Synthetix Ambassadors Phase 0 Delegation - 2M OP tokens

I can agree on the topic of misuse of OP tokens.

I think there’s a clear distinction between selling tokens and self delegate them. Yes, they are both misuse of grant tokens because they are not on their proposal.

But if we look at laws in general everything is considered a gray area and not just black and white. Example: Getting into a private house with a gun to steal something has different consequences if there are people in it or if it’s empty.

So perp sold and it’s prohibited from participation, although I don’t agree and did not vote on this. (which brings another great discussion)

SNX self-delegated, something they told in a SIP on their own governance. Do you think they should be prohibited from participation? If so are they entitled to sell all their OPs the moment they are out? Will this be beneficial for OP as a whole?

I mean you are asking one of the most used protocols with one of the strongest liquidity and fee creators in optimism to be prohibited from governance because someone forgot to add this to the proposal?

I’ve read a SIP where these tokens will be used btw and will leave SNX governance, will that suffice?

BTW I’m asking all this because it’ll shape future proposals template. I’m not trying to PVP here. sorry if any of this sounds like an accusation.

1 Like

It’s not a binary decision because I know from day 1 that the Ambassadors have had issues with their voting power.
I posted this back in October:

  1. Using the same tokens to mirror the inaccessible delegated voting power onto snxambassadors.eth

This is the actual proposal I would have liked to discuss and I am fine with this until their issues are resolved. Not being able to vote has underrepresented all the voting power the Synthetix community entrusted to their Ambassadors.

The ambassadors are not prohibited from participating, but they should be held accountable on what is a misuse of a Grant.

Was there any rule implying you should not use granted tokens to self-delegate when Ambassadors did it? I can’t remember when this was ruled. If not, I guess that is why we have the self-delegation program now. So one action brings new governance proposals to regulate and now protocols can be properly represented.

Asses problems
Iterate
Grow

Shall we avoid punishment in the process? I feel this is where most gray areas are and looks like a time-consuming thing that stay us further away from the Optimism collective values.

The rule was added, amended and then the Protocol Delegation Program created.

The original grant terms still apply, Synthetix didn’t include a provision for that delegation hence delegation is out of order and should be revoked.

1 Like

Comparison with perp was only to show that it does not sound justified from outside if one was prohibited and other was not held accountable.
With an ecosystem of more than 20 dApps running on top of SNX, I truly believe they should have a voice in anything related to Optimism.

I am asking from starting that anything related to governance should come from Operating manual so that it applies to everyone and we should be open to feedback and be flexible with gray areas.

2 Likes

So they should revoke, and then redelegate up to 2M since they are part of the top 20 selected by Op foundation, am I correct?

  • SNX was not wrong on self-delegation until it was ruled.
  • Once ruled they should have revoked the self-delegation (or at least the portion that was out of the multisig problem)
  • Now they should have 2M delegated

is this correct?

Thank you OpUser I 100% agree with you on this:

We will still have gray areas every now and then with mistakes being done. How should we approach those committing it? and how do we address those writing the Operating Manual with the best solution?

No, because the Protocol Delegation Program voting power comes from OP Labs themselves and only up to a certain amount.

Currently Synthetix controls 3.4M voting power.

I think there is a distinction between people with OP on their wallets delegating their OP to an SNX Ambassador (something around 1.3M) and the protocol self-delegation program which represents the protocol itself and should be 2M. Am I wrong?

Do we need a rule where someone representing a group of people can’t represent a protocol at the same time?

There is a distinction.
I only care about the 2M wrongly delegated OP.

And I am sure a rule will need to become available once the Protocol Delegation Program is live.

4 Likes

Following the clarifications provided to me in the Discord and Community Call (thanks everyone for the warm welcome!), I understand that the 2M self-delegation is going to be resolved soon as the funds are planned to be used. This, combined with the changes to grant applications and the Protocol Delegate Program should reduce the ambiguity of this in the future from this situation happening again.

Personally, while I disagree with this delegation since other protocols did not do something similar, it seems like the issue should resolve itself going forward. However, there is a part that remained unclear to me: if the Protocol Delegate Program was implemented as an explicit discouragement of grant self-delegation, why are these delegated funds still being used after the passing of this vote on December 21st?

Now, I have to admit that the reason why I am aware of this discussion is because this decision to use the 2M OP is affecting me and the protocol I wish to represent directly. As of the time of writing, there are less than 24 hours left for the vote to close, and these 2.3 Million OP have moved ParaSwap from being the ~5th to not even being a nominated protocol anymore. This, once again, is happening in a vote for something specifically designed to remove protocol self-delegation , and offer an alternative instead.

