Profile of OPUser in Optimism

Posts by OPUser

• Retro Funding 5: Voting Rationale Thread by OPUser - No Role
  Posted on: Oct. 22, 2024, 6:23 p.m.
  Content: A bit late, but I’d like to share my rationale. Group: OP Stack R&D Budget: I took reference from the last round and initially set a maximum limit of 80 K OP per project. I then experimented with different functions and adjusted the impact parameters, eventually arriving at a similar number. Budget distribution across three domains: ( 3 . 25 M OP) Ethereum Core Contributors - 30 % OP Stack & R&D - 36 . 33 % OP Stack Tooling - 33 . 67 % We all agree that Optimism, among other L 2 s, is thriving due to the research done by core contributors of the settlement layer. However, one of the key pieces of feedback from the last round was that teams building directly on Optimism were overlooked. Sharing the same view, I allocated a higher reward ratio to the OP stack. Although the impact of R&D takes a bit longer to cast their shadow, I believe the evolving superchain should prioritize R&D. Impact Evaluation: Research work and implementation of novel applications were given priority. As long as they are building on the superchain, I placed them in the highest impact category. Clients were placed in the one bucket. The least impact was given to projects where their impact were vague or where the project fell under the freemium category. Positive Aspects: I felt the questions asked in the application were open-ended, which seemed to provide more insights into the projects. A few projects were quite transparent in reporting their past funding and its impact. Scope for Improvement / Suggestions: “What will happen if this project ceases to exist?” — If you’re submitting your application, please don’t skip this question. I believe answering this simple question is enough for the reader to gauge your impact. Occam’s Razor principle I’m not sure if it’s a good idea to include references and feedback a project has received from members of the Optimism Foundation. Mentioning feedback specifically from team members of the Optimism Foundation could lead to cognitive bias. Instead, refer to the number of forks, if repo is available, citations (if it’s a research paper), discussions, and presentations at different conferences if it’s a conceptual work, and so on. Overall positive experience and felt significant improvement compared to last round. COI - None, independent citizen interested in the chaotic nature of distributed coordination.
  Likes: 4 Replies: 0
  Likers: joanbp, fujiar, ccerv1, dmars300
  No replies yet.
• Governor Update Proposal #3: Enable onchain treasury execution by OPUser - No Role
  Posted on: Oct. 21, 2024, 6:34 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.
• Retro Funding 5: OP Stack - round details by OPUser - No Role
  Posted on: Oct. 3, 2024, 5:03 p.m.
  Content: Thank you for sharing this. Discussions based on metrics are always a step in the right direction. However, one important factor missing here is the time frame considered. RPGF 3 was not time-bound, and when rewards were allocated, at least to me, this was a crucial aspect. Some projects had been live for over a year, publicly available, operational, and generating impact. Round 3 was the first time these projects participated in RPGF. eg, 65 , 000 OP for two years of contribution less than half of that, under 30 , 000 OP? This round is time-bound, as others have already mentioned, and it makes it difficult to make an informed decision based solely on past data, although it does provide a point of reference. I understand that building in public is challenging, and countless hours of work cannot be sustained on charity alone. Looking back, the primary goal of RPGF was to bridge the gap between impact and reward. My intention isn’t to contradict your points but to offer a new perspective. Personally, I’d prefer to allocate 10 % more rather than risk allocating 2 % less. Another point to consider is the treasury. While we have a significant amount of OP set aside for the next few rounds, without impacting the treasury, if we continue spending without considering revenue, we could potentially hurt our long-term sustainability. Between October 2023 and August 2024 , the current round’s time frame, Optimism’s revenue is approximately $ 11 . 37 M ( + $ 1 . 25 M from Base) image 1080 × 433 16 . 2 KB Source Round 4 : 10 M OP Round 5 : Between 2 - 8 M OP Round 6 : 3 . 5 M OP We can calculate the inflow/outflow ratio based on these figures. Optimistically, we could run approximately 80 more rounds, each with 10 M OP, just from the treasury (with 799 . 99 M OP remaining from the initial RPGF allocation), without relying on revenue. However, our current focus is narrow, limited to the Superchain ecosystem. It would be unfortunate if we couldn’t extend this experiment beyond Superchain to support open-source contributions, public goods, and potentially common goods as well. There are many ways to approach this, and different strategies could be implemented in future rounds but I believe I am branching out from the discussion point so holding my train of thoughts here. However, I wanted to emphasize that, while it’s important to review past rounds to assess rewards, we should also try to look into future.
  Likes: 4 Replies: 0
  Likers: joanbp, KalanShow, dmars300, 0x666
  No replies yet.
• Accelerated Decentralization Proposal For Optimism by OPUser - No Role
  Posted on: Sept. 24, 2024, 7:16 p.m.
  Content: I’m not in favor of this proposal, as I believe that while it comes from a good place with positive intentions, it doesn’t address all the complexities involved. We have a unique governance model, and we’ve achieved a lot in a short period of time. The two-pillar governance structure has been, and continues to be, an experiment that evolves with collective feedback. Each season brings challenges, but we consistently overcome them, emerging stronger on the other side. To reframe the question: full decentralization may be necessary if people feel restricted, isolated, or censored in any way. However, at present, anyone can submit a proposal in this open forum. The grant distribution framework is transparent, algorithms are accessible, and anyone can become a delegate and contribute. In fact, you don’t even need to be a delegate to share your thoughts here. Ours is the only DAO with dedicated support from the protocol team, and at least in terms of headcount, the contact information for representatives of the OP Foundation is public. And this is coming out from soneone virtually unknown outside of this governance, from Jonas to Carl, they listen every single time. We have various councils, with dedicated and motivated delegates working to ensure we remain unbiased and sustainable in the long term. This process is not controlled by the Foundation. We, the collective, are responsible for writing proposals, approving and distributing funds—all in a distributed and decentralized manner. The Foundation takes a backseat, while we lead the way. Additionally, I don’t think we’re quite ready to take full control of the DAO. We haven’t yet onboarded other members of the superchain, which I believe will happen in the next season. Onboard them, their project, dev and community. DAO budget will run out one day, only way to make sure we are sustainable long term, RPGF is to flourish and support positive contributions is highly dependent on members of superchain . Issues like projects capturing grant tokens to increase their voting power, the concentration of power, conflicts of interest, and misalignment are still concerns, especially in this fast-moving space. There are clearly many open questions and points of failure. Just because one DAO is doing something does not necessarily mean we should do it too, the current working model and end goal play an important role. We are progressing towards a sustainable DAO that is run, controlled, and managed by the collective. We should continue on this path, taking cautious but deliberate steps and iterating based on feedback.
  Likes: 9 Replies: 1
  Likers: Alec.eth, brichis, LXDAO, 0xR, joanbp, Luckyhooman.eth, ml_sudo, LuukDAO, Thequimera
  Replies:

