Forum Posts for [DRAFT][SO2 Committee Proposal: DeFi: Group C]

[DRAFT][SO2 Committee Proposal: DeFi: Group C]

Gonna.eth - This user is a moderator, govNERD

Aug. 17, 2022, 7:19 p.m.

Committee Proposal Committee Category: DeFi Committee Our focus is on making the proposal process straightforward for DeFi projects by providing a clear framework and support along the way. Our approach of engaging with proposers, performing solid due diligence & sharing qualified assessments, should help proposers make stronger proposals, facilitate decision-making for other delegates and strengthen the Op ecosystem. We consider all kinds of DeFi applications and liquidity mining schemes to fall under this category. Example proposals that would fall under this category: Perpetual Protocol: (Liquidity, Building) [GF: Phase 0 Proposal] Perpetual Protocol - # 7 by tiandao.eth Paraswap: (Liquidity, Building) [READY] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] ParaSwap Liquity: (Liquidity, Borrowing, Bridging, Building) [DRAFT] [GF: Phase 1 ] Liquity We are interested in making the proposal flow straightforward and offer to be the go-to committee for DeFi proposals. We look forward to collaborating closely with the 2 nd DeFi committee to share a similar assessment framework & offer proposers a similar experience. So far, most proposals do not differ fundamentally as they include liquidity mining, builder and ecosystem incentives. Hence, we could split proposals in the following 3 simple ways Alphabetical: (A-M, N-Z; tbd) In alternating order (A, B, A, B; tbd) Small-size vs. large-size ( A < 450 K Op < B; tbd) In the future, we look forward to more active proposal guidance to achieve lasting Op ecosystem growth. This could benefit from committee expertise in different DeFi areas. tbd Committee 1 : Derivatives, Trading, Liquidity & Asset management Committee 2 : Lending, Stables, DEXs, Aggreagtors Proposed number of committee members 5 Who will be the committee lead? @OPUser:- Bio Summary - 449 comments / 4 days read time on I from a Tradi-fi background, started as a developer and now working as a PM mostly focusing on consulting and slowly moving into web 3 space, mostly active on this gov forum and our gov-general channel on our Discord. Apart from this, I have contributed to two projects on Optimism, I was alpha tester of Lyra platform and the second project is Layer 2 DAO where I participated at the initial step of their Phase 0 proposal. Finally, I like my cute bunny pfp. Optimistic Bunnies are the very first NFT project on the OP chain and I do hangout in their discord from time to time. Who will be the committee reviewers?(please link to bio and explain their involvement in Optimism to date) @Joxes:- Bio Summary - 69 comments made / 1 day read time on governance forum My background is engineering and materials but interested in cryptocurrencies and Ethereum in 2017 since hyperinflation came to my country. Since then I have been active in various blockchain communities as a user. Since 2021 I’m part of DeFi LATAM (first as a member, then as part of the team), a top latam community focused on Web 3 for education and adoption purposes, providing a platform with high quality content and research on blockchains, DeFi, scalability. Since months ago I have also led a new community called ‘L 2 en Español’ to study and educate everything that has to do with Ethereum scaling solutions. I also help the initiative called Optimism Español to push the adoption of this solution to the region and I have a role as part of the Polygon Advocate Program. Last but not least as delegate I’m not working alone, we are currently exploring the sum of contributors in shared representation of the DeFi LATAM community and others in the region alongside honorable contributors with dedicated channels, governance calls and more, so you can also see how we work collectively for decision-making and participation in different instances. @MinimalGravitas:- Bio Summary - 103 comments made / 1 day read time on governance forum I come from a background in physics but have been interested and active in the Ethereum ecosystem since 2016 , though as a user not a builder. I’ve been an active participant in the online Ethereum community r/ethfinance, which gave me the confidence in my knowledge of the space to become a delegate for Optimism. Over the first season, each of us in this committee have been among the most active participants in the governance discussions and proposal reviews. This is shown in the forum data, for example with two of us having reached Trust Level 3 (Regular badge on Optimism Collective). @Dhannte:- Bio Summary - 37 comments made / 12 h read time on governance forum I come from game design and architecture (construction and real state) with the pandemics I switched into crypto and since then I coordinate EthernautDAO where we bridge web 2 senior devs to web 3 . My background in game design helps me understand tokenomics, usability, design, narrative and some code while construction taught me how to coordinate big projects with lots of people. I’ve been an active user and preacher of Optimism as it is the only L 2 using ETH as their gas token which is in my opinion the best way to provide value to the mainnet. We deployed all our smart contracts from EthernautDAO in optimism since we started and I have good relations with some of their devs (they are all good mentors). @ScaleWeb 3 : Bio Summary - 56 comments / 19 h read time on gov forum I, Julian Richter, have an academic background in finance & entrepreneurship. After studies & working for tech startups such as Hellofresh & Flixbus, I founded my first company and went full-time into Web 3 in early 2018 . Since then, I’ve led partnerships for NEM blockchain in the EU ( 2018 ), engaged in blockchain consulting ( 2019 ), launched blockchain-comparison.com ( 2020 ) to make crypto more accessible. In 2022 , I’ve founded ScaleWeb 3 to elevate the top crypto ecosystems (l 1 s, l 2 s, Web 3 & DeFi projects) more hands-on with ecosystem building, governance, product input - leveraging existing crypto & DeFi knowhow and quality distribution channels - and building new apps & tools for users, investors & projects. Optimism is a top l 2 , we’ve been very active throughout the first governance phase, joined the workshop in Paris, and we look forward to support the ecosystem a lot more going forward. Couple of proposals and ideas ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ) were submitted by the committee members during season 1 , many of them received good feedback from the community and few of our recommendations were accepted by the Optimism Foundation which we really appreciate. Please provide the voting participation rate and % of votable supply held by each committee member: @OPUser -Boardroom profile - 100 % participation - 0 . 53 % of votable supply @Joxes - Boardroom Profile- 100 % participation - 0 . 60 % of votable supply @MinimalGravitas - Boardroom Profile 100 % participation - 0 . 62 % of votable supply @Dhannte - Boardroom Profile 100 % participation - 0 . 41 % of votable supply @ScaleWeb 3 - Delegate Thread feedback on all 4 voting cycles, voting participation only in first 2 cycles due to l 1 multisig issue some delegates experienced. Redelegate scaleweb 3 .eth → superdelegate.eth! - 0 . 3 % of votable supply still in scaleweb 3 .eth Please disclose any and all conflicts of interest committee members may have: @MinimalGravitas - RocketPool Node Operator, abstained from RocketPool proposal (both discussion and voting), will abstain from any future proposals regarding RocketPool. @Dhannte - EthernautDAO, I’ll abstain from any future proposals regarding EthernautDAO @ScaleWeb 3 - We’ll abstain from any future proposals regarding ScaleWeb 3 . If additional conflicts of interest occur in the future we will abstain from votes and declare the potential bias in any relevant discussion. Please link to the voting history (with rationale) of each committee member: Voting history can be verified for each committee member on Snapshot and voting rationale is mentioned in either their communication thread or on cycle closing thread. @OPUser - Snapshot Profile , Communication Thread @Joxes - Snapshot Profile , Communication Thread @MinimalGravitas - Snapshot Profile ,no central delegate communication thread, example analysis from voting cycle 1 roundup: https://gov.optimism.io/t/voting-cycle- 1 -roundup/ 2619 / 34 ?u=@MinimalGravitas @Dhannte - Snapshot Profile ,no central delegate communication thread, I do explain my logic here: https://twitter.com/@DhannteG/status/ 1543593278695677952 @ScaleWeb 3 - Communication thread, Introduced a basic assessment framework during voting cycle 2 which consisted of value-add, reasonability of amount requested, quality of Op distribution and applicability of co-inventives (more extensive framework below) It’s important to note that our voting power is relatively low, which far from being a disadvantage represents a valuable attribute as genuine contributing members of governance while maintaining neutrality or de-risk of centralization of opinion or influence. In our position, our expected performance and commitment are backed by our past actions and activity and our commitment to continue over time. Please outline the decision making framework the committee plans to use to make recommendations: Our decision-making framework can be seen in the following table. Some of the categories slightly overlap and decisions will likely never be fully quantifiable but we look forward to utilising the framework, making fair recommendations and offering other delegates good insights when making their own decision whether to follow our recommendation or not 1600 × 807 327 KB Any other points not specified in the table that are circumstantially relevant will be duly addressed and noted in the report. This will depend on the particularities of each proposal. As the committee accompanies proposers through the proposal process, proposal quality should rise. It should be clear when proposals are ready to get committee approval. Nonetheless, projects decide whenever they wish to move from “Draft” to “Ready” and we offer our recommendation in the forum. Please describe how the committee will operate: The committee will pick one lead reviewer per proposal but all committee members should engage in each proposal. The committee will collaboratively assess the proposal and give one recommendation in the forum. Currently planned workflow, communication channels and expected outputs are detailed below: For us, open communication and transparency is important as can be seen in our season 1 voting. Our committee will continue this approach as we believe that it’s one of the important pillars of sustainable DAO Gov. We will have one “private” Discord channel for this committee to discuss internal processes, organisational improvements and launch of new proposal reviews. Our committee will offer proposers a point of contact and open a Discord channel on the Optimism Discord Server that is readable for other users to give continuous feedback to the team responsible for the proposal. Once the project wants to go from “Draft” to “Ready”, we will offer an official feedback within 3 days and share our formal recommendation according to our framework on the gov forum below the proposal and in our Committee thread. At the end of each cycle, we will share our learning on the gov forum and at the end of season 2 , we will share a report which will include season feedback and recommendation for next season. This offers extensive support to proposers, insights to committee-proposal discussions as well as a public track record for accountability of committee and members.

Likes: 18 Replies: 1

Gonna.eth - govNERD, This user is a moderator

Aug. 17, 2022, 7:19 p.m.

Committee Proposal Committee Category: DeFi Committee Our focus is on making the proposal process … Committee Proposal Committee Category: DeFi Committee Our focus is on making the proposal process straightforward for DeFi projects by providing a clear framework and support along the way. Our approach of engaging with proposers, performing solid due diligence & sharing qualified assessments, should help proposers make stronger proposals, facilitate decision-making for other delegates and strengthen the Op ecosystem. We consider all kinds of DeFi applications and liquidity mining schemes to fall under this category. Example proposals that would fall under this category: Perpetual Protocol: (Liquidity, Building) [GF: Phase 0 Proposal] Perpetual Protocol - # 7 by tiandao.eth 6 Paraswap: (Liquidity, Building) [READY] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] ParaSwap 2 Liquity: (Liquidity, Borrowing, Bridging, Building) [DRAFT] [GF: Phase 1 ] Liquity 4 We are interested in making the proposal flow straightforward and offer to be the go-to committee for DeFi proposals. We look forward to collaborating closely with the 2 nd DeFi committee to share a similar assessment framework & offer proposers a similar experience. So far, most proposals do not differ fundamentally as they include liquidity mining, builder and ecosystem incentives. Hence, we could split proposals in the following 3 simple ways Alphabetical: (A-M, N-Z; tbd) In alternating order (A, B, A, B; tbd) Small-size vs. large-size ( A < 450 K Op < B; tbd) In the future, we look forward to more active proposal guidance to achieve lasting Op ecosystem growth. This could benefit from committee expertise in different DeFi areas. tbd Committee 1 : Derivatives, Trading, Liquidity & Asset management Committee 2 : Lending, Stables, DEXs, Aggreagtors Proposed number of committee members 5 Who will be the committee lead? @OPUser:- Bio 9 Summary - 449 comments / 4 days read time on I from a Tradi-fi background, started as a developer and now working as a PM mostly focusing on consulting and slowly moving into web 3 space, mostly active on this gov forum and our gov-general channel on our Discord. Apart from this, I have contributed to two projects on Optimism, I was alpha tester of Lyra platform and the second project is Layer 2 DAO where I participated at the initial step of their Phase 0 proposal. Finally, I like my cute bunny pfp. Optimistic Bunnies are the very first NFT project on the OP chain and I do hangout in their discord from time to time. Who will be the committee reviewers?(please link to bio and explain their involvement in Optimism to date) @Joxes:- Bio 5 Summary - 69 comments made / 1 day read time on governance forum My background is engineering and materials but interested in cryptocurrencies and Ethereum in 2017 since hyperinflation came to my country. Since then I have been active in various blockchain communities as a user. Since 2021 I’m part of DeFi LATAM (first as a member, then as part of the team), a top latam community focused on Web 3 for education and adoption purposes, providing a platform with high quality content and research on blockchains, DeFi, scalability. Since months ago I have also led a new community called ‘L 2 en Español’ to study and educate everything that has to do with Ethereum scaling solutions. I also help the initiative called Optimism Español to push the adoption of this solution to the region and I have a role as part of the Polygon Advocate Program. Last but not least as delegate I’m not working alone, we are currently exploring the sum of contributors in shared representation of the DeFi LATAM community and others in the region alongside honorable contributors with dedicated channels, governance calls and more, so you can also see how we work collectively for decision-making and participation in different instances. @MinimalGravitas:- Bio 7 Summary - 103 comments made / 1 day read time on governance forum I come from a background in physics but have been interested and active in the Ethereum ecosystem since 2016 , though as a user not a builder. I’ve been an active participant in the online Ethereum community r/ethfinance, which gave me the confidence in my knowledge of the space to become a delegate for Optimism. Over the first season, each of us in this committee have been among the most active participants in the governance discussions and proposal reviews. This is shown in the forum data, for example with two of us having reached Trust Level 3 (Regular badge on Optimism Collective 1 ). @Dhannte:- Bio 2 Summary - 37 comments made / 12 h read time on governance forum I come from game design and architecture (construction and real state) with the pandemics I switched into crypto and since then I coordinate EthernautDAO where we bridge web 2 senior devs to web 3 . My background in game design helps me understand tokenomics, usability, design, narrative and some code while construction taught me how to coordinate big projects with lots of people. I’ve been an active user and preacher of Optimism as it is the only L 2 using ETH as their gas token which is in my opinion the best way to provide value to the mainnet. We deployed all our smart contracts from EthernautDAO in optimism since we started and I have good relations with some of their devs (they are all good mentors). @ScaleWeb 3 : Bio 3 Summary - 56 comments / 19 h read time on gov forum I, Julian Richter, have an academic background in finance & entrepreneurship. After studies & working for tech startups such as Hellofresh & Flixbus, I founded my first company and went full-time into Web 3 in early 2018 . Since then, I’ve led partnerships for NEM blockchain in the EU ( 2018 ), engaged in blockchain consulting ( 2019 ), launched blockchain-comparison.com 1 ( 2020 ) to make crypto more accessible. In 2022 , I’ve founded ScaleWeb 3 to elevate the top crypto ecosystems (l 1 s, l 2 s, Web 3 & DeFi projects) more hands-on with ecosystem building, governance, product input - leveraging existing crypto & DeFi knowhow and quality distribution channels - and building new apps & tools for users, investors & projects. Optimism is a top l 2 , we’ve been very active throughout the first governance phase, joined the workshop in Paris, and we look forward to support the ecosystem a lot more going forward. Couple of proposals and ideas ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ) were submitted by the committee members during season 1 , many of them received good feedback from the community and few of our recommendations were accepted by the Optimism Foundation which we really appreciate. Please provide the voting participation rate and % of votable supply held by each committee member: @OPUser -Boardroom profile 8 - 100 % participation - 0 . 53 % of votable supply @Joxes - Boardroom Profile 3 - 100 % participation - 0 . 60 % of votable supply @MinimalGravitas - Boardroom Profile 2 100 % participation - 0 . 62 % of votable supply @Dhannte - Boardroom Profile 100 % participation - 0 . 41 % of votable supply @ScaleWeb 3 - Delegate Thread 1 feedback on all 4 voting cycles, voting participation only in first 2 cycles due to l 1 multisig issue some delegates experienced. Redelegate scaleweb 3 .eth → superdelegate.eth! - 0 . 3 % of votable supply still in scaleweb 3 .eth Please disclose any and all conflicts of interest committee members may have: @MinimalGravitas - RocketPool Node Operator, abstained from RocketPool proposal (both discussion and voting), will abstain from any future proposals regarding RocketPool. @Dhannte - EthernautDAO, I’ll abstain from any future proposals regarding EthernautDAO @ScaleWeb 3 - We’ll abstain from any future proposals regarding ScaleWeb 3 . If additional conflicts of interest occur in the future we will abstain from votes and declare the potential bias in any relevant discussion. Please link to the voting history (with rationale) of each committee member: Voting history can be verified for each committee member on Snapshot and voting rationale is mentioned in either their communication thread or on cycle closing thread. @OPUser - Snapshot Profile 7 , Communication Thread 1 @Joxes - Snapshot Profile 3 , Communication Thread 3 @MinimalGravitas - Snapshot Profile 2 ,no central delegate communication thread, example analysis from voting cycle 1 roundup: https://gov.optimism.io/t/voting-cycle- 1 -roundup/ 2619 / 34 ?u=@MinimalGravitas @Dhannte - Snapshot Profile 1 ,no central delegate communication thread, I do explain my logic here: https://twitter.com/@DhannteG/status/ 1543593278695677952 @ScaleWeb 3 - Communication thread 1 , Introduced a basic assessment framework during voting cycle 2 which consisted of value-add, reasonability of amount requested, quality of Op distribution and applicability of co-inventives (more extensive framework below) It’s important to note that our voting power is relatively low, which far from being a disadvantage represents a valuable attribute as genuine contributing members of governance while maintaining neutrality or de-risk of centralization of opinion or influence. In our position, our expected performance and commitment are backed by our past actions and activity and our commitment to continue over time. Please outline the decision making framework the committee plans to use to make recommendations: Our decision-making framework can be seen in the following table. Some of the categories slightly overlap and decisions will likely never be fully quantifiable but we look forward to utilising the framework, making fair recommendations and offering other delegates good insights when making their own decision whether to follow our recommendation or not 1600 × 807 327 KB Any other points not specified in the table that are circumstantially relevant will be duly addressed and noted in the report. This will depend on the particularities of each proposal. As the committee accompanies proposers through the proposal process, proposal quality should rise. It should be clear when proposals are ready to get committee approval. Nonetheless, projects decide whenever they wish to move from “Draft” to “Ready” and we offer our recommendation in the forum. Please describe how the committee will operate: The committee will pick one lead reviewer per proposal but all committee members should engage in each proposal. The committee will collaboratively assess the proposal and give one recommendation in the forum. Currently planned workflow, communication channels and expected outputs are detailed below: For us, open communication and transparency is important as can be seen in our season 1 voting. Our committee will continue this approach as we believe that it’s one of the important pillars of sustainable DAO Gov. We will have one “private” Discord channel for this committee to discuss internal processes, organisational improvements and launch of new proposal reviews. Our committee will offer proposers a point of contact and open a Discord channel on the Optimism Discord Server that is readable for other users to give continuous feedback to the team responsible for the proposal. Once the project wants to go from “Draft” to “Ready”, we will offer an official feedback within 3 days and share our formal recommendation according to our framework on the gov forum below the proposal and in our Committee thread. At the end of each cycle, we will share our learning on the gov forum and at the end of season 2 , we will share a report which will include season feedback and recommendation for next season. This offers extensive support to proposers, insights to committee-proposal discussions as well as a public track record for accountability of committee and members.

