In the last Community Call we had Emily talking about guest voter participation in Retro Funding 6. There are citizens that will be voting, and there will be randomly selected voters based on this process. Share your insights about the topic in this thread.
Questions to answer:
Guest voters for Retro Funding Round 6 will be randomly selected. How do you think they will vote differently on Round 6 compared to Badgeholders?
Keep in mind that the category for Round 6 will be Governance projects.
Guest voters for Retro Funding Round 6 will be randomly selected. How do you think they will vote differently on Round 6 compared to Badgeholders?
Ans : I think Guest voters in Round 6 might vote quite differently from Badgeholders for a few reasons.
Badgeholders are deeply involved in Optimism and know the ecosystem well, so theyâll likely focus on projects that align with long-term goals. They probably understand the bigger picture and will back projects that contribute to scaling or decentralization.
Guest voters, on the other hand, might be newer or less familiar with everything going on, so their decisions could be based more on surface-level appeal. They might vote for projects that seem exciting or have more immediate, visible benefits rather than those that play into the long-term strategy.
Iâd expect Guest voters to favor projects that are easy to understand and impactful in the short term, while Badgeholders will probably be more focused on the long game, picking projects that really push the ecosystem forward.
Moreover Round 6 focuses on Governance projects, I think Guest voters and Badgeholders will likely have quite different voting approaches.
Badgeholders, being more involved and experienced with Optimismâs governance, will probably favor projects that strengthen governance mechanisms and align with the long-term vision of decentralization. They know whatâs necessary for the ecosystem to thrive and will look for projects that have proven impact or are critical to the infrastructureâthings like governance tooling, voter education, or systems that boost transparency and participation.
Guest voters, since theyâre randomly selected, might not have that deep connection to governance or understand the nuances as well. They could lean towards more straightforward or popular projects, potentially missing the intricacies that Badgeholders are aware of. Projects that are flashy or seem easy to grasp might get more attention from Guest voters, whereas Badgeholders might focus on whatâs more essential, even if itâs less exciting on the surface.
Guest voters in Retro Funding Round 6 are expected to vote differently from Badgeholders due to their lack of governance experience. Badgeholders, who have a deeper understanding of Optimismâs long-term goals, may focus on projects that support decentralization and other strategic initiatives whereas guest voters, being newer to the process, might favor projects with more immediate, visible impact, even if they align less with broader governance objectives. For example, as a guest voter, I might choose to support a forked gaming project over backing Velodrome, simply because Iâm not fully aware that Velodrome serves as the main liquidity hub for Optimism and aligns with its long-term goals. Without understanding the strategic importance of Velodrome, I might prioritize a project that seeks short-term incentives rather than one that strengthens Optimismâs ecosystem. I think this is where the âYelp of OPâ could play a role
Guest voters for Retro Funding Round 6 will be randomly selected. How do you think they will vote differently on Round 6 compared to Badgeholders?
Since most of the Guest Votes probably arenât involved enough in the Optimism eco-governance, I think the Guest Votes may lack some professionalism compared to the Badgeholder, and they may vote for projects that seem straightforwardly exciting, have more obvious benefits, and are shorter term in nature, whereas the Badgeholder would be voting more on the Projects that focus on Optimismâs long-term ecological construction
Iâve looked at the general process for electing guest votes
Firstly, I think choosing Farcaster as a random sample of guests is a good case study, there are a lot of active Optimism and Superchain users on Farcaster!
I think electing guest voters should be more about their past experience in governance, such as whether they have been involved in governance of other DAOs, how active they have been in governance, what governance improvements they have suggested, how many governance proposals they have prompted, and, we need to exclude potential guest voters who have initiated governance attacks, thatâs my idea!
In Retro Funding Round 6, the introduction of randomly selected Guest Voters alongside Badgeholders (Citizens) aims to explore differences in voting behavior and decision-making processes. Here are some potential differences in how Guest Voters might vote compared to Badgeholders, especially considering the focus on Governance projects:
Diverse Perspectives: Guest Voters, being randomly selected, may bring a wider range of perspectives and backgrounds compared to Badgeholders, who are selected based on specific criteria like Web of Trust. This diversity could lead to different priorities and preferences in governance projects.
Engagement Levels: Badgeholders are likely more engaged and familiar with the Optimism Collectiveâs goals and processes, potentially leading to more informed voting decisions. Guest Voters might not have the same level of engagement or understanding, which could influence their voting patterns.
Risk Tolerance: Badgeholders, being more invested in the system, might prefer projects that align closely with established goals and have a proven track record. Guest Voters might be more open to innovative or unconventional projects, given their potentially broader and less biased perspective.
Voting Behavior: The experiment aims to measure differences in voting behavior, such as time spent voting and the number of metrics considered. Guest Voters might approach the voting process differently, possibly spending less time or considering different factors compared to Badgeholders.
Resource Allocation: The allocation patterns might differ, with Guest Voters potentially distributing resources more evenly or focusing on different aspects of governance projects compared to Badgeholders, who might have more strategic allocation based on their deeper understanding.
Overall, the experiment is designed to assess these differences and understand whether the selection method impacts the effectiveness and outcomes of the voting process in governance projects.
From my perspective itâs clear that there will be differences between badgeholders and the random sample of guests. It was interesting to understand on the call - though - that the random guests are being drawn from Farcaster. So not a million miles away from Optimism as opposed to say throwing it open to a bunch a first year students or people working in TradFi. As such I think the demographics and general world view will be quite similar between the 2 groups.
