Weighted conflict. What a beautiful approachability of a moloch trap. Congratulations fren, this is an incredible post, we are going to share it to more people that want to understand conflict of interest.
Common practice are the best ways to be fully transparent and honest.
My admiration to @Griff
2 Likes
I will not vote for:
- NumbaNERDs (Contributor)
- Messari (Former Employer)
- Raho/Tnorm (Myself)
3 Likes
Hello!
Unless someone sees something wrong, I wonāt be abstaining my votes on these, but being on the safer side of communication:
These are orgs that I have directly collaborated with in the past (short term or one time engagement over a year ago), though we have no direct engagements now:
Blocknative
Buidlguidl
Protofire (They received a grant from us/Maker)
Gitcoin (hold small # tokens but delegated)
I have no direct financial stake in the orgs below, but Iām friends with founder/team members from:
ETHGlobal
Kernel
Week in Ethereum News
Crowdmuse
Tally
Immunefi
Department of Decentralization
Protocol Guild
Lore
PWNDAO
Chronicle Labs
I have created a criteria to standardize reviewing across several projects, but Iāll be checking my bias and only give these projects the rewards they deserve. Will update here if I see something conflicting before finalizing ballots!
4 Likes
Hey Hey - Kyle from Gitcoin here.
I am going to be abstaining from voting on Gitcoin and Gitcoin Passport given the conflict of interest.
I also am leading PGN (an OP stack L2) and will be abstaining from anything impacting that network. (I have yet to find a project though).
I have collaborated with a number of projects in the space, but do not have upside in any of them that I have come across. I will update/edit this post of that changes.
Cheers
2 Likes
Hi there, Iāve got some conflicts Iād like to disclose:
I work for ScopeLift, and ScopeLift has 2 projects in RetroPGF round 3:
Voting on these would violate rule 10d: āBadgeholders should not vote for organizations where they expect any portion of funds to flow to them or any projects from which they derive income.ā Therefore, I wonāt vote for them.
Additionally, ScopeLift has some active clients in round 3:
Voting on these would violate rule 10d, so I wonāt vote for them.
Finally, ScopeLift has some previous clients in round 3:
Since they are not active clients of ours, and have not been for more than a year, I believe that voting for them is not a violation of rule 10d, so Iāll retain my voting ability there.
I received my voting badge from @tjayrush, and did contract work for TrueBlocks in 2018-2019. Since itās been ~4 years since TrueBlocks funds flowed to me, voting for TrueBlocks would not be a violation of rule 10d. I do have a small bias for this project, given that I used to work for it. I believe I can manage this bias appropriately, so Iāll retain my voting privilege here as well.
Hit me up if you disagree, happy to revise.
Cheers!
2 Likes
I will NOT be voting for:
- WASD (Founder)
1 Like
gm!
I am a contributor at Gitcoin and will not be voting for:
- Gitcoin
- Gitcoin Passport
1 Like
GM,
I will not vote for TrueBlocks as Iām a lead developer.
Cheers
2 Likes
Hey Jonas,All And Badgeholder
Iām looking forward to the next round where we might consider the option to differentiate between individual applications and projects in the Retro Public Good funding scheme. Why could this be a very positive step? letās discusssssss
First and foremost, by distinguishing between individual applications and projects, we can provide more careful and specific attention. This allows badgeholders and the community to more easily assess and support initiatives that align with their respective visions and goals. In other words, it provides a more focused and in-depth approach.
Furthermore, with this differentiation, individual applications can find funding more easily and tailored to their needs, while larger projects can receive more substantial and targeted support. This creates a more dynamic and responsive ecosystem to various scales and types of contributions.
Next, this separation allows for more detailed evaluation processes. Individual applications and projects will be assessed based on more relevant parameters and criteria to their scale and scope of contribution. This can enhance transparency and ensure that every type of effort, whether big or small, receives proportional attention.
Finally, the benefit also lies in driving more active participation. Individual applications and projects might feel more motivated to contribute because they know thereās a funding path tailored to their needs. This can enhance the overall appeal of the Retro Public Good Funding program and encourage sustainable growth in this ecosystem.
So, by considering this separation for the next round, we can create a more inclusive, responsive environment and provide more precise support to contributors at various levels. Hopefully, this idea can enrich and further advance the Optimism ecosystem
2 Likes
I will not vote for:
- Ethers JS
I am a cofounder of a non-profit foundation (Glowworm Foundation) with Ricmoo, founder of Ethers JS.
5 Likes
Hello Optimism Community,
While Iām not expecting any portion of funding from these projects as specified in rule 10d. I will abstain from voting in these projects because it could be perceived as a conflict of interest:
As Joxes is a contributor and I got my badge from him.
As they are contributors to Ethereum Honduras just as I am.
I want to close by saying that even if Iām abstaining from voting, these are amazing projects driving real impact to developers and to the LATAM ecosystem and I would recommend them to any badge holder.
2 Likes
Marek here. Through my role at Celo Iāve had the pleasure of meeting many co-founders and contributors to a number of projects listed in round 3. I am working hard to check my bias and am focusing on the impact that these projects have had. I am not aware of any upside in any of the projects in this round.
3 Likes
A bit late, but hereās my disclosure:
- I am the founder of the TrueBlocks project, which is my sole source of income, therefore, I will not vote for this project,
- In past years, Iāve had small consulting projects with Giveth and Gitcoin, but these projects have been completed, therefor I retain the right to vote on these project,
- I am friends with many people and projects in the space, but I will not use that fact in my voting. I vote for projects becuase they are (a) public goods, (b) not VC backed, (c) impactful (both in the past and in the future), and (d) important and technically adept.
I distributed badges to Dawid Szlachta and Ed Muzaruk, therefore I do not expect votes from those two people.
4 Likes
For RPGF3, I donāt have a conflict of interest with the direct project Iām a core contributor/co-founder of (Limitless Labs). We intentionally havenāt applied for RPGF3 as weāve been deep into an R&D phase, havenāt had much public exposure, and received fair funding covering our previous impact during RPGF2.
Iāll be voting for projects, despite obviously having some bias (e.g., volunteering, working on past humanitarian projects, partnering/supporting protocols Iāve contributed to) such as Kernel (volunteer Guide & member since May '21), Giveth (raised funds on the platform for humanitarian aid, 100% donated), Gitcoin (raised the largest humanitarian aid funds with matching for Ukraine, 100% donated), and protocols such as Yearn, Snapshot, Collab Land, Guild (ecosystem partners).
*Iāll be updating this reply in the future to showcase any new conflicts of interest that might occur.
3 Likes
Going through the projects in the list while creating my ballot I also noticed another Conflict of interest for me for RPGF3. I am an investor in PwnDAO. As such I have not voted for them.
5 Likes