• Proposal
  • OIP-49: Olympus Give Lighthouse Partnership with Gitcoin

Don_G_Lover Love it. Been waiting to support an initiative like this from Olympus for a long while.

Olympus Give is the future. If we can establish ourselves with the likes of Vitalik and others, and launch Give out the gate with a great cause, we should do it.

Fully support this proposal. Olympus is built for the community by using public good infrastructure and it's time to support public good fund with little bit for the great cause.

Love it great proposal.

I don't feel it's appropriate to set a precedent of using a Decentralized Reserve Currency DAO's treasury as a piggybank for personally favored charitable causes, regardless of the perceived intangible goodwill it may (or may not) engender. We have Tyche available for individuals inclined…

That said, I'd like the marketing department to have some budget for brand-positive investments into the public infrastructure arena, which shouldn't require an OIP, but just their own consensus. However, that wouldn't extend to completely unrelated areas like longevity research, etc.

Finally, I also feel like there's a lot of work to be done related to existing budget / compensation concerns within the DAO (hopefully OIP-47 should begin to address this) and that any non-critical use of funds should first and foremost be directed internally toward DAO contributors (e.g. Devs, other key non-Strategos).

I am personally against this OIP, and here I am going to detail why.

First, as the Olympus treasury grows, we as a DAO must be increasingly on guard against selfish individuals who would seek to siphon funds from it for either their own gain or the gain of causes they support. To be clear I am NOT saying that is what is going on here. What I am saying is that the best way to prevent this kind of treasury abuse is to set a strong precedent that any treasury allocation must have a chance of generating a positive return for the treasury, even if that chance is a long shot.

Second, to be blunt, Olympus is not a charity. Olympus is a DAO formed with the goal of creating the reserve currency for DeFi. This mission does not include supporting efforts against climate change, or longevity research, or even open source building in the ETH ecosystem. None of the planned donations have anything to do with Olympus’ core mission, and accordingly donating to them set a dangerous precedent that money can be siphoned from the treasury to assist with causes that are outside of OHM’s purview.

Third, while the Gitcoin Grants program is absolutely a legitimate program, donating to them so they can develop open source technology brings up a good question: Why are we not instead providing grants to engineers/devs who want to develop for Olympus itself? That would seem an obvious way that we could use this money to generate far more value for Olympus.

IMO what Olympus is doing with Tyche (providing OHM stakers an easy way to redirect their staking proceeds to charitable causes of their choice) is a better way to let Ohmies give to charity. If Ohmies want to support charitable causes, they should do so with their own funds and not the funds of the treasury.

So in conclusion, I am voting against OIP-49 because:
- I believe it’s important to set precedent that the treasury should not be used for things with no chance of generating a return.
- None of the mentioned causes are within OHM’s purview.
- The money could be better use to fund the efforts of OHM devs themselves.

Proposal looks okay but it's missing some information for the individuals that do not understand what Tyche will be.

Please correct me if I am wrong, this is based on my basic understanding of Tyche:
You are not doing a one time $500k donation, you are taking $500k in OHM (~555 OHM at today's price of $900) and then you will stake and direct those rebase rewards to Gitcoin multisig.

Could you make the above a bit more clear because if that is the case we are actually donating more than $500k (~555 OHM) and I would love to see an estimate of how much the actual number will be in 1 year.

This is so far removed from the core purview of the protocol that I have to vote against it. Charitable contributions are personal decisions and IMO shouldn't be decided though a consensus mechanism like DAO voting. if someone wants to donate, they should do so directly to ensure it is fully aligned with their values.

Its good to know that we are planning to contribute to the climate and longevity research. However, can we identify a revenue stream for this purpose and use a higher percentage of that yield for this

  • One or more yield investment and use the yield for this purpose so that the capital is not lost. May be set a target and if the yield is more than the target then may be give more to the climate and longevity proposals.
  • Ask the community for their contribution for climate and longevity initiatives. Who ever is contributing will get the GAS fee's refunded or no gas fee. May be the GAS refund can be given from the DAO.
  • Ask the community for their contribution for climate and longevity initiatives. If GAS refund is a concern then a percentage of their rebase goes to this purpose.
  • Ask the 33 together winners for a percentage and see if that can be possible.

basically i am proposing a solution where we use the excess or the yield and not use the treasury

    puthinakattu What about creating specialty bonds with a % going to such an initiative? That way, the purchaser is proactively making the choice. this would also drive demand for bonds. more win-win and aligned incentives.

    Voting against. Sorry but as others have said, donations to causes should be made with personal funds, not treasury funds. Please use tychee product for these purposes instead. Also, I think 1 day for a snapshot does not give people enough time to see this and vote.

    Not a core mission. Climate “science” is another scare tactic to give control/money/power to central authorities.

    Don’t divide the community. Let each give out of their own bag, don’t ransack the treasury. Very bad precedent.

