This is just an idea I like from GFX Labs delegate thread.
Going forward, I will using this thread to share my view and opinion on proposals and governance in general.
The author of the post states their intention to share their views and opinions on proposals and governance within the GFX Labs delegate thread.
Should we allow Phase 0 Project to Submit a new funding Proposal in Phase 1 .
Should we allow Phase 0 Project to Submit a new funding Proposal in Phase 1 .
Should we allow Phase 0 Project to Submit a new funding Proposal in Phase 1 15 .
Should we allow Phase 0 Project to Submit a new funding Proposal in Phase 1 15 .
This is just an idea I like from GFX Labs delegate thread. Going forward, I will using this thread …
This is just an idea I like from GFX Labs delegate thread. Going forward, I will using this thread to share my view and opinion on proposals and governance in general.
Should we allow Phase 0 Project to Submit a new funding Proposal in Phase 1 15 .
Should we allow Phase 0 Project to Submit a new funding Proposal in Phase 1 15 .
I think with RPGF round upon us and more and more project proposal coming towards us related to pub…
I think with RPGF round upon us and more and more project proposal coming towards us related to public goods, we should work on filtering the definition of public good.
What is public good to you
I think with RPGF round upon us and more and more project proposal coming towards us related to pub…
I think with RPGF round upon us and more and more project proposal coming towards us related to public goods, we should work on filtering the definition of public good.
What is public good to you 3
GF Phase 1 ; Cycle 2 vote and some feedback.
Proposal A: Optimistic Railway 3 - Yes
Proposal B…
GF Phase 1 ; Cycle 2 vote and some feedback.
Proposal A: Optimistic Railway 3 - Yes
Proposal B: dForce - Yes
Proposal C: GYSR 2 - No
Proposal D: Mean Finance - Yes
Proposal E: Raptor - No
Proposal F: Balancer & BeethovenX - Yes
Proposal G: Summa - No
Proposal H: WardenSwap 1 - Yes
Proposal I: Pickle Finance - Yes
Proposal J: Ooki Protocol - No
Proposal K: Infinity Wallet - Yes
Proposal L: Beefy - No
Proposal M: 0 xHabitat - No
Proposal N: Thales 1 - No
Proposal O: ParaSwap 3 - Yes
Proposal P: Rotki - Yes
Proposal Q: Candide 1 - Yes
Few other suggestion(from Phase 1 ) that we need to improve on:-
There should be exact date and time on when proposal will go live, not just the date but time too for example 12 PM CET, GMT or any time zone will work. This time there was lot of confusion.
Would be great if delegate(s) took some of their time and provide feedback before the proposal goes to voting, I have see that many project(s) are quite active on their proposal, seeking feedback and willing to update and amend their proposal depending the feedback from users/delegates.
What’s the point of giving suggestion when proposal is live, the project team cant amend the suggestion even if they want to, jumping it at the last moment is not helping anyone.
There should be at least 24 hr cool down period before bringing proposals to voting, during this time the responsibility will be on project team to make sure that their proposal is adhering to all the requirement and is ready for voting, if they miss to do so, they will be accountable rather than OP Team or delegates.
This one is for me but would like to mention, delegate should be precise in their word when providing their support to a proposal.
We need some active participation from OP team on discord gov channel, during Phase 1 , I had few queries related to couple of proposal, I did post them on discord gov general channel but did not got any response from team. Again, as a delegate, its my responsibility to make a judgement call but little help here and there could help me make a better decision.
If project submitting a proposal is not willing to submit a report on their last phase spending sighting extra and unnecessary work, I expect that OP Team should provide us with such a report. This is again just for me, I am not asking other do the same or suggesting on making this a rule but I am willing to invest my time looking at those report so that
a. I can make better decision on the basis of those report.
b. I would like to make sure that funds are being used properly ie. accountability.
This is to the team submitting the proposal focusing on LP and airdrop, on “why the users will stay once incentives are over”; these two are my favorite line
a. users will come for incentive and stay for the product
b. we believe our project has this and this to offer and users will stay because of this
I request you to understand this, those using L 2 as their main chain to do their transaction, we dont need someone to tell us about a unique and innovative project, its vice versa, we are looking for them. If I am using a platform just because of an incentive, I will use it as long as incentive exist but on the other hand I will continue to use if the platform is self-sustainable and rewarding me for using it, OP incentive are just a boost, if you need an extra incentive to sustain your project, you need to re-think your stagey. Again, my opinion, highly dependent on individual.
See you all in Phase 2 . Cheers!
cryptoAYA: Now post by the way.
You are pointing to good reasons. Actually I as someone who just joined the Optimism Collective, expected to see more interactions on discord, and of course on the Twitter rolling around the Optimism Collective. I have found the idea and the Vision very profound and thorough. I will check the proposals that you posted here, hope in near future, I get the chance to vote. Have fun
GF Phase 1 ; Cycle 2 vote and some feedback.
Proposal A: Optimistic Railway - Yes
Proposal B: dF…
GF Phase 1 ; Cycle 2 vote and some feedback.
Proposal A: Optimistic Railway - Yes
Proposal B: dForce - Yes
Proposal C: GYSR - No
Proposal D: Mean Finance - Yes
Proposal E: Raptor - No
Proposal F: Balancer & BeethovenX - Yes
Proposal G: Summa - No
Proposal H: WardenSwap - Yes
Proposal I: Pickle Finance - Yes
Proposal J: Ooki Protocol - No
Proposal K: Infinity Wallet - Yes
Proposal L: Beefy - No
Proposal M: 0 xHabitat - No
Proposal N: Thales - No
Proposal O: ParaSwap - Yes
Proposal P: Rotki - Yes
Proposal Q: Candide - Yes
Few other suggestion(from Phase 1 ) that we need to improve on:-
There should be exact date and time on when proposal will go live, not just the date but time too for example 12 PM CET, GMT or any time zone will work. This time there was lot of confusion.
Would be great if delegate(s) took some of their time and provide feedback before the proposal goes to voting, I have see that many project(s) are quite active on their proposal, seeking feedback and willing to update and amend their proposal depending the feedback from users/delegates.
What’s the point of giving suggestion when proposal is live, the project team cant amend the suggestion even if they want to, jumping it at the last moment is not helping anyone.
There should be at least 24 hr cool down period before bringing proposals to voting, during this time the responsibility will be on project team to make sure that their proposal is adhering to all the requirement and is ready for voting, if they miss to do so, they will be accountable rather than OP Team or delegates.
This one is for me but would like to mention, delegate should be precise in their word when providing their support to a proposal.
We need some active participation from OP team on discord gov channel, during Phase 1 , I had few queries related to couple of proposal, I did post them on discord gov general channel but did not got any response from team. Again, as a delegate, its my responsibility to make a judgement call but little help here and there could help me make a better decision.
If project submitting a proposal is not willing to submit a report on their last phase spending sighting extra and unnecessary work, I expect that OP Team should provide us with such a report. This is again just for me, I am not asking other do the same or suggesting on making this a rule but I am willing to invest my time looking at those report so that
a. I can make better decision on the basis of those report.
b. I would like to make sure that funds are being used properly ie. accountability.
This is to the team submitting the proposal focusing on LP and airdrop, on “why the users will stay once incentives are over”; these two are my favorite line
a. users will come for incentive and stay for the product
b. we believe our project has this and this to offer and users will stay because of this
I request you to understand this, those using L 2 as their main chain to do their transaction, we dont need someone to tell us about a unique and innovative project, its vice versa, we are looking for them. If I am using a platform just because of an incentive, I will use it as long as incentive exist but on the other hand I will continue to use if the platform is self-sustainable and rewarding me for using it, OP incentive are just a boost, if you need an extra incentive to sustain your project, you need to re-think your stagey. Again, my opinion, highly dependent on individual.
See you all in Phase 2 . Cheers!
cryptoAYA: Now post by the way.
You are pointing to good reasons. Actually I as someone who just joined the Optimism Collective, expected to see more interactions on discord, and of course on the Twitter rolling around the Optimism Collective. I have found the idea and the Vision very profound and thorough. I will check the proposals that you posted here, hope in near future, I get the chance to vote. Have fun
I think with RPGF round upon us and more and more project proposal coming towards us related to pub…
I think with RPGF round upon us and more and more project proposal coming towards us related to public goods, we should work on filtering the definition of public good. What is public good to you 2
Feedback is like a medicine
Feedback- When should we give feedback, I work in tadifi and would give…
Feedback is like a medicine
Feedback- When should we give feedback, I work in tadifi and would give an example from my experience, we have 3 month feedback cycle where we provide feedback to each other and of-course by nature feedback should be constructive and not destructive.
In Phase 1 , we are providing our reasoning on why we are voting yes/no which is good to have and we should continue this.
I want to discuss the timing, from my experience, if I only give feedback at end of 3 months, I will see the improvement in next quarter but if I share it as I see a scope of improvement, I can see the changes in next days/week.
Similarly, can we work on giving the feedback at early stage so that the project team can improve their proposal before it goes for voting. Think from the project team side, they are active on the forum, spending their time, seeking input, feedback, answering users comment and most important willing to improve their proposal depending on the input. Now, if you only provide feedback at the end when they cant amend their proposal even if they want, what the point of that feedback. Feedback is like a medicine, it works best when given at right time. I feel sympathy with project team and I share their frustration.
GF Phase 1 ; Cycle 2 vote and some feedback. Proposal A: Optimistic Railway 3 - Yes Proposal B…
GF Phase 1 ; Cycle 2 vote and some feedback. Proposal A: Optimistic Railway 3 - Yes Proposal B: dForce - Yes Proposal C: GYSR 2 - No Proposal D: Mean Finance - Yes Proposal E: Raptor - No Proposal F: Balancer & BeethovenX - Yes Proposal G: Summa - No Proposal H: WardenSwap 1 - Yes Proposal I: Pickle Finance - Yes Proposal J: Ooki Protocol - No Proposal K: Infinity Wallet - Yes Proposal L: Beefy - No Proposal M: 0 xHabitat - No Proposal N: Thales 1 - No Proposal O: ParaSwap 3 - Yes Proposal P: Rotki - Yes Proposal Q: Candide 1 - Yes Few other suggestion(from Phase 1 ) that we need to improve on:- There should be exact date and time on when proposal will go live, not just the date but time too for example 12 PM CET, GMT or any time zone will work. This time there was lot of confusion. Would be great if delegate(s) took some of their time and provide feedback before the proposal goes to voting, I have see that many project(s) are quite active on their proposal, seeking feedback and willing to update and amend their proposal depending the feedback from users/delegates. What’s the point of giving suggestion when proposal is live, the project team cant amend the suggestion even if they want to, jumping it at the last moment is not helping anyone. There should be at least 24 hr cool down period before bringing proposals to voting, during this time the responsibility will be on project team to make sure that their proposal is adhering to all the requirement and is ready for voting, if they miss to do so, they will be accountable rather than OP Team or delegates. This one is for me but would like to mention, delegate should be precise in their word when providing their support to a proposal. We need some active participation from OP team on discord gov channel, during Phase 1 , I had few queries related to couple of proposal, I did post them on discord gov general channel but did not got any response from team. Again, as a delegate, its my responsibility to make a judgement call but little help here and there could help me make a better decision. If project submitting a proposal is not willing to submit a report on their last phase spending sighting extra and unnecessary work, I expect that OP Team should provide us with such a report. This is again just for me, I am not asking other do the same or suggesting on making this a rule but I am willing to invest my time looking at those report so that a. I can make better decision on the basis of those report. b. I would like to make sure that funds are being used properly ie. accountability. This is to the team submitting the proposal focusing on LP and airdrop, on “why the users will stay once incentives are over”; these two are my favorite line a. users will come for incentive and stay for the product b. we believe our project has this and this to offer and users will stay because of this I request you to understand this, those using L 2 as their main chain to do their transaction, we dont need someone to tell us about a unique and innovative project, its vice versa, we are looking for them. If I am using a platform just because of an incentive, I will use it as long as incentive exist but on the other hand I will continue to use if the platform is self-sustainable and rewarding me for using it, OP incentive are just a boost, if you need an extra incentive to sustain your project, you need to re-think your stagey. Again, my opinion, highly dependent on individual. See you all in Phase 2 . Cheers!
cryptoAYA: Now post by the way.
