vote: Yes

Strong team with a diverse range of experience. A few of them have been very active in previous forum discussions and will significantly aid delegates in making decisions.

Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Bankless Academy v2

Vote: Yes

Rationale: It is a minimal request for a project with extensive reach and helps educate web3 newbies. Ideally, this would go under RGPF but, Bankless Academy have a strong track record and this request helps support the greater ecosystem.

Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Across Protocol

Vote: Yes

Rationale: Across has been a great support in the Balancer ecosystem and believes they can have a similar experience in Optimism. The distribution period of 12-18 months merits itself in this case.

Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Tarot

Vote: No

Rationale: Following the recommendation we made in DeFi committee A. Implement a reduced token distribution period with further clarity around using 10% for the ops cost.

Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Revert Compoundor

Vote: Yes

Rationale: Following the recommendation we made in DeFi committee A. Ultimately, the proposal was strong and will add value to the OP ecosystem. Regardless of the drama within the proposal comments, we base our vote on the merits of the proposal itself.

Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Kromatika

Vote: Yes

Rationale: Following the recommendation we made in DeFi committee A.

Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: dHEDGE DAO

Vote: Yes

Rationale: After the revisions, we are happy to support this proposal. They have a clear plan on token distribution with co-incentives too.

Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Otterspace

Vote: No

Rationale: It is an interesting product, but I don’t believe it necessarily warrants a grant from the governance fund. It’s also quite early in its stages, with much competition. I don’t see a grant accelerating adoption.

Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: OptiChads

Vote: Yes

Rationale: I am a fan of public funding and encouraging users to live healthier life. I would be intrigued to get a follow-up to see how the challenges work out. An accountability committee would be beneficial here, especially as this has different vision to DeFi protocols.

Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Interest Protocol 2

Vote: Yes

Rationale: Small request to help accelerate the onboarding of a strong protocol to Optimism.

Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Socket

Vote: NO

Rationale: Following the recommendation of the tooling committee. Token request should be reduced.

hey @Bobbay_StableNode - just wanted to clarify that Snapshot does support voting via Gnosis Safe. It just requires an on-chain tx as opposed to off-chain. Off-chain is possible, but you need to set a Snapshot delegate (Snapshot) using an EOA (e.g. Metamask).

There is a dedicated Gnosis Safe App on OP for Snapshot - Safe

1 Like

Season 2: Cycle 7: Yearn

Vote: Yes

Rationale: Following our recommendation in DeFi Committee A, we believe Yearn deserves the grant and will be able to help drive growth to the OP ecosystem.

Season 2: Cycle 7: Alchemix

Vote: No

Rationale: Following our recommendation in DeFi Committee A and would like to see the outlined changes made before resubmission.

Season 2: Cycle 7: Tarot

Vote: Yes

Rationale: Following our recommendation in DeFi Committee A, we are in favor of supporting Tarot’s request after the amendments.

Season 2: Cycle 7: Sushiswap

Vote: Yes

Rationale: Following our recommendation in DeFi Committee A, we are happy to support the updated proposal.

Season 2: Cycle 7: Abracadabra Money

Vote: No

Rationale: Large request amount with no live deployment on Optimism.

Season 2: Cycle 7: Overtime Markets

Vote: Yes

Rationale: Amount requested is suitable and due to the novelty of being a sports betting platform, they need this extra support to onboard users from web2 to web3. Fee rebates will hopefully make it easier to attract more users to the ecosystem.

Season 2: Cycle 7: Overnight.fi

Vote: Yes

Rationale: Stablecoins are a bit of tricky one, but since its supported by high-quality stable coins with a strong token distribution, we are happy to support it.

Season 2: Cycle 7: LI.FI

Vote: Yes

Rationale: Amount requested and distribution plan seem reasonable. They already have a strong amount of traction and this will help projects on OP.

Season 2: Cycle 7: Safe

Vote: Abstain

Rationale: We just became delegates in SafeDAO so I don’t think its fair to vote.

Season 2: Cycle 7: Karma (Discourse Form Plugin)

Vote: Abstain

Rationale: We helped Karma with the proposal so will be abstaining from this vote.

