The determination of citizenship distribution will eventually be the responsibility of Optimism’s two-house governance system and will be issued based on the reputation that Optimism Collective members have earned.
Citizens are meant to represent individual human stakeholders of the Collective: builders, users, and community members who are aligned with the project’s values and are interested in the long-term benefit of the Collective.
This thread is for badgeholders and other members of the Collective to discuss what reputation-attributes (in the form of attestations) could be valuable for future Citizenship selection. This will help to inform the preparation for future Citizenship selection
Excited to see and contribute towards next RPGF round. As we scale, we do need a reputation based system to onboard new Citizen but I dont understand the rational behind including REGEN score.
From their proposal.
"Milestone 1: Conceptual Design of the REGEN Score presented for feedback. Collaborate with the team to establish the parameters and elements that the REGEN Score will measure. This includes defining how the system will measure an individual’s blockchain behavior such as:
Interaction with regen tokens e.g. $GIV, $PAN , $KLIMA, $GTC, $UBI, $BCT, $NCT, etc*
Holders of POAPs for regen events e.g. Regens United, ETHBarcelona, ETHGlobal hackathons, etc*
Interactions with regen NFTs e.g. Greatest LARP, ETHbot, MoonshotBots, Rainbow Rolls, World of Women, Pooly NFTs etc.*
Donations on Gitcoin, clr.fund, Giveth, Unchain Fund, Earthquake Relief, etc.*
Voting on Snapshot for regen orgs, being a delegate protocols*
Management of airdropped tokens for $OP, $ENS, $GTC, $UNI, etc*
"
Interacting with regen token/NFTs like $GIV and other mentioned above will help identity optimism citizen? how ?
Very few could able to afford to attend events like ETHBarcelona, there could be financial and/or time constraints
Airdropped token management - this was discussed quite in depth after our initial airdropped and I still believe we should hold anything against anyone selling their airdropped token, if they choose to.
Donation to public good like gitcoin and clr fund is debatable but I am overall supportive of it.
I supported their proposal and dont have anything against them but would not include as part of citizen selection.
What I would like to see is reputation score build on top of Superchain, important for me to see our sequencer utilized as the collective future depends on the value generated by it, we have a thriving and flourishing stack, many chains are already live(zora, base, pgn) and I believe many more are in dev and expected to come online in near future. Build a reputation on how a users is utilizing them.
Agree with @OPUser here. Setting aside the other possibilities, which I need to think about some more, I simply think rewarding token ownership with citizenship is a colossal mistake for a number of reasons and leads to questions concerning reasoning behind the particular tokens mentioned here.
Just want to ditto the concerns shared by @OPUser , they feel like incredibly valid points.
They have already covered what an attestation should focus on, but I would also add that a regen based score should be composed of actions that help the ecosystem improve despite no positive monetary impact for the user. I see a lot of attestations here that are simply about holding a portfolio of tokens (NCT, UBI,KLIMA, GIV, GTC, Membership Shares for Metacartel/Meta Gamma, BCT was proposed), and most concerningly these seem to be right now based on dollar value held. Having a quick look at coingecko, none of these tokens are even on Optimism mainnet, with some (KLIMA, BCT) not being even on Ethereum Mainnet but Polygon PoS.
Keeping these tokens introduces a speculative and pay-to-score element which doesn’t sit well with what Regen means to me personally. I understand that these are seen as positive tokens by the authors , as many of the alliance members of this mission are part of those projects, but I would not be comfortable supporting the holding and buying of tokens on other networks as an attestation for the citizens house.
The citizens house is supposed to stand against the plutocratic nature of the token house, and using these kind of attestations could backfire ( a point previously also brought up by Jack ) by adding a proxy for plutocratic control.
Throwing in my support too for @OPUser’s points here. I agree that many of the criteria listed for Regen Score make a lot of sense.
In addition to the reasons listed, I’ve used different wallets for quite a few of these things (5 out of the 7 token examples, 3 out of the 6 NFT examples, 4 out of the 6 donations listed… etc etc). Unless the criteria for a new citizen is set to an extremely high number of these tickboxes then it seems likely that I could have at least a couple of extra accounts qualifying… that suggests to me that they aren’t useful criteria if the goal is 1 person 1 vote! I can kind see the value of these kinds of things in the context of a fun Regen score like we had the Degen score a couple of years ago, but not as a way of determining which accounts should be granted citizenship.
