https://gov.optimism.io/t/season-5-intents-budget-proposal-2/7937/19
The reallocation makes sense. There's a strong demand for funding for some of these missions. Instead of returning the funds, just to cast a new ask next cycle, the funds should be put into action now. If builders are seeking to work on optimistic projects, we should enable them to before they move on.
As a member of the Grants Council, we are abstaining from voting on this proposal.
We believe this reallocation could lead to funding more projects that improve the collective.
We assume this proposal was created based on careful considerations by the Grants Council and contributors and it’s generally considered optimal to reallocate unused funds to the needed area.
Sounds great! There are a lot of great builders! LFG!
https://gov.optimism.io/t/brichis-delegate-communication-thread/6353/16
As the proposer and Grants Council lead I have to abstain.
https://gov.optimism.io/t/season-5-intents-budget-proposal-2/7937/4?u=oxytocin
We support this proposal, the reallocation of 1,040,000 OP to specified mission requests represents a valuable addition to the DAO. I also endorse the decision to utilize the 1M OP previously approved by Token House to further bolster these mission requests. This strategic funding adjustment aligns with our goals of enhancing the DAO's capabilities and supporting its continued growth and innovation.
great idea team!
Voting FOR the proposal.
OP for the win
I believe the reallocation of funds would be beneficial to support more mission requests rather than returning to gov fund.
I vote For.
The Grants Council is doing a stellar job. The surge in quality submissions for season 5 fully justifies the extra budget reallocation.
We are Pho Research from Vietnam, we are here to vote FOR You can delegate to us here https://vote.optimism.io/delegates/phoresearch.eth
I am in favor of this proposal. The reallocation of funds is crucial to address the growing demand for missions in Optimism and to maintain the level of quality of the proposals. Additionally, ensuring a steady flow of grants is essential for the growth and innovation in the Optimism ecosystem.
Lets see a user airdrop instead
I am voting 'Against' which is counter to the current majority. This reason for this vote is as follows: The two reasons given for this mid-season budget increase was (a) increased demand for grants, and (b) improved/enhanced application quality. However both these reasons will likely be persistent (and not unique or temporary) as the Collective grows over time and as general web3 adoption increases. Thus, if this increased demand and quality of grant applications is persistent, then I don't think it's prudent (for the overall Gov Fund OP allocation) to make quick changes to budgets mid-season, with lower levels of scrutiny by the community. For the record, I'm not saying over time (or over Seasons) that budgets shouldn't be significantly increased, instead this is simply a timing issue where it would be better to make adjustments in following Seasons and within Reflection Periods where there can be more time for thought and analysis, and more bandwidth for community input. Concluding, voting Against today, but open to voting for larger budgets for later Seasons.
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.
let's build the optimism future
The efforts put in by the Grants Council in assessing the inflow of proposals this season are commendable. The re-allocation mentioned in the proposal is well thought.
It will also be good to put examples of improvement and overall progress at regular interval. For quality improvement in proposals and allocations are broken down in multiple missions, I am voting For this proposal.
It will also be good to put examples of improvement and overall progress at regular interval. For quality improvement in proposals and allocations are broken down in multiple missions, I am voting For this proposal.
It will be good to put examples of improvement and overall progress at regular interval. For quality improvement in proposals and allocations are broken down in multiple missions, I am voting For this proposal.
It will also be good to put examples of improvement and overall progress at regular interval. For quality improvement in proposals and allocations are broken down in multiple missions, I am voting For this proposal.
Its good to know the quality of applications and requests have improved. It will also be good to put examples of improvement and overall progress at regular interval. For quality improvement in proposals and allocations are broken down in multiple missions, I am voting For this proposal.
Its good to know the quality of applications and requests have improved. It will also be good to put examples of improvement and overall progress at regular interval. For quality improvement in proposals and allocations are broken down in multiple missions, I am voting For this proposal.
Its good to know the quality of applications and requests have improved. It will also be good to put examples of improvement and overall progress at regular interval. For quality improvement in proposals and allocations are broken down in multiple missions, I am voting For this proposal.
that ok let do it Dev
Loading more votes...