Likes: 18 Replies: 1

AxlVaz - No Role

Aug. 17, 2022, 8:06 p.m.

The voting power of this committee is 2 . 46 %, congratulations very good team! Gonna.eth: Pl… The voting power of this committee is 2 . 46 %, congratulations very good team! Gonna.eth: Please provide the voting participation rate and % of votable supply held by each committee member: @OPUser -Boardroom profile - 100 % participation - 0 . 53 % of votable supply @SEED_LATAM_Joxes - Boardroom Profile- 100 % participation - 0 . 60 % of votable supply @MinimalGravitas - Boardroom Profile 100 % participation - 0 . 62 % of votable supply @Gonna.eth - Boardroom Profile 100 % participation - 0 . 41 % of votable supply @ScaleWeb 3 - Delegate Thread feedback on all 4 voting cycles, voting participation only in first 2 cycles due to l 1 multisig issue some delegates experienced. Redelegate scaleweb 3 .eth → superdelegate.eth! - 0 . 3 % of votable supply still in scaleweb 3 .eth

Likes: 9 Replies: 0

Ovetta - No Role

Aug. 17, 2022, 11:09 p.m.

Excellent Team and nice proposal! Thank you all for your dedication and commitment. (Random side n… Excellent Team and nice proposal! Thank you all for your dedication and commitment. (Random side note) - OPUser has such a strong presence in this community and on this forum, I thought he was an admin, moderator or OP Foundation member. lol. Well done sir.

Likes: 6 Replies: 0

Gonna.eth - This user is a moderator

Aug. 17, 2022, 11:19 p.m.

Committee Proposal Committee Category: DeFi Committee Our focus is on making the proposal process … Committee Proposal Committee Category: DeFi Committee Our focus is on making the proposal process straightforward for DeFi projects by providing a clear framework and support along the way. Our approach of engaging with proposers, performing solid due diligence & sharing qualified assessments, should help proposers make stronger proposals, facilitate decision-making for other delegates and strengthen the Op ecosystem. We consider all kinds of DeFi applications and liquidity mining schemes to fall under this category. Example proposals that would fall under this category: Perpetual Protocol: (Liquidity, Building) [GF: Phase 0 Proposal] Perpetual Protocol - # 7 by tiandao.eth 6 Paraswap: (Liquidity, Building) [READY] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] ParaSwap 2 Liquity: (Liquidity, Borrowing, Bridging, Building) [DRAFT] [GF: Phase 1 ] Liquity 3 We are interested in making the proposal flow straightforward and offer to be the go-to committee for DeFi proposals. We look forward to collaborating closely with the 2 nd DeFi committee to share a similar assessment framework & offer proposers a similar experience. So far, most proposals do not differ fundamentally as they include liquidity mining, builder and ecosystem incentives. Hence, we could split proposals in the following 3 simple ways Alphabetical: (A-M, N-Z; tbd) In alternating order (A, B, A, B; tbd) Small-size vs. large-size ( A < 450 K Op < B; tbd) In the future, we look forward to more active proposal guidance to achieve lasting Op ecosystem growth. This could benefit from committee expertise in different DeFi areas. tbd Committee 1 : Derivatives, Trading, Liquidity & Asset management Committee 2 : Lending, Stables, DEXs, Aggreagtors Proposed number of committee members 5 Who will be the committee lead? @OPUser:- Bio 9 Summary - 449 comments / 4 days read time on I from a Tradi-fi background, started as a developer and now working as a PM mostly focusing on consulting and slowly moving into web 3 space, mostly active on this gov forum and our gov-general channel on our Discord. Apart from this, I have contributed to two projects on Optimism, I was alpha tester of Lyra platform and the second project is Layer 2 DAO where I participated at the initial step of their Phase 0 proposal. Finally, I like my cute bunny pfp. Optimistic Bunnies are the very first NFT project on the OP chain and I do hangout in their discord from time to time. Who will be the committee reviewers?(please link to bio and explain their involvement in Optimism to date) @Joxes:- Bio 5 Summary - 69 comments made / 1 day read time on governance forum My background is engineering and materials but interested in cryptocurrencies and Ethereum in 2017 since hyperinflation came to my country. Since then I have been active in various blockchain communities as a user. Since 2021 I’m part of DeFi LATAM (first as a member, then as part of the team), a top latam community focused on Web 3 for education and adoption purposes, providing a platform with high quality content and research on blockchains, DeFi, scalability. Since months ago I have also led a new community called ‘L 2 en Español’ to study and educate everything that has to do with Ethereum scaling solutions. I also help the initiative called Optimism Español to push the adoption of this solution to the region and I have a role as part of the Polygon Advocate Program. Last but not least as delegate I’m not working alone, we are currently exploring the sum of contributors in shared representation of the DeFi LATAM community and others in the region alongside honorable contributors with dedicated channels, governance calls and more, so you can also see how we work collectively for decision-making and participation in different instances. @MinimalGravitas:- Bio 7 Summary - 103 comments made / 1 day read time on governance forum I come from a background in physics but have been interested and active in the Ethereum ecosystem since 2016 , though as a user not a builder. I’ve been an active participant in the online Ethereum community r/ethfinance, which gave me the confidence in my knowledge of the space to become a delegate for Optimism. Over the first season, each of us in this committee have been among the most active participants in the governance discussions and proposal reviews. This is shown in the forum data, for example with two of us having reached Trust Level 3 (Regular badge on Optimism Collective 1 ). @Dhannte:- Bio 2 Summary - 37 comments made / 12 h read time on governance forum I come from game design and architecture (construction and real state) with the pandemics I switched into crypto and since then I coordinate EthernautDAO where we bridge web 2 senior devs to web 3 . My background in game design helps me understand tokenomics, usability, design, narrative and some code while construction taught me how to coordinate big projects with lots of people. I’ve been an active user and preacher of Optimism as it is the only L 2 using ETH as their gas token which is in my opinion the best way to provide value to the mainnet. We deployed all our smart contracts from EthernautDAO in optimism since we started and I have good relations with some of their devs (they are all good mentors). @ScaleWeb 3 : Bio 3 Summary - 56 comments / 19 h read time on gov forum I, Julian Richter, have an academic background in finance & entrepreneurship. After studies & working for tech startups such as Hellofresh & Flixbus, I founded my first company and went full-time into Web 3 in early 2018 . Since then, I’ve led partnerships for NEM blockchain in the EU ( 2018 ), engaged in blockchain consulting ( 2019 ), launched blockchain-comparison.com 1 ( 2020 ) to make crypto more accessible. In 2022 , I’ve founded ScaleWeb 3 to elevate the top crypto ecosystems (l 1 s, l 2 s, Web 3 & DeFi projects) more hands-on with ecosystem building, governance, product input - leveraging existing crypto & DeFi knowhow and quality distribution channels - and building new apps & tools for users, investors & projects. Optimism is a top l 2 , we’ve been very active throughout the first governance phase, joined the workshop in Paris, and we look forward to support the ecosystem a lot more going forward. Couple of proposals and ideas ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ) were submitted by the committee members during season 1 , many of them received good feedback from the community and few of our recommendations were accepted by the Optimism Foundation which we really appreciate. Please provide the voting participation rate and % of votable supply held by each committee member: @OPUser -Boardroom profile 8 - 100 % participation - 0 . 53 % of votable supply @Joxes - Boardroom Profile 3 - 100 % participation - 0 . 60 % of votable supply @MinimalGravitas - Boardroom Profile 2 100 % participation - 0 . 62 % of votable supply @Dhannte - Boardroom Profile 100 % participation - 0 . 41 % of votable supply @ScaleWeb 3 - Delegate Thread 1 feedback on all 4 voting cycles, voting participation only in first 2 cycles due to l 1 multisig issue some delegates experienced. Redelegate scaleweb 3 .eth → superdelegate.eth! - 0 . 3 % of votable supply still in scaleweb 3 .eth Please disclose any and all conflicts of interest committee members may have: @MinimalGravitas - RocketPool Node Operator, abstained from RocketPool proposal (both discussion and voting), will abstain from any future proposals regarding RocketPool. @Dhannte - EthernautDAO, I’ll abstain from any future proposals regarding EthernautDAO @ScaleWeb 3 - We’ll abstain from any future proposals regarding ScaleWeb 3 . If additional conflicts of interest occur in the future we will abstain from votes and declare the potential bias in any relevant discussion. Please link to the voting history (with rationale) of each committee member: Voting history can be verified for each committee member on Snapshot and voting rationale is mentioned in either their communication thread or on cycle closing thread. @OPUser - Snapshot Profile 7 , Communication Thread 1 @Joxes - Snapshot Profile 3 , Communication Thread 3 @MinimalGravitas - Snapshot Profile 2 ,no central delegate communication thread, example analysis from voting cycle 1 roundup: https://gov.optimism.io/t/voting-cycle- 1 -roundup/ 2619 / 34 ?u=@MinimalGravitas @Dhannte - Snapshot Profile 1 ,no central delegate communication thread, I do explain my logic here: https://twitter.com/@DhannteG/status/ 1543593278695677952 @ScaleWeb 3 - Communication thread 1 , Introduced a basic assessment framework during voting cycle 2 which consisted of value-add, reasonability of amount requested, quality of Op distribution and applicability of co-inventives (more extensive framework below) It’s important to note that our voting power is relatively low, which far from being a disadvantage represents a valuable attribute as genuine contributing members of governance while maintaining neutrality or de-risk of centralization of opinion or influence. In our position, our expected performance and commitment are backed by our past actions and activity and our commitment to continue over time. Please outline the decision making framework the committee plans to use to make recommendations: Our decision-making framework can be seen in the following table. Some of the categories slightly overlap and decisions will likely never be fully quantifiable but we look forward to utilising the framework, making fair recommendations and offering other delegates good insights when making their own decision whether to follow our recommendation or not 1600 × 807 327 KB Any other points not specified in the table that are circumstantially relevant will be duly addressed and noted in the report. This will depend on the particularities of each proposal. As the committee accompanies proposers through the proposal process, proposal quality should rise. It should be clear when proposals are ready to get committee approval. Nonetheless, projects decide whenever they wish to move from “Draft” to “Ready” and we offer our recommendation in the forum. Please describe how the committee will operate: The committee will pick one lead reviewer per proposal but all committee members should engage in each proposal. The committee will collaboratively assess the proposal and give one recommendation in the forum. Currently planned workflow, communication channels and expected outputs are detailed below: For us, open communication and transparency is important as can be seen in our season 1 voting. Our committee will continue this approach as we believe that it’s one of the important pillars of sustainable DAO Gov. We will have one “private” Discord channel for this committee to discuss internal processes, organisational improvements and launch of new proposal reviews. Our committee will offer proposers a point of contact and open a Discord channel on the Optimism Discord Server that is readable for other users to give continuous feedback to the team responsible for the proposal. Once the project wants to go from “Draft” to “Ready”, we will offer an official feedback within 3 days and share our formal recommendation according to our framework on the gov forum below the proposal and in our Committee thread. At the end of each cycle, we will share our learning on the gov forum and at the end of season 2 , we will share a report which will include season feedback and recommendation for next season. This offers extensive support to proposers, insights to committee-proposal discussions as well as a public track record for accountability of committee and members.

Likes: 18 Replies: 1

AxlVaz - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 12:06 a.m.

Likes: 10 Replies: 0

AxlVaz - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 12:06 a.m.

Likes: 10 Replies: 0

Ovetta - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 3:09 a.m.

Likes: 6 Replies: 0

ScaleWeb3 - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 3:53 a.m.

Excited to work with the most active, contributing members in the OP ecosystem - if not all crypto!… Excited to work with the most active, contributing members in the OP ecosystem - if not all crypto! :slight_smile:

Likes: 7 Replies: 0

ScaleWeb3 - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 7:53 a.m.

Likes: 7 Replies: 0

jackanorak - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 9:21 a.m.

truly a powerhouse team – but why defi and not one of the many other categories, considering there … truly a powerhouse team – but why defi and not one of the many other categories, considering there have already been another two committees formed for defi? I don’t see any particular defi expertise represented here but many other kinds of knowhow and ways to contribute.

Likes: 2 Replies: 3

Replies:

MinimalGravitas: jackanorak: why defi and not one of the many other categories I think we’re all anticipating DeFi proposals to continue to be the largest category and therefore the most time consuming committee. It surely makes sense for the group of delegates with the highest demonstrated participation in assessment of proposals for season one to take responsibility for a largest section of proposals for season two! I don’t see any particular defi expertise represented here The other way to look at that is that we don’t have as many potential conflicts of interest as may arise from teams with members that work for their own DeFi projects. If you consider assessing competitors proposals as well as dApps that interact with a delegates’ projects as possible conflicts of interest then I would have thought for the most credible neutrality we want delegates who are experienced DeFi users more than those who work in DeFi themselves.
Prometheus: jackanorak: Hope people reading this thread recognize what the level of discourse must be if Optimism is going to make it as an experiment in collective governance. I’m sure people reading recognize how everything started and how it evolved. Neverthless It’s only the consequence of having committees… if no one wanted committees this kind of diminishing debate wouldn’t happen. jackanorak: I don’t see any particular defi expertise represented here but many other kinds of knowhow and ways to contribute. That said, Good luck with Season 2.
Prometheus: let’s recap… jackanorak: I don’t see any particular defi expertise represented here jackanorak: the stated purpose of organizing committees in the first place is to ensure that the most qualified, specialized people look at the proposals jackanorak: of course that would entail people who currently work on defi protocols jackanorak: I recommend refocusing on what this group has shown expertise at jackanorak: you can’t assign people to the best committees without making a judgment about expertise and qualifications. jackanorak: however, we are significant stakeholders, and our voice does in fact matter and simply offers much more perspective jackanorak: we know who’s doing what and where key frictions and missing defi legos are jackanorak: i recommend you take my suggestion productively and reconsider your position. jackanorak: The goal here is to get the best people weighing in on the right proposals in a way that doesn’t stretch anyone’s time. Meanwhile: Introducing Governance Committees Problems to Solve We heard lots of feedback from community members and delegates throughout Season 1. Committees attempt to solve the following problems: 1. Information Overload for Delegates There are currently a lot of proposals to be voted on by Token House delegates. Even for delegates that are very familiar with the context of these proposals and their applications, processing all these proposals is unsustainable. Providing feedback on proposal drafts and engaging on forum posts, while voting on active proposals, is currently an unmanageable workload for many delegates. 2. Purpose Mismatch for Delegates Delegates have different areas of specialty. While the majority of proposals to date have been related to DeFi, some delegates specialize in non-DeFi related topics such as public goods, tooling, and L2 infrastructure. These delegates don’t feel well-equipped to vote on DeFi proposals or aren’t interested in doing so. Diminishing people capacity, expertise, ability to work in a specific committee was completely pointless in the first place. I didn’t need to read all this BS but thanks. Now I know I don’t want to be part of this kind of DAO.

jackanorak - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 1:21 p.m.

Likes: 2 Replies: 3

Replies:

MinimalGravitas: jackanorak: why defi and not one of the many other categories I think we’re all anticipating DeFi proposals to continue to be the largest category and therefore the most time consuming committee. It surely makes sense for the group of delegates with the highest demonstrated participation in assessment of proposals for season one to take responsibility for a largest section of proposals for season two! I don’t see any particular defi expertise represented here The other way to look at that is that we don’t have as many potential conflicts of interest as may arise from teams with members that work for their own DeFi projects. If you consider assessing competitors proposals as well as dApps that interact with a delegates’ projects as possible conflicts of interest then I would have thought for the most credible neutrality we want delegates who are experienced DeFi users more than those who work in DeFi themselves.
Prometheus: jackanorak: Hope people reading this thread recognize what the level of discourse must be if Optimism is going to make it as an experiment in collective governance. I’m sure people reading recognize how everything started and how it evolved. Neverthless It’s only the consequence of having committees… if no one wanted committees this kind of diminishing debate wouldn’t happen. jackanorak: I don’t see any particular defi expertise represented here but many other kinds of knowhow and ways to contribute. That said, Good luck with Season 2.
Prometheus: let’s recap… jackanorak: I don’t see any particular defi expertise represented here jackanorak: the stated purpose of organizing committees in the first place is to ensure that the most qualified, specialized people look at the proposals jackanorak: of course that would entail people who currently work on defi protocols jackanorak: I recommend refocusing on what this group has shown expertise at jackanorak: you can’t assign people to the best committees without making a judgment about expertise and qualifications. jackanorak: however, we are significant stakeholders, and our voice does in fact matter and simply offers much more perspective jackanorak: we know who’s doing what and where key frictions and missing defi legos are jackanorak: i recommend you take my suggestion productively and reconsider your position. jackanorak: The goal here is to get the best people weighing in on the right proposals in a way that doesn’t stretch anyone’s time. Meanwhile: Introducing Governance Committees Problems to Solve We heard lots of feedback from community members and delegates throughout Season 1. Committees attempt to solve the following problems: 1. Information Overload for Delegates There are currently a lot of proposals to be voted on by Token House delegates. Even for delegates that are very familiar with the context of these proposals and their applications, processing all these proposals is unsustainable. Providing feedback on proposal drafts and engaging on forum posts, while voting on active proposals, is currently an unmanageable workload for many delegates. 2. Purpose Mismatch for Delegates Delegates have different areas of specialty. While the majority of proposals to date have been related to DeFi, some delegates specialize in non-DeFi related topics such as public goods, tooling, and L2 infrastructure. These delegates don’t feel well-equipped to vote on DeFi proposals or aren’t interested in doing so. Diminishing people capacity, expertise, ability to work in a specific committee was completely pointless in the first place. I didn’t need to read all this BS but thanks. Now I know I don’t want to be part of this kind of DAO.

MinimalGravitas - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 1:41 p.m.

jackanorak: why defi and not one of the many other categories I think we’re all anticipating… jackanorak: why defi and not one of the many other categories I think we’re all anticipating DeFi proposals to continue to be the largest category and therefore the most time consuming committee. It surely makes sense for the group of delegates with the highest demonstrated participation in assessment of proposals for season one to take responsibility for a largest section of proposals for season two! I don’t see any particular defi expertise represented here The other way to look at that is that we don’t have as many potential conflicts of interest as may arise from teams with members that work for their own DeFi projects. If you consider assessing competitors proposals as well as dApps that interact with a delegates’ projects as possible conflicts of interest then I would have thought for the most credible neutrality we want delegates who are experienced DeFi users more than those who work in DeFi themselves.

