Profile of mboyle in Optimism
Posts by mboyle
-
[DRAFT PROPOSAL]: Moving to a Grants Council
by mboyle - No Role
Posted on: Nov. 9, 2022, 1:51 p.m.
Content: New projects with non-trivial amounts of complexity generally require a lot of labor, often by multiple specialized individuals. By locking grant money up for a year it limits the pool of builders to people who can afford to contribute significant amounts of work for free. This works against the goal of “maximizing the number of developers on Optimism.”
Likes: 6
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
[DRAFT PROPOSAL]: Moving to a Grants Council
by mboyle - No Role
Posted on: Nov. 9, 2022, 9:39 a.m.
Content: Locking up builder grants for a year really decreases the utility of a grant. Could someone elaborate on what the thinking is behind this?
Likes: 3
Replies: 2
Replies:
- OPUser: Assuming you are referring to one year lock up for builder sub committee.
I believe this is an excellent move for two reason.
Locking for one year reflect that individual is not here for quick money
Push the myopic community away and focus on long term sustainable governance.
- bobby: mboyle:
Locking up builder grants for a year really decreases the utility of a grant. Could someone elaborate on what the thinking is behind this?
Our goal here is to create long-term incentive alignment between the team and Optimism – not to fund up-front operational costs.
If access to capital is a blocker for a team to keep building, Optimism can help put them in touch with additional guidance or resources. The builder grants council will get instructions on the right way to support teams in this position.
-
[DRAFT PROPOSAL]: Moving to a Grants Council
by mboyle - No Role
Posted on: Nov. 9, 2022, 8:51 a.m.
Content: New projects with non-trivial amounts of complexity generally require a lot of labor, often by multiple specialized individuals. By locking grant money up for a year it limits the pool of builders to people who can afford to contribute significant amounts of work for free. This works against the goal of “maximizing the number of developers on Optimism.”
Likes: 6
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
[DRAFT PROPOSAL]: Moving to a Grants Council
by mboyle - No Role
Posted on: Nov. 9, 2022, 4:39 a.m.
Content: Locking up builder grants for a year really decreases the utility of a grant. Could someone elaborate on what the thinking is behind this?
Likes: 3
Replies: 2
Replies:
- OPUser: Assuming you are referring to one year lock up for builder sub committee.
I believe this is an excellent move for two reason.
Locking for one year reflect that individual is not here for quick money
Push the myopic community away and focus on long term sustainable governance.
- bobby: mboyle:
Locking up builder grants for a year really decreases the utility of a grant. Could someone elaborate on what the thinking is behind this?
Our goal here is to create long-term incentive alignment between the team and Optimism – not to fund up-front operational costs.
If access to capital is a blocker for a team to keep building, Optimism can help put them in touch with additional guidance or resources. The builder grants council will get instructions on the right way to support teams in this position.
-
[DRAFT][GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Rebel
by mboyle - No Role
Posted on: Oct. 26, 2022, 11:33 a.m.
Content: Thank you for your feedback–will address your questions below. marc: I believe you might want to rephrase this to clarify that those were different platforms Thank you–I’ve rewritten this section to be clearer as well as added some numbers around the current Rebel usage. marc: Clarify the current distribution among the creators. Will all creators receive an equal allocation on signup? how about on engagement? or how much users they attract to Rebet? Distribution will be based entirely on performance. To your question about the need to build wallet analysis tools, the reason for this is because we want to measure community member activity and reward creators based on how much network value their members create in aggregate. For example, if Creator A brings 500 measurably new users (wallets) to their Optimism project they will get 500 units of rewards for having done that, if Creator B signs up 500 existing optimism wallets, they would not receive “new user” bonus rewards. This goes for all measurable activity like members participating in governance, subsequently minting new OP stuff, creating engaging content, and anything else we can measure that adds value to the optimism ecosystem. Creators and project leaders will only earn OP rewards for value they create, so it will not be equal distributions among creators. The same is true for partnerships–the same rewards will apply and be distributed to partners based on the performance of the communities that they refer / onboard. marc: Is the token launched? Will you match 1 : 1 USD or OP value? What’s the utility of the token for Rebel, its creators and users? The token contract is launched but we haven’t created a liquidity pool or anything like that yet to support it. It’s still early on the details of how our REBEL token will work and on reflection I’d clarify by saying our intention is to eventually distribute REBEL alongside of the OP rewards but until we have our ducks in a row on how that works, we’d be happy to match the dollar value with our access pass NFTs, which seems to have been established as an accepted method of co-incentives.
