[DRAFT] [GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Entangled Optimism mDAOs - Cycle #10

Project name :
Entangled Optimism micro-DAOs. Iteration 1: Babel m-DAO
Author name and contact info
Discord: TheDoctor#9791 | Telegram: @ateneo1 (Other OP collective members may join and participate from the beginning)

I understand that I will be required to provide additional KYC information to the Optimism Foundation to receive this grant: Yes, and to any OP collective member who wants to check.

L2 recipient address : TBD

Which Voting Cycle are you applying for? :Phase 1 - Cycle 10

Which sub-committee should review your proposal? Growth experiment grants

Project description

Creation of micro-DAOS (sized and budget limited) based on simple goals proposed by the OP community. Each m-DAO will focus on a particular experiment, and they will be entangled by OP glue.
This will help us to onboard users into the governance and it will be a cheap and easy way to start with community-driven experiments that cannot be designed from the OP top-down governance work. OP constitution says: “The Collective will undertake a series of governance experiments. These experiments should help the Collective understand the balance and power dynamics within its ecosystem, and allow the Collective to define itself, evolve, and grow iteratively over time.”

In a complex human system, there is no other way to find solutions to better governance than trying out-of-the-box thinking. Prove micro-projects and natural selection will do their magic. The optimism collective goal is unique, but won’t be possible without this bottom-up work.
As @katie pointed me in the previous draft, this idea it’s similar to the MetaDao concept from the end-game approved by maker DAO you can check it here (I didn’t know about it, and I add a great idea from Ron to minimize friction) :

The difference is that MAKER is a huge giant DAO and we are still in an early phase. That’s why we can do it this way and MAKER needs to coordinate a huge infrastructure and hire fiat professionals that perhaps don’t get what this world is about. I wonder what Rune Christensen thinks about this proposal (we can ask him).

Traditional democracy discourages people from voting in many ways:

  • Their vote is a drop in the ocean, they don’t feel the impact of the decision, so they are not taking deep thought into it and end up voting for more superficial reasons (if they vote at all).
  • They vote for an entire program for people who are not even forced to follow that program.

We will be able to test a layered/clustered governance structure built from the bottom in a game theoretical way that avoids malicious agents and guarantees decentralization. The general goal is a hierarchical and decentralized model that resists attacks allowing information to flow from the lower layers of the hierarchy. In this way, the information travels from the bottom up, but it does not do it in a way that can brake system stability or expose our work for other agents to take advantage of (it could be close to the fuzzy antifragile concept popularized by Taleb).

Project links:

Additional team member info
I really need you here

Please link to any previous projects the team has meaningfully contributed to:
I have been experimenting with DAOs for more than a year in a fair way and learning so much about them. I had some previous experience with experimental economics and my fields of interest are complex systems, game theory, and behavioral economics. I am a Ph.D. holder with a strong academic background in Applied Mathematics, Quantitative Economics, and Psychology. Author and co-author of several scientific papers, some of them in JCR-indexed journals, and I have done being an outsider of the current fiat academic institutions.

Relevant usage metrics N/A

Competitors, peers, or similar projects

There are many peers and decentralized projects ongoing or outdated. It is hard to know of them because such truly decentralized projects do not spend on marketing or attract users with false promises. They grow slowly and isolated from one another. Most of them will not survive by themselves, others are already gone. But those ideas, that knowledge, and that people are still alive. They are not competitors, but they can be future optimistic collective members. I will name some of them:

Decentralized Science Communities: Scholars looking for a new paradigm of science. Fair and economic and politically unbiased. They are working in creating a new paradigm where scholars do not depend on the political decisions of institutions or publishers:

Pro-community projects /ONGs/Activistic
We can curate data from sites like:

Bitcoin community projects like Bitcoin Beach.
ONGs and activistic movements are formed by people who believe in social impact causes but are trapped in an ideological systemic trap that make them forget the final goal wasting all energy in friction. Our work here will need them to create a new paradigm solving (or significantly reducing) these issues.

Liquid Democracy communities Some liquid democracy parties gained government representation. There is much work done for these people and much value can be added to this ecosystem.

Is/will this project be open-sourced? Absolutely open, but with a layered structure that allows the flux of information to be public when is secured enough to prevent the malicious agents from taking profit from the OP collective work.

Optimism native? Optimistic conceived, more than native.