You are pointing to good reasons. Actually I as someone who just joined the Optimism Collective, expected to see more interactions on discord, and of course on the Twitter rolling around the Optimism Collective. I have found the idea and the Vision very profound and thorough. I will check the proposals that you posted here, hope in near future, I get the chance to vote. Have fun
Feedback is like a medicine Feedback- When should we give feedback, I work in tadifi and would give…
Feedback is like a medicine Feedback- When should we give feedback, I work in tadifi and would give an example from my experience, we have 3 month feedback cycle where we provide feedback to each other and of-course by nature feedback should be constructive and not destructive. In Phase 1 , we are providing our reasoning on why we are voting yes/no which is good to have and we should continue this. I want to discuss the timing, from my experience, if I only give feedback at end of 3 months, I will see the improvement in next quarter but if I share it as I see a scope of improvement, I can see the changes in next days/week. Similarly, can we work on giving the feedback at early stage so that the project team can improve their proposal before it goes for voting. Think from the project team side, they are active on the forum, spending their time, seeking input, feedback, answering users comment and most important willing to improve their proposal depending on the input. Now, if you only provide feedback at the end when they cant amend their proposal even if they want, what the point of that feedback. Feedback is like a medicine, it works best when given at right time. I feel sympathy with project team and I share their frustration.
Final Voting : Phase 1 ; Cycle 3
Final result for this phase.
Proposal A: Superfluid : YES 3
P…
Final Voting : Phase 1 ; Cycle 3
Final result for this phase.
Proposal A: Superfluid : YES 3
Proposal B: Kromatika : YES 1
Proposal C: Hundred Finance : YES 1
Proposal D: Biconomy : YES
Proposal E: Dope Wars : NO
Proposal F: Infinity Wallet : YES
Proposal G: Dexguru : NO 1
Proposal H: Overnight[.]fi : NO
Proposal I: Saddle Finance : NO
With this Cycle 3 comes to an end and going forward, I would like to see more detailed plan towards token distribution and user retain especially towards project focusing on LP incentive.
Other thing I would to share is focus on co-incentive, if your project is giving APY on providing liquidity to a pool is not a co-incentive but rather a feature of your project/product. What you are willing to offer from your side to match the token request is a co-incentive such as your project token, if your project does have a token our cant provide the co-incentive, mention it as such.
And this is one quite important, if you disagree with any decision or comment, please explain your reasoning and ask open ended question.
This one goes to OP Team, we should follow OP manual and rules mention there and should not consider any proposal if they does not have approval from a delegate with voting power mentioned in the OP Manual.
If you are mentioning something in the manual, stick to it or just remove the line. I saw that they have mentioned that they will follow the rule going forward which is a good thing to see.
See you in Phase 1 ; Cycle 3 .
Cheers!
PS: As usual, I am looking forwards towards your feedback and/or criticism on how to improve the gov and what can I do to support you more.
Final Voting : Phase 1 ; Cycle 3
Final result for this phase.
Proposal A: Superfluid : YES
Propo…
Final Voting : Phase 1 ; Cycle 3
Final result for this phase.
Proposal A: Superfluid : YES
Proposal B: Kromatika : YES
Proposal C: Hundred Finance : YES
Proposal D: Biconomy : YES
Proposal E: Dope Wars : NO
Proposal F: Infinity Wallet : YES
Proposal G: Dexguru : NO
Proposal H: Overnight[.]fi : NO
Proposal I: Saddle Finance : NO
With this Cycle 3 comes to an end and going forward, I would like to see more detailed plan towards token distribution and user retain especially towards project focusing on LP incentive.
Other thing I would to share is focus on co-incentive, if your project is giving APY on providing liquidity to a pool is not a co-incentive but rather a feature of your project/product. What you are willing to offer from your side to match the token request is a co-incentive such as your project token, if your project does have a token our cant provide the co-incentive, mention it as such.
And this is one quite important, if you disagree with any decision or comment, please explain your reasoning and ask open ended question.
This one goes to OP Team, we should follow OP manual and rules mention there and should not consider any proposal if they does not have approval from a delegate with voting power mentioned in the OP Manual.
If you are mentioning something in the manual, stick to it or just remove the line. I saw that they have mentioned that they will follow the rule going forward which is a good thing to see.
See you in Phase 1 ; Cycle 3 .
Cheers!
PS: As usual, I am looking forwards towards your feedback and/or criticism on how to improve the gov and what can I do to support you more.
Final Voting : Phase 1 ; Cycle 3 Final result for this phase. Proposal A: Superfluid : YES 3 P…
Final Voting : Phase 1 ; Cycle 3 Final result for this phase. Proposal A: Superfluid : YES 3 Proposal B: Kromatika : YES 1 Proposal C: Hundred Finance : YES 1 Proposal D: Biconomy : YES Proposal E: Dope Wars : NO Proposal F: Infinity Wallet : YES Proposal G: Dexguru : NO 1 Proposal H: Overnight[.]fi : NO Proposal I: Saddle Finance : NO With this Cycle 3 comes to an end and going forward, I would like to see more detailed plan towards token distribution and user retain especially towards project focusing on LP incentive. Other thing I would to share is focus on co-incentive, if your project is giving APY on providing liquidity to a pool is not a co-incentive but rather a feature of your project/product. What you are willing to offer from your side to match the token request is a co-incentive such as your project token, if your project does have a token our cant provide the co-incentive, mention it as such. And this is one quite important, if you disagree with any decision or comment, please explain your reasoning and ask open ended question. This one goes to OP Team, we should follow OP manual and rules mention there and should not consider any proposal if they does not have approval from a delegate with voting power mentioned in the OP Manual. If you are mentioning something in the manual, stick to it or just remove the line. I saw that they have mentioned that they will follow the rule going forward which is a good thing to see. See you in Phase 1 ; Cycle 3 . Cheers! PS: As usual, I am looking forwards towards your feedback and/or criticism on how to improve the gov and what can I do to support you more.
I wan to discuss project boosting their delegate power with governance fund
I wan to discuss project boosting their delegate power with governance fund
I wan to discuss project boosting their delegate power with governance fund 6
I wan to discuss project boosting their delegate power with governance fund 6
I wan to discuss project boosting their delegate power with governance fund 6
I wan to discuss project boosting their delegate power with governance fund 6
How do you feel about a Conflict Committee Metagovernance
As of now, OPerating manual doe…
How do you feel about a Conflict Committee Metagovernance
As of now, OPerating manual does not have any guideline on handling conflict of interest and I want to hear your opinion on this.
Challenge:-
Lets say a project feels that an entity is voting against their proposal or giving someone a favor for some reason.
They can raise their voice but once voting is done, no one can do anything and foundation will act on the final result.
What if some one feels that I am acting and voting unethically.
Again, we dont have any thing in OPerating manual…
How do you feel about a Conflict Committee Metagovernance As of now, OPerating manual doe…
How do you feel about a Conflict Committee Metagovernance As of now, OPerating manual does not have any guideline on handling conflict of interest and I want to hear your opinion on this. Challenge:- Lets say a project feels that an entity is voting against their proposal or giving someone a favor for some reason. They can raise their voice but once voting is done, no one can do anything and foundation will act on the final result. What if some one feels that I am acting and voting unethically. Again, we dont have any thing in OPerating manual…
How do you feel about a Conflict Committee Rules and process As of now, OPerating manual …
How do you feel about a Conflict Committee Rules and process As of now, OPerating manual does not have any guideline on handling conflict of interest and I want to hear your opinion on this. Challenge:- Lets say a project feels that an entity is voting against their proposal or giving someone a favor for some reason. They can raise their voice but once voting is done, no one can do anything and foundation will act on the final result. What if some one feels that I am acting and voting unethically. Again, we dont have any thing in OPerating manual…
With this Season 1 comes to an end.
A: Rocket Pool - Yes
B: Boardroom - Yes
C: dHedge - Yes
D: xT…
With this Season 1 comes to an end.
A: Rocket Pool - Yes
B: Boardroom - Yes
C: dHedge - Yes
D: xToken - No
E: Byte Mason Product Suite - Yes
F: GARD - No
G: Beefy - Yes
See you in season 2
Edit 1 :- With recent development on Byte Mason, I have decide to change my vote from Yes to Abstain.
With this Season 1 comes to an end. A: Rocket Pool - Yes B: Boardroom - Yes C: dHedge - Yes D: xT…
With this Season 1 comes to an end. A: Rocket Pool - Yes B: Boardroom - Yes C: dHedge - Yes D: xToken - No E: Byte Mason Product Suite - Yes F: GARD - No G: Beefy - Yes See you in season 2 Edit 1 :- With recent development on Byte Mason, I have decide to change my vote from Yes to Abstain.
I see that many users are still not aware of season 2 proposal guideline. Hope this help.
image …
I see that many users are still not aware of season 2 proposal guideline. Hope this help.
image 2136 × 1574 205 KB
Please ask if you are in doubt.
Grant Proposal Template
Gov-Temp-Check on Discord
I see that many users are still not aware of season 2 proposal guideline. Hope this help.
image …
I see that many users are still not aware of season 2 proposal guideline. Hope this help.
image 2136 × 1574 205 KB
Please ask if you are in doubt.
Grant Proposal Template
Gov-Temp-Check on Discord 1
I see that many users are still not aware of season 2 proposal guideline. Hope this help. image …
I see that many users are still not aware of season 2 proposal guideline. Hope this help. image 2136 × 1574 205 KB Please ask if you are in doubt. Grant Proposal Template Gov-Temp-Check on Discord 1
Retrospective:-
Good Part
We are getting fair review of each proposal which was much needed, a hug…
Retrospective:-
Good Part
We are getting fair review of each proposal which was much needed, a huge boost to this gov.
Dicourse is more tightly monitor and managed all thanks to @lavande
Finally we got a dedicated website containing all info related to gov in one place
Some scope of improvement:-
user(s) are still not sure about rules and guidelines of gov process
lack of engagement from community apart from delegates and it going down each passing cycle, @Prometheus you up ?
Cycle 6 Voting:-
I followed the recommendation provided by dedicated committees except for bankless-academy where I voted against.
Public funding is one the major steps towards Ether’s Phoenix and we have a dedicated funding for that but that does not necessarily mean we should wait for Citizen house to be active before considering funding public good. But to me, if we are funding public good from Gov fund it must be focused only towards Optimism.
With RPGF we fund public good retroactively, impact = profit, and in long run I wish to see us going beyond public funding and towards funding common good.
Few other thoughts in general.
5 th OP Community Governance Call [September 27 th @ 10 am PT / 1 pm ET / 7 pm CET] Community Calls
I wont be joining the call but see if you could squeeze few question from my side.
During the cycle, I wanted to contribute to proposal outside of my committee(DeFI & NFT ) but I was hesitant as this might seem like I am front running the dedicated committee ? This is my personal, what does the committee think about this ?
When giving delegate approval, shouldn’t we also write our reasoning ? A single line statement, what did you like in the proposal?
