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.
