Profile of latruite.eth in Optimism

Posts by latruite.eth

• Delegate Discovery Initiatives by latruite.eth - No Role
  Posted on: Oct. 14, 2024, 1:58 a.m.
  Content: Seeing Lots of Ghost Delegates (delegates who have NEVER voted) gain voting power and delegators this week after Airdrop # 5 is a huge failure… And I don’t blame the delegators, because the info isn’t exactly easy to spot. I believe that a simple red inactive checkmark could have helped us avoid this situation. CaptureB 874 × 417 17 . 4 KB Capture 11042 × 536 50 . 3 KB
  Likes: 1 Replies: 0
  Likers: cap
  No replies yet.
• Delegate Discovery Initiatives by latruite.eth - No Role
  Posted on: Oct. 12, 2024, 4:36 a.m.
  Content: It has been more than a year, time to revive this topic : Men only want ONE thing and this is voting activity based delegates sorting :innocent:
  Likes: 3 Replies: 0
  Likers: MinimalGravitas, wildmolasses, zcf
  No replies yet.
• Agora Updates & Feedback thread by latruite.eth - No Role
  Posted on: Oct. 12, 2024, 4:32 a.m.
  Content: Hey Team, Any news on redelegation ? Any news on delegate sorting mechanisms that provide info about the voting activity ? thanks a lot.
  Likes: 0 Replies: 0
  No likes yet.
  No replies yet.
• Airdrop #5 Feedback Thread by latruite.eth - No Role
  Posted on: Oct. 11, 2024, 1:59 a.m.
  Content: This Drop # 5 is disappointing from a governance perspective: =By setting a delegation bonus criteria without factoring in the activity of the chosen delegate, we’re basically telling people, "Delegate once, pick anyone, and forget about it. " I see people flagged as “active_delegator” who delegated to delegates that NEVER vote and of course there’s no incentive to change if you reward them for it. = The discoverability of delegate activity on the Agora platform is almost non-existent. The fact that the foundation doesn’t promote alternative sources of delegate visibility during massive delegation events like airdrops is very disappointing. During this drop 5 , a new cohort of OP holders will once again delegate their voting power to inactive delegates. How disappointing, What a missed opportunity…
  Likes: 4 Replies: 0
  Likers: cp0x-AlexQ, brichis, joanbp, cp287
  No replies yet.
• Season 6 Feedback Thread by latruite.eth - No Role
  Posted on: Oct. 6, 2024, 10:26 a.m.
  Content: I want to provide feedback for the upcoming Governance RetroRewards in Season 6 , as I believe the current system risks discouraging the very engagement we are trying to foster. By only retroactively rewarding the Top 100 delegates (even when participation is as low as 71 %), we risk ossifying the governance system and disincentivizing smaller delegates from continued participation. Some delegates outside the Top 100 outperform several Top 100 delegates in terms of voting activity, yet struggle to accumulate the voting power necessary to break into the top tier. My guess is that these smaller delegates who vote consistently are often eager to participate more actively in governance beyond just voting but they are discouraged by the fact that others are rewarded for the same amount of work, while they will never receive any compensation for their contribution. Instead of rewarding greater participation, this system entrenches power and voting inertia, which ultimately goes against our goal of encouraging active governance participation and fighting voter apathy. Moreover, we often hear how Top Delegates feel overwhelmed and exhausted, yet leaving RetroRewards exclusive to them does not promote wider participation—it has the opposite effect. In short, I think that continuing to reward only the Top 100 will discourage serious participants from staying engaged and will not fix the participation issues within our governance system. Broader rewards criteria (Top 200 , Top 300 ? but with higher thresholds for voting activity : 85 % ?) could be a first step to foster engagement. Context : It is also important to consider this feedback within the broader context. Over the years, it has become evident that the work of minority active delegates is not being supported. For instance: To date, there has been no effective mechanism to promote delegate discoverability. Tools like Govscore, Curia gov dashboard, Op Passports, and the Dune “Underrated Delegates” Dashboard do exist, but they have never been utilized during important delegation events, such as airdrop rounds, Retro Funding distributions, or grants. New OP holders are never informed of delegates’ activity levels. (Seeing all these Ghost Delegates (delegates who have NEVER voted) gain voting power this week after Airdrop # 5 is a huge L. To date, There is also no effective redelegation mechanism. It was clearly stated by the foundation that the voting activity of delegates (both Top 100 and beyond) was not considered within the scope of retroactive funding dedicated to governance. Yet, this mechanism could have been an opportunity to reward minority delegates and mitigate the ossification effect caused by limiting rewards to the Top 100 over many seasons.
  Likes: 10 Replies: 0
  Likers: Pumbi, ethdaily, web3magnetic, wildmolasses, v3naru_Curia, Mon, Tekr0x.eth, fujiar, brichis, inbestprogram.eth
  No replies yet.
• Retro Funding 6: Governance - Round details by latruite.eth - No Role
  Posted on: Oct. 6, 2024, 5:17 a.m.
  Content: Thank you for the feedback. I’m not asking for a change in the eligibility rules, but rather clarification. The statement that governance participation is “rewarded separately” gives the impression that all delegates are rewarded, which is not true for those outside the Top 100 . This is why I thought Retro Funding was a great occasion to encourage the voting activity of serious delegates ranked 101 - 300 . I’m not a Dune 2 expert, but I can see 9 particularly active delegates in this range who meet that threshold (spoiler alert: obviously myself included :sweat_smile: :sweat_smile:), with over 80 % participation (during S 5 & 6 ), yet unrewarded. However, if the Foundation can confirm that such an application would indeed fall outside the scope of eligibility and that they do not see the governance activities of delegates outside the Top 100 (e.g., during Season 5 ) as deserving or needing reward through either Retro Governance Participation Rewards or RetroFunding rounds, then I will gladly drop this idea. My goal is not to waste anyone’s time or to appear as if I’m begging for rewards. I’m fine with contributing to the Collective for free, but I would prefer not to give the impression that I’m being rewarded for something when that’s clearly not the case.
  Likes: 8 Replies: 1
  Likers: joanbp, Megalod, web3magnetic, Pumbi, Liliop.eth, ethdaily, jengajojo, inbestprogram.eth
  Replies:

