So the idea here is, more or less, to give contributors OP tokens in a year for work they do today?
What wil you do if you find you don’t have enough participation? Will the mission be aborted, or would there be a backup plan to incentivize activity?
And I see that there’s a promise to give back OP if it hasn’t been distributed to capacity. Will the same be true of ThriveCoin and Alliance members’ allocations?
More generally, why not position this for an RPGF grant? You can use liquid $THRIVE, as you always have in the past, and contributors are more likely to make contributions.
As I read this review:
https://twitter.com/singularityhack/status/1645786536934518788?s=20
it seems that the secret sauce was Thrivecoin’s ability to compensate people directly through the creation of a native token.
If this initiative is successful, I"m sure this would be recognized by the Citizens House.
Does this person writing the review have any previous relationship with you or with Bankless DAO? And, more broadly, can you describe the relationship ThriveCoin has with Bankless DAO, past or present? Do they have any interest in your initiatives?
@jackanorak I appreciate your thorough engagement. It means a lot to me that you’ve taken the time to share your thoughts, ideas, and questions. It seems the cleanest way to address it all is to directly quote and respond.
The idea is to reward people for truly valuable contributions they make to the Optimism Collective - and in doing so spread awareness of the Optimistic Vision.
It is important to separate out the one-year hold period. That is not a decision of the Alliance for this Mission. It is a DAO-wide decision about how best to allocate certain grants.
People are rewarded only when they make valuable contributions that help spread awareness of the Optimistic Vision. In other words, this Mission is entirely performance-based. There is no risk to Optimism of losing what is not rewarded.
As part of this Mission, we confirmed that our “grant will be subject to clawback for failure to execute on critical milestones”. If we hit the critical milestones, we receive our portion of the grant; if we don’t, there is a clawback provision in place.
** NOTE: We have been making - and will continue to make - significant investments in this Mission (we had to start building early because of the quick turnaround time). Additionally, even upon achieving critical milestones, we are still subject to a one-year hold period. In other words, even if / when we create immense value for Optimism, ThriveCoin doesn’t get rewarded for a long, long time. We want to make this investment in the Optimism community because we share deep values and vision alignment, and because we believe, together, we can help drive significant value to Optimism.
This is not accurate. ThriveCoin can reward communities with a Testnet THRIVE token, but this was mostly done with smaller, early communities. Since then, community members shared clear, consistent feedback: they prefer to rewarded with their community tokens - or tokens they know and value.
The norm now is to reward with tokens valued by the community. ApeCoin is rewarding with APE. Aavegotchi will (mostly) be rewarding with GHST. ShapeShift is rewarding with OP. Even Bankless, wants to, soon, transition to rewarding with BANK. Going forward, we expect this trend to continue.
I appreciate your perspective. This isn’t how I read the review, nor is it what I consider our secret sauce.
Our secret sauce, based on lots of feedback, seems to be: a) our ability to operationalize DAO contributions by automating and bringing on-chain valuable community contributions, and b) our ability to help communities drive tangible impact at scale.
I assume you are asking about conflicts. This person is a leader at Polygon Village. He is a Bankless DAO member, which is how he became familiar with ThriveCoin. He does not - nor has he ever - worked for ThriveCoin.
I again assume you are asking about conflicts. Bankless DAO is / was a community we serve - our first! We have no partnership beyond a community relationship. Bankless DAO has no ownership in ThriveCoin. They are not connected to this Mission.
All members of this Alliance are better suited than me to answer your question - due to their deep experience with Optimism. But I’ll try to answer, as I’ve been in extensive conversations with them and many others at Optimism for months:
Intent 3 is about Spreading Awareness of the Optimistic Vision. Two of the ways Optimism is currently accomplishing this are:
This Mission helps BOTH incentivize the expansion of the Ambassador Program AND clarify / share the impact of hundreds of projects already funded by Optimism. In other words, it deeply embodies the essence of Intent 3 in ways the Optimism community has already expressed that it values.
Final thoughts Thank you, Jack, for all of your questions and thoughts. I’ve sought to address all of it, step by step. I hope this is helpful, and I am excited about the opportunity to collaborate and together drive significant impact for Optimism and all of web3. - Daniel
@thrivegiraffe definitely appreciative of your continued thoughtful responses.