Likes: 1
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
[DRAFT][GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Rebel
by mboyle - No Role
Posted on: Oct. 26, 2022, 9:50 a.m.
Content: We need one more delegate to make it into the current round of voting. If we could get approval from one of @mastermojo, @katie, @linda, @jackanorak, @lefterisjp, @krzkaczor, @david, @mjs, @cryptotesters, @GFXlabs I would greatly appreciate it. Approval is not an endorsement of the proposal. Additionally, I’m thankful to have been able to join The Web 3 Experience for a twitter spaces to discuss Rebel and this proposal specifically for those interested in hearing more about the project: twitter.com The Web 3 Experience Podcast | web 3 xm.eth @web 3 xm Join @Reformed_Normie and @espressoinsight for a live podcast with Rebel @rebeldotfun twitter.com/i/spaces/ 1 OyKA… 5 : 17 PM - 24 Oct 2022 5 4
Likes: 1
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
[DRAFT][GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Rebel
by mboyle - No Role
Posted on: Oct. 26, 2022, 7:33 a.m.
Content: Thank you for your feedback–will address your questions below.
marc:
I believe you might want to rephrase this to clarify that those were different platforms
Thank you–I’ve rewritten this section to be clearer as well as added some numbers around the current Rebel usage.
marc:
Clarify the current distribution among the creators. Will all creators receive an equal allocation on signup? how about on engagement? or how much users they attract to Rebet?
Distribution will be based entirely on performance. To your question about the need to build wallet analysis tools, the reason for this is because we want to measure community member activity and reward creators based on how much network value their members create in aggregate. For example, if Creator A brings 500 measurably new users (wallets) to their Optimism project they will get 500 units of rewards for having done that, if Creator B signs up 500 existing optimism wallets, they would not receive “new user” bonus rewards. This goes for all measurable activity like members participating in governance, subsequently minting new OP stuff, creating engaging content, and anything else we can measure that adds value to the optimism ecosystem. Creators and project leaders will only earn OP rewards for value they create, so it will not be equal distributions among creators.
The same is true for partnerships–the same rewards will apply and be distributed to partners based on the performance of the communities that they refer / onboard.
marc:
Is the token launched? Will you match 1 : 1 USD or OP value? What’s the utility of the token for Rebel, its creators and users?
The token contract is launched but we haven’t created a liquidity pool or anything like that yet to support it. It’s still early on the details of how our REBEL token will work and on reflection I’d clarify by saying our intention is to eventually distribute REBEL alongside of the OP rewards but until we have our ducks in a row on how that works, we’d be happy to match the dollar value with our access pass NFTs, which seems to have been established as an accepted method of co-incentives.
Likes: 1
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
[DRAFT][GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Rebel
by mboyle - No Role
Posted on: Oct. 26, 2022, 5:50 a.m.
Content: We need one more delegate to make it into the current round of voting. If we could get approval from one of @mastermojo, @katie, @linda, @jackanorak, @lefterisjp, @krzkaczor, @david, @mjs, @cryptotesters, @GFXlabs I would greatly appreciate it. Approval is not an endorsement of the proposal.
Additionally, I’m thankful to have been able to join The Web 3 Experience for a twitter spaces to discuss Rebel and this proposal specifically for those interested in hearing more about the project:
twitter.com
The Web 3 Experience Podcast | web 3 xm.eth
@web 3 xm
Join @Reformed_Normie and @espressoinsight for a live podcast with Rebel
@rebeldotfun
twitter.com/i/spaces/ 1 OyKA…
5 : 17 PM - 24 Oct 2022
5
4
Likes: 1
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
[Review] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal Cycle 7] Dope Wars
by mboyle - No Role
Posted on: Oct. 13, 2022, 6:22 a.m.
Content: Flagging that Dope Wars are now voting to move off of Optimism to Starknet or Polygon: https://snapshot.org/#/dopedao.eth/proposal/ 0 xd 46 d 2 cf 6507 e 8 f 404 c 48 c 220 c 60032003738731 b 207459002 ac 35 c 68 b 7 a 968 c 0 31 This is a disappointing outcome and should trigger some reflection for delegates and committees on the frameworks they’re using to evaluate proposals.