Likes: 4 Replies: 0

jackanorak - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 2:02 p.m.

the stated purpose of organizing committees in the first place is to ensure that the most qualified… the stated purpose of organizing committees in the first place is to ensure that the most qualified, specialized people look at the proposals that best suit their expertise. of course that would entail people who currently work on defi protocols, as they are the ones who would best assess the likely value-add an incoming protocol would offer in terms of growth, composability, etc. questions of conflicts of interests simply are not relevant in this case; they are addressed by other means. the fact that this group has chosen defi as its committee not because of its expertise but because it’s ‘time-consuming’ is telling. in fact, because specialized groups will now be paid for their time, the question of what’s more time-consuming is less relevant now as an aside, one thing i’ve encountered a lot in daos is the conflation of activity and value contribution. it’s true that you want to ensure that responsibility falls to the most engaged people. i would argue that activity is necessary but not sufficient to be an effective delegate. lucky for us, the people in this group are committed delegates and clearly mean the best for the Collective. I recommend refocusing on what this group has shown expertise at and considering another specialization. judging from your backgrounds i could see, for instance, metagovernance tools or broader community-oriented public goods, such as data providers or engagement programs, some of which I know firsthand are planning to submit for proposals.

Likes: 1 Replies: 5

Replies:

AxlVaz: jackanorak: El propósito declarado de los comités organizadores en primer lugar es asegurar que las personas más calificadas y especializadas vean las propuestas que mejor se adapten a su experiencia. por supuesto, eso implicaría a las personas que actualmente trabajan en protocolos defi, ya que son los que mejor evaluarían el valor agregado probable que ofrecería un protocolo entrante en términos de crecimiento, componibilidad, etc. las cuestiones de conflictos de intereses simplemente no son relevantes en este caso; se abordan por otros medios. I don’t agree so much and many debates in this very governance has shown that there is conflict of interest. Even some members have been able to separate it well.
MinimalGravitas: jackanorak: the fact that this group has chosen defi as its committee not because of its expertise but because it’s ‘time-consuming’ is telling. specialized groups will now be paid for their time; the question of what’s more time-consuming ought to sort itself out At the time we started working on forming a committee the compensation was going to be equal across the three suggested areas. I understand that you are part of a different group trying to form a DeFi committee but I don’t appreciate you trying to imply we’ve decided to focus on this area because of potential financial reward.
ScaleWeb3: Our focus in the past 2-3 years has been 90% on DeFi incl. research, proposals, personal investment strategies from optimizing for different launch options, to liquidity mining, leveraged stablecoin farming, lending pool optimization or the future of DEX-DEX aggregator (AMM-Clob-limit order…). From DeFi, Tooling, and NFTs - we vouched for Defi as we could add most value. I’m positive this committee will offer a great mix of expertise, neutrality & committment. Fair initial question about qualification (which seems to turn into a full book now; pls dm for more )
Gonna.eth: jackanorak: the stated purpose of organizing committees in the first place is to ensure that the most qualified, specialized people look at the proposals that best suit their expertise. of course that would entail people who currently work on defi protocols, as they are the ones who would best assess the likely value-add an incoming protocol would offer in terms of growth, composability, etc. questions of conflicts of interests simply are not relevant in this case; they are addressed by other means. I think one DeFi committee should be constituted by experts in the field yes. But having their own DeFi protocols makes it a huge conflict of interest and the second committee should be from outside any DeFi protocols running on optimism or mainnet. There’s no guarantee you will approve any competitor from velo. It’s also worth mention you are engaging here saying this committee is a bad idea because we are not professionals, but when you were asked to disclose Velo code and make it open source you said no, so how can we know you are an expert if we can’t review the code, the whole idea of the crypto space is not to trust a human yet here you are saying “trust me but not this committee” who has been 100% open. In the future constructive feedback is more useful than just saying what you think is wrong, keep it in mind for future project you will have to review. If you think we are not DeFi qualified then ask DeFi questions you think we don’t understand and you’ll get your answers. I’m a heavy DeFi user since the beginning of it, I’ve been part of many VC research groups and hedge research group yet this is outside my background because it’s not my main job, just a math hobby for me.
Prometheus: let’s recap… jackanorak: I don’t see any particular defi expertise represented here jackanorak: the stated purpose of organizing committees in the first place is to ensure that the most qualified, specialized people look at the proposals jackanorak: of course that would entail people who currently work on defi protocols jackanorak: I recommend refocusing on what this group has shown expertise at jackanorak: you can’t assign people to the best committees without making a judgment about expertise and qualifications. jackanorak: however, we are significant stakeholders, and our voice does in fact matter and simply offers much more perspective jackanorak: we know who’s doing what and where key frictions and missing defi legos are jackanorak: i recommend you take my suggestion productively and reconsider your position. jackanorak: The goal here is to get the best people weighing in on the right proposals in a way that doesn’t stretch anyone’s time. Meanwhile: Introducing Governance Committees Problems to Solve We heard lots of feedback from community members and delegates throughout Season 1. Committees attempt to solve the following problems: 1. Information Overload for Delegates There are currently a lot of proposals to be voted on by Token House delegates. Even for delegates that are very familiar with the context of these proposals and their applications, processing all these proposals is unsustainable. Providing feedback on proposal drafts and engaging on forum posts, while voting on active proposals, is currently an unmanageable workload for many delegates. 2. Purpose Mismatch for Delegates Delegates have different areas of specialty. While the majority of proposals to date have been related to DeFi, some delegates specialize in non-DeFi related topics such as public goods, tooling, and L2 infrastructure. These delegates don’t feel well-equipped to vote on DeFi proposals or aren’t interested in doing so. Diminishing people capacity, expertise, ability to work in a specific committee was completely pointless in the first place. I didn’t need to read all this BS but thanks. Now I know I don’t want to be part of this kind of DAO.

AxlVaz - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 2:16 p.m.

jackanorak: El propósito declarado de los comités organizadores en primer lugar es asegurar qu… jackanorak: El propósito declarado de los comités organizadores en primer lugar es asegurar que las personas más calificadas y especializadas vean las propuestas que mejor se adapten a su experiencia. por supuesto, eso implicaría a las personas que actualmente trabajan en protocolos defi, ya que son los que mejor evaluarían el valor agregado probable que ofrecería un protocolo entrante en términos de crecimiento, componibilidad, etc. las cuestiones de conflictos de intereses simplemente no son relevantes en este caso; se abordan por otros medios. I don’t agree so much and many debates in this very governance has shown that there is conflict of interest. Even some members have been able to separate it well.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

jackanorak - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 2:21 p.m.

could you cite some examples? could you cite some examples?

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

jackanorak - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 2:23 p.m.

in any case there simply isn’t an argument for taking on defi on the presumption that anyone with w… in any case there simply isn’t an argument for taking on defi on the presumption that anyone with work expertise is too conflicted to weigh in. that logic would exclude key stakeholders from the entire delegation, not just committees, and it would leave committees bereft of expertise

Likes: 0 Replies: 1

MinimalGravitas - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 2:27 p.m.

jackanorak: the fact that this group has chosen defi as its committee not because of its exper… jackanorak: the fact that this group has chosen defi as its committee not because of its expertise but because it’s ‘time-consuming’ is telling. specialized groups will now be paid for their time; the question of what’s more time-consuming ought to sort itself out At the time we started working on forming a committee the compensation was going to be equal across the three suggested areas. I understand that you are part of a different group trying to form a DeFi committee but I don’t appreciate you trying to imply we’ve decided to focus on this area because of potential financial reward.

Likes: 3 Replies: 0

AxlVaz - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 2:28 p.m.

On this we agree, but it is not right to say that they do not infer. It is also wrong to say who is… On this we agree, but it is not right to say that they do not infer. It is also wrong to say who is qualified or not. In my opinion the committee has to be as neutral as possible and transparent.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

jackanorak - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 2:28 p.m.

to be clear, i’ve said nothing of the sort. my point is that the argument that active people ought … to be clear, i’ve said nothing of the sort. my point is that the argument that active people ought to take on the most ‘time-consuming’ vertical is made irrelevant by the cash contributions, which would incentivize any committed delegate to spend the necessary time

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

jackanorak - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 2:30 p.m.

you can’t assign people to the best committees without making a judgment about expertise and qualif… you can’t assign people to the best committees without making a judgment about expertise and qualifications. of course you can make claims about qualifications. that’s why the template requires people to outline their backgrounds - to substantiate their claims of relevant expertise again, the point here is that from where i stand there is no clear reason why this group needs to be the defi committee and not one of the other committees if its primary claim of qualification is that it currently spends a lot of time in governance. that’s not what these committees are for.

Likes: 1 Replies: 1

Replies:

Prometheus: let’s recap… jackanorak: I don’t see any particular defi expertise represented here jackanorak: the stated purpose of organizing committees in the first place is to ensure that the most qualified, specialized people look at the proposals jackanorak: of course that would entail people who currently work on defi protocols jackanorak: I recommend refocusing on what this group has shown expertise at jackanorak: you can’t assign people to the best committees without making a judgment about expertise and qualifications. jackanorak: however, we are significant stakeholders, and our voice does in fact matter and simply offers much more perspective jackanorak: we know who’s doing what and where key frictions and missing defi legos are jackanorak: i recommend you take my suggestion productively and reconsider your position. jackanorak: The goal here is to get the best people weighing in on the right proposals in a way that doesn’t stretch anyone’s time. Meanwhile: Introducing Governance Committees Problems to Solve We heard lots of feedback from community members and delegates throughout Season 1. Committees attempt to solve the following problems: 1. Information Overload for Delegates There are currently a lot of proposals to be voted on by Token House delegates. Even for delegates that are very familiar with the context of these proposals and their applications, processing all these proposals is unsustainable. Providing feedback on proposal drafts and engaging on forum posts, while voting on active proposals, is currently an unmanageable workload for many delegates. 2. Purpose Mismatch for Delegates Delegates have different areas of specialty. While the majority of proposals to date have been related to DeFi, some delegates specialize in non-DeFi related topics such as public goods, tooling, and L2 infrastructure. These delegates don’t feel well-equipped to vote on DeFi proposals or aren’t interested in doing so. Diminishing people capacity, expertise, ability to work in a specific committee was completely pointless in the first place. I didn’t need to read all this BS but thanks. Now I know I don’t want to be part of this kind of DAO.

ScaleWeb3 - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 2:32 p.m.

Our focus in the past 2 - 3 years has been 90 % on DeFi incl. research, proposals, personal inve… Our focus in the past 2 - 3 years has been 90 % on DeFi incl. research, proposals, personal investment strategies from optimizing for different launch options, to liquidity mining, leveraged stablecoin farming, lending pool optimization or the future of DEX-DEX aggregator (AMM-Clob-limit order…). From DeFi, Tooling, and NFTs - we vouched for Defi as we could add most value. I’m positive this committee will offer a great mix of expertise, neutrality & committment. Fair initial question about qualification (which seems to turn into a full book now; pls dm for more :smile:)

Likes: 3 Replies: 2

jackanorak - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 2:36 p.m.

that seems well and good, but your individual background to me speaks more to community building an… that seems well and good, but your individual background to me speaks more to community building and evangelization rather than actual original building and strategizing around defi. of course there’s also the rest of the group to account for as well. if this group’s collective identity is that it is the set of the ‘most engaged’ governance participants, there are clearly other better verticals. all of these groups are important.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

jackanorak - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 2:38 p.m.

as an example, take a look at the tooling committee proposal just now. theirs is the kind of releva… as an example, take a look at the tooling committee proposal just now. theirs is the kind of relevant background you need for a committee to be effective. these are people whose protocols likely touch some proposals coming through their committee. and that’s very much a good thing.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

L2Maxi - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 4:44 p.m.

i looked through the committee members and i see a few who do not have backgrounds in much defi wor… i looked through the committee members and i see a few who do not have backgrounds in much defi work? i also see @Joxes is in two committees already which seems like a bad idea

Likes: 0 Replies: 1

alexcutlerdoteth - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 4:46 p.m.

I’m inclined to agree with Jack in that it would make sense to have some folks on the committee wit… I’m inclined to agree with Jack in that it would make sense to have some folks on the committee with experience building or managing protocols in DeFi. Even doing proactive outreach to the major DeFi protocols on Optimism and soliciting their involvement could potentially make sense.

Likes: 1 Replies: 1

OPUser - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 5:33 p.m.

L 2 Maxi: i also see @SEED_LATAM_Joxes is in two committees already which seems like a bad ide… L 2 Maxi: i also see @SEED_LATAM_Joxes is in two committees already which seems like a bad idea I see you have shared this on both proposals, could you please explain why this is a bad idea ? Feel free to answer in any thread.

Likes: 0 Replies: 1

OPUser - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 5:34 p.m.

thank you for the feedback, Alex. thank you for the feedback, Alex.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

MinimalGravitas - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 5:41 p.m.

Likes: 4 Replies: 0

L2Maxi - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 5:46 p.m.

This overlap is bad in my opinion the reason for committee is to achieve having diverse set of indi… This overlap is bad in my opinion the reason for committee is to achieve having diverse set of individuals having the same person twice is not a good way to get expertise in committees. i was thinking of forming a committee here but was late sadly.

Likes: 0 Replies: 1

L2Maxi - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 5:52 p.m.

yes you seem to be a good candidate. after looking at the other members wallets and backgrounds i d… yes you seem to be a good candidate. after looking at the other members wallets and backgrounds i dont see much defi experience though i see wallets with less than 200 days creation and not any defi interactions i would see myself as a better candidate.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

AxlVaz - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 5:57 p.m.

This point is debatable, many candidates have several wallets and some do not want to give their ad… This point is debatable, many candidates have several wallets and some do not want to give their address. It is natural to see in Defi that users use a public wallet (e.g. with ENS) and a private one.

Likes: 1 Replies: 1

jackanorak - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 6:02 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 5

Replies:

AxlVaz: jackanorak: El propósito declarado de los comités organizadores en primer lugar es asegurar que las personas más calificadas y especializadas vean las propuestas que mejor se adapten a su experiencia. por supuesto, eso implicaría a las personas que actualmente trabajan en protocolos defi, ya que son los que mejor evaluarían el valor agregado probable que ofrecería un protocolo entrante en términos de crecimiento, componibilidad, etc. las cuestiones de conflictos de intereses simplemente no son relevantes en este caso; se abordan por otros medios. I don’t agree so much and many debates in this very governance has shown that there is conflict of interest. Even some members have been able to separate it well.
MinimalGravitas: jackanorak: the fact that this group has chosen defi as its committee not because of its expertise but because it’s ‘time-consuming’ is telling. specialized groups will now be paid for their time; the question of what’s more time-consuming ought to sort itself out At the time we started working on forming a committee the compensation was going to be equal across the three suggested areas. I understand that you are part of a different group trying to form a DeFi committee but I don’t appreciate you trying to imply we’ve decided to focus on this area because of potential financial reward.
ScaleWeb3: Our focus in the past 2-3 years has been 90% on DeFi incl. research, proposals, personal investment strategies from optimizing for different launch options, to liquidity mining, leveraged stablecoin farming, lending pool optimization or the future of DEX-DEX aggregator (AMM-Clob-limit order…). From DeFi, Tooling, and NFTs - we vouched for Defi as we could add most value. I’m positive this committee will offer a great mix of expertise, neutrality & committment. Fair initial question about qualification (which seems to turn into a full book now; pls dm for more )
Gonna.eth: jackanorak: the stated purpose of organizing committees in the first place is to ensure that the most qualified, specialized people look at the proposals that best suit their expertise. of course that would entail people who currently work on defi protocols, as they are the ones who would best assess the likely value-add an incoming protocol would offer in terms of growth, composability, etc. questions of conflicts of interests simply are not relevant in this case; they are addressed by other means. I think one DeFi committee should be constituted by experts in the field yes. But having their own DeFi protocols makes it a huge conflict of interest and the second committee should be from outside any DeFi protocols running on optimism or mainnet. There’s no guarantee you will approve any competitor from velo. It’s also worth mention you are engaging here saying this committee is a bad idea because we are not professionals, but when you were asked to disclose Velo code and make it open source you said no, so how can we know you are an expert if we can’t review the code, the whole idea of the crypto space is not to trust a human yet here you are saying “trust me but not this committee” who has been 100% open. In the future constructive feedback is more useful than just saying what you think is wrong, keep it in mind for future project you will have to review. If you think we are not DeFi qualified then ask DeFi questions you think we don’t understand and you’ll get your answers. I’m a heavy DeFi user since the beginning of it, I’ve been part of many VC research groups and hedge research group yet this is outside my background because it’s not my main job, just a math hobby for me.
Prometheus: let’s recap… jackanorak: I don’t see any particular defi expertise represented here jackanorak: the stated purpose of organizing committees in the first place is to ensure that the most qualified, specialized people look at the proposals jackanorak: of course that would entail people who currently work on defi protocols jackanorak: I recommend refocusing on what this group has shown expertise at jackanorak: you can’t assign people to the best committees without making a judgment about expertise and qualifications. jackanorak: however, we are significant stakeholders, and our voice does in fact matter and simply offers much more perspective jackanorak: we know who’s doing what and where key frictions and missing defi legos are jackanorak: i recommend you take my suggestion productively and reconsider your position. jackanorak: The goal here is to get the best people weighing in on the right proposals in a way that doesn’t stretch anyone’s time. Meanwhile: Introducing Governance Committees Problems to Solve We heard lots of feedback from community members and delegates throughout Season 1. Committees attempt to solve the following problems: 1. Information Overload for Delegates There are currently a lot of proposals to be voted on by Token House delegates. Even for delegates that are very familiar with the context of these proposals and their applications, processing all these proposals is unsustainable. Providing feedback on proposal drafts and engaging on forum posts, while voting on active proposals, is currently an unmanageable workload for many delegates. 2. Purpose Mismatch for Delegates Delegates have different areas of specialty. While the majority of proposals to date have been related to DeFi, some delegates specialize in non-DeFi related topics such as public goods, tooling, and L2 infrastructure. These delegates don’t feel well-equipped to vote on DeFi proposals or aren’t interested in doing so. Diminishing people capacity, expertise, ability to work in a specific committee was completely pointless in the first place. I didn’t need to read all this BS but thanks. Now I know I don’t want to be part of this kind of DAO.

OPUser - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 6:09 p.m.

L 2 Maxi: This overlap is bad in my opinion the reason for committee is to achieve having dive… L 2 Maxi: This overlap is bad in my opinion the reason for committee is to achieve having diverse set of individuals having the same person twice is not a good way to get expertise in committees Agree on your expertise part but would not it make more sense to think that one person might have expertise in more than one domain, or may be its not one person but they represent a team, a team of many motivated, knowledgeable individual. Then its not bad idea, right? or is it ?

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

MinimalGravitas - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 6:12 p.m.

