Voting Cycle #2: Roundup

Delegates 🏛 Voting Cycles
,
43

Here are our votes for the current cycle. Brief reasoning is given below the project proposals.

Proposal A: Optimistic Railway - No
Proposal B: dForce - Yes
Proposal C: GYSR - No (Changed vote from Abstain to No)
Proposal D: Mean Finance - Yes
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 - No
Proposal L: Beefy - No
Proposal M: 0xHabitat - No
Proposal N: Thales - No
Proposal O: ParaSwap - Yes
Proposal P: Rotki - No
Proposal Q: Candide - No

Overall, we were criticially looking at spending vs. potential return. We wanted to see some detail in proposals, clear value-add & alignment with the Optimism ecosystem. Consequently, there are projects we like but didn’t vote for this time, and we look forward to slightly adjusted proposals in the next Phases.

3 Likes
44

so good Some really good proposals, and some really bad ones too

1 Like
45

Proposal A: Optimistic Railway - Yes
Proposal B: dForce - Yes
Proposal C: GYSR - No
Proposal D: Mean Finance - Yes
Proposal E: Raptor - No
Proposal F: Balancer & BeethovenX - Yes
Proposal G: Summa - No
Proposal H: WardenSwap - Yes
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 - Yes
Proposal Q: Candide - Yes

Few other suggestion(from Phase 1) that we need to improve on:-

  1. There should be exact date and time on when proposal will go live, not just the date but time too for example 12PM CET, GMT or any time zone will work. This time there was lot of confusion.

  2. Would be great if delegate(s) took some of their time and provide feedback before the proposal goes to voting, I have see that many project(s) are quite active on their proposal, seeking feedback and willing to update and amend their proposal depending the feedback from users/delegates.
    What’s the point of giving suggestion when proposal is live, the project team cant amend the suggestion even if they want to, jumping it at the last moment is not helping anyone.

  3. There should be at least 24hr cool down period before bringing proposals to voting, during this time the responsibility will be on project team to make sure that their proposal is adhering to all the requirement and is ready for voting, if they miss to do so, they will be accountable rather than OP Team or delegates.

  4. This one is for me but would like to mention, delegate should be precise in their word when providing their support to a proposal.

  5. We need some active participation from OP team on discord gov channel, during Phase 1, I had few queries related to couple of proposal, I did post them on discord gov general channel but did not got any response from team. Again, as a delegate, its my responsibility to make a judgement call but little help here and there could help me make a better decision.

  6. If project submitting a proposal is not willing to submit a report on their last phase spending sighting extra and unnecessary work, I expect that OP Team should provide us with such a report. This is again just for me, I am not asking other do the same or suggesting on making this a rule but I am willing to invest my time looking at those report so that
    a. I can make better decision on the basis of those report.
    b. I would like to make sure that funds are being used properly ie. accountability.

  7. This is to the team submitting the proposal focusing on LP and airdrop, on “why the users will stay once incentives are over”; these two are my favorite line
    a. users will come for incentive and stay for the product
    b. we believe our project has this and this to offer and users will stay because of this
    I request you to understand this, those using L2 as their main chain to do their transaction, we dont need someone to tell us about a unique and innovative project, its vice versa, we are looking for them. If I am using a platform just because of an incentive, I will use it as long as incentive exist but on the other hand I will continue to use if the platform is self-sustainable and rewarding me for using it, OP incentive are just a boost, if you need an extra incentive to sustain your project, you need to re-think your stagey. Again, my opinion, highly dependent on individual.

See you all in Phase 2. Cheers!

7 Likes
46

So Many proposals! More projects will build on OP

47

I hear you, see what you mean, and am working hard to make sure this is made right. :red_circle:

1 Like
48

Voting YES for Proposal O, Proposal D, Proposal F, Proposal H for now.
Still considering other proposal.

49

What is public good to you, would appreciate your thoughts on it.

1 Like
50

Summary of my votes:

Proposal O: Paraswap - YES
Proposal A: Optimistic Railway - NO
Proposal B: dForce - YES
Proposal C: GYSR - NO
Proposal D: Mean Finance - YES
Proposal E: Raptor - NO
Proposal Q: Candide Wallet - YES
Proposal F: Balancer & BeethovenX - YES
Proposal G: Summa - NO
Proposal H: WardenSwap - YES
Proposal K: Infinity Wallet - NO
Proposal I: Pickle Finance - NO
Proposal P: Rotki - YES

Furthermore some feedback regarding this round:

  1. Finding a link to voting site shouldn’t be that hard.
  2. Proposals miss two critical pieces of information: what project does and what is the competitive landscape.
  3. If project assessment will continue to be the main objective of the governance, I would propose funding a core unit (a team that works for the DAO), responsible for doing all the leg work around proposals (fact checking, pulling more stats etc).
4 Likes
51

My vote breakdown:
Proposal A: Optimistic Railway - NO :x:
$200k requested, no links to previous work, project more likely to be a startup rather than a public good. 90% of the funding will go to the core team without any verification

Proposal B: dForce - NO :x:
$150k requested, no links to previous work, project more likely to be a startup rather than a public good. Money would be spent on liquidity mining, marketing (??) and developer ecosystem with no oversight

Proposal C: GYSR - NO :x:
$200k requested, no links to previous work. 25% of it be spent of maintenance of already deployed system. Rest will go to “incentives” in different parts of the protocol.

