Cycle #27 began on Thursday August 29th at 19:00 GMT and runs until Wednesday September 18th at 19:00 GMT. Additionally, the Citizens’ House will have a one-week period to veto any Upgrades approved by the Token House, immediately following the conclusion of the Token House Voting Period.
A snapshot of delegate voting weights will be taken at the time votes go live. Voting will take place at https://vote.optimism.io/ starting on Thursday, September 12th at 19:00 GMT. The Citizens’ House veto vote will take place via Snapshot from Thursday, September 19th to Wednesday, September 25th.
The Grants Council has conducted a rank vote on all mission requests, including those seeking sponsorship, and has decided to move the top 8 ranked requests to a Token House vote. This decision aligns with the available allocation of 1,725,000 OP.
Hi everyone! - I’ve been receiving questions about the rolling mission request approvals and wanted to clarify a few things:
The Grants Council should consider all requests for Sponsorship but does not have to accept any of those requests. Providing feedback on all proposed ideas would create an onerous review process to be conducted in addition to the grant review process they already run. The Grants Council was required to run grants processes for Mission Requests they didn’t sponsor in S5 and it creates a principle-agent problem, which is why they ultimately have the discretion to choose which Mission Requests move to a vote.
The Mission Requests proposed by the Grants Council were also subject to rank voting among Council members, which prevents any member from unilaterally moving a Mission Request to a vote. Votes linked here: Voting Cycle Roundup #27 - #3 by Gonna.eth
All Mission Requests must be approval ranked / approved by the Token House, meaning ultimate authority still remains with the Token House. If you suspect any Mission Request is not in the best interest of the Collective, don’t approve it and comment with your concerns on the proposal forum post.
Members of the Grants Council will NOT be allowed to approve their own Mission Request proposals. This is different than the exception to the standard policy we made in the past, but I think is necessary as an additional measure against any self-dealing (and is consistent with our standard policy for all proposals outlined in the Optimist Expectations.)
Teams are chosen by the Grants Council, and Grants Council members are required to abstain from voting on any Mission Applications they are conflicted on. All applications are reviewed by 6 different reviewers, which further limits self-dealing. In the future, we could consider preventing members (and affiliates) of the Grants Council from applying to a proposal they personally authored.
If you ever suspect self-dealing among representatives (Council members), please refer to the “representative removal” proposal type outlined in the Operating Manual.
We believe that the OP Foundation budget should be primarily allocated for the Optimism Mainnet and Superchain. Therefore, we support this proposal, as we think it is more appropriate to use the undistributed tokens to fund projects.
We support the below projects because they seem to address the needs of the Superchain and Optimism. In our belief, there are still gaps in the infrastructure and aggregator aspects of the Superchain, and resolving these will pave the way for a more seamless and user-friendly experience. Therefore, we, as ITU Blockchain Delegation Committee, support the following projects in this proposal:
1. Request 1: Subsidized Audit Grants V2, 2. Request 2: Experimentation of Infrastructure Subsidies, 3. Request 3: Superchain Borrow/Lend Aggregator, 4. Request 6: Decentralized Solvers and Aggregators on OP Mainnet / Superchain
There are two proposals to vote on at