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.