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?
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? 
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
Hey,
These are very valid concerns and I understand why you feel this way but an infrastructure project isn’t pre-determined an instant no. As I wrote, our initial vote was yes but we decided to change our mind, and we will continue to treat each proposal with an unbiased view.
At StableNode we have a combination of factors that we take into consideration, but on a minimal level, smaller amounts of OP requested with supporting metrics and a detailed explanation of OP distribution make it easier to support a proposal. Those protocols with a proven track record have a better rate of getting passed but it’s because they have proven themselves.
I don’t want to delve deeper into our reasons for saying no to Infinity Wallet because I will add them to our delegate thread but the best way is to probably make a proposal. No one is going to “write you off” as you say above but see these proposals as a way to get your project out there. I personally read about every protocol that goes to vote and that itself is a marketing tool and a way to gather feedback.
Yeah, the speed these are coming does seem a bit fast. It’s also tough to get some visibility into the process for a newbie like myself.
Here is a roundup for my votes on Cycle 3 along with links on each proposal and forum post where I explain why each vote was made.
2 Likes
DONE ，nice project，keep optimism
Cycle 3 votes
A: Superfluid: Against
B: Kromatika: Against
C: Hundred Finance: For
D: Biconomy: For
E: Dope Wars: Against
F: Infinity Wallet: For
G: Dexguru: Against
H: Overnight: Against
I: Saddle Finance: For
My vote breakdown:
Proposal A: Superfluid - FOR 
Money streaming is a novel use case of crypto and i’m super excited to see it grow, especially on optimism. 150k $OP requested is also a reasonable budget for a project with this level of traction
Proposal B: Kromatika - AGAINST 
300k $OP requested, 50% to be spent on influencer marketing. My voting will always be heavily biased into builders and honest users. I’m not comfortable with spending $OP for paid tweets.
Proposal C: Hundred Finance - ABSTAIN 
Abstaining because i don’t understand the process behind this defi system.
Proposal D: Biconomy - FOR
Biconomy does a great job at lowering the barriers to use crypto. I’m hugely in favor of using $OP to bootstrap reimbursing fees to Optimism users. The amount requested is big, but as far as i understand it will not be used to directly cover costs.
Proposal E: Dope Wars - AGAINST
I just don’t believe this type of a game works best in driving optimism adoption. I would be more comfortable with assigning 100k $OP since the project already exists and has traction and could use it to build something cool, but 1m $OP is way too much.
Proposal F: Infinity Wallet - AGAINST
500k $OP requested. Directed fully into funding a non-open source project.
Proposal G: Dexguru - AGAINST
300k $OP requested, the distribution will be decided by a token that doesn’t exist yet, which introduces a potential for abuse.
Proposal H: Overnight.fi - ABSTAIN
Abstaining since i don’t understand this value proposition.
Proposal I: Saddle Finance - ABSTAIN
Abstaining since i don’t understand this value proposition.
Free thoughts:
-
Maybe this is just me, but i would appreciate some criteria for voting in these “ecosystem” rounds. I signed up to be a delegate to work on funding public goods and this voting requires thinking in a different context.
-
Changed AGAINST to ABSTAIN for projects that i don’t understand. In general i assume that overcomplicated defi (gauges, rebases, non-utility-staking) serve to build ponzis and speculation projects, but I don’t want this bias to work against legitimate defi projects.
The good news:
Our votes in this cycle match the current results 100% and wouldn’t have changed the result.
A: Superfluid: Yes
B: Kromatika: No
C: Hundred Finance: Yes
D: Biconomy: Yes
E: Dope Wars: No
F: Infinity Wallet: No
G: Dexguru: No
H: Overnight: No
I: Saddle Finance: No
The bad news:
We created our Gnosis Safe on the Ethereum network and were able to vote on the first 2 proposals but we were not able to vote this time. Due to a vulnerability, Snapshot has changed their settings last week for security reasons and is only allowing votes from safes on the same network from now on.
We’ve been in touch with Snapshot to resolve this (they were helpful!) and ultimately we tried to recreate our Safe on the Optimism network with the same address according to a tutorial and with help from a friend from Gnosis Safe but unfortunately the network address on Optimism differs from the Ethereum network address and they do not recommend redeploying and using the address on another network and make it consequently hard for future use.
Solution - Manual redelegation is needed!
As currently delegated tokens can not be used to vote on proposals anymore(!), we have created a new account that we will use from now on to vote on Op proposals. We ask the Op team to change our delegate address to the new address to make sure no new votes are delegated to our old address.
We hope you consider redelegating with us but we understand if you pick 1 of the other great delegates.
This is our new delegate address:
Superdelegate.eth - 0xA56DfbE8010a8830a9Fe5B56e8efF7236e277120
1 Like
Sorry to hear you guys can’t vote this cycle, might not have any option but to have everything relegated manually as I don’t think the team can tweak delegations for you.
1 Like
are there any updates about the new voting cycle?
@arabianhorses similar to last cycle, once current cycle is completed, we will get some time to review and provide the feedback and voting for next cycle begin. So, in 2 weeks.
1 Like