Guilty. I’ve used a whole lot of different wallets for various Ethereum shenanigans, I the two olde… Guilty. I’ve used a whole lot of different wallets for various Ethereum shenanigans, I the two oldest that I’ve still got access to are from 2016 and I certainly wouldn’t want those linked to my front facing identity. I’ve got another couple of more recent ones that are used for most of my DeFi activities and half a dozen more that are just used when I want to try something that I’m not completely comfortable with. Oh and another just for POAPs. I’d be really surprised if using multiple wallets seperated out by TC [sadface…] or whatever isn’t the norm amoung users!

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

L2Maxi - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 6:12 p.m.

not fair because they are taking a spot of someone else who could have been good for the committee.… not fair because they are taking a spot of someone else who could have been good for the committee. not to mention they will put in less effort and collect two payments not fair.

Likes: 1 Replies: 2

AxlVaz - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 6:16 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

jackanorak - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 6:21 p.m.

could you cite some examples? could you cite some examples?

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

jackanorak - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 6:23 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 1

OPUser - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 6:24 p.m.

we do see things differently then, I think that if one entity is capable and able to fulfill its du… we do see things differently then, I think that if one entity is capable and able to fulfill its duties, then we should support them rather than waiting for someone. I am not in favor of spoiling the present for a hope of future. with your effort comment, I dont know how long you have been here but I would recommend to read our past communication thread and you will see that each team member was able to review all the proposals in season 1 , every single proposal with proper due-diligence. Being part of two committee is less work compare to what we have done in the past. Even if they choose to join all the committee, I would support them because of their past involvement. we can definitely criticize them if they are not fulfilling their duties but that is yet to be seen.

Likes: 3 Replies: 0

AxlVaz - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 6:24 p.m.

Regarding this, we were working on a statement. You can even see our public process on the discord … Regarding this, we were working on a statement. You can even see our public process on the discord channel. SEED Latam - Delegate Communication Thread Delegate Updates Today, we have formalized our participation in the formation of Governance Committees proposed for season 2 of Optimism governance. Currently we’re part of two committees proposals as reviewers, details below: Committee proposal: DeFi, lead by @OPUser We will be working alongside the following reviewers: Dhannte, MinimalGravitas, ScaleWeb 3 . We feel very comfortable with our team, as each and every one of them has had an important presence in the governance for Season 1 to have culminated w…

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

MinimalGravitas - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 6:27 p.m.

Likes: 3 Replies: 0

AxlVaz - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 6:28 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

jackanorak - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 6:28 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

jackanorak - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 6:30 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 1

Replies:

Prometheus: let’s recap… jackanorak: I don’t see any particular defi expertise represented here jackanorak: the stated purpose of organizing committees in the first place is to ensure that the most qualified, specialized people look at the proposals jackanorak: of course that would entail people who currently work on defi protocols jackanorak: I recommend refocusing on what this group has shown expertise at jackanorak: you can’t assign people to the best committees without making a judgment about expertise and qualifications. jackanorak: however, we are significant stakeholders, and our voice does in fact matter and simply offers much more perspective jackanorak: we know who’s doing what and where key frictions and missing defi legos are jackanorak: i recommend you take my suggestion productively and reconsider your position. jackanorak: The goal here is to get the best people weighing in on the right proposals in a way that doesn’t stretch anyone’s time. Meanwhile: Introducing Governance Committees Problems to Solve We heard lots of feedback from community members and delegates throughout Season 1. Committees attempt to solve the following problems: 1. Information Overload for Delegates There are currently a lot of proposals to be voted on by Token House delegates. Even for delegates that are very familiar with the context of these proposals and their applications, processing all these proposals is unsustainable. Providing feedback on proposal drafts and engaging on forum posts, while voting on active proposals, is currently an unmanageable workload for many delegates. 2. Purpose Mismatch for Delegates Delegates have different areas of specialty. While the majority of proposals to date have been related to DeFi, some delegates specialize in non-DeFi related topics such as public goods, tooling, and L2 infrastructure. These delegates don’t feel well-equipped to vote on DeFi proposals or aren’t interested in doing so. Diminishing people capacity, expertise, ability to work in a specific committee was completely pointless in the first place. I didn’t need to read all this BS but thanks. Now I know I don’t want to be part of this kind of DAO.

ScaleWeb3 - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 6:32 p.m.

Likes: 3 Replies: 2

jackanorak - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 6:36 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

jackanorak - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 6:38 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

Gonna.eth - This user is a moderator, govNERD

Aug. 18, 2022, 7:23 p.m.

jackanorak: the stated purpose of organizing committees in the first place is to ensure that t… jackanorak: the stated purpose of organizing committees in the first place is to ensure that the most qualified, specialized people look at the proposals that best suit their expertise. of course that would entail people who currently work on defi protocols, as they are the ones who would best assess the likely value-add an incoming protocol would offer in terms of growth, composability, etc. questions of conflicts of interests simply are not relevant in this case; they are addressed by other means. I think one DeFi committee should be constituted by experts in the field yes. But having their own DeFi protocols makes it a huge conflict of interest and the second committee should be from outside any DeFi protocols running on optimism or mainnet. There’s no guarantee you will approve any competitor from velo. It’s also worth mention you are engaging here saying this committee is a bad idea because we are not professionals, but when you were asked to disclose Velo code and make it open source you said no, so how can we know you are an expert if we can’t review the code, the whole idea of the crypto space is not to trust a human yet here you are saying “trust me but not this committee” who has been 100 % open. In the future constructive feedback is more useful than just saying what you think is wrong, keep it in mind for future project you will have to review. If you think we are not DeFi qualified then ask DeFi questions you think we don’t understand and you’ll get your answers. I’m a heavy DeFi user since the beginning of it, I’ve been part of many VC research groups and hedge research group yet this is outside my background because it’s not my main job, just a math hobby for me.

Likes: 3 Replies: 0

jackanorak - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 8:11 p.m.

i’m sorry to see you adopt this stance. as mentioned above, if being aligned with a protocol leads … i’m sorry to see you adopt this stance. as mentioned above, if being aligned with a protocol leads to intolerable conflicts of interest, protocol team members would have no business being anywhere as delegates. however, we are significant stakeholders, and our voice does in fact matter and simply offers much more perspective than even the most power users. we talk to several other protocols daily. we know who’s doing what and where key frictions and missing defi legos are. In the meantime i don’t see anyone here complaining about lito coen, kris caczor, or other protocol affiliates forming a tooling committee. as for my own case, i would be only one person on my committee, so i’m not sure how i could be flagrantly self-serving in a group with others known to OP. I was asked to join because others - who in many cases have argued against me! - thought i brought a useful perspective. i’ve weighed in exhaustively on other proposals - please feel free to surface an instance where i’ve done anything other than speak my conscience. if i had to abstain from anything that velodrome touches, i wouldn’t be able to weigh in on anything. we’re a dex. we’re central to defi on Optimism. Not sure where you get your news but velo code is open source (and always was exposed on etherscan from day one). repos, audit docs, and everything right here: https://docs.velodrome.finance/security 2 . let’s try to keep this conversation truthful and relevant In the future constructive feedback is more useful than just saying what you think is wrong, keep it in mind for future project you will have to review. Members of your own group conceded that DeFi expertise wasn’t your key selling point, it was your level of activity. That’s great. I made a suggestion to be a committee for another vertical more aligned with your backgrounds. i’m not really sure how i could possibly be more constructive. I love EthernautDAO. Was talking about it yesterday with a colleague and wanted to see about engaging you all. What you do is great, and there are many ways outside defi your particular expertise can be brought to bear. tooling, community, devrel, infra would all benefit from your perspective. Our jobs here are to help Optimism thrive and win – that might not necessarily come in the ways we expect. i recommend you take my suggestion productively and reconsider your position.

Likes: 4 Replies: 2

Replies:

Gonna.eth: Thank you for considering joining the Ethernauts, I hope to se a mentorship from you anytime.
Prometheus: let’s recap… jackanorak: I don’t see any particular defi expertise represented here jackanorak: the stated purpose of organizing committees in the first place is to ensure that the most qualified, specialized people look at the proposals jackanorak: of course that would entail people who currently work on defi protocols jackanorak: I recommend refocusing on what this group has shown expertise at jackanorak: you can’t assign people to the best committees without making a judgment about expertise and qualifications. jackanorak: however, we are significant stakeholders, and our voice does in fact matter and simply offers much more perspective jackanorak: we know who’s doing what and where key frictions and missing defi legos are jackanorak: i recommend you take my suggestion productively and reconsider your position. jackanorak: The goal here is to get the best people weighing in on the right proposals in a way that doesn’t stretch anyone’s time. Meanwhile: Introducing Governance Committees Problems to Solve We heard lots of feedback from community members and delegates throughout Season 1. Committees attempt to solve the following problems: 1. Information Overload for Delegates There are currently a lot of proposals to be voted on by Token House delegates. Even for delegates that are very familiar with the context of these proposals and their applications, processing all these proposals is unsustainable. Providing feedback on proposal drafts and engaging on forum posts, while voting on active proposals, is currently an unmanageable workload for many delegates. 2. Purpose Mismatch for Delegates Delegates have different areas of specialty. While the majority of proposals to date have been related to DeFi, some delegates specialize in non-DeFi related topics such as public goods, tooling, and L2 infrastructure. These delegates don’t feel well-equipped to vote on DeFi proposals or aren’t interested in doing so. Diminishing people capacity, expertise, ability to work in a specific committee was completely pointless in the first place. I didn’t need to read all this BS but thanks. Now I know I don’t want to be part of this kind of DAO.

L2Maxi - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 8:44 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 1

alexcutlerdoteth - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 8:46 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 1

OPUser - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 9:33 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 1

OPUser - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 9:34 p.m.

thank you for the feedback, Alex. thank you for the feedback, Alex.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

L2Maxi - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 9:46 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 1

L2Maxi - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 9:52 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

AxlVaz - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 9:57 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 1

OPUser - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 10:09 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

MinimalGravitas - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 10:12 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

L2Maxi - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 10:12 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 2

OPUser - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 10:24 p.m.

Likes: 3 Replies: 0

AxlVaz - No Role

Aug. 18, 2022, 10:24 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

Gonna.eth - This user is a moderator

Aug. 18, 2022, 11:23 p.m.

Likes: 3 Replies: 0

jackanorak - No Role

Aug. 19, 2022, 12:11 a.m.

Likes: 4 Replies: 2

Replies:

Gonna.eth: Thank you for considering joining the Ethernauts, I hope to se a mentorship from you anytime.
Prometheus: let’s recap… jackanorak: I don’t see any particular defi expertise represented here jackanorak: the stated purpose of organizing committees in the first place is to ensure that the most qualified, specialized people look at the proposals jackanorak: of course that would entail people who currently work on defi protocols jackanorak: I recommend refocusing on what this group has shown expertise at jackanorak: you can’t assign people to the best committees without making a judgment about expertise and qualifications. jackanorak: however, we are significant stakeholders, and our voice does in fact matter and simply offers much more perspective jackanorak: we know who’s doing what and where key frictions and missing defi legos are jackanorak: i recommend you take my suggestion productively and reconsider your position. jackanorak: The goal here is to get the best people weighing in on the right proposals in a way that doesn’t stretch anyone’s time. Meanwhile: Introducing Governance Committees Problems to Solve We heard lots of feedback from community members and delegates throughout Season 1. Committees attempt to solve the following problems: 1. Information Overload for Delegates There are currently a lot of proposals to be voted on by Token House delegates. Even for delegates that are very familiar with the context of these proposals and their applications, processing all these proposals is unsustainable. Providing feedback on proposal drafts and engaging on forum posts, while voting on active proposals, is currently an unmanageable workload for many delegates. 2. Purpose Mismatch for Delegates Delegates have different areas of specialty. While the majority of proposals to date have been related to DeFi, some delegates specialize in non-DeFi related topics such as public goods, tooling, and L2 infrastructure. These delegates don’t feel well-equipped to vote on DeFi proposals or aren’t interested in doing so. Diminishing people capacity, expertise, ability to work in a specific committee was completely pointless in the first place. I didn’t need to read all this BS but thanks. Now I know I don’t want to be part of this kind of DAO.

ScaleWeb3 - No Role

Aug. 19, 2022, 5:11 a.m.

I see the Velo team (@jackanorak + Alex) keeps spamming this thread and acting in bad faith. Both … I see the Velo team (@jackanorak + Alex) keeps spamming this thread and acting in bad faith. Both are things I do not like to see when engaging with proposals and I would ask you to stop once more. The aggressive, unconstructive approach demonstrated is the exact behavior from “ecosystem thought leaders“ that will be mirrored by communities and ultimately turn off quality contributors. Re: Defi expertise, importance of building new things & committee fit. Let me simply summarize your Velodrome Finance project Project itself It’s a copy paste project: you forked Solidly ve( 3 ; 3 ) with all its complexities DEX should be for most efficient trading, it should not be about amassing large amounts of liquidity (Unnecessary Total Value at Risk for Velo investors & the Optimism protocol which gains less from ineffective TVL(!) than it risks today) adding 3 layers of complexity with voting & (manual!) bribing which takes 50 %(!) of the fees from LPs (LPs take IL risk, others receive money?!) Obscure token economic & governance model Velo’s initial token distribution has been a disaster and made it really hard for Optimism investors. Due to the setup, the only way the project will be successful is when Optimism sponsors incentives such as liquidity mining and trading incentives. Your implementation of Solidly is even more obscure than the original and will likely lead to an unneccessary redistribution of wealth from unsophisticated investors to insiders (Red Flag) and many investors are at risk of loosing a lot of funds through “wrong positioning“ in the money game, an exploit of the large TVL, dilution or LPing. Running a ve token model offers some long-termism and creates some token sink but it makes little sense for projects without serious revenues. (hence, also not interesting for Convex-style ecosystem projects) Having a non-aligned set of holders (for example other protocols & whales) decide on revenue distribution for pools is a pretty bad idea for the project as the most important pools get less bribes than they should (Ask @Solarcurve, Balancer will need to change this; at least pre-select pools & allow only small parameter changes) Your involvement in Optimism You asked for an incredibly high amount of OP tokens ( 3 M!) as a microcap (Red flag) You received a large amount of Op tokens from Op foundation – even though you had already a completely messed up token distribution & incentive design for new investors on Optimism (why?!) Due to Op incentives, you were able to grow TVL & veVelo Your team engages in bad faith when talking to potential competitors ( 2 x afaik) Aggressive Curve response across channels (whose veModel is the basis of your project) This thread Your team member steals funds in public (very bad look on judgement) - props on quick solution! Little quality governance involvement in Optimism until today Is Solidly bad? Solidly optimizes token sinks & long-term alignment when implemented well Solidly can bootstrap growth The Solidly/bribing model requires smart parameter choice, risk management & well-aligned partner protocols, then it can lead to flywheel for a quality ecosystem (Revenues are needed!) Token economics & incentive design should not be mixed up with efficiency of a DEX protocol Conclusion: Instead of making random claims and swings at valuable contributors to Optimism, I’d recommend improving Solidly (soon 1 B AUM – a nice hacking prize pool!) acting in good faith in the Op ecosystem as you should be eternally grateful to Daddy Optimism helping the Op ecosystem grow by onboarding & welcoming stakeholders @ all other delegates and community members Feel free to ask us any questions regarding the proposal, our expertise or whatever interests you and is relevant to pick a committee. I encourage you to take an active stance when seeing bad faith actors as that costs a lot of energy and will result in us & others not contributing anymore to the ecosystem (–> Code of Conduct 1 ) Enjoy the weekend, stay optimistic :red_circle: :sparkles:

Likes: 2 Replies: 3

Replies:

jackanorak: Come on now. Disagreeing with you and making a principled argument explaining why is not acting in bad faith. Responding to arguments is not spamming. Alex jumping in and making a great point (maybe committees should bring in outside experts) is not spamming. I said this is a good active team that doesn’t need to be a third committee in defi because their unique selling point, that they are active in governance, applies to all potential committees and that in most cases their expertise lies in other areas. The goal here is to get the best people weighing in on the right proposals in a way that doesn’t stretch anyone’s time. Not sure how listing out lazy presumptions and outright falsehoods about our protocol (and about me - i never posted in the curve thread) is relevant here. I’m not going to muddy up a thread on how your group can best contribute to Optimism by rebutting these claims one by one, though feel free to join our discord so you can learn more about what we do. Hope people reading this thread recognize what the level of discourse must be if Optimism is going to make it as an experiment in collective governance.
alexcutlerdoteth: Heya - I made one comment suggesting that the DeFi committee incorporate some leading DeFi voices with deep subject matter expertise from across the ecosystem and you accuse me of spamming and decide to go off topic to try to slander Velodrome? TBH this does not seem like the behavior of someone who should sit on one of these committees.
Michael: I want to hop in to the fray a bit here. I think some of the points that the Velo team (@jackanorak @alexcutlerdoteth) is raising are completely valid. These proposals involve some technical level of understanding of tokenomics, incentives, and the legitimacy of the protocol itself. I disagree that you need to work for a DeFi protocol in order to do this, but I DO think that this is one criteria that a committee should be judged on. Trying to discredit these points by trashing Velo seems counterproductive.

Gonna.eth - This user is a moderator, govNERD

Aug. 19, 2022, 7:19 a.m.

Thank you for considering joining the Ethernauts, I hope to se a mentorship from you anytime. Thank you for considering joining the Ethernauts, I hope to se a mentorship from you anytime.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

jackanorak - No Role

Aug. 19, 2022, 7:40 a.m.

Come on now. Disagreeing with you and making a principled argument explaining why is not acting in … Come on now. Disagreeing with you and making a principled argument explaining why is not acting in bad faith. Responding to arguments is not spamming. Alex jumping in and making a great point (maybe committees should bring in outside experts) is not spamming. I said this is a good active team that doesn’t need to be a third committee in defi because their unique selling point, that they are active in governance, applies to all potential committees and that in most cases their expertise lies in other areas. The goal here is to get the best people weighing in on the right proposals in a way that doesn’t stretch anyone’s time. Not sure how listing out lazy presumptions and outright falsehoods about our protocol (and about me - i never posted in the curve thread) is relevant here. I’m not going to muddy up a thread on how your group can best contribute to Optimism by rebutting these claims one by one, though feel free to join our discord so you can learn more about what we do. Hope people reading this thread recognize what the level of discourse must be if Optimism is going to make it as an experiment in collective governance.