  • op_julian: system: Delegate or Citizen governance participation, including forum engagement, participation in calls Hi @latruite.eth , My name is Julian and I work on the OP Foundation Gov team. I am able to confirm that based on our eligibility criteria, an application based on voting participation would indeed fall outside the scope of this Retro Funding Round. I see you already posted your feedback here (Season 6 Feedback Thread - #3 by latruite.eth) which is the best place for Feedback on our current process. Thank you for your continued engagement in our governance processes!
• Retro Funding 6: Governance - Round details by latruite.eth - No Role
  Posted on: Oct. 2, 2024, 12:55 p.m.
  Content: Sir, the main point of the reasoning here is that if you are part of the Top 100 , you have ALREADY been rewarded for your voting activity (your DAO already received 4000 OP for Season 5 - Top 100 delegate with > 70 % voting participation in Season 5 (abstain votes count towards participation). . But If we continue to reward exclusively the Top 100 for voting, it leads to ossification. I’m not sure I understand the meaning of your caption here; do you imply that my intentions are not in the interest of the Collective?
  Likes: 1 Replies: 0
  Likers: adar
  No replies yet.
• Retro Funding 6: Governance - Round details by latruite.eth - No Role
  Posted on: Sept. 19, 2024, 2:22 a.m.
  Content: system: Not-Eligible: The following types of projects are not eligible: Governance onboarding and promotion initiatives. Delegate or Citizen governance participation, including forum engagement, participation in calls & workshops, participation in survey and other activities which are part of the responsibilities of citizens and delegates. These activities are rewarded separately as part of the Retro Governance Participation Rewards Dear Collective, The statement regarding “Delegate or Citizen governance participation” being rewarded separately by the Retro Governance Participation Rewards is objectively misleading for delegates outside the Top 100 . Only retroactively rewarding the Top 100 , could lead to ossification within our governance system and discourage smaller delegates’ involvement and efforts. Many delegates outside the Top 100 have better participation statistics than some in the Top 100 . Encouraging active governance participation has always been a goal, particularly in combating voter apathy. Decentralization of governance is a public good. RetroFunding, originally intended to demonstrate that funding is possible for contributions to the public good within the collective, is the best way to incentivize active delegates ranked outside the Top 100 . I’ll advocate to submit a retro reward application recognizing serious delegates (ranked 101 to 300 ) who maintain over 85 % voting participation, ( so setting a higher threshold than the current Top 100 rewards.) Thank you for considering. Sorry to tag @maxwell here, but how could we address this kind of proposal concretely? Based on the current “Not-Eligible” scope explanation (which, in my opinion, is factually incorrect), this application wouldn’t pass the review process…
  Likes: 17 Replies: 2
  Likers: v3naru_Curia, joanbp, LauNaMu, delphine, Liliop.eth, Ken12138, Sixty, alexsotodigital, Chain_L, Pumbi, ethdaily, DanSingjoy, Yamtarlee, web3magnetic, ismailemin, jengajojo, inbestprogram.eth
  Replies:

