Context for OP Labs Retro Funding Proposal

I (Optimism co-founder & CEO at OP Labs) wanted to put this post together to explain some context behind why OP Labs will be requesting Retro Funding for the Custom Gas Token feature in the OP Stack round, and explain how it relates to the vision for sustainable funding for open source and impact=profit. Would love any feedback on this first step towards achieving Retro Funding nirvana.

Letā€™s dive in.

The Public Goods Funding Problem :dizzy_face:

Optimismā€™s founding was spurred by the realization that in order to achieve the Ethereum vision we would need to solve the public goods funding problem. In our post announcing the transition from Plasma Group to Optimism we wrote:

Scalability is still a priority ā€” but another critical issue has become clear to us: the problem of funding and sustaining public goods.

As open source Ethereum developers, we could see the disproportionate investment in speculative applications and protocol security when compared to core development & the creation of Ethereum ecosystem public goods.

We need in-protocol mechanisms for sustaining open source to feel confident that we could create a decentralized internet that would stay decentralized and open source indefinitely. This meant scaling Ethereum wasnā€™t enough, we would also have to create a mechanism for funding the public goods it is based upon.

Retro Funding Flywheel :recycle:

Weā€™re making a bet that Retro Funding is the most credible mechanism to create an incentive loop that maintains decentralization of the protocol.

One goal of Retro Funding for Optimism is to make open source contributions to the OP Stack an economically rational strategy for everyone from individuals to large teams. Itā€™s not a replacement, but an alternative to closed source or extractive business models. Imagine the impact and velocity we could achieve if building open source was not just the most fun and impactful but also the most profitable!

Retro Funding OP Labsā€™ Contributions :key:

Now that the Collective is growing and becoming more self sufficient, it seems like a perfect time for Labs to put its money where its mouth is and prove Retro Funding really works. If OP Labs doesnā€™t believe in Retro Funding enough to rely on it as a purely open source business model, then how can we expect others to take the plunge?

OP Labs is a Public Benefit Corporation (PBC) and has thus far been sustained by VC Funding. However, being a PBC means that while being for-profit, Labs is bound by its charter to ā€œenshrine fair access to public goods with open source software.ā€ Today OP Labs receives grants from the Optimism Foundation to work on the core protocol, but the goal since OP Labā€™s inception has been to write OSS while being fully sustained by and reliant on decentralized governance. We now have an opportunity to realize this goal, show that Retro Funding works, that impact=profit, and that Ethers Phoenix is really a global attractor.

A Baby Step :baby:

We are taking a very small step towards this vision with applying to Retro Funding 5 for the Custom Gas Token feature. This feature was developed without a grant from the Foundation but we think itā€™s still had a really positive impact on the Collective. Anyway, more specifics on that coming soon!

In the meantime, would love any and all community feedback on our first steps towards participating in Retro Funding and, in the process, addressing the problem we set out to solve years agoā€”the problem of funding and sustaining public goods.

Oh and hereā€™s a lilā€™ quote from Vitalik :heart:

this is not just another slight improvement to what exists. Rather, itā€™s an initial foray into a fundamentally new class of social technology which, has the potential to overturn how we make many public decisions, large and small. The ultimate effect of these schemes rolled out in their full form could be as deeply transformative as the industrial-era advent of mostly-free markets and constitutional democracy.

You might think it but this wasnā€™t Vitalik writing about the potential of AI :grin:

19 Likes

I like how OP Labs is approaching this. Agree with putting the resources where the mouth/vision is.
This post is a good way to notify the collective and spark conversations.
I support this move and as a Badgeholder I will vote in reflection of this on RF5:)
Iā€™d love to see more constant updates of OP Labs with the Collective

4 Likes

Optimism Monorepo contributions are not rewarded within Retro Funding 5. Commits to the monorepo are mainly done by Optimism core devs and the core dev program is not developed enough to support outside contributions to the monorepo yet.

foundation need to explain this or oplabs cannot use custom gas token to apply RF5 because it is in optimism monorepo

Hi Karl!

Itā€™s very exciting to see OP Labs looking to apply to Retro Funding 5!

It would be good to learn more on the already realized impact that the Custom Gas Token feature has generated to the Collective to better understand what the team is applying with and how Badgeholders will be able to assess the application based on impact (outcome and long-term effects) rather than inputs and output (development work + completed work).

I might be wrong, but I understand this feature was just released to production and hence no other team had been using it by August 2024 which is the scope for this round:

This is a really interesting situation thought, and Iā€™d love to read others thoughts on it. I can definitely see a case for applying now to cover for the development work which has been completed and this can easily be measured and ā€œpaid forā€. However, I feel we might be more prone to either overfund it (based on expected unrealized impact) which leads us away from the retro mechanism, or to underfund it if we only equate it to completed work.

Additionally, this brings a good consideration to have around eligibility criteria if we should be considering impact generated as when the output was created or when the benefits of said output were derived.

Looking forward to hearing other peopleā€™s thoughts.

This image might be useful to understand the logic model recently introduced to Badgholders which is in line with the traditional definition of Impact as understood in other fields outside of web3.

2 Likes

@0x666 thanks for flagging this. Excluding all Monorepo contributions is not the intention of this rule, its intention is to only support contributions from core devs. This is done to avoid creating an incentive for low quality PRs & issues because reviewing those requires significant time and care of the core devs. Other projects have experienced this situation where possible rewards lead to the creation of a large number of low quality PRs & issues and we want to avoid that pitfall.
The language in the round 5 forum post has been updated to reflect this

Only Optimism Monorepo contributions by core devs may be rewarded within Retro Funding 5. Commits to the monorepo are currently mainly done by Optimism core devs and the core dev program is not developed enough to support outside contributions to the monorepo yet. As the core dev program evolves, more contributions to the monorepo may become eligible.

3 Likes