Season 2: Cycle 7: Karma (Delegate Dashboard)

Vote: Abstain

Rationale: We helped Karma with the proposal so will be abstaining from this vote.

Season 2: Cycle 7: Rainbow Wallet

Vote: No

Rationale: Token request is too large for one use-case. A lot of bridges have already been funded too so they will overlap a lot at this rate.

Season 2: Cycle 7: Otterspace

Vote: Yes

Rationale: After the amendments, 50k OP is a suitable amount and can have a large impact on the ecosystem.

Season 2: Cycle 7: Dope Wars

Vote: No

Rationale: Token request is way too high. Would prefer to see some form of adoption then introduce rewards.

hey @Bobbay_StableNode appreciate the rundown.

wanted to ask – it’s not clear where you sit with Overnight, as you signal a NO vote but say in your rationale that you’re supporting it. Was this a NO vote?

It’s a yes. So many votes, I made an error there. Thanks for pointing that out.

1 Like

Season 2: Cycle 8: Alchemix

Vote: Yes

Rationale: Following our recommendation we are happy to support the proposal.

Season 2: Cycle 8: Arrakis

Vote: No

Rationale: Following our recommendation we are will go against the proposal.

Season 2: Cycle 8: Symphony

Vote: No

Rationale: Following our recommendation we are will go against the proposal.

Season 2: Cycle 8: Homora

Vote: Yes

Rationale: Following DeFi Commmitee C’s recommendation, we are happy to support this proposal.

Season 2: Cycle 8: Angle

Vote: Yes

Rationale: Following DeFi Commmitee C’s recommendation, we are happy to support this proposal.

Season 2: Cycle 8: InsureDAO

Vote: Yes

Rationale: Following DeFi Commmitee C’s recommendation, we are happy to support this proposal.

Season 2: Cycle 8: Curve

Vote: Yes

Rationale: Following DeFi Commmitee C’s recommendation, we are happy to support this proposal.

Season 2: Cycle 8: PoolTogether

Vote: No

Rationale: We are voting against the committee recommendation. PT is a great product, but the 110k for alternative interfaces is far too much. It’s a great concept and they will be testing it with a project that’s already being funded.

I rather see the success of that before deploying further capital for it.

Season 2: Cycle 8: Overnight

Vote: Yes

Rationale: Following DeFi Commmitee C’s recommendation, we are happy to support this proposal.

Season 2: Cycle 8: Socket

Vote: Yes

Rationale: Follow the Tooling Committee, we are happy to support this proposal.

Season 2: Cycle 8: EthernautDAO

Vote: Yes

Rationale: Follow the Tooling Committee, we are happy to support this proposal.

Season 2: Cycle 8: Tally Ho

Vote: No

Rationale: Not a fan of the current token distribution method. Size of ask is fine, but the distribution should be amended.

Season 2: Cycle 8: Messari

Vote: Yes

Rationale: Messari have provided a high-quality of service in other protocols with their quarterly and governance reports. We believe they will add a much needed transparency to the OP ecosystem.

Season 2: Cycle 8: DefiLlama

Vote: No

Rationale: Its not exactly clear. “Pay us for our previous work so we can continue building cool things”. DeFi Llama is a great product but they can go for RPGF for their previous work and be more explicit in which work they will complete for a grant from the governance fund.

Season 2: Cycle 8: Agora

Vote: Yes

Rationale: This will help governance in many ways. Governance is an unexplored space with limited tooling, but agora can help push the space forward.

Season 2: Cycle 8: Ambire Wallet

Vote: No

Rationale: Similar to Tally Ho. We already funded a few bridges too.

Season 2: Cycle 8: Mochi

Vote: Yes

Rationale: This is an interesting tool that has the potential to tackle current problems. It’s worth funding experimental products such as Mochi.

Season 2: Cycle 8: Velodrome

Vote: No

Rationale: Our recommendation was abstain, but we will be voting no. For such a large request, we’d feel more comfortable if this was broken up or once we have an accountability committee to follow up with grants of this size.

2 Likes