New dedicated website (Discord link)…
Retrospective:-
Good Part
We are getting fair review of each proposal which was much needed, a hug…
Retrospective:-
Good Part
We are getting fair review of each proposal which was much needed, a huge boost to this gov.
Dicourse is more tightly monitor and managed all thanks to @lavande
Finally we got a dedicated website containing all info related to gov in one place
Some scope of improvement:-
user(s) are still not sure about rules and guidelines of gov process
lack of engagement from community apart from delegates and it going down each passing cycle, @Prometheus you up ?
Cycle 6 Voting:-
I followed the recommendation provided by dedicated committees except for bankless-academy 1 where I voted against.
Public funding is one the major steps towards Ether’s Phoenix 2 and we have a dedicated funding for that but that does not necessarily mean we should wait for Citizen house to be active before considering funding public good. But to me, if we are funding public good from Gov fund it must be focused only towards Optimism.
With RPGF we fund public good retroactively, impact = profit, and in long run I wish to see us going beyond public funding and towards funding common good.
Few other thoughts in general.
5 th OP Community Governance Call [September 27 th @ 10 am PT / 1 pm ET / 7 pm CET] Community Calls
I wont be joining the call but see if you could squeeze few question from my side.
During the cycle, I wanted to contribute to proposal outside of my committee(DeFI & NFT ) but I was hesitant as this might seem like I am front running the dedicated committee ? This is my personal, what does the committee think about this ?
When giving delegate approval, shouldn’t we also write our reasoning ? A single line statement, what did you like in the proposal?
New dedicated website (Discord link)…
Retrospective:- Good Part We are getting fair review of each proposal which was much needed, a hug…
Retrospective:- Good Part We are getting fair review of each proposal which was much needed, a huge boost to this gov. Dicourse is more tightly monitor and managed all thanks to @lavande Finally we got a dedicated website containing all info related to gov in one place Some scope of improvement:- user(s) are still not sure about rules and guidelines of gov process lack of engagement from community apart from delegates and it going down each passing cycle, @Prometheus you up ? Cycle 6 Voting:- I followed the recommendation provided by dedicated committees except for bankless-academy 1 where I voted against. Public funding is one the major steps towards Ether’s Phoenix 2 and we have a dedicated funding for that but that does not necessarily mean we should wait for Citizen house to be active before considering funding public good. But to me, if we are funding public good from Gov fund it must be focused only towards Optimism. With RPGF we fund public good retroactively, impact = profit, and in long run I wish to see us going beyond public funding and towards funding common good. Few other thoughts in general. 5 th OP Community Governance Call [September 27 th @ 10 am PT / 1 pm ET / 7 pm CET] ? Governance I wont be joining the call but see if you could squeeze few question from my side. During the cycle, I wanted to contribute to proposal outside of my committee(DeFI & NFT ) but I was hesitant as this might seem like I am front running the dedicated committee ? This is my personal, what does the committee think about this ? When giving delegate approval, shouldn’t we also write our reasoning ? A single line statement, what did you like in the proposal? New dedicated website (Discord link)…
Retrospective:- Good Part We are getting fair review of each proposal which was much needed, a hug…
Retrospective:- Good Part We are getting fair review of each proposal which was much needed, a huge boost to this gov. Dicourse is more tightly monitor and managed all thanks to @lavande Finally we got a dedicated website containing all info related to gov in one place Some scope of improvement:- user(s) are still not sure about rules and guidelines of gov process lack of engagement from community apart from delegates and it going down each passing cycle, @Prometheus you up ? Cycle 6 Voting:- I followed the recommendation provided by dedicated committees except for bankless-academy 1 where I voted against. Public funding is one the major steps towards Ether’s Phoenix 2 and we have a dedicated funding for that but that does not necessarily mean we should wait for Citizen house to be active before considering funding public good. But to me, if we are funding public good from Gov fund it must be focused only towards Optimism. With RPGF we fund public good retroactively, impact = profit, and in long run I wish to see us going beyond public funding and towards funding common good. Few other thoughts in general. 5 th OP Community Governance Call [September 27 th @ 10 am PT / 1 pm ET / 7 pm CET] Community Calls I wont be joining the call but see if you could squeeze few question from my side. During the cycle, I wanted to contribute to proposal outside of my committee(DeFI & NFT ) but I was hesitant as this might seem like I am front running the dedicated committee ? This is my personal, what does the committee think about this ? When giving delegate approval, shouldn’t we also write our reasoning ? A single line statement, what did you like in the proposal? New dedicated website (Discord link)…
Voted in accordance with Committee recommendation except for Tarot .
Overall this cycle not smooth,…
Voted in accordance with Committee recommendation except for Tarot .
Overall this cycle not smooth, debate on late proposal submission, development funding, past fund accountability and some form of gov gate-keeping from different entities.
Hopefully we can discuss all this during coming reflection period and try to learn and improve the gov process.
Voted in accordance with Committee recommendation except for Tarot . Overall this cycle not smooth,…
Voted in accordance with Committee recommendation except for Tarot . Overall this cycle not smooth, debate on late proposal submission, development funding, past fund accountability and some form of gov gate-keeping from different entities. Hopefully we can discuss all this during coming reflection period and try to learn and improve the gov process.
My Role in L 2 DAO
With season 2 coming to an end, I see few question surrounding my role with L …
My Role in L 2 DAO
With season 2 coming to an end, I see few question surrounding my role with L 2 DAO project and I would like provide some context around it from my side.
Before actily involved in OP gov as a delegate, I was a discord member of different projects on Optimism including L 2 DAO when Phase 0 proposal was in incubation. During that time, L 2 DAO was seeking their community feedback on forming the proposal in a way to maximize its impact on project.
There were other community member active on their discord, helping each other, topic of discussion was not limited to Phase 0 proposal but all web 3 space including discussion on other chain, nft and metaverse.
To encourage community engagement, especially from new users, L 2 DAO created a new Discord role by name L 2 DAO “Jade” , similar to “nerd”, “developer”, “contributor” and so on we have on our OP discord.
To recognize overall involvement from community side, they gave this role to me including two other community member. That’s all, that was my role in L 2 DAO. I hold a discord role for some time, soon after that they redefined their discord architecture and I think this role does not exist anymore. Soon after Phase 0 , I got more involved in OP governance, I left many other discord group, including some bigger project on optimism, just because I wanted to focus more on OP gov and I didnt had time and bandwidth to follow up with other project.
In short, I contributed to a DAO, they recognized active contribution by creating a fun discord role which was assigned to me including others. This role does not exist anymore, I got more involved in OP Gov reducing my activity in other project. Left many discord group, still follow few but not active as I used to be.
Hope this help.
My Role in L 2 DAO With season 2 coming to an end, I see few question surrounding my role with L …
My Role in L 2 DAO With season 2 coming to an end, I see few question surrounding my role with L 2 DAO project and I would like provide some context around it from my side. Before actily involved in OP gov as a delegate, I was a discord member of different projects on Optimism including L 2 DAO when Phase 0 proposal was in incubation. During that time, L 2 DAO was seeking their community feedback on forming the proposal in a way to maximize its impact on project. There were other community member active on their discord, helping each other, topic of discussion was not limited to Phase 0 proposal but all web 3 space including discussion on other chain, nft and metaverse. To encourage community engagement, especially from new users, L 2 DAO created a new Discord role by name L 2 DAO “Jade” , similar to “nerd”, “developer”, “contributor” and so on we have on our OP discord. To recognize overall involvement from community side, they gave this role to me including two other community member. That’s all, that was my role in L 2 DAO. I hold a discord role for some time, soon after that they redefined their discord architecture and I think this role does not exist anymore. Soon after Phase 0 , I got more involved in OP governance, I left many other discord group, including some bigger project on optimism, just because I wanted to focus more on OP gov and I didnt had time and bandwidth to follow up with other project. In short, I contributed to a DAO, they recognized active contribution by creating a fun discord role which was assigned to me including others. This role does not exist anymore, I got more involved in OP Gov reducing my activity in other project. Left many discord group, still follow few but not active as I used to be. Hope this help.
Season 2 Feedback
1 . Number of OP delegated and participation going down:-
Total number of OP …
Season 2 Feedback
1 . Number of OP delegated and participation going down:-
Total number of OP Delegated is still going down
Overall engagement is lowest, apart from selected committee member and few community member no one is actively taking part in discussion
Suggestion : -
We might see flock of new users after second airdrop depending on multiplier on the basis of token delegation and active participation, second boost could be because of Citizen house. Citizen house will come sooner than the second airdrop and I expect that to create some good vibe and may boost engagement on token house too.
1 . An independent entity should monitor engagement from community on this
forum and reward them retroactively. (could not be gamed easily).
2 . Taking feedback from active delegates could be another option, they might
know who has contributed during feedback cycle
3 . Point based reward system (likes + times replied to and so on) - as
mentioned by SR + Prometheus on Season 2 feedback Thread. Could be gamed
but I am in favor of trying this for one season.
4 . Another similar option could be asking the proposal author to share feedback.
From receiver end, if they see impact of a community member and they should
get some extra point. Repeat and filter it.
5 . If a user feel their contribution deserves reward, they can create a post,
submit and show their contributions.
6 . We can start retroactively, there are couple of active community member
on this forum and, I believe, we could try to include them in next season.
2 . Road ahead
We already know that foundation want us to experiment, suggest and implement changes but we might need hint on road-ahead.
Suggestion : -
May be a good idea to set the goal, a short term goal. What do we want to achieve in next 6 months.
Are we still focusing on Liquidity and user on-boarding or can we put priority on long term sustainable vision, beyond just LPing and mercenary liquidity.
3 . Proposal Evaluation: -
I am no longer looking at Phase 0 but season 1 and 2 was mostly focused towards LPing and user incentives. Going forward I would like to see some changes.
1 . Personally, I am looking at direct protocol iteration.
2 . May be supporting development of project, incrementally.
3 . Liquidity does look good but as long as OP incentives are on-going.
If you are submitting a second proposal, proper accountability of
prior/existing proposal could help.
Trusted L 1 project > Innovative project (even in dev phase) > user on-boarding > Pure LPing
"How would you know if a fire is self-sustainable if you keep on putting the gas in it ".
polynya: I think it can be pretty simple to begin with - announce that Airdrop #2 is incoming, and OP holders who vote for active delegates will qualify. The exact parameter for what qualifies as “active delegate” can be chosen just before the airdrop. Multipliers to those who were already voting before the announcement, of course. The question is how this can be executed - we need to work with the OF team?
Can think about more complex systems like you mention after that - it’ll be a challenge to make it happen without being gamed.
