Name: StableLab
Delegate Address: stablenodegov.eth
Governance tracking: Boardroom, Internal tracker
Forum: Bobbay_StableLab
Discord: Bobbay# 4885
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Stablelab
Website: https://www.stablelab.xyz/blog
Newsletter: https://stablelab.substack.com/
Languages: English, Spanish, German, Dutch, Romanian, Korean, Chinese
About
StableLab is a governance firm focused on professional delegation, DAO framework design and product development. We work with various projects, from the ones just starting their journey to decentralization to the most prominent DeFi protocols.
Our systematic framework for DAOs covers governance methodologies, decentralized workforce, implementation, documentation, communication and community engagement. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, but we provide a framework of principles and tools we have developed throughout our experience.
We scale DAOs sustainably.
Experience
We are the leading professional delegate team with a track record across major DeFi protocols, including MakerDAO, Optimism, Aave, 1 inch, Balancer, Element, InstaDapp, Hop and more.
We pioneer delegation work through high governance standards, extensive research, hands-on expertise and the consistent use of a code of conduct. Pushing forward web 3 and DeFi since 2018 , StableLab’s co-founders previously spent 3 . 5 years at the Maker Foundation.
1600 × 900 162 KB
Governance delegates and roles currently (or previously held by StableLab).
View all our proposals, votes and milestones at stablelab.xyz /governance.
Values & Conduct
A. VALUES - A.R.T.
Active: We participate in every aspect of the governance process, from creating and presenting proposals to providing feedback in the forums and actively voting.
Research: Our decisions are backed by a team of experienced researchers and PhDs.
Trust: We act unbiased and transparent, according to our code of conduct - driven by a strong set of ethics and values.
B. DELEGATE CONDUCT
Use values to guide actions.
Maintain impartiality and transparency in participation.
Rely on data, research and prior expertise for proposals and votes.
Apply battle-tested internal policies for consistency.
Consult with the team for quality outcomes.
Our view on the Optimistic Vision
At StableNode, we believe that public funding is essential to developing a non-financial-driven web 3 . We believe that the focus should be on encouraging developers to take a different approach to web 3 and focus more on public goods where a lot of development is made. Even though public goods are necessary to the space, there is a lack of funding, making it a less attractive role for developers.
Initially, the blockchain space was born out of a need to change the current financial and political standards we have. The Optimistic vision details a necessary future and sets a new standard for public funding that is sustainable and will encourage new developers to focus on this field while not sacrificing the financial gain they would gain elsewhere.
Our view on the first three articles of the Working Constitution:
This is a “Working” Constitution.
Currently, we are in the exploration stage of governance, and it is refreshing to see a protocol acknowledge this and encourage continuous experimentation throughout the next few years.
Decentralized governance is a relatively new field within Web 3 . It is an important topic that we need to continue working on. Many problems, such as voting mechanisms, delegate incentives, and plutocracy, need to be tackled. We believe that the best way to succeed is to practically try new governance methods in protocols and understand what is successful or detrimental to a protocols governance framework. The theory is essential, but it can only get you so far. We are excited to be a delegate for a protocol that prioritizes experimentation.
OP Citizens and OP Holders will equally coexist within the Collective.
This experimentation hopes to tackle problems such as misaligned incentives through token holders or plutocracy. Such issues are prominent in the space and allow token holders to prioritize their financial gains over long-term improvement. With the citizen house maintaining control over the retroactive public funding it realigns incentives in a more fruitful manner.
Those individuals from the token house might be against public funding as this means reduced financial gains for themselves, but those from the citizen house who have no financial incentives for OP would want to see the space move forward and see those actors developing public goods be compensated fairly.
The Optimism Foundation will be a steward of the Optimism Collective and its early governance model.
We favor the foundation initially leading the governance front while the framework and structure of the OP governance are being built. With token holders and delegates initially not having a financial incentive to contribute, it is most likely that progress would be slower without a foundation. Over time as the structure and framework are built, as mentioned in the working collective, it would be expected that the foundation would slowly release the responsibilities to the DAO.
Disclosure
Through our holding company, we have invested in multiple projects to advance growth and governance for them. See the full list here.
We contribute to various protocols’ governance, such as MakerDAO, Optimism, Aave, 1 inch, Balancer, and Element. See the full list here.
When applicable, we will disclose potential conflicts of interest in our rationale.
Waiver of Liability
By delegating to StableLab, you acknowledge and agree that StableLab participates on a best efforts basis and StableLab will not be liable for any form of damages related to StableLab’s participation in governance.
StableLab is a governance firm that focuses on professional delegation, DAO framework design, and product development. They work with various projects in the DeFi space, providing a systematic framework for DAOs covering governance methodologies, decentralized workforce, implementation, documentation, communication, and community engagement. StableLab has experience working with major DeFi protocols and emphasizes values like active participation, research-backed decisions, and transparency. They discuss their views on public funding in web 3 and provide insights on articles from a working constitution related to decentralized governance. Additionally, they disclose their investments in projects and protocols and provide a waiver of liability for their governance participation.
Name: StableLab
Delegate Address: stablenodegov.eth
Governance tracking: Boardroom 6 , Internal tr…
Name: StableLab
Delegate Address: stablenodegov.eth
Governance tracking: Boardroom 6 , Internal tracker 3
Forum: Bobbay_StableLab
Discord: Bobbay# 4885
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Stablelab 3
Website: https://www.stablelab.xyz/blog 2
Newsletter: https://stablelab.substack.com/ 1
Languages: English, Spanish, German, Dutch, Romanian, Korean, Chinese
About
StableLab is a governance firm focused on professional delegation, DAO framework design and product development. We work with various projects, from the ones just starting their journey to decentralization to the most prominent DeFi protocols.
Our systematic framework for DAOs covers governance methodologies, decentralized workforce, implementation, documentation, communication and community engagement. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, but we provide a framework of principles and tools we have developed throughout our experience.
We scale DAOs sustainably.
Experience
We are the leading professional delegate team with a track record across major DeFi protocols, including MakerDAO, Optimism, Aave, 1 inch, Balancer, Element, InstaDapp, Hop and more.
We pioneer delegation work through high governance standards, extensive research, hands-on expertise and the consistent use of a code of conduct. Pushing forward web 3 and DeFi since 2018 , StableLab’s co-founders previously spent 3 . 5 years at the Maker Foundation.
1600 × 900 162 KB
Governance delegates and roles currently (or previously held by StableLab).
View all our proposals, votes and milestones at stablelab.xyz /governance 1 .
Values & Conduct
A. VALUES - A.R.T.
Active: We participate in every aspect of the governance process, from creating and presenting proposals to providing feedback in the forums and actively voting.
Research: Our decisions are backed by a team of experienced researchers and PhDs.
Trust: We act unbiased and transparent, according to our code of conduct 1 - driven by a strong set of ethics and values.
B. DELEGATE CONDUCT
Use values to guide actions.
Maintain impartiality and transparency in participation.
Rely on data, research and prior expertise for proposals and votes.
Apply battle-tested internal policies for consistency.
Consult with the team for quality outcomes.
Our view on the Optimistic Vision
At StableNode, we believe that public funding is essential to developing a non-financial-driven web 3 . We believe that the focus should be on encouraging developers to take a different approach to web 3 and focus more on public goods where a lot of development is made. Even though public goods are necessary to the space, there is a lack of funding, making it a less attractive role for developers.
Initially, the blockchain space was born out of a need to change the current financial and political standards we have. The Optimistic vision details a necessary future and sets a new standard for public funding that is sustainable and will encourage new developers to focus on this field while not sacrificing the financial gain they would gain elsewhere.
Our view on the first three articles of the Working Constitution:
This is a “Working” Constitution.
Currently, we are in the exploration stage of governance, and it is refreshing to see a protocol acknowledge this and encourage continuous experimentation throughout the next few years.
Decentralized governance is a relatively new field within Web 3 . It is an important topic that we need to continue working on. Many problems, such as voting mechanisms, delegate incentives, and plutocracy, need to be tackled. We believe that the best way to succeed is to practically try new governance methods in protocols and understand what is successful or detrimental to a protocols governance framework. The theory is essential, but it can only get you so far. We are excited to be a delegate for a protocol that prioritizes experimentation.
OP Citizens and OP Holders will equally coexist within the Collective.
This experimentation hopes to tackle problems such as misaligned incentives through token holders or plutocracy. Such issues are prominent in the space and allow token holders to prioritize their financial gains over long-term improvement. With the citizen house maintaining control over the retroactive public funding it realigns incentives in a more fruitful manner.
Those individuals from the token house might be against public funding as this means reduced financial gains for themselves, but those from the citizen house who have no financial incentives for OP would want to see the space move forward and see those actors developing public goods be compensated fairly.
The Optimism Foundation will be a steward of the Optimism Collective and its early governance model.
We favor the foundation initially leading the governance front while the framework and structure of the OP governance are being built. With token holders and delegates initially not having a financial incentive to contribute, it is most likely that progress would be slower without a foundation. Over time as the structure and framework are built, as mentioned in the working collective, it would be expected that the foundation would slowly release the responsibilities to the DAO.
Disclosure
Through our holding company, we have invested in multiple projects to advance growth and governance for them. See the full list here. 2
We contribute to various protocols’ governance, such as MakerDAO, Optimism, Aave, 1 inch, Balancer, and Element. See the full list here. 1
When applicable, we will disclose potential conflicts of interest in our rationale.
Waiver of Liability
By delegating to StableLab, you acknowledge and agree that StableLab participates on a best efforts basis and StableLab will not be liable for any form of damages related to StableLab’s participation in governance.
Voting Cycle 1
Proposal A
Vote: No
It doesn’t make sense to vote for all 24 projects in one vot…
Voting Cycle 1
Proposal A
Vote: No
It doesn’t make sense to vote for all 24 projects in one vote. Most users are unlikely to read all 24 proposals and thus can’t make an informed opinion. It would make sense to approve each individual proposal as each proposal is unique.
Proposal B
Vote: No
Deadlines are deadlines. Even though uniswap is an important partner, there are rules to follow and it is important that there are no exceptions to this rule. We are open to approving their application for their next cycle but it is unfair to give them special treatment.
An individual vote also makes it more likely to be passed so this might encourage other protocols in the future to purposely miss a deadline since uniswap got this treatment.
Proposal C
Vote: Yes
We believe grants are a great way to help the community.
