For this governance topic thread, we will be talking about the newly announced round of Retro Funding, Round 6!
This round is focused on projects that are positively impacting Optimism Governance.
The round size is variable and will be between 1.1M OP to 3.5M OP (the specific amount will be voted on by badgeholders/citizens).
There is also a new experiment with “guest voters”, more information here.
Questions to answer:
Do you think this round should be the maximum (3.5m) or the minimum(1.1m) amount of OP for projects? Why?
Do you think Optimism should include random farcaster users as voters in this round? Do you think they will be as informed as the pre-selected badgeholders?
Remember good answers get 6 points and the most thoughtful answers will be awarded an additional 20 points. Spam or low-effort posts will not count towards the point total. You can check your points and position in the GovNFT Leaderboard !
Should this round be the maximum (3.5m) or the minimum (1.1m) amount of OP for projects? Why?
I believe this round should aim for the maximum amount of 3.5m OP.
Reasons:
Significant Growth and Impact: The period from October 2023 to September 2024 has seen substantial growth in Optimism Governance, with new roles and infrastructure enhancements. Allocating the maximum amount would better reflect and reward this growth and the increased impact of governance projects.
Encouraging Innovation: A larger allocation can incentivize more participants to contribute to governance projects, fostering innovation and development within the community. This can lead to more robust and effective governance solutions.
Community Engagement: By providing a higher reward, the community is likely to see increased engagement and participation, which is crucial for the long-term success and sustainability of the governance system.
Experimentation and Learning: Since this round includes an experiment in community-led budget allocation, opting for a higher amount could provide more data and insights into how different allocation sizes impact project outcomes and community engagement.
In conclusion, aiming for the maximum allocation can significantly benefit the Optimism Governance ecosystem by rewarding impactful contributions and encouraging broader participation. Looking forward to seeing the positive outcomes this round can bring!
Question 2: Should Optimism include random Farcaster users as voters in this round? Will they be as informed as the pre-selected badgeholders?
Including random Farcaster users as voters in Retro Funding Round 6 is part of an experimental approach to understand different voter selection mechanisms. Here are some considerations:
Diverse Perspectives: Randomly selecting Farcaster users can introduce diverse perspectives into the voting process, potentially leading to more balanced and representative decision-making.
Informed Voting: Pre-selected badgeholders, chosen via methods like Web of Trust or Proof of Work, are likely more informed about Optimism Governance due to their involvement and experience. Random Farcaster users might not have the same level of understanding, which could impact the quality of their voting decisions.
Notification and Education: If random Farcaster users are included, it is crucial to notify them in advance and provide necessary information and resources to ensure they are well-informed. This can help bridge the knowledge gap between them and the pre-selected badgeholders.
Safeguards: The experiment includes safeguards, such as requiring Guest Voters to participate in an onboarding process and allowing Citizens to review and potentially adjust the voting power of Guest Voters. This ensures that the integrity of the voting process is maintained.
In the end, including random Farcaster users can enhance diversity and provide valuable insights into voter selection methods. However, it is essential to notify these users in advance and equip them with the necessary information to make informed decisions. This approach, combined with the experiment’s safeguards, can help maintain the quality and integrity of the voting process.
*** Do you think this round should be the maximum (3.5m) or the minimum(1.1m) amount of OP for projects? Why?**
Generally speaking I’m quite conservative when it comes to these kind of allocations - and also protective of Treasury assets. - particularly as we’re (hopefully) about to emerge from a bear market. So I’d be tempted to err on the lower / minimum side for this round. Obviously there needs to some flexibility here - particularly once all the projects have been assessed. The one major counter argument to this thesis is that we do no need to do some heavy-lifting on building the Superchain - so money spent well now will go a long way in the future if we get the governance around the Superchain set up correctly at first with good governance innovations funded by RPGF.
*** Do you think Optimism should include random farcaster users as voters in this round? Do you think they will be as informed as the pre-selected badgeholders?**
As discussed last time I do have some concerns that Farcaster users may not be that different in their worldview (or indeed their crypto / OP view!) as OP badgeholders. Notwithstanding potential over-indexing on NFTs (appreciating this is a governance round) I do wonder if a better control group could have been found. Sorry to disagree!! For example - could we have looked more generally across crypto for voters (say attendees at Token2049?) or better still perhaps looked for governance groups outside of crypto - maybe in TradFi? I’m guessing there is an “International Council of Finance Governance Professionals” type body somewhere that might have been a better sounding board? Or even just a bunch of Technology students somewhere?
