Profile of santicristobal in Optimism
Posts by santicristobal
-
Retro Funding: Moving from broad to narrow scoped rounds
by santicristobal - No Role
Posted on: March 25, 2024, 10:59 p.m.
Content: Hi everyone,
Very interesting decision, I’m super curious to see how Round 4 will look like in practice. I believe this is a huge change, and while there are some risks in moving to more narrow rounds, I feel it’s a step in the right direction for a few reasons:
Feedback from Round 3 made it quite clear that something had to change, specially considering that the number of applicants will most likely keep increasing.
We already have some good experience and learnings from “broad” rounds after 3 iterations.
Specific (smaller) rounds should be much easier to handle and I envision this smaller rounds are much more likely to become “more frequent” in the long term (similar to gitcoin rounds).
That said, it still feels like a bold move and I would love to have more details on how things are gonna work out. I also feel it’s very important to communicate this change as broadly as possible, since there are many teams whose work might be affected as a result.
Another concern worth raising is the following: if we have specific rounds, with “domain experts” deciding on each round, we will for sure have more “informed/educated” voting, but aren’t we risking centralization? I feel that the chances of collusion/gatekeeping/friend-favouring are much higher if you only have let’s say 40 badgeholders per domain.
This might be already thought of since probably the number of badgeholders will increase, but I’m very curious to have more details on the thought process and the analysis done behind the decision.
Likes: 3
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
[DRAFT] RetroPGF 4 Onboarding & Support Program
by santicristobal - No Role
Posted on: Jan. 29, 2024, 3:59 p.m.
Content: I think it’s worth trying to understand the problem in more depth. I agree with @katie that we had many low value projects, and with @Griff that we had a lot of high quality projects not applying. This sounds as a Type 1 / Type 2 error situation. Do we prefer to have 1000 projects knowing that will imply people getting money they might not deserve BUT (hypothetically) ensure all high quaility projects are onboarded and join the Collective or instead have say 100 projects knowing this will (hypothetically) eliminate low quality projects BUT meaning high quality projects are left outside? My personal view is that the first scenario should be preferred. I would rather have more projects applying, even though we know many of them will not be worthy. I think this could be fixed with stronger filtering by the Foundation and Community. On the other hand, assuming we want more projects, what is the way to get them? Is it really necessary to do onboarding and support or should increasing visibility be enough (as suggested by @jackanorak)?
Likes: 1
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
[DRAFT] RetroPGF 4 Onboarding & Support Program
by santicristobal - No Role
Posted on: Jan. 29, 2024, 10:59 a.m.
Content: I think it’s worth trying to understand the problem in more depth.
I agree with @katie that we had many low value projects, and with @Griff that we had a lot of high quality projects not applying.
This sounds as a Type 1 / Type 2 error situation.
Do we prefer to have 1000 projects knowing that will imply people getting money they might not deserve BUT (hypothetically) ensure all high quaility projects are onboarded and join the Collective
or instead have say 100 projects knowing this will (hypothetically) eliminate low quality projects BUT meaning high quality projects are left outside?
My personal view is that the first scenario should be preferred. I would rather have more projects applying, even though we know many of them will not be worthy. I think this could be fixed with stronger filtering by the Foundation and Community.
On the other hand, assuming we want more projects, what is the way to get them? Is it really necessary to do onboarding and support or should increasing visibility be enough (as suggested by @jackanorak)?
Likes: 1
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
[READY TO VOTE] Integration of Optimism Gov and RGPF into University Courses,
by santicristobal - No Role
Posted on: Jan. 28, 2024, 6 p.m.
Content: I really like the general idea but agree with some of the concerns some people raised.
I wouldn’t aim for a whole module built from scratch, but rather focus on educators already teaching Ethereum and DAO governance.
I believe paying educators directly can be tricky, since they shouldn’t be able to have personal gains from introducing a given topic in their curricula.
Instead, we could help fund workshops and meetups organized directly by students in blockchain clubs or connect with educators and offer them OP to reward / fund students.
Educators already working with Ethereum can give out OP to their students and have them transact on-chain, so they get hands-on experience with DeFI, DAOs and whatever the professors are teaching in their program.
IMHO best way to have immediate impact would be to have 5 regional teams managing a budget of 10 k to fund students in as many universities as possible. It’s important that each team has strong connections with people teaching at universities in their region.
At 10 / 20 usd per student, each team should be able to onboard 1000 people, provided they are able to find the educators willing to participate.
I can imagine this being a huge success in Argentina, really looking forward to hear from people in other parts of the world.
Likes: 1
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
[READY TO VOTE] Onramping Mission Request
by santicristobal - No Role
Posted on: Jan. 26, 2024, 4:06 p.m.