Season 2 Feedback 1 . Number of OP delegated and participation going down:- Total number of OP …
Season 2 Feedback 1 . Number of OP delegated and participation going down:- Total number of OP Delegated is still going down Overall engagement is lowest, apart from selected committee member and few community member no one is actively taking part in discussion Suggestion : - We might see flock of new users after second airdrop depending on multiplier on the basis of token delegation and active participation, second boost could be because of Citizen house. Citizen house will come sooner than the second airdrop and I expect that to create some good vibe and may boost engagement on token house too. 1 . An independent entity should monitor engagement from community on this forum and reward them retroactively. (could not be gamed easily). 2 . Taking feedback from active delegates could be another option, they might know who has contributed during feedback cycle 3 . Point based reward system (likes + times replied to and so on) - as mentioned by SR + Prometheus on Season 2 feedback Thread. Could be gamed but I am in favor of trying this for one season. 4 . Another similar option could be asking the proposal author to share feedback. From receiver end, if they see impact of a community member and they should get some extra point. Repeat and filter it. 5 . If a user feel their contribution deserves reward, they can create a post, submit and show their contributions. 6 . We can start retroactively, there are couple of active community member on this forum and, I believe, we could try to include them in next season. 2 . Road ahead We already know that foundation want us to experiment, suggest and implement changes but we might need hint on road-ahead. Suggestion : - May be a good idea to set the goal, a short term goal. What do we want to achieve in next 6 months. Are we still focusing on Liquidity and user on-boarding or can we put priority on long term sustainable vision, beyond just LPing and mercenary liquidity. 3 . Proposal Evaluation: - I am no longer looking at Phase 0 but season 1 and 2 was mostly focused towards LPing and user incentives. Going forward I would like to see some changes. 1 . Personally, I am looking at direct protocol iteration. 2 . May be supporting development of project, incrementally. 3 . Liquidity does look good but as long as OP incentives are on-going. If you are submitting a second proposal, proper accountability of prior/existing proposal could help. Trusted L 1 project > Innovative project (even in dev phase) > user on-boarding > Pure LPing "How would you know if a fire is self-sustainable if you keep on putting the gas in it ".
polynya: I think it can be pretty simple to begin with - announce that Airdrop #2 is incoming, and OP holders who vote for active delegates will qualify. The exact parameter for what qualifies as “active delegate” can be chosen just before the airdrop. Multipliers to those who were already voting before the announcement, of course. The question is how this can be executed - we need to work with the OF team?
Can think about more complex systems like you mention after that - it’ll be a challenge to make it happen without being gamed.
A badge for Season two committee member(s)
Committee member are going through KYC and I w…
A badge for Season two committee member(s)
Committee member are going through KYC and I was thinking it would be great if we get a SBT from OP Foundation to prove that our address is KYCed. Well idea is to build on-chain identity, one address one soul, and this might be a start.
I created this badge because you can mint it on a new address and still hold the “verified” tag, its free and fun. Only drawback is that sample size is quite small, just 18 delegates between 4 committees. So if you are part of any committee, you can mint a zk ba…
I think it can be pretty simple to begin with - announce that Airdrop # 2 is incoming, and OP hold…
I think it can be pretty simple to begin with - announce that Airdrop # 2 is incoming, and OP holders who vote for active delegates will qualify. The exact parameter for what qualifies as “active delegate” can be chosen just before the airdrop. Multipliers to those who were already voting before the announcement, of course. The question is how this can be executed - we need to work with the OF team?
Can think about more complex systems like you mention after that - it’ll be a challenge to make it happen without being gamed.
A badge for Season two committee member(s) Committee member are going through KYC and I w…
A badge for Season two committee member(s) Committee member are going through KYC and I was thinking it would be great if we get a SBT from OP Foundation to prove that our address is KYCed. Well idea is to build on-chain identity, one address one soul, and this might be a start. I created this badge because you can mint it on a new address and still hold the “verified” tag, its free and fun. Only drawback is that sample size is quite small, just 18 delegates between 4 committees. So if you are part of any committee, you can mint a zk ba…
I think it can be pretty simple to begin with - announce that Airdrop # 2 is incoming, and OP hold…
I think it can be pretty simple to begin with - announce that Airdrop # 2 is incoming, and OP holders who vote for active delegates will qualify. The exact parameter for what qualifies as “active delegate” can be chosen just before the airdrop. Multipliers to those who were already voting before the announcement, of course. The question is how this can be executed - we need to work with the OF team? Can think about more complex systems like you mention after that - it’ll be a challenge to make it happen without being gamed.
Special Voting Cycle 9 a
[Special Voting Cycle # 9 a]: Grants Council Reflection Period Propos…
Special Voting Cycle 9 a
[Special Voting Cycle # 9 a]: Grants Council Reflection Period Proposal
As outlined in Guide to Season 3 : Course Correcting, the current Governance Fund grants process faces significant challenges. Luckily, there is a lot of room for optimization. Some goals for Season 3 include:
creating a more streamlined and consistent process for proposers
setting a pace for grant distributions
defining a clear scope, with clear differentiation from Partner Fund
creating accountability via smaller grant sizes and milestone-based distributions
reducing the workload on delegates…
Voted in Favor :-
easy to reach consensus when group size is small
communication could be fast tracked, this was a challenge in season 2
Streamline the process, making grant funding less complex
I also believe that putting decision power is few entities could lead to centralization of power and might create an Eco-chamber which will hurt us in long run.
But supporting this proposal because OF is working on iteration, feedback from past season is reflected in this proposal and we are more aligned toward experiment from beginning.
[Special Voting Cycle # 9 a]: Protocol Delegation Program Reflection Period Proposal
Please read Guide to Season 3 : Course Correcting for full context before reading this proposal.
Protocols building on Optimism are among its most important stakeholders and they value having a voice in the development of this ecosystem. Throughout Season 1 & 2 , protocols have repeatedly expressed this interest by requesting that they be able to self-delegate grants as a means to participate in Token House governance. Self-delegation of grants has historically been discouraged. This proposal pre…
Voted : Against
Governance is difficult, chaotic co-ordination could be tiresome some time, few entities will try to make it political or even worse, a pvp battle. But even after all this, we should try to be more inclusive, inclusive of other protocol, builders and community.
I am reading “skin-in-the-game” narrative as a positive side of this proposal which I agree but what about other protocol bringing more value to our chain even if they are not native ? What do we want to built, a cult or a community ?
I shared the similar thought here and also agree with @BP_Gamma here
Special Voting Cycle 9 a
[Special Voting Cycle # 9 a]: Grants Council Reflection Period Propos…
Special Voting Cycle 9 a
[Special Voting Cycle # 9 a]: Grants Council Reflection Period Proposal
As outlined in Guide to Season 3 : Course Correcting, the current Governance Fund grants process faces significant challenges. Luckily, there is a lot of room for optimization. Some goals for Season 3 include:
creating a more streamlined and consistent process for proposers
setting a pace for grant distributions
defining a clear scope, with clear differentiation from Partner Fund
creating accountability via smaller grant sizes and milestone-based distributions
reducing the workload on delegates…
Voted in Favor :-
easy to reach consensus when group size is small
communication could be fast tracked, this was a challenge in season 2
Streamline the process, making grant funding less complex
I also believe that putting decision power is few entities could lead to centralization of power and might create an Eco-chamber which will hurt us in long run.
But supporting this proposal because OF is working on iteration, feedback from past season is reflected in this proposal and we are more aligned toward experiment from beginning.
[Special Voting Cycle # 9 a]: Protocol Delegation Program Reflection Period Proposal
Please read Guide to Season 3 : Course Correcting for full context before reading this proposal.
Protocols building on Optimism are among its most important stakeholders and they value having a voice in the development of this ecosystem. Throughout Season 1 & 2 , protocols have repeatedly expressed this interest by requesting that they be able to self-delegate grants as a means to participate in Token House governance. Self-delegation of grants has historically been discouraged. This proposal pre…
Voted : Against
Governance is difficult, chaotic co-ordination could be tiresome some time, few entities will try to make it political or even worse, a pvp battle. But even after all this, we should try to be more inclusive, inclusive of other protocol, builders and community.
I am reading “skin-in-the-game” narrative as a positive side of this proposal which I agree but what about other protocol bringing more value to our chain even if they are not native ? What do we want to built, a cult or a community ?
I shared the similar thought here and also agree with @BP_Gamma here 3
Special Voting Cycle 9 a [Special Voting Cycle # 9 a]: Grants Council ? Governance As ou…
Special Voting Cycle 9 a [Special Voting Cycle # 9 a]: Grants Council ? Governance As outlined in Guide to Season 3 : Course Correcting, the current Governance Fund grants process faces significant challenges. Luckily, there is a lot of room for optimization. Some goals for Season 3 include: creating a more streamlined and consistent process for proposers setting a pace for grant distributions defining a clear scope, with clear differentiation from Partner Fund creating accountability via smaller grant sizes and milestone-based distributions reducing the workload on delegates… Voted in Favor :- easy to reach consensus when group size is small communication could be fast tracked, this was a challenge in season 2 Streamline the process, making grant funding less complex I also believe that putting decision power is few entities could lead to centralization of power and might create an Eco-chamber which will hurt us in long run. But supporting this proposal because OF is working on iteration, feedback from past season is reflected in this proposal and we are more aligned toward experiment from beginning. [Special Voting Cycle # 9 a]: Protocol Delegation Program ? Governance Please read Guide to Season 3 : Course Correcting for full context before reading this proposal. Protocols building on Optimism are among its most important stakeholders and they value having a voice in the development of this ecosystem. Throughout Season 1 & 2 , protocols have repeatedly expressed this interest by requesting that they be able to self-delegate grants as a means to participate in Token House governance. Self-delegation of grants has historically been discouraged. This proposal pre… Voted : Against Governance is difficult, chaotic co-ordination could be tiresome some time, few entities will try to make it political or even worse, a pvp battle. But even after all this, we should try to be more inclusive, inclusive of other protocol, builders and community. I am reading “skin-in-the-game” narrative as a positive side of this proposal which I agree but what about other protocol bringing more value to our chain even if they are not native ? What do we want to built, a cult or a community ? I shared the similar thought here and also agree with @BP_Gamma here 3
Special Voting Cycle 9 a [Special Voting Cycle # 9 a]: Grants Council Reflection Period Propos…
Special Voting Cycle 9 a [Special Voting Cycle # 9 a]: Grants Council Reflection Period Proposal As outlined in Guide to Season 3 : Course Correcting, the current Governance Fund grants process faces significant challenges. Luckily, there is a lot of room for optimization. Some goals for Season 3 include: creating a more streamlined and consistent process for proposers setting a pace for grant distributions defining a clear scope, with clear differentiation from Partner Fund creating accountability via smaller grant sizes and milestone-based distributions reducing the workload on delegates… Voted in Favor :- easy to reach consensus when group size is small communication could be fast tracked, this was a challenge in season 2 Streamline the process, making grant funding less complex I also believe that putting decision power is few entities could lead to centralization of power and might create an Eco-chamber which will hurt us in long run. But supporting this proposal because OF is working on iteration, feedback from past season is reflected in this proposal and we are more aligned toward experiment from beginning. [Special Voting Cycle # 9 a]: Protocol Delegation Program Reflection Period Proposal Please read Guide to Season 3 : Course Correcting for full context before reading this proposal. Protocols building on Optimism are among its most important stakeholders and they value having a voice in the development of this ecosystem. Throughout Season 1 & 2 , protocols have repeatedly expressed this interest by requesting that they be able to self-delegate grants as a means to participate in Token House governance. Self-delegation of grants has historically been discouraged. This proposal pre… Voted : Against Governance is difficult, chaotic co-ordination could be tiresome some time, few entities will try to make it political or even worse, a pvp battle. But even after all this, we should try to be more inclusive, inclusive of other protocol, builders and community. I am reading “skin-in-the-game” narrative as a positive side of this proposal which I agree but what about other protocol bringing more value to our chain even if they are not native ? What do we want to built, a cult or a community ? I shared the similar thought here and also agree with @BP_Gamma here 3
Token House Badgeholder Election Information
Token House Badgeholder Election Information Elect…
Token House Badgeholder Election Information
Token House Badgeholder Election Information Elections
Choosing top 10 was a tough one, few are already quite known in public good space, working, supporting, preserving and motivating others to contribute.
