Profile of dmars300 in Optimism

Posts by dmars300

• Retro Funding 5: Voting Rationale Thread by dmars300 - govNERD, This user is a moderator
  Posted on: Oct. 29, 2024, 10:28 p.m.
  Content: Voting Rationale This document outlines my voting rationale for Retro Funding 5 . The purpose of Retro Funding is to reward positive impact. (ie: implement impact= funding) What I want to reward/prioritize: Work that help us advance the progress of the OP Stack and the Superchain as fast and effective as possible. How I Voted 8 M OP in total, distributed as follows: 50 % to OP Stack Research: We need to push research and development on the OP Stack as fast, efficient and optimized as possible, to achieve a bright Superchain future. 30 % to Ethereum Core Development: This is an important category, fundamental to the Superchain as a whole, but it has already been largely rewarded in past rounds. 20 % to tooling: Relevant, but currently, not as much as the other 2 . I used Top weighted distributions to reward the biggest to the highest impact project, which are the ones that matter the most. Focusing on quality, over quantity, as always. Extra notes I was invited as a non-technical voter. I continue to support the metrics based approach, this is definitely superior than other mechanisms. I really liked we could experiment with different distribution methods. As I said in the last round I still believe Citizens should be required to create and share their rationale for voting. This practice will help keep the Citizens House accountable, engaged, and aligned with the Optimistic Vision. The voting experience was even better than last round! Congrats to the team.
  Likes: 1 Replies: 0
  Likers: Megalod
  No replies yet.
• Context for OP Labs Retro Funding Proposal by dmars300 - govNERD, This user is a moderator
  Posted on: July 30, 2024, 2:38 p.m.
  Content: I like how OP Labs is approaching this. Agree with putting the resources where the mouth/vision is. This post is a good way to notify the collective and spark conversations. I support this move and as a Badgeholder I will vote in reflection of this on RF 5 :) I’d love to see more constant updates of OP Labs with the Collective
  Likes: 4 Replies: 0
  Likers: Carlosjmelgar, Jonas, brichis, fujiar
  No replies yet.
• [Mission Request] Create and Distribute Videos about Optimism Collective Governance by dmars300 - This user is a moderator, govNERD
  Posted on: July 16, 2024, 3:42 p.m.
  Content: Hey Delegates, First of all, I completely agree with the core idea behind this Mission: We need entertaining, easy-to-understand content to bring more people into the Collective. 100 %! We’ve actually already done a lot of this work. In Season 4 , we received a grant to create exactly this type of content. The reach of the distribution wasn’t very successful back then. You can find our videos here and here. I think this Mission should focus on distributing this content since a lot of the production work has already been done. I advocate for not duplicating work. These videos can be updated or modified if requested. They are of high quality and cover most of the topics relevant in the Collective currently. We’ll apply for this Mission, with a solid distribution proposal. Any comments/feedback is gladly welcomed!
  Likes: 5 Replies: 0
  Likers: DanSingjoy, Ratu85, pilar, Mon, Rosmari
  No replies yet.
• [Mission Request] Create and Distribute Videos about Optimism Collective Governance by dmars300 - govNERD, This user is a moderator
  Posted on: July 16, 2024, 3:42 p.m.
  Content: Hey Delegates, First of all, I completely agree with the core idea behind this Mission: We need entertaining, easy-to-understand content to bring more people into the Collective. 100 %! We’ve actually already done a lot of this work. In Season 4 , we received a grant to create exactly this type of content 29 . The reach of the distribution wasn’t very successful back then. You can find our videos here 32 and here 15 . I think this Mission should focus on distributing this content since a lot of the production work has already been done. I advocate for not duplicating work. These videos can be updated or modified if requested. They are of high quality and cover most of the topics relevant in the Collective currently. We’ll apply for this Mission, with a solid distribution proposal. Any comments/feedback is gladly welcomed!
  Likes: 5 Replies: 0
  Likers: DanSingjoy, Ratu85, pilar, Mon, Rosmari
  No replies yet.
• Retro Funding 4: Voting Rationale Thread by dmars300 - This user is a moderator, govNERD
  Posted on: July 5, 2024, 4:13 p.m.
