The 0.5% filter on this council will only concentrate more power and will leave behind many hard working users, more than 10 ex committee members won’t be able to apply.
The council should, I believe, have a blend of experts/builders and empowered delegates, with a dedicated number of seats for each role. The 0.5% filter seems reasonable for said delegates, as over time protocols will (and should) accrue more of a say over OP governance.
OP governance is currently bureaucrat heavy; some community members with very little voting power and debatable experience have an outsize voice and influence. It’s important community members have a say, but not at the expense of protocols who have bet their future on Optimism (SNX, as an example). To note: delegates who do not meet the threshold can always campaign (and should attract delegations if their work was worthwhile) or simply buy OP!
A possible compromise here could be to have one seat for a non-expert, below-threshold “delegate”, thus mitigating votepower as a vote influence for that particular seat.
Interesting wording. Anyway, protocols and projects can listen to community members (aka users) or not, If community members aren’t welcome don’t expect them to stay. After all, protocols are irrelevant without users and that’s probably why many protocols/projects/teams/whatever need grants and incentives to exist.
See also : CGP 2.0 - Delegated Domain Allocation by Questbook - Proposals - Compound Community Forum
The compound “council” for running their grant program CGP2.0
Based on community feedback, the following updates have been made:
- The one-year lock up on Council rewards has been removed
- In regards to builders grants, added: “If access to upfront capital is a blocker for applicants, Optimism may put them in touch with alternative resources to support teams in this position.”
- Added: “There will be a multitude of other activities non-Council delegates will be responsible for in future Seasons.”
- Added the following Council responsibilities:
- “filter and process all grant applications. Every grant applicant should receive a response, even if their proposal will not proceed to Council review.”
- “ensure ongoing Council operations and performance are transparent to the community”
- Edited: “three week cycle” to “regular cycles”
This is not a final version. The Reflection Period officially starts on 11/17/22, so there is plenty of time for additional feedback. For example, an open question for additional discussion:
- As the Council is currently designed, there is no eligibility requirement for members to hold >0.5% voting power. Should any of the Council positions require >0.5% voting supply for eligibility?
I am inferring that the filtering process for grant applications that will be defined by the council determines what proposals ARE and ARE NOT reviewed correct?
My concern here is lack of transparency in that filtering process as we all know that proposers are going to want to know exactly why their grant did not even make it to council review.
This problem was accounted for in Season 2 as everyone knew you have to get 2 delegates with >.5% voting power to approve your proposal before it moved to an official review/vote
Is there a way we can explicitly state that there needs to be transparency in whatever this filtering process ends up being?
Suggestion: modify the statement to:
*“filter and process all grant applications. Every grant applicant should receive a response, even if their proposal will not proceed to Council review. If the proposal does not proceed to Council review the reasoning for this decision should be included in a public response to the grant applicant”
Logic for why the >0.5% voting supply was an appropriate requirement in Season 2:
I saw the logic in requiring at least one person on each committee to have >.5% voting supply as this was loosely tied to the requirement of proposals needing two delegates with >.5% voting supply to approve the proposal before it moved to an official review/vote. It only makes sense for the people paying the most attention to have the required voting supply available needed move these proposals through that approval gate.
Logic for not including >0.5% voting supply as an eligibility requirement in Season 3:
I logically do not see a reason to include >.5% voting supply as an eligibility requirement for any of the council positions as these are positions you are elected into, based on your merits, by a group of your peers. Putting additional restrictions on these elected positions may disqualify the best candidate. Effectively the amount of voting power you have has no bearing on how well you are able to do your job in season 3.
IMO this must be vested over a 6 to 12-month period with monthly releases. What a council member approves will directly benefit or harm his own future tokens over the next year.
I’m trying to wrap my mind around how these OP tokens can be used for hackathons and technical content with the year lock. Can you guys express an example of what you are thinking to better understand it?
All proposals going for this fund will have to provide their own treasury and metrics on the next year’s expenses, otherwise, we will be approving teams, projects, and hackathons without knowing if they have sufficient funds to be here 1-year latter.
We should work on expressing these activities in advance before approving this draft. It’ll give delegates a sense of participation and legitimize the Council.
I love it! I suggest council members have to ability to modify tags on proposals. As an ex-committee member I struggled with the forum coordination, I suggest:
- Enforce all new proposals to tag council members the first time they post it
- Create a “not review by council” tag
- Create a “review by council tag”
Let’s define the official channels:
- Read-only discord channel for the council to chat and coordinate
- Forum responses
Let’s keep it simple and clear, we don’t want council members going through 3 or 5 channels of communication and missing relevant information.
Also create a Council tag on discord for any relevant meeting, kyc, or presentation they need to be aware of to be used by Optimism members.
Council call calendar and pre-define if google meet, zoom, discord etc.
Transparency with the community it’s a must but at the same time, the community should know where the council’s transparency is.
I can see council leaders be >0.5% to have both Optimism governance representation, skin in the game, and give the council legitimacy.
