Profile of Luckyhooman.eth in Optimism

Posts by Luckyhooman.eth

• Retro Funding 5: Voting Rationale Thread by Luckyhooman.eth - No Role
  Posted on: Oct. 11, 2024, 3:34 p.m.
  Content: Firstly I want to acknowledge the effort and dedication of all applicants, for their contributions in advancing public goods in the space. Category I was assigned is Ethereum Core Contributions Voting Rationale I decided to allocate the full 8 million OP available for this round to maximize rewards for the most important contributions to our ecosystem. I used a top-weighted allocation method, making some changes to fit my perspective better. I gave priority to projects that hadn’t received RPGF before. For projects that had already received RPGF, I wanted to see significant progress. eg rewarding impact progress a level 10 to 20 moment since RPGF round 3 , as I felt round 3 already covered the early stages of impact ‘ 1 to 10 ’. Voting Experience The user interface gets better with every round, and I appreciate all the work put into making the voting process simple and straightforward. I’m grateful to be part of this process, in rewarding valuable contributors of the Ethereum ecosystem. Looking forward to RPGF round 6
  Likes: 3 Replies: 0
  Likers: joanbp, fujiar, shaun
  No replies yet.
• Security Council Member Nomination: Node Guardians by Luckyhooman.eth - No Role
  Posted on: Aug. 15, 2024, 3 p.m.
  Content: I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.
  Likes: 1 Replies: 0
  Likers: sam.ng
  No replies yet.
• Security Council Nomination: Waylon Jepsen by Luckyhooman.eth - No Role
  Posted on: Aug. 13, 2024, 3:53 p.m.
  Content: I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.
  Likes: 1 Replies: 0
  Likers: Jepsen
  No replies yet.
• Security Council Member Nomination: Mariano Conti by Luckyhooman.eth - No Role
  Posted on: Aug. 13, 2024, 3:52 p.m.
  Content: I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.
  Likes: 0 Replies: 0
  No likes yet.
  No replies yet.
• Security Council Member Nomination: Raymond Cheng (Open Source Observer) by Luckyhooman.eth - No Role
  Posted on: Aug. 13, 2024, 3:48 p.m.
  Content: I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.
  Likes: 0 Replies: 0
  No likes yet.
  No replies yet.
• Security Council Member Nomination: Kent Fenwick (Agora) by Luckyhooman.eth - No Role
  Posted on: Aug. 13, 2024, 3:46 p.m.
  Content: I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.
  Likes: 2 Replies: 0
  Likers: kent, zcf
  No replies yet.
• Retro Funding 4: Voting Rationale Thread by Luckyhooman.eth - No Role
  Posted on: July 15, 2024, 1:22 p.m.
  Content: My voting rationale for last weeks Round 4 vote I decided to include all the metrics as I find some value in each one. I did not separate Logscale and the standard I felt that the more metrics there are the easier it would be to reward the best projects. All the metrics have their own pros and cons but Gas Fees is our source for RPGF so I allocated 50 % overall to Gas Fees and Logscale Gas Fees. It was difficult as my initial allocation had Gas fees with an overall of 75 %. but at the end I gave some more weight to other metrics. As for the rest of my allocation LS Interactions from Trusted Optimism Users, LS Total Transactions and Trusted Optimism Users’Share of Total Interactions’ each received 8 % OpenRank Trusted Users, Power User Addresses & Trusted Recurring Users received 5 % each. Interactions from Trusted Optimism Users I allocated 4 % with the rest receiving 1 % each As for the OS multiplier I had to go with the max. Open source it the best way forward.
  Likes: 3 Replies: 0
  Likers: joanbp, ccerv1, OPUser
  No replies yet.
• Season 6 Grants Council Operating Budget Proposal by Luckyhooman.eth - No Role
  Posted on: May 28, 2024, 6:53 a.m.
  Content: Sup Gonna Thanks for the opportunity to provide more context I don’t have a specific amount to suggest and I understand you cant change it now. It is my own fault for not raising my concerns earlier in this rapid special voting round. My reasons for feeling this way Last season when the GC budget was announced OP token price was more than 50 % less than what it is today. This season its the same amount of OP requested for the reviewer positions with more than double the value gained. In an opposite and different scenario would the amount of OP requested stayed the same if OP token price was still around $ 1 …? I believe the requested amount would have increased dramatically… I understand GC members will go over and beyond the min 20 h per week and I do appreciate all the work that GC members do! But for arguments sake, This is probably a bad example but if we just use the min hours of 20 h/week with the Optimism Mission Reviewer budget of 30 k per member and assume GC will be working every week in season 6 that is round about 27 weeks which gives us an average of $ 145 per/h +/- I realize everyone has different experiences, backgrounds, responsibilities and geo-locations but this to me where i am from is way too much. to put that in context 8 h of GC work is more than the average full-time monthly salary in my country… “Wow that is insane”. In total 6 months of GC work +/- 540 h is 30 k OP comes to about 4 . 5 years(+/- 9000 hours) of work for the average man where i am from. I know this eg is flawed as everyone is in different places. But I feel im not too far off, if we take the average hourly pay for the United States is $ 30 an hour GC is earning 5 x more. I am not saying the average salary should be the target as i know GC work is specialized skills required, Im just saying a more realistic approach should be taken. To elaborate on my statement “no room for RPGF” The view i have is the minimum should be requested to complete the task leaving room for the Citizens House to reward GC for going over and above with RPGF. This budget is designed on a prediction of an amount of applications GC could possibly receive this season and there is no guarantee that the target will be met. I feel using this predictive method to calculate a budget can get abused and disregards RPGF roll in balancing Impact=Profit Personally for me as a Citizen, Profit= 100 % already regardless of Impact. “This is a premature stance and would change if applications dramatically exceed your predicted amount or work load changes etc”
  Likes: 0 Replies: 1
  No likes yet.
  Replies:

