OIP-49A: Olympus Give Lighthouse Partnership with Gitcoin (Amendment)

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.

Don_G_Lover

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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

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.

I don’t think it’s prudent to open up DAO funds to charity and personal causes at this time. As others have said, DAO members and contributors are working hard and those funds should be used to compensate them and further their goals.

Additionally, Olympus is currently doing battle with dozens (if not more) of forks. Now is not the time to relax, begin navel gazing, and shift our focus to pet causes. OHM holders invested to make money and we owe it to all of them to remain focused on that endeavor.

DAO $ should not go to charities. Let people support support charities with their own funds. Sponsoring a hackathon that benefits Olympus is fine but spending money to save the planet is outside the scope. Completely. Vote Against!!!!!

KLIMA can ride the high horse of saving the environment by way of taxes and communism. There are reasons why some of us refused to join that party.

I'm with Steve on this one. Let's put a nail in the coffin of these morality plays once and for all.

Kutu2 Our opposition has nothing to do with politics. Voting "No" does not mean that we are opposed to conservation. Take your "trigger word" comments and put them where the sun don't shine. The resources of the DAO are not a piggy bank to be raided in support of charitable causes. As DAO voters have a fiduciary responsibility to spend treasury funds only on initiatives that directly benefit the protocol.