I agree with the need to ensure groups are aligned more by expertise than by affinity. For what itâs worth, I can attest to the relative (if not perfect) independence of members on two of the three DeFi committee groups proposed. From what I can gather, the Tooling committee is similarly broad in its composition.
Although I believe with more participation and formalization in governance we could/should explore this format youâre proposed, Iâm personally comfortable with the arrangement we currently have as a first step to evaluate later.
The defi group led by Katie Garcia - which has plenty of expertise - has a couple Maker vets, a seasoned defi investor and advisor in Linda Xie, Flipside Crypto, from whom Iâve personally seen some fantastic work, and Stablenode, which has broad governance & defi cred. My sense is that thereâs enough diversity in background and interest here as well as deep commitment to best practices to more than ease fears about too tight a perspective.
My impression of the proposed tooling committee is that itâs similarly broad in its membersâ range of backgrounds.
Although the proposed group led by sugma.eth has a few SNX ambassadors in Mastermojo and Matt, the members are in fact coming from several angles. Sugma has worked with a wide range of protocols and I donât believe has any particular alignment within Optimism. As for me, I didnât really know anybody before being asked by sugma to join this group, and in fact Solarcurveâs protocol, Beethoven, could in some respects be considered a competitor of Velodrome. This, by the way, ought to offset concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
However, one point thatâs been raised a few times has been sticking in my head - including experts external to the immediate Optimism community, kind of like board advisors. I think strongly recommending the inclusion of such an outside expert could in one fell swoop limit fears about groupthink as well as conflicts of interest, and it could offer existing committees the ability to address perceived gaps in their expertise.
Could also do some member swaps after inking in the groups to ensure broad coverage (eg not multiple ppl from one protocol), though for this iteration Iâd almost prioritize easy working relations over strict independence.
I am in the midst of writing up a proposal for an NFT committee as we speak. Would you you interested?
Hey there @jrocki.eth if you have an open spot on the committee Iâd love to participate in this experiment.
Yes! of course! DM me on here or Twitter and we can discuss! https://twitter.com/Reformed_Normie
completely agree with the idea
oops, i missed last part. just read it. it feels a bit weird that incentives remove for season 2 and sorry to hear that
hey thanks for the offer im not very into NFTs so its good i missed this, good luck with your committee!
How do we build a system weâre voters are incentivized to do real work and diligence to vote and vote the right, in a decentralized way?
The voters should earn tokens from voting and could earn even more if they spend less OP, but still manage to create growth in the ecosystem.
This is an example I came up with.
Op should have issuance of tokens every month, based on user growth. Set in stone should be that 10% goes to the voters and 90% should be distributed by the voters to build the platform. So if voters, voted on proposals that gives OP more users and growth, the voter will earn more OP tokens.
We want to make sure that the voters really care about how they vote. So we should reward the voter for each vote they make and according to the amount of OP tokens they are voting with.
If voters only distribute half of OP tokens from that month, the rest will be vested for a year, after that year the system should decide what to do with tokens.
If OP network has grown with users and activity the tokens should be released, 90% added to that months natural issuance and 10% should be airdropped to the voters that voted on that months proposals.
Voters are rewarded for participance, each vote they make and according to the amount of OP tokens they are voting with.
If the Network activity decreased over that period all the vested tokens will be burned.
This will make the voter incentivized to vote in what is right for OP because they will gain directly from growing the network as efficiently as possible.
The voter can show their commitment to OP by locking their tokens in stake for 1 year, 6 month or 3 month. By locking you will receive more weight in the vote and earn more of the voter reward. This will reward the most committed participant.
*I donât like the idea, I want everyone to get involved and contribute without direct financial benefit, now the whole ecosystem is incentivized, and I would like to see more people who will get involved and contribute without rewards, at least in governance.
Regarding voting and governance, we have delegates doing the hardest part of the governance process, analysing and working on proposals, now we will have committees, so every voting participant will be able to see a constructive analysis from the committees, and itâs just a matter of voting.
Also each voter votes on which projects will receive grants that will then be allocated to users, i.e. each voter will be able to get rewards by getting involved in the projects they voted for, and the projects that will distribute rewards.
At the moment the circle is complete, impact=profit.
Not keen on the idea.
Exactly⌠âitâs just a matter of votingâ. People donât even need to think anymore. Sad but true.
Committees help by providing constructive analysis for each proposal, but each person can analyse the proposals and make their own decisions.
Sure, people can analyse the proposal and vote against the highly visible recommendations but whatâs the point? Once a committee gives a positive recommendation itâs done. From there, itâs just a matter of voting. Contrary opinions will get dismissed because who knows better than the committee. Fact is, committees are a central point of failure with influence.
Thatâs what I said, the committees provide enough analysis for each proposal for everyone to vote without wasting time.
we have 2 people now on two different commitees there needs to be rules for this because it is not smart to have echo chamber
At the next Reflection Period the position of a delegate in several committees will be re-evaluated.
This we can definitely discuss in next cycle and open to suggestions.
I am also curious about any other suggestions you have improve the overall governance process.
Whatâs realistically changed from before? Anyone can always weigh in with contrary opinions (including dissenters within committees). On the margin you have some ability for some delegates to direct their focus away from areas theyâre less sharp on, and even that lasts only as long as the committeesâ reputations remain intact.
Mainly this with all the side-effectsâŚ
If this doesnât change anything to you then the answer is nothing changed. Realistically I donât need to change your opinion nevertheless from my non-delegate perspective this is clearly a governance power shift in the Optimism DAO.