So to give everyone a fair chance, I read there delegation pitch and gone through their profile/comment history on this forum. If they have mentioned Public Good funding in their delegate pitch, I put them on top of list, followed by their interaction with Public Goods related topic/post on this forum in past season(s) and lastly there interest …
Token House Badgeholder Election Information Token House Badgeholder Election Information ? Gov…
Token House Badgeholder Election Information Token House Badgeholder Election Information ? Governance Choosing top 10 was a tough one, few are already quite known in public good space, working, supporting, preserving and motivating others to contribute. So to give everyone a fair chance, I read there delegation pitch and gone through their profile/comment history on this forum. If they have mentioned Public Good funding in their delegate pitch, I put them on top of list, followed by their interaction with Public Goods related topic/post on this forum in past season(s) and lastly there interest …
Token House Badgeholder Election Information Token House Badgeholder Election Information Elect…
Token House Badgeholder Election Information Token House Badgeholder Election Information Elections Choosing top 10 was a tough one, few are already quite known in public good space, working, supporting, preserving and motivating others to contribute. So to give everyone a fair chance, I read there delegation pitch and gone through their profile/comment history on this forum. If they have mentioned Public Good funding in their delegate pitch, I put them on top of list, followed by their interaction with Public Goods related topic/post on this forum in past season(s) and lastly there interest …
Special Voting Cycle # 9
Builders - @Gonna.eth , @kaereste
1 Dhannte - He needs no introduc…
Special Voting Cycle # 9
Builders - @Gonna.eth , @kaereste
1 Dhannte - He needs no introduction, heavily active in gov, contributing during gov call and got the grant from gov in last season. Happy to support him.
2 . L 2 Beat - interacted with Kris for short duration in season 2 and L 2 Beat is doing an excellent job with their platform. I believe they will do justice to this role.
3 . With new changes in place, decided to self-vote.
2 Growth @katie @GFXlabs @MattL @Michael @Joxes
This one was difficult as each individual in this category is equally qualified. Took a different approach -
Joxes and Latam team - Very few can match their engagement in our gov, they are transparent, were part of different sub-committee(s) and leading the Latam community.
Michael and Katie - Both active and quite familiar with web 3 space.
GFX Lab - Has vast knowledge of dev and gov, received two grant from gov and contributed heavily to our gov.
Matt - Although I dont agree with couple of decision they have taken in the past, SNX is one of the major pillar of optimism ecosystem, happy to support them in this category.
Protocol delegation
Gave preference to Optimism native protocol
Special Voting Cycle # 9 Builders - @Gonna.eth , @kaereste 1 Dhannte - He needs no introduc…
Special Voting Cycle # 9 Builders - @Gonna.eth , @kaereste 1 Dhannte - He needs no introduction, heavily active in gov, contributing during gov call and got the grant from gov in last season. Happy to support him. 2 . L 2 Beat - interacted with Kris for short duration in season 2 and L 2 Beat is doing an excellent job with their platform. I believe they will do justice to this role. 3 . With new changes in place, decided to self-vote. 2 Growth @katie @GFXlabs @MattL @Michael @Joxes This one was difficult as each individual in this category is equally qualified. Took a different approach - Joxes and Latam team - Very few can match their engagement in our gov, they are transparent, were part of different sub-committee(s) and leading the Latam community. Michael and Katie - Both active and quite familiar with web 3 space. GFX Lab - Has vast knowledge of dev and gov, received two grant from gov and contributed heavily to our gov. Matt - Although I dont agree with couple of decision they have taken in the past, SNX is one of the major pillar of optimism ecosystem, happy to support them in this category. Protocol delegation Gave preference to Optimism native protocol
RPGF Round 1 . (FAQ & General info)
Now that voting is around the corner and discovery UI is live …
RPGF Round 1 . (FAQ & General info)
Now that voting is around the corner and discovery UI is live 2 , I want to start the conversation with my initial thoughts.
With my limited knowledge on public good, there are couple of nomination I would not consider a public good.
A protocol having raised millions in VC/token(sales) funding
Very less impact or at least at early stage
Could be considered as a public good in the past but not anymore
My Focus would be -
Clear and visible impact (one example would be revoke Ui), NiceNode, Orbiter could be another one (there are couple of open question though). Optimism Español , jackxbt and similar under education section.
Must be open sourced
Might consider means-test 1 where needed.
This is not to bash anyone or any project. To me, Optimism two pillar gov model was the main motivation behind joining this collective. Finally, we are moving away from plutocratic voting system and I understand that my vote has equal weightage, like other elected citizen, and I want to be transparent as possible, provide my rational behind every decision, take feedback, iterate and work towards making this collective better.
So, if you have any feedback, please let me know. (comment /dm on this forum or on discord nono# 1218 )
Note -
Please note that I am not a smart contract developer and may reach out to collective I trust for additional information or may have to skip certain nominations related to development tools, APIs, or packages when casting my vote. Moreover, the guidelines provided by the Optimism Foundation may result in significant changes to the criteria outlined above.
MinimalGravitas: OPUser:
A protocol having raised millions in VC/token(sales) funding
I strongly agree with this, just from the impact perspective it seems obvious that sending $X to a project that has only received a few $ thousand from Gitcoin or whatever will make much more difference than sending that same $X to a project which has raised $ millions in a VC seed round!
Could you expand a bit more on what you mean by:
Could be considered as a public good in the past but not anymore
I’m not sure I understand what kind of thing would fit that category?
Vegayp: Thanks for the insight.
Can I ask, why an early stage project wouldn’t be consider a public good?
RPGF Round 1 . (FAQ & General info) Now that voting is around the corner and discovery UI is live …
RPGF Round 1 . (FAQ & General info) Now that voting is around the corner and discovery UI is live 2 , I want to start the conversation with my initial thoughts. With my limited knowledge on public good, there are couple of nomination I would not consider a public good. A protocol having raised millions in VC/token(sales) funding Very less impact or at least at early stage Could be considered as a public good in the past but not anymore My Focus would be - Clear and visible impact (one example would be revoke Ui), NiceNode, Orbiter could be another one (there are couple of open question though). Optimism Español , jackxbt and similar under education section. Must be open sourced Might consider means-test 1 where needed. This is not to bash anyone or any project. To me, Optimism two pillar gov model was the main motivation behind joining this collective. Finally, we are moving away from plutocratic voting system and I understand that my vote has equal weightage, like other elected citizen, and I want to be transparent as possible, provide my rational behind every decision, take feedback, iterate and work towards making this collective better. So, if you have any feedback, please let me know. (comment /dm on this forum or on discord nono# 1218 ) Note - Please note that I am not a smart contract developer and may reach out to collective I trust for additional information or may have to skip certain nominations related to development tools, APIs, or packages when casting my vote. Moreover, the guidelines provided by the Optimism Foundation may result in significant changes to the criteria outlined above.
MinimalGravitas: OPUser:
A protocol having raised millions in VC/token(sales) funding
I strongly agree with this, just from the impact perspective it seems obvious that sending $X to a project that has only received a few $ thousand from Gitcoin or whatever will make much more difference than sending that same $X to a project which has raised $ millions in a VC seed round!
Could you expand a bit more on what you mean by:
Could be considered as a public good in the past but not anymore
I’m not sure I understand what kind of thing would fit that category?
Vegayp: Thanks for the insight.
Can I ask, why an early stage project wouldn’t be consider a public good?
OPUser:
A protocol having raised millions in VC/token(sales) funding
I strongly agree with t…
OPUser:
A protocol having raised millions in VC/token(sales) funding
I strongly agree with this, just from the impact perspective it seems obvious that sending $X to a project that has only received a few $ thousand from Gitcoin or whatever will make much more difference than sending that same $X to a project which has raised $ millions in a VC seed round!
Could you expand a bit more on what you mean by:
Could be considered as a public good in the past but not anymore
I’m not sure I understand what kind of thing would fit that category?
OPUser: MinimalGravitas:
what kind of thing would fit that category?
I am still in the process of gathering information, but one example I have come across is Uni. While Uni v2 was a public good, its successor, Uni v3, is not. Once you lauch a token, you are in “in-profit” market.
Tally Ho, a wallet I love and use, might be another example. They are depended on grants, gitcoin and similar, but with their upcoming token lauch I am not sure anymore.
One arugemnt I hear - they are still open source, anyone could fork and build upon them and their impact is visible.
Totally valid point however, one could argue that they have already reaped the benefits of their impact through VC funding and token sales. Supporting a team or project that is dependent solely on grants, like you have mentioned, may be a more prudent choice.
There are few gray area and still seeking feedback from collective.
Thanks for the insight.
Can I ask, why an early stage project wouldn’t be consider a public good?
Thanks for the insight.
Can I ask, why an early stage project wouldn’t be consider a public good?
OPUser: Hey @Vegayp, I was referring to their impact.
RPGF motto is impact = profit. It’s a retroactive grant, which means we should focus on projects/teams that have already made a positive impact through their contributions. Early stage would be part of next round.
MinimalGravitas:
what kind of thing would fit that category?
I am still in the process of ga…
MinimalGravitas:
what kind of thing would fit that category?
I am still in the process of gathering information, but one example I have come across is Uni. While Uni v 2 was a public good, its successor, Uni v 3 , is not. Once you lauch a token, you are in “in-profit” market.
Tally Ho, a wallet I love and use, might be another example. They are depended on grants, gitcoin and similar, but with their upcoming token lauch I am not sure anymore.
One arugemnt I hear - they are still open source, anyone could fork and build upon them and their impact is visible.
Totally valid point however, one could argue that they have already reaped the benefits of their impact through VC funding and token sales. Supporting a team or project that is dependent solely on grants, like you have mentioned, may be a more prudent choice.
There are few gray area and still seeking feedback from collective.
Hey @Vegayp, I was referring to their impact.
RPGF motto is impact = profit. It’s a retroactive gra…
Hey @Vegayp, I was referring to their impact.
RPGF motto is impact = profit. It’s a retroactive grant, which means we should focus on projects/teams that have already made a positive impact through their contributions. Early stage would be part of next round.
OPUser: A protocol having raised millions in VC/token(sales) funding I strongly agree with t…
OPUser: A protocol having raised millions in VC/token(sales) funding I strongly agree with this, just from the impact perspective it seems obvious that sending $X to a project that has only received a few $ thousand from Gitcoin or whatever will make much more difference than sending that same $X to a project which has raised $ millions in a VC seed round! Could you expand a bit more on what you mean by: Could be considered as a public good in the past but not anymore I’m not sure I understand what kind of thing would fit that category?
OPUser: MinimalGravitas:
what kind of thing would fit that category?
I am still in the process of gathering information, but one example I have come across is Uni. While Uni v2 was a public good, its successor, Uni v3, is not. Once you lauch a token, you are in “in-profit” market.
Tally Ho, a wallet I love and use, might be another example. They are depended on grants, gitcoin and similar, but with their upcoming token lauch I am not sure anymore.
One arugemnt I hear - they are still open source, anyone could fork and build upon them and their impact is visible.
Totally valid point however, one could argue that they have already reaped the benefits of their impact through VC funding and token sales. Supporting a team or project that is dependent solely on grants, like you have mentioned, may be a more prudent choice.
There are few gray area and still seeking feedback from collective.
Thanks for the insight. Can I ask, why an early stage project wouldn’t be consider a public good?
Thanks for the insight. Can I ask, why an early stage project wouldn’t be consider a public good?
OPUser: Hey @Vegayp, I was referring to their impact.
RPGF motto is impact = profit. It’s a retroactive grant, which means we should focus on projects/teams that have already made a positive impact through their contributions. Early stage would be part of next round.