  Content: Voting Rationale Retro Funding 4 This document outlines my voting rationale and framework for RF 4 . The purpose of Retro Funding is to reward positive impact. (ie: implement impact= funding as i see it) what I want to reward (ie: what impact means to me) I focus on real adoption, objective impact (such as gas fees), and useful applications. Contributions to sequencer profitability Value to users: Applications where users keep coming back means they are adding value metrics i used (ie: how i chose to measure impact) Gas Fees: An objective measure of network usage, computation and and value creation ( 50 %) Total Transactions: Reflects growth, demand for blockspace, and user value ( 25 %) Recurring Addresses: Indicates user retention and sustained value ( 25 %) metrics I did not like Trusted Recurring Users: The criteria for “trusted users” are too narrow and exclude many genuine users. We shouldn’t expect most users to meet these requirements, specially if we want mass adoption. Trusted Optimism Users’ Share of Total Interactions: Similar issues as above, but more problematic Average Trusted Daily Active Users (DAUs): Combines the “trusted user” issue with a potentially misleading “daily” metric. Many valuable applications (e.g., Optimism, Uniswap, Across) may not see daily use from most users but still provide significant impact. OpenRank Trusted Users: Further exacerbates the problems of the “trusted user” metric Logsacale: Gas Fees: This metric underrepresents the true impact. A value of 100 should be considered 10 times more impactful than 10 , not just twice as impactful as the logarithmic scale suggests. Other comments Open Source Multiplier: I opted not to use the Open Source multiplier for two reasons: a) @alexcutlerdoteth highlighted some issues with the OSO calculation. b) I don’t believe that simply making something open source necessarily doubles or triples its impact. Progress of the Experiment: I’m very encouraged by the direction of this round experiment. The shift towards using objective, concrete metrics for voting, rather than relying on “vibe checks” or popularity contests, represents a significant improvement. As a Citizen, I will continue to advocate for this approach, as I believe it’s the right path forward, as noted on my voting Rationale for RF 3 . Round 3 Voting Rationale Evaluate projects with an objective, quantitative method Transparency in Voting:I support the decision to make votes public, as it promotes accountability and fosters trust within the community. Lastly, I believe Citizens should be required to create and share their rationale for voting. This practice will help keep the Citizens House accountable, engaged, and aligned with the Optimistic Vision. Voting experience was amazing, great team work by the Foundation (@Jonas ) and Gitcoin (@owocki ) + OSO (@ccerv 1 )
  Likes: 15 Replies: 0
  Likers: alexcutlerdoteth, joanbp, Gonna.eth, Baiqi, fujiar, ccerv1, ehsanomics, ZoomerAnon, thesleeper, Liliop.eth, Umar, revmiller, FractalVisions, Ivan_liv, Gonzacolo
  No replies yet.
• Retro Funding 4: Voting Rationale Thread by dmars300 - govNERD, This user is a moderator
  Posted on: July 5, 2024, 4:13 p.m.
  Content: Voting Rationale Retro Funding 4 This document outlines my voting rationale and framework for RF 4 . The purpose of Retro Funding is to reward positive impact. (ie: implement impact= funding 3 as i see it) what I want to reward (ie: what impact means to me) I focus on real adoption, objective impact (such as gas fees), and useful applications. Contributions to sequencer profitability Value to users: Applications where users keep coming back means they are adding value metrics i used (ie: how i chose to measure impact) Gas Fees 4 : An objective measure of network usage, computation and and value creation ( 50 %) Total Transactions 4 : Reflects growth, demand for blockspace, and user value ( 25 %) Recurring Addresses 4 : Indicates user retention and sustained value ( 25 %) metrics I did not like Trusted Recurring Users: The criteria for “trusted users” are too narrow and exclude many genuine users. We shouldn’t expect most users to meet these requirements, specially if we want mass adoption. Trusted Optimism Users’ Share of Total Interactions 3 : Similar issues as above, but more problematic Average Trusted Daily Active Users (DAUs) 2 : Combines the “trusted user” issue with a potentially misleading “daily” metric. Many valuable applications (e.g., Optimism, Uniswap, Across) may not see daily use from most users but still provide significant impact. OpenRank Trusted Users 5 : Further exacerbates the problems of the “trusted user” metric Logsacale: Gas Fees 2 : This metric underrepresents the true impact. A value of 100 should be considered 10 times more impactful than 10 , not just twice as impactful as the logarithmic scale suggests. Other comments Open Source Multiplier: I opted not to use the Open Source multiplier for two reasons: a) @alexcutlerdoteth highlighted some issues with the OSO calculation 5 . b) I don’t believe that simply making something open source necessarily doubles or triples its impact. Progress of the Experiment: I’m very encouraged by the direction of this round experiment. The shift towards using objective, concrete metrics for voting, rather than relying on “vibe checks” or popularity contests, represents a significant improvement. As a Citizen, I will continue to advocate for this approach, as I believe it’s the right path forward, as noted on my voting Rationale for RF 3 . Round 3 Voting Rationale Evaluate projects with an objective, quantitative method Transparency in Voting:I support the decision to make votes public, as it promotes accountability and fosters trust within the community. Lastly, I believe Citizens should be required to create and share their rationale for voting. This practice will help keep the Citizens House accountable, engaged, and aligned with the Optimistic Vision. Voting experience was amazing, great team work by the Foundation (@Jonas ) and Gitcoin (@owocki ) + OSO (@ccerv 1 )
  Likes: 15 Replies: 0
  Likers: alexcutlerdoteth, joanbp, Gonna.eth, Baiqi, fujiar, ccerv1, ehsanomics, ZoomerAnon, thesleeper, Liliop.eth, Umar, revmiller, FractalVisions, Ivan_liv, Gonzacolo
  No replies yet.
