Thanks @alexcutlerdoteth for moving this to to the forum instead of the bottom of a Twitter thread. Let me share the analysis here and some additional thoughts.
Just ran the numbers and the top 20% of RetroPGF projects in terms of sequencer fee contribution earned a combined 1.5M OP (5% of the pool).
ERC 4337 (AA) was the one project that stood out. The remaining 15 protocols all received <100K OP.
You can see the actual top 16 projects here, sorted by token rewards.
PSA - anyone can access the underlying data or fork my specific analysis notebook here.
What’s to make of all this?
One explanation might be that badgeholders felt these projects had already been compensated by other grants / incentive programs or have their own built-in value capture mechanisms. However, the fact that many of the leading OP protocols appeared on a relatively small number of ballots (ie, <50 out of 130+ voters) suggests that these projects may simply have been overlooked by the average badgeholder. That’s the simplest explanation.
There’s an version of Hanlon’s razor attributed to Goethe that goes like this:
Misunderstandings and lethargy perhaps produce more wrong in the world than deceit and malice do. At any rate, the latter two are certainly rarer.
So the simplest explanation would be that the average badgeholder “misunderstood” the direct contribution these protocols were making to Optimism’s economic engine and/or was too “lethargic” to do their own research on 600+ projects.
How do we correct for this?
I’m glad this kind of analysis is prompting some important conversations.
But the important question is: is the kind of distribution the collective actually wants to see?
My strong hypothesis is that most citizens would say no. The top protocols in terms of sequencer fee contribution on OP Mainnet should not be getting a “peanut butter spread” distribution somewhere in the middle of the pack.
OK, so what does a more optimal distribution pattern look like??? Then, one level deeper, what’s the right split between defi vs quests vs identity vs consumer use cases? And, finally, if citizens think use case X is most important, but when the application + review process is finished we only see one project standing, do they stick to their guns and give a large amount to one project or do they update their preferences?
FWIW, I’ve been banging this drum since after RetroPGF2:
Also buried in a tweet reply is this exchange with @jackanorak
The encouraging thing here is the apparent pattern indicated by the flat 100ks across that people simply didn’t know how to distinguish between different apps or attach value to their contributions.
In response, I took the above projects and ranked them in terms of sequencer fee contribution (hiding the project name). Then I came up with four simple formulas for determining token distribution formulas.
We could test this – and it would be interesting to see what options are most favored by voters depending on how the options / amounts are presented.
For all the mission proposals that seek to improve governance, I’d personally like to see more work go into this kind of stuff