Voting Cycle 1 begins Thursday (June 9) at 12pm PST / 7pm GMT and runs until Wednesday (June 22) at 12pm PST / 7pm GMT.
Voting will take place in Snapshot. A snapshot of delegate voting weights will be taken at the start of the Voting Cycle.
For a detailed breakdown of the governance and voting process, see the Operating Manual.
Context
Voting Cycle #1 only includes proposals from Phase 0 of the Optimism Foundation’s Governance Fund. You can think of this as a sort of test run for future open-ended voting cycles.
Phase 0 of the Governance Fund is designed to:
Kick off OP Summer by rewarding early projects in the OP ecosystem
Allocate OP fairly based on a simple set of on-chain metrics
Avoid setting a binding precedent for future funding proposals by being an isolated phase
Immediately deploy 36m OP tokens
To accomplish these goals, Optimism worked with projects to craft a set of guidelines for Phase 0 proposals. These guidelines are as follows:
Proposals must be submitted to the governance forum on or before May 27, 2022
Projects could not request more tokens than they were eligible for in the Phase 0 allocation.
No more than ~20% of a project’s allocation should be distributed as retroactive rewards.
No more than ~20% (or ~200k) of a project’s allocation should used for grant programs.
Token allocations should not be used for internal development or operations costs.
Rewards should be distributed as OP (i.e. no token sales or swaps).
Phase 0 proposals that follow the guidelines above have been bundled in to a batch vote. These proposals have been drafted in cooperation with the Optimism Foundation, and the Token House will vote on the batch as a whole.
Phase 0 proposals that did not follow the guidelines above will be voted on individually. We leave these up to the Token House to evaluate on their own merits. Those separate proposals are:
Uniswap submitted a proposal after the May 27 deadline, so this proposal will be voted on individually.
0x has chosen to allocate 100% towards grants. We’re big fans of public goods funding, but since this does not fit the batch guidelines for phase 0, the proposal will be voted on individually.
In light of recent events, no tokens distributed via governance will be sent without a two-way test transaction.
We shared a short Twitter thread on the governance process, voting cycle 1 & our voting behavior/reasoning.
We also submitted a forum post to 1inch (needs to be approved), asking them to engage with their official account and explain in more detail how they will support Op ecosystem development, specific products and adjust the distribution of Op tokens to grow the optimistic ecosystem.
Excited for the first vote! Cross-posting this thread here for visibility if you’ve delegated your $OP to me and would like to make your opinion known!
How come Uniswap receives an individual vote? Have you talked privately with the team?
Will other teams who fail to meet the cut-off for Phase 1 votes secure a spot on the ballot?
Seems if other teams were aware of this exception they would apply after the deadline with the aim of an individual vote. Feels like a slippery slope and added administrative work for the OP team.
its mentioned in the post as why Uni is in separate group.
Uniswap submitted a proposal after the May 27 deadline, so this proposal will be voted on individually.
instead of cancelling OP proposal, because they submitted the proposal past the deadline, they are letting the gov decide and that is why its in a different section.
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.
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.
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.
Proposal B
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.
Proposal C
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.