Likes: 2 Replies: 2

Replies:

Prometheus: jackanorak: Hope people reading this thread recognize what the level of discourse must be if Optimism is going to make it as an experiment in collective governance. I’m sure people reading recognize how everything started and how it evolved. Neverthless It’s only the consequence of having committees… if no one wanted committees this kind of diminishing debate wouldn’t happen. jackanorak: I don’t see any particular defi expertise represented here but many other kinds of knowhow and ways to contribute. That said, Good luck with Season 2.
Prometheus: let’s recap… jackanorak: I don’t see any particular defi expertise represented here jackanorak: the stated purpose of organizing committees in the first place is to ensure that the most qualified, specialized people look at the proposals jackanorak: of course that would entail people who currently work on defi protocols jackanorak: I recommend refocusing on what this group has shown expertise at jackanorak: you can’t assign people to the best committees without making a judgment about expertise and qualifications. jackanorak: however, we are significant stakeholders, and our voice does in fact matter and simply offers much more perspective jackanorak: we know who’s doing what and where key frictions and missing defi legos are jackanorak: i recommend you take my suggestion productively and reconsider your position. jackanorak: The goal here is to get the best people weighing in on the right proposals in a way that doesn’t stretch anyone’s time. Meanwhile: Introducing Governance Committees Problems to Solve We heard lots of feedback from community members and delegates throughout Season 1. Committees attempt to solve the following problems: 1. Information Overload for Delegates There are currently a lot of proposals to be voted on by Token House delegates. Even for delegates that are very familiar with the context of these proposals and their applications, processing all these proposals is unsustainable. Providing feedback on proposal drafts and engaging on forum posts, while voting on active proposals, is currently an unmanageable workload for many delegates. 2. Purpose Mismatch for Delegates Delegates have different areas of specialty. While the majority of proposals to date have been related to DeFi, some delegates specialize in non-DeFi related topics such as public goods, tooling, and L2 infrastructure. These delegates don’t feel well-equipped to vote on DeFi proposals or aren’t interested in doing so. Diminishing people capacity, expertise, ability to work in a specific committee was completely pointless in the first place. I didn’t need to read all this BS but thanks. Now I know I don’t want to be part of this kind of DAO.

alexcutlerdoteth - No Role

Aug. 19, 2022, 8:09 a.m.

Heya - I made one comment suggesting that the DeFi committee incorporate some leading DeFi voices w… Heya - I made one comment suggesting that the DeFi committee incorporate some leading DeFi voices with deep subject matter expertise from across the ecosystem and you accuse me of spamming and decide to go off topic to try to slander Velodrome? TBH this does not seem like the behavior of someone who should sit on one of these committees.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

OPUser - No Role

Aug. 19, 2022, 8:22 a.m.

It is clear that some of us are not supporting this committee and they have raised their concern … It is clear that some of us are not supporting this committee and they have raised their concern on this thread which is just fine. Governance is all about listening to different opinion. From my side, we will not pivot our direction from DeFi, we will listen to everyone’s feedback and will try our best to incorporate those feedback. Feedback and governance is an iterative approach and we believe in that. I think there is no point in escalating this any further, we wont divert because of your “opinion”. Its not yet decided that our committee will be final, I think there will be voting on snapshot too, we are showing our interest and willingness to contribute, we are not making rules. Just because we are part of this committee, its does not mean we will only focus on DeFi, we are here and will jump in and try to contribute where we can, Growing OP Ecosystem does not mean just DEFI, you will see us(well at least I will be there) in other domains too. I am happy to answer any other question that anyone has.

Likes: 4 Replies: 0

ScaleWeb3 - No Role

Aug. 19, 2022, 9:11 a.m.

Likes: 2 Replies: 3

Replies:

jackanorak: Come on now. Disagreeing with you and making a principled argument explaining why is not acting in bad faith. Responding to arguments is not spamming. Alex jumping in and making a great point (maybe committees should bring in outside experts) is not spamming. I said this is a good active team that doesn’t need to be a third committee in defi because their unique selling point, that they are active in governance, applies to all potential committees and that in most cases their expertise lies in other areas. The goal here is to get the best people weighing in on the right proposals in a way that doesn’t stretch anyone’s time. Not sure how listing out lazy presumptions and outright falsehoods about our protocol (and about me - i never posted in the curve thread) is relevant here. I’m not going to muddy up a thread on how your group can best contribute to Optimism by rebutting these claims one by one, though feel free to join our discord so you can learn more about what we do. Hope people reading this thread recognize what the level of discourse must be if Optimism is going to make it as an experiment in collective governance.
alexcutlerdoteth: Heya - I made one comment suggesting that the DeFi committee incorporate some leading DeFi voices with deep subject matter expertise from across the ecosystem and you accuse me of spamming and decide to go off topic to try to slander Velodrome? TBH this does not seem like the behavior of someone who should sit on one of these committees.
Michael: I want to hop in to the fray a bit here. I think some of the points that the Velo team (@jackanorak @alexcutlerdoteth) is raising are completely valid. These proposals involve some technical level of understanding of tokenomics, incentives, and the legitimacy of the protocol itself. I disagree that you need to work for a DeFi protocol in order to do this, but I DO think that this is one criteria that a committee should be judged on. Trying to discredit these points by trashing Velo seems counterproductive.

daoism - No Role

Aug. 19, 2022, 10:10 a.m.

Hell ScaleWeb 3 /Julian, Would you like to elaborate on this tweet and perhaps expand on why you ar… Hell ScaleWeb 3 /Julian, Would you like to elaborate on this tweet and perhaps expand on why you are so keen to participate in a “meme”? https://twitter.com/jrmr 92 /status/ 1554477843354210309 ?s= 20 &t=KLHAZk 6 XVnNP-ONWjNB 10 A 1208 × 372 63 . 5 KB Also, you may wish to review the first three points of the Code Of Conduct. I’ll quote them, rather than link: Make a positive impact on the community. As a Collective, we understand that positivity is the driver of healthy growth. Be excellent to one another. Err on the side of extreme civility. The Governance Forum is a place for constructive feedback about the Optimism Collective. There are lots of places to sling mud, this isn’t one of them. Keep discussions on-topic. This is a forum for discussion about the Optimism Collective, Optimism, Ethereum and projects within these ecosystems. Unrelated posts may be removed. The post I am replying to exemplifies disregard of the CoC, and the committee should not be approved if this represents future level of communication. Suggestion: OPUser find an alternative reviewer to ScaleWeb 3 in order to maintain support.

Likes: 1 Replies: 1

Gonna.eth - This user is a moderator

Aug. 19, 2022, 11:19 a.m.

Thank you for considering joining the Ethernauts, I hope to se a mentorship from you anytime. Thank you for considering joining the Ethernauts, I hope to se a mentorship from you anytime.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

jackanorak - No Role

Aug. 19, 2022, 11:40 a.m.

Likes: 2 Replies: 2

Replies:

Prometheus: jackanorak: Hope people reading this thread recognize what the level of discourse must be if Optimism is going to make it as an experiment in collective governance. I’m sure people reading recognize how everything started and how it evolved. Neverthless It’s only the consequence of having committees… if no one wanted committees this kind of diminishing debate wouldn’t happen. jackanorak: I don’t see any particular defi expertise represented here but many other kinds of knowhow and ways to contribute. That said, Good luck with Season 2.
Prometheus: let’s recap… jackanorak: I don’t see any particular defi expertise represented here jackanorak: the stated purpose of organizing committees in the first place is to ensure that the most qualified, specialized people look at the proposals jackanorak: of course that would entail people who currently work on defi protocols jackanorak: I recommend refocusing on what this group has shown expertise at jackanorak: you can’t assign people to the best committees without making a judgment about expertise and qualifications. jackanorak: however, we are significant stakeholders, and our voice does in fact matter and simply offers much more perspective jackanorak: we know who’s doing what and where key frictions and missing defi legos are jackanorak: i recommend you take my suggestion productively and reconsider your position. jackanorak: The goal here is to get the best people weighing in on the right proposals in a way that doesn’t stretch anyone’s time. Meanwhile: Introducing Governance Committees Problems to Solve We heard lots of feedback from community members and delegates throughout Season 1. Committees attempt to solve the following problems: 1. Information Overload for Delegates There are currently a lot of proposals to be voted on by Token House delegates. Even for delegates that are very familiar with the context of these proposals and their applications, processing all these proposals is unsustainable. Providing feedback on proposal drafts and engaging on forum posts, while voting on active proposals, is currently an unmanageable workload for many delegates. 2. Purpose Mismatch for Delegates Delegates have different areas of specialty. While the majority of proposals to date have been related to DeFi, some delegates specialize in non-DeFi related topics such as public goods, tooling, and L2 infrastructure. These delegates don’t feel well-equipped to vote on DeFi proposals or aren’t interested in doing so. Diminishing people capacity, expertise, ability to work in a specific committee was completely pointless in the first place. I didn’t need to read all this BS but thanks. Now I know I don’t want to be part of this kind of DAO.

alexcutlerdoteth - No Role

Aug. 19, 2022, 12:09 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

OPUser - No Role

Aug. 19, 2022, 12:22 p.m.

Likes: 4 Replies: 0

daoism - No Role

Aug. 19, 2022, 2:10 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 1

shridhar.eth - No Role

Aug. 20, 2022, 3:59 a.m.

Nice job team…keep it up Nice job team…keep it up

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

Prometheus - No Role

Aug. 20, 2022, 6:34 a.m.

jackanorak: Hope people reading this thread recognize what the level of discourse must be if O… jackanorak: Hope people reading this thread recognize what the level of discourse must be if Optimism is going to make it as an experiment in collective governance. I’m sure people reading recognize how everything started and how it evolved. Neverthless It’s only the consequence of having committees… if no one wanted committees this kind of diminishing debate wouldn’t happen. jackanorak: I don’t see any particular defi expertise represented here but many other kinds of knowhow and ways to contribute. That said, Good luck with Season 2 .

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

shridhar.eth - No Role

Aug. 20, 2022, 7:59 a.m.

Nice job team…keep it up Nice job team…keep it up

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

Prometheus - No Role

Aug. 20, 2022, 10:34 a.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

jackanorak - No Role

Aug. 20, 2022, 12:49 p.m.

I’m sorry @Prometheus I don’t understand exactly what you mean. Are you saying that because people … I’m sorry @Prometheus I don’t understand exactly what you mean. Are you saying that because people want to be on committees, it’s inevitable that debate will fall short of respectful discourse?

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

Prometheus - No Role

Aug. 20, 2022, 1:27 p.m.

let’s recap… jackanorak: I don’t see any particular defi expertise represented here jack… let’s recap… jackanorak: I don’t see any particular defi expertise represented here jackanorak: the stated purpose of organizing committees in the first place is to ensure that the most qualified, specialized people look at the proposals jackanorak: of course that would entail people who currently work on defi protocols jackanorak: I recommend refocusing on what this group has shown expertise at jackanorak: you can’t assign people to the best committees without making a judgment about expertise and qualifications. jackanorak: however, we are significant stakeholders, and our voice does in fact matter and simply offers much more perspective jackanorak: we know who’s doing what and where key frictions and missing defi legos are jackanorak: i recommend you take my suggestion productively and reconsider your position. jackanorak: The goal here is to get the best people weighing in on the right proposals in a way that doesn’t stretch anyone’s time. Meanwhile: Introducing Governance Committees Problems to Solve We heard lots of feedback from community members and delegates throughout Season 1 . Committees attempt to solve the following problems: 1 . Information Overload for Delegates There are currently a lot of proposals to be voted on by Token House delegates. Even for delegates that are very familiar with the context of these proposals and their applications, processing all these proposals is unsustainable. Providing feedback on proposal drafts and engaging on forum posts, while voting on active proposals, is currently an unmanageable workload for many delegates. 2 . Purpose Mismatch for Delegates Delegates have different areas of specialty. While the majority of proposals to date have been related to DeFi, some delegates specialize in non-DeFi related topics such as public goods, tooling, and L 2 infrastructure. These delegates don’t feel well-equipped to vote on DeFi proposals or aren’t interested in doing so. Diminishing people capacity, expertise, ability to work in a specific committee was completely pointless in the first place. I didn’t need to read all this BS but thanks. Now I know I don’t want to be part of this kind of DAO.

Likes: 3 Replies: 3

Replies:

L2Maxi: i read through the talk here and i can see where he is coming from on a few point. this is quoted from the team leads bio Apart from this, I have contributed to two projects on Optimism, I was alpha tester of Lyra platform and the second project is Layer2DAO where I participated at the initial step of their Phase 0 proposal. Finally, I like my cute bunny pfp. Optimistic Bunnies are the very first NFT project on the OP chain and I do hangout in their discord from time to time not saying this guy isnt qualified but this isn’t much in the space the wallet activity is bad to. on the other hand i do like scale web3 and minimal gravitas only other issue is the jox guy is on multiple committee
jackanorak: I see absolutely nothing wrong in what I’ve said and appreciate your citing the exact problem, purpose mismatch, I’m helping to address by suggesting what I have. This group has itself conceded that its value proposition lies not in defi expertise but in active governance, which is applicable and valuable in several verticals. This is brought up repeatedly. I am highly aligned with MinimalGravitas, whose beliefs on climate change, for instance, are in lockstep with my own. I think they are a towering, valuable influence on OP. I’ve looked in this thread and in the delegate commitment section and found not one mention of DeFi in their background. OPUser’s claim to DeFi knowledge was being an alpha tester of Lyra. I’m not saying these people shouldn’t weigh in at all - but where’s the actual argument for being specifically on the DeFi committee? Rather, members have highlighted backgrounds in gaming (unaddressed vertical), devrel (infrastructure, also unaddressed), and advocacy & education (community, also wide open). I think it’d be great for these members to apply their expertise to proposals in these domains, of which there are already many. This is not a zero-sum situation. Please tell me exactly what is so inflammatory as to invite targeted ad hominem in making such a suggestion. I am making this same reasonable point repeatedly to increasingly heated, adversarial, in some cases inappropriate responses. I don’t think this has to happen.
OPUser: Weather its feedback and/or criticism, both can be of positive and negative in nature. We can move towards a common goal of sustainable Gov either by taking everyone with us or by dragging someone down just to put yourself first. You have already mentioned “argumentum ad nauseam”, apart from that common practice taught in B2B is “substitution heuristic”, same goes with political debate as well, rather than focusing on topic of discussion, they focus on opponent either by repeating the same thing or asking the same question again and again in different form just to divert the focus of discussion. But its all good, its a nature of DAO Gov, beauty of chaotic co-ordination and it will pass too. We had a chat in past on committee and you know where I stand on this, it has some cons but now with the committee guideline we all need to put the recommendation in written form which might be a biggest advantage so far as it can help counter biases. I wrote all this because I think you are an active member of this gov from start and we need your contribution, good thing is that our gov is working on iteration and foundation is serious about it so my request to you would be to consider this statement if you were serious about it. If we mess something up, we can fix it in the next iteration but only with your contribution. Prometheus: Now I know I don’t want to be part of this kind of DAO.

L2Maxi - No Role

Aug. 20, 2022, 1:35 p.m.

i read through the talk here and i can see where he is coming from on a few point. this is quoted f… i read through the talk here and i can see where he is coming from on a few point. this is quoted from the team leads bio Apart from this, I have contributed to two projects on Optimism, I was alpha tester of Lyra platform and the second project is Layer 2 DAO where I participated at the initial step of their Phase 0 proposal. Finally, I like my cute bunny pfp. Optimistic Bunnies are the very first NFT project on the OP chain and I do hangout in their discord from time to time not saying this guy isnt qualified but this isn’t much in the space the wallet activity is bad to. on the other hand i do like scale web 3 and minimal gravitas only other issue is the jox guy is on multiple committee

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

jackanorak - No Role

Aug. 20, 2022, 1:46 p.m.

I see absolutely nothing wrong in what I’ve said and appreciate your citing the exact problem, purp… I see absolutely nothing wrong in what I’ve said and appreciate your citing the exact problem, purpose mismatch, I’m helping to address by suggesting what I have. This group has itself conceded that its value proposition lies not in defi expertise but in active governance, which is applicable and valuable in several verticals. This is brought up repeatedly. I am highly aligned with MinimalGravitas, whose beliefs on climate change, for instance, are in lockstep with my own. I think they are a towering, valuable influence on OP. I’ve looked in this thread and in the delegate commitment section and found not one mention of DeFi in their background. OPUser’s claim to DeFi knowledge was being an alpha tester of Lyra. I’m not saying these people shouldn’t weigh in at all - but where’s the actual argument for being specifically on the DeFi committee? Rather, members have highlighted backgrounds in gaming (unaddressed vertical), devrel (infrastructure, also unaddressed), and advocacy & education (community, also wide open). I think it’d be great for these members to apply their expertise to proposals in these domains, of which there are already many. This is not a zero-sum situation. Please tell me exactly what is so inflammatory as to invite targeted ad hominem in making such a suggestion. I am making this same reasonable point repeatedly to increasingly heated, adversarial, in some cases inappropriate responses. I don’t think this has to happen.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

Prometheus - No Role

Aug. 20, 2022, 1:50 p.m.

jackanorak: I see absolutely nothing wrong I know you can’t see, nonetheless I (and many peo… jackanorak: I see absolutely nothing wrong I know you can’t see, nonetheless I (and many people here) don’t need to read 2 , 3 , 4 times the same thing with different words. jackanorak: Please tell me exactly what is so inflammatory as to invite targeted ad hominem in making such a suggestion. RationalWiki Argumentum ad nauseam 1 An argumentum ad nauseam (also known as an argument by repetition) is the logical fallacy that something becomes true if it is repeated often enough. It is a subset of argument by assertion and is an informal fallacy. An ad nauseam argument that can...

Likes: 2 Replies: 0

OPUser - No Role

Aug. 20, 2022, 3:16 p.m.

Weather its feedback and/or criticism, both can be of positive and negative in nature. We can move … Weather its feedback and/or criticism, both can be of positive and negative in nature. We can move towards a common goal of sustainable Gov either by taking everyone with us or by dragging someone down just to put yourself first. You have already mentioned “argumentum ad nauseam”, apart from that common practice taught in B 2 B is “substitution heuristic 1 ”, same goes with political debate as well, rather than focusing on topic of discussion, they focus on opponent either by repeating the same thing or asking the same question again and again in different form just to divert the focus of discussion. But its all good, its a nature of DAO Gov, beauty of chaotic co-ordination and it will pass too. We had a chat in past on committee and you know where I stand on this, it has some cons but now with the committee guideline we all need to put the recommendation in written form which might be a biggest advantage so far as it can help counter biases. I wrote all this because I think you are an active member of this gov from start and we need your contribution, good thing is that our gov is working on iteration and foundation is serious about it so my request to you would be to consider this statement if you were serious about it. If we mess something up, we can fix it in the next iteration but only with your contribution. Prometheus: Now I know I don’t want to be part of this kind of DAO.

Likes: 2 Replies: 0

jackanorak - No Role

Aug. 20, 2022, 4:49 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

Prometheus - No Role

Aug. 20, 2022, 5:27 p.m.

