Profile of ariiellus in Optimism

Posts by ariiellus

• Upcoming Retro rounds and their design by Ariiellus - No Role
  Posted on: March 30, 2024, 5:36 a.m.
  Content: The good the bad and the ugly The Good Smaller Rounds Excellent decision to transition to more narrowly scoped rounds. With fewer projects to review in future rounds, it will be easier to assess the impact for badge holders. This is a great move! Upstream & downstream Dividing projects into two categories based on their impact on Optimism is an excellent initial step. This approach could yield a wealth of intriguing data for analysis, especially as various on-chain projects provide distinct metrics in their applications. Experiments It would be beneficial to receive additional information on this matter, particularly regarding how juries will be selected or, better yet, voted. By integrating this with the GovScore 1 , we will swiftly gain a deeper insight into the identities of the citizens and their areas of expertise. However, please ensure that this does not result in additional power being granted to The Foundation. lefterisjp: Impact juries That I am not so sure about. Who is sorting the citizens? The foundation again right? So this takes power away from the citizen house and into the foundation. The Bad Initiatives outside of the scope I believe that this move will demotivate a lot of builders in different levels. @lefterisjp & @postpolar have just mentioned some great individuals and team who have made greats contributions to the ecosystem. The Ugly Decentralization is a joke I don’t understand why to push 4 new RPGF rounds instead of openly asking both houses if they agree with this move. It could be a great strategy to achieve progressive decentralization, rather than making decisions behind closed doors without temperature check the sentiment of the community and hoping that people who believe in the idea of a “Collective” will be pleased. I’m agree here with @cp 0 x-AlexQ: cp 0 x-AlexQ: This is not the first time that a fund acts in some of its own interests, without paying attention to the DAO, which essentially must make decisions, otherwise it is not a DAO at all. One such case is a token sale (definitely two): Token Sale – September 2023 Token Sale — March 2024 Seriously, does someone expect us to just cover our eyes and not demand answers? No more public goods branding This is probably the biggest mistake here. It’s obvious that throwing away the Public Goods part is open widely the door to more VC backed projects. One of the major debates during RPGF 3 revolved around whether a VC-backed project qualifies as a public good. This move feels like a slap in the face timdaub: I’d welcome the public goods concept back, I think it’s what made the program really compelling and innovative. Marcus 01 : Previous RPGF: make public goods, open source them, make an impact, get a chance to get my funding Now RPGF: come grow in my superchain ecosystem and I’ll give you funding based on cold, data-driven metrics Impact is not just vanity web 3 numbers.
  Likes: 8 Replies: 0
  Likers: ZEFIRIUM, lefterisjp, brichis, nanobro, cp0x-AlexQ, Pumbi, MaximeServais, FractalVisions
  No replies yet.
• Upcoming Retro rounds and their design by Ariiellus - No Role
  Posted on: March 30, 2024, 1:36 a.m.
