• Proposal

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

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:

  1. Do we want to support Gitcoin in this fashion
  2. If we do support Gitcoin , by how much
  3. 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.

      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 replied to this.

          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.

          • kbar replied to this.

              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

              • krst replied to this.

                  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.

                    Its interesting reading the various takes on the matter and I guess my main take-away based on what I've read is that the OHM community isn't ready for this.

                    Here's what I think the problem with the proposal is:

                    1. Unclear Benefits to Olympus
                      I think the problem here is how the proposal is written. A lot of fluff with the right buzzwords but I can't really decipher what the benefits are. IF there really aren't any tangible benefits or if the real goal is to give to charity, then I think that's ok too. The proposal just has to be honest about it. I think you would have had a better responses if you just took away the section about "Benefits to Olympus" and instead focus on how Github impacted Olympus (with some facts and examples and not fluff).

                    2. It's entering a space that is highly political
                      This is sad to me because in the crypto space I want to believe we can put aside political biases, but sadly this is not the case, and for some people "climate change" is a trigger word. If github is a community of developers, then focus on developers. Pushing the charity down one political path is only going to divide the community. Maybe one day we as a community will be ready, but this is not that day.

                    3. Is it a charity or is it a partnership?
                      This is probably rehashing point one a bit but really…is this a charity or is this partnership of some sort? Clarity in proposals like this is key.

                    Some people simply dont' want the protocol to give to charity, and if that is their stance then I think there is nothing you can do about it. Don't sugar coat your proposal with intagible benefits and just try again in the future. Maybe the community will be ready then.

                      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.