MinimalGravitas: what kind of thing would fit that category? I am still in the process of ga…
MinimalGravitas: what kind of thing would fit that category? I am still in the process of gathering information, but one example I have come across is Uni. While Uni v 2 was a public good, its successor, Uni v 3 , is not. Once you lauch a token, you are in “in-profit” market. Tally Ho, a wallet I love and use, might be another example. They are depended on grants, gitcoin and similar, but with their upcoming token lauch I am not sure anymore. One arugemnt I hear - they are still open source, anyone could fork and build upon them and their impact is visible. Totally valid point however, one could argue that they have already reaped the benefits of their impact through VC funding and token sales. Supporting a team or project that is dependent solely on grants, like you have mentioned, may be a more prudent choice. There are few gray area and still seeking feedback from collective.
Hey @Vegayp, I was referring to their impact. RPGF motto is impact = profit. It’s a retroactive gra…
Hey @Vegayp, I was referring to their impact. RPGF motto is impact = profit. It’s a retroactive grant, which means we should focus on projects/teams that have already made a positive impact through their contributions. Early stage would be part of next round.
Providing a draft of project I am gonna vote in on-going RPGF round.
Rational for Education -
Know…
Providing a draft of project I am gonna vote in on-going RPGF round.
Rational for Education -
Knowledge content created by them is easily available and add value
Content and area of work is aligned towards Optimism and/or Ethereum
Will there be any impact on Optimism/ethereum if they suddenly disappear
In this category, I am also looking from the social and cultural side
For infra :-
OP Native *
If they are gone, there impact will be clearly visible on Optimism = impact
Not directly OP native but highly aligned with Ethereum
Is this project adding value and should be supported
goal is be inclusive here so chain should not matter which is the case in education domain but under infra I am giving preference to Optimism project - Optimism related infra - Ethereum - public good - common good in long term
Note - many project under infra are receiving grant from Protocol Guild(they are also nominated ) and are also part of EIP- 4884 collection. Will account this in calculation when casting vote as to not give 3 X grant to the same team.
Once list is final, will post it on the rpgf dedicated thread.
Dropbox
OP-RPFG.xlsx 7
Shared with Dropbox
Great huge thread that definitely has a lot of information to learn
Definitely handy to keep track …
Great huge thread that definitely has a lot of information to learn
Definitely handy to keep track of all the previous important milestones, thank you for your work, friend
Providing a draft of project I am gonna vote in on-going RPGF round. Rational for Education - Know…
Providing a draft of project I am gonna vote in on-going RPGF round. Rational for Education - Knowledge content created by them is easily available and add value Content and area of work is aligned towards Optimism and/or Ethereum Will there be any impact on Optimism/ethereum if they suddenly disappear In this category, I am also looking from the social and cultural side For infra :- OP Native * If they are gone, there impact will be clearly visible on Optimism = impact Not directly OP native but highly aligned with Ethereum Is this project adding value and should be supported goal is be inclusive here so chain should not matter which is the case in education domain but under infra I am giving preference to Optimism project - Optimism related infra - Ethereum - public good - common good in long term Note - many project under infra are receiving grant from Protocol Guild(they are also nominated ) and are also part of EIP- 4884 collection. Will account this in calculation when casting vote as to not give 3 X grant to the same team. Once list is final, will post it on the rpgf dedicated thread. Dropbox OP-RPFG.xlsx 7 Shared with Dropbox
Thanks for the update and the good work. I find it a pretty fair approach.
Cheers!
Thanks for the update and the good work. I find it a pretty fair approach.
Cheers!
Great huge thread that definitely has a lot of information to learn Definitely handy to keep track …
Great huge thread that definitely has a lot of information to learn Definitely handy to keep track of all the previous important milestones, thank you for your work, friend
Now post by the way.
You are pointing to good reasons. Actually I as someone who just joined the Op…
Now post by the way.
You are pointing to good reasons. Actually I as someone who just joined the Optimism Collective, expected to see more interactions on discord, and of course on the Twitter rolling around the Optimism Collective. I have found the idea and the Vision very profound and thorough. I will check the proposals that you posted here, hope in near future, I get the chance to vote. Have fun
Thanks for the update and the good work. I find it a pretty fair approach. Cheers!
Thanks for the update and the good work. I find it a pretty fair approach. Cheers!
Now post by the way. You are pointing to good reasons. Actually I as someone who just joined the Op…
Now post by the way. You are pointing to good reasons. Actually I as someone who just joined the Optimism Collective, expected to see more interactions on discord, and of course on the Twitter rolling around the Optimism Collective. I have found the idea and the Vision very profound and thorough. I will check the proposals that you posted here, hope in near future, I get the chance to vote. Have fun
Voted in favor of both proposal.
Bedrock upgrade 1 was discussed quite in depth and happy to supp…
Voted in favor of both proposal.
Bedrock upgrade 1 was discussed quite in depth and happy to support it. Looking forward to what next for Optimism collective and added value Bedrock upgrade will bring.
Fractal has done quite a lot of work and I know their project from Galand NFT, their first mint. But doxing is a no go, we should respect everyone’s privacy. Supporting their suspension, I do hope he will stick around and come back stronger once the ban is lifted.
Voted in favor of both proposal. Bedrock upgrade was discussed quite in depth and happy to support …
Voted in favor of both proposal. Bedrock upgrade was discussed quite in depth and happy to support it. Looking forward to what next for Optimism collective and added value Bedrock upgrade will bring. Fractal has done quite a lot of work and I know their project from Galand NFT, their first mint. But doxing is a no go, we should respect everyone’s privacy. Supporting their suspension, I do hope he will stick around and come back stronger once the ban is lifted.
There are lot to digest for upcoming season 4 , I will try to put a short summary of what coming u…
There are lot to digest for upcoming season 4 , I will try to put a short summary of what coming up next (refer here for everything around season 4 2 )
Season 4 will work towards collective goal or intent. Collective Intents 1
Intent - you/ the Foundation set goal/mission and propose a budget, once the said goal is achieved, reward will be distributed.
initial/most mission would be set by the Foundation and budget would be approved by token house.
Council lead(s) are expected to put forward the budget proposal. Token House Missions 2
Mission - a time boxed event,well defined, start-to-finish, tightly scoped goal to achieve one of the intents.
Two type -
proposed - own budget -approved by token house- fund will come gov fund
Foundation mission - defined by the Foundation - fund will come from Foundation Fund. Existing Foundation mission could be found here - Foundation Missions (RFPs) · GitHub 1
Anyone, individual, group or an organization, refer as an Alliances, can propose and execute a mission(proposed or accept Foundation Mission. More on Alliances Season 4 Alliance Guide 1
Funds are determined by trust tier. -Not summarizing it as the complete article is a must read, its a step towards Optimism Attestation station. Collective Trust Tiers 2
changes suggested above are amalgation and improvement from already existing dao such as ENS, Gitcoin and as a curtsey, foundation will nomicate them in next RPGF round.
Delegate retroactive reward for their contribution can be found here. Retroactive Delegate Rewards: Season 3 - # 2 2
There are lot to digest for upcoming season 4 , I will try to put a short summary of what coming u…
There are lot to digest for upcoming season 4 , I will try to put a short summary of what coming up next (refer here for everything around season 4 2 ) Season 4 will work towards collective goal or intent. Collective Intents 1 Intent - you/ the Foundation set goal/mission and propose a budget, once the said goal is achieved, reward will be distributed. initial/most mission would be set by the Foundation and budget would be approved by token house. Council lead(s) are expected to put forward the budget proposal. Token House Missions 2 Mission - a time boxed event,well defined, start-to-finish, tightly scoped goal to achieve one of the intents. Two type - proposed - own budget -approved by token house- fund will come gov fund Foundation mission - defined by the Foundation - fund will come from Foundation Fund. Existing Foundation mission could be found here - Foundation Missions (RFPs) · GitHub 1 Anyone, individual, group or an organization, refer as an Alliances, can propose and execute a mission(proposed or accept Foundation Mission. More on Alliances Season 4 Alliance Guide 1 Funds are determined by trust tier. -Not summarizing it as the complete article is a must read, its a step towards Optimism Attestation station. Collective Trust Tiers 2 changes suggested above are amalgation and improvement from already existing dao such as ENS, Gitcoin and as a curtsey, foundation will nomicate them in next RPGF round. Delegate retroactive reward for their contribution can be found here. Retroactive Delegate Rewards: Season 3 - # 2 2
My One Year in this collective movement!!!
What a journey, learned a lot, tried my best to contribu…
My One Year in this collective movement!!!
What a journey, learned a lot, tried my best to contribute with my time and limited knowledge, we had some up and down but I remain bullish and looking forward to new challenges.
A successful first iteration of RPGF, Base building on top of Optimism and client diversity by a 16 z and Karl taking role of CEO, good vibes all around.
During second season of gov, I, along with other delegate and community member, were asking for on-chain report on usage and impact of fund distributed to projects. Goal was to understand the loose end, look at short coming, learn from them and apply those learning in upcoming season. Stopped following up on my Goverance Fund Accountability - An overview 2 thread because of lack of Dune knowledge and support from project.
But we have support from OPLab team and they published there detailed report on monthly basis, Apr 2023 - Governance Call OP Rewards Analytics Update , Mar 2023 - Governance Call OP Rewards Analytics Update I encourage everyone to read them. Liquidity mining impact was short lived, as anticipated by other delegate, even for project with multiple grant approved by the collective. For example, Pooltogether[ 1 ]has a clear decline in tvl [defillama] even with multiple grant approved and same goes with most, if not all, protocols. Seems we are burning oil just to keep the fire alive. I was in favor of PT second proposal because the ask was relatively low and their impact from first grant to visible and seemed sustainable, at least at that time, which is not the case. In retrospective, there are much to learn here -
we should not approve multiple proposal from same project, might be an exception when second proposal is completely different from the first one
there must be some gap between first and second, few weeks at least
There has been lot of proposal so far, some were successful, for others we need to wait for couple more months while rest were not fully disaster as we learned something from them. Going forward, my request from collective would be to pull back a little from granting funds to existing project and rather focus on new project bringing new ideas and innovation, we have some good, positive hype going on because of RPGF and we should use it to foster and incubate new innovative protocol, invite developer from different region, fund and support them.
Two of my personal favorites domain which need more support and encouragement are privacy and gaming. Privacy is one major pillar of blockchain, even EY is building a private chain, and i wish to see more project building around it, natively on Optimism. Firn[ 2 ] could not make it to final list of grant recipient, and with aztech moving towards their own chain, I hope they will come back stronger in next round. Look around, Polygon is building with Immutable, Starknet is collaborating with unstoppable games, Nike is bullish on Metaverse and list goes on, onchain gaming and metaverse has huge potential, an unexplored domain full of challenges, uncertainty and opportunities.
1 - Mention of pooltogether should not be treated a targeted comment on them or any other project.
2 - I invited Firn to submit their proposal and was helping them with gov related queries, I dont have any connection with them. Just personally motivated to support privacy protocol.