  Content: The good the bad and the ugly The Good Smaller Rounds Excellent decision to transition to more narrowly scoped rounds. With fewer projects to review in future rounds, it will be easier to assess the impact for badge holders. This is a great move! Upstream & downstream Dividing projects into two categories based on their impact on Optimism is an excellent initial step. This approach could yield a wealth of intriguing data for analysis, especially as various on-chain projects provide distinct metrics in their applications. Experiments It would be beneficial to receive additional information on this matter, particularly regarding how juries will be selected or, better yet, voted. By integrating this with the GovScore 1 , we will swiftly gain a deeper insight into the identities of the citizens and their areas of expertise. However, please ensure that this does not result in additional power being granted to The Foundation. lefterisjp: Impact juries That I am not so sure about. Who is sorting the citizens? The foundation again right? So this takes power away from the citizen house and into the foundation. The Bad Initiatives outside of the scope I believe that this move will demotivate a lot of builders in different levels. @lefterisjp & @postpolar have just mentioned some great individuals and team who have made greats contributions to the ecosystem. The Ugly Decentralization is a joke I don’t understand why to push 4 new RPGF rounds instead of openly asking both houses if they agree with this move. It could be a great strategy to achieve progressive decentralization, rather than making decisions behind closed doors without temperature check the sentiment of the community and hoping that people who believe in the idea of a “Collective” will be pleased. I’m agree here with @cp 0 x-AlexQ: cp 0 x-AlexQ: This is not the first time that a fund acts in some of its own interests, without paying attention to the DAO, which essentially must make decisions, otherwise it is not a DAO at all. One such case is a token sale (definitely two): Token Sale – September 2023 Token Sale — March 2024 Seriously, does someone expect us to just cover our eyes and not demand answers? No more public goods branding This is probably the biggest mistake here. It’s obvious that throwing away the Public Goods part is open widely the door to more VC backed projects. One of the major debates during RPGF 3 revolved around whether a VC-backed project qualifies as a public good. This move feels like a slap in the face timdaub: I’d welcome the public goods concept back, I think it’s what made the program really compelling and innovative. Marcus 01 : Previous RPGF: make public goods, open source them, make an impact, get a chance to get my funding Now RPGF: come grow in my superchain ecosystem and I’ll give you funding based on cold, data-driven metrics Impact is not just vanity web 3 numbers.
  Likes: 9 Replies: 0
  Likers: ZEFIRIUM, lefterisjp, brichis, nanobro, cp0x-AlexQ, Pumbi, MaximeServais, FractalVisions, Rosmari
  No replies yet.
• [DRAFT] Quarterly Reports for Mission Requests by Ariiellus - No Role
  Posted on: Feb. 7, 2024, 4:05 p.m.
  Content: This proposal has been updated, general changes are: Baseline grant amount from 20 k to 10 k Mission be fulfilled from “up to 3 ” to one applicant Information in Spanish has been eliminated to encourage people to translate documents and share it with their communities. Hope this changes are enough to pass this proposal to Ready to vote
  Likes: 0 Replies: 0
  No likes yet.
  No replies yet.
• [DRAFT] Quarterly Reports for Mission Requests by Ariiellus - No Role
  Posted on: Feb. 7, 2024, 1:19 p.m.
  Content: I think it’s a good opportunity for others to become involved in the collective, @brichis. This idea could broaden the scope of what is happening in the collective without being attached to a specific mission, and then badgeholders could evaluate if that was valuable. Should we change the next line?: **Should this Foundation Mission be fulfilled by one or multiple applicants:**one applicant ** After delving into the Milestones and Metrics Sub-Committee, I see a significant distinction between the goals of this proposal and the MMSC’s responsibilities. While the MMSC is responsible for reviewing and grant finalist progress, this proposal aims to share a consistent report for people with different backgrounds. If you @katie or another Delegate suggest me to backtrack on this proposal, I think the right way to go would be to realize and apply to RPGF. This proposal could be uncertain as to whether it is something the collective should support right now If anyone feels that we should go ahead and adjust the guidelines then I will be on the lookout for feedback.
  Likes: 0 Replies: 0
  No likes yet.
  No replies yet.
• [DRAFT] Quarterly Reports for Mission Requests by Ariiellus - No Role
  Posted on: Feb. 7, 2024, 11:05 a.m.
  Content: This proposal has been updated, general changes are: Baseline grant amount from 20 k to 10 k Mission be fulfilled from “up to 3 ” to one applicant Information in Spanish has been eliminated to encourage people to translate documents and share it with their communities. Hope this changes are enough to pass this proposal to Ready to vote
  Likes: 0 Replies: 0
  No likes yet.
  No replies yet.
• [DRAFT] Quarterly Reports for Mission Requests by Ariiellus - No Role
  Posted on: Feb. 7, 2024, 8:19 a.m.
