Voting Cycle 4 begins Thursday (July 21) at 12pm PST / 7pm GMT and runs until Wednesday (August 3) at 12pm PST / 7pm GMT.
This will be the last voting cycle for Season 1 of OP Governance. For more info, read Governance Update #2 here.
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 4 is officially underway, and includes 6 proposals for voting. There are just a few notes that the Optimism Foundation would like to highlight going into this cycle:
This will be the last voting cycle for Season 1 of OP Governance, and a 3-week break will commence after this cycle. For more info, read Governance Update #2 here.
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 this behavior should be considered by delegates in voting**
Proposals
Aside from the approval/non-approval delineation, proposals are listed in order of first appearance on this forum.
Proposal E: Byte Mason Product Suite - voted yes. I’ve had enough interactions with them to see the quality and expertise they bring to the table. They’ll be a huge value add for Optimism and Balancer/BeethovenX will work closely with them to bring some really cool stuff to life.
Proposal D: xToken - voted yes. Overall I think the proposal is reasonable and the tech is solid. Getting it into the hands of users on Optimism should lead to good things.
Proposal C: dHedge - voted yes. They’ve seen some initial usage already on Optimism and they have a good reputation from my experience. Should be a value add for the ecosystem.
Proposal B: Boardroom - voted yes. Tooling around governance is a great thing, especially since governance is so important for Optimism. Looking forward to what these people do in the future.
Proposal A: Rocket Pool - voted yes. I view liquid staked ETH on L2’s to be one of the easiest ways we can onboard tons of users and TVL. Balancer/BeethovenX will be working with the rocket pool team to support their rollout on Optimism.
One clarification to original post above – the proposal from Byte Mason was incorrectly labeled as “without Explicit Delegate Approval,” but they did get delegate approval just before the time window ended.
The post above has been updated to include Byte Mason with the set of proposals that do have delegate approval to go to vote. Sorry for the mixup
Just cast my votes, outlining my logic in this video: - YouTube
I want to bring attention to the dHEDGE proposal. The proposal, as it stands now, is basically using the value of the granted OP tokens directly to juice the price of dHEDGE’s native token.
In my opinion, this is a terrible use of these funds. I outline the logic of how this is happening in the video linked above (link with timestamp).
This is nothing against dHEDGE as a platform, I recommend that they re-submit a proposal that focuses less on incentivizing their native staking of their own token, and more on incentivizing overall platform usage.
With this Season 1 comes to an end.
A: Rocket Pool - Yes
B: Boardroom - Yes
C: dHedge - Yes
D: xToken - No
E: Byte Mason Product Suite - Yes
F: GARD - No
G: Beefy - Yes
See you in season 2
Edit 1:- With recent development on Byte Mason, I have decide to change my vote from Yes to Abstain.
Heads up – two proposals which had been marked as ready were not included in the above thread, and have just now been added to snapshot as well as the roundup thread:
BarnBridge – Proposal H – DOES NOT have explicit delegate approval
QiDao – Proposal I – DOES have explicit delegate approval
May be its just me but whats the point of having deadline, draft, operating manual when team can include proposals anytime they want. Rules are meant to be respected, especially the written one.
Is there any reason for this exception ?
We saw the same thing in Phase 0, Cycle 1, 2 and now in this cycle too.
I generally agree–for what it’s worth, their inclusion is an attempt to abide by the written rules as opposed to breaking them. In these cases, as well as those you mentioned in previous cycles, the proposals which were included later did meet the written criteria, with the authors having marked [READY] before the deadline, etc. The problem is that they were missed in the initial roundup threads/snapshot generation, an oversight by the Foundation, not the authors. In these instances where authors did follow the rules, but the Foundation failed to initially include, we’ve elected to include them late, with the same cutoff date as others, as opposed to pushing them to the next cycle.
Hopefully that makes sense and seems justifiable to you. It’s definitely not ideal, and Season 2 should include a more rigorous (or potentially automated) path forward so this doesn’t happen again.
Since Tarot’s proposal was only marked [READY] 3 days ago (after the cutoff for the cycle 4), it should not be included in the cycle. As explained above, the only late inclusions we have entertained are those cases where it was an error by the Foundation to not initially include them, which is not the case for Tarot.
I would lobby for Tarot’s inclusion in this round of proposals. While technically they did not meet the deadline for swapping the proposal to READY, I don’t think it makes sense to penalize protocols who are ready to expand their deployment into Optimism for missing a governance deadline slightly. Tarot, unlike many of the other protocols, are already live on Optimism and have users. Their team and product are great, I have used them for a long time on Fantom. I see no benefit to denying them a grant while they are live and trying to attract users.
A: Rocket Pool - Yes
Rocket pool has a large name and is known for its staking. Great way to support liquidity in the op ecosystem. It lasts six months, which is a suitable amount of time too.
B: Boardroom - Yes
This is a great product to simplify the workflow for delegates. We have used boardroom multiple times and find it to be a great tool.
C: dHedge - No
We do not agree with artificially raising the value of DHT in this manner.
D: xToken - Yes
We will support this. Since it is being split across 3 different projects, it is essentially 300k each. Not too hard to digest.
E: Byte Mason Product Suite - Yes
Co-incentives are matched, last a good time, and have a good track record.
F: GARD - No
Far too large, not launched on optimism.
G: Beefy - Yes
It is live now, and they have gained a large amount of TVL. Overall, the proposal looks strong, and we will support it.
H: BarnBridge - No
I: QiDAO - Yes
We appreciate that they changed their proposal based on feedback. They matched with x1.7 incentives, allow OP as collateral, and have been live for a while.
I suggest a small window between the Voting Cycle Roundup post (signaling projects to include) and the start of the voting cycle. 2 or 3 days should be enough to confirm if all projects got included in the post.
