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

shhpoodlet5-25-2 Have you even read the rest of my comment? I said there will be people who just don't want the protocol to give to charity, and there's nothing that we can do about that. I am arguing that the proposal was written badly and was trying to sugarcoat it. If all you saw was the "climate change" part then I think you've proven my point. And yes I did see some comments about people not happy with the money going to conservation, and that is entirely fair.

bubbidubb Another way would be for the charitable cause to setup a wallet that allows them to take donations directly and then they simply stake it for the rewards themselves. The team could take in the requests from the charities looking for donations > after vetting it, the team could add it to a discord sub with the wallet addresses and links to more information.

So I agree with you on your thought pattern. There is definitely better ways to let those who wish to make donations do so in a way that keeps us all focused on the mission without spending money out of the DAO.

I think we need to take greater responsibility and fund gitcoin is a start , which can help us build a more positive brand . Of course, from the point of view of AD, this is also a good opportunity for brand exposure .

smoothbrain Sherpas undervalued.. bigly… it may not seem like it if you're comparing them to customer support folks in call centers… but great CSR / advisors/ recruiters are very hard to come buy and those positions have high turnover…

as person who'se not a sherpa but held similar roles for a period of time in other projects on a tipped/ stipend basis… just because it appears folks volunteer to do this while they hang out in discord… to KEEP and retain those folks in a space where time represents a signficant opportunity cost vs seeking and acting upon alpha…

a better use of resources.

I very much beleive in tyche and what it can do.. haven't seen the construction but ohmies can self organize for individual proposals - self fund to the projects and iniatives they desire.. and I believe they will

While I love the passion for giving back, I still don't think this is within the scope of Olympus. I believe we have already been a massive support for climate change through assisting KLIMA. I'm not sure why we are trying to do another and I'm sure there would be another after this proposal. Let's just 3,3 and sit tight. Correct me if I'm missing something, because I don't understand how this would improve liquidity for OHM in the defi space.

I think it would be a great idea for discord channel to have Ohmies show how they are giving back this holiday season rather than the DAO supporting Gitcoin. Doesn't GTC have a coin with a $130m mcap?

I vote no on the proposal.

"We're a product of their efforts - without them, there would be no liquidity to own. We are builders and must support current and incoming builders as well as supporting efforts that impact the society we share."

This I totally agree with, and I can totally see the value in the concept of Olympus Give as a proposal.

At a structural level, there are too many different concepts rolled up in this proposal and its continued failure is an outcome of this. I would love to have seen a separate proposal around the concept of Olympus Give itself divested of any of the mechanics in the current proposal. The idea of creating what is fundamentally a foundation that the DAO funds and that then proposes Foundation funds to specific causes I would support, specifically because with each proposal I would be able to choose whether to move for or against Foundation funding - I don't like Gitcoin as a platform as I feel that it is both too easy to game and also too easy to create personal causes or crusades on (and also too easy to take already monetized causes and gain additional or unnecessary funding) - the utilisation of a strategic partnership mechanic under this proposal almost automatically made me a no.

The question of where the funding comes from for Olympus Give is an open one and should sit under a separate proposal post a vote for Olympus Give's inception - I would personally fund a foundation concept via rebases because I believe in the concept of giving back, however I would not support the concept of the DAO funding it separately because I do not believe that this is the DAO's core function.

Basically, conceptually creating a foundation like Olympus give, absolutely yes. Creating it in such a way that it can be in any way pointed at personal causes, no matter their validity, massive no. The DAO should never be put in a position where it can be pointed at anyone's personal causes, whether mine, Zeus' or whomever it might be - this proposal veers too close to that sun.

I'd love to see a way forward that delves further into how we conceptually make this work, I don't think we're going to do it with OIP-49A.

The goal of Olympus as I understand it is to become a reserve asset and the de-facto trading pair of the crypto market. While I can see there is good intent behind this proposal, I feel it does not directly propel Olympus forward into its goal and dilutes focus. So, as it stands, it's a no for me.

An acceptable alternative in my view would be to have a smart contract similar to "3,3 Together" where the users who are for these type of initiatives can deposit their sOHM and the rebases are donated to a cause or set of causes. But it has to be optional and up to the individual to give up those rebases. This alternative would also demand a financial investment from the DAO, but it would be finite.

As a side note, from a grand scheme, macro view, perspective, I do not feel it is a good idea to play around with our OHM reserve. While 0.06% is minimal, I just don't agree to touching those in principle alone, I think it would be setting a precedent, and I'd prefer it if that Pandora box stayed shut.

Sharing the concerns already mentioned in this thread. Currently not in favor of this proposal although I think Tyche itself seems great! I think another implementation would be more in line with Olympus personally. Even though it could be charity.

I can understand people not wanting to donate to charities, but to support new open-source projects and grow the ecosystem seems like a great plan. It could incentivise new projects to use OHM as well, increasing it's share of the market!

I believe that OHM should over time transition into a universal basic income generator. I think the underlying values system of the community, HOBLing till our rebase begins to really kick in, and then begin to live off the earnings, is being forgotten in many of the comments. I think it can be very hard to see past a month into the future in crypto. If WGMI, who is the "WE", the planet is gonna have to make it with us. I understand the argument that this is not in the original mission of OHM, and I sympathize with that argument. I just think people need to take a deep breath and identify that we are in a moment of great growth. Also I think that public exposure to OHM is incredibly important and that seems like another downstream effect of this proposal.