I’m so glad this has started…
But I am very concerned about this “batch vote”. We shouldn’t be batching any of the proposals together. This is concerning and sets a bad precedence.
I believe the proposals should have all been separate and voted on individually.
Each member of the Token House has their own views on each proposal and to batch proposals together dilutes our input.
Unfortunately this method gives me the feeling our independent review does not matter.
If I may ask, what was the reason to batch the proposals?
Going forward, it wont be grouped together. Also, as this was the first proposal, like a kick off session, as the number of project were quite high and not all delegates may not have the knowledge of all pillars of web3 space which might leads to delegate burned out.
I am just summarizing what i have heard from the team and i quite frankly support it. For next proposals, projects wont be grouped.
Thanks for your reply.
I am happy to hear that.
I thought we as Token house have the responsibility and obligation to Optimism to do so. I understand there are many proposals but they have been up for two weeks which is sufficient time for delegates to process 25 proposals.
Anyway I am glad we have Kicked off this session!
I agree and you will see this in action in Phase 1 proposal.
My OP is in the beets.fi pool.
Will i still qualify to vote?
Hello. I would like to document my votes here.
I will vote reject even though it seems to be almost unanimously passed in the snapshot. I don’t like rubber-stamping anything. Governance is not just logging in snapshot and signing a YES or NO message.
In fact I find it insulting and I will reject the proposal outright for that. Yes some projects in there do make sense and would really benefit OP ecosystem such as HOP, connext and aave, but you are asking us to vote for 24 different projects all in one proposal, yes or no.
In fact I am absolutely amazed this is passing governance.
I will vote to reject this proposal from uniswap, since it has missed the phase 0 deadline.
I would be open to reconsidering a phase 1 proposal from uniswap since I truly think it would be useful and am a fan of the project.
But rules are rules and we should be credibly neutral and fair.
Just like with uniswap’s proposal I will vote to reject this proposal since it has missed the deadline and we should not bend the rules for anybody.
I am also not 100% certain if the proposal would end up benefiting the OP ecosystem sufficiently, but this is mostly an after-thought compared to the deadline being missed.
Just noting here that 0x did not miss the deadline
Since you mentioned me also in Twitter, I responded there. It seems like it did indeed miss the deadline:
Sharing my voting decision and rationale for these proposals:
Proposal A: Voting For. I would have preferred to see these proposals broken out individually instead of a batch vote as I’m in support of some proposals way more than others. However, since there are many that would be beneficial to Optimism and I have confidence in the Optimism Foundation working with the teams to iterate the proposals so they were beneficial to the ecosystem, I’m comfortable voting on it. It also sounds like future cycles won’t have these batched which is great to hear.
Proposal B: Voting For. While Uniswap missed the deadline, they have been and are an important partner for Optimism so I’m comfortable with an exception on this in the interest of furthering the Optimism ecosystem.
Proposal C: Abstaining from this vote due to a potential conflict since my husband is the co-founder of 0x.
I’ve delegated to Quixotic, how could I vote for this?
you cant, Quixotic will vote on your behalf. if you want to vote, you need to delegate the token to yourself
I’m voting For all three proposals, even though they are flawed. Given we’re early, I’m willing to give projects building on Optimism the benefit of doubt. (I don’t see anything particularly objectionable.) In future, I would like to see timely submissions meeting all guidelines, a clear presentation of how the tokens will drive lasting & sustained user activity to their protocol, and how their token distribution programs will benefit the Optimism ecosystem as a whole. Of course, we should not bundle multiple projects into one proposal going forward.
hope everyone’s enjoying in such market sentiments.
I’m checking in to see if anyone having the problem with voting on proposals on snapshot. My voting power is shown 0 even though I have the tokens in my wallet. Is it that If I have delegated them, that’s why my voting power is showing up as 0 or is it something else.
Anyone else is facing the same issue, would appreciate the help
Hi all - We (Blockchain at Berkeley) generally disagree with the ethos of how this governance vote is being proposed.
A- It’s ridiculous to expect token house governance to make an educated decision on token allocation by batching 20+ GovFund candidates together. Optimism Foundation is basically asking us to “approve” their decisions, instead of allowing us to vote individually on each one. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t ecosystem funding supposed to be covered by the citizen house? Proposal A should either bring each GovFund to individual vote, or should be the responsibility of citizen house to approve. We are not comfortable voting only to approve OP foundations decision, rather than being able to make our own. It sets bad precedence and diminishes the role of token house. We are strongly against
B- Like @lefterisjp we are unsure why Uniswap is being given special treatment despite missing the deadline. Obviously Optimism foundation is giving them favor - again another point where our governance decisions are being guided by the foundation. We will be voting No but will likely be approving them for the next batch
C- 0x is being voted on how we believe is fit. We are confident in supplying them with a YES vote. And look forward to the grants they will be funding.
