Profile of bobby in Optimism
Posts by bobby
-
Introducing Backstop Grants
by bobby - This user is a moderator
Posted on: April 26, 2024, 9:06 p.m.
Content: Retroactive Public Goods Funding (Retro Funding) is a core piece of the Optimism Collective’s long term vision. Early rounds are experimenting towards a future where Retro Funding is mature enough to support the development and maintenance of the Superchain and the entire Collective. This is the fork of capitalism Optimists are building towards: a world where public goods like open source software can thrive, where positive-sum behavior is incentivized, and where impact = profit. At the same time, Retro Funding is not yet consistent enough to provide the certainty or predictability teams often need to commit themselves full time to helping build Optimism. As a bootstrapping tactic in these early rounds of iteration, the Optimism Foundation is experimenting with “backstop grants.” A backstop grant is a way to give teams the confidence to devote full-time energy to the Collective while still orienting them towards Retro Funding as their long-term source of support. This helps the Foundation reduce its reliance on grants from the Partner Fund and via RFPs, and transition more teams to participating in Retro Funding over time. How it works In instances in which the Foundation would otherwise make a standard Partner Fund grant, a backstop grant can be made for a certain token amount over a specified time period and specified scope of work. The grant reflects a minimum value of the scoped work, and is subject to completion-based milestones. The grantee will be encouraged to participate in any Retro Funding rounds that match the scope of their contribution. If the grantee receives less OP from Retro Funding than the value specified in their backstop grant, the grantee will receive additional tokens from the Optimism Foundation to cover the difference. If the grantee receives more OP from Retro Funding than specified in their backstop grant, the grantee will not receive any additional tokens from the Optimism Foundation. For example Backstop grant for 10 , 000 OP over 12 months. Project receives 8 , 000 OP in Retro Funding; they would then receive 2 , 000 OP from the Foundation for their backstop grant. Backstop grant for 10 , 000 OP over 12 months. Project receives 4 , 000 OP in Retro Funding; they would then receive 6 , 000 OP from the Foundation for their backstop grant. Backstop grant for 10 , 000 OP over 12 months. Project receives 12 , 000 OP in Retro Funding; they would then receive 0 OP from the Foundation for their backstop grant. Selection & Criteria The list of teams who have received a backstop grant to date (as of 14 April 2024 ) includes Agora and Open Source Observer. We will keep this post updated as other backstop grants are made. Backstop grants may be made in similar circumstances to those in which a standard Partner Fund grant would be made. To better align incentives, they are more likely to be utilized for teams of builders that are dedicating all or a majority of their bandwidth to the Optimism Collective, and are working on critical infrastructure – including the OP Stack, retro funding tooling, or chain infra provisioning. The size of each grant is estimated to approximate the impact provided to the Collective. These grants are designed to lower the risk of a team committing substantial bandwidth to the Collective, while also preserving the importance of Retro Funding and public accountability for impact. Backstop Grants & Retro Funding In past Retro Funding rounds, the project signup experience has asked for information about past or existing grants and funding sources. We expect voters in Retro Funding to make their assessment of a project’s impact without considering the existence of a backstop grant. Therefore, the exact amounts of each backstop grant are not disclosed, allowing badge holders to impartially assess a project’s impact. As we evolve Retro Funding into the primary source of impact support across the Collective, we want core teams to orient towards Retro Funding as much as possible. The backstop grant serves as just one type de-risk mechanism for projects that spend a majority of their team’s bandwidth on Optimism. This is a temporary bootstrapping experiment as Optimism continues to work towards reliable, regular Retro Funding rounds that can support ongoing core development across the Collective. In addition, Retro Funding may also benefit from additional mechanisms developed by the community to experiment towards the same goal. Success Criteria This program is an experiment in creating alignment and increasing product velocity across the Collective. This program will be considered a success if: More teams are willing to make a full time commitment to building Optimism. Teams with backstop grants receive Retro Funding equal to or greater than the size of their backstop grant. Thanks to Matt Stephenson and LauNaMu for feedback on earlier drafts of this post, as part of the Collective Feedback Commission
Likes: 10
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Introducing Backstop Grants
by bobby - This user is a moderator
Posted on: April 26, 2024, 5:06 p.m.
