Voting Cycle #1: Roundup

🏛 Token House Governance Voting Cycles
34

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:

  • Synthetix

  • Perpetual Protocol

  • Lyra Finance

  • Celer Network

  • Hop Protocol

  • Chainlink

  • Rubicon

  • Thales

  • Pika Protocol

  • Connext

  • Layer2DAO

  • Gelato

  • AAVE

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.

5 Likes