Date of deployment/expected deployment on Optimism: As soon as possible

Ecosystem Value Proposition :
OP Constitution’s guiding principles say: “Influence in governance must extend beyond financial stake to value humanhood and intelligent life”. DeFi is a revolution that has brought too much attention and value to this ecosystem, we need to take that impulse and go beyond. The community is talking about DAOs being the new revolution, but the complexity of such systems is keeping people out of this. Media show crypto as a scam when the scammers are the same agents coming from the fiat system and taking advantage of people’s ignorance. Those who are trained in this technology, know that this tech will bring more transparency and security to the world. We are testing complex tools with users that are not well-trained.

While Optimism is experimenting with new governance that may help to solve these problems (for companies, nonprofits, cities, or states). We lack motivated people to participate in OP governance. They need more help to do it and feel that this is not another crypto project to pump and dump. We could have millions of users on our quest, but we don’t know anything about them. They all have too much to share, but they don’t know we care.
How the m-DAO project can solve this:

  • A m-DAO allows any user to interact with a community of a size so they could get to know each other in a deeper way and promote good and meaningful work. **
  • Any user could share their preferences, information, and concerns and vote on some decisions to broadcast to others m-DAO or upper governance levels
  • Natural selection: Some m-DAOs won’t work, and some others will and will merge or transfer more value to the ecosystem.
  • m-DAOs can provide community-aligned incentives for quality participation. Quality doesn’t mean people’s characteristics. Everyone has value to apport to the community, they just need to find a place where they are motivated to share that value. Instead of people looking for an airdrop, we will have people participating in some m-DAO they have an interest in, knowing that they will be fairly valued for their contribution.

**Some anthropological and evolutionist theory claims that humans are tailored to interact with a limited number of people (around 150), but at the same time can believe in something greater and coordinate in millions to fight for it. These human characteristics make us vulnerable to manipulation by powered agents. Leaders spread hate and conflict to make their communities strong. We count on people from different countries, cultures, etc. and we need to start breaking those barriers and building this new paradigm over a global pro-humanity idea promoting pure human values that transcend any social, cultural, or ideological imposition.
So, with this proposal we are going to train a bring new users from different cultures, backgrounds, and all kinds of diversity that could work together in this cause. Enemies are not other L2, other blockchain projects (the ones sharing decentralized values), or even governments. The only enemy is the systemic loop we all are inside, and it is very difficult to go solo against it.

We all going to make it: (3,3) Olympus’s proposal failed because the incentive of people was run with the money before the bubble explode. Optimism is about using iterations and creating community trust for people to learn that cooperation is better for everyone and sustainable in the long run. We only need to do it and go together, and there is no other way that real game-theoretical mechanism that we need to find: from top to bottom as OP foundation and collective members are working now, but in the opposite direction is essential.

What is the problem statement this proposal hopes to solve for the Optimism ecosystem?

We lack active participation in governance as well as more project aligned with OP ecosystem and values. We need to motivate small OP holders to participate in governance and bring new users motivated to work in a way that their interests will be aligned with our values.

DAOS require a high attention demand to get. Many crypto users misinterpret the DAO concept due to the misuse of the name in the ecosystem. In addition, for a non-native English speaker, the demand is higher and some members of the OP community are out of governance because of the language barrier. As a result, the community misses out on the indispensable inputs of culturally diverse views.

Finally, a decentralized community cannot be created without the majority of people outside this technology, so it is necessary to invite them to participate. There is a lot of value hidden there and it takes a lot of legwork to extract it.

How does your proposal offer a value proposition solving the above problem?

By offering OP holders to use their OP to participate from a m-DAO, gaining more OP as they get the governance value. This may be unlikely for this user to sell OP rather than keep participating and extracting value from real-world making OP economics sustainable.

By promoting multilanguage m-DAO, based on special interest and using human and AI translation assistance.

By welcoming new users in a more personalized way and guiding them toward a proper m-DAO. By looking for motivated people from non-crypto communities and guiding them in the ecosystem.
And by creating some symbiotic relations with other communities outside OP.

