Voting Cycle #3: Roundup

This is strong feedback indeed; I find it encouraging you are open to it though, and I am more than happy to provide the feedback reinforcing the accuracy of this/what has been stated here.

In reference to this part of the post:

1 Like

The reason they are back to back is to distribute the 36m tokens set aside for kicking off the ecosystem.

1 Like

Final result for this phase.

Proposal A: Superfluid : YES
Proposal B: Kromatika : YES
Proposal C: Hundred Finance : YES
Proposal D: Biconomy : YES
Proposal E: Dope Wars : NO
Proposal F: Infinity Wallet : YES
Proposal G: Dexguru : NO
Proposal H: Overnight[.]fi : NO
Proposal I: Saddle Finance : NO


I have voted for this round:

A: Superfluid: For
B: Kromatika: For
C: Hundred Finance: For
D: Biconomy: For
E: Dope Wars: Against
F: Infinity Wallet: For
G: Dexguru: Against
H: Overnight: Against
I: Saddle Finance: Against (previously voted Abstain)

General comment: While I’ve given many proposals the benefit of doubt in these early cycles, as we mature as a Collective, I’d like to see Gov Fund proposals make a clear case for why they’ll lead to user adoption on Optimism.


How I’ve voted:

A: Superfluid: For – Superfluid is an incredibly strong team and I both like their proposal in terms of benefit to OP and excited to see them investing in bringing more of their existing ecosystem over as well. N-for-1 deal.

B: Kromatika: Against – The influencer marketing campaign is interesting but its allocation is far too high in my opinion. I see Phase 1 funding being better allocated to fund R&D and usage from L1/L2s to Optimism vs being used for a specific project’s marketing budget.

C: Hundred Finance: For – Performance targets are clear (and great to see featured), proposal is straight forward.

D: Biconomy: For – Great team and product which matters a lot. Proposal is relatively straight forward and great to see it be so builder focused.

E: Dope Wars: Against – Simply put the amount of requested tokens is too high for the lack of available clarity in the proposal for outcomes, timelines, and performance. I don’t see a requirement for this proposal to require so much upfront funding to be successful.

F: Infinity Wallet: Against – Wallets are better when built together. I’m a big fan of the model that Tally has taken towards a community-built wallet and a closed-source wallet seems antithetical to that model. I understand their reasons for doing so (and I have also created companies with closed-source software) but there are additional options for funding these types of projects beyond public governance.

G: Dexguru: Against – Not certain that the allocation does enough to drive users to Optimism. In general, the thread seems filled with low-quality support statements (maybe bots?) and a decent bit of drama. We can probably wait for things to shake out with the DAO before moving forward.

H: Overnight: Against – Reconsidering when the project is deployed on the OP chain.

I: Saddle Finance: Against – This proposal burns too fast and too bright, a large requested amount for a short-term distribution does not provide incentives beyond 3 months. It could work, but I’d rather see something with a longer timeline, seems to me this will just get farmed and moved.


Added some feedback [here] on Phase 1; cycle 2 (OPUser Delegate Communication Thread - #7 by OPUser)

Would love to hear your input on this.

I would like to see at least a minimum of a 2 week break between rounds, currently it gives no breather to review or provide feedback to draft proposals, most delegates will be focusing on the active voting round proposals.

I think same we need some break between the voting cycles at least a week

1 Like

I voted in this round:

A: Superfluid: Yes
B: Kromatika: No
C: Hundred Finance: Yes
D: Biconomy: Yes
E: Dope Wars: No
F: Infinity Wallet: Yes
G: Dexguru: No
H: Overnight: No
I: Saddle Finance: No

I still think a little break between would be good to allow some breathing room


I want to vote, too.

I voted in this round

I was wondering where is best to ask a question related to making a proposal? Is it okay to ask here?

here you go Governance Fund Phase 1: How to Create a Proposal

you can also ask your query here.

Flipside Crypto has voted as follows for Voting Cycle #3:

Hundred Finance - FOR
Kromatika - AGAINST
SuperFluid - FOR
Biconomy - FOR
Dope Wars - AGAINST
Dex Guru - AGAINST
Infinity Wallet - AGAINST
Overnight Fi - AGAINST

Please feel free to reach out for our reasoning or any concerns.

I have been looking to make a proposal the last week for my project, however I have some concerns. I noticed that voters abstain or put no to infrastructure projects because they cant validate the metrics, as an infrastructure project my self I am worried that by applying I am just going to be wasting weeks of my time to get an abstain or no and basically be pre-determined on the decision of my proposal.

I done some DD and it looks like voters in majority are only interested in supporting protocols and not infrastructure projects from when looking at another infrastructure project to get ideas on how to apply and what metrics to provide for my own proposal. Its like if a well known infrastructure project like this [READY] [GF: Phase 1 Cycle 3 Proposal] Infinity Wallet is getting no or abstain due to not been able to validate metrics even when its all over the place on most dapps and has traction, then how does any of us little projects have a chance? :frowning:

It seems really unfair to infrastructure projects like me. Infrastructure projects bring the most long term value and also have the most costs to support a chain, it seems pretty unfair to ignore/discard us because of metrics.

I would love to know if anyone or even @linda @Bobbay_StableLab could tell me if there is any point applying because how can I validate if I make a proposal and provide metrics, it seems impossible for infrastructure projects like me and others

I would suggest make the proposal and ask for feedback on discord and/or here, each proposal is different and its difficult to comment without reading it first.

1 Like

I dont think so though because if I cant validate metrics like the other project then voters will have the same issue with my proposal. Spending lots of time on a proposal, answering questions and etc, to just be written off from the start seems pointless.

I can only speak for myself but I wanted to add some clarification since this doesn’t include my other comments on why I abstained from that proposal. After reviewing for a few days (did not just write this off from the start), I was very much on the fence still with not being able to verify the metrics as one of the factors and if I were to vote a yes or no it would have determined the outcome of the proposal. I didn’t feel strongly enough in either direction. The other factors for me were I am not an expert on wallets but am generally not a fan of closed-source wallets.

Abstaining does not affect the vote in terms of getting towards the 51% yes so I don’t think that my decision as a delegate to abstain in that proposal should mean you shouldn’t consider applying as each proposal is different. However, I would recommend getting some basic feedback / sense check in Discord first on what you’re building.

1 Like

My problem is I dont want to be wasting weeks of time to get abstain or no because I cant prove my metrics, as you mention your decision as #1 voter seems to be on metrics and many others also, but how can I prove? I am not as big as that project and I doubt as well known so there really seems to be no chance for me or other infrastructure projects

Also is closed source a issue? Because I thought that OP proposals were open to all types of projects especially since OP is closed at the moment it self and most infrastructure projects are closed source