Profile of MinimalGravitas in Optimism

Posts by MinimalGravitas

• Analysis of Voting Data for Retro Funding 5 by MinimalGravitas - No Role
  Posted on: Oct. 24, 2024, 5:52 p.m.
  Content: ccerv 1 : The top project (geth) received 235 K OP. […] the lowest ranked project received 37 K, Wow, that really is flat, only about 6 x between top and bottom. That’s especially surprising considering it was across 3 separate categories without crossover over allocators. Am I reading it right that for the OP Stack R&D the spread was less than 3 x? Loads of interesting data, raising lots of questions… why do experts dislike Nimbus, why do non-experts not value Protocol Guild so highly…? Definitely agree that we should continue to consider Pairwise in future rounds, it felt helpful and it’s nice to see that it correlated with a difference to outcomes. Anyway, great to see the data and read your analysis, thanks.
  Likes: 2 Replies: 0
  Likers: ccerv1, artespraticas
  No replies yet.
• Retro Funding 5: Voting Rationale Thread by MinimalGravitas - No Role
  Posted on: Oct. 16, 2024, 12:48 p.m.
  Content: Disclosures: None, just an independent Ethereum and Optimism enthusiast. Budget: Full 8 M OP As others have pointed out, this round is supporting the most fundemental parts of our ecosystem, without which nothing else would function. Split: 40 % / 35 % / 25 % (Ethereum Core / OP Stack R&D / OP Stack Tooling My thinking here was that the Ethereum Core Contributors support everything else, if it wasn’t for the people in the Protocol Guild and the Client Teams then there would be no L 1 to build an L 2 on. Then as the OP Stack is still developing and clearly none of the rollups are yet in their final form, R&D is more important for now than Tooling. Category: Ethereum Core Contributors Methodology: I started this round using Pairwise, which I think worked very well for this number of projects. Feeling confident that I had at least the jist of most applicants in this category already I thought this would give a base to work from and I could then check projects and tweak the amounts as necessary once the ballot was populated. In hindsight I should have done a more thorough examination of the projects before using Pairwise, as tweaking proved a little difficult, in particular due to Grandine, which I hadn’t realized had gone open-source earlier in the year… this meant having to find some extra percentage points, which in the end led to me adjusting everything manually a bunch of times. Lesson learned. I played around with the different curves available but didn’t really find one that was satisfying, however with only 30 projects it wasn’t particularly arduous to just set the distributions one-by-one. Distribution: I assigned Protocol Guild the highest allocation, for obvious reasons, then Solidity and the clients, with EL clients having a touch more than CL due to each of them being used more directly by Optimism as the basis of the L 2 clients, then everything else descending from there. Evaluation: I think the biggest factor making this round much better than previous ones was the splitting up of projects, reviewing just 30 is so much more managable than going through however many hundreds we’ve done before. That’s not to detract from the better UI and voting tools we’ve got each time, which all contributed as well. Overall I would much rather do lots of small rounds like this than a fewer number of huge ones. Bring on the next one.
  Likes: 4 Replies: 0
  Likers: Jonas, joanbp, ccerv1, dmars300
  No replies yet.
• Retro Funding 5: Bribery Policy by MinimalGravitas - No Role
  Posted on: Sept. 30, 2024, 10:26 a.m.
  Content: This is good to see, but I struggle to imagine a scenario where a badgeholder would get caught as it stands. If I am dishonest and a project reaches out to bribe me, it seems unlikely that a 3 rd party would have any way to know. To make the system more effective, maybe the Foundation or Anticapture committee should reach out to a few projects secretly and pay them to try and bribe us, then see if any badgeholders accept the bait (I optimistically assume none of us would). Turn it into a fun game of deception and entrapment? As far as dishonest projects it seems much easier to catch, as they would need to be reaching out to badgeholders, the majority of whom would presumably just report them.
  Likes: 1 Replies: 0
  Likers: Pumbi
  No replies yet.
• [Mission Request] Optimism Full Financial Audit by MinimalGravitas - No Role
  Posted on: Sept. 16, 2024, 3:07 p.m.
  Content: Yea, I’m really struggling with which way to go on this one. I like the idea of more financial transparency, but if it’s not possible then I don’t want to vote to assign 20 k OP to it!
  Likes: 3 Replies: 0
  Likers: Pumbi, PowerfullApe, ml_sudo
  No replies yet.
• [Sponsorship Request] Empowering small active delegates by MinimalGravitas - No Role
  Posted on: July 19, 2024, 1:08 p.m.
  Content: jengajojo: we suggest delegating 23 M tokens equally between 38 delegates for a period of 6 months. Why 23 M OP? I do like the idea of giving smaller but active delegates more voice, but this proposal would give them more voting power than long term council contributors like gonna.eth…
  Likes: 2 Replies: 0
  Likers: Takeshi, OPUser
  No replies yet.
• [Mission Request] Empowering small active delegates by MinimalGravitas - No Role
  Posted on: July 19, 2024, 1:08 p.m.
  Content: jengajojo: we suggest delegating 23 M tokens equally between 38 delegates for a period of 6 months. Why 23 M OP? I do like the idea of giving smaller but active delegates more voice, but this proposal would give them more voting power than long term council contributors like gonna.eth…
  Likes: 2 Replies: 0
  Likers: Takeshi, OPUser
  No replies yet.
• Season 6: Anticapture Commission Amendment by MinimalGravitas - No Role
  Posted on: June 12, 2024, 4:35 p.m.
  Content: Hi, I’m 99 % sure I’ve done that already, are you sending out reminders to everyone or just to those that need to submit (i.e. did I misremember!).
  Likes: 0 Replies: 0
  No likes yet.
  No replies yet.
• Retro Funding 4: Application Review Process by MinimalGravitas - No Role
  Posted on: June 4, 2024, 4:44 p.m.
  Content: We will have a Reviewer sync call on Monday, June 10 th - 18 : 00 UTC Please can the time of the reviewers call on the 10 th be clarified? The e-mail we received says 06 : 00 UTC - I’m selfishly crossing my fingers that this post is correct rather than the e-mail!
  Likes: 0 Replies: 0
  No likes yet.
  No replies yet.
• Upcoming Retro rounds and their design by MinimalGravitas - No Role
  Posted on: March 26, 2024, 6:25 p.m.
  Content: Sounds like August is going to be busy… hope you didn’t have anything booked for the school holidays anon…! Otherwise, this looks great, really excited to try out the more focused rounds as it should make comparisons a bit more rational if everything is roughly under the same category. Also, any teams to get fraud proofs or validity proofs deployed before round 5 is going to be rolling in OP!
  Likes: 8 Replies: 0
  Likers: Griff, LauNaMu, Zeptimus, eugenia, robiomarine, Carlosjmelgar, Bushman, FractalVisions
  No replies yet.
• Upcoming Retro rounds and their design by MinimalGravitas - No Role
  Posted on: March 26, 2024, 2:25 p.m.
  Content: Sounds like August is going to be busy… hope you didn’t have anything booked for the school holidays anon…! Otherwise, this looks great, really excited to try out the more focused rounds as it should make comparisons a bit more rational if everything is roughly under the same category. Also, any teams to get fraud proofs or validity proofs deployed before round 5 is going to be rolling in OP!
  Likes: 8 Replies: 0
  Likers: Griff, LauNaMu, Zeptimus, eugenia, robiomarine, Carlosjmelgar, Bushman, FractalVisions
  No replies yet.