• Retro Funding 5: Announcing Guest Voter Participation by dmars300 - govNERD, This user is a moderator
  Posted on: July 1, 2024, 3:39 p.m.
  Content: I like the experimentation of “guest voters”. Specially great that guest voters will be “experts”/“experienced” within the scope of RF 5 . Agreeing with @Gonna.eth about the “forced random sampling”. I propose the following solutions: a) Make a Citizens House vote on whether we want to use opt-in, random sampling or other method. b) Allow opt-in for any Badgeholder and on top of that do a Random Sampling of another X number of Badgeholders that did not opt-in. On the other hand, being a Citizen is a privilege with responsibilities. I think we should create standards of participation/voting/etc. And Citizens that do not meet/maintain these standards, should not be in the Citizen’s House.
  Likes: 1 Replies: 0
  Likers: joanbp
  No replies yet.
• Retro Funding 5: Announcing Guest Voter Participation by dmars300 - This user is a moderator, govNERD
  Posted on: July 1, 2024, 11:39 a.m.
  Content: I like the experimentation of “guest voters”. Specially great that guest voters will be “experts”/“experienced” within the scope of RF 5 . Agreeing with @Gonna.eth about the “forced random sampling”. I propose the following solutions: a) Make a Citizens House vote on whether we want to use opt-in, random sampling or other method. b) Allow opt-in for any Badgeholder and on top of that do a Random Sampling of another X number of Badgeholders that did not opt-in. On the other hand, being a Citizen is a privilege with responsibilities. I think we should create standards of participation/voting/etc. And Citizens that do not meet/maintain these standards, should not be in the Citizen’s House.
  Likes: 4 Replies: 0
  Likers: joanbp, revmiller, abuchtela, pfedprog
  No replies yet.
• Retro Funding 4: Application Review Process by dmars300 - This user is a moderator, govNERD
  Posted on: June 26, 2024, 1:58 p.m.
  Content: I want to make 2 polls only for Reviewers Poll # 1 : How do you feel about the Review Process? Great! Satisfied Ok/Meh Bad Horrible 21 voters Choose up to 1 option. Votes are public. Vote now! Results Poll # 2 : How many hours did you spend on the Review Process? 1 - 2 2 - 4 4 - 6 + 7 21 voters Choose up to 1 option. Votes are public. Vote now! Results
  Likes: 2 Replies: 0
  Likers: fujiar, lavande
  No replies yet.
• Retro Funding 4: Application Review Process by dmars300 - This user is a moderator, govNERD
  Posted on: June 26, 2024, 1:57 p.m.
  Content: Thanks to everyone who participated in this crucial part of Retro Funding! I served as the Lead Reviewer during this process and want to share feedback from the Reviewers: Project Code Checks: There was confusion about whether Reviewers needed to manually check the project’s code. Initially, it was stated that OSO would handle this, but later it seemed non-essential. Clearer guidance on this would have been helpful. Review Process Standardization: We needed a more defined spec for reviewing applications. Being clearer and more efficient would reduce unnecessary work for Reviewers. Charmverse Issues: We used Charmverse for the review process. Some badgeholders faced issues with login/usernames/wallets and couldn’t filter projects optimally. While the Charmverse team quickly addressed bugs, there’s room for improvement. Clear Due Dates/Timelines: The review process was divided into “batches,” but this wasn’t clearly communicated, causing confusion about deadlines. We have areas to improve, and we will. I’m proud of our work, which was better than last time! All feedback is welcome:)
  Likes: 2 Replies: 1
  Likers: ccerv1, mastermojo
  Replies:

  • OPUser: I dont see a dedicated feedback thread so using this. Compared to the last review cycle, i felt that the process is more streamlined, UI was intuitive and the instructions were clear, to those not active on the forum having supporting documentation like All Optimism GovFund Grants: Public Delivery Tracking - Google Sheets and this Optimism Ecosystem Contributions ?✨ · GitHub might be helpful. Suggestion even after it was clarified that having a new repo is not a red flag, i saw a couple of rejections. - suggestion is to update the parent guidelines docs to reflect such changes, my assumption is that its easy to miss a conversation on discord. The same goes for Retro Funding 4: Eligibility not met as i referred to this list couple of times. Please provide your reasoning for rejecting/accepting an application, blankly overriding a decision supported by evidence is morally wrong. By not inviting discussion, we are taking two step backwards. I am not sure how can we enforce it though.