Voting Cycle 1
Proposal A 5
Vote: No
It doesn’t make sense to vote for all 24 projects in one…
Voting Cycle 1
Proposal A 5
Vote: No
It doesn’t make sense to vote for all 24 projects in one vote. Most users are unlikely to read all 24 proposals and thus can’t make an informed opinion. It would make sense to approve each individual proposal as each proposal is unique.
Proposal B 2
Vote: No
Deadlines are deadlines. Even though uniswap is an important partner, there are rules to follow and it is important that there are no exceptions to this rule. We are open to approving their application for their next cycle but it is unfair to give them special treatment.
An individual vote also makes it more likely to be passed so this might encourage other protocols in the future to purposely miss a deadline since uniswap got this treatment.
Proposal C
Vote: Yes
We believe grants are a great way to help the community.
Voting Cycle 3
Proposal A: Superfluid - Yes
Superfluid has a great product and track record. We p…
Voting Cycle 3
Proposal A: Superfluid - Yes
Superfluid has a great product and track record. We prefer that superfluid has opted for 150 k of $OP to last 6 months and would encourage them to apply again when they have more evidence of their success.
Once we can evaluate the success of superfluid adoption on Optimism it will be much easier to request further tokens or even a larger amount (if necessary).
Proposal B: Kromatika - No
We aren’t in support of using such a large percentage of the tokens for influence marketing. 50 % is too large of an amount and could be spent better elsewhere such as grants for educational content or refunds for bridging. If the % spent on influencer was reduced or spent on educational content for users then that is more ideal.
Proposal C: Hundred Finance - Yes
We are in support of this proposal for numerous reasons. The hundred finance team aligns themselves greatly with optimism and they have shown this behavior with their promise to return the OP tokens if they identify that the extra OP tokens aren’t contributing to an increased TVL.
Not only that but it is a reasonable request of 300 k tokens and they have been active on Optimism for a few months. Albeit there is only $ 400 k on Optimism they have shown signs of success and this grant can help boost TVL.
Proposal D: Biconomy - Yes
Biconomy has a great track record and after diving deeper into your statistics and work with other protocols, it would be great to support this project. Even though the OP request is quite large, we feel that it is a suitable amount since a majority will be spent on the ecosystem and gas grants.
It would be great to see more of their blogs similar to this in the future that showcase gas savings in projects that use their products as it would help highlight how the OP grant is helping users onboard.
Proposal E: Dope Wars - No
The amount requested (one million) is far too large and would be better if it was split up into batches rather than an all-in-one grant.
Proposal F: Infinity Wallet - No
In the previous cycle we voted yes, but we had a change of mind as we share a similar concern about open-source and a lack of metrics to support the proposal.
Proposal G: Dexguru - No
DexGuru is a helpful project but the token distribution is not clearly tied to supporting the optimism ecosystem. The grant explanation is very vague and doesn’t help us understand where 500 , 000 OP is going.
Proposal H: Overnight - No
It is an interesting idea but there is no live product + no co-incentives. Using USD+ isn’t a co-incentive as its daily yield is part of the aspect but it is an interesting experiment. As the OP request isn’t too high we are going to vote yes.
Proposal I: Saddle Finance - No
It is a very short term focus as as it focuses solely on LM and only across 3 months.
Voting Cycle 3
Proposal A: Superfluid 2 - Yes
Superfluid has a great product and track record. …
Voting Cycle 3
Proposal A: Superfluid 2 - Yes
Superfluid has a great product and track record. We prefer that superfluid has opted for 150 k of $OP to last 6 months and would encourage them to apply again when they have more evidence of their success.
Once we can evaluate the success of superfluid adoption on Optimism it will be much easier to request further tokens or even a larger amount (if necessary).
Proposal B: Kromatika 1 - No
We aren’t in support of using such a large percentage of the tokens for influence marketing. 50 % is too large of an amount and could be spent better elsewhere such as grants for educational content or refunds for bridging. If the % spent on influencer was reduced or spent on educational content for users then that is more ideal.
Proposal C: Hundred Finance - Yes
We are in support of this proposal for numerous reasons. The hundred finance team aligns themselves greatly with optimism and they have shown this behavior with their promise to return the OP tokens if they identify that the extra OP tokens aren’t contributing to an increased TVL.
Not only that but it is a reasonable request of 300 k tokens and they have been active on Optimism for a few months. Albeit there is only $ 400 k on Optimism they have shown signs of success and this grant can help boost TVL.
Proposal D: Biconomy 2 - Yes
Biconomy has a great track record and after diving deeper into your statistics and work with other protocols, it would be great to support this project. Even though the OP request is quite large, we feel that it is a suitable amount since a majority will be spent on the ecosystem and gas grants.
It would be great to see more of their blogs similar to this in the future that showcase gas savings in projects that use their products as it would help highlight how the OP grant is helping users onboard.
Proposal E: Dope Wars 1 - No
The amount requested (one million) is far too large and would be better if it was split up into batches rather than an all-in-one grant.
Proposal F: Infinity Wallet 2 - No
In the previous cycle we voted yes, but we had a change of mind as we share a similar concern about open-source and a lack of metrics to support the proposal.
Proposal G: Dexguru 1 - No
DexGuru is a helpful project but the token distribution is not clearly tied to supporting the optimism ecosystem. The grant explanation is very vague and doesn’t help us understand where 500 , 000 OP is going.
Proposal H: Overnight 1 - No
It is an interesting idea but there is no live product + no co-incentives. Using USD+ isn’t a co-incentive as its daily yield is part of the aspect but it is an interesting experiment. As the OP request isn’t too high we are going to vote yes.
Proposal I: Saddle Finance 1 - No
It is a very short term focus as as it focuses solely on LM and only across 3 months.
Hi @Bobbay_StableLab - would you be willing to please take a moment to review the posts I have made…
Hi @Bobbay_StableLab - would you be willing to please take a moment to review the posts I have made in regards to this and Saddle?
I don’t think the incentive structure was communicated clearly enough across Discord to here; and so my hopes are this may help shed further light on how Saddle is committed to a long term collaboration and LM program.
Weston
Name: StableLab Delegate Address: stablenodegov.eth Governance tracking: Boardroom 3 , Internal tr…
Name: StableLab Delegate Address: stablenodegov.eth Governance tracking: Boardroom 3 , Internal tracker 2 Forum: Bobbay_StableLab Discord: Bobbay# 4885 Twitter: https://twitter.com/Stablelab 2 Website: https://www.stablelab.xyz/blog 1 Newsletter: https://stablelab.substack.com/ Languages: English, Spanish, German, Dutch, Romanian, Korean, Chinese About StableLab is a governance firm focused on professional delegation, DAO framework design and product development. We work with various projects, from the ones just starting their journey to decentralization to the most prominent DeFi protocols. Our systematic framework for DAOs covers governance methodologies, decentralized workforce, implementation, documentation, communication and community engagement. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, but we provide a framework of principles and tools we have developed throughout our experience. We scale DAOs sustainably. Experience We are the leading professional delegate team with a track record across major DeFi protocols, including MakerDAO, Optimism, Aave, 1 inch, Balancer, Element, InstaDapp, Hop and more. We pioneer delegation work through high governance standards, extensive research, hands-on expertise and the consistent use of a code of conduct. Pushing forward web 3 and DeFi since 2018 , StableLab’s co-founders previously spent 3 . 5 years at the Maker Foundation. 1600 × 900 162 KB Governance delegates and roles currently (or previously held by StableLab). View all our proposals, votes and milestones at stablelab.xyz /governance. Values & Conduct A. VALUES - A.R.T. Active: We participate in every aspect of the governance process, from creating and presenting proposals to providing feedback in the forums and actively voting. Research: Our decisions are backed by a team of experienced researchers and PhDs. Trust: We act unbiased and transparent, according to our code of conduct - driven by a strong set of ethics and values. B. DELEGATE CONDUCT Use values to guide actions. Maintain impartiality and transparency in participation. Rely on data, research and prior expertise for proposals and votes. Apply battle-tested internal policies for consistency. Consult with the team for quality outcomes. Our view on the Optimistic Vision At StableNode, we believe that public funding is essential to developing a non-financial-driven web 3 . We believe that the focus should be on encouraging developers to take a different approach to web 3 and focus more on public goods where a lot of development is made. Even though public goods are necessary to the space, there is a lack of funding, making it a less attractive role for developers. Initially, the blockchain space was born out of a need to change the current financial and political standards we have. The Optimistic vision details a necessary future and sets a new standard for public funding that is sustainable and will encourage new developers to focus on this field while not sacrificing the financial gain they would gain elsewhere. Our view on the first three articles of the Working Constitution: This is a “Working” Constitution. Currently, we are in the exploration stage of governance, and it is refreshing to see a protocol acknowledge this and encourage continuous experimentation throughout the next few years. Decentralized governance is a relatively new field within Web 3 . It is an important topic that we need to continue working on. Many problems, such as voting mechanisms, delegate incentives, and plutocracy, need to be tackled. We believe that the best way to succeed is to practically try new governance methods in protocols and understand what is successful or detrimental to a protocols governance framework. The theory is essential, but it can only get you so far. We are excited to be a delegate for a protocol that prioritizes experimentation. OP Citizens and OP Holders will equally coexist within the Collective. This experimentation hopes to tackle problems such as misaligned incentives through token holders or plutocracy. Such issues are prominent in the space and allow token holders to prioritize their financial gains over long-term improvement. With the citizen house maintaining control over the retroactive public funding it realigns incentives in a more fruitful manner. Those individuals from the token house might be against public funding as this means reduced financial gains for themselves, but those from the citizen house who have no financial incentives for OP would want to see the space move forward and see those actors developing public goods be compensated fairly. The Optimism Foundation will be a steward of the Optimism Collective and its early governance model. We favor the foundation initially leading the governance front while the framework and structure of the OP governance are being built. With token holders and delegates initially not having a financial incentive to contribute, it is most likely that progress would be slower without a foundation. Over time as the structure and framework are built, as mentioned in the working collective, it would be expected that the foundation would slowly release the responsibilities to the DAO. Disclosure Through our holding company, we have invested in multiple projects to advance growth and governance for them. See the full list here. 1 We contribute to various protocols’ governance, such as MakerDAO, Optimism, Aave, 1 inch, Balancer, and Element. See the full list here. When applicable, we will disclose potential conflicts of interest in our rationale. Waiver of Liability By delegating to StableLab, you acknowledge and agree that StableLab participates on a best efforts basis and StableLab will not be liable for any form of damages related to StableLab’s participation in governance.
