Reason: I’m uncomfortable voting for this because I think it’s sliding into a different model of funding than what mission requests are for; it’s essentially making grants supply-led rather than demand-led. The purpose of mission requests is to decide what needs to be built and allocate capital according to priorities, rather than fund what there are builders for and allocate capital according to supply. I’m not necessarily against a supply-led funding model, but I think it requires more discussion and optimising the current process for that. The natural conclusion of a supply-led model is a memecoin fund, and I definitely don’t want to see Optimism slide that way via opaque proposals like this.

Reason: This is a very simple (and tiny) upgrade to voting with advanced delegation.

Reason: This will streamline the upgrade process. Most importantly, it will improve security response measures by allowing superchain upgrades to happen in unison.

Reason: This upgrade, along with EIP-4844, will drastically decrease gas fees for users. It is one of the most important upgrades of the year.

Reason: This is an important security upgrade, and improvement to the pause mechanism across the superchain.

Reason: 4A Yes, small amount for a potential small benefit. 4B Yes, small amount for a potential large benefit. 4C No, amount is too large for the benefit. 4D No, this is better served by RetroPGF than grants. 4E No, I don’t think this generates better governance. 4F Yes, GovNFTs are good. 4G No, easily gamed and low benefit. 4H Yes, this is experimental but could work. 4I Yes, Evaluation is crucial. 4J No, I’m not convinced this will help.

Reason: 3A: Yes, small request, clear small benefit. 3B: Yes, small amount that is a small step forward. 3C: No, it’s not clear what the benefit of this would be, relative to EAS. 3D: No, Optimism already has great perp dexs. 3E: No, Incentives not necessary. 3F: Yes, this is a great initiative to enable lean teams to grow fast. 3G: No, I think ‘real world problems’ is a flawed narrative, optimism shouldn’t grow this way. 3H: Yes, I think the metrics on this make it hard for this to go wrong. 3I: Yes, quests drive growth. 3J: Yes, this is reasonable and could be useful. 3K: Yes, ENS is essential. 3L: No, I don’t think this is worth building. 3M: No, I can’t see this meeting the intent.

Reason: 2A Yes, This would solve a long term issue; high potential reward. 2B Yes, Builders grants are good. 2C No, do it without a grant. 2D No, 500k OP is too much. Incentivising mainnet migration isn’t as important as native growth. 2E Yes, same as 2B. 2F No, 10K OP is too much. 2G No, I think 300k OP is a lot. Would prefer to start small. 2H Yes, it’s crucial to incentivise LSTs. 2I No, launch a token to raise funds, that’s the point of tokens. 2J No, amounts too high. 2K Yes, hackathons are valuable. 2L Yes, very valuable way to speed up apps and create growth. 2M Yes, see 2K. 2N Yes, this is a broad signal to show ZK toolkits are available.

Reason: These proposals towards intent #1 are valuable. The budget is large enough for all of these

Reason: I believe it is better for this to be managed by the CoC council, and that the new grant misusage process is an upgrade. I support this iteration.