The one-year hold period is arguably the most relevant piece to address, regardless of who mandated token locks. Believe me, I wish the Collective had more flexibility to offer liquid grants!
The question here is: what are the odds of this program’s success given the locked up tokens? In the past, whether with THRIVE or client protocol tokens, I assume all rewards given out have been liquid, no?
Oh, this is great – can you please share some descriptions and results of this program? I don’t see any description of it in the [GF: Phase 2 Growth Proposal] ShapeShift DAO shared here, but i’m assuming it’s in the 15k OP allocation to marketing.
Absolutely. Do you have prior examples of the kinds of incentivized work you’re discussing here – are you imagining things like this? I also invite @jrocki.bedrock or some others in the Alliance to weigh in here.
Excited about the Thank Optimism program. As a wannabe ambassador, I’m ready to go.
Well detailed proposal by the way.
Good question, the secret sauce here is that the engine providing this content is an army of highly motivated content creators in the Ambassador program.
TLDR is that the Ambassador’s have been creating content for Optimism long before retroPGF #2 was even announced [ambassador collection].
The reason I mention this is because the ambassadors pre-retroPGF #2 were creating content with no expectation of reward. They and by extension I, did it out of a love for Optimism.
Previous to submitting this proposal we ran a simple retroPGF content quest for the ambassador program. This quest ran for 25 days and yielded 79 content submissions (each account was only allowed one submission) using just a simple content submission guide and a couple links to resources.
In addition to this we had a new content quest that dropped today for the Ambassador’s about 6 hours ago (to align with the retroPGF round 3 announcement) and this has already received 5 content submissions. Each submission requires a cumbersome manual review process. Partnering with ThriveCoin saves us from this process and a host of other cumbersome processes preventing the Ambassador program from scaling.
This mission proposal is just the first step in really unlocking the true value of the Ambassador program through scalability as once we have the ambassador contribution path automated on ThriveCoin we are able to define those future contributions as anything we would like. This in turn creates a powerful marketing apparatus for the Optimism Collective for any and all future endeavors.
Additional Context for the Ambassador Program:
-The Ambassador program consists of 42 ambassadors and well over 1000+ wannabe-ambassadors.
-The number of wannabe-ambassadors is a good gauge of overall interest in the Ambassador program. This number has gone from ~1000 to 1300 over the last month or so.
I would encourage everyone to head to the Optimism Discord, grab the wannabe-ambassador role and check out the Ambassador channels. Here you can see how active and engaged the community really is. Directions on how to do this is outlined in the Ambassador-req doc found in our community docs here
Agree, tooling to support this kind of work is neccessary at scale but where is the evidence that community content should be scaled here yet?
Based on my recent (Jan-Mar 23) experience as project lead to trial community content development I am wondering whether the team has considered
I was recently contracted to lead a three-month trial for community-sourced content. Here’s some examples of published work
To Incentivize or Not: Impact of Blockchain-Based Cryptoeconomic Tokens on Human Information-Sharing Behavior
Impact Financing
Token Bonding Curve Design Parameters
SystemModelling
Does Your Product Need a Token
Foundations of Cryptoeconomic Systems
Token Design Mental Models
Each represents about 8 hours of work including research, draft and editorial review, scheduling, publishing and coordination. Work comparable to this project in that we were representing other people’s work which demands attention to quality.
While I value the diversity of perspective that ambassadors bring to the collective imo they would be better supporting and promoting this type of content than crafting it. Why? because representing other peoples work is akin to Brand Communication which is known to require consistent messaging.
What the three month trial proved was that
Editorial oversight is essential when developing content that represents other peoples work (potentially brand identity) and to build trust and authority in the publishers brand
Due to the quality assurance process, coordination overhead increased in direct proportion to the number of contributors. (this is where tooling can help scale)
Ultimately that fewer, highly qualified contributors is the most effective, efficient means to assure high quality content.
Which is not to say that the results will be the same here but that it would be worth testing the concept before scaling.