Content: Retroactive Public Goods Funding (Retro Funding) is a core piece of the Optimism Collective’s long term vision. Early rounds are experimenting towards a future where Retro Funding is mature enough to support the development and maintenance of the Superchain and the entire Collective. This is the fork of capitalism Optimists are building towards: a world where public goods like open source software can thrive, where positive-sum behavior is incentivized, and where impact = profit.
At the same time, Retro Funding is not yet consistent enough to provide the certainty or predictability teams often need to commit themselves full time to helping build Optimism. As a bootstrapping tactic in these early rounds of iteration, the Optimism Foundation is experimenting with “backstop grants.” A backstop grant is a way to give teams the confidence to devote full-time energy to the Collective while still orienting them towards Retro Funding as their long-term source of support. This helps the Foundation reduce its reliance on grants from the Partner Fund and via RFPs, and transition more teams to participating in Retro Funding over time.
How it works
In instances in which the Foundation would otherwise make a standard Partner Fund grant, a backstop grant can be made for a certain token amount over a specified time period and specified scope of work. The grant reflects a minimum value of the scoped work, and is subject to completion-based milestones.
The grantee will be encouraged to participate in any Retro Funding rounds that match the scope of their contribution.
If the grantee receives less OP from Retro Funding than the value specified in their backstop grant, the grantee will receive additional tokens from the Optimism Foundation to cover the difference.
If the grantee receives more OP from Retro Funding than specified in their backstop grant, the grantee will not receive any additional tokens from the Optimism Foundation.
For example
Backstop grant for 10 , 000 OP over 12 months. Project receives 8 , 000 OP in Retro Funding; they would then receive 2 , 000 OP from the Foundation for their backstop grant.
Backstop grant for 10 , 000 OP over 12 months. Project receives 4 , 000 OP in Retro Funding; they would then receive 6 , 000 OP from the Foundation for their backstop grant.
Backstop grant for 10 , 000 OP over 12 months. Project receives 12 , 000 OP in Retro Funding; they would then receive 0 OP from the Foundation for their backstop grant.
Selection & Criteria
The list of teams who have received a backstop grant to date (as of 14 April 2024 ) includes Agora and Open Source Observer. We will keep this post updated as other backstop grants are made.
Backstop grants may be made in similar circumstances to those in which a standard Partner Fund grant would be made. To better align incentives, they are more likely to be utilized for teams of builders that are dedicating all or a majority of their bandwidth to the Optimism Collective, and are working on critical infrastructure – including the OP Stack, retro funding tooling, or chain infra provisioning. The size of each grant is estimated to approximate the impact provided to the Collective.
These grants are designed to lower the risk of a team committing substantial bandwidth to the Collective, while also preserving the importance of Retro Funding and public accountability for impact.
Backstop Grants & Retro Funding
In past Retro Funding rounds, the project signup experience has asked for information about past or existing grants and funding sources. We expect voters in Retro Funding to make their assessment of a project’s impact without considering the existence of a backstop grant. Therefore, the exact amounts of each backstop grant are not disclosed, allowing badge holders to impartially assess a project’s impact.
As we evolve Retro Funding into the primary source of impact support across the Collective, we want core teams to orient towards Retro Funding as much as possible. The backstop grant serves as just one type de-risk mechanism for projects that spend a majority of their team’s bandwidth on Optimism. This is a temporary bootstrapping experiment as Optimism continues to work towards reliable, regular Retro Funding rounds that can support ongoing core development across the Collective. In addition, Retro Funding may also benefit from additional mechanisms developed by the community to experiment towards the same goal.