Voting Cycle 1 Proposal A 4 Vote: No It doesn’t make sense to vote for all 24 projects in one…
Voting Cycle 1 Proposal A 4 Vote: No It doesn’t make sense to vote for all 24 projects in one vote. Most users are unlikely to read all 24 proposals and thus can’t make an informed opinion. It would make sense to approve each individual proposal as each proposal is unique. Proposal B 2 Vote: No Deadlines are deadlines. Even though uniswap is an important partner, there are rules to follow and it is important that there are no exceptions to this rule. We are open to approving their application for their next cycle but it is unfair to give them special treatment. An individual vote also makes it more likely to be passed so this might encourage other protocols in the future to purposely miss a deadline since uniswap got this treatment. Proposal C Vote: Yes We believe grants are a great way to help the community.
Voting Cycle 3 Proposal A: Superfluid 2 - Yes Superfluid has a great product and track record. …
Voting Cycle 3 Proposal A: Superfluid 2 - Yes Superfluid has a great product and track record. We prefer that superfluid has opted for 150 k of $OP to last 6 months and would encourage them to apply again when they have more evidence of their success. Once we can evaluate the success of superfluid adoption on Optimism it will be much easier to request further tokens or even a larger amount (if necessary). Proposal B: Kromatika 1 - No We aren’t in support of using such a large percentage of the tokens for influence marketing. 50 % is too large of an amount and could be spent better elsewhere such as grants for educational content or refunds for bridging. If the % spent on influencer was reduced or spent on educational content for users then that is more ideal. Proposal C: Hundred Finance - Yes We are in support of this proposal for numerous reasons. The hundred finance team aligns themselves greatly with optimism and they have shown this behavior with their promise to return the OP tokens if they identify that the extra OP tokens aren’t contributing to an increased TVL. Not only that but it is a reasonable request of 300 k tokens and they have been active on Optimism for a few months. Albeit there is only $ 400 k on Optimism they have shown signs of success and this grant can help boost TVL. Proposal D: Biconomy 2 - Yes Biconomy has a great track record and after diving deeper into your statistics and work with other protocols, it would be great to support this project. Even though the OP request is quite large, we feel that it is a suitable amount since a majority will be spent on the ecosystem and gas grants. It would be great to see more of their blogs similar to this in the future that showcase gas savings in projects that use their products as it would help highlight how the OP grant is helping users onboard. Proposal E: Dope Wars 1 - No The amount requested (one million) is far too large and would be better if it was split up into batches rather than an all-in-one grant. Proposal F: Infinity Wallet 2 - No In the previous cycle we voted yes, but we had a change of mind as we share a similar concern about open-source and a lack of metrics to support the proposal. Proposal G: Dexguru 1 - No DexGuru is a helpful project but the token distribution is not clearly tied to supporting the optimism ecosystem. The grant explanation is very vague and doesn’t help us understand where 500 , 000 OP is going. Proposal H: Overnight 1 - No It is an interesting idea but there is no live product + no co-incentives. Using USD+ isn’t a co-incentive as its daily yield is part of the aspect but it is an interesting experiment. As the OP request isn’t too high we are going to vote yes. Proposal I: Saddle Finance 1 - No It is a very short term focus as as it focuses solely on LM and only across 3 months.
Hi @Bobbay_StableLab - would you be willing to please take a moment to review the posts I have made…
Hi @Bobbay_StableLab - would you be willing to please take a moment to review the posts I have made in regards to this and Saddle? I don’t think the incentive structure was communicated clearly enough across Discord to here; and so my hopes are this may help shed further light on how Saddle is committed to a long term collaboration and LM program. Weston
Yeh sure happy to review. Probably better to @ me in that thread than here because this is just for…
Yeh sure happy to review. Probably better to @ me in that thread than here because this is just for voting updates btw
Yeh sure happy to review. Probably better to @ me in that thread than here because this is just for…
Yeh sure happy to review. Probably better to @ me in that thread than here because this is just for voting updates btw
A: Rocket Pool - Yes
Rocket pool has a large name and is known for its staking. Great way to suppor…
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 300 k 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
Changes were very last minute, so not sure what happened here. Going to vote no, but happy to see a reviewed proposal in the future.
I: QiDAO - Yes
We appreciate that they changed their proposal based on feedback. They matched with x 1 . 7 incentives, allow OP as collateral, and have been live for a while.
We will post our reflection of season 1 in a few days.
A: Rocket Pool - Yes Rocket pool has a large name and is known for its staking. Great way to suppor…
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 300 k 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 Changes were very last minute, so not sure what happened here. Going to vote no, but happy to see a reviewed proposal in the future. I: QiDAO - Yes We appreciate that they changed their proposal based on feedback. They matched with x 1 . 7 incentives, allow OP as collateral, and have been live for a while. We will post our reflection of season 1 in a few days.
Season 1 Reflection
Season 1 has come to an end, and we at StableNode, would like to take the t…
Season 1 Reflection
Season 1 has come to an end, and we at StableNode, would like to take the time to reflect on the past four voting cycles.
There we 38 proposals over four voting cycles, with the initial cycle being a batch vote.
Voting cycle # 1 - 3
Voting cycle # 2 - 17
Voting cycle # 3 - 9
Voting cycle # 4 - 9
We voted 16 Yes’s and 22 No’s. To see our voting history and the reasons, check out our delegate thread.
optimism votes 1024 × 768 53 . 8 KB
Governance Update # 2 provides a good overview of the problems faced by the community, and we echo these concerns as there were too many proposals to work your way through, both in terms of voting and providing feedback. Specifically, voting cycle # 2 was a large number of proposals, and we believe that such a large amount can act as a deterrent for individuals to get involved in the governance process.
Voter apathy is a prominent issue within decentralized governance, and when possible, we should minimize the obstacles that come with participating in decentralized governance. We don’t necessarily mean to reduce the workload/number of proposals but to find a more effective way to allow voters, especially individuals, to continue to participate in OP governance.
We also recommend using a tool like Messari governor keep track of the proposals in preliminary discussions and the active vote. The discourse and discord can get a bit overwhelming sometimes, so a quick check there to find the preliminary discussion is short.
Regarding the proposals, we recommend that future applications use previous successful proposals to help write their application. Proposals should be clear and detailed, updated post-community feedback, and contain all relevant links.
Using Boardroom’s voter track record and cross-referencing it with the history of some of the Optimism votes, it seems that even a few large delegates have stopped voting. Voting cycle 4 hasn’t concluded yet, so not everyone would have the 38 votes (the first vote was a test).
We aren’t sure of the reason for the reduced participation, but it could be due to many proposals, lack of incentives, or other reasons. We encourage delegators to re-delegate to those delegates who actively participate in Optimism governance.
One reason is that Snapshot does not support voting via Gnosis Safe, so delegates using a Gnosis Safe would be unable to vote. There is no solution yet.
SafeGuardian: hey @Bobbay_StableLab - just wanted to clarify that Snapshot does support voting via Gnosis Safe. It just requires an on-chain tx as opposed to off-chain. Off-chain is possible, but you need to set a Snapshot delegate (Snapshot) using an EOA (e.g. Metamask).
There is a dedicated Gnosis Safe App on OP for Snapshot - Safe
Season 1 Reflection
Season 1 has come to an end, and we at StableNode, would like to take the t…
Season 1 Reflection
Season 1 has come to an end, and we at StableNode, would like to take the time to reflect on the past four voting cycles.
There we 38 proposals over four voting cycles, with the initial cycle being a batch vote.
Voting cycle # 1 - 3
Voting cycle # 2 - 17
Voting cycle # 3 - 9
Voting cycle # 4 - 9
We voted 16 Yes’s and 22 No’s. To see our voting history and the reasons, check out our delegate thread.
optimism votes 1024 × 768 53 . 8 KB
Governance Update # 2 2 provides a good overview of the problems faced by the community, and we echo these concerns as there were too many proposals to work your way through, both in terms of voting and providing feedback. Specifically, voting cycle # 2 was a large number of proposals, and we believe that such a large amount can act as a deterrent for individuals to get involved in the governance process.
Voter apathy is a prominent issue within decentralized governance, and when possible, we should minimize the obstacles that come with participating in decentralized governance. We don’t necessarily mean to reduce the workload/number of proposals but to find a more effective way to allow voters, especially individuals, to continue to participate in OP governance.
We also recommend using a tool like Messari governor 2 keep track of the proposals in preliminary discussions and the active vote. The discourse and discord can get a bit overwhelming sometimes, so a quick check there to find the preliminary discussion is short.
Regarding the proposals, we recommend that future applications use previous successful proposals to help write their application. Proposals should be clear and detailed, updated post-community feedback, and contain all relevant links.
Using Boardroom’s voter track record and cross-referencing it with the history of some of the Optimism votes, it seems that even a few large delegates have stopped voting. Voting cycle 4 hasn’t concluded yet, so not everyone would have the 38 votes (the first vote was a test).
We aren’t sure of the reason for the reduced participation, but it could be due to many proposals, lack of incentives, or other reasons. We encourage delegators to re-delegate to those delegates who actively participate in Optimism governance.
One reason is that Snapshot does not support voting via Gnosis Safe, so delegates using a Gnosis Safe would be unable to vote. There is no solution yet.
SafeGuardian: hey @Bobbay_StableLab - just wanted to clarify that Snapshot does support voting via Gnosis Safe. It just requires an on-chain tx as opposed to off-chain. Off-chain is possible, but you need to set a Snapshot delegate (Snapshot) using an EOA (e.g. Metamask).
There is a dedicated Gnosis Safe App on OP for Snapshot - Safe
Season 1 Reflection Season 1 has come to an end, and we at StableNode, would like to take the t…
Season 1 Reflection Season 1 has come to an end, and we at StableNode, would like to take the time to reflect on the past four voting cycles. There we 38 proposals over four voting cycles, with the initial cycle being a batch vote. Voting cycle # 1 - 3 Voting cycle # 2 - 17 Voting cycle # 3 - 9 Voting cycle # 4 - 9 We voted 16 Yes’s and 22 No’s. To see our voting history and the reasons, check out our delegate thread. optimism votes 1024 × 768 53 . 8 KB Governance Update # 2 2 provides a good overview of the problems faced by the community, and we echo these concerns as there were too many proposals to work your way through, both in terms of voting and providing feedback. Specifically, voting cycle # 2 was a large number of proposals, and we believe that such a large amount can act as a deterrent for individuals to get involved in the governance process. Voter apathy is a prominent issue within decentralized governance, and when possible, we should minimize the obstacles that come with participating in decentralized governance. We don’t necessarily mean to reduce the workload/number of proposals but to find a more effective way to allow voters, especially individuals, to continue to participate in OP governance. We also recommend using a tool like Messari governor 2 keep track of the proposals in preliminary discussions and the active vote. The discourse and discord can get a bit overwhelming sometimes, so a quick check there to find the preliminary discussion is short. Regarding the proposals, we recommend that future applications use previous successful proposals to help write their application. Proposals should be clear and detailed, updated post-community feedback, and contain all relevant links. Using Boardroom’s voter track record and cross-referencing it with the history of some of the Optimism votes, it seems that even a few large delegates have stopped voting. Voting cycle 4 hasn’t concluded yet, so not everyone would have the 38 votes (the first vote was a test). We aren’t sure of the reason for the reduced participation, but it could be due to many proposals, lack of incentives, or other reasons. We encourage delegators to re-delegate to those delegates who actively participate in Optimism governance. One reason is that Snapshot does not support voting via Gnosis Safe, so delegates using a Gnosis Safe would be unable to vote. There is no solution yet.