But delegations didn’t move that much since the airdrop. We got big delegates because they are well-known people in the space, not because they made a great job at reviewing proposals or for their long and great commitment to this governance. If you want to filter candidates do it for the job they put into governance these last 2 seasons not because of how influencers they are in the space when an airdrop happens. We want good reviewers, not good politicians wasting time champagning for their delegation % instead of doing the actual job they were elected to do.
I would also like to know how this election process will be. If I wanted to be part of de developer’s grant subcommittee, will I have to make my "delegate council member " proposal?
If this is true, looking at the dates, this proposal will be approved:
- Dec 8th - Dec 21st: Special Voting Cycle #9a (voting on grants council and protocol delegation program proposals)
And council members will be voted on:
- Jan 5th - January 18th: Special Voting Cycle #9b (any proposals contingent upon passing in Special Voting Cycle #9a). If Special Voting Cycle #9b is not necessary, Season 3 may start on January 5th
- December 22nd - Jan 4th: Holiday break
as the only possible dates to create my hypothetical “Delegate council member” proposal.
I think the Council Election process needs more clarity and at least 2 or 3 days outside Holyday Break for people to work on their nomination.
I have no problem working on these dates btw just figuring out how all this is going to work.
In response to the 0.5% requirement, I agree that this shouldn’t be relevant, as the members will be judged on merit and experience anyways.
Just wanted to counter this point. Delegation has been very sticky and after the initial airdrop. There is currently no avenue or process for “worthwhile work” to be rewarded with more delegation, which in my opinion is a missed opportunity to align incentives.
As far as just buying OP, the current price to hit 0.5% is ~$105k. At peak OP prices this was ~$235k.
Hi everyone – At Boardroom we recently wrote a “Brief” on this Grants Council proposal. We provide some background for those not steeped in Optimism, and write a bit about why such adaptations in governance are important. Take a look, if you’re interested!
Updates based on delegate feedback:
- Clarified that there is no minimum voting power requirement for Reviewers
- Removed specific criteria that 1 member of each sub-committee must have previously served on a committee. Previous committee experience will be indicated on the self-nomination template, so if that experience is valued, votes should reflect that
More information on the Lead application and Reviewer election process to follow next week (both contingent on the Grants Council passing in Special Voting Cycle #9a)
I think the Grants Council is a good way to go.
I will add some questions and suggestions:
1- Are we going to see a template for applying to the council?
2- It would be good for the Grants Council to present a framework to governance and have governance approve it. That way we all know how the process works.
3- According to the Season 3: Course Correction, January 5 is scheduled to start cycle 3. I don’t think they are giving the council time to get organized to start working, by that date I don’t think the processes are in place. Something that happened with the committees in the first votes because it was all very fast and there was no time to organize the work.
I think the council should be given time to establish a framework and present it in governance, so that the process is more orderly and transparent.
It will be more relevant if/after the proposal to form the Grants Council passes
Season 3 will start on January 5th if the proposal to form the Grants Council does not pass in voting cycle 9a, if it does pass then on January 5th voting cycle 9b will start in which Council members will be voted on.
Hi all, these are our first feedbacks about the Grants Council, feel free to leave an opinion on any of these points written below:
Our thoughts about the Council Grants
We believe Council Grants is a step in the right direction in a mix of radical but consistent changes in the iteration of governance processes. As participants of 2 committees (DeFi C and Tooling), we experienced both positive and negative situations, discovering all participants’ preferences, process criteria and desired outcomes during governance, which didn’t necessarily meet all the goals set at the beginning of governance.
We also believe that the council will decrease the workload of the delegates in a more obvious way, this in the future unlocks new responsibilities such as those already named in the proposal. Other councils could even be formed in the future if governance so desires.
About the structure of the Council
The structure of the council is well proposed, both in terms of the number of members and the constitution of 2 sub-committees.
The budgets allocated to each sub-committee are reasonable and consistent with the work requested.
About the responsibilities of the Board
The responsibilities are well focused. However, we have to highlight some points:
- “Applications that are submitted to the Council database should also be published to the Forum, unless a proposer opts-out of Forum publication”. We believe that governance processes must be 100% transparent, all applications must be published in the forum.
- We believe that order is an important factor, currently applications enter the forum on any given day and this makes follow-up and feedback difficult. One or two days should be established where applicants have time to submit their proposal. For example, the first two days of the voting cycle.
- One of the responsibilities of the leader is to coordinate the subcommittees and organize regular meetings of the council. We suggest that these meetings be open and public so that any governance member can attend and that there be a brief time for open questions to the council. For example, if every Thursday the council has a meeting, the last 10 to 15 minutes open it up to questions from the governance members.
- Once the Grant Council members are elected, they should submit a proposed framework and this should be voted on by the governance by way of reconfirmation, to maintain transparency of processes and workflows, in favor of opening a window of opportunity for feedback once members are confirmed.
- We recommend that the Council have an independent communication instance (e.g. Twitter, Lens) to publish reports and summaries of the work carried out. This should serve as an external source of consultation and promotion so that the rest of the ecosystem is up to date on what is being built in Optimism and attract more interested parties.
About Council Membership
As mentioned above, the number of council members is consistent and in line with the work to be performed. We’re 100% in agreement with the remuneration of the council members.