Had ParaSwap also decided to also use its unspent OP to self-delegate, we would have enough to have closed the gap and made it to 8th place. However, other protocols that are now going to be excluded from this round due to this self-delegation did not even have this choice. Atlantis World ( represented by @revmiller ), for instance, is another protocol where these 2.3M made the difference between being represented and exclusion. In a similar vein, at least 1 Grant Council Reviewee is being affected by this issue as well.

Personally, if I do not make it past this round, I am fine applying to represent ParaSwap again on the next voting round, but how many members might potentially be discouraged from applying again in the future?

I understand these votes being counted while we didn’t have an alternative for protocol delegation, but I’m unsure as to why the wallet with the largest voting power in an election about an alternative to Grant Self-Delegation would be a wallet voting with Grant Self-Delegation.

7 Likes

When the Synthetix proposal was accepted, the intended destination for these $OP was NOT the subsidy of its vp; Synthetix is using assets that do not belong to them, the protocol is just a means for those tokens to reach the “promised” destination in their proposal.
Accepting this, turns the 3 votes in progress into a meme, completely distorted by non-genuine voting power

I personally believe that the OF should review this thread before the current proposals are finalized @lavande

4 Likes

Because the proposal is to discourage this behavior in the future I believe there is no direct request to the SNX delegate to terminate it that I am aware of.

I think this is the assessment status of the problem that is already being solved. I feel you, I was left out of badge holders almost for the same reason. I told myself I’ll stay and try to fix it as you are deciding it too. I don’t think this is the last protocol delegation program tbh.

When it comes to the Council election. I have to say I expected more candidates, and by now I feel it’s better to bring all reviewer’s candidates in and redistribute the compensation between all. We would have more eyes to cover and they are mainly the same people that have been here from the beginning.

This debate is now becoming circular. The facts have well been ventilated, and all that appears to be remaining are tangent-like debates over particular points and other similar distraction / muddy-the-water arguments.

Ultimately, if you can’t see the problem with this, with everything laid out, then you are part of the problem. Something that will hinder Optimism’s growth; with implied acceptance of this governance flaw.

In the new additions to this thread, I think Oxytocin sums up the situation best. I.e. How things are going wrong now, and how this will lead to further issues down the track.

The only new addition I’ll make is that this should never have been an issue in continuance. The ~2.3m OP granted was meant to be distributed well before today, that’s what the original Proposal allowed for and (if memory serves correct) all the documentation stated this was a temporary issue as distributions of the ~2.3m OP was meant to be finished ‘over a few months’. It’s well past a few months now, this issue has remained, and votes (and the accompanying positions of authority and shape of the Optimism Collective) are being decided by this problem.

To not be PVP (assuming this is a gaming reference to Player vs Player?), and to be be constructive towards Optimism, Sythentix and an ultimately decentralised user base, here are some suggested, possible solutions:

  1. Distribute the ~2.3m OP to users as had been planned to be done by now within the Phase 0 Grant, i.e let the problem play itself out.

  2. Re-delegate the ~2.3m OP to a broad, unaligned set of other delegates, and simply keep the voting power of Synthetix Ambassadors that the OP holders had originally, collectively entrusted to them.

  3. Simply not vote with the contested ~2.3m OP; just take it off the table for the sake of harmony and unifying a group.

4 Likes

I obviously cannot get in the mind of the proposal redactor, but I believe that this is to avoid finger pointing for a particular delegate, as that could’ve come across in very poor taste, as delegates are already expected to do this under the code of conduct. Synthetix and their governance ambassadors are a key part of the Optimism ecosystem, and I really would not want to make them feel unwelcome.

Agreed with both of these points, I feel there isn’t much more to be said about this already self resolving matter and one that the SNX team already acknowledged in the community call.


To steer this thread towards a productive direction, I encourage the following points to be taken in the future:

  • Remove the ability for protocols to self-delegate grants altogether from grant requests, similar to the no-sell rule, as opposed to the current strong discouragement. Grants are destined for builder and user growth, if OP is needed for governance I’d suggest it’s better suited for the Protocol Delegation Programs or even RetroPGF
  • Explore a separate stream for protocol citizens and grant council members. Protocols and builders are the lifeblood of Optimism, and having their voice be represented is important. Perhaps the best way to solve the tensions on the Citizen House/Grants Council side is to have a clear separate stream for Protocol Representatives, which will also guarantee that these sections of the collective are a healthy mix of individuals + protocol delegates.

Finally, something can be discussed to alleviate the impact of the self-delegated grant votes during the affected period after at least Dec 21st, but I am not comfortable suggesting anything as I am part of the affected candidates, so I’ll let someone else explore this if interested.

3 Likes