Likes: 3 Replies: 3

Replies:

L2Maxi: i read through the talk here and i can see where he is coming from on a few point. this is quoted from the team leads bio Apart from this, I have contributed to two projects on Optimism, I was alpha tester of Lyra platform and the second project is Layer2DAO where I participated at the initial step of their Phase 0 proposal. Finally, I like my cute bunny pfp. Optimistic Bunnies are the very first NFT project on the OP chain and I do hangout in their discord from time to time not saying this guy isnt qualified but this isn’t much in the space the wallet activity is bad to. on the other hand i do like scale web3 and minimal gravitas only other issue is the jox guy is on multiple committee
jackanorak: I see absolutely nothing wrong in what I’ve said and appreciate your citing the exact problem, purpose mismatch, I’m helping to address by suggesting what I have. This group has itself conceded that its value proposition lies not in defi expertise but in active governance, which is applicable and valuable in several verticals. This is brought up repeatedly. I am highly aligned with MinimalGravitas, whose beliefs on climate change, for instance, are in lockstep with my own. I think they are a towering, valuable influence on OP. I’ve looked in this thread and in the delegate commitment section and found not one mention of DeFi in their background. OPUser’s claim to DeFi knowledge was being an alpha tester of Lyra. I’m not saying these people shouldn’t weigh in at all - but where’s the actual argument for being specifically on the DeFi committee? Rather, members have highlighted backgrounds in gaming (unaddressed vertical), devrel (infrastructure, also unaddressed), and advocacy & education (community, also wide open). I think it’d be great for these members to apply their expertise to proposals in these domains, of which there are already many. This is not a zero-sum situation. Please tell me exactly what is so inflammatory as to invite targeted ad hominem in making such a suggestion. I am making this same reasonable point repeatedly to increasingly heated, adversarial, in some cases inappropriate responses. I don’t think this has to happen.
OPUser: Weather its feedback and/or criticism, both can be of positive and negative in nature. We can move towards a common goal of sustainable Gov either by taking everyone with us or by dragging someone down just to put yourself first. You have already mentioned “argumentum ad nauseam”, apart from that common practice taught in B2B is “substitution heuristic”, same goes with political debate as well, rather than focusing on topic of discussion, they focus on opponent either by repeating the same thing or asking the same question again and again in different form just to divert the focus of discussion. But its all good, its a nature of DAO Gov, beauty of chaotic co-ordination and it will pass too. We had a chat in past on committee and you know where I stand on this, it has some cons but now with the committee guideline we all need to put the recommendation in written form which might be a biggest advantage so far as it can help counter biases. I wrote all this because I think you are an active member of this gov from start and we need your contribution, good thing is that our gov is working on iteration and foundation is serious about it so my request to you would be to consider this statement if you were serious about it. If we mess something up, we can fix it in the next iteration but only with your contribution. Prometheus: Now I know I don’t want to be part of this kind of DAO.

L2Maxi - No Role

Aug. 20, 2022, 5:35 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

jackanorak - No Role

Aug. 20, 2022, 5:46 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

Prometheus - No Role

Aug. 20, 2022, 5:50 p.m.

Likes: 2 Replies: 0

OPUser - No Role

Aug. 20, 2022, 7:16 p.m.

Likes: 2 Replies: 0

ScaleWeb3 - No Role

Aug. 22, 2022, 8:17 a.m.

Thanks for sharing this great tweet. Below is the full screenshot. This explains why I’m participat… Thanks for sharing this great tweet. Below is the full screenshot. This explains why I’m participating in governance. Why Optimism? See Delegate Committment 2 . Governance is an iterative process, and progressive decentralization is the right path to take. That said, it needs to be clear what communities and delegates can decide and what is ultimately decided by core teams. Core teams like Optimism should make most decisions and even have veto rights at this stage. Nonetheless, contributors should have a say over defined parts and be able to meaningfully add value - otherwise I’m sure you’d agree that there are better ways to spend your time. Ultimate goal should be minimalistic governance for key protocols such as Ethereum & Optimism - that we genuinely like, want to support and strengthen. I’ll just ignore your passive, aggressive tone though I must say the last week made me reconsider whether I + my companies should even support Optimism from here on out :slight_smile:

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

daoism - No Role

Aug. 22, 2022, 10:11 a.m.

If you’re standing for a remunerated position you should expect to be questioned on experience and … If you’re standing for a remunerated position you should expect to be questioned on experience and intent; if you can’t handle that in a good natured manner without rage-quitting, governance is perhaps not for you.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

ScaleWeb3 - No Role

Aug. 22, 2022, 11:28 a.m.

The expertise question is fair as we stated in our first comment. Since then, unfortunately nothing… The expertise question is fair as we stated in our first comment. Since then, unfortunately nothing was re: proposal, rather chit chat on he said this or that. It seems we have different opinions on “rage quitting”, “good natured manner”, “governance”. Many in crypto still do not understand what community and governance means. Here’s our take: 1000 random people are not “the community”, neither are “only” token holders or Discord members. Finding 10 quality contributing companies, 50 valuable stakeholders and 100 motivated, smart individuals is something not many projects have ever achieved in crypto. You need core devs, subject experts, groups that take on tasks (subDAO, metaDAO, xyz). Discussing with random people on the internet may be the job of a community manager in Discord but it is not part of this committee position. Its job is assessing DeFi projects, and we additionally offered helping projects craft the best possible proposals for their own project and Optimism. Before optimizing for further growth & decentralization to “community”, you need these quality stakeholders. Otherwise, values & goals are lost, while discussing “governance”, “vision”, “price”. Who are the top 10 DeFi projects / teams that Optimism should onboard? Who are the top 20 community members so far with input to DeFi? Which of the DeFi projects (soon-to-be) on Optimism will offer strong, lasting network effects? Who has demonstrated a reasonable path between (TVL) growth and security? What are the DeFi projects that make sense on Optimism but not on Ethereum mainnet or a Starkware implementation? After all, I’ve been part of too many crypto communities to spend my time making anons happy. I prefer thinking about DeFi or here: discussing it in the context of Optimism. Would be happy to hear your thoughts on the posted questions. Cheers

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

daoism - No Role

Aug. 22, 2022, 12:10 p.m.

the last week made me reconsider whether I + my companies should even support Optimism from here o… the last week made me reconsider whether I + my companies should even support Optimism from here on out This is what I would describe as rage-quitting (worse would be making the threat of with no real intent to do so). Good natured manner would be responding positively to questioning citing your own experience, rather than breaking down why you don’t like a DeFi protocol. Governance fairly nebulous for OP at this point, but if we consider the formation of committees a foundational element then it is fairly evident resilience is a key attribute for committee members or delegates to possess. Many in crypto still do not understand what community and governance means I appreciate your taking the time to explain your take, but it is supercilious language like this that creates an adversarial environment. Let me demonstrate… Most people exaggerate their experience in the web 3 space Here is the entirety of information on Optimism from blockchain-comparison.com 2 ; yes, it is a single line in an AirTable. Screenshot 2022 - 08 - 22 at 16 . 57 . 132160 × 1064 362 KB The Telegram insights channel has posted 3 times since Oct 2021 . The Twitter has more activity, but has 1500 followers. Most of the content is not organic; it’s simply linked from outside sources. Links to research go to, again, Airtables. I think it’s important to share some real evidence of experience and a little more transparency, you mention your companies; are you the sole owner? Where are they incorporated? Are they regulated? Under which umbrella? Are those entities the delegate, or you personally? Would remuneration flow to those companies, or to you personally?

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

ScaleWeb3 - No Role

Aug. 22, 2022, 12:13 p.m.

glad you posted from @daoism account and not @jackanorak account this time. :rofl: glad you posted from @daoism account and not @jackanorak account this time. :rofl:

Likes: 0 Replies: 2

jackanorak - No Role

Aug. 22, 2022, 12:16 p.m.

this is an actual embarrassment. imagine thinking i even felt a need to say something not from my o… this is an actual embarrassment. imagine thinking i even felt a need to say something not from my own account. I thought I’d made my case pretty clearly and saw it confirmed repeatedly. But since I’m here, I will add: Discussing with random people on the internet may be the job of a community manager in Discord but it is not part of this committee position. This group’s activity on the forums is literally the primary thing it points to in saying it’s best suited to be the first look on defi proposals This will be my last message here. I don’t see much more need to litigate this

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

ScaleWeb3 - No Role

Aug. 22, 2022, 12:17 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

daoism - No Role

Aug. 22, 2022, 12:30 p.m.

I urge @OPUser to replace @ScaleWeb 3 with a more suitable, and less emotional, reviewer. I urge @OPUser to replace @ScaleWeb 3 with a more suitable, and less emotional, reviewer.

Likes: 2 Replies: 0

OPUser - No Role

Aug. 22, 2022, 12:33 p.m.

Hey @daoism, thank you for taking your time reading our proposal and providing us your feedback. Hey @daoism, thank you for taking your time reading our proposal and providing us your feedback.

Likes: 5 Replies: 0

Michael - No Role

Aug. 22, 2022, 1:23 p.m.

I want to hop in to the fray a bit here. I think some of the points that the Velo team (@jackanorak… I want to hop in to the fray a bit here. I think some of the points that the Velo team (@jackanorak @alexcutlerdoteth) is raising are completely valid. These proposals involve some technical level of understanding of tokenomics, incentives, and the legitimacy of the protocol itself. I disagree that you need to work for a DeFi protocol in order to do this, but I DO think that this is one criteria that a committee should be judged on. Trying to discredit these points by trashing Velo seems counterproductive.

Likes: 5 Replies: 2

AxlVaz - No Role

Aug. 22, 2022, 1:38 p.m.

Any point of view is valid, good questions and points of view make governance take shape. Beyond th… Any point of view is valid, good questions and points of view make governance take shape. Beyond the tone of voice of these crosswords, it helps improve governance. In my opinion @jackanorak point is completely valid, as well as @MinimalGravitas point at the beginning with the “conflict of interest” issue of having all committee participants working on different protocols that are involved in Optimism. From my point of view I see these conversations as constructive and completely valid, it’s part of decentralization.

Likes: 3 Replies: 0

daoism - No Role

Aug. 22, 2022, 2:11 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

ScaleWeb3 - No Role

Aug. 22, 2022, 3:28 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

daoism - No Role

Aug. 22, 2022, 4:10 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

ScaleWeb3 - No Role

Aug. 22, 2022, 4:13 p.m.

glad you posted from @daoism account and not @jackanorak account this time. :rofl: glad you posted from @daoism account and not @jackanorak account this time. :rofl:

Likes: 0 Replies: 2

jackanorak - No Role

Aug. 22, 2022, 4:16 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

daoism - No Role

Aug. 22, 2022, 4:30 p.m.

I urge @OPUser to replace @ScaleWeb 3 with a more suitable, and less emotional, reviewer. I urge @OPUser to replace @ScaleWeb 3 with a more suitable, and less emotional, reviewer.

Likes: 2 Replies: 0

OPUser - No Role

Aug. 22, 2022, 4:33 p.m.

Hey @daoism, thank you for taking your time reading our proposal and providing us your feedback. Hey @daoism, thank you for taking your time reading our proposal and providing us your feedback.

Likes: 5 Replies: 0

Michael - No Role

Aug. 22, 2022, 5:23 p.m.

Likes: 5 Replies: 2

AxlVaz - No Role

Aug. 22, 2022, 5:38 p.m.

Likes: 3 Replies: 0

Gonna.eth - This user is a moderator, govNERD

Aug. 23, 2022, 5:18 p.m.

Thank you Michael, I think most of the feedback given by the Velo team was answered as they are val… Thank you Michael, I think most of the feedback given by the Velo team was answered as they are valid points. We do not try to discredit the Velo team, just raise awareness of who is giving the feedback for those who lack context. I do have to say it’s a sad thing the only feedback given is “you are not fit for this because of your background” when that can be solved just by voting against it. If this is the feedback the Velo committee and followers will give to future projects I don’t see too much future growth. It feels there’s no thinking process on how to evolve this into constructive feedback.

Likes: 2 Replies: 0

lavande - This user is a moderator

Aug. 23, 2022, 5:53 p.m.

Hi @Gonna.eth! Would you mind updating this proposal title to reflect the below? Please use the fol… Hi @Gonna.eth! Would you mind updating this proposal title to reflect the below? Please use the following title format: [DRAFT][S 02 Committee Proposal: Category: Group Letter.] An example would be [SO 2 Committee Proposal: DeFi: Group A]. Group letter should be alphabetical by category, based on time of original submission. In this case, your group would be Group C :slightly_smiling_face: The thought is that this should prevent confusion about the multiple defi committees heading into Voting Cycle # 5 . This language has been added to the committee formation proposal template as well.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

Gonna.eth - This user is a moderator, govNERD

Aug. 23, 2022, 7:06 p.m.

Done! thank you very much! I think we are C but I’ll keep B because I’m not sure! Done! thank you very much! I think we are C but I’ll keep B because I’m not sure!

Likes: 5 Replies: 0

lavande - This user is a moderator

Aug. 23, 2022, 7:29 p.m.

Sorry, that is correct, you are group C! Sorry, that is correct, you are group C!

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

Gonna.eth - This user is a moderator

Aug. 23, 2022, 9:18 p.m.

Likes: 2 Replies: 0

lavande - This user is a moderator

Aug. 23, 2022, 9:53 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

Gonna.eth - This user is a moderator

Aug. 23, 2022, 11:06 p.m.

Done! thank you very much! I think we are C but I’ll keep B because I’m not sure! Done! thank you very much! I think we are C but I’ll keep B because I’m not sure!

Likes: 5 Replies: 0

lavande - This user is a moderator

Aug. 23, 2022, 11:29 p.m.

Sorry, that is correct, you are group C! Sorry, that is correct, you are group C!

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

Axel_T - No Role

Aug. 30, 2022, 12:25 p.m.

Wow! This is the Dream Team committee. Very happy to have just voted ‘For’ your Proposal. Best of s… Wow! This is the Dream Team committee. Very happy to have just voted ‘For’ your Proposal. Best of success with your work in the upcoming season(s).

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

Axel_T - No Role

Aug. 30, 2022, 4:25 p.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

katie - No Role

Aug. 31, 2022, 8:16 p.m.

Abstaining from this vote since I have defi committee proposal. Abstaining from this vote since I have defi committee proposal.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

katie - No Role

Sept. 1, 2022, 12:16 a.m.

Abstaining from this vote since I have defi committee proposal. Abstaining from this vote since I have defi committee proposal.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

Jrocki - No Role

Sept. 1, 2022, 10:51 p.m.

Voted “Abstain” OPUser is also on the NFT & Gaming Committee for which I submitted the proposal Voted “Abstain” OPUser is also on the NFT & Gaming Committee for which I submitted the proposal

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

jrocki.bedrock - No Role

Sept. 2, 2022, 2:51 a.m.

Voted “Abstain” OPUser is also on the NFT & Gaming Committee for which I submitted the proposal Voted “Abstain” OPUser is also on the NFT & Gaming Committee for which I submitted the proposal

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

OPUser - No Role

Sept. 3, 2022, 8:02 a.m.

Abstained as I am part of this committee. Abstained as I am part of this committee.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

OPUser - No Role

Sept. 3, 2022, 12:02 p.m.

Abstained as I am part of this committee. Abstained as I am part of this committee.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

linda - No Role

Sept. 4, 2022, 12:40 a.m.

Abstained from this vote since I’m part of another DeFi committee proposal. Abstained from this vote since I’m part of another DeFi committee proposal.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

linda - No Role

Sept. 4, 2022, 4:40 a.m.

Abstained from this vote since I’m part of another DeFi committee proposal. Abstained from this vote since I’m part of another DeFi committee proposal.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

Bobbay_StableLab - No Role

Sept. 4, 2022, 11:20 p.m.

Vote: Abstain StableNode is part of another DeFi committee proposal [Group A] Vote: Abstain StableNode is part of another DeFi committee proposal [Group A]

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

Bobbay_StableLab - No Role

Sept. 5, 2022, 3:20 a.m.

Vote: Abstain StableNode is part of another DeFi committee proposal [Group A] Vote: Abstain StableNode is part of another DeFi committee proposal [Group A]

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

lefterisjp - No Role

Sept. 6, 2022, 5:52 p.m.

Voting yes due to @OPUser being the lead. Someone who has shown through their activity in this foru… Voting yes due to @OPUser being the lead. Someone who has shown through their activity in this forum that they really are interested in making things work. Also at least some other people in here such as Gravitas and Joxes seem to have done good work with the various proposals which makes me believe this will be a strong group.

Likes: 2 Replies: 0

lefterisjp - No Role

Sept. 6, 2022, 9:52 p.m.

Likes: 2 Replies: 0

MoneyManDoug - No Role

Sept. 6, 2022, 11:42 p.m.

You and joxes are both on the tooling committee :thinking: L 2 beat is in the same situation and t… You and joxes are both on the tooling committee :thinking: L 2 beat is in the same situation and they also voted yes, whereas Scott abstained as he should.

Likes: 0 Replies: 2

AxlVaz - No Role

Sept. 6, 2022, 11:49 p.m.

I believe that much of the governance votes as it thinks is right. To say “as it should” I don’t kn… I believe that much of the governance votes as it thinks is right. To say “as it should” I don’t know if that is correct. Let’s not forget that governance is a constant experiment, if we follow the standard parameters it will get us nowhere. There is nothing new to discover. In short, I think there are no good or bad votes or “as it should”.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

lefterisjp - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 3 a.m.

I don’t see a conflict of interest here as the committee is in another category and it’s not as if … I don’t see a conflict of interest here as the committee is in another category and it’s not as if I know any of those people personally and have anything to gain by this or another committee being voted on. If more people or if someone from OP team thinks otherwise I would not mind changing my vote. Too much drama in here lately.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

MoneyManDoug - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 3:42 a.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 2

AxlVaz - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 3:49 a.m.

Likes: 0 Replies: 0

MoneyManDoug - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 6:14 a.m.

It seems to me that they would only gain monetarily, as that’s the only reason to put yourself on t… It seems to me that they would only gain monetarily, as that’s the only reason to put yourself on two committees. It also suggests they’ll have enough bandwidth to handle all proposals which I see as completely outrageous. This is the only committee which has decided this is acceptable. Clearly making a mockery of committees.