If this council system continues for several seasons, we believe that subcommittee members should not be re-elected for more than 3 consecutive seasons.
- A member is voted for 3 consecutive seasons to be a member of the committee, in the following season he/she cannot reapply.
- A member is voted for 2 consecutive seasons and in the 3rd season is not voted, he/she can reapply in the 4th season.
- A member is re-elected for 3 consecutive seasons, in the 4th season he/she may not stand for re-election. He/she may be elected in the 5th season.
This idea is so that all governance members know that they have the opportunity to participate in the council.
Another point to establish is a framework where governance members can remove the leader or a consensus member in case of non-compliance with the Code of Conduct, being involved in an external conflict (rugpull, scam, etc.) or going against the Optimistic Vision. The same complaint form could be used for delegates.
About the Council budget
We fully agree that the council should have a budget, that it should be voted on each season by the governance and that it should seek to be aligned with the objectives of each season and good management of the available resources.
- We were glad that the governance members didn’t agree with the one-year block. In Latam we live in unstable economies and with constant inflation, we know that it is really difficult to stay active without a livelihood.
- We were also in favor of eliminating the 0.5% filter, we and other members have been active and have less than 0.5% of the voting power, in this case expertise, reputation and track record should be sufficient. Inclusion is the way to consolidate the participation of more users in governance.
So far we are pleased with this proposal and with what is to come in Optimism’s governance. We strongly believe that the grant council is the right way forward. We look forward to further developments.
First off, I just want to come in and say that I agree with this sort of idea of still giving a voice to larger delegates, who have shown that they have expertise across Optimism and can help to give a final stamp of approval to protocols / etc.
But here are some of my other thoughts on the proposed grants council
I support the new path for the following reasons:
- The Grants Council establishes a much better place for protocols to discuss their proposals, which will help to avoid confusion and improve communication between protocols and voters. There were MANY instances of protocols not really knowing who’s in charge when trying to solicit feedback, and committees weren’t the best solution for this. The Grants process fixes this issue, and gives power to grants council to work with individual protocols.
- Clear structure and responsibility for those involved in the grant process. Yet again, there were many times committees kicked the can over to voters, which wasn’t ideal for some harder votes.
- While a minor point, the on-chain voting issues are semi-addressed, which will help to make the process more efficient. Though the core of this issue still hasn’t been fixed.
However, I have some criticisms of the proposed system:
- Delegate compensation shouldn’t be locked under a vesting schedule, or at least the 1 yr vesting schedule proposed. This could push away talented individuals who may not have the time to work for free and wait for payment without knowing if the tokens will be worth anything in the future.
- OP Token usefulness - There’s really no clear use for OP tokens once this has been implemented. That’s why Dhannte’s idea of still having this be in place for a final stamp of approval on the grants process, could be helpful, like two governing bodies working with one another to best support Optimism. But overall, I’m curious how Optimism foundation / fututure governance, solves this problem.
- I am not a fan of the OP Foundation imposing arbitrary constraints on approved grants.
Overall, I support the path to the grants council and Dhannte’s idea for large delegates to bring their expertise and help ensure that there is still oversight by various experts. I think this will help to make the Grants Council system more effective and ensure that the best decisions are made for the benefit of Optimism.
EDIT: @lavande see below convo regarding compensation, looks like it will not face a 1 yr lockup anymore
thanks matt, one clarification:
- the original draft of the proposal included a 1 year lock-up on delegate compensation but that has since been removed. delegate compensation will not be subject to a 1 year lock-up.
hey everyone - thanks for the additional feedback, we’re working on an update, which we will post shortly
Ah perfect, thanks for the clarification. I’ll edit my original post to reflect that!
Thanks again for all the feedback throughout the reflection cycle. A final version of this proposal will be posted shortly, which will reflect the following updates:
Added: If a proposal does not proceed to Council review, a brief reasoning for this decision should be included in a public response to the grant applicant and proposers should work with non-Council delegates to refine their proposal for re-submission in the next grant cycle.
Added (to list of non-Council delegate responsibilities): Working with proposers to refine proposals deemed unfit for review by the Council
Clarified: Grant cycles should include a deadline for proposal submission before a review period begins
Clarified: Grant decisions must be published for all reviewed proposals (both approvals and rejections)
Added: Term limits may be added in the future, should the Council continue for multiple Seasons.
Changed: While sub-committee budgets will remained fixed, individual grant size limits are now suggested versus mandated
Changed: Council Lead will “process and filter applications” to Council Lead will “ensure applications that are submitted to the Council database are also published to the Forum”
Changed: “The Foundation recommends 3 week cycles” to “previous Seasons followed 3 week cycles”
Added: It is suggested that meeting minutes or summaries be made available to the community. Open meetings are encouraged.
Added: While the Council should abide by the above guidelines, specific operational and administrative details are left to the Council Lead to determine with input from Reviewers. The Council, if/once formed, will be expected to publish an operating framework outlining Council operations in detail. The Season will run nine weeks from the publication of the operating framework. In future Seasons, this framework may be included in Council proposals, which would make it subject to approval by the Token House.
Added: Links to self-nomination template for Reviewers