Governance Weekly Recap

Weekly Governance Update: Week of December 4th, 2023

This week marked the end of voting for Retroactive Public Goods Funding 3 (RetroPGF3). Since most of the OP forum, Twitter, and Discord were dominated by discussions related to RetroPGF3, we will also focus most of the part of this report on the same.

RetroPGF Updates

The Optimism blockchain’s Retroactive Public Goods Funding (RPGF) model is an innovative approach to funding public goods in the Ethereum ecosystem. It involves using a portion of the transaction fees generated on the Optimism network to fund projects that are deemed beneficial for the community. Projects are selected through a community-driven process, where token holders vote on which initiatives should receive funding. This model aims to create a sustainable and democratic way of supporting developments that contribute positively to the broader ecosystem, aligning financial incentives with community values.

About the RetroPGF3
The Retroactive Public Goods Funding Round 3 (RetroPGF3) of the Optimism Collective has notable statistics and features:

  1. Token Allocation: A total of 30 million OP tokens were allocated to reward contributions that supported the development and adoption of Optimism.
  2. Application and Voting Timeline: The project applications for RetroPGF3 were open from September 19th to October 23rd, 2023. The voting process was scheduled from November 6th to December 7th, with the results and token disbursement beginning in early January.
  3. Participation: RetroPGF3 witnessed a significant participation rate, with 1,594 applicants. However, over 1,000 of these applications were reported for violating the application rules.
  4. Final Participation: After screening and reporting process, a final group of 643 applicants were eligible to be voted upon by the badgeholders.
  5. Badgeholders: There were 146 badgeholders in RetroPGF3, selected through various methods, who played a crucial role in the voting process.
  6. Eligibility and Rewards: Contributions to Optimism were eligible regardless of their timing, and there was no nomination process as projects directly applied for RetroPGF3. The rewards from RetroPGF are not subject to a 1-year lock-up and will be distributed over a 90-day period post KYC completion with the Optimism Foundation. The rewards were sourced from the RetroPGF token allocation, and all projects impacting the Optimism Collective, irrespective of their presence on the OP mainnet, were eligible.

In the Forum

Top 5 Points of Feedback on RetroPGF

  1. Quorum Requirements and Bias Concerns: Some participants expressed concerns about the 17+ ballots quorum from badgeholders as cumbersome, leading to potential bias and favoritism. An alternative suggested was random project evaluation by badgeholders based on predefined criteria to promote fairness and transparency.
  2. Penalization and Application Clarity: Another point was regarding the penalization of projects with VC funding. It was suggested that applications should include fields to report various types of funding and revenue sources. Also, the need for more straightforward application processes and clearer guidelines was highlighted.
  3. Terminology and Workload Management: A suggestion was made to redefine ‘ballots’ or ‘votes’ as ‘evaluations’ to shift perception and encourage more comprehensive evaluations. Additionally, adjusting the number of badgeholders relative to projects was proposed to manage workload more effectively.
  4. Application Process and Appeal Guidelines: Additional clarity in applications, especially regarding VC funding and token status, was requested. A more extended review process, clear guidelines for disqualifying applications, and a transparent appeal process were also suggested.
  5. Badgeholder-Project Ratio and Transparency in Voting: It was proposed to increase the number of badgeholders to manage the growing number of projects. Also, making the presence of a project on ballots invisible until after voting was suggested to reduce bias and unnecessary competition.

Learn more on the RetroPGF3 feedback thread here . The above comments are views of community members, and do not represent Boardroom’s views.

@Lefteris’ on RetroPGF3

Lefteris, a badgeholder, provided feedback emphasizing the immense workload for badgeholders and suggesting a “Minimum Expected Behaviour” checklist. They criticized the use of lists for voting, citing it as counterproductive and leading to groupthink. Lefteris highlighted the lack of coordination among badgeholders and proposed random sub-groups for preliminary evaluations. They advocated for better identification of VC-funded projects and transparency regarding VC funding in applications. Finally, Lefteris recommended fewer rounds per year to prevent fatigue among small projects and donors. Link

Voting Algorithms in RetroPGF Iterations

  1. RetroPGF 1: Used Quadratic Voting, which involves the sum of the square root of votes for each project.
  2. RetroPGF 2: Employed a Simple Average approach.
  3. RetroPGF 3: Implemented a Median with simple quorum method.

Post by @jonas

Discussion on Separating Individual and Project Applicants

By @fujiar. The community is considering differentiating individual and project applications in the next RetroPGF round. This separation could allow more focused attention, tailor funding to specific needs, and ensure a detailed evaluation process. It also aims to motivate more active participation and create a more inclusive environment by providing support that aligns with the scale and scope of contributions. Link


The Badgeholder Office Hours event on December 6th was a closed meeting exclusive to badgeholders. Attendees were invited to suggest agenda items beforehand. By gonna.eth Link

The 32nd OP Delegate Call, held on December 5th, was a community call open to everyone, discussing various topics related to the Token House in the Optimism Collective. By michael Link

Grantee Updates

@jackanorak continues with their analysis on Grant usage by Grantees of the Optimism Grants. In a continuing forum post, they analyze a Grant spends by a few more grantees. Link here

Forum updates and communications presented by grantees

Project Author Link
Rotki @lefterisjp link
Threshold tBTC @John_Packel link
Parcel @Parcel link
PayTrie @jasonpaytrie link
Karma GAP @mmurthy link
xToken @ben_xtoken link @igor link

Image by Panda on Discord