SafeGuardian: hey @Bobbay_StableLab - just wanted to clarify that Snapshot does support voting via Gnosis Safe. It just requires an on-chain tx as opposed to off-chain. Off-chain is possible, but you need to set a Snapshot delegate (Snapshot) using an EOA (e.g. Metamask).
There is a dedicated Gnosis Safe App on OP for Snapshot - Safe
S 02 Committee Proposal: Decentralized Finance Governance Committee: Group A 1
Vote: Abstain
We …
S 02 Committee Proposal: Decentralized Finance Governance Committee: Group A 1
Vote: Abstain
We are involved in this committee and abstain from all DeFi committee proposals. With our diverse range of experience, we will bring various perspectives to the table, ensuring a fair outlook on each proposal.
[S 02 Committee Proposal: Category: Defi: Group B]
Vote: Abstain
StableNode is part of another DeFi committee proposal [Group A] 1
[SO 2 Committee Proposal: DeFi: Group C]
Vote: Abstain
StableNode is part of another DeFi committee proposal [Group A] 1
[SO 2 Committee Proposal: NFTs & Gaming: Group A]
Vote: Yes
They have relevant experience and have been active in the Optimism ecosystem. It does seem a bit rushed to get this committee out, so we would be open to a re-vote if another proposal was put forward soon.
S 02 Committee Proposal: Tooling Governance Committee 1
Vote: Yes
Strong team with a diverse range of experience. A few of them have been very active in previous forum discussions and will significantly aid delegates in making decisions.
S 02 Committee Proposal: Decentralized Finance Governance Committee: Group A
Vote: Abstain
We are …
S 02 Committee Proposal: Decentralized Finance Governance Committee: Group A
Vote: Abstain
We are involved in this committee and abstain from all DeFi committee proposals. With our diverse range of experience, we will bring various perspectives to the table, ensuring a fair outlook on each proposal.
[S 02 Committee Proposal: Category: Defi: Group B]
Vote: Abstain
StableNode is part of another DeFi committee proposal [Group A]
[SO 2 Committee Proposal: DeFi: Group C]
Vote: Abstain
StableNode is part of another DeFi committee proposal [Group A]
[SO 2 Committee Proposal: NFTs & Gaming: Group A]
Vote: Yes
They have relevant experience and have been active in the Optimism ecosystem. It does seem a bit rushed to get this committee out, so we would be open to a re-vote if another proposal was put forward soon.
S 02 Committee Proposal: Tooling Governance Committee
Vote: Yes
Strong team with a diverse range of experience. A few of them have been very active in previous forum discussions and will significantly aid delegates in making decisions.
S 02 Committee Proposal: Decentralized Finance Governance Committee: Group A 1 Vote: Abstain We …
S 02 Committee Proposal: Decentralized Finance Governance Committee: Group A 1 Vote: Abstain We are involved in this committee and abstain from all DeFi committee proposals. With our diverse range of experience, we will bring various perspectives to the table, ensuring a fair outlook on each proposal. [S 02 Committee Proposal: Category: Defi: Group B] Vote: Abstain StableNode is part of another DeFi committee proposal [Group A] 1 [SO 2 Committee Proposal: DeFi: Group C] Vote: Abstain StableNode is part of another DeFi committee proposal [Group A] 1 [SO 2 Committee Proposal: NFTs & Gaming: Group A] Vote: Yes They have relevant experience and have been active in the Optimism ecosystem. It does seem a bit rushed to get this committee out, so we would be open to a re-vote if another proposal was put forward soon. S 02 Committee Proposal: Tooling Governance Committee 1 Vote: Yes Strong team with a diverse range of experience. A few of them have been very active in previous forum discussions and will significantly aid delegates in making decisions.
Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Bankless Academy v 2 2
Vote: Yes
Rationale: It is a minimal…
Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Bankless Academy v 2 2
Vote: Yes
Rationale: It is a minimal request for a project with extensive reach and helps educate web 3 newbies. Ideally, this would go under RGPF but, Bankless Academy have a strong track record and this request helps support the greater ecosystem.
Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Across Protocol
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Across has been a great support in the Balancer ecosystem and believes they can have a similar experience in Optimism. The distribution period of 12 - 18 months merits itself in this case.
Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Tarot
Vote: No
Rationale: Following the recommendation we made in DeFi committee A. Implement a reduced token distribution period with further clarity around using 10 % for the ops cost.
Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Revert Compoundor
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Following the recommendation we made in DeFi committee A. Ultimately, the proposal was strong and will add value to the OP ecosystem. Regardless of the drama within the proposal comments, we base our vote on the merits of the proposal itself.
Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Kromatika
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Following the recommendation we made in DeFi committee A.
Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: dHEDGE DAO
Vote: Yes
Rationale: After the revisions, we are happy to support this proposal. They have a clear plan on token distribution with co-incentives too.
Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Otterspace
Vote: No
Rationale: It is an interesting product, but I don’t believe it necessarily warrants a grant from the governance fund. It’s also quite early in its stages, with much competition. I don’t see a grant accelerating adoption.
Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: OptiChads
Vote: Yes
Rationale: I am a fan of public funding and encouraging users to live healthier life. I would be intrigued to get a follow-up to see how the challenges work out. An accountability committee would be beneficial here, especially as this has different vision to DeFi protocols.
Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Interest Protocol 2
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Small request to help accelerate the onboarding of a strong protocol to Optimism.
Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Socket 1
Vote: NO
Rationale: Following the recommendation of the tooling committee. Token request should be reduced.
Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Bankless Academy v 2
Vote: Yes
Rationale: It is a minimal req…
Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Bankless Academy v 2
Vote: Yes
Rationale: It is a minimal request for a project with extensive reach and helps educate web 3 newbies. Ideally, this would go under RGPF but, Bankless Academy have a strong track record and this request helps support the greater ecosystem.
Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Across Protocol
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Across has been a great support in the Balancer ecosystem and believes they can have a similar experience in Optimism. The distribution period of 12 - 18 months merits itself in this case.
Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Tarot
Vote: No
Rationale: Following the recommendation we made in DeFi committee A. Implement a reduced token distribution period with further clarity around using 10 % for the ops cost.
Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Revert Compoundor
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Following the recommendation we made in DeFi committee A. Ultimately, the proposal was strong and will add value to the OP ecosystem. Regardless of the drama within the proposal comments, we base our vote on the merits of the proposal itself.
Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Kromatika
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Following the recommendation we made in DeFi committee A.
Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: dHEDGE DAO
Vote: Yes
Rationale: After the revisions, we are happy to support this proposal. They have a clear plan on token distribution with co-incentives too.
Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Otterspace
Vote: No
Rationale: It is an interesting product, but I don’t believe it necessarily warrants a grant from the governance fund. It’s also quite early in its stages, with much competition. I don’t see a grant accelerating adoption.
Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: OptiChads
Vote: Yes
Rationale: I am a fan of public funding and encouraging users to live healthier life. I would be intrigued to get a follow-up to see how the challenges work out. An accountability committee would be beneficial here, especially as this has different vision to DeFi protocols.
Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Interest Protocol 2
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Small request to help accelerate the onboarding of a strong protocol to Optimism.
Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Socket
Vote: NO
Rationale: Following the recommendation of the tooling committee. Token request should be reduced.
Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Bankless Academy v 2 2 Vote: Yes Rationale: It is a minimal…
Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Bankless Academy v 2 2 Vote: Yes Rationale: It is a minimal request for a project with extensive reach and helps educate web 3 newbies. Ideally, this would go under RGPF but, Bankless Academy have a strong track record and this request helps support the greater ecosystem. Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Across Protocol Vote: Yes Rationale: Across has been a great support in the Balancer ecosystem and believes they can have a similar experience in Optimism. The distribution period of 12 - 18 months merits itself in this case. Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Tarot Vote: No Rationale: Following the recommendation we made in DeFi committee A. Implement a reduced token distribution period with further clarity around using 10 % for the ops cost. Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Revert Compoundor Vote: Yes Rationale: Following the recommendation we made in DeFi committee A. Ultimately, the proposal was strong and will add value to the OP ecosystem. Regardless of the drama within the proposal comments, we base our vote on the merits of the proposal itself. Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Kromatika Vote: Yes Rationale: Following the recommendation we made in DeFi committee A. Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: dHEDGE DAO Vote: Yes Rationale: After the revisions, we are happy to support this proposal. They have a clear plan on token distribution with co-incentives too. Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Otterspace Vote: No Rationale: It is an interesting product, but I don’t believe it necessarily warrants a grant from the governance fund. It’s also quite early in its stages, with much competition. I don’t see a grant accelerating adoption. Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: OptiChads Vote: Yes Rationale: I am a fan of public funding and encouraging users to live healthier life. I would be intrigued to get a follow-up to see how the challenges work out. An accountability committee would be beneficial here, especially as this has different vision to DeFi protocols. Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Interest Protocol 2 Vote: Yes Rationale: Small request to help accelerate the onboarding of a strong protocol to Optimism. Season 2 Governance Fund Proposal: Socket 1 Vote: NO Rationale: Following the recommendation of the tooling committee. Token request should be reduced.
hey @Bobbay_StableLab - just wanted to clarify that Snapshot does support voting via Gnosis Safe. I…
hey @Bobbay_StableLab - just wanted to clarify that Snapshot does support voting via Gnosis Safe. It just requires an on-chain tx as opposed to off-chain. Off-chain is possible, but you need to set a Snapshot delegate (Snapshot) using an EOA (e.g. Metamask).
