ProofofSteveGM I would support your proposal, sir.
Olympus is not a charity. This is that simple. There are plenty of better ways to build partnerships and otherwise spend that money internally.
People being able to redirect some of their own yield is a fine idea. Leave DAO funds out of this.
DAO funds should not be going out to charities in any way.
Eagerly awaiting Proof of Steve's proposal. It makes no sense to get diluted for charitable donations no matter the sum of money proposed.
1-It sets bad precendence for the future imho as we strive to become a true reserve currency.
2-It is my understanding that Tyche will be a fantastic implementation to offer an opt-in approach to what this proposal is asking for.
3-Instead *donating. We have worthy members such as developers and sherpas who pour their heart and soul into the protocol. I think it's completely disheartening to see proposals such as this been forced down people's throats after we clearly voted against this in OIP-49. (as mentioned more eloquently above by PoS)
Strongly against this 49a proposal for reasons stated above. I will support your new proposal banning use of DAO funds in this way going forward. The last thing we want is a uniswap treasury piggybank scenario - total disaster.
I don’t think that we should give funds to gitcoin when we have in house developers/contributors working their asses off every single day. DAO funds will not serve any purpose nor bring us closer to our goals by giving funds to Gitcoin. I would rather pay our contributors with those funds.
On top of that, we have Tyche. A project that will allow the community to share some of their yield with charities and organizations such as Gitcoin. If the guys who came up with this proposal want to allocate funds to Gitcoin, they should open a Tyche pool and try to convince the community to share their yield, but again, imo DAO funds are not meant for this.
Funding for public goods through Gitcoin is generally a better approach than specifying exactly where the funds would go as listed in the previous proposal. I'd be more than happy to deposit sOHM in TYCHE to fund public goods - it doesn't have to involve OHM from the DAO to achieve the same effect.
I don't have much to add to the above, but I just wanted to voice my support for what Proof of Steve and Cartesius wrote. I will be voting against this proposal not because I'm against charity or the causes mentioned in the proposal, but because it sets the wrong precedent and because I think it's a slippery slope. And especially with the new Tyche project I really don't see the point in using treasury/DAO funds for this.
Thank you for your enthusiasm and good intentions, but I am here because of Olympus' pursuit to establish a decentralized reserve currency.
I am not here to support the creation of another centralized entity to enforce taxation upon other ohmies.
No issue with Tyche, but Olympus Give smells like just another centralized power grab.
Don_G_Lover at Thai stage I cannot support this proposal in light of the current views and Olympus Dao mission and vision
As the last proposal was voted no as it stands right now, you should respect the opinion of the community, and not try to "push" it through as I think that is what many feels at this point.
Don_G_Lover DAO funds shouldn't be used like this at all and this could quickly turn malicious
To address some concerns above:
Regarding compensation of the DAO and allocations toward contributors this OIP was recently posted: https://forum.olympusdao.finance/d/412-oip-47-olympus-stopgap-budget-proposal
Moreover, the DAO continues to reorganize to better achieve goals. We cannot, however, stop collaborating with other protocols or investing toward the future of Olympus.
Regarding the timing and amendment, given the Gitcoin round starting on December 1, this topic needs iteration to reach completion. I previously socialized a Google Doc with the original OIP with some feedback that was committed (see above outline of typical flows - click here for full size). Based on the forum post yesterday, I adjusted accordingly to better identify some items and closed that topic and opened this:
I'm also once again restating this is leveraging Tyche as a highlight use case and the funds are not "spent." We want to highlight the power of Tyche by again using our own products (similar to how Olympus Pro was not rolled out until further in the life of Olympus).
I appreciate everyone's enthusiasm regarding the topic.
So after not getting your way in the other post you reapply? What happened to "do nothing" as we voted?
Stop pressuring people to donate treasury funds. It ain't happening. Use your own money.
I understand the objections here. Wanting to showcase Tyche sounds really fun and there's no reason it can't be done through an element of charitable giving. I would suggest using more of an endowment model where an address has Tyche pointed to a charity and users can direct sOHM to that address.
pottedmeat If I understand this comment, I think having a model where ohmies opt in to giving to gitcoin could be a good idea, rather than having a DAO-level charity. Provide the gateways and mechanism for any ohmie to easily donate their own ohm if they want to rather than using the DAO-owned ohm.
@Don_G_Lover I am shocked to see the the polarity of this proposal and poll.
Thanks for including important resources such as the multi-sig address and Tyche definitions.
I do think there is space - and need for philanthropy in crypto, however I resonate with some of the concerns above.
A couple of questions:
Would users be more receptive to a proposal that better aligns with industry values? Say supporting a charity which encourages financial inclusion and literacy?
Also question for the community - is there a NAV threshold of the DAO treasury that would make the community more comfortable with giving? If so, we should wait for that milestone and resubmit.
DAO's must become more comfortable with leveraging yield and treasury to better themselves and the industry.
Against the proposal
Tyche is a product with fantastic potential (especially in early venture funding imo). However, launching it this way has two major problems.
There is no higher goal in being "at the top of the page as a key matching funder". Not having super clear goal of spending funds other than optics of the greater good sets a bad precedent. Olympus should not been seen as a potential slush fund. We are all united in our goal of making Olympus DAO and OHM succeed in being an integrated and well used reserve currency. That's the goal against which all actions will be measured.
Process. This proposal clearly was not well received by the community. A majority voted "AGAINST " (not "FOR: with amendments") and still an amended proposal comes up with the same basic content, only removing references to climate and longevity research which was clearly the most contentious parts of the proposal - but the proposal still include these parts.
At the moment 82% is against. If this proposal goes to snapshot and is voted in favour, it also sets a bad precedent where it's clear the forum does not play a significant role in Olympus governance.
@pottedmeat, @0xRusowsky and others have good suggestions to build the narrative around Olympus providing the tools to do greater good. There is a big effort behind Tyche and providing that as a tool for Gitcoin is big win-win in itself!
In addition, Olympus prides itself in our game theory foundation. Charitable giveaways are noble, but I think all efforts involving DAO or treasury funds should have a clear goal of +EV of the OHM ecosystem.
In the Gitcoin context that could have been sponsoring a subsection focused on utilisation and integration of OHM, which I would say would have been a great opportunity. For comparison, Uniswap had their own category in Gitcoin GR11 with 50k USD in matching grants. Something similar for Olympus would probably have been much better received.
I echo the same concerns as Proof of Steve on this
Dirty business, siphoning off funds for special interests. Maybe whoever is behind this should try uni grants instead
We are not a charity, end of story. Pls stop proposing the same proposal over and over when we clearly are against it.
