#1 seems too obstinate
Donating could be +EV in many ways, so if ever the community wants to do it, banning outright now would be a huge mistake.
Ohmies are smart. Don’t handcuff
#1 seems too obstinate
Donating could be +EV in many ways, so if ever the community wants to do it, banning outright now would be a huge mistake.
Ohmies are smart. Don’t handcuff
good job OP, thought this was well written. Similar to some other opinions, Framework 2 is more ideal but would also prefer higher minimums 500+.
Good conversations so far from everyone. A lot of talk on bumping the minimum wallet number for framework 2 up to 500. If that is a highly popular suggestion, I will submit OIP-50a with two frameworks, one for a 100 wallet minimum and one for a 500 wallet minimum, and I will take that one to snapshot. But only if framework 2 wins and there is obvious and significant interest in the bumped up minimum wallet number standard in the comments as a proportion of overall interest.
I would feel more comfortable with a higher wallet count. 100 is way to low since one wallet could have a thousand votes.
I would possibly be on board with a 500-750 range for unique wallets.
Thank you for the great proposal Steve!
Personally, I'm not against charitable donations/helping reduce human impact on climate change/facilitating longevity researches. I personally have donated to charitable causes, hold some Klima, and would love to live a long healthy life. However, I feel that's perhaps more suited to be done on an individual level (either via Tychee, or as a small collective). If there are charitable causes that the dao and/or the community feel strongly for, we can easily have a charity drive, using Olympus' social media accounts to rally the ohmies. (Perhaps similar to how we promoted 3,3 together on PoolTogether.) Those that agree and feel the same way about said charitable causes can choose to donate the amount they are comfortable with, at a time of their choice. With the large, passionate community that we currnetly have, the influence of Olympus will definitely be noticed if any such charity drives were to happen. Alternatively, there are charity oriented ohmie sub-cultures already existing in examples like FrenDao, where a group of ohmies pool money together and vote on which charities to donate to.
I feel that as the reserve currency of the crypto community, OHM can and will be used for charitable donations. But it's better suited for individuals or collectives besides OlympusDao itself. If OHM is the reserve currency then many would see OlympusDao as the proverbial central bank of crypto. As such, I feel the focus has been and should continue to be on monetary policies - to establish and solidify OHM's position as the reserve currency of crypto. Charitable donations can be positive marketing for Olympus, the same positive marketing can be done through a charity drive I stated above as well - similar effect, less cost to the protocol, more freedom of choice to individual ohmies.
As Olympus grows, our Dao team is also growing very fast. So many talented and passionate contributors are joining every week. We should really be focusing on attracting and retaining talent - competitive & fair pay is one key component of that. I'm not part of the dao contributors, but I feel strongly about this - the success of Olympus depends on its dao contributors. That's why I feel this would be a much better use of the dao treasury funds.
Based on the above reasons, my vote goes to option #1.
option 1 + allocated marketing budget for 'charity' (the you help me I help you type for exposure) - a group of elected committee members (yearly or half yearly election) to research and decide which 'charity'.
billygoat Re: #1 Outright ban. Does this actually align with the DAO’s purpose & intentions? Or even the concept of a DAO. If I understood the resistance OIP-49/49a correctly, one primary concernn was (govt) over-reach & “what drove ppl to crypto in the first place, looking for an escape”
A DAO is just a way of coordinating humans. I don't think charitable donations are in the purview of this particular DAO though individual members should be free to allocate their own funds as they desire.
quick note to say i pressed option 3, but would choose option 2 if went to snapshot (didn't realise you can't modify your vote on the forums!)
I'll start with what I think at the top and then see how the 3 frameworks measure up.
I think that arriving at shared mental model across the growing population of ohmies will reduce the intersections of a common ground that we can all agree with. I've agree with those who've come before me that one way of looking at Olympus is as an operating system (OS). Within this model then, the OS's which I admire most, and which are most widespread throughout the internet infrastructure we all rely upon (linux, devuan, early debian, freebsd) the governance for what makes into the kernel is, or historically has been (for the most part), extremely conservative. With these two perspectives in mind, my personal opinion is that strategies which decrease surface area, which do one thing and do it well is a sound approach.
OTOH i have a radical opinion that optimizing for minimizing the chance or avenues for siphoning funds, preventing free riders etc are optimizations and energy usage along a lower order priority than racing against deflating value of DAO owned OHM (i expanded on that a little in OIP-49). I understand this is likely a contentious take - but I would personally rather see ohmies paid extremely well for any work they do in the DAO, and see experimentation happy with an openness to failure, with less of a restrictive focus on ROI. That's not to say a free for all - that's to say that with the humans we have congregated around Olympus, with the systems which we already have in place, that any loss from free riders, or siphoning would be minimal compared to expanded bandwidth of not trying to implement systems which come from a scarcity framework. I would rather 99% of dedicated ohmies be free'd up to 100% focus on value creation and making bold advances, then worry about small change loss. Dilution of DAO owned OHM far outweighs the pace of any bad actors could survive in a DAO which is humming along in an increasingly coordinated fashion.
