Voting Cycle #4: Roundup

Tarot’s proposal was also marked as READY, but was not included in Snapshot for voting cycle #4.

As other proposals were just added, can Tarot be added as well?

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.

2 Likes

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.

1 Like

Thank you, Ben. And yes, it does make sense.

Looking forward towards next iteration. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

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.

1 Like

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.

3 Likes

Here are our votes for the current cycle. Brief reasoning is given below in project proposal threads.

A: Rocket Pool - Yes
B: Boardroom - Yes
C: dHedge - Yes
D: xToken & Gamma - Yes
E: Byte Mason - Tending to No, waiting for clarification
F: GARD - No
G: Beefy - Yes
H: BarnBridge - No
I: QiDAO - Yes

Overall, we mainly looked at alignment with Optimism and potential to grow Optimism (vs. costs). The Asks seemed rather large from most teams compared to last rounds. The proposal quality did improve though and we belief most projects can add significant value to Optimism (with these proposals).

My votes are in! Personally, much of my decision-making here has been based around the quality of the team and their willingness to listen to feedback from the community / answer outstanding questions and concerns. I expect some of the proposals I voted No on will likely be voted through once there’s better information / better terms are presented.

A: Rocket Pool - Yes
B: Boardroom - Yes
C: dHedge - No
D: xToken & Gamma - Yes
E: Byte Mason - No
F: GARD - No
G: Beefy - Yes
H: BarnBridge - No
I: QiDAO - Yes

My votes are as follows:

A: Rocket Pool - For
B: Boardroom - Against
C: dHedge - Against
D: xToken - Against
E: Byte Mason Product Suite - Against
F: GARD - Against
G: Beefy - For

My vote:
A: Rocket Pool - Yes
B: Boardroom - No
C: dHedge - No
D: xToken & Gamma - Yes
E: Byte Mason - No
F: GARD - No
G: Beefy - Yes
H: BarnBridge - No
I: QiDAO - Yes

1 Like

Hi all - our votes and rationale for Voting Cycle #4 are below:

My votes:
A: Rocket Pool - For
B: Boardroom - Against
C: dHedge - For
D: xToken & Gamma - Against
E: Byte Mason - For
F: GARD - Against
G: Beefy - For
H: BarnBridge - Against
I: QiDAO - For

A couple of the proposals express meaningful incentive matches. I’m not sure what the incentive match process is currently (I’ll do some research when I find time), but I think it would be prudent to have a sound framework around the incentive match mechanics so that neither proposers or delegates feel slighted. Delegate for or against votes are cast based on the express match promise from proposers, I think this should be as unambiguous as possible prior to funding $OP tokens.

See my Mirror post for further Cycle 4 vote rationale.

1 Like

Votes are in!

Great to be part of this community and governance thus far.

My votes:
A: Rocket Pool - For
B: Boardroom - For
C: dHedge - For
D: xToken & Gamma - For
E: Byte Mason - For
F: GARD - Against
G: Beefy - For
H: BarnBridge - Against
I: QiDAO - Against

Hi fam
1: Rocket Pool - For
2: Boardroom - Against
3: dHedge - For
4: xToken & Gamma - Against
5: Byte Mason - For
6: GARD - Against
7: Beefy - For
8: BarnBridge - Against
9: QiDAO - For

Here’s summary of my votes for this round:

RocketPool - YES
Boardroom - YES
dHEGDE - NO
xToken Terminal and Gamma Strategies - YES
Beefy Finance - YES
Byte Mason Product Suite - Abstain
QiDao - Abstain

nice steps on the growth of the ecosystem

Voted as follows:

A: Rocket Pool - Yes

  • Would like to see Rocket Pool gain traction as a competitor to Lido’s sETH as Rocket Pool is much more decentralized as of now. Competition is good

  • Incentivizing rETH will eventually lead to enough liquidity on OP to use as collateral. Additionally OP could become the place to be for taking out rETH loans as liquidity begets liquidity

B: Boardroom - Yes

  • Love this as we need a one-stop shop to learn about OP delegates then actually be able to delegate in the same place.

C: dHedge - No

  • Hmmm don’t like that users have to purchase DHT tokens either

D: xToken & Gamma - Yes

  • Excellent synergy between all three protocols

E: Byte Mason - No

  • Product was not even live

F: GARD - No

  • Thats a lot of tokens requested. I think this can be done more efficiently

G: Beefy - Yes

  • I have a high level of confidence that the liquidity brought into Beefy will stay there long term. 70% of TVL has up to this point

H: BarnBridge - No

  • Too mucgh $OP requested

I: QiDAO - Yes

  • Large existing user base from other chains. This will introduce many users to OP ecosystem who otherwise may not have checked us out
1 Like

Oh I missed this proposal. Glad it’s going well.