Success Criteria
This program is an experiment in creating alignment and increasing product velocity across the Collective. This program will be considered a success if:
More teams are willing to make a full time commitment to building Optimism.
Teams with backstop grants receive Retro Funding equal to or greater than the size of their backstop grant.
Thanks to Matt Stephenson and LauNaMu for feedback on earlier drafts of this post, as part of the Collective Feedback Commission 1
Likes: 29
Replies: 0
Likers:
Pumbi,
brichis,
LauNaMu,
Michael,
Liliop.eth,
danftz,
Chain_L,
v3naru_Curia,
limes.eth,
Bunnic,
Sixty,
Harper,
Jonas,
BIGSHOT,
linda,
abcoathup,
Garance,
ccerv1,
eugenia,
Tane,
MoneyManDoug,
Paige3d,
jaack,
0xR,
DanSingjoy,
0x666,
dmars300,
juankbell,
revmiller
No replies yet.
-
Introducing Backstop Grants
by bobby - This user is a moderator
Posted on: April 26, 2024, 5:06 p.m.
Content: Retroactive Public Goods Funding (Retro Funding) is a core piece of the Optimism Collective’s long term vision. Early rounds are experimenting towards a future where Retro Funding is mature enough to support the development and maintenance of the Superchain and the entire Collective. This is the fork of capitalism Optimists are building towards: a world where public goods like open source software can thrive, where positive-sum behavior is incentivized, and where impact = profit.
At the same time, Retro Funding is not yet consistent enough to provide the certainty or predictability teams often need to commit themselves full time to helping build Optimism. As a bootstrapping tactic in these early rounds of iteration, the Optimism Foundation is experimenting with “backstop grants.” A backstop grant is a way to give teams the confidence to devote full-time energy to the Collective while still orienting them towards Retro Funding as their long-term source of support. This helps the Foundation reduce its reliance on grants from the Partner Fund and via RFPs, and transition more teams to participating in Retro Funding over time.
How it works
In instances in which the Foundation would otherwise make a standard Partner Fund grant, a backstop grant can be made for a certain token amount over a specified time period and specified scope of work. The grant reflects a minimum value of the scoped work, and is subject to completion-based milestones.
The grantee will be encouraged to participate in any Retro Funding rounds that match the scope of their contribution.
If the grantee receives less OP from Retro Funding than the value specified in their backstop grant, the grantee will receive additional tokens from the Optimism Foundation to cover the difference.
If the grantee receives more OP from Retro Funding than specified in their backstop grant, the grantee will not receive any additional tokens from the Optimism Foundation.
For example
Backstop grant for 10 , 000 OP over 12 months. Project receives 8 , 000 OP in Retro Funding; they would then receive 2 , 000 OP from the Foundation for their backstop grant.
Backstop grant for 10 , 000 OP over 12 months. Project receives 4 , 000 OP in Retro Funding; they would then receive 6 , 000 OP from the Foundation for their backstop grant.
Backstop grant for 10 , 000 OP over 12 months. Project receives 12 , 000 OP in Retro Funding; they would then receive 0 OP from the Foundation for their backstop grant.
Selection & Criteria
The list of teams who have received a backstop grant to date (as of 14 April 2024 ) includes Agora and Open Source Observer. We will keep this post updated as other backstop grants are made.
Backstop grants may be made in similar circumstances to those in which a standard Partner Fund grant would be made. To better align incentives, they are more likely to be utilized for teams of builders that are dedicating all or a majority of their bandwidth to the Optimism Collective, and are working on critical infrastructure – including the OP Stack, retro funding tooling, or chain infra provisioning. The size of each grant is estimated to approximate the impact provided to the Collective.
These grants are designed to lower the risk of a team committing substantial bandwidth to the Collective, while also preserving the importance of Retro Funding and public accountability for impact.