  • Gonna.eth: Thank you for taking the time and I hope we can have this type of debate before the vote next time all good points. My focus is on OP governance weight rather than OP price. I believe active participants in the ecosystem should be rewarded with more voting power, and I based the budget on that premise and a probable increase in application submission as we have seen every season. As the voting supply has grown from S4 to S5 and now, the relative impact of Grants Council reviewers on the token house has decreased. Despite this, GC members remain the most active and engaged delegates in the collective. While it’s not the Grants Council’s role to balance this, most rewards have remained the same as in S5 in terms of voting power. This approach acknowledges the different market conditions and avoids the appearance of seeking higher rewards unnecessarily. Based on your argument, we also need to consider the risk, as it’s important to note that market conditions could go up/down over the next few months before the rewards are distributed. I have to say, budgeting is not an easy task and what you say has been part of my thoughts too.
• Season 6 Grants Council Operating Budget by Luckyhooman.eth - No Role
  Posted on: May 28, 2024, 6:53 a.m.
  Content: Sup Gonna Thanks for the opportunity to provide more context I don’t have a specific amount to suggest and I understand you cant change it now. It is my own fault for not raising my concerns earlier in this rapid special voting round. My reasons for feeling this way Last season when the GC budget was announced OP token price was more than 50 % less than what it is today. This season its the same amount of OP requested for the reviewer positions with more than double the value gained. In an opposite and different scenario would the amount of OP requested stayed the same if OP token price was still around $ 1 …? I believe the requested amount would have increased dramatically… I understand GC members will go over and beyond the min 20 h per week and I do appreciate all the work that GC members do! But for arguments sake, This is probably a bad example but if we just use the min hours of 20 h/week with the Optimism Mission Reviewer budget of 30 k per member and assume GC will be working every week in season 6 that is round about 27 weeks which gives us an average of $ 145 per/h +/- I realize everyone has different experiences, backgrounds, responsibilities and geo-locations but this to me where i am from is way too much. to put that in context 8 h of GC work is more than the average full-time monthly salary in my country… “Wow that is insane”. In total 6 months of GC work +/- 540 h is 30 k OP comes to about 4 . 5 years(+/- 9000 hours) of work for the average man where i am from. I know this eg is flawed as everyone is in different places. But I feel im not too far off, if we take the average hourly pay for the United States is $ 30 an hour GC is earning 5 x more. I am not saying the average salary should be the target as i know GC work is specialized skills required, Im just saying a more realistic approach should be taken. To elaborate on my statement “no room for RPGF” The view i have is the minimum should be requested to complete the task leaving room for the Citizens House to reward GC for going over and above with RPGF. This budget is designed on a prediction of an amount of applications GC could possibly receive this season and there is no guarantee that the target will be met. I feel using this predictive method to calculate a budget can get abused and disregards RPGF roll in balancing Impact=Profit Personally for me as a Citizen, Profit= 100 % already regardless of Impact. “This is a premature stance and would change if applications dramatically exceed your predicted amount or work load changes etc”
  Likes: 0 Replies: 1
  No likes yet.
  Replies:

  • Gonna.eth: Thank you for taking the time and I hope we can have this type of debate before the vote next time all good points. My focus is on OP governance weight rather than OP price. I believe active participants in the ecosystem should be rewarded with more voting power, and I based the budget on that premise and a probable increase in application submission as we have seen every season. As the voting supply has grown from S4 to S5 and now, the relative impact of Grants Council reviewers on the token house has decreased. Despite this, GC members remain the most active and engaged delegates in the collective. While it’s not the Grants Council’s role to balance this, most rewards have remained the same as in S5 in terms of voting power. This approach acknowledges the different market conditions and avoids the appearance of seeking higher rewards unnecessarily. Based on your argument, we also need to consider the risk, as it’s important to note that market conditions could go up/down over the next few months before the rewards are distributed. I have to say, budgeting is not an easy task and what you say has been part of my thoughts too.
• Delegate Resignation Process by Luckyhooman.eth - No Role
  Posted on: May 28, 2024, 3:15 a.m.
  Content: This is a great initiative especially important for our big delegates to keep their voteable delegation active while on leave. A few months ago I was pretty burnt out with crypto related stuff and needed to take a break. My main concern was missing a vote and not putting the small amount of OP delegated to me to use. I did keep tabs on what was happening, fortunately the end of season 5 was very quite in terms of voting.
  Likes: 0 Replies: 0
  No likes yet.
  No replies yet.