Likes: 1 Replies: 2

Replies:

MinimalGravitas: @MoneyManDoug mate, is there any chance that your negative vibes are contributing to your committee proposal not doing so well…? You’re going round systematically telling everyone who’s voted for us that they should abstain or whatever. In discord you’re telling Polynya they shouldn’t vote because they represent too many delegators. Now you’re saying Lefteris and Kris shouldn’t vote for us because the DeFi LatAm team have a representative in Tooling as well as our DeFi committee… and at the same time in Discord you’re claiming that delegates should be able to vote for themselves. Obviously you’ve realized that if you can convince everyone that voted for us and not for you to abstain, and at the same time allow your team to vote for their own proposal rather than abstain then you will win… but by doing so you’re coming across as being pretty underhanded and devious, which isn’t going to make you look good in the eyes of other delegates. The hypercompetitive, win-at-all costs thing is pretty grim. The fact that your team are constantly in this thread putting us down and arguing with anyone who offers us their support just doesn’t seem very Optimistic. It reminds me of the time soon after the airdrop when in Discord several delegates were trying to drum up support by stating their visions and posting links to their ‘commitments’, some of those links would immediately receive poo emojis from a bunch of sockpuppet accounts. I don’t think I ever posted my link there, as my Ethereum community is predominantly Reddit based and I didn’t think it made sense to try and get support from people who didn’t know me… however I did watch closely how the process went down and kept some records of it, as outside of crypto one of my other big interests is understanding and resisting disinformation and manipulation online (here’s an article featuring my efforts in that field: Meet the Redditors fighting 2020's fake news war). I wonder if you remember that and perhaps can see some parallels with the negative vibes that this committee selection process seems to be bringing out? If so then hopefully you might try a more positive approach to encourage more support. In the end, even if you don’t get selected, you are still free to vote as you like on grant proposals and ignore the recommendation of committees that you don’t agree with, especially if you can share good reasons why the decision is in error or is missing some insight. Not ‘winning’ doesn’t mean you lose any ability to participate.
OPUser: Hi @MoneyManDoug, I was trying to avoid this political debate, wasting each others time without a proper goal in sight. But I believe you are taking this too far and I need to address few of your concern. It seems to me that they would only gain monetarily, as that’s the only reason to put yourself on two committees This is just sad that you think I am putting myself in more than two committee for this, I have no vested interest in Optimism and its true that I spend my significant amount of time here because I like our gov model, I see a working DAO with our two pillar gov model and I want to be a part of it. Anyone following my thoughts on committee knows that I was not in favor of this and because I was afraid that someone will come pointing finger and relating everything that the committee will do to money. This was one of the reason I suggested that instead of giving reward in form of money we should focus on different option. Better option was to put the committee in RPGF. Common problem with greed is that we underestimate it. Foundation decision to reward the delegate engagement was a good idea and decision to form committee does have some pro and cons which we should discuss at the end of Season 2. Circling back to your comment on mo, its your opinion and I cant do anything about it but to anyone reading this, its true that getting reward for time and contribution will be an added motivation but let me be clear on one thing, I was here when there was no talk about money and I will be here even if foundation choose to remove the money part from coming season. Looking back on Season 1, we have made some progress and there are scope of improvement, second pillar of Gov is expected to be active in upcoming month(s) and I am super excited about it. And now that I am thinking about it, I also want to mention that its true that there are many delegate in other committee who is more versed than me but I also believe that if we ask the right question at right place to right person and with a learning attitude, we can solve many problems which also include doing valuation of proposals. But even with my limited knowledge, I would encourage you to look into my past review and tell me where did I do wrong, do you find any instance which need improvement, was I biased or aligned in any form ? Was I selective in nature when doing valuation of proposal in the past? But you know what, Doug, I can say this about you. You did vote on almost all the proposal in the past but choose only to comment and interact with very few of them. Voting in dark is always a red flag in my book and this gives me less confidence in you. Now that I am part of committee, I want to make it clear that this is my opinion and I am not writing on behalf of my committee. But on that topic, I do believe that combined power of knowledge and interest that my committee can bring on table makes us a suitable candidate to be part of DeFi committee and I was expecting support, in case I need some, from active members like you but I am not sure if I can expect that from you anymore. Rather than focusing on different way to contribute, you are more focused on making sure that my committee does not get final approval. May be you see us as a competition but I still disagree with your approach. Creating a separate thread and discussing it there would have been a much better approach. enough bandwidth to handle all proposals Forgive my french but are you suggesting that I wont have enough bandwidth to review the proposal ? If yes, then I dont know how you can mention this ? Remember in Phase 1 we had close to 30 proposal, in season 1 we had more than 10, in some of them we had 15 How many proposals you expect we get per committee, 5 ? max 10 ? Those are rookie number my friend, given that now we have 3 week, I can review them alone, all of them and I will still have some time to learn new topic if a new proposal comes to my plate which is new and innovative. Just imagine what our committee can do, take some time and reflect on the bandwidth. Coming back to your two concern:- Delegate Abstaining :- I believe that if I am part of a proposed committee, i should abstain . This is a best practice, I also believe by doing this we can avoid conflict and bias. There is no written rule on this so I am not gonna judge anyone not following this, if we see some major conflict because of this, we can discuss that too. One user being part of more than one committee:- I have said that in the past, we can discuss this and depending on the consensus, the documentation can be amended to reflect the changes. But I am questioning your approach and how you choose to address this point. I was planning of creating a thread on this forum during reflection session of Season 2 to address this topic but if you feel that this is quite critical and need urgent attention, my suggestion would be to create a thread and discuss it there rather that chasing us on this forum and on discord. Bring everyone to a thread dedicated to this topic and discuss it there, it will easy for all us to follow this topic, i can also put my view on this topic on one place rather than writing the same thing again and again on different channel.

lefterisjp - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 7 a.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

MinimalGravitas - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 7:06 a.m.

@MoneyManDoug mate, is there any chance that your negative vibes are contributing to your committee… @MoneyManDoug mate, is there any chance that your negative vibes are contributing to your committee proposal not doing so well…? You’re going round systematically telling everyone who’s voted for us that they should abstain or whatever. In discord you’re telling Polynya they shouldn’t vote because they represent too many delegators. Now you’re saying Lefteris and Kris shouldn’t vote for us because the DeFi LatAm team have a representative in Tooling as well as our DeFi committee… and at the same time in Discord you’re claiming that delegates should be able to vote for themselves. Obviously you’ve realized that if you can convince everyone that voted for us and not for you to abstain, and at the same time allow your team to vote for their own proposal rather than abstain then you will win… but by doing so you’re coming across as being pretty underhanded and devious, which isn’t going to make you look good in the eyes of other delegates. The hypercompetitive, win-at-all costs thing is pretty grim. The fact that your team are constantly in this thread putting us down and arguing with anyone who offers us their support just doesn’t seem very Optimistic. It reminds me of the time soon after the airdrop when in Discord several delegates were trying to drum up support by stating their visions and posting links to their ‘commitments’, some of those links would immediately receive poo emojis from a bunch of sockpuppet accounts. I don’t think I ever posted my link there, as my Ethereum community is predominantly Reddit based and I didn’t think it made sense to try and get support from people who didn’t know me… however I did watch closely how the process went down and kept some records of it, as outside of crypto one of my other big interests is understanding and resisting disinformation and manipulation online (here’s an article featuring my efforts in that field: Meet the Redditors fighting 2020 's fake news war). I wonder if you remember that and perhaps can see some parallels with the negative vibes that this committee selection process seems to be bringing out? If so then hopefully you might try a more positive approach to encourage more support. In the end, even if you don’t get selected, you are still free to vote as you like on grant proposals and ignore the recommendation of committees that you don’t agree with, especially if you can share good reasons why the decision is in error or is missing some insight. Not ‘winning’ doesn’t mean you lose any ability to participate.

Likes: 7 Replies: 3

Replies:

Prometheus: Since we share values on resisting disinformation and manipulation I will just add something since I can’t even participate in the #deletage-discussion on discord (I’m not a delegate and I don’t want to be, just saying I can’t reply there). When people say “I’d like to think I can vote against centralization.” I would like to remember there’s always the possibility to vote against all committees (it’s exactly what I did, even if I respect many people on the committees). It’s nothing personal and it shouldn’t be personal. We don’t don’t need to diminish people to make our point but unfortunately not everyone agrees.
jackanorak: i respect you, but this is silly grandstanding. people saying 1. that it defeats the purpose of committees to have the same people spread across several groups, 2. that there were several verticals other than DeFi that this particular group could have been better suited to, and 3. that abstention standards to date have been inconsistent and arbitrary – is not “bad vibes”. It’s an expression of disappointment at how groups have been constructed and an effort to make this structure actually work. We’re seeing the writing on the wall and are worried at how defi protocols are actually going to make good proposals stick. couldn’t care less about vibes if optimism ends up being a sad, parochial has-been due to a lack of focus and professionalism in how its governance is managed. we need to bring the best builders here, full stop. would like to mention that from the jump nobody from our group has had an issue with defi group A because they have a solid background in defi and have signaled their commitment to defi alone to date i think OPUser had probably the only straightforward explanation for why this group doubled down on its construction and focus, which amounted to “because we wanted it” – and because of a handful of votes (due, again, to arbitrary abstention standards), Optimism is at risk of not taking the best foot forward in meeting the moment Not ‘winning’ doesn’t mean you lose any ability to participate. I’ve already seen how members of this group have handled proposals. Good proposals will die due to a lack of fundamental defi understanding. Good builders will get stymied in questions about process and confused by incoherent, inconsistent demands on defi-related matters. Projects looking at a (growing!) menu of incentive programs across ecosystems will dismiss Optimism as an impossible case.
MoneyManDoug: It’s actually the act of abstaining that caused our committee to be behind, we could easily come out on top if we could vote. Instead we have two people deciding the entire outcome. I would have zero issues with your committee if you guys played fairly. The only votes you have that are problematic are Polynias L2 beats and Leftaris there is no issue with any other vote you have. Saying they shouldn’t abstain is pretty foolish given two of them share a committee with joxes and one of them is the largest voting party by a long shot making it impossible to match voting power.

Prometheus - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 7:37 a.m.

Since we share values on resisting disinformation and manipulation I will just add something since … Since we share values on resisting disinformation and manipulation I will just add something since I can’t even participate in the #deletage-discussion on discord (I’m not a delegate and I don’t want to be, just saying I can’t reply there). When people say “I’d like to think I can vote against centralization.” I would like to remember there’s always the possibility to vote against all committees (it’s exactly what I did, even if I respect many people on the committees). It’s nothing personal and it shouldn’t be personal. We don’t don’t need to diminish people to make our point but unfortunately not everyone agrees.

Likes: 2 Replies: 1

jackanorak - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 9:05 a.m.

i respect you, but this is silly grandstanding. people saying 1 . that it defeats the purpose of c… i respect you, but this is silly grandstanding. people saying 1 . that it defeats the purpose of committees to have the same people spread across several groups, 2 . that there were several verticals other than DeFi that this particular group could have been better suited to, and 3 . that abstention standards to date have been inconsistent and arbitrary – is not “bad vibes”. It’s an expression of disappointment at how groups have been constructed and an effort to make this structure actually work. We’re seeing the writing on the wall and are worried at how defi protocols are actually going to make good proposals stick. couldn’t care less about vibes if optimism ends up being a sad, parochial has-been due to a lack of focus and professionalism in how its governance is managed. we need to bring the best builders here, full stop. would like to mention that from the jump nobody from our group has had an issue with defi group A because they have a solid background in defi and have signaled their commitment to defi alone to date i think OPUser had probably the only straightforward explanation for why this group doubled down on its construction and focus, which amounted to “because we wanted it” – and because of a handful of votes (due, again, to arbitrary abstention standards), Optimism is at risk of not taking the best foot forward in meeting the moment Not ‘winning’ doesn’t mean you lose any ability to participate. I’ve already seen how members of this group have handled proposals. Good proposals will die due to a lack of fundamental defi understanding. Good builders will get stymied in questions about process and confused by incoherent, inconsistent demands on defi-related matters. Projects looking at a (growing!) menu of incentive programs across ecosystems will dismiss Optimism as an impossible case.

Likes: 1 Replies: 1

Joxes - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 9:26 a.m.

Voting: abstain. Our entire rational here 1 . Voting: abstain. Our entire rational here 1 .

Likes: 2 Replies: 0

OPUser - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 9:41 a.m.

Hi @MoneyManDoug, I was trying to avoid this political debate, wasting each others time without a p… Hi @MoneyManDoug, I was trying to avoid this political debate, wasting each others time without a proper goal in sight. But I believe you are taking this too far and I need to address few of your concern. It seems to me that they would only gain monetarily, as that’s the only reason to put yourself on two committees This is just sad that you think I am putting myself in more than two committee for this, I have no vested interest in Optimism and its true that I spend my significant amount of time here because I like our gov model, I see a working DAO with our two pillar gov model and I want to be a part of it. Anyone following my thoughts on committee knows that I was not in favor of this and because I was afraid that someone will come pointing finger and relating everything that the committee will do to money. This was one of the reason I suggested that instead of giving reward in form of money we should focus on different option. Better option was to put the committee in RPGF. Common problem with greed is that we underestimate it. Foundation decision to reward the delegate engagement was a good idea and decision to form committee does have some pro and cons which we should discuss at the end of Season 2 . Circling back to your comment on mo, its your opinion and I cant do anything about it but to anyone reading this, its true that getting reward for time and contribution will be an added motivation but let me be clear on one thing, I was here when there was no talk about money and I will be here even if foundation choose to remove the money part from coming season. Looking back on Season 1 , we have made some progress and there are scope of improvement, second pillar of Gov is expected to be active in upcoming month(s) and I am super excited about it. And now that I am thinking about it, I also want to mention that its true that there are many delegate in other committee who is more versed than me but I also believe that if we ask the right question at right place to right person and with a learning attitude, we can solve many problems which also include doing valuation of proposals. But even with my limited knowledge, I would encourage you to look into my past review and tell me where did I do wrong, do you find any instance which need improvement, was I biased or aligned in any form ? Was I selective in nature when doing valuation of proposal in the past? But you know what, Doug, I can say this about you. You did vote on almost all the proposal in the past but choose only to comment and interact with very few of them. Voting in dark is always a red flag in my book and this gives me less confidence in you. Now that I am part of committee, I want to make it clear that this is my opinion and I am not writing on behalf of my committee. But on that topic, I do believe that combined power of knowledge and interest that my committee can bring on table makes us a suitable candidate to be part of DeFi committee and I was expecting support, in case I need some, from active members like you but I am not sure if I can expect that from you anymore. Rather than focusing on different way to contribute, you are more focused on making sure that my committee does not get final approval. May be you see us as a competition but I still disagree with your approach. Creating a separate thread and discussing it there would have been a much better approach. enough bandwidth to handle all proposals Forgive my french but are you suggesting that I wont have enough bandwidth to review the proposal ? If yes, then I dont know how you can mention this ? Remember in Phase 1 we had close to 30 proposal, in season 1 we had more than 10 , in some of them we had 15 How many proposals you expect we get per committee, 5 ? max 10 ? Those are rookie number my friend, given that now we have 3 week, I can review them alone, all of them and I will still have some time to learn new topic if a new proposal comes to my plate which is new and innovative. Just imagine what our committee can do, take some time and reflect on the bandwidth. Coming back to your two concern:- Delegate Abstaining :- I believe that if I am part of a proposed committee, i should abstain . This is a best practice, I also believe by doing this we can avoid conflict and bias. There is no written rule on this so I am not gonna judge anyone not following this, if we see some major conflict because of this, we can discuss that too. One user being part of more than one committee:- I have said that in the past, we can discuss this and depending on the consensus, the documentation can be amended to reflect the changes. But I am questioning your approach and how you choose to address this point. I was planning of creating a thread on this forum during reflection session of Season 2 to address this topic but if you feel that this is quite critical and need urgent attention, my suggestion would be to create a thread and discuss it there rather that chasing us on this forum and on discord. Bring everyone to a thread dedicated to this topic and discuss it there, it will easy for all us to follow this topic, i can also put my view on this topic on one place rather than writing the same thing again and again on different channel.

Likes: 3 Replies: 2

OPUser - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 9:45 a.m.

Apologizes for not responding to your other points but could you please help me with this. where di… Apologizes for not responding to your other points but could you please help me with this. where did we do poorly, I cant go in past and change my decision but if what you say is true then I will definitely work on your feedback. jackanorak: I’ve already seen how members of this group have handled proposals.

Likes: 1 Replies: 1

MoneyManDoug - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 9:57 a.m.

There is no political debate here. You decided to join two committees knowing you dont have relevan… There is no political debate here. You decided to join two committees knowing you dont have relevant experience in either area you are also assuming this is an easy job which is clearly not the case. Not to mention two of your members are on a different committee and gained a large amount of voting weight from fellow committee members late into the snapshot cycle. My committee has 2 m of voting weight and could vote against your committee if we had no standards. I’m glad to see you guys have made a complete mockery of committees. As far as I know you guys are the only ones with people on multiple committees. Not sure why this is flagged at all.

Likes: 1 Replies: 2

Prometheus - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 9:57 a.m.

OPUser: I also believe that if we ask the right question at right place to right person and wi… OPUser: I also believe that if we ask the right question at right place to right person and with a learning attitude, we can solve many problems which also include doing valuation of proposals. DAOs don’t usually exclude people for lack of expertise or experience, meaning everyone can contribute. Some people seem to focus way to much on the expertise required without any sort of specification or eligibility rules on that matter. Anyway, proposals should incentive usage, they aren’t that technical, they shouldn’t be very technical (they don’t include code for instance) and as such they don’t require a deep understanding of coding or whatever. No one here needs 2 , 3 or more years of experience doing whatever to ask good questions and to participate in a positive way. Everyone can and should be allowed to.

Likes: 2 Replies: 0

MoneyManDoug - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 9:58 a.m.

When we’re giving guidance on multi million dollar grants it’s probably best to have the most quali… When we’re giving guidance on multi million dollar grants it’s probably best to have the most qualified candidates decide.

Likes: 1 Replies: 2

Prometheus - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 10:02 a.m.

Are you suggesting people need experience to vote on multi million dollar grants? At the end, with … Are you suggesting people need experience to vote on multi million dollar grants? At the end, with or without committees influence and power, voters (delegates and non-delegates) can do whatever they want, passing or not the proposal.

Likes: 1 Replies: 1

OPUser - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 10:04 a.m.

Both statement are true but you see the problem, just because you find it wrong does not mean i sho… Both statement are true but you see the problem, just because you find it wrong does not mean i should too. But if you bring the community together on this, I will adhere to the consensus and that is why I am suggesting you create a separate thread.

Likes: 2 Replies: 0

MoneyManDoug - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 10:05 a.m.

Voting is different than giving guidance to all the delegates. Voting is different than giving guidance to all the delegates.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

Prometheus - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 10:06 a.m.

Correct but you said… MoneyManDoug: …most qualified candidates decide. The final decision (f… Correct but you said… MoneyManDoug: …most qualified candidates decide. The final decision (fund allocation or not) is made by voters, not committees.

Likes: 1 Replies: 1

OPUser - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 10:07 a.m.

MoneyManDoug: My committee has 2 m of voting weight and could vote against your committee if … MoneyManDoug: My committee has 2 m of voting weight and could vote against your committee if we had no standards. Valid point and quite frankly as there are no rule on this, you still have some time to change your decision.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

MoneyManDoug - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 10:11 a.m.