My One Year in this collective movement!!! What a journey, learned a lot, tried my best to contribu…
My One Year in this collective movement!!! What a journey, learned a lot, tried my best to contribute with my time and limited knowledge, we had some up and down but I remain bullish and looking forward to new challenges. A successful first iteration of RPGF, Base building on top of Optimism and client diversity by a 16 z and Karl taking role of CEO, good vibes all around. During second season of gov, I, along with other delegate and community member, were asking for on-chain report on usage and impact of fund distributed to projects. Goal was to understand the loose end, look at short coming, learn from them and apply those learning in upcoming season. Stopped following up on my Goverance Fund Accountability - An overview 2 thread because of lack of Dune knowledge and support from project. But we have support from OPLab team and they published there detailed report on monthly basis, Apr 2023 - Governance Call OP Rewards Analytics Update , Mar 2023 - Governance Call OP Rewards Analytics Update I encourage everyone to read them. Liquidity mining impact was short lived, as anticipated by other delegate, even for project with multiple grant approved by the collective. For example, Pooltogether[ 1 ]has a clear decline in tvl [defillama] even with multiple grant approved and same goes with most, if not all, protocols. Seems we are burning oil just to keep the fire alive. I was in favor of PT second proposal because the ask was relatively low and their impact from first grant to visible and seemed sustainable, at least at that time, which is not the case. In retrospective, there are much to learn here - we should not approve multiple proposal from same project, might be an exception when second proposal is completely different from the first one there must be some gap between first and second, few weeks at least There has been lot of proposal so far, some were successful, for others we need to wait for couple more months while rest were not fully disaster as we learned something from them. Going forward, my request from collective would be to pull back a little from granting funds to existing project and rather focus on new project bringing new ideas and innovation, we have some good, positive hype going on because of RPGF and we should use it to foster and incubate new innovative protocol, invite developer from different region, fund and support them. Two of my personal favorites domain which need more support and encouragement are privacy and gaming. Privacy is one major pillar of blockchain, even EY is building a private chain, and i wish to see more project building around it, natively on Optimism. Firn[ 2 ] could not make it to final list of grant recipient, and with aztech moving towards their own chain, I hope they will come back stronger in next round. Look around, Polygon is building with Immutable, Starknet is collaborating with unstoppable games, Nike is bullish on Metaverse and list goes on, onchain gaming and metaverse has huge potential, an unexplored domain full of challenges, uncertainty and opportunities. 1 - Mention of pooltogether should not be treated a targeted comment on them or any other project. 2 - I invited Firn to submit their proposal and was helping them with gov related queries, I dont have any connection with them. Just personally motivated to support privacy protocol.
final-inflation-adjustment-proposal - in favor
treasury-appropriation-proposal-foundation - Aga…
final-inflation-adjustment-proposal - in favor
treasury-appropriation-proposal-foundation - Against
For both proposal, I agree with discussion and echo Polynya comment.
Grant Council
Choose to abstain - From season 1 , I was encouraging and asking for accountability of fund, from OP Foundation and also from individual grant recipient, now that we have support from OP Lab, lack of support and discussion on fund accountability from grant council is disappointing.
How to Contribute: OP Rewards Analytics 3
We have delegate in grant council with online presence reaching wide and far, I am not suggesting we police the grant recipient, least we can do is it to put some social pressure.
For @Oxytocin , its their first nomination so choose to vote in favor of them.
On topic of accountability, I would like encourage other delegates to provide reasoning for their vote. For small and new delegate like myself, we look up to you, we expect that you have knowledge and wisdom to properly evaluate and judge critical proposals, lead us and this collective with good example. Just casting vote in silence put us in shadow give a bad outlook.
Looking forward towards next iteration of our evolving DAO.
final-inflation-adjustment-proposal - in favor treasury-appropriation-proposal-foundation - Aga…
final-inflation-adjustment-proposal - in favor treasury-appropriation-proposal-foundation - Against For both proposal, I agree with discussion and echo Polynya comment. Grant Council Choose to abstain - From season 1 , I was encouraging and asking for accountability of fund, from OP Foundation and also from individual grant recipient, now that we have support from OP Lab, lack of support and discussion on fund accountability from grant council is disappointing. How to Contribute: OP Rewards Analytics 3 We have delegate in grant council with online presence reaching wide and far, I am not suggesting we police the grant recipient, least we can do is it to put some social pressure. For @Oxytocin , its their first nomination so choose to vote in favor of them. On topic of accountability, I would like encourage other delegates to provide reasoning for their vote. For small and new delegate like myself, we look up to you, we expect that you have knowledge and wisdom to properly evaluate and judge critical proposals, lead us and this collective with good example. Just casting vote in silence put us in shadow give a bad outlook. Looking forward towards next iteration of our evolving DAO.
Intent 1
voted in favor of all except one in Intent 1 , I was skeptical of Scry Protocol but giv…
Intent 1
voted in favor of all except one in Intent 1 , I was skeptical of Scry Protocol but given their feedback happy to support them.
My rational for not voting in favor of [FINAL] Spearbit + Immunefi Bug Bounty Program for Large Protocols Building on Optimism - # 27 by OPUser. Given that the protocol team got roughly 1 M in last year just from their protocol native token emission, I believe they should be in a good position to support their audit and we should rather support FOSS project in incubation with less or little financial support.
Will finalize intent 3 in next few day(s).
Intent 1 voted in favor of all except one in Intent 1 , I was skeptical of Scry Protocol but giv…
Intent 1 voted in favor of all except one in Intent 1 , I was skeptical of Scry Protocol but given their feedback happy to support them. My rational for not voting in favor of [FINAL] Spearbit + Immunefi Bug Bounty Program for Large Protocols Building on Optimism - # 27 by OPUser. Given that the protocol team got roughly 1 M in last year just from their protocol native token emission, I believe they should be in a good position to support their audit and we should rather support FOSS project in incubation with less or little financial support. Will finalize intent 3 in next few day(s).
Intent 4 Proposal
Intent 4 was challenging, in some proposal it was not clear how they related …
Intent 4 Proposal
Intent 4 was challenging, in some proposal it was not clear how they related their proposal with intent in place, some lack detailed budget planning while others does not have a proper milestone in place.
Scope of Intent 4 , below, is wide and this is also our first iteration along with that I acknowledge the knowledge gap and lack of awareness in general public, which is why I am voting in favor of most proposal.
“Missions to educate the broader community about Optimism governance and RetroPGF, increase the resiliency of core governance infrastructure, create user friendly interfaces to interact with governance programs, or promote a welcoming governance community are all well-aligned with this Intent.”
I could not bring myself to vote in favor of two proposal(waiting for feedback on 1 ) and my rationals are
[FINAL] Velodrome: Fostering Inclusive Governance through Leading Optimism Builders and Long-term Users ARCHIVED Mission Proposals
There are few valid points in this proposal, amount of delegated $OP going down is a concern and need broader discussion.
But I would vote against this proposal.
Protocols and veVELO holders have a strong alignment to Optimism’s success
Disagree here, protocol building on Optimism have a strong alignment and Foundation is already giving voting power to them.
Perhaps foundation could run an event like Uniswap did and delegate token or we can take approach similar to Starknet.
I am skeptica…
[FINAL] RegenScore ARCHIVED Mission Proposals
I should have choose to abstain from this, even after reading the proposal couple of time and thinking it through I am not able to see its relation with intent 4 but at the same i dont have sufficient reason to vote against it.
Intent 4 Proposal Intent 4 was challenging, in some proposal it was not clear how they related …
Intent 4 Proposal Intent 4 was challenging, in some proposal it was not clear how they related their proposal with intent in place, some lack detailed budget planning while others does not have a proper milestone in place. Scope of Intent 4 , below, is wide and this is also our first iteration along with that I acknowledge the knowledge gap and lack of awareness in general public, which is why I am voting in favor of most proposal. “Missions to educate the broader community about Optimism governance and RetroPGF, increase the resiliency of core governance infrastructure, create user friendly interfaces to interact with governance programs, or promote a welcoming governance community are all well-aligned with this Intent.” I could not bring myself to vote in favor of two proposal(waiting for feedback on 1 ) and my rationals are [FINAL] Velodrome: Fostering Inclusive Governance through Leading Optimism Builders and Long-term Users ARCHIVED Mission Proposals There are few valid points in this proposal, amount of delegated $OP going down is a concern and need broader discussion. But I would vote against this proposal. Protocols and veVELO holders have a strong alignment to Optimism’s success Disagree here, protocol building on Optimism have a strong alignment and Foundation is already giving voting power to them. Perhaps foundation could run an event like Uniswap did and delegate token or we can take approach similar to Starknet. I am skeptica… [FINAL] RegenScore ARCHIVED Mission Proposals I should have choose to abstain from this, even after reading the proposal couple of time and thinking it through I am not able to see its relation with intent 4 but at the same i dont have sufficient reason to vote against it.
Intent 3 - Spread Awareness of the Optimistic Vision
Few thoughts -
3 F - [FINAL] Let's take the…
Intent 3 - Spread Awareness of the Optimistic Vision
Few thoughts -
3 F - [FINAL] Let's take the Optimistic Vision to LATAM with Espacio Cripto
3 G - [FINAL] Spread Optimistic values accross Latam with Solow
Both targeting similar audience, while one has relatively higher ask, I have heard only good thing about Espacio Cripto when I was evaluating their RPGF proposal and happy to support them one more time.
I believe 3 C([FINAL] BanklessDAO’s Global Campaign to spread the Optimistic vision) amount is little high but at the same time I have no digital marketing experience to justify otherwise. Voting in favor because its falls under education domain and amount was discussed here and here
3 H- [FINAL] Develop the most relevant and aligned audiovisual content for the Optimism Collective it seems this proposal was not discussed enough but they addressed my main concern here 1 , voted in favor 1
3 I - [FINAL] Thank Optimism - powered by ThriveCoin , huge shoutout to @Jrocki and @thrivegiraffe for answering all the queries raised by the collectives. I have been part of this collective since the beginning and this proposal might the third most discussed on this forum(after Curve and Velodrome proposal), both were polite and their responses were not only addressing the question but also encouraging discussion, all withing the boundary of code of conduct.
Still I believe the amount is quite high at the same time their proposal is quite optimistic, I would consider this proposal as high reward high risk.
If anyone has doubt about Thrivecoin, response from team to a similar comment from Jack 2 .
Voted in favor of most proposal except below ones
[FINAL] Fueling RetroPGF Growth through Education, Collaboration, and Active Marketing 1
I dont think sponsering booth booking and sponsorship cost is a suitable candidate for this intent category. Not a deciding factor but few queries 1 remain unanswered.
Those are my final vote for this round, will cast my votes tomorrow. If anyone has any further query, do reach out.
Intent 3 - Spread Awareness of the Optimistic Vision Few thoughts - 3 F - [FINAL] Let's take the…
Intent 3 - Spread Awareness of the Optimistic Vision Few thoughts - 3 F - [FINAL] Let's take the Optimistic Vision to LATAM with Espacio Cripto 3 G - [FINAL] Spread Optimistic values accross Latam with Solow Both targeting similar audience, while one has relatively higher ask, I have heard only good thing about Espacio Cripto when I was evaluating their RPGF proposal and happy to support them one more time. I believe 3 C([FINAL] BanklessDAO’s Global Campaign to spread the Optimistic vision) amount is little high but at the same time I have no digital marketing experience to justify otherwise. Voting in favor because its falls under education domain and amount was discussed here and here 3 H- [FINAL] Develop the most relevant and aligned audiovisual content for the Optimism Collective it seems this proposal was not discussed enough but they addressed my main concern here 1 , voted in favor 1 3 I - [FINAL] Thank Optimism - powered by ThriveCoin , huge shoutout to @jrocki.bedrock and @thrivegiraffe for answering all the queries raised by the collectives. I have been part of this collective since the beginning and this proposal might the third most discussed on this forum(after Curve and Velodrome proposal), both were polite and their responses were not only addressing the question but also encouraging discussion, all withing the boundary of code of conduct. Still I believe the amount is quite high at the same time their proposal is quite optimistic, I would consider this proposal as high reward high risk. If anyone has doubt about Thrivecoin, response from team to a similar comment from Jack 2 . Voted in favor of most proposal except below ones [FINAL] Fueling RetroPGF Growth through Education, Collaboration, and Active Marketing 1 I dont think sponsering booth booking and sponsorship cost is a suitable candidate for this intent category. Not a deciding factor but few queries 1 remain unanswered. Those are my final vote for this round, will cast my votes tomorrow. If anyone has any further query, do reach out.