Likes: 4
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
[Review] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal Cycle 7] Dope Wars
by mboyle - No Role
Posted on: Oct. 13, 2022, 3:54 a.m.
Content: FWIW I think delegates must consider the broader landscape of L 2 competition right now. Optimism isn’t the only L 2 chain seeking great projects and builders and in my opinion has a fair amount of catchup to do in order to be competitive with Polygon, Immutable, Starknet, Solana, Arbitrum–the list goes on. Continuing to shut down one of the most prolific gaming and NFT projects in the ecosystem over a couple hundred thousand OP difference is, in my opinion, penny-wise and pound foolish. If (when?) Dope Wars give up on this and move to Starknet or Polygon or other chains that are more than willing to incentivize building with a fraction of the hassle it will be a major indictment on this process, community governance generally, and what builders have to look forward to when initiatives like RPG come online. Edit: If I’m doing the math correctly, 300 k OP represents 0 . 13 % of the total Phase 1 fund. I was around for the hotly contested debate at Dope Wars about a year ago now over whether the project should go all-in on Optimism to build out the game. They took a huge, arguably existential, bet on building here. In my eyes this warrants the benefit of the doubt over a difference in 0 . 05 % of the Phase 1 grant pool.
Likes: 5
Replies: 2
Replies:
- jrocki.bedrock: That is a fair assessment and that was a big concern of mine as well. In order to mitigate as much as possible we tried to provide a very clear path towards approval in the next cycle.
So ideally there will be a slight tweak in the OP amount, add to cycle 8 and in 2 weeks time the Dope Wars thread should have a yes recommendation from the committee
- ScaleWeb3: The proposal:
@salparadise @Butterbum: First of, we haven’t looked at the project in-depth. Our impression is that the proposal is detailed, incorporated previous feedback and can help with growth on Optimism.
The committee decision:
We also want to mention, that the committee seems to have made a very detailed review and we 100% agree on the approach of the committee.
jrocki.bedrock:
We as a committee believe the best approach to fund innovative and experimental proposals like Dope Wars is to do it in an iterative manner where we are able to maximize learnings while minimizing the initial outlay of $OP funding. With the understanding that projects are encouraged to request funding on an on-going basis and are more likely to receive that funding if their last proposal was a success for the Optimism ecosystem.
Our vote:
After evaluating the proposal and value-add of the project once more, we have decided to vote against the recommendation of the committee and voted YES as the distribution of funds is granular, well-specified & we believe Dope Wars & the games can help onboard users to Optimism.
General take on heated debates, grants, co-incentives:
Of course, we understand the disappointment raised in this thread and on Discords when a proposal is not approved multiple times. (We’ve experienced that also a few times in the past years.) Hence, the threat of leaving Optimism is understandable from your disappointment but neither supporting the cause nor convincing - especially as the committee only asks to slightly adjust the proposal.
We also see that various (good, alternative) ecosystems incentivize teams to build on their chain, and we believe Optimism should be competing for the best teams - that are aligned builders for the long-term.
mboyle:
Continuing to shut down one of the most prolific gaming and NFT projects in the ecosystem over a couple hundred thousand OP difference is, in my opinion, penny-wise and pound foolish. If (when?) Dope Wars give up on this and move to Starknet or Polygon or other chains that are more than willing to incentivize building with a fraction of the hassle it will be a major indictment on this process, community governance generally, and what builders have to look forward to when initiatives like RPG come online.
That said, there is a big difference in giving out 100K Op, 200K Op or 300K Op in one grant and not in several follow-up grants and milestone payments. Optimism seems to develop into a multi-billion $ project and a large l2 ecosystem within the Ethereum ecosystem. However, today, Optimism is an early-stage project with a $150M marketcap, with significant upcoming selling pressure (-> less $Op value to spend), somewhat undefined ecosystem growth strategy while traction & Op demand is yet to be seen.
We’ll finish this post with a comment from one of the best researchers in Web 3 that should make clear that co-incentives are good-to-have but should not be the key decisive factor where you build.
twitter.com
Dmitriy Berenzon
@dberenzon
Pour one out for the founders who took unnecessary platform risk and spent years building on a ghost chain because they received grant funding
2:16 AM - 13 Oct 2022
370
25