  Content: I think it’s a good opportunity for others to become involved in the collective, @brichis. This idea could broaden the scope of what is happening in the collective without being attached to a specific mission, and then badgeholders could evaluate if that was valuable. Should we change the next line?: **Should this Foundation Mission be fulfilled by one or multiple applicants:**one applicant ** After delving into the Milestones and Metrics Sub-Committee, I see a significant distinction between the goals of this proposal and the MMSC’s responsibilities. While the MMSC is responsible for reviewing and grant finalist progress, this proposal aims to share a consistent report for people with different backgrounds. If you @katie or another Delegate suggest me to backtrack on this proposal, I think the right way to go would be to realize and apply to RPGF. This proposal could be uncertain as to whether it is something the collective should support right now If anyone feels that we should go ahead and adjust the guidelines then I will be on the lookout for feedback.
  Likes: 0 Replies: 0
  No likes yet.
  No replies yet.
• [DRAFT] Quarterly Reports for Mission Requests by Ariiellus - No Role
  Posted on: Jan. 29, 2024, 3:25 p.m.
  Content: Happy to restructure that way but some concerns appear to me. How we define which languages should be considered for this mission and how do we select those applying in order to prevent n applicants which will use AI / translate tools to accomplish this mission? Do we have any database of how much multilingual members are in the collective @brichis? Do you have in mind any procedure to verify applicants are native speakers or high fluent in x language? @jengajojo An idea could be define 3 languages in advance: 1 .- Spanish 2 .- Portuguese (because I saw a like from @JoaoKury and Brasil is pretty different than the rest of Latam) 3 .- TBD (I have in mind right now french / german / italian) Of course each applying should provide their respective reports in english to guarantee that the whole collective could access their information. This changes will still improve the governance accessibility and could be covered perfectly by 3 teams bringing more diversity to the collective.
  Likes: 1 Replies: 0
  Likers: joaokury
  No replies yet.
• [DRAFT] Quarterly Reports for Mission Requests by Ariiellus - No Role
  Posted on: Jan. 29, 2024, 10:25 a.m.
  Content: Happy to restructure that way but some concerns appear to me. How we define which languages should be considered for this mission and how do we select those applying in order to prevent n applicants which will use AI / translate tools to accomplish this mission? Do we have any database of how much multilingual members are in the collective @brichis? Do you have in mind any procedure to verify applicants are native speakers or high fluent in x language? @jengajojo An idea could be define 3 languages in advance: 1 .- Spanish 2 .- Portuguese (because I saw a like from @JoaoKury and Brasil is pretty different than the rest of Latam) 3 .- TBD (I have in mind right now french / german / italian) Of course each applying should provide their respective reports in english to guarantee that the whole collective could access their information. This changes will still improve the governance accessibility and could be covered perfectly by 3 teams bringing more diversity to the collective.
  Likes: 1 Replies: 0
  Likers: JoaoKury
  No replies yet.
• [DRAFT] Quarterly Reports for Mission Requests by Ariiellus - No Role
  Posted on: Jan. 27, 2024, 8:12 p.m.
  Content: It would be great! When I wrote this request I only had in mind Spanish and English because they are the languages that my team and I can handle (native level or B 2 /C 1 ), even though we are studying other languages like French and Portuguese right now we don’t feel able to execute these tasks in those languages. But if other teams would like to incorporate other languages it would be great if they would apply and this assignment could be adjusted to their respective needs.
  Likes: 0 Replies: 0
  No likes yet.
  No replies yet.
• [DRAFT] Quarterly Reports for Mission Requests by Ariiellus - No Role
  Posted on: Jan. 27, 2024, 3:12 p.m.
  Content: It would be great! When I wrote this request I only had in mind Spanish and English because they are the languages that my team and I can handle (native level or B 2 /C 1 ), even though we are studying other languages like French and Portuguese right now we don’t feel able to execute these tasks in those languages. But if other teams would like to incorporate other languages it would be great if they would apply and this assignment could be adjusted to their respective needs.
  Likes: 0 Replies: 0
  No likes yet.
  No replies yet.