As a possible alternative to deliver the same results I would suggest you test the proposed program at a much smaller scale first to develop the onboarding process, content strategy, quality assurance processes and policies with a small inital cohort before looking to scale. I’m happy to share the frameworks and policies developed earlier this year and would also highly recommend the Bankless writers cohort model, which informed the trial at TE Academy.
I would estimate a team of 5 FTE equivalent writers + editor w. AI & publishing support could produce the same results - in terms of content and process development - as herein proposed at significantly lower coordination overhead. Ambassador could support this work through translation, memes, creative and design elements and to share and promote the content.
I feel the same about your responses. Thank you.
Thanks for the further clarification. It’s an understandable concern. Broadened, it’s basically: how do locked (rather than liquid) token grants influence a person / project’s willingness or ability to create value for Optimism?
It looks like we’re aligned on a hypothesis: it must have some limiting effect. Additionally, it’s probably most limiting for people we all care a lot about - people who want to contribute, but can’t without access to liquid token rewards.
Still, these are the rules of the game that we’re working with. We have our eyes wide open that there are some limitations. But that doesn’t change our focus. Limitations always exist. We believe:
Additionally, the Alliance believes - as do I - that the community will be more incentivized by locked OP than by Testnet THRIVE - or any other token they have no relationship to. It’s still OP - and this is an Optimism community.
Sure. Small world. just got off a great call with Willy. We are still early - just two weeks or so into deployment. They already have 165 contributors (which requires having a GitCoin Passport score of 17 or higher)! Over the next few weeks, we - together with ShapeShift - can share a bunch more. We feel confident it’ll be another strong case study.
I’ll quote jrocki to share a bit on what the Alliance is imagining:
In addition to the above, while this specific Mission is unique to Optimism and Optimism needs, ThriveCoin has experience addressing many of the ways to contribute linked above that are desired.
More importantly, our tech is built to support the auto-validation of any of theoretically millions of ways to contribute to a community. In other words, it’s designed to be agnostic about the specific desired way to contribute or the specific platform, and to allow us to support community needs.
Also, the specifics of this particular Mission happen to be a sweet spot for me and much of our tech leadership tech team. I ran - and they helped lead - an organization that helped employees at companies like Google, Microsoft, Citi, etc. tell and hear powerful stories at scale about experiences that elucidated company values. We built interesting technology to help leaders and employees at those organizations better understand the impact and learning from those stories.
I hope this is helpful. As always, I’m here for more as is needed! - Daniel
Hi @lee0007, I appreciate hearing your perspective. I’ll reply in-line:
I’m glad we agree!
Achieving these milestones would more or less double existing output of ambassadors in two months. Beating these milestones would do even more. Yes, this would be evidence of the beginning of scale.
Congratulations on your work. I appreciate a good soft shill!
I do not share your opinion.
I believe that in every community, members have unique skills, talents, and attributes that deserve to be seen, valued, and rewarded. This belief seems to be shared by DAO communities as a whole. The experiment of DAOs is literally decentralization - not the kind of centralization you propose.
I get that you believe that most DAO members “would be better supporting and promoting” content created by a small, centralized group of content creators. I don’t. I strongly believe the Optimism community is much more capable than you are giving it credit for.
There’s a big difference between learning and proving. You did a trial - not with us and probably without appropriate tooling. You learned some things, based on your experience. It’ll support you in evolving and being better next time. But you haven’t proven anything. You learned. That’s good!
Here’s different data: In our latest initiative with ApeCoin, we’ve spent the past few weeks incentivizing decentralized artists to create art that embodies the phrase “Ape In: The Future of ApeCoin.”
I feel confident five centralized artists managed by a person couldn’t have come up with the variety and quality of art shared in the contest - nor would they have been able to drive the reach.
** You can see some of the art by scrolling on the Thank Ape Twitter feed here. Semi-finalists were just announced by the Thank APE board (their version of an Alliance) two hours ago.
As noted above, I respect your opinion - and strongly disagree.
Additionally, if further centralization is the solution to the growing pains of decentralization, DAOs have a bigger problem to worry about. Luckily, my experience leads me to believe there is a better solution than back-steps to more centralization. We can simple get better at decentralization!
