Voting Cycle 3 begins Thursday (July 7) at 12pm PST / 7pm GMT and runs until Wednesday (July 20) 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.
Voting Cycle 3 is officially underway, and includes 9 proposals for voting. Hopefully this will relieve some pressure which delegates faced in the rather large Cycle 2. There are just a few notes that the Optimism Foundation would like to highlight going into this cycle:
As stated in the OPerating Manual, it is the recommendation of the Optimism Foundation that at least one delegate (with >0.0005% of voting power) signals their belief that the proposal is ready for a vote before passing. As in the previous cycle, proposals which have not received explicit approval by a delegate are still included. But, as a reminder—such proposals have not correctly followed the rules laid out in the OPerating Manual, and such behavior should be considered by delegates in voting.
One proposal whose vote did not pass in Cycle 2 has been marked as ready for Cycle 3. This highlights an edge case which was not previously considered in the OPerating manual. The Optimism Foundation will make an updated release for the next cycle, but until then, this proposal has been re-included.
A bug was fixed in Snapshot for this cycle, so that Optimism-native contracts which have been delegated can now make votes.
Aside from the approval/non-approval delineation, proposals are listed in order of first appearance on this forum.
Note: this proposal was included in Voting Cycle 2 and did not pass. However, the authors (who have enough delegation to self-approve) have marked it to be included in the next cycle. This is an edge case that the Optimism Foundation had not previously considered, and the OPerating Manual will be updated to consider such edge cases going forward.
For now, the proposal is re-included.
It seems a bit quick to start a new round straight after the last round ended. 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.
Another thing I would like to point out, there are some delegates that are purposely voting NO for their competitors or friends competitors, I think there needs to be a mandate in place to prevent this. I find it very disrespectful to the projects and highly unprofessional from these delegates! These individuals are working against the Optimism mission and in the previous round some had their own proposals, this behaviour actually swayed a couple of proposals from majority yes to majority no which was unfair on those proposal.
Also after reviewing 17 projects from the last round and reading the comments from delegates I have noticed some are basing their decisions off of presuming without asking the proposal team questions and some are actually commenting false statements on proposals. I have seen a couple of projects defunct the information in some comments, yet some delegates ignore it for what reason I have no clue!
Words does not translate feeling properly so dont get me wrong but I believe we had ample amount of time to provide the feedback, some of the proposal are in draft mode from last 1 month and others are active from at least 2 week and that is enough time, at least in my opinion.
minimum of a 2 week break between rounds
I disagree with you on this, one thing that I really like and would like to see is iterative approach rather than start-stop approach. Pausing has other drawback too.
Another thing I would like to point out, there are some delegates that are purposely voting NO for their competitors or friends competitors
have seen a couple of projects defunct the information in some comments, yet some delegates ignore it for what reason I have no clue!
This is strong feedback and needs to be addressed, I would suggest you to collect your evidence to support your statement and reach out to Bobby or Vonnie via DM on discord. Also, if you have any suggestion for me, I would appreciate that too, my dm is open and my discord name is public.
There needs to be a committee in place to enforce rules to ensure delegates are kept to standards so we don’t see more of this behaviour
My fren, if this is has to work, OP vision of governance with its two pillar(token house and citizen house) in a truly decentralized way, we dont need rule, you are the rule.
Committee after committee will not work, can you say with 100% confidence that the committee will be true to its vision. We can work this out with active participation and positive criticism. Reach out to the team, by helping them you are helping us all.
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.
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.
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
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_StableNode 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