Has your project previously applied for an OP grant? No

Number of OP tokens requested: 5000 OP for iteration 1

Did the project apply for or receive OP tokens through the Foundation Partner Fund?: No

If OP tokens were requested from the Foundation Partner Fund, what was the amount? N/A

How much will your project match in co-incentives? All of it

Proposal for token distribution: For babel m-DAO we can experiment with 5000 Babel tokens minted in OP (only for governance with no liquidity) that will be backed by 1 OP each. Babel m-DAO members can decide to keep holding their m-DAO token (which will be valued at 1 OP + the value of being a member of the m-DAO) or to burn it for the OP value and be out of the m-DAO.
Please provide any additional information that will facilitate accountability:
OP tokens will be held in a wallet delegated to the delegate chosen by the m-DAO. Babel token distribution will be distributed periodically between participants according to their contribution and with the approval of some third party chosen by the subcommittee. Further information on the Babel m-DAO launch will be posted soon in a new Thread where the community and participants will give their feedback.
The purpose of this Babel-DAO is to start a community experiment and be the seed for other m-DAOs having these strengths:

  • Forming a group including diverse people will reduce the possibility of collusion (we will explore some conditions to minimize the risk).
  • The middleman is one of the main problems the world experiment. People tend to think in In-group and out-group terms, and they are easy targets for their own fellow citizens, that’s why there is a point for an Optimism citizenship, where the information flows properly. A diverse group can control in a better way for bad actors. Since the projects are created from scratch (no matter how tiny would be) we could implement experimental methods to assure cleanness.

Thanks for reading


First I must say that I’ve been in contact with @TheDoctor regarding this idea.
I think is a very abstract proposal (complexity is not human friendly haha).
Any feedback on Discord?
I’m in for the experiment. I don’t have much time, but I prefer use it in here rather than in other crypto-communities.


That’s the point. That’s why I posted: let’s move as soon as I understood the lack of engagement of users on governance.


Thanks for the feedback I got on Discord:
@OPUser and @jackanorak were kind enough to read it before and made a point about how time and energy-consuming it is to give proper feedback on such an abstract issue. Also, I need to put more effort into improving it.

@katie thanks for pointing me to the MetaDAO idea Rune recently presented to MAKER and was ratified by governance. I’ll check it up and compare it to what I have in mind.

And the 3 of you point out the fack that I wasn’t asking for any fund. And this is important to understand the motivation of my proposal for the last cycle:

As I keep reading all the work and comments you all have done. I notice there is a concern about OP funding going to projects not aligned with the OP ecosystem and values. Since I am not yet aware of the accounting, I didn’t add a particular amount of OP tokens to fund this proposal, but is important to understand the main goals of the proposal:

  1. To create working groups (mDAO) in a way that we can be confident they don’t have any hidden personal interest or collusion chances. Projects coming from those groups could be much more efficient than the regular way.
  2. To provide some funds for such a project, held by a trusted party on the collective or the foundation. I think this is urgent and important for the OP vision, and I don’t know how long will it take for next season.

@katie kindly pointed to me at MAKER DAO’s MetaDaos plan as something similar to this. And it is in many ways and it’s been great to see this and to learn from Run ideas I wouldn’t consider. Here’s a summary in case anyone is interested:

Now I understand what you meant by saying it’s early for OP to do that. But micro-DAO approach is bottom-up, that even may complement the MAKER Approach (they are hiring organizational experts with fiat mentality, they’re now a big company and they are forced to do that).
That’s why IMO it is not soon for us to start this approach in an experimental way, I’m sure if Run could go back in time he’d intend to promote this sooner. I’m not familiar with MAKER DAO, sure most of you came from voting there (as I came for voting in Decentraland DAO). It’s great to learn from MAKER problems and anticipate solutions.

Nice season 2 finale all.


This proposal is extremely interesting! In my personal opinion, the most attractive aspect of Optimism’s governance is the shared commitment to 'relentlessly iterate’ and experiment on governance. One thing not mentioned is the careful planning and testing that this experimentation requires prior to implementation.

In my opinion, m-DAOs would not only create a more bottom-up approach but would also increase the Collective’s ability to experiment with various theoretical approaches to DAO governance on a smaller scale (and at a much faster rate). As a result, the Collective could essentially outsource the risk involved with experimentation, and adopt the battle-tested smaller iterations it sees as most beneficial/mission aligned. Meanwhile, the entire ecosystem would benefit from observing and participating. Modular Bedrock infra :handshake: modular governance experiments.


Thanks for your comments. That’s it, some kind of iteration game. Faster and cheaper. I keep working on it. I hope more OP holder join the experiment.
Nice week


Hello everyone,
Back with this crazy idea, not easy at all. It seems like MetaDaos on Maker will be for lunch in Q3 2023. I am sure that in the phase OP is in right now, it will be easier to experiment with microDaos if someone else is willing to help I can review the project.
I have been experimenting with a microDao in Spanish and I learn something from the first iterations.
I’ll open a new thread to discuss a way of join up any microDao to Optimism: for any microDao Token to be minted, an OP token must be used and all the OP tokens would be delegated. Anyone can burn their microDao Token, but they’ll just receive the OP token, losing the aggregate value of being part of the microDao.