  • ZEFIRIUM: I don’t agree. Our CIS DAO is large and in the top 76, and we work just as hard on trusting our users as any other active community. We also do AMAs with our subscribers and create content to bring more active users into the ecosystem. I understand that you are not in the top 100, however that is no reason to limit the ability of those who have also worked hard to participate.
  • ismailemin: As Brichis mentioned, I think we can provide feedback for the Retro Rewards to be held in Season 6. I just wanted to share my own thoughts to give an idea: The ITU Blockchain (@itublockchain), which I was previously involved with, went through quite tough processes when trying to enter the Top 100. If it weren’t for being a large community, it might not have made it into the Top 100. Therefore, instead of focusing on the Top 100, there should be a way to reward people who have spent a certain period as a specific delegator and have actively participated. Of course, this could make it susceptible to sybil attacks. Perhaps rewards could be distributed through a combination of a minimum delegated OP threshold and activity.
• Latruite - Delegate Communication Thread by latruite.eth - No Role
  Posted on: June 14, 2024, 4:34 a.m.
  Content: Upgrade Proposal # 9 : Fjord Network Upgrade : :green_circle: FOR :green_circle: This upgrade introduces several “nice-to-have” features and optimizations, for reduced gas costs and security.These changes were well-explained during a recent community call Anticapture Commission Amendment : :green_circle: FOR :green_circle: These amendments make the Anticapture Commission more efficient and ensure active participation, which helps prevent any one group from taking over governance. Chain Delegation Program Amendment : :green_circle: FOR :green_circle: I’m very enthusiastic about any initiatives that bring more chains into the Superchain. This is where the real competition lies. Season 6 : V 2 . Code of Conduct Council Renewal : :green_circle: FOR :green_circle: This improved version incorporates previous feedback and establishes a persistent council Grants Council Reviewer Elections: Mission Reviewer I support a diverse mix of candidates for the Grants Council Mission Reviewer elections, combining seasoned members of the Collective, varied profiles, and fresh faces : Derbygold.eth katie Jrocki Michael mastermojo GFXlabs jackanorak MoneyManDoug Sov DanSingjoy Tane Zeugh Antoine Grants Council Reviewer Elections: Milestones and Metrics Reviewer I support the continuity of the current reviewers, but I also want to encourage a quality fourth candidature Juanbug_PGov mmurthy v 3 naru_Curia LauNaMu Grants Council Reviewer Elections: Audit Reviewer I support the election of those security experts: m 4 rio.eth Anthias Labs Developer Advisory Board Elections mix of talented builders and experienced candidates : wildmolasses / Ed Mazurek wbnns Jepsen anika merklefruit shekhirin
  Likes: 12 Replies: 4
  Likers: Juanbug_PGov, Sov, Tane, Zeugh, katie, Jrocki, Liliop.eth, Michael, mastermojo, wildmolasses, DanSingjoy, LauNaMu
  Replies:

  • Zeugh: Appreciate the support!
  • Jrocki: I feel honored to make your top 12… so many good candidates
  • mastermojo: latruite.eth: I support a diverse mix of candidates for the Grants Council Mission Reviewer elections, combining seasoned members of the Collective, varied profiles, and fresh faces : Appreciate the love and support
  • wildmolasses: thanks for your vote on my DAB budget proposal and on the DAB elections as well
• Latruite - Delegate Communication Thread by latruite.eth - No Role
  Posted on: May 24, 2024, 11:57 a.m.
  Content: Protocol Upgrade # 7 : Fault Proofs : :green_circle: FOR :green_circle: This has been a long-awaited milestone. I’m very very happy to see this live on mainnet! It’s a big YES from me! Protocol Upgrade # 8 : Changes for Stage 1 Decentralization : :green_circle: FOR :green_circle: These changes, along with the fraud proofs mechanism, will lead us to Stage 1 decentralization. More security, more decentralization. I am obviously voting YES Governor Update Proposal # 2 : Improvements to advanced delegation allowance calculations : :green_circle: FOR :green_circle: Minor fix change I’m voting YES. Season 6 : Code of Conduct Council Renewal : :green_circle: FOR :green_circle: The budget ( 8 , 000 OP per member) seems reasonable given the wide scope of action. Very well-thought conflict resolution process, including mediation services. Season 6 : Intents Ratification: :green_circle: FOR :green_circle: I am fully aligned with the intents proposed by the Foundation. Each is very important. It’s great to see a focus on onboarding chains into the Superchain, which is crucial for achieving more and more network effects. Season 6 : Developer Advisory Board Renewal : Ed Mazurek Both proposals are of high quality. I lean towards Ed Mazurek proposal for its focus on transparency Season 6 : Grants Council Operating Budget : :green_circle: FOR :green_circle: The Grants Council and Gonna.eth are recognized for their incredible work and professionalism. The volume of work accomplished is impressive. There is no scenario in which I don’t support this. Season 6 : Intent Budgets : Abstain :orange_circle: I fully agree with the budget for Intent 3 . However, the proposed budget for Intent 1 requires further clarification. (I may change my vote if additional information is provided.)
  Likes: 1 Replies: 0
  Likers: wildmolasses
  No replies yet.