With all that being said, and back down in reality. I think in reality that a conservative approach with the DAO owned OHM/ treasury is probably more pragmatic/practical with where people are coming from. I think we should aim to move towards permissionless everything. i think the future is permissionless curation. so something like rari fuse pools, but where curators build a rep for assembling pools of recipients and then people can redirect yields to the curators/pools which align with their priorities. i imagine if a different set of worldviews had informed the selection of a different set of charity donations then a different segment of ohmies would have put up a level of resistance. historically these governance discussions/debates have been nessecary but we now have permissionless technicques and tools which allow the grassroots emergence of a plurality of priorities to emerge, and in our case with olympus as a base stem cell operating system.
Specific feedback about the frameworks
My feeling about framework 1 is that it's a response to the threat that people would be implicated in decisions/value flows which they don't agree with and don't have a meaningful way of opting out of. I feel like framework 1 would leave another group of people feeling like there's a decision that, if it went through, they don't have a meaningful way of opting out of.
My feeling is framework 2 is the best of the three options. I think having deliberation and a slower process and requiring a higher level of buy in (number of unique wallets voting) is a good precedent.
My feeling on framework 3 - i would rather have seen this be something like a pause / moratorium with some process for finding where the common ground is - if any, with a decision that he widest number of people could agree with.
All this can be summarized as permissionless tooling FTW
Well written! Too many gray areas open up if we attempt to use the DAO for charitable giving or "Strategic Partnerships". Let's vote to outright ban use of DAO funds to put this to bed.
This doesn't mean that we can create a marketing effort for "Ohmies giving back" and even create a game out of it. I think drumming up community support is a better use of time/effort rather than using the DAO.
I'm tired and annoyed with the uneducated and outright bullshit proposals posted to the forum and snapshot. It takes way too much time now to sift through the crap. While I don't like the idea of taking away smaller investor's opportunity to bring valid proposals, I feel that setting a bar at xxx OHM/sOHM would weed out a good portion of the noise. We could create a Discord channel for smaller investors to funnel any proposals through and the internal team could decide if it is worth posting or can educate the OHM holder as to why it isn't worth posting. I like setting the bar (tagged for inflation) at 100 OHM to submit a proposal in the Forum and Snapshot.
I'm also very glad to see such a diversity of minds applied to olympus, in earnest. i find it yet another green flag that there are people with such wildly different perspectives that i couldn't even imagine where they are coming from without speaking with them directly and asking to try and understand. i think there's great strength in this and that by taking the time to find where the shared ground that we can all live with is a great strength.
thanks steve for taking the time to write this up at an already busy time for you, and also having the fortitude to call it as you see it and the humbleness and generosity to explain your reasoning - and that goes for everyone else in the mix also.
I am glad we have a mix of mad scientists, cautious pragmatists, dreamers, sceptics, detail oriented, operationalisers, shipooors, so many ooooooors. To many types to list. It's great.
Vote FW1 - Singular focus on being the native reserve currency.
I'm going with framework 1 for now but I'm still open to possibly changing it in the future.
My thinking right now is charitable efforts are better off as a separate DAOs so people can group with others who have aligned values. I think there is going to be massive governance overhead for every proposal. Every proposal will end up being controversial due to the diversity of people in the DAO.
I could be wrong, but I'd rather see someone else take the risk on it first and reevaluate later.
At this early stage I lean more toward option 1. Crypto time goes fast but let’s not forget that this protocol and community is less than a year old. Treasury funds are what make this while flywheel work. The fact that there is a growing treasury is what gives ohmies confidence in their investment. It’s what attracts new ohmies. Siphoning off funds from that flywheel, no matter how small, even for great efforts (I love Gitcoin) seems unwise at this time.
I’d prefer an option 1 with an automatic review/revote in 3-5 years. But I’ll take option 1 for now, assuming that in a future time of stability this could be revisited.
For now, charitable donations “through Olympus” could take the form of individuals directing yields of their own toward a community organized address.
ProofofSteveGM IMO it seems like the 3rd option was designed to fragment the 1st option. Just saying
vindubbz do you mean options 1 and 2?
The best way to support charity is to focus on returns so that each Ohmie can then choose to donate a portion of their gains as their conscience dictates.
ProofofSteveGM 打错字不能更改
Sad to see Option 2 isn't even on the snapshot. Would have voted for it. I do think that people could use this for things such as political beliefs, but a restriction that makes treasury ohm only available for donations to help launch new DApps across the broader crypto community would be nice, rather than blanket banning the whole protocol from any charity at all for eternity.
This is sound governance, goes to show how powerful this DAO really is.
There is no constitution to abide by and the quality within this proposal is an example why we don't need one.