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.
OIP-49A: Olympus Give Lighthouse Partnership with Gitcoin (Amendment)
- Edited
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
- Edited
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:
- Do we want to support Gitcoin in this fashion
- If we do support Gitcoin , by how much
- Better highlight the collaboration between Gitcoin team and Olympus
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.
Even though I love Gitcoin, I have a feeling that we didn't have enough discussion if, how, and why should we spend OlympusDAO funds on it. It should be a conscious decision supported by the majority of OHM holders, not a decision made simply because we can do it. The effect of the latter can be the opposite of desirable.
It's absolutely ridiculous that anyone should feel the need to qualify their opinion about this as "not against charity" and it's a marker of the insidious dynamic which accompanies this kind of vampire attack.
Trying to siphon funds off of a profit-making enterprise for your pet causes NOT in any way give anyone the moral high ground. This is in no way a conflict between "charitable people" and "uncharitable people", it's between people who want to give away other people's money and people who understand that the purpose of a profit-making enterprise is to make profit.
Give away as much money as you want to whatever you want. Your OWN money.
kbar I wouldn't go that far with criticism. The idea is righteous and it doesn't go against profitability, yet the execution of this proposal could be much better imo. We're all standing on the shoulders of giants, that wouldn't be there if not for public good funding and people doing it just for the cause, which Gitcoin represents and supports in huge amounts. Furthermore, Gitcoin has lots of good karma behind it, which it can gladly share with those that support it, and OlympusDAO could use such karma for its own sake. That's one of the reasons why in the real world companies invest in CSR so much. But we need a plan on how to do it and what we can gain from it. For example, I think we all agree that if we donated/created a fund that supports projects that are somehow related to the OlympusDAO and support our cause (similar as we do with our incubation program), then it's a win-win.
krst It isn't righteous, it is pernicious, it is nothing but a cloak of righteousness. It corrupts the primary endeavor and I will vote against any attempt to parasitize it, or failing that I will leave so that you may rediscover what many before you already have. Here is some recommended reading if you are interested to learn of dozens of eye-opening examples of what happens when you hijack profit-making enterprises for charity upon a false claim to righteousness. https://www.amazon.com/Woke-Inc-Corporate-Americas-Justice/dp/1546090789
Resounding "No."
How many times will it have to be said.
kbar I've been involved in Free Software and Open Software movements for more than 20 years now, both on the voluntary and on the corporate side, and can assure you that without corporates involved in public goods funding (which benefit them at first), we wouldn't be speaking right now at this forum about this technology. So instead of patronizing me that I will 'rediscover what many before me already have' simply do your own research, check how for-profit companies benefit from open source and public goods infrastructure instead of fighting some holy war without merits.
I will repeat again - in my opinion supporting Gitcoin (or any other public goods funding initiative) can be beneficiary to OlympusDAO, but we need to do our homework first.