I also strongly agree with the points about token ownership and conference attendance. Those of us who have held onto airdropped tokens or travelled to in-person events are just lucky enough to have the disposable income necessary to do so. If someone sold their Uni airdrop so that they could afford to work on an open source project for a year without worrying about how to afford to eat then are they any less worthy of Citizenship than someone to whom $20k was a fairly insignificant amount of money and so didn’t bother to do anything with the tokens they received?
As Praise contributor, I’d like to share some thoughts about how it could be used for the Citizenship selection process.
Like many of you have signaled through concerns, it’s crucial to explore mechanisms that can enhance the robustness and fairness of the process. One such mechanism is the use of Praise (thanks @Jonas !), a reputation-based attestation that can serve multiple functions in the selection process.
Reputation Cost: Praise isn’t just handed out - you’ve got to earn it by making valuable contributions to the community. This makes it tough for anyone trying to game the system with fake identities.
Community-Led Defense: By incentivizing community members to report suspicious Praise behavior, Praise can foster a community-led defense against Sybil attacks, enhancing the security and integrity of the citizenship selection process.
Social Network Analysis: The distribution patterns of Praise can be analyzed to detect anomalies indicative of a Sybil attack. This can provide an additional layer of security in the citizenship selection process.
As for next steps, the beauty of Praise is that it’s super adaptable. We can let it evolve naturally as we figure out what really counts for citizenship. We’ll get better at spotting and dealing with any hiccups along the way. And as we gather more data, we can fine-tune our tools for analyzing Praise distribution to spot any odd patterns.
As part of the Praise on OP project we will build an OP branded attestation explorer to showcase the attestations that have been created based on Praise data. This will be a simplified version of https://easscan.org, cutting through the “noise” that is currently there (test schemas etc etc), showing only what is relevant to OP in the context of the future OP citizenship selection. We will be able to show not only Praise attestations but also other relevant attestation that will (or might) be used for citizenship selection.
How I have envisioned the future citizens selection scenario is:
A subset of the attestations floating around on EAS are selected to be included to “count for citizenship”. These attestation types would need to be weighted against each other to create some kind of aggregate “citizens score”.
Anyone can look up their identity on the OP citizens website to see if they are eligible. We will build a simple first first version of this website.
Eligible citizens are minted a token for governance access. Unless governance tools will support built in "attestation gating.
Like many others here, i echo the points @OPUser has made about regen token based reputation. While that could be one aspect of the overall criteria this should not be the only criteria. Other factors such a RPGF rewards may be a better signal of positive contribution along with encouraging actual chain usage and helping out with decentralisation efforts such as running sequencers etc…
Thanks for the question @jackanorak. We will be presenting the praise process more in detail over the coming weeks and invite the collective to workshops.
All praise are quantified - given an “impact score” - before they can be used for attestations. During this community led process, ideally 3-4 community members (quantifiers) score each praise. Part of the task of the quantifiers is to spot anomalies and gaming attempts. It turns out human eyes detect gaming patterns very quickly. If quantifiers detect fake praise, praise collusion or the like, they dismiss those praise from the scoring process. In communities such as Giveth this has been performed over thousands of praise without any major gaming attempts to my knowledge.
Have a look at a praise from Giveth to see how the final praise impact score becomes an average of the scores by the three quantifiers.
ps. Another task of the quantifiers is to identify duplicates. You can see this have been done for the praise above. One contribution should only be rewarded once, we don’t want praising turning into a popularity contest.
I’m curious how attestations to be included are being selected. Will it be centralized to a few large entities like Gitcoin or Praise? Or will it allow projects to submit proposals and let delegates vote yes/no? Or other ideas?
This process is yet to be determined and out of scope for our project. The explorer we are building will initially include Praise, Regen Score, Gitcoin Pasport and Optimist Profiles. Which attestations to build citizensship eligibility upon will have to be decided upon in a community run process later.