  • GFXlabs: OPUser: However, at present, anyone can submit a proposal in this open forum. We want to point out that this is not correct. Proposals are permissioned by the Foundation and also are subject to fitting within certain categories of approved proposal type. Also, these two statements are contradictory: OPUser: The Foundation takes a backseat, while we lead the way. OPUser: We haven’t yet onboarded other members of the superchain, which I believe will happen in the next season Superchain members often receive substantial grants of OP tokens from the Foundation, and neither membership nor those initial grants is not subject to governance approval. Leuts: I would be curious for GFX to provide comparisons on how more trust-minimized DAOs such as Arbitrum are performing in key categories against Optimism, including as mentioned above. This would be a very long conversation in and of itself, but we would characterize Arbitrum as more nimble and energetic since it can capture bottom-up ideas quickly and act on them, but this does come at the cost of substantial waste in spending. Optimism would have the benefit of already having a structured governance system in place, while Arbitrum started largely from the primordial ooze and has had to evolve in real time. Leuts: Others like Lido, Aave, Maker seem to be the darlings of DAOs but are of course not chains. GFX’s time at Maker is one of the main drivers of the desire to decentralize while we can. Maker is as tightly controlled as any centralized company, and is a perfect example of why decentralization is needed. Thank you to everyone who has commented so far. And if you’ve not yet done so, please signal your desire for accelerated decentralization on this Snapshot petition.
• Season 6: Chain Delegation Program Amendment by OPUser - No Role
  Posted on: Sept. 7, 2024, 6:59 p.m.
  Content: In favour of this, I see this as a welcoming move, make other chains part of superchain at home. They are building as part of superchain, bringing user and possibly innovation, we should give them a voice in our evolving goverance model. Concerns raised by others are valid but ACC exist to counter such events.
  Likes: 0 Replies: 0
  No likes yet.
  No replies yet.
• OPUser - Delegate Communication Thread by OPUser - No Role
  Posted on: Sept. 3, 2024, 6:08 p.m.
  Content: In past voting rounds, I focused on creating a mixture of experienced and new members. Among other benefits, I believe this encourages new members to put their nominations forward. They usually bring new ideas and suggestions, and we get to experiment with a different set of candidates. In the long term, I think this will help ensure that the right candidates are elected in domains where their skills and knowledge are utilized to the fullest. Will update if I am voting on a proposal otherwise. The exception is the latest Security Council election. By nature, the stakes are quite high, and the candidates need to be measured on a different scale. Expertise, involvement in the Optimism ecosystem, geographic location, and their reputation in this space are the deciding factors. I missed the vote on the Granite proposal. While my voting power is relatively low and role is voluntary, I take my responsibilities very seriously. In retrospect, I would have voted in favour of the outcome, still, I sincerely apologize to those who entrusted me with their voting power.
  Likes: 0 Replies: 0
  No likes yet.
  No replies yet.
• Security Council member nomination: Yoseph Ayele by OPUser - No Role
  Posted on: Aug. 19, 2024, 7:37 a.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 OPUser - No Role
  Posted on: Aug. 19, 2024, 7:31 a.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.
• Security Council Member Nomination: Kent Fenwick (Agora) by OPUser - No Role
  Posted on: Aug. 19, 2024, 7:31 a.m.
  Content: I am an Optimism delegate 1 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.
• Security Council Nomination - Uniswap Foundation by OPUser - No Role
  Posted on: Aug. 19, 2024, 7:28 a.m.
  Content: This already has enough approval but great to see uniswap nomination here and would like to show my support. 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: eek637
  No replies yet.