Most qualified committees should be giving guidance. You misunderstood Most qualified committees should be giving guidance. You misunderstood

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

MoneyManDoug - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 10:14 a.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 2

Replies:

MinimalGravitas: @MoneyManDoug mate, is there any chance that your negative vibes are contributing to your committee proposal not doing so well…? You’re going round systematically telling everyone who’s voted for us that they should abstain or whatever. In discord you’re telling Polynya they shouldn’t vote because they represent too many delegators. Now you’re saying Lefteris and Kris shouldn’t vote for us because the DeFi LatAm team have a representative in Tooling as well as our DeFi committee… and at the same time in Discord you’re claiming that delegates should be able to vote for themselves. Obviously you’ve realized that if you can convince everyone that voted for us and not for you to abstain, and at the same time allow your team to vote for their own proposal rather than abstain then you will win… but by doing so you’re coming across as being pretty underhanded and devious, which isn’t going to make you look good in the eyes of other delegates. The hypercompetitive, win-at-all costs thing is pretty grim. The fact that your team are constantly in this thread putting us down and arguing with anyone who offers us their support just doesn’t seem very Optimistic. It reminds me of the time soon after the airdrop when in Discord several delegates were trying to drum up support by stating their visions and posting links to their ‘commitments’, some of those links would immediately receive poo emojis from a bunch of sockpuppet accounts. I don’t think I ever posted my link there, as my Ethereum community is predominantly Reddit based and I didn’t think it made sense to try and get support from people who didn’t know me… however I did watch closely how the process went down and kept some records of it, as outside of crypto one of my other big interests is understanding and resisting disinformation and manipulation online (here’s an article featuring my efforts in that field: Meet the Redditors fighting 2020's fake news war). I wonder if you remember that and perhaps can see some parallels with the negative vibes that this committee selection process seems to be bringing out? If so then hopefully you might try a more positive approach to encourage more support. In the end, even if you don’t get selected, you are still free to vote as you like on grant proposals and ignore the recommendation of committees that you don’t agree with, especially if you can share good reasons why the decision is in error or is missing some insight. Not ‘winning’ doesn’t mean you lose any ability to participate.
OPUser: Hi @MoneyManDoug, I was trying to avoid this political debate, wasting each others time without a proper goal in sight. But I believe you are taking this too far and I need to address few of your concern. It seems to me that they would only gain monetarily, as that’s the only reason to put yourself on two committees This is just sad that you think I am putting myself in more than two committee for this, I have no vested interest in Optimism and its true that I spend my significant amount of time here because I like our gov model, I see a working DAO with our two pillar gov model and I want to be a part of it. Anyone following my thoughts on committee knows that I was not in favor of this and because I was afraid that someone will come pointing finger and relating everything that the committee will do to money. This was one of the reason I suggested that instead of giving reward in form of money we should focus on different option. Better option was to put the committee in RPGF. Common problem with greed is that we underestimate it. Foundation decision to reward the delegate engagement was a good idea and decision to form committee does have some pro and cons which we should discuss at the end of Season 2. Circling back to your comment on mo, its your opinion and I cant do anything about it but to anyone reading this, its true that getting reward for time and contribution will be an added motivation but let me be clear on one thing, I was here when there was no talk about money and I will be here even if foundation choose to remove the money part from coming season. Looking back on Season 1, we have made some progress and there are scope of improvement, second pillar of Gov is expected to be active in upcoming month(s) and I am super excited about it. And now that I am thinking about it, I also want to mention that its true that there are many delegate in other committee who is more versed than me but I also believe that if we ask the right question at right place to right person and with a learning attitude, we can solve many problems which also include doing valuation of proposals. But even with my limited knowledge, I would encourage you to look into my past review and tell me where did I do wrong, do you find any instance which need improvement, was I biased or aligned in any form ? Was I selective in nature when doing valuation of proposal in the past? But you know what, Doug, I can say this about you. You did vote on almost all the proposal in the past but choose only to comment and interact with very few of them. Voting in dark is always a red flag in my book and this gives me less confidence in you. Now that I am part of committee, I want to make it clear that this is my opinion and I am not writing on behalf of my committee. But on that topic, I do believe that combined power of knowledge and interest that my committee can bring on table makes us a suitable candidate to be part of DeFi committee and I was expecting support, in case I need some, from active members like you but I am not sure if I can expect that from you anymore. Rather than focusing on different way to contribute, you are more focused on making sure that my committee does not get final approval. May be you see us as a competition but I still disagree with your approach. Creating a separate thread and discussing it there would have been a much better approach. enough bandwidth to handle all proposals Forgive my french but are you suggesting that I wont have enough bandwidth to review the proposal ? If yes, then I dont know how you can mention this ? Remember in Phase 1 we had close to 30 proposal, in season 1 we had more than 10, in some of them we had 15 How many proposals you expect we get per committee, 5 ? max 10 ? Those are rookie number my friend, given that now we have 3 week, I can review them alone, all of them and I will still have some time to learn new topic if a new proposal comes to my plate which is new and innovative. Just imagine what our committee can do, take some time and reflect on the bandwidth. Coming back to your two concern:- Delegate Abstaining :- I believe that if I am part of a proposed committee, i should abstain . This is a best practice, I also believe by doing this we can avoid conflict and bias. There is no written rule on this so I am not gonna judge anyone not following this, if we see some major conflict because of this, we can discuss that too. One user being part of more than one committee:- I have said that in the past, we can discuss this and depending on the consensus, the documentation can be amended to reflect the changes. But I am questioning your approach and how you choose to address this point. I was planning of creating a thread on this forum during reflection session of Season 2 to address this topic but if you feel that this is quite critical and need urgent attention, my suggestion would be to create a thread and discuss it there rather that chasing us on this forum and on discord. Bring everyone to a thread dedicated to this topic and discuss it there, it will easy for all us to follow this topic, i can also put my view on this topic on one place rather than writing the same thing again and again on different channel.

Prometheus - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 10:16 a.m.

Let’s be clear… Committees have “super powers” but committees can’t decide if the proposal gets or … Let’s be clear… Committees have “super powers” but committees can’t decide if the proposal gets or not the funds they ask. Voters do. Committees can vet the proposal and pass the proposal to voting, meaning they can block or delay the proposal but they can’t give/distribute funds. Voters decide if the proposal receives the funds asked or not. Meaning voters decide on multi million dollar grants and committees provide “guidance” with their “super powers”.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

MoneyManDoug - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 10:17 a.m.

Do you not understand that most voters and delegates will put trust into the committees recommendat… Do you not understand that most voters and delegates will put trust into the committees recommendation and vote accordingly? That’s why it’s not smart to have a two people decide the entire outcome of whose selected. This means committees are forever doomed, they will always be voted in/out based on the voice of 1 or two people given the abstaining rule. Not only did they receive two votes from related committee members they got Polynias vote which is already absurdly large. I see over 3 . 5 m in votes that should be abstained imo.

Likes: 1 Replies: 2

Prometheus - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 10:25 a.m.

I clearly understand that since day # 1 and I expressed my opinion here: Introducing Governance Co… I clearly understand that since day # 1 and I expressed my opinion here: Introducing Governance Committees - # 9 by Prometheus 3 If it’s not clear… I’m against committees. Nevertheless you can’t require expertise without specification and proper intent. Smart or not… you can only blame yourself for not bringing the expertise requirements/specifications up to debate in early stages.

Likes: 2 Replies: 0

MoneyManDoug - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 10:38 a.m.

I figured all delegates would be able to weigh in, it wasn’t until late that we decided abstaining … I figured all delegates would be able to weigh in, it wasn’t until late that we decided abstaining was necessary. I also agree that committees are a mistake now funnily.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

MinimalGravitas - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 11:06 a.m.

Likes: 7 Replies: 3

Replies:

Prometheus: Since we share values on resisting disinformation and manipulation I will just add something since I can’t even participate in the #deletage-discussion on discord (I’m not a delegate and I don’t want to be, just saying I can’t reply there). When people say “I’d like to think I can vote against centralization.” I would like to remember there’s always the possibility to vote against all committees (it’s exactly what I did, even if I respect many people on the committees). It’s nothing personal and it shouldn’t be personal. We don’t don’t need to diminish people to make our point but unfortunately not everyone agrees.
jackanorak: i respect you, but this is silly grandstanding. people saying 1. that it defeats the purpose of committees to have the same people spread across several groups, 2. that there were several verticals other than DeFi that this particular group could have been better suited to, and 3. that abstention standards to date have been inconsistent and arbitrary – is not “bad vibes”. It’s an expression of disappointment at how groups have been constructed and an effort to make this structure actually work. We’re seeing the writing on the wall and are worried at how defi protocols are actually going to make good proposals stick. couldn’t care less about vibes if optimism ends up being a sad, parochial has-been due to a lack of focus and professionalism in how its governance is managed. we need to bring the best builders here, full stop. would like to mention that from the jump nobody from our group has had an issue with defi group A because they have a solid background in defi and have signaled their commitment to defi alone to date i think OPUser had probably the only straightforward explanation for why this group doubled down on its construction and focus, which amounted to “because we wanted it” – and because of a handful of votes (due, again, to arbitrary abstention standards), Optimism is at risk of not taking the best foot forward in meeting the moment Not ‘winning’ doesn’t mean you lose any ability to participate. I’ve already seen how members of this group have handled proposals. Good proposals will die due to a lack of fundamental defi understanding. Good builders will get stymied in questions about process and confused by incoherent, inconsistent demands on defi-related matters. Projects looking at a (growing!) menu of incentive programs across ecosystems will dismiss Optimism as an impossible case.
MoneyManDoug: It’s actually the act of abstaining that caused our committee to be behind, we could easily come out on top if we could vote. Instead we have two people deciding the entire outcome. I would have zero issues with your committee if you guys played fairly. The only votes you have that are problematic are Polynias L2 beats and Leftaris there is no issue with any other vote you have. Saying they shouldn’t abstain is pretty foolish given two of them share a committee with joxes and one of them is the largest voting party by a long shot making it impossible to match voting power.

Prometheus - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 11:37 a.m.

Likes: 2 Replies: 1

jackanorak - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 12:51 p.m.

I’m sure you can remember because of all the times i’ve given you feedback in the moment to little … I’m sure you can remember because of all the times i’ve given you feedback in the moment to little effect what i say is true, that your participation has at times displayed a lack of core defi understanding and, more worryingly, intransigence and overreliance on process I also believe that if we ask the right question at right place to right person and with a learning attitude, we can solve many problems which also include doing valuation of proposals. There is a track record of this not having been the case, though I do respect the time you’ve incorporated my suggestions, such as emphasizing OP as a pairing token, though even then that was applied haphazardly and without regard to routing considerations. A lack of defi knowledge will be a death by a thousand cuts, and the only thing i’m left with at the end of all of this is that your group, despite this, essentially doubled down on defi just because you wanted it, not because you were the best to do it. Really feel bad for the protocols applying to Optimism if this group passes. I look forward to continuing to work with them off the books and hearing more of their complaints.

Likes: 2 Replies: 1

MoneyManDoug - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 12:54 p.m.

It’s actually the act of abstaining that caused our committee to be behind, we could easily come ou… It’s actually the act of abstaining that caused our committee to be behind, we could easily come out on top if we could vote. Instead we have two people deciding the entire outcome. I would have zero issues with your committee if you guys played fairly. The only votes you have that are problematic are Polynias L 2 beats and Leftaris there is no issue with any other vote you have. Saying they shouldn’t abstain is pretty foolish given two of them share a committee with joxes and one of them is the largest voting party by a long shot making it impossible to match voting power.

Likes: 2 Replies: 0

jackanorak - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 1:05 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 1

L2Maxi - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 1:15 p.m.

Hello Doug i raised the concern of having people on multiple committees early on. my concerns did n… Hello Doug i raised the concern of having people on multiple committees early on. my concerns did not get much feedback to my surprise. i was aware of the issues this would cause and as i can see we are favoring centralization here.

Likes: 2 Replies: 1

L2Maxi - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 1:19 p.m.

i can see why committee B is upset the voting process here was set up to fail from the beginning. i… i can see why committee B is upset the voting process here was set up to fail from the beginning. i think lots of work needs to be done in order to insure a more fair process, trying to catch up on all of this a lot to read through.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

Joxes - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 1:26 p.m.

Voting: abstain. Our entire rational here 1 . Voting: abstain. Our entire rational here 1 .

Likes: 2 Replies: 0

OPUser - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 1:41 p.m.

Likes: 3 Replies: 2

OPUser - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 1:45 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 1

Prometheus - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 1:57 p.m.

Likes: 2 Replies: 0

MoneyManDoug - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 1:57 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 2

MoneyManDoug - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 1:58 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 2

Prometheus - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 2:02 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 1

OPUser - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 2:04 p.m.

Likes: 2 Replies: 0

MoneyManDoug - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 2:05 p.m.

Voting is different than giving guidance to all the delegates. Voting is different than giving guidance to all the delegates.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

AxlVaz - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 2:05 p.m.

@MoneyManDoug For our part (DefiLatam and OptimismESP) we participate in two committees because we … @MoneyManDoug For our part (DefiLatam and OptimismESP) we participate in two committees because we have the knowledge and operational capacity to meet the requirements for this type of participation. At the beginning there were not many initiatives in the committees, you can see that only 5 committees participate and only one of them is from NFTs. Even the people who are against dual participation, which apparently are several, did not group together to propose a different or better idea. For our part the diversity of committees is important for governance, so as it grows and there is more activity from other delegates/participants we want to minimize our participation in this governance. However, we believe it is time to be active and push the optimism to grow, so that more people will come forward to participate.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

Prometheus - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 2:06 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 1

OPUser - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 2:07 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

MoneyManDoug - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 2:11 p.m.

Most qualified committees should be giving guidance. You misunderstood Most qualified committees should be giving guidance. You misunderstood

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

Prometheus - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 2:16 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

MoneyManDoug - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 2:17 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 2

Prometheus - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 2:25 p.m.

Likes: 2 Replies: 0

jackanorak - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 2:25 p.m.

Truly astounding, then, that, considering there was a huge void in the NFT vertical, this committee… Truly astounding, then, that, considering there was a huge void in the NFT vertical, this committee saw fit to remain in defi when it had better experience with NFTs. it would have addressed all of your concerns Even the people who are against dual participation, which apparently are several, did not group together to propose a different or better idea. In fact everyone has proposed a very clear alternative: simply do not have people in multiple groups.

Likes: 1 Replies: 2

AxlVaz - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 2:30 p.m.

First of all, I am just pointing out the perceived void in the NFT committees, I never said we had … First of all, I am just pointing out the perceived void in the NFT committees, I never said we had experience on them. We do have experience and expertise on the committees that we ran on. That is why we voted for the NFT committee, because we believe the committee has experience and expertise. Here you can see how we voted SEED Latam - Delegate Communication Thread Delegate Updates Hello all! This monday we held our 4 th Governance Call in Discord to discuss and decide our votes on selection of governance committees for season 2 , according to Voting Cycle # 5 . Following our ethos and role as delegate, we carry out a decision-making process between our collaborators and the community we represent. Participants: + 30 attendees ( 27 :medal_military:collected; special thanks again to Pacha for the design). Duration: 1 hs 49 min. In the last quarter, we had the presence of a Board…

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

AxlVaz - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 2:35 p.m.

jackanorak: De hecho todos han propuesto una alternativa muy clara: simplemente no tener gente… jackanorak: De hecho todos han propuesto una alternativa muy clara: simplemente no tener gente en varios grupos. I don’t follow all the discussions, you can show me what those proposals were. Or you could even do what you did, go to different groups to ask for collaborators. I think what you raise is very well done and necessary. But participation is also necessary. As I said before, as the gov grows, our participation will decrease.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

MoneyManDoug - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 2:38 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

OPUser - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 3:14 p.m.

jackanorak: I’m sure you can remember because of all the times i’ve given you feedback in the … jackanorak: I’m sure you can remember because of all the times i’ve given you feedback in the moment to little effect If I remember I would have not asked at the first place. I request you to point me where do you think I need to improve. I hear you on OP pair topic, it’s an open question for debate which Beefy took it quite naturally. I am open to more input here.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

jackanorak - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 3:19 p.m.

someone who was genuinely concerned about improving and not challenging facts (‘if this is true’) w… someone who was genuinely concerned about improving and not challenging facts (‘if this is true’) would have taken up the feedback at least once out of the several times it was offered think this’ll be my last comms on this thread

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

bangrygoose - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 3:27 p.m.

Why is OPUser in group A and C? Why is OPUser in group A and C?

Likes: 1 Replies: 2

OPUser - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 3:27 p.m.

That’s a better approach, either say it or stay away from it and my suggestion to you would be, hav… That’s a better approach, either say it or stay away from it and my suggestion to you would be, have your evidence ready if you’re blaming someone. Thank you.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

OPUser - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 3:33 p.m.

Hi @bangrygoose, I have commented on the same question on different places but I don’t mind writing… Hi @bangrygoose, I have commented on the same question on different places but I don’t mind writing it one more time. I am on two subcommittee because I have time and bandwidth to contribute to both committee.

Likes: 3 Replies: 0

Ganc - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 4:27 p.m.

Maximum grift? :sweat_smile: Jk. Kinda bearish that the Defi Committee doesn’t have a single member… Maximum grift? :sweat_smile: Jk. Kinda bearish that the Defi Committee doesn’t have a single member that has worked in a production level Defi dApp though. Some of the members of this committee are even in the discussions in Perp’s dodgy proposal that ended up slipping through and offloading millions of OP tokens which have produced zero tangible results that the proposal set out as its goals. I hope there isn’t a repeat of that sort of thing!

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

jackanorak - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 4:51 p.m.

Likes: 2 Replies: 1

MoneyManDoug - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 4:54 p.m.

Likes: 2 Replies: 0

L2Maxi - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 5:15 p.m.

Likes: 2 Replies: 1

L2Maxi - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 5:19 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

bangrygoose - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 5:46 p.m.

Honestly that’s what it comes across as. And it’d be great to have people involved with defi on a d… Honestly that’s what it comes across as. And it’d be great to have people involved with defi on a defi committee. You’d think that’d go without saying. This is a bad outcome.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

AxlVaz - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 6:05 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

jackanorak - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 6:25 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 2

AxlVaz - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 6:30 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

AxlVaz - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 6:35 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

OPUser - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 7:14 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

jackanorak - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 7:19 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

OPUser - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 7:27 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

bangrygoose - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 7:27 p.m.

Why is OPUser in group A and C? Why is OPUser in group A and C?

Likes: 1 Replies: 2

OPUser - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 7:33 p.m.

Likes: 3 Replies: 0

Ganc - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 8:27 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

bangrygoose - No Role

Sept. 7, 2022, 9:46 p.m.

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

lavande - This user is a moderator

Sept. 12, 2022, 3:07 p.m.

snapshot vote 2 - passed snapshot vote 2 - passed

Likes: 1 Replies: 0

lavande - This user is a moderator

Sept. 12, 2022, 7:07 p.m.

snapshot vote 2 - passed snapshot vote 2 - passed

Likes: 1 Replies: 0