Calling out RetroPGF- let's discuss

Calling out optimismFND retropgf for how it decides "public good":thread: #publicgood washing, #realworld not really, #commons for one, #blockchain bias, #web3 isn’t actually decentralized, CeloOrg funds more public good.

From the beginning OptimismGov has aligned its blockchain with #publicgood. Eager to see this, a lot of people rushed onto the chain to help support the Pheonix vision. However, this has turned out to be #publicgood washing…

Just the same as grants from other blockchains, optimismFND now only gives grants to things that will directly benefit their blockchain. With this logic all grant giving blockchains are doing retroactive public good funding.

realworld value is largely skipped by this funding. We helped on creating an application for dMeter4dmrv to fund further creation of the dMRV system and have some of our contracts deployed on BuildOnBase (a side chain of Optimism, who’s operations benefit Optimism), no luck.

dMeter has helped build #dMRV infrastructure that enabled data backing of regenerative actions (like tree planting and landscape regeneration) around the world. dMRV is a key piece to empower #refi to bring #realworldvalue.

Most environmental public good projects out there would not be able to prove their alignment with
optimismFND as dMeter tried to do, so where does the #publicgood funding go- well check out the RetroPGF round projects. Some are good but it’s rampant with influencers #NFTs #game

Public goods are meant to be non excludable and non rivalrous… however the #commons that
optimismFND is supporting not only exclude the projects not building on their #blockchain but also projects that have not yet adopted #web3 tech. #blockchainbias

Ideally if RetroPGF included more real world public good it’d be open to everyone. In order to be eligible for :red_circle: RetroPGF its a lot easier if you know or are known by the people that say if a project is eligible or not. These people earned their votes, through being in web3.

A lot of them have created #crypto projects and made millions along the way- great :+1: however they are now channeling further funds to people they’re friends with… and calling it :red_circle: RetroPGF. While in reality it creates further centralization and wealth divides.

CeloOrg has funded projects not yet building on their blockchain as well as projects that haven’t adopted #web3 technology because they recognize the #publicgood and the #regen potential.

This thread is meant to incite a debate and bring further thought towards optimismFND :red_circle: RetroPGF funding process. It’d be great if we could further support #ReFi in creating #realworldvalue on
optimismFND. While the #climatecrisis looms over we’re failing to see the pheonix.

Original Twitter thread:

@FractalVisions thanks for letting me know it might get better traction here. Let’s see where this discussion leads to.

I believe this is one of the greatest misconceptions. The foundation sets the environment and has an administrator role. The decisions go to Token House and Citizen House.

For “public good washing” on RetroPGF you should address the Badgeholders, OptimismFND follows their vote.

For the S4-approved mission, you should be addressing the Token House.

For approved grants, you should be addressing the Grants Council.

We need to finish this “Optimism Foundation fault” culture and start making accountable those responsible. It’s also the only way to create focused feedback.

On the public goods debate, there’s plenty on this forum. I remember arguing with OPuser a year ago on this topic. I’ve concluded that the definition of public good is a collective balance between every voter’s opinions. You won’t get a proper and straight definition but you can grasp what people think by watching what’s being voted.

If you are talking about Grants from the “Grants Council” it was stated until S4 that the Builders and Growth Grants scope was to specifically bring builders and users to optimism. (approved by Token House vote). And there are plenty of feedback posts where you can request opening the scope, I believe the most obvious will be to do grants for the superchain and include every OPstack chain that adheres to the law of chains.

You can look at the RPGF2 round and see at least 8 of the top 10 are not aligned exclusively with Optimism. And If you go to the top 20 I can count 18 that are nonexclusive.

Agree, let’s use facts and focus our attention on each of the components and not the foundation itself.


I hope that when discussing this issue, we can temporarily set aside our positions as applicants. If posting is purely fueled by emotions due to one’s project application being rejected, the discussion will lose its necessity. The motivations and purposes behind the discussion make it difficult to make everything better.

I don’t assume the mechanism is perfect; it should be a compromise. A tendency towards popularity, scale, and influence will still see the top 20% of projects take away 60-80% of the rewards, which aligns with some patterns.

Our voters might have certain preferences, and there is limited information available about their background distributions. They rarely express their viewpoints and positions. The public is also generally disengaged from the governance here, and voters seldom venture outside this circle. I’d like to quote the OP Collective’s definition: ‘The Optimism Collective is a band of companies, communities, and citizens working together to reward public goods and build a sustainable future for Ethereum.’

Who exactly is the community, what role do they play, and what significance do they hold? Where are they? Of course, my point isn’t to reward the community. We see that the most active individuals on Discord might be considered part of the community, but they seem to be from entirely different worlds. This disconnect is surprising.

1 Like