1 Like

Дуже цікаво, дякую за пояснення!


Any links to an existing website?


love project and what is going to achieve


Not yet, just some iterations with a group in Spanish where I presented the OP project.
The best thing is to start with simple goals and brainstorming. I will do that in new threads.


Thanks for your comment. One of the main ideas is to start a working group of little OP holders from different languages, no matter their English proficiency. Anyone has a right to participate in governance without having to rely on a third party or intermediary (although many people are doing a great job by translating and forming non-English spoken community, I strongly believe we have to explore this so we can minimize some potential problems).

1 Like

This proposal is very intriguing and exciting with its idealism, but also hard for me to conceptualise because some of the jargon, theory and technology is over my head.

A large majority of the proposal can only make me want to participate, as it speaks to some of the hopes that drove many of us to blockchain, decentralised tech and crypto. So overall, I want to keep updated, and I can volunteer my participation to a point.

But while strongly written, it must be admitted that this is a rough outline. I think (but I’m not sure), this is something akin to a series of caucus groupings (the m-DAOs) operating underneath, and ideally directing, the large Optimism governance umbrella above? Again, some of this stuff goes over my head, but if the idea is bottom-up governance and small user empowerment (and not the involuntary reliance for leadership and direction from the power users, that are quickly being consolidated in the Defi world similar to whats long been found in the fiat world), THEN I’m all for it and happy to help & observe.

Thanks @TheDoctor for drawing my attention to this proposal. The longer I’ve spent in crypto governance the more my spirit has been crushed as I’ve slowly realised a lot of the same problems in traditional power & political structures are just being emulated here in crypto governance (just by new players, though). So while your proposal is a little confusing and spotty for me, it’s the most optimistic (pun intended, haha) thing I’ve read here in a very long time. More power to you!



Thanks for your kind words. It was just a draft, open for anybody to edit. I should’ve reviewed it ages ago, but sadly not have much time.

I think we should start with little moves and see if anything like that can emerge (no matter the size)


I have reviewed the proposal and added significant changes. I would appreciate any feedback and participation.



I’ve noticed the update, thanks for keeping up with this idea.

Curious about m-DAO’s and how could help easing adoption and reaching more “less-technically-educated” beings.

I am in for the ride. :slight_smile:


This is interesting conceptually. For this initial m-DAO, is there a way to clearly define its purpose? Right now it looks like it’s just supposed to “exist” in order to test the m-DAO concept.

Is there some niche cause or task it can have? Perhaps it can be in charge of advocating for or creating more multilingual resources? A clearly defined purpose for the first experimental m-DAO would likely go a long way in coaxing activity out of any members.


Hi @TheDoctor

Thank you for your interest in and engagement with the Optimism community. We’ve been following your proposals regarding mDAOs and appreciate the important conversations you’ve started.

In regards to your thoughts on entangled Optimism mDAOs, while an interesting concept, it is very early in the development of Optimism’s governance system to implement a structural proposal of this magnitude. The Foundation is working on setting up flexible funding structures in Season 4, which should be able to support the type of work you’re advocating for (onboarding, increasing gov participation, etc.), but which would also be a necessary first step before considering a more advanced system of subdaos. Since we are still early in our development, this type of proposal does not currently fall under a valid proposal type.

We appreciate that you’ve taken delegate feedback into account and attempted to scope down your proposal to a specific translation mDAO. However, we already have a relatively well established translation program spanning 22 languages, covering user docs translations as well as various other community content in those languages. There are many Optimism contributors that have been working hard on these efforts for some time. As your proposal would split these efforts across multiple initiatives, we’d instead recommend that you contribute to the existing translation program.

If you’d like to discuss further, DM me and we’d be happy to set up a time.


Hi @lavande,
Thank you for your kind feedback.

I’m happy to hear that. The proposal was just a call to action, but it’s true that more structure is required to start those experiments. And I must agree it’s too early as @katie pointed up.

Thanks, I believe the Spanish community is doing a great job. I would suggest for season 4 and further some translation mechanism promoting information flowing bottom-up: Inviting directly the community to participate in some global projects and provide translation support (in a neutral way).

I very much appreciate the respectful feedback and understand that it’s not easy, but we’ll stay optimistic.