explanation here: https://gov.optimism.io/t/treasury-appropriation-proposal-foundation-year-2-budget/5979/4?u=polynya
the requested budget is only 1 op because the foundation has failed to utilize the overwhelming majority (~94%) of its initial budget. while we would prefer to see the foundation successfully utilizing its original budget, given that is not the case, a token budget of only 1 op is appropriate.
while we recognize the symbolic nature of this proposal, we are voting for because we believe it’s important to set a precedent for future budget approvals. additionally, we support the foundation’s conservative spending and justifications provided by bobby in the forums.
no need to vote for or against if the same outcome results either way.
even though we agree with criticism regarding foundation's inability to utilize already assigned budget, we would like to signal our support and confidence in the foundation's ability to improve in the coming year in this regard. we'll provide further explanation in the forum post in this vote's thread.
symbolically abstaining but seek more clarity on intentions for year 2 spending as well as suggested systems for determining budget. further justification to be published in forums.
communicating an update and putting up this symbolic vote for the year 2 budget is a good step towards accountability. the discussion around this vote has illuminated a few oversights and provided good feedback to the foundation. we would like to see more transparency around process and accountability to using the budget as laid out in the proposal. we would also push for quarterly reporting requirements from the foundation instead of the proposed mid year report.
while many are against the symbolic on-chain, i belive this vote brought the attention and the feedback the optimism team needed to go forward.
the foundation has done a great job so far and is continuing to iterate and improve the process. i am voting "for" this symbolic proposal for the purpose of showing my support for their progress thus far.
we support a budget of 1 op for year 2 as the foundation failed to use 94% of its previous year’s budget. while we would like to see the foundation use more of its budget to help optimism we think it is wise to use the unused funds as a budget instead of adding more.
voting for the proposal.
by examining the foundation budget data for year 1, we found the distribution of the budget is insufficient. the foundation seems to fail the distribution and cause a larger token supply overhang, as only the 5.21% is distributed. we appreciate the foundation’s response for the concerns, however despite mentioning the main focus is on supporting builders via retropgf and partner fund in the response, we think the distribution of both category is still inadequate.
daosteward shares polynya sentiment on this proposal. find out here. https://gov.optimism.io/t/treasury-appropriation-proposal-foundation-year-2-budget/5979/4?u=thinkdecade
i believe...
well done on the operating budget. impressive use of financial resources. myself and my delegates are in favour of the symbolic request.
Loading more votes...