[FINAL] Thank Optimism - powered by ThriveCoin

Quality vs Quantity

I have no doubt this alliance has the talent and intention to serve the Collective, yet as it stands the proposal speaks broadly to infrastructure with very little reference to the actual content that infrastructure is looking to scale.

So, if content quality and impact are driving the decision to implement tooling to scale output then could you please share with us the Ambassador’s

  • content collection
  • content performance results
  • discussion of how performance drives impact

If the content is performing and it is clear that you understand how it delivers impact then that’s all I would need (in addition to technical proposal) to say oh wow! how have I not seen that you guys are delivering this amazing high-quality work?! We should 100% back the development of infra to scale and get ambassadors working on keystone communications.

Process Solution vs Content Quality

I understand that tooling can be a strategic decision to help scale tactical implementation, in this case to support the Ambassador contributor pathway. I have no doubt that the Alliance x ThriveCoin is well-positioned to solve the problem of process scalability, once ready to scale.

I did not ask about scaling further because one of several red flags here is that a high-quality content development should not be cumbersome.

A “content development engine” should operate like a well-oiled machine. If an engine is not running well, it means there are one, several or many problems.

While I do not dount that ThriveCoin can help solve for coordination at scale - to automate, incentivise and bring contributions on-chain - imo process challenges are symptomatic of other underlying issues that should be solved through a more rigorous and strategic planning process prior to scaling.

Content Development Strategy

I have offered guiding suggestions, alternative approaches, and questions to consider. I’ve specified concerns, linked you to my approach to measuring impact for content performance and offered to share work which includes my own consultancy frameworks. But admittedly this is more for @Jrocki leading the Ambassador Program because my position is content strategy is a critical missing foundation of this proposal.

Planning is a simple best practice. It is good to know you recognise the need for a plan but it is my professional position that content development work should not begin to scale without a cohesive content development strategy to ensure the quality, performance and impact of the work through efficient and effective operations.

Risk & Tradeoffs

Keystone: the central principle or part of a policy, system, etc., on which all else depends

  1. The Optimistic Vision is a keystone of this Protocol. Endeavours to advance the vision either exemplify or risk seriously undermining the central principle of Impact = Profit.
  2. Representing the Optimistic Vision and other people’s work and reputation requires careful consideration of the potential risks to brand perception, identity, trust and authority.
  3. This proposal contains multiple references to quality and impact and yet not a single measure of how quality and impact are defined, other than in terms of quantity of contributors and content Without an understanding of impact (+/-) how can you identify and mitigate risks?
  4. If you don’t know what results you work to deliver, how do you ensure quality let alone impact or begin to estimate the time required to oversee the work?