I represent KyberSwap, an Optimism Protocol Delegate for Season 4 with sufficient voting power, and we believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.
The amount requested is high but I find this will be a useful experiment for the Citizenās House. I also received input from my colleague Yesim Kaymak on this and we came to the same conclusion.
I should have choose to abstain from this, even after reading the proposal couple of time and thinking it through I am not able to see its relation with intent 4 but at the same i dont have sufficient reason to vote against it.
why on earth do we want to be rewarding interaction with certain tokens as part of entry into citizens house
many of which are affiliated with the team proposing this
i think if you cut like half of these requirements this could approach being a useful thing but as it stands, is this at risk of being a means of pumping affiliated projects of the team here and capturing
the citizens house?
looked at a certain way, this could be a governance attack, and delegates voting for this should take a hard look at what theyāre doing
Dear @OPUser thanks for your review. The Regen score intents to provide more info on the voters, and their background and potentially amplify the voices in connection to specialization (e.g. engineers) or public goods experts / veterans for the decisions that needs that. Inspired by next definition:
Intent #4: Governance accessibility includes enabling a diversity of perspectives to participate in governance, facilitating better knowledge sharing to develop more informed voters, and lowering barriers to participation for more culturally diverse involvement in the governance process. Increasing the votable supply and reducing the concentration of voting power should be important bi-products of improved accessibility.
Hope it helps.
Dear @jackanorak regen score is not binding anyhow, rather a tooling for governance development and an extra information layer. Many of the mentioned projects are linked organically as web3 public goods is a small space still. Of course, weāve mentioned our nearest circles (as we know them), but weāll definitely introduce some kind of curation and reach out to OP eco to help us identify/validate missing ones. Looking forward to include you (and others) in the design process if you like.
I understand. It could be better maybe to make this process in advance maybe or break it down into smaller chunks. Weāre getting used to the process and will be more conscious in the future.
Will you commit to removing your application if it gets the required votes so we can be thoughtful in how weād potentially graft this onto citizens house?
Do you propose postponing it for an indefinite time? I understand your concern, though removing seems like a too radical measure at this stage. So much work has been put in so far to get just here and there was a preliminary filtration stage, everything passed due to the policies.
So I hope that wonāt be needed and weād just put in extra work and attention to smooth it out.
what iām asking is whether you would remove for consideration this proposal this voting round so that we can collectively discuss what would be of use for citizens house without having an outlay of 90k OP hanging over us. and then you could ofc apply for RPGF if thereās a workable resolution
you appear to agree that weāre perhaps premature so this seems like a consistent outcome
could also help to know - what work has already been put in to date?
Letās see how the voting happens in any case. 90k is of course significant, but AFAIK in the lowest tier of funding, thus I hope itās safe enough to try things, especially with a long lockup.
I agree that proposal can be improved and would like to learn about your feedback earlier. Constantly improving the process is important for everybody in the governance.
For this proposal it was: process onboarding, proposal writing, delegates comms, representation here and on the call. Many hours by a few team members.
The proposal as it stands is flawed, which youāve acknowledged ā so itās not really a thing thatās suitable for a 90k āpuntā. Instead youāre essentially saying that these few hours of work spent talking to me in the forums are worth the 90k on the hook.
I happen to disagree.
I think this is a great opportunity for you to be principled in following through on your admission that perhaps what youāve outlined is premature.
I think what we can do, is make the attestations more granular, some use cases may care about what Regen Tokens you hold, some may care about your Airdrop Score, some may care about your donation score, some might care about your voter participation.
If we break the high level regen score into subscores with their own attestations maybe that would make this more applicable for the citizens house future use?
A method in which usersā achievements are presented and promoted with their scores would be profitable to the governance community. Because of these ratings, people in governance who struggle to express themselves and share information will be able to appear more clearly in the forum. Scores will not only inform us but will also allow us to assess the status of users and take the appropriate governance actions. We believe that providing feedback based on ratings is equally necessary within the framework of governance. We think that this proposal deserves to be voted on, and we will be following developments closely.
Regarding the usage of the automated Citizen House applications, we have the following ideas:
Most probably it wonāt be used for the RetroPGF this year
Weāre doing consultations with the OP RetroPGF team (Jonas) and plan to do a public workshop discussion closer to the launch of the product
So far we could see the Regen Score main number itself might be less informative than various attestations in-line with the strategic goals of OP e.g. interactions with OP token or specialisation (like developer or educator)
More analytical materials would be prepared before then for more informative decisions
Thanks so much for your attention and looking forward to discussing it.
Saw a comment from Lavande on discord so happy to give my two gwei.
OP airdrop handling - could you share how would you define penalty ? and why?
OP Delegate - i would put more focus there, targeted towards new delegate profile
GTC Holder - No. How does holding $GTC add value ?
Gitcoin passport score - rather than per passport point, do it in range 0-10 (X), 10-20(XX) and so on
Gitcoin donation- My suggestion would be to focus on number of time contributed rather than amount, $$ is relative and donation should never be counted in $, not everyone is equally fortunate.
Gitcoing project owner - I dont know how this work but will read and come back.
Giveth holder- Please no, same as point 3
I am biased on below point -
Focusing towards public good, we should probably look beyond gitcoin grants. Its known fact that gitcoin grants were misused/spammed with expectation of some reward in future. But we have other events, in the past, where community came together to help and support good actors fighting the right battle, Polly nft minter and ZachXBT donators are two example.
Anything attached to identity should be wrapped in zk, I have a PR open at Sismo to wrap all Optimist NFT address into a Sismo badge, include that if you are planning to include PoH contract interaction. Both proves identity.
I would add -
BrightID - not a big fan of attending zoom call but other might do it, give equal weight as gitcoin passport min passing threshold.
Optimism NFT holder - same as above with equal points or even higher.
All three proves identity, i would treat them equally.
As mentioned here, more focus on Superchain interaction, Base, Zora, PGN and others.
Add points for Optimism Mirror NFT minters, same goes for sound xyz
Little debatable but I would also give points if an address has more asset(in $$) on Optimism chain compare to others.
More bridged-in > bridged out (again in $$)
On notion I see many other criteria but my request to you and everyone would be to focus on our ecosystem first,at least first few iteration, we have so much to explore and try on OP Stack.
With attestation, my first priority would be to focus on identity(G Pass/PoH/BrightID/Optimism NFT holder) and then reputation($asset / chain interaction/ public good orientation) based on on-chain activity.
Fighting sybil should take priority over other with attestation.
GM! I love the idea about Mirror, Sound.xyz and Superchain NFTs (from Zora and PGN for example) I would like to add the co-granting NFT and historical NFTs/POAPs like the ones for the Merge. Also, Iām agree with the focus on identity at a first stage of REGEN Score.
Hey friends,
posting the updates for the Milestone 2: Prototype Development and Testing.
Data Analytics
Lawrence is collecting the feedback provided to this and Citizenship criteria topic and will provide info and updates our model. In the meantime here you can find the updated model with attestation taxonomy
prototype dapp to fetch score for your wallet or for an arbitrary address
basic layout of score calculation backend
fetching of stats, currently from etherscan and Allo Indexer API
relicensed the repo as AGPLv3 (The Affero was added because our work will be focused on the backend, and we want to make sure that potential derivatives make their source available)
Overall we laid the foundation for a robust data-fetching and calculation backend. We are now working on a strategy for indexing and storing data from the major data sources in a manner that is easily reproducible by anyone with basic software skills, in order to ensure the integrity of our calculations. We are also working with our data engineer to make use of this harvested data in the first scoring algorithm prototype.