We hope not to be harsh on individual grant applications and apply undue scrutiny. But we strongly believe Proposal A and B dismiss the role of governance - a trend we must stop before it becomes normal. Remember in this space things trend towards centralized decision making, and it’s up to us to push against that wherever possible. We would be happy to approve these grants, but not in this way.
Hey all - nice to be here! As a delegate, I want to share how I’m voting on each proposal:
Proposal A: All of the proposals in this group are well-formed and I believe will lead to increased activity on Optimism.
I’m voting YES
Proposal B: This proposal missed the deadline. It shows a lack of interest in the governance process and I believe accepting it sets a bad precedent. This proposal can be resubmitted in the next round.
I’m voting NO
Proposal C: This proposal chose to allocate 100% of the allocation toward grants. While it goes against the guidelines, I believe that effective grants are the most likely to stimulate long term growth on Optimism.
I’m voting YES
The difference between B and C is that B missed the deadline while C went against the guidelines.
Bullet A, Batching vs individual vote. Would like to have individual voting on proposals in future.
hey all! here is the summary of my votes:
Proposal A: For
Why: Unfortunate to put all the projects subject to the same vote, but in general these guidelines were decided by OP team beforehand and i support them
Proposal B: For
Why: Shame that they where late to put a proposal, but since they had an allocation anyway, i’m ok with issuing the grant. I’d vote against if the missed deadline impacted other parts of the plan.
Proposal C: For
Why: I’m ok with issuing the whole distribution to grants / builders — imo it’s better than random airdrops or liquidity incentives.
to be honest, i hate being a triple “yes” man in this example, but this is mostly just an approval to the decisions made by the Optimism team beforehand excited to be a voice of reason and a party pooper when the time comes
I’d like to see the batch vote split up into individual pieces, but since its not, the vote mostly comes down to “all yes” or “all no” — out of which i go with yes, since all of these projects contributed to helping build optimism network as it is
Also published the explanation on twitter: https://twitter.com/wojtekwtf/status/1537834555956088832
I prefer batching. Delegates should simply review and remove projects that didn’t meet the grade prior to going to snapshot
I am intending to vote Yes for all 3 Proposals.
Uniswap didn’t meet the deadline and 0x didn’t fit the specified criteria, but both proposals seem like they will be beneficial to the ecosystem so I think flexibility with rules is sensible in this first round.
I’m not completely happy with all of the ones included in the big batch and would have voted No for a couple had they been separated out, as I don’t think they are designed to be maximally beneficial to the Optimism ecosystem. Due to them being included with other great proposals I will have to vote yes on A as a whole. A short breakdown of my views on the batched group follows:
Perfect Proposals - Would vote yes without reservations:
Okay Proposals - Would probably vote yes, but hesitantly:
Stargate Finance (assuming that ‘Qualified Partners who integrate Stargate widget’ will be builders on Optimism)
Synapse Protocol (large chunk of incentives to SYN holders seems a little self-serving, but this was addressed somewhat in the comments)
Zipswap (Proposal is fine but they are deployed on Arbitrum as well as Optimism so not sure why they got the 3x multiplier)
Aelin Protocol (Would just like clarity on the Aelin Council if they are to have veto over OP incentives to liquidity pools)
Polynomial Protocol (20% retroactive distribution which will probably have less effect on encouraging future users than the other segments, basically fine though)
Clipper (Unsure about the method of requiring Discord verification and the Optimism pools were closed at the time of checking, also the project’s community engaged in a ridiculous brigading of the governance forum… however the team attempted to stop this and on reflection it probably demonstrates that they are already attracting ‘new’/inexperienced users to their platform)
Slingshot (No response was given to a query regarding avoiding sybil attacks on the referral link based rewards)
WePiggy (20% retroactive distribution which will probably have less effect on encouraging future users than the other segments, basically fine though)
Disappointing Proposals - Would vote no if not part of the batch:
Kwenta Protocol (66% is targeted specifically at 1,000 previous users of dYdX, if they were to get an even distribution they would end up with 600 each, purely because they didn’t claim their dYdX tokens? Kwenta is a key part of Optimism’s synthetix ecosystem but I don’t think this proposal is reflects this.)
1Inch (one of the requirements for Phase 0 was “Token allocations should not be used for internal development or operations costs” it would have seemed important that they clarify what is meant by “1inch Network plans to accelerate the development of Optimism native features and expand R&D for L2”. This question was raised 2 weeks ago but the 1Inch team never responded)
I will not vote until tomorrow, to give time for any strong objections to my reasoning to be offered.
Rational thinking paired with clarity makes your post very reassuring for any possible delegators.