That said there will be differences around understanding of (and therefore support for) governance projects that advance the Optimism vision including that of the Superchain - so these might underindex slightly. Also Iâd expect NFT and âsocialFiâ type projects to perhaps overindex in popularity among a the Farcaster sample.
Finally (for me at least) I think any elements of âpoliticsâ within the Optimism foundation should be stripped out with the random group - which is a good thing.
We should get an AI to do the assessments perhaps??!!
Q1: Guest voters for Retro Funding Round 6 will be randomly selected. How do you think they will vote differently on Round 6 compared to Badgeholders?
A: I think the votes of guest voters are bound to be different from those of Badgeholders voters, because Badgeholders are very familiar with the ecosystem and projects, while guest voters may only be interested in projects they are familiar with or the tokens they hold. This seems to be a disadvantage, but it also has its advantages, that is, diversity, rather than a one-sided style.
Q2: Keep in mind that the category for Round 6 will be Governance projects.
A: It is crucial that guests or voters are chosen randomly!
Guest voters for Retro Funding Round 6 will be randomly selected, It shows us the rationality and diversity of choices, which is more scientific and reasonable. There must be differences in voting, and some may be completely opposite results. This is statistically more reasonable, so no matter what the voting result is, it will be a fair one. reasonable results.
As an GovNFT participants, i will continue to pay attention to the category for Round 6 projects.
hi @Michael
It was good to join community call after long brake from governance participation.
It takes some time to be familiar with Retro Funding 5 and 6 projects. Guest Voters will have much easier job if all projects could prepare short 20-30 second animated video or slide show with voice about their project. Guest Voters will most likely spend less time to research projects then more experience Badgeholders and short discerption/ GitHub link is not enough to be familiar with what is benefits of projects. Which can lead to random votes.
These short videos can be post on OPâs X profile to promote projects, what they are building and whatâs going on OP ecosystem behind the scenes.
Generally, web 3 lack of good marketing/promotion and many project focus only on building and doesnât put enough effort to advertising.
I understand that Governance project doesnât need so much exposure, but this idea could be also used for future Retro Funding rounds.
I like idea of devouch.xyz which was mentioned in the meeting and more people should be able to use it.
Looking forward for next Community Call.
Hi @Marcus01
In Retro Funding Round 6, the introduction of randomly selected guest voters alongside the existing Badgeholders could lead to diverse voting outcomes. Guest voters, being a random selection from the Superchain user base, might bring fresh perspectives and less bias towards established norms, potentially leading to more varied allocation decisions. Unlike Badgeholders, who may have a deeper understanding of the governance projects and a vested interest in maintaining certain standards, guest voters might prioritize different aspects of the projects, such as innovation or community impact. This diversity in voting could result in a broader range of projects receiving funding, reflecting a wider array of community interests and priorities. However, the lack of specific expertise among guest voters might also lead to less informed decisions compared to Badgeholders, who are more familiar with the intricacies of governance projects. Overall, the inclusion of guest voters aims to balance the decision-making process by incorporating a wider range of viewpoints.
As a newcomer, here are my thoughts on the guest voter participation in Retro Funding Round 6:
Diverse Perspectives: Guest voters, being randomly selected, might bring different backgrounds and experiences, leading to voting patterns that differ from those of Badgeholders.
Fresh Insights: As newcomers, guest voters might approach governance projects with fresh perspectives, potentially valuing different aspects than more experienced Badgeholders.
Learning Curve: Guest voters may need time to understand the complexities of governance projects, which could influence their voting behavior.
Overall, the participation of guest voters could introduce fresh dynamics and diverse outcomes to the voting process. Iâm excited to see how this experiment unfolds!
How might guest voters for Retro Funding Round 6 vote differently compared to Badgeholders?
Since guest voters are randomly selected from a broader group of Superchain users, their voting decisions may differ from Badgeholders in a few key ways:
Diversity of Perspective: Guest voters might bring more varied perspectives, as they may not be as deeply ingrained in the governance process or as knowledgeable about specific projects. This could lead to more diverse voting patterns that reflect a broader set of opinions within the community.
Less Familiarity with Governance Projects: Because Round 6 focuses on governance projects, Badgeholders, who are more experienced and likely more familiar with the intricacies of Optimismâs governance, may prioritize long-term governance improvements. Guest voters, on the other hand, may focus on more tangible or easily understood contributions, which could lead to different allocation preferences.
Engagement Levels: Guest voters may have varying levels of engagement with Optimism, which could result in less time spent reviewing the details of each project. In contrast, Badgeholders might invest more effort in analyzing each proposal in depth.
Bias Towards Simplicity: Since governance projects can be complex, guest voters may gravitate toward more straightforward or clearly impactful projects, while Badgeholders might lean towards nuanced, long-term governance improvements.
If the results of badge holders are shown in advance, it will unconditionally influence random voters.
They will subconsciously trust the votes of badgeholders more.
Especially in the case of governance, since itâs not just the code or output of project that are judged, the influence of what appears to be a higher position will be very strong.
In the case of this governance, there is a part that analyzes the past and a topic about leadership, so it will have a stronger impact. Therefore, for this vote, it will be very important to keep the communication between badgeholders and guest voters separate.
I think adding Guest Voters is a good addition for voting experimentations in Rpgfâs however my concern is the adding of randomness in the process the most active in Farcaster may be active on PoW but the quality of contents should also be factored in, Voting of Guest Voters will depend on their experience, knowledge, and justifications