Proposal D: Mean Finance - NO :x:
$150k requested. 45% of it will go to cover fees from the users (so… will go straight to the protocol’s revenue??), 20% will go for “growth”. Project more likely to be a startup rather than a public good

Proposal E: Raptor - NO :x:
$400k requested. This one is actually interesting! I wanted to vote yes, but there is no way of providing an oversight over this system and OP could do the very same thing and just setup eth2 validators without funding raptor

Proposal F: Balancer & BeethovenX - NO :x:
$250k requested. 100% will go to some very complicated ponzinomics related to liquidity mining. I’m not a fan of increased speculative “adoption” — my OP mandate is to fund social & identity public goods

Proposal G: Summa - NO :x:
$1m requested, for… an accounting service? Also no previous work done. I don’t know what’s happening here

Proposal H: WardenSwap - NO :x:
$150k requested. 20% goes to “traders” and 45% for different growth strategies. The project is a DEX aggregator that ~probably~ charges fees. Not a public good

Proposal I: Pickle Finance - NO :x:
$100k requested. 100% goes to liquidity rewards in vaults that currently have $115k TVL on optimism. This proposal is just asking to put OP tokens into pockets of pickle users?

Proposal J: Ooki Protocol - NO :x:
$350k requested. It’s a trading / speculative product, it is also probably not a public good.

Proposal K: Infinity Wallet - NO :x:
$500k requested. 15% will be spent on an airdrop :man_facepalming:, rest very vague. No oversight & it’s probably also not a public good

Proposal L: Beefy - NO :x:
$325k requested. 90% for boosting yield in their products. Not a public good

Proposal M: 0xHabitat - NO :x:
$200k requested. The app hasn’t been deployed yet, i don’t really know how will benefit from it and how. 90% to be vaguely spent on “incentives” and “developer grants”.

Proposal N: Thales - NO :x:
$1m requested. Everything will be spent on trading incentives and competitions. Not a public good

Proposal O: ParaSwap - NO :x:
$225k requested. ParaSwap is a company that charges everybody on swaps. 50% of the funding will go into growing their ecosystem and integrating their FOR PROFIT system into more apps.

Proposal P: Rotki - YES :white_check_mark:
$95k requested. My only “yes” and I am beyond happy to see here at least one true OSS, public good project. @LefterisJP is a developer with a long & great reputation, the budget breakdown is excellent and rotki is stellar example of a project built with a decentralization, privacy and resilience in mind.

Portfolio management is also outside of my OP mandate (social & web3 identity public goods) but im giving rotki a pass since it’s clearly the best project in the round

Proposal Q: Candide - NO :x:
$95k requested. I respect the proposal and the author & believe it has a good potential — however, as for today, it’s essentially a vc investment without a clear benefit for the community or public goods.

General feedback:

  • I am new to governing over funds on this scale, but why is it a norm that we are just sending $100k-$1m based on a forum post & send that to a private address without any oversight? I feel like i could write a very well sounding anon proposal and just get a life-changing money from Optimism Collective without delivering any value. I only hold a small share of voting power (0.29%) and my NOs don’t mean much, but it looks like this round will fund many projects that can rug and run with the money any time.
  • Most of the applying projects are not public goods. At best some of them are legit crypto startups, at worst they are plain cash grabs without anything built yet.
  • Proposals lack links to projects and author’s reputation. With 17 proposals it’s hard to read (sometimes very convoluted) descriptions and pitches. Proposal authors should be encouraged to leave more links.
  • My voting mandate is to support decentralized identity & web3 social projects. I’m more than happy to work & help polish proposals for them in next rounds, but I haven’t seen any so far.

Also posted the breakdown on twitter: https://twitter.com/wojtekwtf/status/1545028162072956934

2 Likes
52

My comment is not related to your approval process or on your decision.

After reading your comment, I just want to mention that, it seems that you are focusing more on public good which is not the goal of governance fund. For public funding we have separate budget which is not live, yet.

1 Like
53

oh, good to know!

feedback still stands for the public goods funding round. are there any guidelines for this round of funding?

54

I believe round 1 is for any proposals that will bring growth and drive adoption of Optimism. Open source projects would be part of the public good funding when that launches.

You can find some information in this forum some place, but can’t remember where.

Edit: Some more information can be found here OP Allocations | Optimism Docs and also above in this thread

1 Like
55

cool，Mean Finance, good choice.

56

definitely vote for Mean finance and wardenswap

57

I will start voting right now :grinning: