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 we’re 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 don’t 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 it’s 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… “it’s just a matter of voting”. People don’t 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 what’s the point? Once a committee gives a positive recommendation it’s done. From there, it’s 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.
That’s 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.
What’s 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 they’re less sharp on, and even that lasts only as long as the committees’ reputations remain intact.
Mainly this with all the side-effects…
If this doesn’t change anything to you then the answer is nothing changed. Realistically I don’t need to change your opinion nevertheless from my non-delegate perspective this is clearly a governance power shift in the Optimism DAO.
Wow. Are they getting paid 2x more than other committee members?
I hope so! They will do twice the amount of work. (@SEED_LATAM_Joxes is part of both the DeFi and Tooling committee).
I agree this idea for future groth
That is a good point and I actually plan to informally reach out to other community members not on this committee to get their feedback on some proposals because this is a vast landscape and we do not indeed know everything
It is funny that we actually (not on purpose) put the NFT & Gaming committee together this way. That is to say none of us other than fractal and I knew each other before we formed our committee
Should just be delegates holding themselves accountable for this, I think they should have to abstain from pay from one committee if they are on multiple, as they are just leaching money from the second committee they are in. This is especially the case with NFT and tooling as there will likely be few proposals to go over. This is the only way to disincentivize people from joining multiple committees which are supposed to be specialized. Already we have seen committees tainted by centralization and no one sees an issue with that.