There is a dedicated Gnosis Safe App on OP for Snapshot - Safe
hey @Bobbay_StableLab - just wanted to clarify that Snapshot does support voting via Gnosis Safe. I…
hey @Bobbay_StableLab - just wanted to clarify that Snapshot does support voting via Gnosis Safe. It just requires an on-chain tx as opposed to off-chain. Off-chain is possible, but you need to set a Snapshot delegate (Snapshot) using an EOA (e.g. Metamask). There is a dedicated Gnosis Safe App on OP for Snapshot - Safe
Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Yearn
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Following our recommendation in DeFi Committee A,…
Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Yearn
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Following our recommendation in DeFi Committee A, we believe Yearn deserves the grant and will be able to help drive growth to the OP ecosystem.
Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Alchemix
Vote: No
Rationale: Following our recommendation in DeFi Committee A and would like to see the outlined changes made before resubmission.
Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Tarot
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Following our recommendation in DeFi Committee A, we are in favor of supporting Tarot’s request after the amendments.
Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Sushiswap
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Following our recommendation in DeFi Committee A, we are happy to support the updated proposal.
Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Abracadabra Money
Vote: No
Rationale: Large request amount with no live deployment on Optimism.
Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Overtime Markets
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Amount requested is suitable and due to the novelty of being a sports betting platform, they need this extra support to onboard users from web 2 to web 3 . Fee rebates will hopefully make it easier to attract more users to the ecosystem.
Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Overnight.fi
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Stablecoins are a bit of tricky one, but since its supported by high-quality stable coins with a strong token distribution, we are happy to support it.
Season 2 : Cycle 7 : LI.FI
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Amount requested and distribution plan seem reasonable. They already have a strong amount of traction and this will help projects on OP.
Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Safe
Vote: Abstain
Rationale: We just became delegates in SafeDAO so I don’t think its fair to vote.
Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Karma (Discourse Form Plugin)
Vote: Abstain
Rationale: We helped Karma with the proposal so will be abstaining from this vote.
Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Karma (Delegate Dashboard)
Vote: Abstain
Rationale: We helped Karma with the proposal so will be abstaining from this vote.
Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Rainbow Wallet
Vote: No
Rationale: Token request is too large for one use-case. A lot of bridges have already been funded too so they will overlap a lot at this rate.
Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Otterspace
Vote: Yes
Rationale: After the amendments, 50 k OP is a suitable amount and can have a large impact on the ecosystem.
Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Dope Wars
Vote: No
Rationale: Token request is way too high. Would prefer to see some form of adoption then introduce rewards.
hey @Bobbay_StableLab appreciate the rundown.
wanted to ask – it’s not clear where you sit with Ove…
hey @Bobbay_StableLab appreciate the rundown.
wanted to ask – it’s not clear where you sit with Overnight, as you signal a NO vote but say in your rationale that you’re supporting it. Was this a NO vote?
It’s a yes. So many votes, I made an error there. Thanks for pointing that out.
It’s a yes. So many votes, I made an error there. Thanks for pointing that out.
Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Yearn Vote: Yes Rationale: Following our recommendation in DeFi Committee A,…
Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Yearn Vote: Yes Rationale: Following our recommendation in DeFi Committee A, we believe Yearn deserves the grant and will be able to help drive growth to the OP ecosystem. Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Alchemix Vote: No Rationale: Following our recommendation in DeFi Committee A and would like to see the outlined changes made before resubmission. Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Tarot Vote: Yes Rationale: Following our recommendation in DeFi Committee A, we are in favor of supporting Tarot’s request after the amendments. Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Sushiswap Vote: Yes Rationale: Following our recommendation in DeFi Committee A, we are happy to support the updated proposal. Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Abracadabra Money Vote: No Rationale: Large request amount with no live deployment on Optimism. Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Overtime Markets Vote: Yes Rationale: Amount requested is suitable and due to the novelty of being a sports betting platform, they need this extra support to onboard users from web 2 to web 3 . Fee rebates will hopefully make it easier to attract more users to the ecosystem. Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Overnight.fi Vote: Yes Rationale: Stablecoins are a bit of tricky one, but since its supported by high-quality stable coins with a strong token distribution, we are happy to support it. Season 2 : Cycle 7 : LI.FI Vote: Yes Rationale: Amount requested and distribution plan seem reasonable. They already have a strong amount of traction and this will help projects on OP. Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Safe Vote: Abstain Rationale: We just became delegates in SafeDAO so I don’t think its fair to vote. Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Karma (Discourse Form Plugin) Vote: Abstain Rationale: We helped Karma with the proposal so will be abstaining from this vote. Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Karma (Delegate Dashboard) Vote: Abstain Rationale: We helped Karma with the proposal so will be abstaining from this vote. Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Rainbow Wallet Vote: No Rationale: Token request is too large for one use-case. A lot of bridges have already been funded too so they will overlap a lot at this rate. Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Otterspace Vote: Yes Rationale: After the amendments, 50 k OP is a suitable amount and can have a large impact on the ecosystem. Season 2 : Cycle 7 : Dope Wars Vote: No Rationale: Token request is way too high. Would prefer to see some form of adoption then introduce rewards.
hey @Bobbay_StableLab appreciate the rundown. wanted to ask – it’s not clear where you sit with Ove…
hey @Bobbay_StableLab appreciate the rundown. wanted to ask – it’s not clear where you sit with Overnight, as you signal a NO vote but say in your rationale that you’re supporting it. Was this a NO vote?
It’s a yes. So many votes, I made an error there. Thanks for pointing that out.
It’s a yes. So many votes, I made an error there. Thanks for pointing that out.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Alchemix
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Following our recommendation we are happy to s…
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Alchemix
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Following our recommendation we are happy to support the proposal.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Arrakis
Vote: No
Rationale: Following our recommendation we are will go against the proposal.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Symphony
Vote: No
Rationale: Following our recommendation we are will go against the proposal.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Homora
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Following DeFi Commmitee C’s recommendation, we are happy to support this proposal.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Angle
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Following DeFi Commmitee C’s recommendation, we are happy to support this proposal.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : InsureDAO
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Following DeFi Commmitee C’s recommendation, we are happy to support this proposal.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Curve
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Following DeFi Commmitee C’s recommendation, we are happy to support this proposal.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : PoolTogether
Vote: No
Rationale: We are voting against the committee recommendation. PT is a great product, but the 110 k for alternative interfaces is far too much. It’s a great concept and they will be testing it with a project that’s already being funded.
I rather see the success of that before deploying further capital for it.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Overnight
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Following DeFi Commmitee C’s recommendation, we are happy to support this proposal.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Socket
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Follow the Tooling Committee, we are happy to support this proposal.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : EthernautDAO
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Follow the Tooling Committee, we are happy to support this proposal.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Tally Ho
Vote: No
Rationale: Not a fan of the current token distribution method. Size of ask is fine, but the distribution should be amended.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Messari
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Messari have provided a high-quality of service in other protocols with their quarterly and governance reports. We believe they will add a much needed transparency to the OP ecosystem.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : DefiLlama
Vote: No
Rationale: Its not exactly clear. “Pay us for our previous work so we can continue building cool things”. DeFi Llama is a great product but they can go for RPGF for their previous work and be more explicit in which work they will complete for a grant from the governance fund.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Agora
Vote: Yes
Rationale: This will help governance in many ways. Governance is an unexplored space with limited tooling, but agora can help push the space forward.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Ambire Wallet
Vote: No
Rationale: Similar to Tally Ho. We already funded a few bridges too.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Mochi
Vote: Yes
Rationale: This is an interesting tool that has the potential to tackle current problems. It’s worth funding experimental products such as Mochi.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Velodrome
Vote: No
Rationale: Our recommendation was abstain, but we will be voting no. For such a large request, we’d feel more comfortable if this was broken up or once we have an accountability committee to follow up with grants of this size.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Alchemix
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Following our recommendation 1 we are happy …
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Alchemix
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Following our recommendation 1 we are happy to support the proposal.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Arrakis
Vote: No
Rationale: Following our recommendation 1 we are will go against the proposal.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Symphony
Vote: No
Rationale: Following our recommendation 1 we are will go against the proposal.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Homora
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Following DeFi Commmitee C’s recommendation, we are happy to support this proposal.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Angle
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Following DeFi Commmitee C’s recommendation, we are happy to support this proposal.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : InsureDAO
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Following DeFi Commmitee C’s recommendation, we are happy to support this proposal.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Curve
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Following DeFi Commmitee C’s recommendation, we are happy to support this proposal.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : PoolTogether
Vote: No
Rationale: We are voting against the committee recommendation. PT is a great product, but the 110 k for alternative interfaces is far too much. It’s a great concept and they will be testing it with a project that’s already being funded.
I rather see the success of that before deploying further capital for it.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Overnight
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Following DeFi Commmitee C’s recommendation, we are happy to support this proposal.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Socket
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Follow the Tooling Committee, we are happy to support this proposal.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : EthernautDAO
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Follow the Tooling Committee, we are happy to support this proposal.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Tally Ho
Vote: No
Rationale: Not a fan of the current token distribution method. Size of ask is fine, but the distribution should be amended.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Messari
Vote: Yes
Rationale: Messari have provided a high-quality of service in other protocols with their quarterly and governance reports. We believe they will add a much needed transparency to the OP ecosystem.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : DefiLlama
Vote: No
Rationale: Its not exactly clear. “Pay us for our previous work so we can continue building cool things”. DeFi Llama is a great product but they can go for RPGF for their previous work and be more explicit in which work they will complete for a grant from the governance fund.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Agora 1
Vote: Yes
Rationale: This will help governance in many ways. Governance is an unexplored space with limited tooling, but agora can help push the space forward.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Ambire Wallet
Vote: No
Rationale: Similar to Tally Ho. We already funded a few bridges too.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Mochi
Vote: Yes
Rationale: This is an interesting tool that has the potential to tackle current problems. It’s worth funding experimental products such as Mochi.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Velodrome 2
Vote: No
Rationale: Our recommendation 1 was abstain, but we will be voting no. For such a large request, we’d feel more comfortable if this was broken up or once we have an accountability committee to follow up with grants of this size.
