OIP-49: Olympus Give Lighthouse Partnership with Gitcoin

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.

I love it, but I would love to see Olympus in its final stage before allocating resources towards this. This is around 12hrs of revenue, I'm all for this if we decrease the allocation by 50%.

I find it okay if this topic causes some division within the Ohmie community around charity and responsibility if that weeds out zero-sum and win-lose thinking people. There's no need to replicate the greediness and egoism so prevalent in TradFi.

Olympus is built on open source and exists because of open source. Olympus DAO has received plenty of value from open source and generated even more on top of it. People have been working for years and decades on the foundation that Olympus builds upon. Giving back to open source is a no-brainer as otherwise we'd just be taking without giving anything in return. Win-lose.

It's the same with climate concerns. Olympus is built on and exists because of Ethereum. It derives value directly from Ethereum's PoW which as long as its there has a negative climate effect. Just like with open source it should be a no-brainer to compensate for the value received and damage caused in the process.

Longevity is surely debatable as there was no value received (that I know of). At least it's for a public good. It would make sense to move it to its own proposal or handle it differently.

The culture of Olympus is, among other properties, highly collaborative and assumes responsibility where it's due. This OIP, with some clarification and a few adjustments, reflects and reinforces that.

We shouldn't get deterred by the words charity and donation. It's not one way. It's a two way impact that's just not as obvious as financial revenue streams.

Also, this shouldn't be a discussion about individuals' choices about charity. An individual's decisions should be about individual's impact and responsibilities.

This proposal is about the responsibilities and impact of Olympus as a whole. Both the past (open source value, climate impact) and the future.

On top of that we all benefit from advances in those areas. Especially financially given the success of Olympus.

As Balaji put it: win and help win.

Don_G_Lover Strongly against this, Olympus DAO is not a charity, there are other DAOs with this mission such as FrenDAO a branch of Olympus. That proposal would fit well over there, but here the treasury needs to always net positive returns.

I fully support the initiative and also think the ROI we get from this initiative is less measured in terms of funding flowing back, but how Olympus is perceived in terms of credibility and long-term sustainability will be positively impacted by this OIP! Also, it enables to use OHM as a funding vehicle for non DeFi Assets which is a big plus.

These should be projects building on top of OHM and donating staking gains at best, treasury is for backing the protocol, not for charity. We SHOULD have some charitable program though funded through OHMies who want to contribute personally.

I’m against OIP-50 because Olympus Dao is not charity and we don’t want to open a door for individual to siphon money out of the treasury.

100% against this proposal, for reasons explained here https://twitter.com/proof_steve/status/1462672351707820032

If you want to donate do it with your own money.

Don_G_Lover To be clear I'm 100% in favor of Tyche, so long as Ohmies are donating their own yield. It's when yields from the DAO, or the treasury, or any source other than an individual's own bags, are used that I have an issue.

Tyche is awesome, but it's awesome precisely because it enables individuals to opt-in of their own volition and with their own yield/funds.