Do you think this round should be the maximum (3.5m) or the minimum(1.1m) amount of OP for projects? Why?
Ans: In my view, this round of Retro Funding should aim for the maximum amount of 3.5M OP. The rationale behind this is that the projects that positively impact Optimism Governance should be incentivized to continue their contributions. By allocating the higher end of funding, we can ensure these projects have sufficient resources to scale, innovate, and drive greater governance participation. The governance ecosystem thrives when there is ample support for contributors, and higher funding will also attract new initiatives to engage in governance, thus bolstering the overall impact on the Optimism ecosystem. Moreover, increasing funding during this round sends a clear message that governance is a top priority, and projects contributing to this deserve robust support.
Do you think Optimism should include random farcaster users as voters in this round? Do you think they will be as informed as the pre-selected badgeholders?
Ans : While including random Farcaster users as guest voters in this experiment can provide a more decentralized and diverse range of opinions, there are concerns about whether they will be as well-informed as the pre-selected badgeholders. Badgeholders, by nature, are deeply involved in the Optimism ecosystem and have a track record of understanding the nuances of governance proposals. However, Farcaster users may bring in fresh perspectives that could be valuable.
That being said, I believe that guest voters should be included with caution. To ensure they make informed decisions, we could implement some form of onboarding or educational process to brief them on Optimism’s governance structure and the context of Retro Funding. This would help ensure that their votes are not just based on surface-level information but are instead informed by a deeper understanding of Optimism’s governance principles.
By balancing the perspectives of experienced badgeholders with new voices from Farcaster, Optimism can achieve both inclusivity and informed decision-making.
Do you think this round should be the maximum (3.5m) or the minimum(1.1m) amount of OP for projects? Why?
I believe that neither of those options is optimal. It should scale based on the size/potential of the project.
Giving too much for smaller projects is wastefull and giving too little for extremely promising ones is a big problem as well.
I believe this would maximixe benefit for Optimism
Do you think Optimism should include random farcaster users as voters in this round? Do you think they will be as informed as the pre-selected badgeholders?
I think we should always include more people and encourage growth in the community. Some people need a little bit of encouragement. That said we should promote people that have knowledge or are motivated to learn and be up to date with proposals.
But, it’s also smart to be careful with funds. Maybe a middle amount, like 2.5m OP, could be a good balance.
Should Optimism include random Farcaster users as voters? Will they be as informed as badgeholders?
Including random Farcaster users could be interesting:
It brings in fresh ideas and opinions
It helps spread the word about Optimism
It makes voting more diverse
But, they probably won’t be as informed as badgeholders:
Badgeholders usually know more about Optimism’s history and goals
Random users might not understand all the details of each project
They might vote based on less information
It could be good to include some Farcaster users, but maybe give their votes less weight than badgeholders. This way, we get new ideas but still rely mostly on informed voters.
I believe the round should allocate the maximum amount of 3.5 million OP. This encourages further contributions to the Optimism ecosystem by providing sufficient resources for promising projects, fostering innovation, and enhancing governance engagement. Larger funding can also attract new initiatives, driving greater participation and higher-impact outcomes for the community. Additionally, larger allocations allow for more extensive experimentation and learning, helping to understand how different projects perform under varied funding levels.
Including random Farcaster users as voters in this round could enhance diversity by introducing fresh perspectives, potentially leading to more balanced decisions. However, compared to the pre-selected badgeholders, Farcaster users might not be as informed about Optimism’s governance, given their likely lower level of engagement. To mitigate this, it would be crucial to provide them with adequate onboarding and educational resources. Pre-selected badgeholders, due to their experience, are generally better prepared for governance decisions. Balancing this by educating Farcaster users could maintain the integrity of the voting process while expanding participation.
I think it is good to have a maximum allocation but should remove minimum allocation this should depend on the metrics or impact of the project
Yes I think including new sets of voters will make a diff. in this rounds but it shouldn’t be randomly selected upon getting the pre-final list there should be sets of question to check if someone is truly qualified to be chosen as a guest voter