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Alchemix Vote: Yes Rationale: Following our recommendation 1 we are happy …
Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Alchemix Vote: Yes Rationale: Following our recommendation 1 we are happy to support the proposal. Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Arrakis Vote: No Rationale: Following our recommendation 1 we are will go against the proposal. Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Symphony Vote: No Rationale: Following our recommendation 1 we are will go against the proposal. Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Homora Vote: Yes Rationale: Following DeFi Commmitee C’s recommendation, we are happy to support this proposal. Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Angle Vote: Yes Rationale: Following DeFi Commmitee C’s recommendation, we are happy to support this proposal. Season 2 : Cycle 8 : InsureDAO Vote: Yes Rationale: Following DeFi Commmitee C’s recommendation, we are happy to support this proposal. Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Curve Vote: Yes Rationale: Following DeFi Commmitee C’s recommendation, we are happy to support this proposal. Season 2 : Cycle 8 : PoolTogether Vote: No Rationale: We are voting against the committee recommendation. PT is a great product, but the 110 k for alternative interfaces is far too much. It’s a great concept and they will be testing it with a project that’s already being funded. I rather see the success of that before deploying further capital for it. Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Overnight Vote: Yes Rationale: Following DeFi Commmitee C’s recommendation, we are happy to support this proposal. Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Socket Vote: Yes Rationale: Follow the Tooling Committee, we are happy to support this proposal. Season 2 : Cycle 8 : EthernautDAO Vote: Yes Rationale: Follow the Tooling Committee, we are happy to support this proposal. Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Tally Ho Vote: No Rationale: Not a fan of the current token distribution method. Size of ask is fine, but the distribution should be amended. Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Messari Vote: Yes Rationale: Messari have provided a high-quality of service in other protocols with their quarterly and governance reports. We believe they will add a much needed transparency to the OP ecosystem. Season 2 : Cycle 8 : DefiLlama Vote: No Rationale: Its not exactly clear. “Pay us for our previous work so we can continue building cool things”. DeFi Llama is a great product but they can go for RPGF for their previous work and be more explicit in which work they will complete for a grant from the governance fund. Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Agora 1 Vote: Yes Rationale: This will help governance in many ways. Governance is an unexplored space with limited tooling, but agora can help push the space forward. Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Ambire Wallet Vote: No Rationale: Similar to Tally Ho. We already funded a few bridges too. Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Mochi Vote: Yes Rationale: This is an interesting tool that has the potential to tackle current problems. It’s worth funding experimental products such as Mochi. Season 2 : Cycle 8 : Velodrome 2 Vote: No Rationale: Our recommendation 1 was abstain, but we will be voting no. For such a large request, we’d feel more comfortable if this was broken up or once we have an accountability committee to follow up with grants of this size.
Special Voting Cycle # 9 a: Grants Council
Vote: Yes
Rationale: We look forward to seeing the counc…
Special Voting Cycle # 9 a: Grants Council
Vote: Yes
Rationale: We look forward to seeing the council in-action and hope that it provides a more streamlined process for grant requests. Along as the grants process is transparent then this is a step in the right direction.
Special Voting Cycle # 9 a: Protocol Delegation Program
Vote: Yes
Rationale: It’s only a temporary program and with the guidelines in place, its a suitable way to encourage governance participation from those who have skin-in-the-game and deserve a say.
Special Voting Cycle # 9 a: Grants Council Vote: Yes Rationale: We look forward to seeing the counc…
Special Voting Cycle # 9 a: Grants Council Vote: Yes Rationale: We look forward to seeing the council in-action and hope that it provides a more streamlined process for grant requests. Along as the grants process is transparent then this is a step in the right direction. Special Voting Cycle # 9 a: Protocol Delegation Program Vote: Yes Rationale: It’s only a temporary program and with the guidelines in place, its a suitable way to encourage governance participation from those who have skin-in-the-game and deserve a say.
Badgeholder Nomination Voting 1
Vote: Katie, Linda, Lefteris , Fig (Flipside), Polynya , Juan (Pe…
Badgeholder Nomination Voting 1
Vote: Katie, Linda, Lefteris , Fig (Flipside), Polynya , Juan (Penn blockchain), Kriz
Rationale: We believe these individuals should participate in RPGF 2 due to their commitment to Optimism and other DAOs. They have demonstrated various qualities that would make them a suitable fit.
Badgeholder Nomination Voting
Vote: Katie, Linda, Lefteris , Fig (Flipside), Polynya , Juan (Penn b…
Badgeholder Nomination Voting
Vote: Katie, Linda, Lefteris , Fig (Flipside), Polynya , Juan (Penn blockchain), Kriz
Rationale: We believe these individuals should participate in RPGF 2 due to their commitment to Optimism and other DAOs. They have demonstrated various qualities that would make them a suitable fit.
Badgeholder Nomination Voting 1 Vote: Katie, Linda, Lefteris , Fig (Flipside), Polynya , Juan (Pe…
Badgeholder Nomination Voting 1 Vote: Katie, Linda, Lefteris , Fig (Flipside), Polynya , Juan (Penn blockchain), Kriz Rationale: We believe these individuals should participate in RPGF 2 due to their commitment to Optimism and other DAOs. They have demonstrated various qualities that would make them a suitable fit.
Special Voting Cycle # 9 b: Grants Council Elections - Builders
We believe the following candidates…
Special Voting Cycle # 9 b: Grants Council Elections - Builders
We believe the following candidates will make a suitable addition to the Builders Grants Council; L 2 beat, Juanbug, Jack anorak, Dhantte
Special Voting Cycle # 9 b: Grants Council Elections - Growth Experiments
We believe the following candidates will make a suitable addition to the Builders Grants Council; Michael, Katie, Gfx, Flipside and SolarCurve
Special Voting Cycle # 9 b: Protocol Delegation Elections
We voted for the following; Thales,ENS Beethoven, Connext, Li/fi , Paraswap
Special Voting Cycle # 9 b: Grants Council Elections - Builders We believe the following candidates…
Special Voting Cycle # 9 b: Grants Council Elections - Builders We believe the following candidates will make a suitable addition to the Builders Grants Council; L 2 beat, Juanbug, Jack anorak, Dhantte Special Voting Cycle # 9 b: Grants Council Elections - Growth Experiments We believe the following candidates will make a suitable addition to the Builders Grants Council; Michael, Katie, Gfx, Flipside and SolarCurve Special Voting Cycle # 9 b: Protocol Delegation Elections We voted for the following; Thales,ENS Beethoven, Connext, Li/fi , Paraswap
Delegate Suspension
Vote: For
Rationale: Based on the information provided, it is pretty clear that…
Delegate Suspension
Vote: For
Rationale: Based on the information provided, it is pretty clear that fractal vision has violated the CoC and should face temporary suspension.
Upgrade Proposal: Bedrock
Vote: For
Rationale: We are happy to support the latest upgraded to Optimism
Delegate Suspension Vote: For Rationale: Based on the information provided, it is pretty clear that…
Delegate Suspension Vote: For Rationale: Based on the information provided, it is pretty clear that fractal vision has violated the CoC and should face temporary suspension. Upgrade Proposal: Bedrock Vote: For Rationale: We are happy to support the latest upgraded to Optimism
Protocol Delegation Program Renewal 1
Vote: For
Rationale: We support delegation and believe it i…
Protocol Delegation Program Renewal 1
Vote: For
Rationale: We support delegation and believe it is important to renew the delegation program
Intent # 1 Budget Proposal 1
Vote: For
Rationale: We support this intent for season 4 and believe this is an appropriate budget for Progress Towards Technical Decentralization
Intent # 2 Budget Proposal
Vote: For
Rationale: We support this intent for season 4 and believe this is an appropriate budget for a grants program
Intent # 3 Budget Proposal
Vote: For
Rationale: We support this intent for season 4 and believe this is an appropriate budget for increased awareness of the Optomistic vision
Intent # 4 Budget Proposal 1
Vote: For
Rationale: We support this intent for season 4 and believe this is an appropriate budget for governance
Inflation Adjustment Proposal 1
Vote: For
Rationale: We support decreasing the inflation of OP token from 2 % to 0 % to combat the overabundance of $OP supply available over the next 3 years
Treasury Appropriation (Foundation Year 2 Budget Approval) 1
Vote: For
Rationale: We support a budget of 1 OP for year 2 as the foundation failed to use 94 % of its previous year’s budget. While we would like to see the foundation use more of its budget to help Optimism we think it is wise to use the unused funds as a budget instead of adding more.
Council Reviewer Elections: Growth Experiments Grants 1
Vote: Katie Garcia, Michael Vander Meiden, Matt L, GFX, StableLab
Rationale: We believe StableLab will be a great addition to the growth grants council. We have contributed meaningfully to Optimism and over 15 other DAO as well as have experience working on grants committees. We have also worked with the other candidates mentioned and believe they are fully capable and will do a great job.
Council Reviewer Elections: Builders Grants
Vote: Krzysztof Urbanski, Jack Anorak, Gonna.eth
Rationale: These three did a great job as builders council reviewers last cycle and we believe they will continue to do so.
Protocol Delegation Program Renewal
Vote: For
Rationale: We support delegation and believe it is im…
Protocol Delegation Program Renewal
Vote: For
Rationale: We support delegation and believe it is important to renew the delegation program
Intent # 1 Budget Proposal
Vote: For
Rationale: We support this intent for season 4 and believe this is an appropriate budget for Progress Towards Technical Decentralization
Intent # 2 Budget Proposal
Vote: For
Rationale: We support this intent for season 4 and believe this is an appropriate budget for a grants program
Intent # 3 Budget Proposal
Vote: For
Rationale: We support this intent for season 4 and believe this is an appropriate budget for increased awareness of the Optomistic vision
Intent # 4 Budget Proposal
Vote: For
Rationale: We support this intent for season 4 and believe this is an appropriate budget for governance
Inflation Adjustment Proposal
Vote: For
Rationale: We support decreasing the inflation of OP token from 2 % to 0 % to combat the overabundance of $OP supply available over the next 3 years
Treasury Appropriation (Foundation Year 2 Budget Approval)
Vote: For
Rationale: We support a budget of 1 OP for year 2 as the foundation failed to use 94 % of its previous year’s budget. While we would like to see the foundation use more of its budget to help Optimism we think it is wise to use the unused funds as a budget instead of adding more.
Council Reviewer Elections: Growth Experiments Grants
Vote: Katie Garcia, Michael Vander Meiden, Matt L, GFX, StableLab
Rationale: We believe StableLab will be a great addition to the growth grants council. We have contributed meaningfully to Optimism and over 15 other DAO as well as have experience working on grants committees. We have also worked with the other candidates mentioned and believe they are fully capable and will do a great job.
Council Reviewer Elections: Builders Grants
Vote: Krzysztof Urbanski, Jack Anorak, Gonna.eth
Rationale: These three did a great job as builders council reviewers last cycle and we believe they will continue to do so.