I was redirected here from the badgeholder post.
And i want to reactivate this conversation, since it’s a great opportunity to use EAS to know how our BH and contributors are growing the ReGen ecosystem. I’m fascinated with the post: [FINAL] RegenScore and it’s really helpful, we can use Gitcoin Passport since it’s already deployed in Optimism, Praise and also ReGen Score to see a match and how the people it’s helping outside the Discord. Also we need to see a different way of impact in the twitter and social media platforms, since this type of micro conversation sometimes makes life changing information, that can drive in a total loss of capital or to make a new optimistic regen.
Sharing some thoughts as the co-founder and engineering lead of Regenscore. Our goal with Regenscore is to grade on-chain and off-chain activity and generate a score for addresses (or people - groups of addresses) that is relevant for communities. We are honored to be considered a potential factor in the Citizenship selection criteria.
In response to @OPUser:
Thanks for the great feedback. Some thoughts regarding individual points:
We measure the total regenscore for an address, which includes interactions with various communities like Giveth and others. We understand that some of the might not be that relevant to Optimism (even though I would personally argue that they provide a good idea of how regen the person in question is), which is why we also provide per-community scores, including a score for Optimism specifically. You can see this score on the RegenScore page, and we also write it on-chain when you mint your attestation on EAS. We are working on docs to describe exactly how this portion of the score is calculated - for now you can see the individual factors further down the Profile page.
We understand the potential exclusion grading POAPs might represent. However, POAPs are only one of the many ways to improve one’s Regenscore, and are not at all required to attain a high score.
Regarding airdrop handling, we currently do score that and prefer if the person has not sold their airdrop. Again, we understand that this is debatable, but our main intention was to reduce the score for airdrop farmers who simply dumped the airdrop at the first opportunity.
We are more than open to discussions regarding the formula and individual parts of the score. We are actually internally working on a way to increase community participation in this process, with the ultimate goal of decentralizing this decision-making process.
We would also be happy to discuss a score that is entirely specific to Optimism, with customized parameters and sources, tailored to the needs of the Citizen House and Optimism’s governance generally. Let me know if you think this is something the community would appreciate.
Lastly - the measurement of Superchain usage, across all its chains is a great idea - we’ll see if we can incorporate that as part of our score.
Thank you for the valuable input and looking forward to further collaboration!
Furthermore, I agree that automatically granting membership above a set score threshold might not be a good idea - and it’s also not what we had in mind. We believe Regenscore, especially its sub-scores can be a valuable input when determining someone’s eligibility to become a Citizen, but would currently advise against granting automatic citizenship, for reason well-discussed above.
Regarding @MinimalGravitas point about a potential Sybil attack: we are very aware of this and are exploring the solution space. Currently, I would propose to use an existing Sybil-resistance tool like Gitcoin Passport to ensure that a single person has to pick at most one wallet for which he will use his Passport score.
On the other end of the spectrum, for users who want to group their wallets together to increase their regenscore, we are also exploring solutions to prove that you own several wallets while also preventing fraud.
Thank you for the tag and taking time putting your thoughts together.
Like you have mentioned above, couple of things are debatable and you are doing what you believe is best for your project. Having an opinion is important, I believe its one of biggest advantage of our OP Collective.
I also believe on-chain identity is a crucial part in this space, this is why i keep on coming to your project, solving it is difficult and we might be able to solve it fully, at least in a decentralized way. Gitcoin passport is doing an excellent job at that, while i dont agree with their point system, at least i see a rational there.
With respect to you project, its fully open source and you have done an excellent job but i have expressed my opinion above and we can agree to disagree but I will not support this or similar proposal in any form as long as they are focusing on giving added value to anyone for holding a specific token. Identity must be neutral.
Dear friends,
would like to boost this conversation with an online panel-fishbowl. Trusted Seed is organizing now an unconference for public goods and regen: OP Future Citizenship Selection Discussion and I’m suggesting it as a part of the agenda.
Potential topics:
Understanding the requirements for scaling
Brainstorming the potential solutions
Evaluation & Next steps
Let’s select a time that suits people who’d like to speak there: Doodle