Content: I think this is a great example of a Mission that would benefit from having 2 or 3 teams working in parallel. There could be a team focusing on privacy and ZK onboarding, while other experimenting with Account Abstraction as suggested by @Joxes. I believe this is an area in which we should encourage as much experimentation as possible and that can be better achieved by running several experiments at the same time.
Likes: 2
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
[READY TO VOTE] Onboarding Prominent Content Creators in Strategic Markets to OP and RPGF
by santicristobal - No Role
Posted on: Jan. 26, 2024, 4:02 p.m.
Content: GM @Carlosjmelgar @Michael I think onboarding content creators to OP and RPGF is a great idea. Optimism has a very appealing vision, strong incentives and plenty of supporting documentation and material. I think it would largely benefit from connecting to big accounts and their audiences. That said, I have some questions since I don’t completely understand the Mission: The mkt campaigns will involve OP projects (say Velodrome), not Optimism itself. Is that correct? The team executing the Mission will onboard and support the content creators on the campaigns. What tasks does this support include specifically? Will the content creators be paid with the funds from the Mission or should they expect to be rewarded by RetroPGF only? In the former case, what is the % that the team executing the Mission will receive for their onboarding and support?
Likes: 0
Replies: 0
No likes yet.
No replies yet.
-
[READY TO VOTE] AI Assistant for governance support Mission Request
by santicristobal - No Role
Posted on: Jan. 26, 2024, 3:46 p.m.
Content: Joxes: I agree that the GAIT tools developed by MakerDAO are worth experimenting with. However, we should proceed step-by-step and not rush into implementing tools like this in governance processes unless there is a pressing need, here I personally I would take a more conservative approach in this season. As a first step, I believe this mission request serves as a good test of the team’s ability to design a responsive and attractive tool, while also seeing how it is received by the community members. I strongly support this Mission Request and agree on the benefits of keeping it as a product instead of fragmenting features into smaller products.
Likes: 1
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
[READY TO VOTE] Create Videos about Optimism
by santicristobal - No Role
Posted on: Jan. 26, 2024, 3:43 p.m.
Content: While I’m a big fan of creating content to onboard new people to the Optimism Collective, I believe there’s already great content out there. I think that we need to focus on finding ways to distribute that content instead of creating new. I recommend taking a look at the great video series 8 created by @dmars 300 and Cryptoversidad’s team. We’ve also created an introductory course to onboard newcomers at Optimistic Academy and it didn’t have the impact we expected, mostly because we hadn’t built a distribution channel to share the connect and attract people to Optimism. I believe now it’s time to work on reaching new people rather than creating more additional materials.
Likes: 6
Replies: 1
Replies:
- Rosmari: Hey Santi,
Thanks for reviewing the mission request and providing your feedback. Thank you for sharing the links as well, I enjoyed watching the videos from @dmars300’s team and learned a lot exploring courses in the Optimistic Academy!
While I agree that we should increase distribution for existing content, it’s also very important to create new content for the following reasons:
Amplifying Reach through New Content Creation
The Optimism Collective benefits from having many types of video content and video creators that engage with a wide range of audiences with diverse interests. One of the best ways to distribute existing content is to create new content that promotes it.
This mission would allow many video creators to promote the video courses from Cryptoversidad, the Optimistic Academy, and all the other great video content in Optimism. For example, I’d be happy to promote this work in my videos if this mission request is approved. The synergy between content creation and strategic promotion can amplify our collective reach to help more people learn about Optimism.
Reaching Audiences with Diverse Video Content
This Mission Request is structured to enable a wide variety of helpful video content for the Collective, such as vlogs, news shows, podcasts, game shows, and musical live streams about Optimism. For example, you can see several kinds of videos that @DanSingjoy and I are thinking about creating for this Mission Request here.
This flexible kind of mission would allow any kind of video creator to pursue their imaginations and create content that most excite their audiences. These types of videos provide unique value that is quite different from the educational videos mentioned above and seems to be missing in the Optimism Collective. This diversity of video content enables creators to connect with audiences in unique, impactful ways.
The Multiplicative Impact of Video Content
I noticed a similar rationale explaining why videos are so impactful during the Optimistic Academy course for “Optimism Vision and Values” module here. Here’s an interesting quote (from 0:55 - 1:35):
“First of all, according to the optimistic vision, impact is a driving force. So let’s put an example. Let’s say you do a video tutorial on using a new technology, a new application. Like, something small right? Maybe it has 1000 views, but let’s say that that tutorial gets used by a developer to build a new application. And it may be an application that you end up using yourself. But it may be also an application used by thousands of people, people that at the same time will get inspired by this application which solves their problems and build new things or create other YouTube tutorials that more people will see…”
When the Optimism Collective supports more video creators with a wider range of video content, the odds of this exponential impact increase. With this in mind, I ask you to reconsider your previous thoughts. Thank you for your time and consideration.
-
[DRAFT] RetroPGF 4 Onboarding & Support Program
by santicristobal - No Role
Posted on: Jan. 26, 2024, 3:36 p.m.
