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 won’t be needed and we’d just put in extra work and attention to smooth it out.
what i’m 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 there’s a workable resolution
you appear to agree that we’re perhaps premature so this seems like a consistent outcome
could also help to know - what work has already been put in to date?
Let’s see how the voting happens in any case. 90k is of course significant, but AFAIK in the lowest tier of funding, thus I hope it’s 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 you’ve acknowledged – so it’s not really a thing that’s suitable for a 90k ‘punt’. Instead you’re 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 you’ve 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 users’ 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.
Hey friends,
Thanks so much for your trust and votes, we’ve started the work and I’m happy to share the 1st update on the project.
Regen Score draft wireframes are presented here (not the final design, but rather the draft of the flow):
We’ve identified a bunch of parameters, where scoring is the super early version
It’s a screenshot, current list of all on-chain attestations (work in progress) is here – please fill free to comment and suggest improvements.
There’s also a discussion happening in Twitter – feel free to join
Regarding the usage of the automated Citizen House applications, we have the following ideas:
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.
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 -
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.
I agree on 3 and 7 as well
being a badgeholder should not require holding on to any asset
people will end up chasing for score by collecting them all
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, I’m 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.
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
We’ve put a demo version on https://regenscore.vercel.app/
Done so far:
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.
Milestone 3: Development of the Scoring Algorithm
Greetings Regen Score supporters and enthusiasts! I’m Lawrence (Omni), lead data scientist on this project, and I want to give a comprehensive update for our milestone #3 focused on the formula. I’ll explain our current approach to conceptualizing the score, talk about potential pitfalls, and ask for feedback. It’s going to be a lot for one post (well multiple posts due to the new user media embedding limit) so let’s begin!
What on earth are we doing?
In the simplest terms, we are building a mathematical formula that takes a wallet address as an input and spits back a score. That score won’t just be any ole number, we want it to explicitly represent how “regenerative” a wallet’s on-chain activities are. What’s considered “Regenerative” is indeed subjective, but we’ll try to iron that out a little later in this post. Assuming we have a wonderful, best-in-class regenerative behavior measurement score, what can we do with it?
We want to first provide a transparent individual evaluation metric that will let a person assess their own “regenerative footprint”, so to speak, and then gamify the act of performing regenerative actions on-chain. With users actively trying to out give, out support and out cultivate each other, we’d want to use these scores to reward them with more access and a larger voice within the Optimism ecosystem. With that as our goal…
How are we currently doing it?
To actually create a score we must first be able to observe and then consistently track on-chain activity overtime. The primary chain of interest is Optimism, but we also want to be able to access information on the Ethereum blockchain because wallet addresses are likely to have a rich history that we can use to refine our numerical estimate.
Now that we know where to look, we need to know what to look for. Here is where we begin to better define, what are “regenerative” behaviors. At the highest level, if we can create a taxonomy that’s robust enough, it’ll comfortably support the categorization of all of the behaviors we seek to track. With this in mind, our initial branches consist of what we are calling “Chain Supportive” and “Community Supportive”
[Ran up against a few new user limits on the number of embeddings per post and the number of consecutive posts in a row. I’ll resume in a bit!]
There are many analogies that port well to these two aspects of supportive behavior. You can think hard vs soft skills, thinking with your brain vs your heart, etc. Digging deeper to define each, chain supportive behaviors are those that ensure the chain is being utilized and secured, while community supportive measures are those that benefit the ecosystem and broader network by fostering coordination, incentivizing contributors and encouraging inter-community collaboration. We can now take these definitions and further refine each.
Within the chain supportive behaviors we seek to track we have those that show a user utilizes Optimism and those that secure the network. For behaviors that utilize the chain, we look for standard transactions, developer activity such as the deployment of contracts, and a diverse use of apps through their contracts a wallet interacts with.
These behaviors are relatively easy to track with on-chain data aggregators like Etherscan’s API. How an individual user secures the chain is slightly less trackable and more gated, but we believe there are still simple ways a user can support the security of the network. By holding on to the Optimism token is a way to support price stability, while providing liquidity reduces fluctuations in the price and staking on Ethereum secures the base layer.
On the community side, we break down behaviors by how they positively impact network governance, signal contributions and foster outreach. Under these categories, we focus on behaviors such as voting on proposals, publishing proposals, being paid out of the treasury as a contributor or grantee, and for donating to public good or holding the tokens of other do-gooder regen projects.
That’s the conceptual side, but what about the practical?
In the end, we be able to identify, track, store and score the wallets along each behavior, but not all of these behaviors are easily identifiable on chain, nor do they have all come from the same source. This is why we’ve categorized our current set of behaviors into a spreadsheet that outlines the description, how we intend to score the behavior and the potential feasibility of sourcing the data required to compute that behavior’s score. It is a bit technical, but here is a view of that data.
As we wade through all the data to determine what can and can’t be accessed, we’re also thinking about the scoring formula itself. Final decisions have not been made, but the score will be additive (the more behaviors the better the score in a linear fashion), monotonically increasing (no negative weights for behaviors) and range from 0 to infinity to forever gamify the experience of checking your score. Currently, we’re looking to use a relatively unsophisticated weighted linear sum of the attestations of the following form:
Where the parameters represent the observed attestations (a) and their multiplicative weight (alpha) summed across for each individual wallet (i). We haven’t finalized this formula, so don’t be shocked if it takes a different form in the end. This concept is what formed the basis of our Milestone 1 demo and actually allowed us to create an MVP of the regen scorer. You can check that out again here.
What are some of the potential pitfalls and preliminary solutions?
All of this is fun and dandy, but there are some pitfalls we need to consider.
Where are we now?
We are all heads down finalizing the behavior list, pulling data sources, finding suitable comparison populations that we can use to vet the scores and building out a great user experience that’ll promote as much regenerative activity as possible! As a call to action for our supporters:
Let us know!
Sharing the video report on the Milestone #4
The Pre-MVP version (you could see a lot of minor bugs, we’re polishing it all for the main release in 2 weeks): https://regenscore.io/ Please also don’t share it for now, we’ll ask you to do that after the launch date.
The attestation schema (Sepolia, will come to mainnet after the launch): Schema #688 - 0xa128...d76cd
Description of the scoring formula: Notion – The all-in-one workspace for your notes, tasks, wikis, and databases.
A teaser article about the effect of trust on economies: Why Trust Matters in Digital Economies: A Wonderland or a Maze? — Regen Score
We’ve also analyzed the scores for OP delegates’ addresses to validate the scoring. Will be sharing more info on that a bit later.
Thanks so much and looking forward for your feedback!
Hi @maxsemenchuk!
As Season 4 draws to a close this week, we’re so excited to see how you’ve executed on your Mission! Please post an update for the community here outlining the milestones you’ve met this Thursday (9/20) by 19:00 GMT. Please include links to any final work products as we’ll create a final roundup linking to all Mission deliverables.
We also encourage you to sign-up for RetroPGF Round 3. You’ll be able to describe the impact of your Mission when you sign-up: RetroPGF Round 3 Applications Are Open
Thanks again for being part of this experiment and helping us build the Collective 
Dear friend, we’re happy to share the final milestone 5 report
Previous reports:
Check out your score: https://regenscore.io/