Backstop Grants & Retro Funding
In past Retro Funding rounds, the project signup experience has asked for information about past or existing grants and funding sources. We expect voters in Retro Funding to make their assessment of a project’s impact without considering the existence of a backstop grant. Therefore, the exact amounts of each backstop grant are not disclosed, allowing badge holders to impartially assess a project’s impact.
As we evolve Retro Funding into the primary source of impact support across the Collective, we want core teams to orient towards Retro Funding as much as possible. The backstop grant serves as just one type de-risk mechanism for projects that spend a majority of their team’s bandwidth on Optimism. This is a temporary bootstrapping experiment as Optimism continues to work towards reliable, regular Retro Funding rounds that can support ongoing core development across the Collective. In addition, Retro Funding may also benefit from additional mechanisms developed by the community to experiment towards the same goal.
Success Criteria
This program is an experiment in creating alignment and increasing product velocity across the Collective. This program will be considered a success if:
More teams are willing to make a full time commitment to building Optimism.
Teams with backstop grants receive Retro Funding equal to or greater than the size of their backstop grant.
Thanks to Matt Stephenson and LauNaMu for feedback on earlier drafts of this post, as part of the Collective Feedback Commission
Likes: 29
Replies: 0
Likers:
Pumbi,
brichis,
LauNaMu,
Michael,
Liliop.eth,
danftz,
Chain_L,
v3naru_Curia,
limes.eth,
Bunnic,
Sixty,
Harper,
Jonas,
BIGSHOT,
linda,
abcoathup,
Garance,
ccerv1,
eugenia,
Tane,
MoneyManDoug,
Paige3d,
jaack,
0xR,
DanSingjoy,
0x666,
dmars300,
juankbell,
revmiller
No replies yet.
-
Foundation Mid-Year Budget Update
by bobby - This user is a moderator
Posted on: Jan. 3, 2024, 3:18 p.m.
Content: It is. Updated to “ 2023 ” - thank you!
Likes: 3
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Foundation Mid-Year Budget Update
by bobby - This user is a moderator
Posted on: Jan. 3, 2024, 10:18 a.m.
Content: It is. Updated to “ 2023 ” - thank you!
Likes: 3
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Security Council Vote #2 – Initial Member Ratification
by bobby - This user is a moderator
Posted on: Nov. 22, 2023, 5:25 p.m.
Content: The original post has been updated to introduce Alisha.eth as the initial Security Council Lead. Welcome, Alisha!
Likes: 5
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Security Council Vote #2 – Initial Member Ratification
by bobby - This user is a moderator
Posted on: Nov. 22, 2023, 12:25 p.m.
Content: The original post has been updated to introduce Alisha.eth as the initial Security Council Lead.
Welcome, Alisha!
Likes: 5
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Security Council: Vote #1 - Change to Security Model
by bobby - This user is a moderator
Posted on: Oct. 25, 2023, 2:58 p.m.
Content: chaselb: Can we get more information on how the cohorts work? The charter mentions that there is an initial cohort, who’s term lasts for 12 months, and a second, staggered cohort. Why do we have staggered elections? Some potential benefits of the staggered cohort model: Provides continuity - at least 50 % of council participants carry over their knowledge and experience at any given time. Allows periodic refreshment of perspectives - new members regularly join through elections. Avoids full turnover at once - retains institutional knowledge. Spreads out election cycles - prevents fatigue if all seats were up at the same time. Smooth transitions - outgoing and incoming members can share knowledge.
Likes: 3
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Security Council: Vote #1 - Change to Security Model
by bobby - This user is a moderator
Posted on: Oct. 25, 2023, 2:56 p.m.