I’ve seen - and been a part of - well-organized decentralized community contributions. Yes, it’s imperfect. Yes, there’s still a lot of learning. But there is immense value being created… and this is still just the beginning. There’s so much more to come! - Daniel
If output = profit was the direction here, this would be great. But my position is Impact = Profit .
I understand your incentive here is to secure funding. Whereas, I’m interested in what is best for the collective, minimising foreseeable risks and supporting a more strategic (impact-measures) trial-run approach that might empower ambassadors long-term. It would not require TriveCoin (yet). Yes, it would initially be smaller, slower and more centralized to minimise foreseeable risks and establish an efficient and effective foundation to ensure quality, performance and impact.
The concept of ‘decentralization’ suggests that there should first be a centralized unit to decentralize from. I am suggesting a more progressive decentralisation because I have concerns that an effort at this scale comes with significant coordination and editorial overhead that I do not see accounted for in this proposal.
I have no doubt that there is a wealth of talent within the Ambassador cohort and when it comes to creating content I expect the skills levels will range. If we can find 75 excellent content creators then yay! we have a community-driven content model to match Bankless as a publishing house. My concern is that at this scale there will inevitably be a portion of contributors that struggle to understand and deliver to minimum quality standards and this is where coordination overhead outstrips the resulting impact.
Form follows Function
In the interests of the longevity of this type of endeavour I believe starting smaller is how we determine the functioning of a high-quality Ambassador-driven content engine, which can then progressively scale to the levels proposed here. We can discover and learn by running a smaller-scale experiment to get a solid foundation in place taking time to first
Firstly I must say I love your pfp. Your Optimist pfp coupled with your thoughtful comments on community content scaling tell me that you too believe social decentralization is incredibly important.
I believe the above is a good plan if we are trying to scale a centralized marketing team. Our approach here in scaling a decentralized marketing team is to start with the decentralized marketing team (Ambassadors) right from the start. This ensures we are able to iterate with them as we go. I.E processes that work for a centralized marketing team may not work and or scale for a decentralized one.
Speaking of iteration I believe we have a strong contribution path format to begin with which has already been iterated on based upon on learnings since the ambassador program inception.
In a previous reply I summarized the logical approach we took in structuring the contribution path.
I will admit the contribution path as outlined may not be perfect when put into practical use so we will need to learn and iterate as we go. This is where ThriveCoin plays a crucial role by providing us insightful data inside a tight feedback loop which will allow us to quickly iterate on the contribution path in real time.
I would love to have a conversation with you to share a bit about the ambassador program as well as discuss some of your work as well. I believe there is a lot we can learn from each other 
Hi again Lee
I believe we are on the same page actually. I just left a comment on your previous reply which I also believe provides you the right context which was not previously apparent. Check it out, ask any follow-up questions, happy to provide as much context as I can without hitting you with a wall of text haha.
100% Agree! The contributor path you guys have mapped out is a well-considered tactical plan. In addition, I believe you need a strategic plan to ensure quality, performance and impact, especially at the scale proposed.
About 2,500 years ago, Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu wrote “The Art of War.” In it, he said, “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” Tactics and strategy are not at odds with one another—they’re on the same team…Strategy describes the destination [why] and how you are going to get there, and tactics describe the specific actions you are going to take along the way Source
Decentralization I’m suggesting could begin at the green circle and deliver the same proposed outcomes with 8 - 16 people. A smaller first step would also provide time to define both strategy and tactics in collaboration with ambassadors without the hectic pressure and coordination overhead of 75+ people.
Look I totally get that maybe it’s just me that still believes the idea that If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it especially in relation to content development, where a wealth of analytics and best practice abound. I’ve reiterated my concerns and potential solutions below to summarise, ultimately Token House decides and I wish you guys all the best with this experiement.
Hi @lee0007! I appreciate your engagement related to our proposal. I’ll do my best to address your additional feedback:
1.“Tactics without strategic is the noise before defeat”: You make generalized points that we are being tactical and not strategic - and use bold Sun Tzu quotes to do it. What you say is not accurate.