Content: Griff: Assisting projects in completing RetroPGF applications. I like the general idea but share @AxlVaz’s concern with the difficulty of establishing an amount of funds for the mission. I think a way of making the Mission Request better would be outlining more clear and defined tasks. I understand that this would be “designing a plan”, which is part of the Mission’s JTBD as presented by @Griff, but I believe we could agree on a few expected outcomes to make the Mission more concrete, instead of leaving the design of the program 100 % up to the team that will execute. Griff already included a few very interesting points that we could define as expected tasks to make the result more predictable: Onboard XXX projects to RetroPGF. Establish weekly office hours to support any project that needs help with retroPGF. Host 10 sessions to showcase projects participating in RetroPGF 4 . Creating documents or video tutorials explaining how to participate of RetroPGF. Create additional documents, videos or live sessions going deeper into what impact means. All that said, I also believe this is work worth doing even without a Mission Request, since it can be rewarded with RetroPGF. I even ask myself is selecting a specific team to carry this Mission wouldn’t act as discouragement to people that might tackle the same problem and expect to receive RetroPGF.
Likes: 1
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
RetroPGF Round 3 Feedback Thread
by santicristobal - No Role
Posted on: Jan. 26, 2024, 2:18 p.m.
Content: Hi everyone! After going through the whole discussion, I would like to express my support for some of the ideas I think have the most potential to improve retroPGF. @ethernaut Specialized Divisions: Let’s form working groups within badgeholders, each focusing on a specific category. This division allows for a deeper dive and specialized attention. Discovery Focus: Each category should have at least one group committed to uncovering and supporting emerging or less-known, long-tail projects. Self-Reporting Mechanism: Encourage projects to start their RetroPGF application early, documenting accomplishments as they go. Community Attestation: Allow badgeholders to endorse project milestones, integrating community verification into the process. @wslyvh Project categories could also help reduce the work and effort for badgeholders. Dividing those over the respective groups, would allow them to focus more on the areas they’re familiar with. @cheeky-gorilla I would love to see something like Twitter’s “Community notes”, or more specifically, badgeholder notes, on application pages themselves. E.g. there were a number of projects that did not list all their funding, I would like to be able to publicly add a note to that section and include sources showing that they raised more money. @Michael A higher percentage of badgeholders we bring in should have a stake in the OP Collective. This means bringing them in from the various chains & protocols within the Superchain. All badgeholders should have some kind of orientation which involves testing their knowledge about Ether’s Phoenix. All projects should be required to submit a small stake of 5 OP. If their project is removed for breaking the rules, this stake is not returned. All projects not removed for rule breaking get their stake returned. Hackernews or Reddit style comment section under the project description. Comments can only be made by badgeholders or the project itself. Optionally, comments can be upvoted or downvoted by badgeholders based on their usefulness. @Ariiellus Also, some people noticed that 0 OP allocation should not be count for quorum. The most discussed centered around defining guidelines beyond the minimum number of ballots required for RetroPGF selection. Proposals included different threshold tiers with capped allocations for each tier. @crisgarner Accept fewer projects in total or increase badgeholders but limit the number of projects a badgeholder has to revise. @fujiar I’m looking forward to the next round where we might consider the option to differentiate between individual applications and projects in the Retro Public Good funding scheme. @geoist I believe lists should be editable, similar to how ballots are. Lists carry huge influence and can significantly impact application outcomes. @MaximeServais Financial compensation for badgeholders is essential. Allocating a part of the RetroPGF budget for this acknowledges their extensive efforts. A Few Additional Thoughts Here are some ideas that might not be reflected in the quotes and are worth mentioning. I’m not a BH myself so take from where it comes. I believe lists can create biased, and should be editable. I think the minimum quorum was ok, but could be improved under a tier system (for example, if a project had 16 ballots, it could have received say 50 % of the allocated amount). I also think it’s worth experimenting with different “filtering” options and anti-collusion mechanism. We should find a defined way to promote your own projects to avoid popularity contests or Twitter DM begging. Number of projects will continue increasing, might be worth being more rigorous with prior filtering. A potential solution could be having Badgeholders focus on specific categories instead of being expected to go through all projects. I like some of the ideas involving randomness and capped number of projects badgeholders can review. Crazy Idea: What if we based allocation on “approval rate”? Say each application is randomnly shown to 100 badgeholders that have to go for yes or no. Each application will then have a rate from 1 to 100 %. We can use those rates to distribute the OP according to whatever distribution we decide makes more sense. Would be interesting to consider defining standard (or suggested) metrics for different categories. I highly recommend going through @ccerv 1 ’s article on the psychology of the game 1 . Finally, thank you everyone for all your hard work and congratulations on yet another succesful experiment. Let’s not forget this is a long-term game.
Likes: 8
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