Thank you for depositing your trust in us again @OPUser. We’re working really hard at Espacio Cript…
Thank you for depositing your trust in us again @OPUser. We’re working really hard at Espacio Cripto to deliver as much value as possible!
Thank you for depositing your trust in us again @OPUser. We’re working really hard at Espacio Cript…
Thank you for depositing your trust in us again @OPUser. We’re working really hard at Espacio Cripto to deliver as much value as possible!
I voted in favor of all proposals.
I want to cover a couple of points:
Although we received mixed…
I voted in favor of all proposals.
I want to cover a couple of points:
Although we received mixed reviews about the Code of Conduct (CoC), I still believe we need a CoC and a process to enforce those rules in the community.
While it may seem like we are making too many changes each passing season and complicating the governance process, I don’t share those opinions. Working on iterations, making changes, implementing them, and learning from past seasons has proven to be successful, and I would like to see this continue in the near future.
Keeping up with everything happening with the DAO takes a significant amount of delegate time, which might be causing the problem. What we are trying to do and why might be unclear due to missing context. This could be avoided by providing a little more time to review the new changes.
In the upcoming season, I am looking forward to reading the Milestones and Metrics Reviewer’s report. I hope to see them also cover past seasons
OPUser:
In the upcoming season, I am looking forward to reading the Milestones and Metrics Rev…
OPUser:
In the upcoming season, I am looking forward to reading the Milestones and Metrics Reviewer’s report.
This is a great topic. We would like to introduce you and all of the other Grantees to the GAP.
We had the honor of helping to Beta test the Grantee Accountability Protocol.
Now everyone who has received a grant from Optimism or even Retroactive funds can easily attest onchain to their grant with milestones that are completed. Showing proof of impact!
This will be a great :+ 1 : tool for helping keep track of the OP that has been distributed in the past as well as a time saver for delegates searching for information on past projects milestone accomplishments. We highly encourage the adoption of tooling like this in order to improve the overall management of grants.
twitter.com
Karma
@karmahq_
As a grantee, how can you effectively showcase your progress, provide updates, and build a strong reputation in order to continue receiving (retro) grants and make a lasting impact?
We are launching GAP to solve this gap.karmahq.xyz
1 : 15 PM - 26 Oct 2023
11
1
I voted in favor of all proposals. I want to cover a couple of points: Although we received mixed…
I voted in favor of all proposals. I want to cover a couple of points: Although we received mixed reviews about the Code of Conduct (CoC), I still believe we need a CoC and a process to enforce those rules in the community. While it may seem like we are making too many changes each passing season and complicating the governance process, I don’t share those opinions. Working on iterations, making changes, implementing them, and learning from past seasons has proven to be successful, and I would like to see this continue in the near future. Keeping up with everything happening with the DAO takes a significant amount of delegate time, which might be causing the problem. What we are trying to do and why might be unclear due to missing context. This could be avoided by providing a little more time to review the new changes. In the upcoming season, I am looking forward to reading the Milestones and Metrics Reviewer’s report. I hope to see them also cover past seasons
OPUser: In the upcoming season, I am looking forward to reading the Milestones and Metrics Rev…
OPUser: In the upcoming season, I am looking forward to reading the Milestones and Metrics Reviewer’s report. This is a great topic. We would like to introduce you and all of the other Grantees to the GAP. We had the honor of helping to Beta test the Grantee Accountability Protocol. Now everyone who has received a grant from Optimism or even Retroactive funds can easily attest onchain to their grant with milestones that are completed. Showing proof of impact! This will be a great :+ 1 : tool for helping keep track of the OP that has been distributed in the past as well as a time saver for delegates searching for information on past projects milestone accomplishments. We highly encourage the adoption of tooling like this in order to improve the overall management of grants. twitter.com Karma @karmahq_ As a grantee, how can you effectively showcase your progress, provide updates, and build a strong reputation in order to continue receiving (retro) grants and make a lasting impact? We are launching GAP to solve this gap.karmahq.xyz 1 : 15 PM - 26 Oct 2023 11 1
Voting for RPGF 3 will start tomorrow, and I would like to share a few words about how I will be v…
Voting for RPGF 3 will start tomorrow, and I would like to share a few words about how I will be voting in this round.
Being an early collective member, I have seen everything related to Optimism DAO, whether on the forum, on Discord, or (most of) social media. Therefore, in the governance pillar, I will cast my vote solely based on my judgment.
OP stack and End-user experience & Adoption - This will be a combined effort of the impact mentioned in the application along with due diligence done from my side.
Developer ecosystem - I am not well connected or involved in this domain, so I will seek guidance and input from badge holders I trust. However, I can’t bring myself to vote in this domain, and if I have some funds left, they will be distributed equally among the other three pillars.
The word “public goods” is often misused in our ecosystem, even more so since the announcement of RPGF. To exented, in some case, even blockchain is not truly public good, mentoining LP as public goods is delusional.
This is my understanding of “public”: open source and accessible to anyone without any boundaries, financial or otherwise. For example, a smart contract with an MIT or other open-source license, and the same goes for the frontend. Being publicly accessible is the passing criterion; impact, such as the utilization of the said tool, determines the grant size.
We have had some informative discussions on VC-backed projects, whether to support them or not, and if yes, then in what capacity. To me, RPGF is to reward the impact of public goods, not to fight or replace VCs. I will put VC-backed projects and projects with native tokens in the same category.
During the review, I have seen a couple of media-related applications, and I believe social media has an upper hand compared to others as it inherently includes PR by default. So, I will be looking for the content, not just likes and shares, but actual content. For example, is it a tutorial video on completing an Optimism quest and running an OP node?
Means test - a project run by an individual or group/community being utilized by X number of users and another project with external support being utilized by a multiplier of X, both deserve the same reward.
Note: It’s obvious but still worth mentioning. I won’t be voting on below application.
Self Retro PGF 6
Summer of Protocol Warpcast 8
In last round I supported few common goods projects but I dont think they falls under any category in this round.
Voting for RPGF 3 will start tomorrow, and I would like to share a few words about how I will be v…
Voting for RPGF 3 will start tomorrow, and I would like to share a few words about how I will be voting in this round. Being an early collective member, I have seen everything related to Optimism DAO, whether on the forum, on Discord, or (most of) social media. Therefore, in the governance pillar, I will cast my vote solely based on my judgment. OP stack and End-user experience & Adoption - This will be a combined effort of the impact mentioned in the application along with due diligence done from my side. Developer ecosystem - I am not well connected or involved in this domain, so I will seek guidance and input from badge holders I trust. However, I can’t bring myself to vote in this domain, and if I have some funds left, they will be distributed equally among the other three pillars. The word “public goods” is often misused in our ecosystem, even more so since the announcement of RPGF. To exented, in some case, even blockchain is not truly public good, mentoining LP as public goods is delusional. This is my understanding of “public”: open source and accessible to anyone without any boundaries, financial or otherwise. For example, a smart contract with an MIT or other open-source license, and the same goes for the frontend. Being publicly accessible is the passing criterion; impact, such as the utilization of the said tool, determines the grant size. We have had some informative discussions on VC-backed projects, whether to support them or not, and if yes, then in what capacity. To me, RPGF is to reward the impact of public goods, not to fight or replace VCs. I will put VC-backed projects and projects with native tokens in the same category. During the review, I have seen a couple of media-related applications, and I believe social media has an upper hand compared to others as it inherently includes PR by default. So, I will be looking for the content, not just likes and shares, but actual content. For example, is it a tutorial video on completing an Optimism quest and running an OP node? Means test - a project run by an individual or group/community being utilized by X number of users and another project with external support being utilized by a multiplier of X, both deserve the same reward. Note: It’s obvious but still worth mentioning. I won’t be voting on below application. Self Retro PGF 6 Summer of Protocol Warpcast 8 In last round I supported few common goods projects but I dont think they falls under any category in this round.
Creating a list focused on Collective Governance:
My list consists :-
Individuals or projects going…
Creating a list focused on Collective Governance:
My list consists :-
Individuals or projects going beyond their defined scope (i.e., delegating duties if they are existing delegates), like creating proposals on the forum, helping us create and maintain a positive atmosphere, promoting collectivity, especially on the Gov side, beyond our discourse forum. They reflect the highest level of chivalry; their suggestions and thoughts add value to ongoing conversations, they also share positive criticism rather than just rubber-stamping suggestions forwarded by the Foundation, thus creating a fostering and sustainable environment for existing and upcoming contributors to our collective.
Tools - I ask myself this question: “What will happen if these tools disappear today, and how will that impact our collective?”
Knowledge Base/Content - Priority to original content.
Note:
This list is purely focusing on the direct impact on governance. There are a couple of other projects nominated under Collective Governance, but I see their contribution under another pillar of RPGF rather than Collective Governance. For example, Espacio Cripto and Lodestar are missing from my list, and I will be voting for them in the End User Experience and OP Stack sections, respectively.
As mentioned above, not inlcuding these two submission - Summer of Protocol and WebOfTrust(self)
edit 1 - direct list link Optimism Agora 7
edit 2 - revoked last list and created a new one. Optimism Agora 5
rational for change - I am done with my first round of review and, with funds left I am doubling down on Governance and tools/infra projects.
as per this 1 , included my application in the list.
Creating a list focused on Collective Governance: My list consists :- Individuals or projects going…
Creating a list focused on Collective Governance: My list consists :- Individuals or projects going beyond their defined scope (i.e., delegating duties if they are existing delegates), like creating proposals on the forum, helping us create and maintain a positive atmosphere, promoting collectivity, especially on the Gov side, beyond our discourse forum. They reflect the highest level of chivalry; their suggestions and thoughts add value to ongoing conversations, they also share positive criticism rather than just rubber-stamping suggestions forwarded by the Foundation, thus creating a fostering and sustainable environment for existing and upcoming contributors to our collective. Tools - I ask myself this question: “What will happen if these tools disappear today, and how will that impact our collective?” Knowledge Base/Content - Priority to original content. Note: This list is purely focusing on the direct impact on governance. There are a couple of other projects nominated under Collective Governance, but I see their contribution under another pillar of RPGF rather than Collective Governance. For example, Espacio Cripto and Lodestar are missing from my list, and I will be voting for them in the End User Experience and OP Stack sections, respectively. As mentioned above, not inlcuding these two submission - Summer of Protocol and WebOfTrust(self) edit 1 - direct list link Optimism Agora 6 edit 2 - revoked last list and created a new one. Optimism Agora 4 rational for change - I am done with my first round of review and, with funds left I am doubling down on Governance and tools/infra projects. as per this , included my application in the list.
In past voting rounds, I focused on creating a mixture of experienced and new members. Among other …
In past voting rounds, I focused on creating a mixture of experienced and new members. Among other benefits, I believe this encourages new members to put their nominations forward. They usually bring new ideas and suggestions, and we get to experiment with a different set of candidates. In the long term, I think this will help ensure that the right candidates are elected in domains where their skills and knowledge are utilized to the fullest. Will update if I am voting on a proposal otherwise.
The exception is the latest Security Council election. By nature, the stakes are quite high, and the candidates need to be measured on a different scale. Expertise, involvement in the Optimism ecosystem, geographic location, and their reputation in this space are the deciding factors.
I missed the vote on the Granite proposal. While my voting power is relatively low and role is voluntary, I take my responsibilities very seriously. In retrospect, I would have voted in favour of the outcome, still, I sincerely apologize to those who entrusted me with their voting power.