The Alliance is a well-known group of highly strategic and impact oriented people. Additionally, top DAO communities trust ThriveCoin because we are builders and community strategists. In addition to large strategic deployments with top DAOs, our leadership team has worked - at a strategic level - with Google, Citi, KPMG, top governments and top NGOs. Our expertise - for decades - is strategic deployments for both large centralized and decentralized communities.
You seem, for now, to disagree with us on strategy. That doesn’t mean we have no strategy - it just means we disagree. It appears you believe the road to better content is a smaller, more centralized, and less automated approach. We believe your suggestion is a stopgap road that may or may not support real decentralization or drive significant impact. We believe - and we are compiling growing data sets to show it - that a better path to decentralization is a results-base approach that leverages the best of community, automation, and the blockchain.
“If you can’t measure you can’t manage”: This is a bold and catchy, and you repeat it in different ways. But you are incorrectly applying it to us.
There are clear impact measurements included in this Mission. Additionally, we’ve written a lot in this thread about the (measurable) impact we’ve driven for others and can help drive for Optimism. We’ve also shared data from recent deployments and we’ve shared testimonials.
You haven’t responded to any of this - but you’ve continued to repeat your claims.
A more supportive approach with your feedback would be offering guiding suggestions to help us improve our Mission. For example, what are specific impact metrics would you like us to measure that you don’t see? We’d love to incorporate some of your ideas!
“Coordination overhead outstrips the resulting impact”: I agree with your set of concerns around this (alignment!). If I were to turn your concerns into a question it might be: “Hey Alliance… or Daniel… how do you plan on managing increasingly complex coordination needs at scale?”
We have a lot of experiencing addressing this need. Here’s an abbreviated answer:
Last thoughts: I really do appreciate your engagement @lee0007. It’s clear that you care and that you love to put together content. I believe there are many ways you can work with us - and hopefully with many others at Optimism - to help make this Mission a huge success!
Specifically, I appreciate and agree with nearly all of your bullet points at the end of your last post. It seems you understand them as contrasting with Mission. You might be pleasantly surprised to learn these thoughts are generally aligned with the Alliance’s thinking!
Perhaps soon we might find that there’s much deeper alignment here than first suspected. Some of our most diehard supporters today questioned us the hardest in their communities before our deployments began. But it’s hard to argue with success (e.g. data-driven community impact). We intend to bring it… together! - Daniel
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
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.
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.
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.bedrock 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.
Keystone: the central principle or part of a policy, system, etc., on which all else depends
@lee0007, in your many replies, you aren’t addressing the substance of our Mission or our responses. Additionally, you are re-quoting yourself numerous times, making many (provably) false statements, and continuing to soft shill yourself. Thus, we believe it is highly likely you care less about our Mission and more about trying to make a name for yourself and some current or future project or ambition.
It is exhausting for me - and surely for any readers who have made it all the way here (thank you for sticking with us if you have) - to address all of this. I’ll attempt, hopefully for a last time, to summarize my responses to your last response. Good luck with whatever you are planning!
You asked us to share the Ambassador content collection + performance results that we are proposing to deliver with this Mission. That will, of course, be delivered by the end of this Mission! If, instead, you want to know about Ambassador results disconnected from this Mission, @jrocki.bedrock has shared data above and can share more if you’d like. If you are wondering whether the ThriveCoin team has the background to help drive extraordinary content at scale starting from, even, nothing. We have lots of it. Here’s a Forbes article that speaks to some of my extensive background with creating high quality impact-focused content for many of the top organizations in the world. Mostly the same engineering leadership team too. This has been shared with you earlier.
You argue for a more rigorous strategic planning process (lots of words, but that seems to be the core). The subtext, I’m guessing, is you are seeking to frame yourself - and your project management / content lead experience - as the “missing piece”. As I’ve clarified before, the fact that we disagree on strategy doesn’t mean we don’t have a strategy (that was your first accusation in previous replies) or that our strategic planning isn’t “rigorous”. We do have a strategy, it is rigorous, and it has - so far - proven enormously successful at a time when many communities are struggling (examples given in previous posts).