Protocol Delegation Program Renewal 1 Vote: For Rationale: We support delegation and believe it i…
Protocol Delegation Program Renewal 1 Vote: For Rationale: We support delegation and believe it is important to renew the delegation program Intent # 1 Budget Proposal 1 Vote: For Rationale: We support this intent for season 4 and believe this is an appropriate budget for Progress Towards Technical Decentralization Intent # 2 Budget Proposal Vote: For Rationale: We support this intent for season 4 and believe this is an appropriate budget for a grants program Intent # 3 Budget Proposal Vote: For Rationale: We support this intent for season 4 and believe this is an appropriate budget for increased awareness of the Optomistic vision Intent # 4 Budget Proposal 1 Vote: For Rationale: We support this intent for season 4 and believe this is an appropriate budget for governance Inflation Adjustment Proposal 1 Vote: For Rationale: We support decreasing the inflation of OP token from 2 % to 0 % to combat the overabundance of $OP supply available over the next 3 years Treasury Appropriation (Foundation Year 2 Budget Approval) 1 Vote: For Rationale: We support a budget of 1 OP for year 2 as the foundation failed to use 94 % of its previous year’s budget. While we would like to see the foundation use more of its budget to help Optimism we think it is wise to use the unused funds as a budget instead of adding more. Council Reviewer Elections: Growth Experiments Grants 1 Vote: Katie Garcia, Michael Vander Meiden, Matt L, GFX, StableLab Rationale: We believe StableLab will be a great addition to the growth grants council. We have contributed meaningfully to Optimism and over 15 other DAO as well as have experience working on grants committees. We have also worked with the other candidates mentioned and believe they are fully capable and will do a great job. Council Reviewer Elections: Builders Grants Vote: Krzysztof Urbanski, Jack Anorak, Gonna.eth Rationale: These three did a great job as builders council reviewers last cycle and we believe they will continue to do so.
Proposal: Intent # 1 , 1 M OP 1
Vote: 1 A, 1 C, 1 E
Rationale:
Proposal 1 A: This is a stron…
Proposal: Intent # 1 , 1 M OP 1
Vote: 1 A, 1 C, 1 E
Rationale:
Proposal 1 A: This is a strong governance team and we are happy to support their work
Proposal 1 C: Having 24 hour technical support for Optimism would be beneficial to users and could help people new to blockchain become familiar
Proposal 1 E: UI and UX is a major problem in crypto and we support this alliance trying to future proof it for Optimism
Proposal: Intent # 3 , 1 M OP 2
Vote: 3 I Thank Optimism
Rationale: After speaking with the Thrive coin team we believe this proposal will help spread optimistic awareness.
Proposal: Intent # 4 , 3 M OP 1
Vote: 4 B, 4 M
Rationale:
Proposal 4 B: Michael has been a dedicated member of the DAO and knows the ins and outs of the collective. This podcast has a lower budget and we think it would be a great initiative.
Proposal 4 M: This is a very cool initiative that could bring unique insights to governance data and help the DAO learn and grow.
Proposal: Intent 2 Budget Proposal 2
Vote: Yes
Rationale: We support the extra funding from the other intents being used to fund grants as this public funding will help improve the Optimism ecosystem
Proposal: Ratify Developer Advisory Board Members
Vote: Yes
Rationale: StableLab believes a developer advisory board will help grow the ecosystem. The budget appears reasonable and the members seem to be knowledgeable on the subject
Proposal: Developer Advisory Board Budget
Vote: Yes
Rationale: StableLab believes a developer advisory board will help grow the ecosystem. The budget appears reasonable for the first season of this program
Proposal: Grants Council Operating Budget
Vote: Yes
Rationale: The grants council has proven to be a success in the past. This budget makes sense as a way to add improvements to the program while also maintaining the parts that are already working.
Proposal: Security Council: Vote # 1
Vote: Yes
Rationale: While we would eventually like to see full decentrilization and not rely on individuals controlling a multisig, we understand that for now, this is the best choice for Optimism in order to provide security and efficiency.
Proposal: Code of Conduct Council Budget
Vote: Yes
Rationale: We believe Code of Conduct disputes are better handled by a council and not delegates. Therefor we are happy to fund a council to deal with code of conduct violations and this budget seems reasonable for the role.
Proposal: Code of Conduct Violation: Carlos Melgar 1
Vote: Abstain
Rationale: StableLab does not feel we have the necessary info to make an informed decision on the matter. Given such we have decided to abstain. We support that these decisions will be made by a council in the future.
Proposal: Anticapture Commission
Vote: Yes
Rationale: While StableLab believes the anti-capture commission should have both more voting power and a more efficient way of using this voting power, we believe this is a good first iteration of the initiative. We look forward to serving on the commission as well as providing feedback after the season to hopefully form an improved anti-capture commission for season 6 .
Proposal: Intent # 1 , 1 M OP 1 Vote: 1 A, 1 C, 1 E Rationale: Proposal 1 A: This is a stron…
Proposal: Intent # 1 , 1 M OP 1 Vote: 1 A, 1 C, 1 E Rationale: Proposal 1 A: This is a strong governance team and we are happy to support their work Proposal 1 C: Having 24 hour technical support for Optimism would be beneficial to users and could help people new to blockchain become familiar Proposal 1 E: UI and UX is a major problem in crypto and we support this alliance trying to future proof it for Optimism Proposal: Intent # 3 , 1 M OP 2 Vote: 3 I Thank Optimism Rationale: After speaking with the Thrive coin team we believe this proposal will help spread optimistic awareness. Proposal: Intent # 4 , 3 M OP 1 Vote: 4 B, 4 M Rationale: Proposal 4 B: Michael has been a dedicated member of the DAO and knows the ins and outs of the collective. This podcast has a lower budget and we think it would be a great initiative. Proposal 4 M: This is a very cool initiative that could bring unique insights to governance data and help the DAO learn and grow. Proposal: Intent 2 Budget Proposal 2 Vote: Yes Rationale: We support the extra funding from the other intents being used to fund grants as this public funding will help improve the Optimism ecosystem Proposal: Ratify Developer Advisory Board Members Vote: Yes Rationale: StableLab believes a developer advisory board will help grow the ecosystem. The budget appears reasonable and the members seem to be knowledgeable on the subject Proposal: Developer Advisory Board Budget Vote: Yes Rationale: StableLab believes a developer advisory board will help grow the ecosystem. The budget appears reasonable for the first season of this program Proposal: Grants Council Operating Budget Vote: Yes Rationale: The grants council has proven to be a success in the past. This budget makes sense as a way to add improvements to the program while also maintaining the parts that are already working. Proposal: Security Council: Vote # 1 Vote: Yes Rationale: While we would eventually like to see full decentrilization and not rely on individuals controlling a multisig, we understand that for now, this is the best choice for Optimism in order to provide security and efficiency. Proposal: Code of Conduct Council Budget Vote: Yes Rationale: We believe Code of Conduct disputes are better handled by a council and not delegates. Therefor we are happy to fund a council to deal with code of conduct violations and this budget seems reasonable for the role. Proposal: Code of Conduct Violation: Carlos Melgar 1 Vote: Abstain Rationale: StableLab does not feel we have the necessary info to make an informed decision on the matter. Given such we have decided to abstain. We support that these decisions will be made by a council in the future. Proposal: Anticapture Commission Vote: Yes Rationale: While StableLab believes the anti-capture commission should have both more voting power and a more efficient way of using this voting power, we believe this is a good first iteration of the initiative. We look forward to serving on the commission as well as providing feedback after the season to hopefully form an improved anti-capture commission for season 6 .
Proposal: Grants Council Reviewer Elections: Milestones and Metrics 2
Vote: Juanbug_PGov and Raho…
Proposal: Grants Council Reviewer Elections: Milestones and Metrics 2
Vote: Juanbug_PGov and Raho
Rationale: StableLab has worked with both Jun and Raho in the past and they have proved to be great DAO contributors who will be capable of handling the milestones and metrics portion of the grants council
Proposal: Chain Delegation Program
Vote: For
Rationale: We support this initiative to include new OP chains in governance
Proposal: Grants Council Reviewer Elections: Growth Experiments
Vote: Katie Garcia, Matt L, GFX, MoneyManDoug, Michael
Rationale: The existing grants council has done well. While we would eventually like to see turnover to prevent centralization we support 1 more term
Proposal: Code of Conduct Council: Member Nominations
Vote: Oxytocin Juanbug_PGov
Rationale: These contributor have shown to be fit for this position and have gained our support
Proposal: Season 5 Intent Budgets
Vote: For
Rationale: We support these intent budgets as they are reasonable and will help support the optimistic vision
Proposal: Grants Council Reviewer Elections: Builders 1
Vote: Kaereste
Rationale: StableLab has worked with Kaereste in the past and he has proven to be a great DAO contributor that will continue to thrive in this position
Proposal: Ratification of Law of Chains
Vote: For
Rationale: It is important to create an open neutrality framework to establish protections for the future
Proposal: Security Council Vote # 2 – Initial Member Ratification 1
Vote: For
Rationale: StableLab supports this ratification. While we are glad to see this process will transition to elections we think this is a strong group of initial members to begin the security council.
Proposal: Upgrade Proposal # 2 : Canyon Network Upgrade
Vote: For
Rationale: StableLab supports the Canyon Network Upgrade to improve the Optimism Network
Proposal: Upgrade Proposal # 3 : Delta Network Upgrade
Vote: For
Rationale: StableLab supports the Delta Network Upgrade to improve the Optimism Network
Proposal: Proposal to Reclassify Grant Misusage Enforcement
Vote: For
Rationale: StableLab supports the transfer of this responsibility to the elected Token House Code of Conduct Council as they will have more expertise and time to investigate the situations.