Content: Sorry for the delay @Joxes and thanks for your patience. does all upgrades have ALL a 14 delay period or is there a method to execute them immediately for, by example, emergency purposes? All upgrades have a 14 day delay period. There is a withdrawal pause functionality that may be used by the Foundation in the event of emergency situations. This means that in the case of an emergency bugfix, L 2 → L 1 messages would be delayed by 14 days as well. We think that this is the right tradeoff to make, because it means that the Security Council cannot unilaterally pass an upgrade which steals assets. Deleting an output for any reason other than OP Mainnet bugs/invalid outputs is considered a violation of the Law of Chains? Based on the Law of Chains, deleting or censoring valid outputs on an OP Chain would generally be considered a violation, unless done to address a clear security threat or bug. Specifically: the Law of Chains states that OP Chain state transitions must follow the rules defined by the OP Stack to uphold state transition validity (Section 3 ). OP Chain state transitions, and cross-chain messages sent to or from OP Chains, must only be finalized if they follow the rules defined by the most recent Optimism Governance-approved release of the OP Stack. It also notes that Chain Servicers censoring or limiting transactions to extract profit or violate User Protections would violate security, uptime and liveness protections (Section 3 ). A Chain Servicer that: illegitimately censors, reorders, or limits transactions (e.g., by running off-chain sequencing code that is not approved by Optimism Governance, or by colluding with L 1 validators to artificially inflate sequencer batch submission costs) in order to extract a profit or violate User Protections. Finally, it also states that “Chain Servicers must promptly address emergency bug fixes or other security compromises.” can the Security Council act in an emergency if the sequencer, batcher or proposer acts maliciously (let’s say, massive censorship that not even governance can operate)? From the Security Council Charter: “The Security Council is permitted to preemptively address actual or anticipated bugs, defects, unplanned maintenance, or stability, integrity, availability, non-repudiation or other security issues with the OP Stack or any OP Chain." (Emergency Response section) The Charter also states: “All protocol upgrades, and the specific designation change that removes a sequencer for the sequencer allowlist, are subject to a 14 day delay period before becoming effective.” (Delayed Upgrades section)" However, the Law of Chains makes clear that enforcement of the Law of Chains is the responsibility of Optimism Governance. In other words, the Security Council’s ability to remove a sequencer should only be used for security-related incidents; more general violations of the Law of Chains should be adjudicated and enforced by Governance, not the Security Council. What is the method that will be used to check reaction times (also liveness)? Liveness checks will ensure that signers have access to their keys by extending the Safe contracts added functionality. The exact mechanism is currently under development. : From the Security Council Charter v 0 . 1 : “If the number of signers is reduced below 8 , then a safety mechanism is activated which hands control of the Security Council to the Foundation.” What is this mechanism and how does the Foundation intend to enforce it? This mechanism will be implemented in a new Safe module contract. In the event that the number of signers drops to 7 , all signers will be removed and the Foundation will be added as the sole signer.
Likes: 4
Replies: 1
Replies:
- Joxes: Thank you so much @bobby for the explanation. Nothing more to add, now is more clear for us.
We vote FOR this proposal.
The eventual introduction of the Security Council is an obvious step in the right direction and we are happy that it’s happening now. The details provided in the documentation and clarifications in this thread lead us to believe that Security Council Charter cover all the necessary points to achieve its effectiveness and reduce the previous risks as well as the new ones with this change.
-
Security Council: Vote #1 - Change to Security Model
by bobby - This user is a moderator
Posted on: Oct. 25, 2023, 10:58 a.m.
Content:
chaselb:
Can we get more information on how the cohorts work? The charter mentions that there is an initial cohort, who’s term lasts for 12 months, and a second, staggered cohort. Why do we have staggered elections?
Some potential benefits of the staggered cohort model:
Provides continuity - at least 50 % of council participants carry over their knowledge and experience at any given time.
Allows periodic refreshment of perspectives - new members regularly join through elections.
Avoids full turnover at once - retains institutional knowledge.
Spreads out election cycles - prevents fatigue if all seats were up at the same time.
Smooth transitions - outgoing and incoming members can share knowledge.
Likes: 3
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