I asked you in my last reply to ask questions to help us improve our proposal - instead of making false statements. This time you asked questions at the end of your reply, but I question whether they are in good faith. You start by saying: “not a single measure of how quality and impact are defined”, but before you finish your sentence you acknowledge that we did define them: “other than in terms of quantity of contributors and content.” You also don’t acknowledge that we optimized for quality, too. In this Mission there is: a) a process for ensuring high quality Ambassador content, b) a reward tier for editorial review, and c) bot, bad actor, and farmer protection built into the tech. You then, again, use basic rhetorical techniques to try to make points disguised as questions. You qualify your questions with mis-statements like “Without an understanding of impact…” and “if you don’t know what results you work to deliver…” Even you acknowledge in your own earlier words that these statements are false. Recklessly using rhetorical techniques to make points - without caring about facts - isn’t a good use of your time or mine (I am missing time with my 1 and 5 year old daughters to respond to you on this Sunday morning).
Ultimately, Lee0007, we are big fans of results speaking for themselves. This Mission is an experiment. If it doesn’t drive the impact we propose, I am confident you will be the first person to let us and the entire Optimism community know it. But if it does drive the impact we propose - or better - it can be the start of something incredibly valuable and enduring for the community. We are making an enormous investment in this Mission, we have a long track record of high performance, and this is our life’s work… the impact we want to create in the world. So we feel very good about our chances of, together, creating enormous value! - Daniel
Hello all! I’m one of the co-authors of Thank Optimism. I’m excited to share an update on the progress of the Alliance and ThriveCoin teams made this week (we don’t rest!).
We held another all-hands meeting with our Alliance on Thursday, June 22. This meeting provided the next set of guidance for our ongoing implementation work. As @thrivegiraffe outlined here, given the tight turnaround between the vote and launch we’re already (pre-vote) actively building out this Mission Thank Optimism pilot!
In the meeting, the Alliance updated working contribution drafts and finalized sub-committees and logistical elements. All of this was based on feedback from many of you and in aligned with community best practices.
As a reminder, the Alliance’s role is:
Once the Mission is launched, the Alliance will update the above weekly - based on data + feedback - to help optimize the Mission to create the most impact. In addition to the weekly Alliance meetings, sub-committees also meet weekly (at least), and they focus on one specific aspect of the above.
Sub-committee Meetings:
Communication and Logistics:
Thanks again to our whole Alliance, the builders working on this, and - of course - to so many of you for all of your amazing feedback throughout this proposal process. We’re so excited to make this Mission big success together!
Hi @thrivegiraffe! Wanted to make sure you were aware of the Optimism Season 4 Pitching Sessions to help find the 4 delegate approvals you’ll need by this Wednesday at 19:00 GMT for your proposal to move to a vote.
These sessions are happening in Discord on Monday, 26.06 2pm ET / 6pm GMT / 8pm CET and Tuesday, 27.06 11am ET / 3pm GMT / 5pm CET.
You can sign-up here!
I am one of the Synthetix Ambassadors, and a Optimism Badgeholder. I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - #65 by mastermojo ] with sufficient voting power, and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote…
Hi all!
What an incredibly active thread! So I wanted to clear a few things up as we head into the final days of delegate feedback and approvals. I am a member of this Alliance, as well as working for the Optimism Foundation heading Contributions. These are my personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of the foundation.
In that time it has grown, learnt and evolved multiple times. Myself and @jrocki.bedrock have been working on refining the program and ensuring it can keep up with the Optimism ecosystem while embodying the Optimistic Vision and Values.
The Ambassador Program has outgrown its current infrastructure and tooling. It is incredible that the Ambassador program has grown this much, but now it is ready for the next step in infrastructure - ideally something that can scale with us into our decentralised future. We are super excited to work with ThriveCoin on this.
A large part of the success of the Program has been having the Ambassadors grow with us!
In this thread there has been lots of discussion around controlling & limiting who can contribute and the messaging of created content. This is not the optimistic way. We are open to all contributions. Yes there are different levels of talent and skill between contributors, but this does not mean we only want the best contributions. It is more valuable for us to enable Ambassadors to grow their followings and skills with us, than it is to limit them.
As always, stay optimistic 