Proposal: Summary of Code of Conduct enforcement decisions
Vote: For
Rationale: StableLab supports the summary of Code of Conduct enforcement decisions as this will improve efficiency and help limit delegate gas costs
Proposal: Protocol Upgrade # 4
Vote: For
Rationale: StableLab supports this upgrade proposed by OP Labs
Proposal: Mission Requests: Intent # 4 , 1 . 33 M OP
Vote: Request 4 E
Rationale: Increasing the amount of OP used for voting and encouraging new delegate or redelegation will create a more active and safer governance system for OP
Proposal: Mission Requests: Intent # 3 , 1 . 33 M OP
Vote: 3 A, 3 C, 3 D, 3 E
Rationale: After reviewing each mission StableLab believes these 4 missions will provide the most value to the DAO to achieve intent 3
Proposal: Mission Requests: Intent # 2 , 4 M OP
Vote: 2 A, 2 B, 2 D, 2 E, 2 I, 2 J
Rationale: StableLab believes these missions will provide the most value to intent # 2
Proposal: Mission Requests: Intent # 1 , 1 . 33 M OP
Vote: All Intent 1 missions
Rationale: StableLab voted for all options as we believe they all add value and can all fit within the budget
Proposal: Grants Council Reviewer Elections: Milestones and Metrics 1 Vote: Juanbug_PGov and Raho…
Proposal: Grants Council Reviewer Elections: Milestones and Metrics 1 Vote: Juanbug_PGov and Raho Rationale: StableLab has worked with both Jun and Raho in the past and they have proved to be great DAO contributors who will be capable of handling the milestones and metrics portion of the grants council Proposal: Chain Delegation Program Vote: For Rationale: We support this initiative to include new OP chains in governance Proposal: Grants Council Reviewer Elections: Growth Experiments Vote: Katie Garcia, Matt L, GFX, MoneyManDoug, Michael Rationale: The existing grants council has done well. While we would eventually like to see turnover to prevent centralization we support 1 more term Proposal: Code of Conduct Council: Member Nominations Vote: Oxytocin Juanbug_PGov Rationale: These contributor have shown to be fit for this position and have gained our support Proposal: Season 5 Intent Budgets Vote: For Rationale: We support these intent budgets as they are reasonable and will help support the optimistic vision Proposal: Grants Council Reviewer Elections: Builders 1 Vote: Kaereste Rationale: StableLab has worked with Kaereste in the past and he has proven to be a great DAO contributor that will continue to thrive in this position Proposal: Ratification of Law of Chains Vote: For Rationale: It is important to create an open neutrality framework to establish protections for the future Proposal: Security Council Vote # 2 – Initial Member Ratification 1 Vote: For Rationale: StableLab supports this ratification. While we are glad to see this process will transition to elections we think this is a strong group of initial members to begin the security council. Proposal: Upgrade Proposal # 2 : Canyon Network Upgrade Vote: For Rationale: StableLab supports the Canyon Network Upgrade to improve the Optimism Network Proposal: Upgrade Proposal # 3 : Delta Network Upgrade Vote: For Rationale: StableLab supports the Delta Network Upgrade to improve the Optimism Network Proposal: Proposal to Reclassify Grant Misusage Enforcement Vote: For Rationale: StableLab supports the transfer of this responsibility to the elected Token House Code of Conduct Council as they will have more expertise and time to investigate the situations. Proposal: Summary of Code of Conduct enforcement decisions Vote: For Rationale: StableLab supports the summary of Code of Conduct enforcement decisions as this will improve efficiency and help limit delegate gas costs Proposal: Protocol Upgrade # 4 Vote: For Rationale: StableLab supports this upgrade proposed by OP Labs Proposal: Mission Requests: Intent # 4 , 1 . 33 M OP Vote: Request 4 E Rationale: Increasing the amount of OP used for voting and encouraging new delegate or redelegation will create a more active and safer governance system for OP Proposal: Mission Requests: Intent # 3 , 1 . 33 M OP Vote: 3 A, 3 C, 3 D, 3 E Rationale: After reviewing each mission StableLab believes these 4 missions will provide the most value to the DAO to achieve intent 3 Proposal: Mission Requests: Intent # 2 , 4 M OP Vote: 2 A, 2 B, 2 D, 2 E, 2 I, 2 J Rationale: StableLab believes these missions will provide the most value to intent # 2 Proposal: Mission Requests: Intent # 1 , 1 . 33 M OP Vote: All Intent 1 missions Rationale: StableLab voted for all options as we believe they all add value and can all fit within the budget
Protocol Upgrade # 7 : Fault Proofs
Vote: Yes
Rationale: StableLab support this upgrade to educes t…
Protocol Upgrade # 7 : Fault Proofs
Vote: Yes
Rationale: StableLab support this upgrade to educes trust assumptions for OP Mainnet users by enabling permissionless output proposals and a fault proof system as it will help to have OP Chains reach Stage 1 status.
Protocol Upgrade # 8 : Changes for Stage 1 Decentralization
Vote: Yes
Rationale: StableLab supports this update proposal to enhances security and decentralization. Increasing the Security Council Safe’s signing threshold from 4 to 10 out of 13 will be much more secure and help protect the future of the ecosystem.
Governor Update Proposal # 2 : Improvements to advanced delegation allowance calculations
Vote: Yes
Rationale: StableLab supports this upgrade proposal to ensures accurate voting power calculation and address issues found in advanced delegation.
Season 6 : Code of Conduct Council Renewal
Vote: Yes
Rationale: This code of conduct seems reasonable and will create clear guidelines for ecosystem actors. StableLab supports this proposal.
Season 6 : Intents Ratification
Vote: Yes
Rationale: StableLab supports these three intents as the…
Season 6 : Intents Ratification
Vote: Yes
Rationale: StableLab supports these three intents as they will help to expand growth for the OP ecosystem as well as improve existing structures.
Season 6 : Developer Advisory Board Renewal
Vote: Yes
Rationale: StableLab supports renewing the developer advisory board after season 5 . We think Zach Obront’s 90 k budget is more reasonable for the role.
Season 6 : Grants Council Operating Budget
Vote: Yes
Rationale: The grants council has done a great job in past seasons. StableLab is in support of this new budget and roles as they will help expand the OP ecosystem.
Season 6 : Intent Budgets
Vote: Yes
Rationale: StableLab supports these intents for season 6 . While we would like to see funding for intent 4 we understand governance can be hard to include in grant programs. We support the smaller focus on Intent 1 and continued focus on Intent 3 .
[Season 6 : V 2 . Code of Conduct Council Renewal]
Vote: Yes
Rationale: We voted “For” on this pro…
[Season 6 : V 2 . Code of Conduct Council Renewal]
Vote: Yes
Rationale: We voted “For” on this proposal because it effectively addresses feedback from the previous Code of Council Cohorts and proposes a governance-minimized approach to enforce the Code of Conduct. By delegating grant policy violations to the Grants Council and leveraging alternative dispute resolution methods, the proposal ensures accountability while reducing governance overhead.
[Developer Advisory Board Elections]
Vote: 1 . devtooligan 2 . wildmolasses 3 . blockdev 4 . alextnetto.eth
Rationale: We voted four candidates for the Developer Advisory Board, we believe they bring a diverse set of skills and experience that will effectively contribute to the Developer Advisory Board’s mission.
[Chain Delegation Program Amendment]
Vote: For
Rationale: We voted “For” on this Amendment to the Chain Delegation Program because by updating eligibility criteria, adjusting delegation amounts, and extending the program duration, these changes ensure meaningful participation in governance and support the long-term sustainability and growth of the ecosystem.
[Anticapture Commission Amendment]
Vote: Yes
Rationale: We support this Amendment because it enhance its effectiveness by refining the mandate, simplifying membership criteria, and addressing feedback from members. In this way, the Commission can better prevent the capture of the Token House by any single stakeholder group.
[Grants Council Reviewer Elections: Audit Reviewer]
Vote: AnthiasLabs
Rationale: We voted for Anthiaslabs in this proposal. We have worked with this team across multiple DAOs and they have proven they are unbiased and suitable candidates for the Audit Reviewer.
[Grants Council Reviewer Elections: Milestones and Metrics Reviewer]
Vote: Juanbug_PGov
Rationale: We voted Juanbug_PGov among all candidates for the Milestones and Metrics Reviewer. Jun has been a great contributor to the OP DAO, and we have worked extensively with him on other DAOs. We are confident that his unique skills and experience will ensure that the Grants Council delivers a measurable impact on the approved KPIs.
[Grants Council Reviewer Elections: Mission Reviewer]
Vote: 1 . katie 2 . Michael 3 . mastermojo 4 . GFXlabs 5 . MattL 6 . jackanorak 7 . MoneyManDoug 8 . Sov 9 . Tane
Rationale: We split our voting power among 9 candidates who have either done a great job being a grants council reviewer for Optimism in the past or we have worked with across other DAOs. We believe these applicants bring diverse skills and experience, enhancing the builder experience and grant performance on the Optimism network.
[Upgrade Proposal # 9 : Fjord Network Upgrade]
Vote: Yes
Rationale: StableLab supports this proposal to pass the Fjord network upgrade as it brings significant enhancements to the OP-stack ecosystem, including reduced gas costs for smart wallet applications, lower data availability costs and more accurate L 1 data fee pricing.
[Mission Requests: Intent # 1 , 500 k OP]
Vote: Requests # 5 , # 6 , # 7
Rationale: We supported the Requests that showed the highest cost-efficient utility.
[Mission Requests: Intent # 3 B, 12 M OP]
Vote: Request # 1
Rationale: We believe attracting top developer talent to build on top of the superchain is essential to bring Optimism to the general public.
[Mission Requests: Intent # 3 A, 6 M OP]
Vote: Requests # 1 ABCD # 2 # 5 # 8 # 9 # 17 # 18 # 19
Rationale: We supported the Requests that showed the highest cost-efficient utility.
ACC Season 6 - IOP
Vote: Yes
StableLab supports this proposal as it establishes clear and structured Internal Operating Procedures (IOP) for the Anticapture Commission (ACC) in Season 6 of Optimism Governance.
Code of Conduct Council Elections
Vote: 1 . Oxytocin, 2 . Pumbi, 3 . Fujiar
Rationale: We voted for the candidates that have a long track record in DAO governance and we think can do a great job in preserving the values of Optimism in governance discussions.
Upgrade Proposal # 10 : Granite Network Upgrade
Vote: For
Rationale: We support this upgrade that fixes some bugs based on the latest Security audits and improves overall safety of the Optimism network.
Security Council Elections: Cohort A Lead
Vote: alisha.eth
Rationale: We support the election of alisha.eth, with an experienced track record in blockchain security and DAO governance.
Rolling Mission Requests
**Vote: ** Yes
Rationale: Approval of rolling mission requests for remaining budget is prudent given allocation is already set.
Rolling Mission Requests: Voting Cycle 27 1
**Vote: ** OP dominance in YBAs decentralized solvers full financial audit subsidized audit grants
Rationale: Allocated to 4 of the 8 most essential projects that have not already passed funding threshold.
Rolling Mission Requests: Voting Cycle 28 1
Vote: Increase Prevalence of Non-USD/EURO Stablecoi…
Rolling Mission Requests: Voting Cycle 28 1
Vote: Increase Prevalence of Non-USD/EURO Stablecoins.
Rationale: Interesting vertical that moves Optimism toward the target metric of increasing active development on the superchain.