    Sorry I would vote against. Yes it’s for a good cause but people could do this with their own funds/rebases. Not going to go over the reasons why because they've already been stated above.

    I will be voting against this proposal. I believe that showcasing Tyche for the intended purpose of this proposal makes more sense / is better aligned with protocol and DAO incentives. In even shorter words, put Tyche to use rather than treasury allocation proposals.

    Generally against with the proposal, while the cause is noble this should be done on a personal basis and shouldn't involve any funds from the OlympusDAO treasury. To echo ProofofSteeveGM, we shouldn't be creating a precedent where donations using treasury funds are viewed as routine.

    Request: could the proposers clarify the source of the funds proposed? (treasury vs revenue)

    I can definitely hear what people against are saying and I think it's perhaps somewhat predictable that the cross section of society from which Olympus draws from that proposals which have embedded values within them would be contentious. We're such a diverse set of people that getting cohesive agreement about values driven action would likely splinter the org / project. Not the first time most of us have been on this rodeo. Even with that being said, and broadly in agreement, I am still in favor of this proposal (beyond my initial "pamp it" comment)

    I am interested if those who are against this proposal would be against the use of funds for say, advertising budget. Having been a developer in the space since 2012 I can say that with the advent of the Ethereum Foundation's grant program and subsequently Gitcoin (as well as others) was a huge unlock in terms of attracting developer talent. Many of the projects which emerged during those early funding periods are now commonplace (metamask, infura, many eth dev tools, to name a few). I use advertising as an example as participating in this arena, in this way, is an established pattern. Vitalik had a recent interview on Bankless which went dove more into this public goods angle and some of the various struggles around ownership and contribution to common pursuits - what does and doesn't fall within a remit of an org. In my opinion contributing to common good orgs, such as Gitcoin, is inline with the mission of Olympus to become a defacto reserve for Digtial Backed Digital currencies. In this expansion phase gaining legitimacy amongst a wider set of the crypto industry and I believe following well established routes and "paying our dues" is a valid way of seeking to achieve this.

    I agree that the mechanic as described in the OIP is unclear. Are funds coming from the treasury or are the planning to come from revenue? If revenue then 500k is 12 hours of revenue on one day. The benefit in terms of being a lighthouse for further putting Olympus of the developer ecosystems map, and further making connections throughout projects within whom we would be able to future establish connections, mutually beneficial projects and the like is - yes, intangible as Proof of Steve has argued - but just because effects can't be monitored onchain does not mean they will not proliferate and compound on the interconnected human layer. Most people contributing to the Olympus DAO are drawn from the wider Ethereum/Crypto space. Olympus making this move makes partnerships and connections with a wider number of projects tangibly easier.

    In terms of having funds which specifically focus on Olympus - I 100% agree with this sentiment. My self and a group of DAO contributors from a cross section of "departments" in the DAO have come together to formulate a grants program which we'll be posting to the forums later in the week. The remit of this OIP would 100% focus on projects which directly benefit Olympus. This would act as yet another clearly defined onramp for teams to start contributing to aspects of Olympus. I see the Grants program as being the destination which developers from the wider ecosystem would find having first come across us through partnership with Gitcoin. You can see this pattern unfold elsewhere in DeFi such as Uniswap which also has a fusion of Gitcoin and an internal grants program.

    thanks everyone who gives such close attention to every OIP. Maintain that Olympus' strength is that it's backed by so many ohmie briains looking at this thing from every angle.

      If the purpose is to develop and attract talent in development of Blockchain technology then it is not a charity. this is more of a scholarship? grants? But let us not link this to other causes that will divide the community. Unfortunately, in this political and social climate we are in, better focus on common values we all share.

      Are these three mentioned topics/charities to fund are interlinked?

      Can we participate in Blockchain/Crypto Talent program and not the other? Just curious.

      wollemiPine Thanks for your forthright response.

      I want to start by saying that in regards to the question of advertising, that is not an easy 'yes or no' question. But if someone requested a half a million dollar advertising budget for OHM on a yearly basis, I would almost certainly be against it.

      I hear what you're saying about Gitcoin grants and attracting talent. However, the methodology by which these donations are paid for matters. If this OIP were to propose setting up a system for selling bonds, from which a portion of revenue was paid to charity, I don't think you would see nearly the opposition against it that you currently see (by my count the votes are almost evenly split at this point). But it should always be up to individual Ohmies to opt in and participate with donations to charity, and the treasury funds that we all rely on to keep the protocol healthy should not be used for these kind of things.

      I would like to suggest the authors scrap the proposal and instead draft a new one to enable OHM to sell 'charity bonds', which is what I understand Tyche was designed to do anyways. That way each Ohmie can decide whether they want to donate to charity, and which one best fits their principles. We could even have Gitcoin be a 'default selection option', as its far less controversial than either of the other two.